cate3221

Archive for the ‘films’ Category


Four movies

In films on May 5, 2013 at 6:45 pm

Screen Shot 2013-05-05 at 5.45.48 PMI admit it, I have watched just about every documentary out there on 9/11. I’m a 9/11 freak.

That’s not to say I believe the conspiracy theories — not at all. I’m just fascinated by how the theories come about and how people justify them.

As conspiracy theories go, this one — that the three WTC buildings were brought down by carefully controlled demolition techniques — is not a new one, but it is one of the more spectacular.

The unnerving thing is that this particular version of it is espoused by a seemingly pretty credible group of people — architects, engineers, demolition experts and scientists who are all willing to go on the record.

They don’t say the US government brought the buildings down. But they certainly imply that the US government covered up the evidence, for whatever reason.

I would be completely unsurprised if WTC7 was brought down by demolition — it was a hazard after all, and supposedly damaged beyond repair, so yeah, pull the thing down safely. I have a much much harder time believing WTC 1 and 2 were brought down that way.

And yet, it’s a tad unnerving.

Screen Shot 2013-05-05 at 5.54.49 PMFor My Wife is a nice doco about recent changes in same-sex rights legislation in Washington state in the US. Charlene Strong’s wife Kate, drowned in a bad rainstorm in Seattle and Charlene was denied access to her partner at the hospital and later was discriminated against by the funeral home. She went on to become an activist in the fight that saw Washington introduce equal rights for same-sex partners.

It’s a fairly short dock, but well worth the effort. An important story, well told.

carol_channing_larger_than_lifeHere’s a confession: I was put in mind of Carol Channing while watching the Governor-General’s ANZAC Day speech.

Sorry Quentin.

Channing’s a legend. No surprises with her. What you see is what you get, every single time. She’s still going strong in her 90s, still playing dumb while being exceptionally EXCEPTIONALLY smart.

This is a good doco. A good mix of past and present, as well as fans, fellow performers, dancers and dingbats having their say.

pitch_perfectHilarious. H. I. L. A. R. I. O. U. S.

I loved Bridesmaids, I loved Glee before it became ridiculous, and this movie is a perfect mix of the two. Smart women humour, writing and acting, mixed with a capella singing. Can’t do better than that.

Rebel Wilson is brilliant. But there isn’t a character in this that doesn’t rock it one way or another. Someone makes a vomit angel funny, for crying out loud.

Ace.


ABC saves the day … The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance

In films on November 10, 2012 at 2:30 pm

And along came a hero to save the day, and that hero’s name was the ABC.

The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance. Brilliant. Ahhhh this takes me back to my film studies days. Jimmy Stewart, John Wayne, Lee Marvin. Made in 1962 in black and white.

Supposed to be big artistic reasons for that but the most sensible theory is that both Stewart and Wayne were in their 50s, trying to play young men and they would never have gotten away with it in Technicolor.

“Out here a man settles his own problems, pilgrim.’

‘You know, you look mighty pretty when you get mad.’

A cigar or cigarette in every male mouth and a bonnet on every female head. ‘Cept for the Mexican prostitutes o’course.

Dang.

, ,

Grey old day

In fail, films, media, sport, television, weather on November 10, 2012 at 12:59 pm

I know just how you feel P-Siddy

Why do we try and play Test cricket in Brisbane in November and December?

I’d be pretty shat off if I could only get to the Gabba today and I’d shelled out a small mortgage for tickets only for it to rain. Quelle surprise!

I’m already pretty shat off and I’m sitting on the couch at home, watching a bloody awful Gary Cooper movie (Springfield Rifle, 1952 — Major Lex Kearny becomes the North’s first counterespionage agent as he tries to discover who’s behind the theft of Union cavalry horses in Colorado during the Civil War) that Nine has plonked on while the rain comes down in Brisbane.

You would think, wouldn’t you, that Nine, with all its experience broadcasting cricket over the decades, would have thought to themselves: ‘Hmmm, November in Brisbane — we’d better have a decent Plan B for the three days of the Test it’s going to rain’.

Maybe they did and Springfield Rifle was the Plan B they came up with. Scary.

Meanwhile, I have a chest infection. It’s miserable. I am miserable. But tomorrow it will be a little better, and a little bit better again on Monday.

And who knows? By Tuesday we may even get some cricket.


Shame is one sad film

In films on August 9, 2012 at 10:43 am

Wow. Michael Fassbender is a stunningly good actor.

The hype about Shame on release (back in February here in Australia) was what you’d expect — full frontal nudity, particularly Fassbender’s, graphic sex scenes, no holds barred — but somehow I missed the part where Fassbinder just rips out your heart while he’s repulsing you.

Playing a sex addict in a Steve McQueen (Hunger) film must have been a slightly unnerving prospect. Fassbender manages to take any lingering nudge-nudge-wink-wink hilarity and disperse it inside about five seconds. After all, does this look like the face of a man enjoying his life:

I think not.

The soundtrack of this film is brilliant. For a start Carey Mulligan’s minor-key, haunting version of New York, New York is just beautiful. Also, large parts of the action (for want of a better word) are devoid of any sound except the overlaid music and the effect is to focus the audience on the disconnect between what Fassbender’s character is doing and what he’s feeling.

Does the film answer any big questions? No. But it tells a sad, worthwhile story and tells it very well.

Rent, buy, or skip? Rent, definitely.


Hathaway v Pfeiffer … no contest

In films, great photos on August 8, 2012 at 11:04 pm


Marilyn

In films, great photos, history on August 3, 2012 at 11:12 am


The Kristen Stewart affair. I. Just. Don’t. Get. It.

In fail, films, media, youth on July 27, 2012 at 10:14 am

In what fucked-up universe does a 22-year-old woman have to apologise, publicly, for having a fling with an older man who has quite a bit of power over her (director v actor)?

Let me get this right. Kristen Stewart, 22, hooks up with Rob Pattinson, 26, during the endless nightmare that must have been the filming of the interminably romantic Twilight series. No big surprise. Is there a movie anywhere ever that hasn’t involved an off-screen liaison between the leads?

The only difference here is the number of movies these two have been thrown together for. What is it, now? Seventeen or so?

The surprise here is not that Stewart had a fling with the director of her latest flick. The surprise is that she and R-Patz kept their thing together as long as they did.

She’s 22, for crying out loud. Go, spread those wild oats, kid, while you can.

Does anyone believe R-Patz has kept it in his pants for all but K-Stew? Really? REALLY?

If he’s been a naughty boy, cheating on Kristen, does anyone believe he would have been made to make a public apology? Really? REALLY?

I don’t for one minute believe Kristen Stewart woke up one morning and thought ‘oh my gosh I must apologise publicly for hurting Rob and disappointing my fans’.

No, some demented, deluded publicity spokesperson thought it was a good idea and went ahead and did it.

R-Patz has every right to be hurt. But that’s life. Young people hook up, unhook, rehook, and hang their undies on someone’s else’s hook. Apologise and move on, people. Growing up is about learning from those hurts.

K-Stew just effectively humiliated herself publicly for being a 22-year-old.

We’ll be expecting politicians to apologise for lying, shortly.

It’s insanity, people. INSANITY.


Obscene amounts of squee … The Dark Knight Rises

In films on May 22, 2012 at 1:33 pm

*squirmy happy snoopy dance*

,

Two movies in a day

In films on May 10, 2012 at 11:33 pm

It goes without saying that Meryl Streep is a genius. It’s been said over and over. She proves it again in this film and that’s why she got the little golden dude. Again.

I loathed Margaret Thatcher with a passion. It pissed me off no end that she was the first female PM of a western nation. For fuck’s sake. The woman was a nightmare. But she’ll always get that little piece of feminist history to herself, damn it.

This film sets out to be a sympathetic portrayal of Thatcher. Clearly, or why bother with the whole, let’s face it, fictional depiction of her later years, complete with annoying hallucinations of her dead husband.

I could have done without it, frankly. Not because I’m not a fan of Baroness Thatcher. But because I just don’t think it was necessary. Surely the story of a grocer’s daughter coming up through the ranks of the Old Boys’ network of the Conservative Party, against all odds to become the most famous British PM in history (with the possible exception of the fat dude with the cigar who won World War II singlehandedly) is compelling enough without the pathos of watching an old, frail, still living woman battle her decline.

(By the way, do not get me started on Winston Churchill, gentle reader.)

George Clooney is a very, very good actor. Sometimes that’s easy to forget in the midst of his celebrity/activist public persona.

This is a very good film. Not a great film. Not a film I would rush out and buy for the permanent collection. But it’s an awesome vehicle for Clooney’s understated style.

I rented this film because I watched the Inside the Actor’s Studio George Clooney interview a few days ago and it talked a lot about his reasons for choosing the role. While there wasn’t anything too surprising in his answer — wanting to challenge himself, make himself uncomfortable — I was intrigued by the depth of his answers.

By the way, the young actors supporting Clooney in this film are astoundingly good.

Most excellent.

,

The Hunger Games

In books, films on April 10, 2012 at 11:58 pm

I went to see The Hunger Games tonight and I have to say I was mildly underwhelmed. Not because the actors were bad, far from it. I just felt … unengaged. Perhaps it was more about my mood (which I thought was fine going in) and I will certainly see it again before I write it off.

Once again the process of trying to squeeze an epic story into two hours onscreen is problematic. I get that. I also get that it is Film 1 of a trilogy.

I guess I just hate that films are made as if they are Film 1 of a trilogy. I hated that about the second set of Star Wars films, I hated that about HP and the Deathly Hallows I, and I hated it about the second of the Lord of the Rings trilogy.

I never felt that way about the first Star Wars trilogy.

The conclusion I come to is that when funding isn’t assured (Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi, to a lesser degree) the result is better.

A film that might not get to have a sequel had better be able to stand alone as a strong story, is what I’m saying. The Hunger Games ended like what it is, a prequel to Catching Fire.

We all know Catching Fire and Mockingjay are coming and The Hunger Games looked like a film setting up the next two, for mine.

I’ll watch it again, to be sure. But for now this film goes in to the ‘Nowhere Near as Good as the Book’ basket.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 62 other followers

%d bloggers like this: