The Popular Culture Gospel

Martin Scorsese has re-teamed with his latest muse, Leonardo Di Caprio, for “Shutter Island”, the latest Dennis Lehane novel to be adapted for the screen. Expectations for a Scorsese film are always high, and whilst it’s certainly not his best, it may have been someone else’s best.

Set in Massachusetts in 1954, “Shutter Island” tells the story of Edward “Teddy” Daniels (Di Caprio), a U.S Marshal and WWII veteran who is sent to Ashecliffe Hospital, an asylum for the criminally insane, which is located on the titular island. Daniels is there to investigate the disappearance of one of the hospital’s patients with his brand new partner, Chuck Aule (Mark Ruffalo). Upon their arrival by ferry to the island, they are greeted by a tense staff and seemingly suspicious Head Psychiatrist, Dr. Cawley (Ben Kingsley), who often seem to hide and distort the facts. As Daniels investigates the disappearance, he becomes obsessed with finding the truth behind Ashecliffe and Shutter Island, and soon discovers that all is not as it seems.

I’m going to be careful to not give anything away here. Not just because a lot of the enjoyment you’ll get from this film is not knowing how it ends, but also because not knowing exactly how it looks or sounds will play a big part in how much you enjoy this picture also. Despite heavy and possibly undeserved expectations placed on his shoulders, Scorsese seems to really embrace the subject matter here, and can be seen running away with the gorgeous sets, inspiring dream sequences and interesting editing. A lot of what you’ll take away from this film can be credited directly to the director, which of course speaks volumes about his talent and genius. Having said that, the only real let down appears to be the screenplay, which is heavy handed at times, and leaves little room for subtlety. Though the major climaxes and plot turns are well handled, it would appear this is more the work of excellent performances by a solid cast, as opposed to an outstanding script. The actors clearly carry the story.

Di Caprio as Daniels is excellent. But then, he’s a talented actor working with an outstanding director that he’s come to know very well, so perhaps any performance here that wasn’t of an excellent standard would be unacceptable. Ruffalo is engaging, and the Noir edge he gives to his performance does not go unnoticed. The standouts for me are definitely Ben Kingsley, as the often confusing but always intriguing Dr. Crawley, and also Michelle Williams, in her brief role as Daniel’s wife, Delores. She owns her limited screen time. Special mention should also go to Ted Levine, as the Ashecliffe Warden… His single one-on-one scene with Di Caprio’s Daniels is truly excellent.

This is certainly an enjoyable thriller, and will keep you on the edge of your seat for the entire duration of the picture. Is it Scorsese’s best? Well, no. But if this exact film came from another director, perhaps one who is lesser known, you have to wonder if it would be held to the same high standard that we’re holding it in now. Taking that into account, it’s hard to fault this film beyond the clunky adapted screenplay. There’s flashes of vintage Scorsese in there, with some brilliant tense moments and some shots and edits that can only be his, but ultimately this film stands alone as a very good, very enjoyable thriller, with a fantastic score and excellent performances.

Read Users' Comments ( 0 )

Yep, just like every other sucker on the Internet who thinks their opinion is better than yours, I’ve come up with a top ten. Though, technically, mine is a top 11. Oh well, enjoy (or don’t, you jerk).

10. “Avatar”

The ultra-epic, ultra-expensive, ultra-hyped blockbuster generally doesn’t do much for those of us with a brain. But James Cameron has really changed the game by throwing this incredible looking 3D thrill ride in to the mix. Sure, it’s a little clichéd, and sure, no one’s going to win an Oscar for their performance. But the solid lead stars, thrilling battles and utterly divine CGI work together to create a world that has never been seen on screen. The way Cameron has shaped modern filmmaking with this one epic effort is yet to be seen, but you can only now imagine that the blockbuster genre has been changed forever.

9. “State of Play”

This quality remake of a popular BBC series had several things going for it from the start: A screenplay by Tony Gilroy, Kevin Macdonald as a director, heavyweights Russell Crowe and Helen Mirren heading the cast. Whilst those elements were certainly important in creating this solid politically-driven thriller, it’s the extra elements which seal the deal. Ben Affleck and Rachel McAdams really shine here, in what could have easily been just another politician cover up movie. Throw in some well-handled action sequences and some super clever dialogue, and you’re on to a winner.

8. “Watchmen”

They call it “the greatest graphic novel of all time”, and whilst I can’t officially say that I agree with that, they certainly delivered a film that lived up to the hype such a novel created. Dark, moody, violent and socially aware, the centre of this complex alternate reality is the performance by Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach, his jagged voice and steely resolve carrying this epic. Director Zack Snyder surprised us, after mediocre efforts with both “300” and “Dawn of the Dead”, by delivering a solid and thrilling welcome into the world of the Watchmen.

7. “The Twilight Saga: New Moon”

I wanted to use the words “guilty pleasure” here, but I don’t think I will. Because really, what’s there to be guilty about? The “Twilight” phenomenon has captured the hearts and minds of people all over the world, and for good reason. The engaging story, sweeping romance and thrilling action is certainly enough to satisfy me, and the major players do a great job of working with characters that are heaped with expectations from a ruthless fan base. Kristen Stewart and Taylor Lautner are in particularly fine form here. Directed by Chris Weitz (“About a Boy”), one has to think that the material may have been lost if given to any old Hollywood hack – The studio seems to have gone to considerable effort to hand this to someone with the ability to deliver shattering emotion and slick action in equal doses, and it’s an effort that has been well rewarded.

6. “Milk”

Sean Penn’s remarkable performance in this biopic of the late, great Harvey Milk has obviously already been highly praised. For me, it was the supporting cast who really tied this film together as a whole, with Dustin Lance Black’s incredible screenplay keeping it all in check. James Franco and Emile Hirsch were major standouts for me. This wonderful effort from Gus Van Sant is definitely one that needs to be watched again, and soon.

5. “The Wrestler”

Mickey Rourke is a lucky, lucky man. If not for this challenging, art-imitating-life performance in “The Wrestler”, he’d find himself in a very different place coming into 2010. This dynamite picture from wunderkind Darren Aronofsky wins with outstanding performances, heartfelt emotion, and intense realism, delivering blow after blow from the inside of the independent, struggling wrestling community, whilst also telling the story of a fallen superstar who is desperate for a second chance. Simply excellent.

4. “Moon”

It’s hard to believe that this breathtakingly gorgeous film cost a mere $5mil to make. Duncan Jones’ debut feature has raised a bar for independent films, serving up a tense, thrilling sci-fi flick, with enough retro throw backs and humour to sustain the genre’s die hards. The fact that the shots taken of the lunar vehicles and moon’s surface are simply models, and not CGI, really astounds me, even to this day – Proving that though CGI can be good, models can be better.

3. “Where the Wild Things Are”

This often misunderstood tale from Spike Jonze is one that grabs your heart strings and doesn’t let go. With some strokes of casting genius (particularly James Gandolfini and Lauren Ambrose), a clever script and gorgeous set design, Jonze delivers an unexpected but altogether welcomed take on a book that today’s adults were read when they were kids.

2. “Inglorious Basterds”

Whilst I personally wouldn’t rate this as Tarantino’s masterpiece, I don’t think it’s that far off. Bringing together an amazing international cast, this delightful tongue-in-cheek WWII epic just goes to show that there’s no end to Tarantino’s imagination and wit. This film also features Eli Roth in a tux which, as a female, I’m pretty darn thankful for.

JOINT #1: “Bright Star

I was floored by this gorgeous, emotional film from Jane Campion. Whilst I generally assume a certain level of quality from the director of “The Piano” and “Portrait of a Lady”, this exquisite piece of cinema blew my expectations out of the water. The cinematography is divine, the performances emotional and outstanding, and the costume design literally took my breath away. Truly a great achievement, particularly as an Australian/UK co-production. Dying to see it again.

JOINT #1: “Up”

I’ve always rated the incredible “Finding Nemo” as my favourite Pixar film to date, but after seeing this latest offering from the already legendary animation studio, I may have to rethink that position. From the mature opening sequences and laugh-out-loud and immediately quotable comedic moments, through to the heart, emotion and gorgeous animation, one has to wonder how Pixar are going to top this. Dug is easily my favourite character from any film this year.

Read Users' Comments ( 2 )

As a John Keats devotee, I’d been very keen to see “Bright Star” since I heard about it a few months back. I love a well-made period film, and was excited and intrigued by the idea of a film depicting him, his lover and his work.

Written and directed by the brilliant Jane Campion (“The Piano”, “Portrait of a Lady”), the film primarily follows the life of Fanny Brawne, a fashion-forward young lady who finds more pleasure in the pursuit of couture than the pursuit of men and poetry. We meet Fanny as she’s about to visit John Keats, who is staying at the home of his best friend and fellow poet, Charles Armitage Brown, in 1818. As her understanding and love of Keats’ poetry grows, so does her love of the man himself, and we follow the couple through time and distance until Keats’ untimely death in 1821.

This film is exquisite. What first grabbed me is Janet Patterson’s incredible costume design, with Fanny’s gorgeous, hand-made dresses the obvious highlight. The opening sequence, with Fanny in stunning white dress with cropped red military jacket, literally took my breath away. Keats’ haphazard, “I-dressed-as-an-afterthought” look also comes together in a gorgeous way, capturing his mind and creativity in a teal coat and shabby top hat. Fanny’s dresses are sublime throughout the film, original and breath taking in their design, but still very much of the time – couture, but not over the top. It’s actually the costume design that allows you to understand the Brawne’s background somewhat – Comfortable, but far from rich. The beautiful set decoration, expertly photographed by Grieg Fraser, also adds to the subtle story telling, allowing you to understand the upper middle class world that the Brawnes live in, and making Keats’ lack of income plainly obvious.

The performances are nothing if not incredible, and the film truly belongs to the utterly engaging Abbie Cornish. She rides each emotion of this film with such expertise – From nasty, sarcastic flirting with Charles Brown, tentative shyness with Keats’, annoyance and sisterly love with her siblings. The chemistry that she shares with Ben Wishaw is electric and intensely romantic, and it’s credit to Wishaw that he could even begin to match with Cornish’s amazing performance. Paul Schneider, as Charles Armitage Brown, also deserves special mention – he spends a lot of time being a bit of an asshole, and yet you can’t help but feel his sorrow when he learns of the death of his friend, and even sympathise with him a little when he accidentally fathers a child with the Brawne’s maid.

Campion has made a very, very special film. Not just because it tells the story of Keats’ and Brawne’s romance in such an accurate yet warm way, but also due to amount of emotions you experience during the picture, and the impact those emotions have. I was giggling incessantly during Fanny’s narky opening scenes with Charles Brown, floating and swooning during her courtship and romance with Keats, and sobbing uncontrollably with her when she learns of her fiancée’s death. You’re really taken in to this film, both visually and emotionally, and it’s hard to let go once it’s all over – I was still sobbing a little during the drive home.

I can’t speak highly enough of this warm, heart-breaking and visually spectacular film, told with obvious affection by Campion. And I can’t find fault in it. Truly a remarkable and emotional film.

Read Users' Comments ( 0 )

Director Guy Ritchie isn’t exactly known for his family-friendly action comedies. But maybe he should be, after giving us “Sherlock Holmes”, the latest take on the popular detective of the same name. Stories of Holmes’ adventures, with his trusty partner Watson, are well known world-wide, however Ritchie & Co have taken a slightly new direction here, with the a more original, book-based version of the detective, and love interests for both characters.

We meet Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) and Watson (Jude Law) during their last case together, capturing the evil Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong) as he’s performing a ritual sacrifice and summoning supernatural forces. Though they successfully capture the Lord, the case is far from over, and Holmes and Watson must engage with the Scotland Yard, Holmes’ former lady love (Rachel McAdams) and members of an elite sect to save England from an unimaginable crime.

It was pointed out to me by my mister when we got home that there’s not a single cuss word in this film. Whilst this may not be unusual for your average comedy action romp, and for any Sherlock Holmes film or novel, it’s pretty darn unusual for a Guy Ritchie film. It’s clear the director tries to stay relatively close to the source material here, and thus it cements itself as a relatively family friendly film, if you’re down with the violence (though not real blood anywhere) and supernatural themes. In that sense, it’s truly excellent in achieving a balance of humour, action and intrigue, and you’re really pulled in to the storyline from the beginning. Holmes and Watson’s somewhat complex relationship is well handled, particularly with the introduction of Watson’s fiancée Mary (Kelly Reilly), and some real emotion between the two is displayed but kept in check (thankfully foregoing the “bromance” route, which seems to be overdone these days).

I think the casting was excellent. Downey Jr. is a solid lead, and he does the dishevelled thing very well. Law proves his comedic chops, playing the straight man angle with ease, and with his own commanding presence. I’ve been a fan of Mark Strong since his outstanding performance in “Body of Lies”, and he’s enjoyable here once again, though possibly not evil enough to really cement him as the super bad guy of the picture. McAdams is decent, though her talent here seems to be looking good – she’s not given a huge amount to work with, but she does well with what she does get. All the cast are lucky in a sense, because the set design and costuming is so rich and vibrant, that even the odd awkward screen moment can be consumed by its presence. The same can be said for Hans Zimmer’s relatively original score.

As far as blockbusters go, it’s certainly one of the better ones, and is worthy of praise. Fun, action packed and clever, if it only serves as a vehicle for Downey and Law, then that’s good enough for me. Despite the supporting cast letting down the two major players, Ritchie delivers a new brand of Sherlock Holmes to a grateful audience, uniting tweens, teens and adults in a family film that will be sure to excite all.

Read Users' Comments ( 1 )

10 years in the making, James Cameron makes another entry into cinematic history with his 3D action adventure, “Avatar”. The biggest question I had, when seeing this film in 3D at Hoyts’ IMAX theatre, was simple; would this blockbuster live up to the hype?

Set in the future and starring Rockingham’s own Sam Worthington, “Avatar” centres around Jake Sully, a former Marine who lost the use of his legs during battle. When his brother, a scientist, is murdered during a mugging, Jake is asked by his superiors to take his place in the Avatar project, which means a very decent pay cheque, and a move to Pandora, a distant planet that humans have been mining with resistance from the native race. Not one to turn down a challenge, Jake accepts, and is transported to Pandora, and to the science lab of Dr. Augustine (Sigourney Weaver), a scientist who has developed Avatars – remotely controlled bodies that are designed to blend in with the natives in order to learn more about them, and hopefully reach a diplomatic solution to the mining issues. In his Avatar form, Jake meets Neytiri, one of the native Naa’vi, and he quickly forms a bond with her. He finds the line between himself and his Avatar self being blurred when Marine Colonel Quaritch expects him to report back on ways to exploit the Naa’vi, but his feelings for Neytiri and her people grow stronger. When the humans forcibly remove the Naa’vi from their home, Jake is forced to choose sides and defend the land and people he has grown to love.

This 2.5 hour epic 3D adventure delivers visuals that are, at this point, unparalleled. There are points in the film where you have to remind yourself you’re actually watching 3D CGI, and not real blue folks and their magic light-up plants on screen. The scenery and animals are breath-takingly beautiful, and the fight scenes and final battle are stimulating and original. If you’re looking for a film to sink your eyes in to, this is the film for you. The use of colour and illumination are very effective in creating a world that we wouldn’t ever dream of seeing. Cameron’s use of technology is second-to-none, and it’s something he should be immensely proud of.

The performances are good also, though with any blockbuster there’s going to be a decent amount of cheese within the script. Colonel Quaritch, played by Stephen Lang, has got to be one of the most stereo-typical bad ass Marine Colonels ever put on screen. Sigourney Weaver’s Dr. Augustine is your typical lefty-type scientist with a respect for nature, and the love story between Worthington’s Jake Sully and Zoe Saldaña’s Neytiri is completely formulaic. However, a lot of this can be forgiven due to Worthington’s commanding leading performance, full of complexity and soul. He brings a deep and committed quality to Jake, and his authentic performance tends to even out the over or under acting from the rest of the cast. Joel David Moore as Norm Spellman, a fellow Avatar operator and friend of Jake’s, is another fine addition to the cast, and Michelle Rodriguez is enjoyable also, in her limited screen time. Giovanni Ribisi, as the mining company’s administrator, is relatively forgettable.

I think to expect such a visually satisfying experiment to be perfect in story as well  is probably setting your hopes a little high, considering this IS a proper Hollywood blockbuster, and was designed to appeal to a range of audiences. But it’s good enough, giving meaning to the oh-so-pretty images on screen, and allowing the audience to embrace the Naa’vi as some simple blue folk who don’t want to be kicked out of their home. Some of the plot devices work very well… Jake using a compulsory video diary to document his experiences within his Avatar provides a solid narration, for example. Overall, it’s not the kind of film you go in to, expecting to experience a sublime script and jaw-dropping performances… You’re there for the ride. And what a ride it is.

Don’t think too much about the clichés, let your eyes bathe in the visual delights, and enjoy James Cameron raising the blockbuster bar for everyone else – though I think it will be some time before it’s a bar someone else is able to clear.

Read Users' Comments ( 0 )

It’s rare that you see a film that is left in your thoughts for days afterwards, philosophical and scientific questions of the universe swirling around in your brain, an actor’s performance (or in this case, performances) cementing itself as one of the year’s best before the film has even finished. This is the case, however, with “Moon”, the directorial debut from Duncan Jones.

Starring Sam Rockwell in what is essentially a solo performance, we meet his character Sam Bell, a young engineer working on the Moon for Lunar Industries, a provider of fusion power. Sam’s job is simple – spend three years on the Moon alone, managing the Helium 3 harvesters that provide the fusion power back on Earth. His only company is that of an A.I robot named GERTY, voiced by Kevin Spacey, who is designed and programmed to keep Sam safe. We join Sam two weeks before his three year contract is about to expire and, when Sam has an accident in one of the lunar vehicles, it becomes apparent that perhaps Sam is not as alone as he thought.

This entire film is a great achievement. Director Duncan Jones has created a realistic, frightening yet intriguing future, with only five million dollars to do it. The set design is incredible, and the visions of outside the space station are truly spectacular… There are so many shots that you wish you could frame and put on your wall (or if you’re me and you have an unusual love of space exploration and science, they’re shots you wish you could be in). Some of the minor touches really add an authenticity to this otherwise sterile environment… The old comfy chair in the rec room, the ping pong table, etc. The use of models rather than CGI only helps this cause. If nothing else, the film is visually spectacular, and absolutely authentic in what it’s setting out to achieve.

Then, there is Sam Rockwell. To say his performance is outstanding would not be doing the man justice. Playing two different characters, but not really, he’s able to add so many dimensions and layers to his character, without being able to display them all in the one person. I imagine that would be very difficult, having to create one rounded, sympathetic character out of two performances. The mechanics of his performance is amazing, and credit must of course go to the director for this also… The ping pong scene, and the minor fight/scuffle are so well staged, it’s hard to imagine that that’s the same person playing both roles. He makes both Sam Bells connected, as if you can see the way he changes over the three year stint when it’s only just beginning for one of them. Truly an achievement indeed.

It’s hard to fault this film, especially when you consider what it actually is. Directorial debut, duel performances by the same actor, set in space, very little/no CGI, made for five million dollars… And it’s easily one of the best science fiction films I’ve ever seen.

Read Users' Comments ( 0 )

16yr old girls worldwide rejoice! The latest instalment of the ever-popular “Twilight” franchise is upon us. Longing glances, lots of heavy breathing and some random violence have returned with a vengeance, ready to sweep us seriously romance-deprived off our collective feet.

In Forks, Washington, not much has changed since we left. Edward and Bella are still mad about each other, and as Bella’s 18th birthday rolls around, she celebrates by gathering with the extended Cullen family. After a incident leaving Bella hurt again, the Cullens decide to leave Forks, for the sake of Bella’s safety. A heartbroken Bella finds comfort in adrenaline rushes, and emotional stability in her best friend, Jacob Black. When Jacob isn’t all he appears to be, and Edward mistakes Bella’s dangerous activities for her death, a course of events is set in motion, leaving Bella and Edward open to the danger and judgement of the Volturi, an infamous sect of Vampires.

I found a lot to enjoy here. The effects, which looked altogether horrid in the trailer, were actually relatively remarkable, with the various werewolves looking particularly awesome, and any fight scene with the wolves involved was immediately cool. The climactic all-in vampire fight was also relatively cool lookin’.

There’s definitely some heavy-handed cheese in places, though I think with any teen romance, this is hard to avoid (even if one of the involved parties is 109). Some have mentioned a frolicking scene as an example of this, though it’s so brief I didn’t even get a chance to snigger. I think my own source of amusement during this film was probably self-inflicted. Every time Peter Facinelli (who plays the elder Cullen, Carlisle) and Michael Sheen (as Aro, head of the Volturi) were on screen, I had to giggle a little… It really is sort of amusing seeing a vampire on screen, who’s next line you expect to be, “why didn’t you burn the tapes?!”. Though as I said, that’s sort of self-inflicted… I would imagine this film’s target audience haven’t seen “Frost/Nixon”, or “Can’t Hardly Wait”, and hence the casting I’m sure makes sense to them. This isn’t to say that it’s poor casting, not at all. All performances are relatively decent, with only some of the (very) minor Volturi cast being OTT.

Look, it is what it is. It’s teen romance. All of the girls are gorgeous, all of the boys are stupidly pretty (the whole audience cheered when Taylor Lautner, as Jacob Black, finally removed his shirt… I was probably cheering the loudest) and the effects are fun. Don’t concentrate too hard on the script, giggle when you feel you need to, and you’ll probably get a kick out of it.

And seriously. Robert Pattinson spends a decent amount of his limited screen time with his shirt off too. It’s like porn for girls that like pale boys… Which is me.

Read Users' Comments ( 0 )

I sat in a darkened theatre on a Sunday morning, aware of what was coming. I’d heard the reviews… The words “dark” and “sad” had been thrown about, and so I expected a sombre, anti-kids movie. What I got was partially that, but also a whole lot more.

Max (Max Records) is a young boy, living life inside his own mind. His imagination is vivid, and he’s largely left alone. His teenage sister pays him little attention, and his loving single mother works hard to support her children. Max considers himself an explorer, and when an argument with his mother turns physical, he escapes with his shame to Where the Wild Things Are. He convinces the monsters there not to eat him, but instead to make him their king, with promises of making them all happy. When he doesn’t deliver on his promise, Max is left to try to understand the emotional complexities of his new friends and of himself.

This film is beautiful, gorgeous, moving and poignant. I was left a emotional, teary mess in several places, sometimes because of sadness, but mostly due to the beauty and happiness the film gave me. Max is delightful as the strong-willed, stubborn and imaginative king of the Wild Things, but it’s the Wild Things themselves that won me over. Lauren Ambrose, as K.W, made me float. James Gandolfini, as Carol, is essentially a mirror of Max himself, allowing the young boy to see his own wildness from someone else, possibly allowing him to understand himself more… The casting of Gandolfini is truly inspired, he’s phenomenal. Chris Cooper as Douglas and Forest Whitaker as Ira were also excellent, and Paul Dano is hilarious and often insufferable as Alexander, the Wild Thing that just wants attention. Catherine O’Hara wins, however, with her delightfully bitchy performance as Judith, who really is “kind of a downer”.

To adapt such a short children’s book into an amazing, deep, rounded and visually magnificent work of art is truly an achievement, and credit goes to director Spike Jonze and writer Dave Eggers for creating a world so life-like, and yet so magical. I didn’t take my eyes off the screen for the full length of the film, not even when the screams and murmurs of children could have possibly distracted me.

Now to gush over the soundtrack. Ah, Karen O. You’re a genius, you foxy, crazy lady. I’m a big Yeah Yeah Yeahs fan, and this score felt mildly similar to previous YYY’s stuff, but the tone was perfect for this kind of film. It was grown up, but still irreverent and accessible for a younger audience. Definitely an album I’ll be purchasing.

Whilst I think this film obviously goes a lot further than the book in terms of themes and emotions, it’s probably important to remember that the book is something like 25 sentences long. Maybe less. The magic of the book is the idea it represents – that imagination can save you. I think this sentiment is carried through to the film in spades, but it goes further to say that not only can imagination save you, it can help you to learn, grow-up and get to know yourself.

The short version: I loved this, and I took a lot away from it. It made me happy.

Read Users' Comments ( 1 )

I was interested to watch this film recently. Not just because of the huge, massive hysteria surrounding it (and it’s sequel, “New Moon”, which is released at midnight tonight), but because… Well, I hate being out of the loop. I hate it when I don’t get popular culture references, darnit, no matter how stupid or silly they may seem to be by culture elitists.

I’ve read a number of articles by both Twilight fans (who sometimes call themselves “Twihards”, which, despite myself, I find cute) and Twilight haters. There doesn’t seem to be much of a middle ground, because like anything that gains mass popularity, it’s just as cool to love it as it is to hate it. In fact, it seems that loathing it has become some badge of honour, and as I think I’ve mentioned here before, hating or loving things for the sake of your own pathetic status doesn’t sit well with me.

So, here’s another opinion to throw into the mix: Twilight is okay. It’s not brilliant, sure. It wouldn’t be my choice of a vampire film to watch… But then, it’s not really a vampire film, is it? It’s a romance. Perhaps this is where people are getting confused, or worse, trying so hard to find fault. In a world where the “emo haircut” ( I loathe the term “emo”, but that’s a rant for another time) has become the staple, and eyeliner is thicker than ever, “dark” is the new black. It shouldn’t be of a surprise to anyone who was remotely sullen during their high school years that these films and books are popular. This isn’t a vampire story, it’s a love story, and vampires are the catalyst. It brings a darker, moodier element to what would otherwise be something akin to “A Walk to Remember”. But what author Stephanie Meyer has done is genius, really… She’s taken goofy teenage love, put a Buffy & Angel spin on it, and stuck them BOTH in high school. It is, for lack of a better term, a killer combination.

I haven’t read the book, so to be honest I’m mostly referring to the film here. But then, what about the books? These aren’t short stories, they’re large novels. That means that there’s teenagers world-wide picking up a book and reading it. That’s exciting to me. I mean, would I rather they be reading Shakespeare or D.H Lawrence? Sure (Well, maybe not D.H Lawrence until they were older… *ahem*). But shit, teenagers reading is good. Hell, ANYONE reading is good.

Plus y’know, some of the messages in this film aren’t too terrible. For one, no underage sex… In fact, the romantic leads barely even make out until the end. The female lead is a strong character (she’s no Buffy, sure, but I’m referring to mental strength in this case), the male lead is caring and ultimately protective of the woman he loves. Love over lust seems to be the clear message. Then there’s the minor details that would probably go unnoticed to the untrained eye (a positive relationship with parents, acceptance of those that are different, racially and socio-economically diverse social circles), all of which are pretty positive. Realistically, this is an ideal film for it’s target market to be watching.

I accept that this isn’t a film that will appeal to everyone, and why I certainly wouldn’t call myself a fan, I think to truly loathe it is properly idiotic, and I wouldn’t call myself a hater either. It’s decent. It’s fun. It inspires girls worldwide to find their true love which, whilst a little unrealistic, is sure better than convincing them to settle their sights for whoever the popular guy is in school, or to play fast & loose with their hearts and their sexuality. It’s not a vampire movie, and if that’s what you’re looking for, you can absolutely do better. But you can also do a hell of a lot worse.

Read Users' Comments ( 2 )

As a fan of Judd Apatow since the “Freaks and Geeks” days, I generally look forward to his films and other projects, particularly when the engaging Seth Rogen is involved. With that in mind, I went into “Funny People” with relatively measured expectations, having heard that it was far more dramatic than the deceptive title leads you to believe. And whilst this turned out to be true, it was in no way an indicator of the film’s quality, which was excellent.

Adam Sandler plays George Simmons, a comedian whose career is not unlike the actor’s own. He’s a big name movie star, who started out in comedy and eventually cornered the market on mainstream comedies. When George learns that he’s seriously ill, he looks to get back to his stand-up roots, and employs newbie stand-up Ira Wright (Seth Rogen) to write jokes for him and be his personal assistant. Ira soon realises that this opportunity, which seemed too good to be true, is wrought with problems as George’s selfish personality and emotional problems come to light, all of which comes to a head when George tries to get back together with his true love Laura (Leslie Mann), even though she’s married to Australian businessman Clark (Eric Bana) and has two children.

Writer/director Apatow is a long-time friend of Sandler, and the film opens with what appears to be real old home movies of Sandler making prank calls. It’s here that you realise that this film is going to be a lot more personal than you’d expect. Sandler appears to bring a lot of his own career highs and lows to this complex role, and credit must been given to him for inhabiting the role the way he did. His fine performance is large part of the reason why this film works the way it does. Rogen is great also, in a role that gives him the opportunity to stretch himself dramatically. The supporting cast is highly enjoyable, with Jason Schwartzman sublime as Rogen’s roommate, who’s starring role on the vile new sitcom “Hey Teach!” is the source of a decent amount of humour throughout the film. Jonah Hill is enjoyable also, in a role that often felt like he was playing a post-college version of his character from “Superbad”. I was also impressed with newcomer Aubrey Plaza’s role as Daisy, a fellow stand-up comic who features as Rogen’s love interest.

Whilst the focal performances were all excellent, the film wasn’t without flaws. Apatow needs to be careful about casting his family in his films again, as there were times here where his children in particular (who featured as the children of Leslie Mann’s Laura, who is their real life mother and Apatow’s wife) became tiresome. The eldest of the two clearly has talent for the arts, however it would be disappointing to immediately have to associate the director’s entire family with anything he does in the future. Leslie Mann is a talented and attractive actress, I’m sure she can find other decent roles on her own. The film is also long and whilst this hasn’t been an issue in his other feature films (“Knocked Up”, “40 Year Old Virgin”), there are entire scenes that could have been on the cutting room floor here without any consequence. These complaints are minor though. The story is an original one, with a generally well-written screenplay to back it up.

Apatow has a winner on his hands again here, proving that the long-term working relationship with Rogen is only going from strength to strength. It’s great to see Sandler tackle a role that lets him flex his dramatic muscles, and makes you wonder why he doesn’t do it more often.

Read Users' Comments ( 0 )