New Moon - The wait is over!

It's here. It's finally here. Less than twelve months since Twilight first arrived in a flurry of mad anticipation, its sequel New Moon is ready to be spooled in cinemas around the world.

The love triangle between Bella (Kristen Stewart), Edward (Robert Pattinson) and Jacob (Taylor Lautner) will finally be projected onto screens this evening for tweenage girls and middle-aged mothers (and everyone else who denies they are a fan) to devour.

Regular readers of this blog already know that my relationship with The Twilight Saga has been ... strained, to say the least.

I think back to those naive days in October 2008, when I pondered the question: What is Twilight and why should I care? A couple of months later, my review (entitled Toothless and tasteless) hit the web, inciting the rage of fans who chided me for not loving the film. I gave it 0.5/5. This was just the beginning.

I called it the worst movie of 2008. I named Bella and Edward the creepiest movie couple of all time. I crowned the Cullens' the most unbearable movie family in history. Hyperbolic? Sure. But I really didn't like that movie.

Then, mere months later, we were introduced to the marketing materials for the sequel, The Twilight Saga's New Moon. The two of us got off on the wrong foot, what with me calling its movie poster the worst ever made. See a recurring theme here? Anyway, once again the Twilight fans took aim at me (perhaps deservingly).

"Grow up & get a life & spend your pointless time reviewing movies you ACTUALLY care about."

"OK...we get it..you're NOT a Twilight fan. But honestly who really cares?"

"If you hate Twilight so damn much, why bother writing a whole bloody article about it? People like you make no sense what-so-ever."

And that was the polite stuff.

They raised a good point though. For someone who hated Twilight so much, why did I spend so much time writing about it? I pondered whether or not I was in fact harboring an insatiable crush on star Robert Pattinson. Of course, this theory was thrown out of the window when I was finally introduced to the new and improved Taylor Lautner.

Here was a charming, somewhat human looking dude who actually had some charisma, unlike that talking hat-stand Pattinson. I declared myself a proud member of Team Jacob. And then, the final trailer for New Moon emerged - and I kinda dug it.

Nooooooo! How could I betray all those who had cheered me on when I mocked The Twilight Saga so mercilessly! I won't lie to you. I felt ashamed.

Don't get me wrong - my feelings on Twilight the First have not changed. But a little part of me, whether it's my desire to continue the mockery or in fact a genuine interest in the story of Bedward, is looking forward to New Moon.

On Thursday night, I will be lining up with the rest of the diehard fans to witness the latest adaptation of Stephanie Meyer's world-beating novels. By the weekend, I will post my review. Will director Chris Weitz improve upon predecessor Catherine Hardwicke's drab and dreary style? Is the romance less contrived/less patronising/less creepy this time around? Will Robert Pattinson's hair move?

One thing I know for sure. Love it or hate it, Twilight will never be far from my thoughts. The point of this highly narcissistic article is to highlight that few films have dominated the pop-cultural consciousness as Twilight has.

If The Twilight Saga has given us anything, it has been some great discussions. So, let's continue that tradition! Hit us in the comments section below with your thoughts on this franchise. Love it? Hate it? Nothing it?

And when you finally see New Moon (let's face it, you all will) be sure to let us know your thoughts.

Discuss: Alright friends. Let the sparkly-skinned discussion begin!

God complex - A Serious Man review

A Serious Man - Starring Michael Stuhlbarg, Richard Kind and Sari Lennick. Directed by Joel and Ethan Coen. Rated M. By Simon Miraudo.

Those cheeky Coen Brothers. They love to run both their characters and their audience through the wringer, don’t they? After turning the spy genre on its head with the black comedy Burn After Reading, they return once more to their never-ending plight to excavate the murky depths of the human soul with A Serious Man. The film is a loose retelling of the Biblical story of Job, a righteous man who was tested by God. Joel and Ethan Coen similarly test their lead character, Jewish physics professor Larry Gopnick (Michael Stuhlbarg), in a deliciously dark and intoxicating manner. The film is dripping in irony; it is bleak, unsettling, disturbing, challenging and even asphyxiating. It is waiting to be devoured and dissected and discussed. What can I say? It’s a mitzvah!

Not all is kosher in the world of Larry Gopnick. His wife Judith (Sari Lennick) is leaving him for the condescendingly comforting Sy Ableman. His brother Arthur (Richard Kind), a mathematical idiot savant and shnorrer extraordinaire, has moved into his home for an indefinite amount of time. His children, a pot-smoking son on the eve of his bar mitzvah and a daughter who seems to only wash her hair, have no interest in Larry except for his ability to fix the reception of the television. Things aren’t much better at work. A South Korean student is both bribing and blackmailing Larry in the hopes of changing his failing grade to a pass, while an anonymous letter-writer is encouraging the university board to deny him tenure. If Larry is an ant scuttling under the warm rays of the sun, The Coens are the mischievous boys holding the magnifying glass above him.

As Larry’s life systematically falls apart, he decides to turn to his faith. He looks to three rabbis for some advice, some comfort, some anything. As a physics professor, he refuses to believe the world could be ruled by chaos. Arthur has seemingly figured out an equation for the inner workings of the universe. Therefore, if there is an equation to life, there must surely be an answer. Is Larry being tested by God? Has his existence and all these events been predetermined? Or is the onslaught of ironic torture just one of those (un)happy coincidences? Oi gevald!

Joel and Ethan Coen love to play God; they put their characters through hell, torturing them endlessly and treating them with disdain before finally giving them peace (usually through death, madness or some form of imprisonment). In that sense, Larry Gopnick is the archetypal Coen Brothers hero. As frustratingly passive as Ed Crane in The Man Who Wasn’t There; as cluelessly destructive as Jerry Lundegaard in Fargo; as hopelessly agonized as Barton Fink in Barton Fink. Does that make the brothers Coen cruel? A little. Larry frequently exclaims throughout the film: “I haven’t done anything!” But that doesn’t excuse him from punishment; in fact, that is reason enough. Austrian director Michael Haneke similarly tortures his characters and audiences by assuming they are inherently evil. At least the characters created by the Coens have it coming.

A Serious Man is one of the best films the Coen Brothers have ever made. It is also their most alienating and disturbing since Barton Fink, which also dealt with similar existential themes. Reteaming with cinematographer Roger Deakins for the tenth time, the brothers stunningly recreate the late 1960s in all its claustrophobic glory. Michael Stuhlbarg gives an Oscar-worthy performance; he remains sympathetic and relatable, even as the drek rains down harder and faster upon him. How many times do we also exclaim “I haven’t done anything” just like Larry Gopnick. Does that mean we too deserve punishment? Hey, maybe.

The film’s closest spiritual relations are Charlie Kaufman’s Synecdoche New York, Paul Thomas Anderson’s Magnolia and even Alex Proyas’ Knowing. However, while those films enliven the human spirit, this film suffocates it. That’s not a criticism. In fact, it’s a compliment. A Serious Man, despite its title, is very, very funny. However, you’ll find that you have to choke out the laughs. What begins as a slow-burn erupts into an inferno. Larry is slipping into hell, and so too do we. Don’t be fooled by the false sense of security towards the end of the picture. That’s simply the eye of the storm. The film ends with the ultimate dues-ex-machina: reality. It is the Coen Brothers grabbing the audience by the collar and screaming in our face: “Do something dammit!” If any film could convince us, it’d be this one.

5/5

Check out my other reviews here.

Magic realism and the state of Australian cinema - An interview with David Caesar

An Interview with David Caesar, director of Prime Mover. By Simon Miraudo.

The next time you are at the trucking depot, make sure you ask those lone wolf drivers who their favourite Yugoslavian director is. Don’t assume that a fascination in cinema is reserved only for city folk. In fact, when it comes to the world of truckies, don’t assume anything. This is the lesson I learnt when I met with Australian director (and former truck driver) David Caesar for a quick chat about his latest film Prime Mover, a love story set in the world of big rigs and bigger dreams. The quick chat evolved into a half hour discussion about amphetamine psychosis, magic realism and the current state of Australian cinema.

Prime Mover stars Michael Dorman as Thomas, a young pinstriper who dreams of one day owning his own truck. After falling in love with and marrying the gypsy-esque Melissa (Emily Barclay), he decides to fulfill his final desire and purchase a prime mover. However, Thomas finds himself in over his head as his new investment leaves him indebted to some crims. Through a mix of drama, romance and fantastical comic flourishes, Caesar examines whether or not love can survive under extreme circumstances.

"I’m interested in the idea of love stories, particularly about getting past that first bit. How do you sustain being in love with someone when things get difficult?”

Caesar worked as a truck driver shortly after leaving school as a means of earning money for film school. He quit after eight months on the job. His reasoning: “I just couldn’t stand it.” So why did he set his latest film amongst the tortuous world of the winding road?

“The experience of driving trucks, that whole world and that whole culture, I liked the balance between the macho stuff and the more feminine side. How the drivers listen to really sentimental, really emotional country music and the sort of delicate pin-striping (of the trucks). I thought: ‘gee, that would be a really great place to set a love story, because it’s really incongruous’.”

Caesar began writing the script in the late 1990’s, but left to focus on his other feature films Mullet (2001) and Dirty Deeds (2002). In 2004, he and producer Vince Sheehan revisited the Prime Mover draft and took to it with gusto.

I asked whether Caesar had ever considered telling his story straight; minus the visual flourishes that pepper the film. “No, that was in the first draft. One of the things I remembered from when I was driving trucks was that I used to go off in this pixie land and I had these weird days where I’d get in the truck in the morning, and I’d drive all day, and I’d get back to the depot at 6PM and I couldn’t remember anything of the day. I’d sort of be writing stories in my head and singing songs. I’d be going round winding roads on autopilot. And I found that weird magical state I was in interesting.”

“I was interested in taking the whole idea of taking someone’s emotional landscape and making it external without it being a voiceover. I was interested in that idea of making sure that there was magic in the world. I’m also really tired of seeing working class Australians working in this drab dead world. And the reality is that, well, it’s not necessarily a better world or a worse world than anywhere else, but there is magic in that world, and passion in the way the people see that world.”

As you may have already noticed, my job as interviewer was merely cursory. Caeser was more than willing to talk about his film as well as Australian film in general, whether I had been there to ask him questions or not. However, his willingness to discuss his craft (at length) is refreshing. In that spirit, I asked if he had considered amping up what he called ‘the magic’ in Prime Mover and perhaps turning the film into a full blown musical.

“To be completely honest with you, I would have liked to have another song up front. That would have been a good thing, because it takes a while for the audience to understand the visual language. I think cinema for me as an audience member works well with big strong contrasts. When you think it is going somewhere and then you get surprised by the style of it. Where you have really grounded performances and surprising visual flourishes, alongside it or amongst it.”

After discussing his influences (Yugoslavian director Emir Kusturica and Francis Ford Coppola) and getting into some spoiler-related territory regarding the ending of Prime Mover, I realised that my allocated time had well and truly run out. But Caesar didn’t notice, or at least, didn’t care. Before wrapping up, I couldn’t miss an opportunity to ask an Australian director about his thoughts on the local film industry, especially as he has such a very Australian film on his hands. I admitted it’s a question he must have been asked a million times. He politely obliged, stating: “ask as many times as you want.”

So, David Caesar, have audiences turned on Aussie cinema? “No, I don’t think so. If someone can come up with a more Australian story than Sampson and Delilah, I’d like to see what it was. And I’m not entirely sure what Australian means anymore. To some extent, Samson and Delilah covers similar territory to my film, but the world it inhabits and the way the characters live in the world is really different. But I think even though mine has big fantastical elements in it, they both have an Australian truth to them.”

I suggested that Mao’s Last Dancer, the most successful local production of the year, was perhaps a less Australian film because of the way it depicts freedom as an exclusively American ideal; a notion Caesar rejected. “I think that Mao’s Last Dancer is about a migrant; it’s a refugee story and I think that’s a very current Australian story. I think the idea of what Australian is is really unclear, in terms of who we are as a people.”

So, any suggestions as to why some local films fail to gain recognition at the box office? “I think the thing that often turns people away are the films that have no hope. I think the idea of stories, not all narratives per se, but stories, is that they offer people hope. And I don’t think life necessarily gives people hope, and the reason we have stories is because life doesn’t. I suspect some audiences haven’t delivered on that front.”

However, Caesar also believes that very good, hopeful Australian films have been unfairly ignored by audiences. “You go out to the cinema, and there are 400 prints of Transformers, and this film that’s on in five places. And it might be a film they’d love, but you’ve got to actively search for them.”

Films he says to keep an eye on? The Spierig Brothers’ Daybreakers, the low-budget horror flick The Loved Ones, and, if its alright with you, Prime Mover.

“It is a love story. And I don’t think you can get a more universal narrative that a love story. And I also think that it’s the story about a struggle of hope and redemption, and I don’t think you can get a more international story than that.”

Prime Mover is currently screening in limited release.

Wanderlust - Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince DVD review

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince – Starring Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson and Rupert Grint. Directed by David Yates. Rated M. Originally published July 14, 2009. By Simon Miraudo.

Ah, to be young, in love and a wizard again. Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is the sixth, hormone-injected installment of the zillion-dollar-grossing franchise, and the series shows no sagging signs of age. Instead, it manages to recreate all those wonderful, gut-churning feelings of unrequited teenage love that are sure to inflame your acne all over again. Yes, the Potter films are growing up. Gone are the goofy puzzles and silly monsters intended for 10-year-olds; we’re in legitimate (albeit fairly innocent) romantic comedy territory this time around. However, director David Yates understands the darkness that comes with growing up and still manages to balance the film’s growing despair and darkening clouds with Potter’s burgeoning sexploits. Welcome to puberty, kid.

Based on the gargantuan J.K. Rowling book, Harry Potter Six begins with the ominous knowledge that Voldemort is back in town, sending his Death Eaters to terrorise modern London, as well as the inhabitants of its parallel wizard universe. Hogwarts Principal Albus Dumbledore (Michael Gambon) sends our hero Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) on an important mission to discover exactly what black magic Voldemort is using to consolidate his power. His task will involve befriending new Potions teacher Horace Slughorn (Jim Broadbent), an eccentric old coot with a penchant for making famous friends. But how can Harry concentrate on saving the world when his crush on the sweet Ginny Weasley (Bonnie Wright) won’t go away? Why did she have to be his best friend’s younger sister?! Not that his besties Ron (Rupert Grint) and Hermione (Emma Watson) are any luckier in love; they continue their awkward courtship by dating other classmates and continually upsetting and ignoring one another. Love stinks.

Of course, any HP fan will tell you there is far more to this story than I’m letting on. For instance, why does Draco Malfoy (Tom Felton) look so mysterious and tormented? Where does Dumbledore keep running off to? And just what is Snape’s (Alan Rickman) problem? These are the darker elements of the picture and discussing them would spoil the really juicy surprises. And before you laugh, some people may not know what these surprises are! A good friend of mine is a rabid fan of the films, but refuses to read any of the books. Therefore, he’s been waiting almost a full decade to find out how this story ends. I for one respect his perseverance (although at this point he might just be trying to make some kind of weird point).

So let’s focus on the lighter side of The Half Blood Prince. The film is a funnier affair than its immediate predecessor Order of the Phoenix, in which Yates tried to downplay the magic and wonder and bring his State of Play-esque political intrigue to the forefront. Now that the actors have come of age he can feature some good old fashioned teenage ribaldry: luscious kisses in darkened hallways; drunken butter beer binges; experimentation with mind-altering ‘potions'. Relax parents, the film isn’t that raunchy. I mean, considering this a co-ed boarding school with invisibility cloaks and hidden rooms aplenty, they could have made a fairly decent Carry On film within the walls of Hogwarts.

Rowling’s seemingly infinite imagination has been brought to life time and time again in such satisfying fashion, that surely this is one of the few book-to-film adaptations to challenge its source material for artistic supremacy. Half-Blood-Prince is anchored by three solid performances from its young stars as well as the always reliable pros Gambon and Rickman. Even Felton steps up for Draco’s big descent. However, while the first four films are able to stand alone as entertaining flicks within a larger narrative, parts five and six feel like links in a chain – entertaining throughout but not wholly satisfying. Also, with much of the exposition excised to allow more time for action, newcomers will find it near on impossible to comprehend the events of this film.

Before the Harry Potter series came along, seemingly gone were the days of frightening kids' films. Movies made for kids which feature characters in legitimate peril; movies for kids where characters might actually die. HP is now the lone beacon of despair for children in an increasingly pandering and brainless cinematic landscape; a Grimm tale that should satisfy the darker whims of imaginative children in the same way that J.K. Rowling’s books satiated the inner children of adults around the world. This franchise now carries the torch once held by movies like The Witches, The Goonies and Raiders of the Lost Ark. When was the last time you saw a movie and though “Bring on number seven!”

4/5

P.S. Considering the film is called Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, it was surprising to see how virtually the entire section regarding ‘The Half Blood Prince’ had been cut out. No wonder all those posters obscure the films subtitle.

Check out my other reviews!

What is the best film of the decade?

Can you believe the decade is almost over? It seems like only yesterday we were all singing along to Will Smith's hit record Will2K, preparing our computers for global meltdown and looking forward to long, thriving film careers for recent Oscar winners Helen Hunt and Cuba Gooding Jr. We were so young.

With mere weeks before we enter the teenage years of the 21st century, we thought there is no better time than now to look back upon the decade that was and decide which motion pictures were the best of The Noughties.

(Side note: Did we ever actually decide on a title for this decade? Was 'noughties' the official title? It's probably too late now, but someone really should have made the call on a name back in 2001).

Let us know in the comments section below your favourite films of the decade! Give us your number 1 film! Your top 10! Your top 100! It was a fine decade for cinema, so let us know which movies you will look back on fondly!

If you are looking for inspiration, check out the recent Academy Award Winners or the Highest Grossing Films of the Decade.

Finally, to kick off the proceedings, Quickflix critic Simon Miraudo (that's me!) compiled his 15 favourite films from 2000-2009. And they are:

1. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
2. Oldboy
3. Magnolia
4. Inglourious Basterds
5. There Will Be Blood
6. Ghost World
7. Adaptation
8. WALL-E
9. Superbad
10. Synecdoche New York
11. No Country for Old Men
12. Mulholland Drive
13. 500 Days of Summer
14. Up
15. Ratatouille

Alright, enough from me! Let us know in the comments section below what your favourite movies are! We shall debate and we shall argue, but mostly, we shall celebrate a damn fine decade!

Discuss: What, I gotta say it again? What are your favourite films of the decade?

Quickflix sponsors Australians in Film Heath Ledger Scholarship

Quickflix will provide ten finalists in the Heath Ledger Scholarship being offered by Australians in Film with 12 month memberships to the service.

The scholarship will offer talented Australian actors the opportunity in the early stages of their career to travel to the US and further their training and acting opportunities.

The winner will received a $10,000 cash prize plus return airfare to the US on QANTAS

“As lovers of film we have the utmost respect for Heath’s incredible legacy and amazing talent – we’re headquartered Heath’s home town of Perth Western Australia and everyone here feels a special affinity with him. We feel privileged to be involved in this small way and look forward to a long association with Australians in Film and the HLS for many years to come”, said Quickflix Founder and Executive Director Stephen Langsford.

Applications for the scholarship are available online until November 30th at www.australiansinfilm.org.

Pirates of the Caribbean 4 to be helmed by Rob Marshall

source: aicn.com

Oscar nominated auteur Rob Marshall has confirmed that he will direct Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides for Disney.

The Chicago director had long been rumoured to be taking over from Gore Verbinski, who helmed the first three films of the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise.

At an early screening of Marshall's latest film, Nine, he made his first public confirmation that he will indeed be taking to the high seas with Captain Jack.

He also mentioned that he had already discussed the project with star Johnny Depp.

The film will be based on Tim Powers' pirate novel On Stranger Tides, which tells the story of Blackbeard and the Fountain of Youth.

Verbinski pulled out of the project in April to focus on an adaptation of Bioshock. Sadly, after that project's budget ballooned out of control, it is now considered 'dead in the water'. See what I did there?

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides is slated (tentatively) for release mid-2011.

Discuss: Is Rob Marshall the man for the job?

Head to Head - Observe and Report

Welcome to the latest edition of Head to Head, in which our Quickflix critic takes on our readers in a rip-snorting battle to the death! You pick the film, and we pick the fight!

This week, Jess Lomas observed a film that she hated and then reported her feelings to us. The name of the movie: Observe and Report. You can win free movie tickets just like her by sending your mini-reviews to us here at Quickflix!

Jess will argue AGAINST the film, while Quickflix critic Simon Miraudo will argue FOR it. Let us know in the comments section below who you agree with. Spare no vitriol! Choose your side! There can only be one winner!

Jess Lomas - 1/5

Observe and Report had two things going for it, Seth Rogen and Anna Faris; both brilliant comedic actors. Unfortunately even their comedic talent couldn’t save them from the train wreck screenplay and kindergarten level of direction from Jody Hill – haven’t heard of him? After seeing this excuse for a comedy you won’t wonder why. The main problem with this film is that it doesn’t know if it wants to be a full blown comedy or a dark comedy with elements of a psycho thriller. As is stands it sits uncomfortably on the fence between the two and as a result makes for a very uneven film. There are genuine funny moments to be had, but they are few and far between and the relatively short run time felt like an eternity stuck in the land of mediocrity. FYI to Hollywood, security guards are not interesting enough to warrant an entire film, especially the “chubby, funny” kind. In a word: disappointing. Save your time and the electricity it would take to watch it and go for a walk instead.

Simon Miraudo - 4/5

Jess, normally when a film I love is given a drubbing as severe as that, I lash out. I go wild. But, Observe and Report is a different beast. It’s one film I’m reluctant to recommend to others. When I do, I always add the caveat: “think of it as a psychological drama”. Expecting a kooky, charming Seth Rogen comedy will almost certainly lead to disappointment. However, that’s not the film’s fault. Jody Hill (who also co-created the hilarious television show Eastbound and Down and directed The Foot Fist Way) has given us this generation’s Travis Bickle in Rogen’s Ronnie Barnhart. He’s a slobby, overentitled, undereducated, mentally unstable and sexually aggressive monster with a penchant for extreme violence. On top of all that, I still find the film very, very funny. Maybe that makes me a weirdo. All I know is that if Ronnie ever met Paul Blart, he would beat the living daylights out of him. And I would love to watch that.

Now it's over to you! What were your thoughts on Observe and Report? Let us know in the comments section below. And if you would like to be featured in the next Head to Head, and possibly win some free movie tickets, send your mini-reviews to us here at Quickflix!

Wicker Man star Edward Woodward dies

source: washingtonpost.com

Edward Woodward, star of the classic horror film The Wicker Man, has passed away aged 79.

The British actor died in a hospital near his hometown Cornwall, where he was being treated for pneumonia and a number of other related illnesses.

Woodward is best known for his performance as the Scottish policeman who uncovers a terrifying ritual on a unique island in the 1973 film The Wicker Man.

He also played the title role in the legendary 1980 Australian film Breaker Morant.

In 1986, he won a Golden Globe for his performance as a former secret agent in the television show The Equalizer.

More recently, he featured in Edgar Wright's action comedy Hot Fuzz, which spoofed several elements of The Wicker Man.

He is survived by his wife Michele and his children.

Discuss: What is your favourite Edward Woodward project?

Head to Head - The Final Destination

Welcome to the latest edition of Head to Head, in which our Quickflix critic takes on our readers in a rip-snorting battle to the death! You pick the film, and we pick the fight!

This week, Carolyn Aitchison told us how dearly she wished she could have enjoyed the sweet release of death during The Final Destination. You can win free movie tickets just like her by sending your mini-reviews to us here at Quickflix!

Carolyn will argue AGAINST the film, while Quickflix critic Simon Miraudo will ... ALSO argue against it. Whaaaaaaa? Read on and discover what has caused this rift in this tightly-maintained feature!

Carolyn Aitchison - 1/5

This franchise has so much potential to be limitless: "Let's see...plane? Done that. Rollercoaster? Done that. Stadium? Done that. Let's start the next one at the Superbowl (or AFL Grand Final for us Aussies)!" Yet this movie shows it's got no legs left. Pun intended. You'd think seeing it in 3D would be EVEN MORE EXCITING...well you're wrong. Yes, there are some nice bits where things jump out at you but oh the opportunities they missed out on. The actors are so wooden and plastic that you'll be begging them to be bumped off by Death sooner rather than later to the point that when they all perish in the final scene (sorry for spoiling it) you can't help but feel grateful. The deaths are one ridiculous laugh after another and whilst it's definitely not for kids or the squeamish, the end verdict is that it's just a whole lot of: "What the? Why did I pay $20 for that?”

Simon Miraudo - 0.5/5

Carolyn, you'll get no argument from me. I know what you're all thinking. "Surely disagreement is the hallmark of this feature? What good is a friendly agreement?" The thing is, I hold a special place in my heart for The Final Destination, a film so terrible it makes viewers envious of the characters that are having their skulls crushed and limbs torn off. As I said in my review: "The Final Destination doesn’t so much require you to switch off your brain, but instead to completely forget everything you know about quality cinema, basic physics and the way human beings interact with one another. At one point during the film, one of the victims is dragged behind a car; face down and on fire no less. I couldn’t help but think to myself: "lucky jerk". Sure, he died a slow, horrible death. But at least he never had to watch The Final Destination."

Now it's over to you! What were your thoughts on The Final Destination? Do you dare defend it? Let us know in the comments section below. And if you would like to be featured in the next Head to Head, and possibly win some free movie tickets, send your mini-reviews to us here at Quickflix!

Uncensored version of The Hangover heading to DVD

An R-rated cut of The Hangover will be released on DVD in Australia. The R-rated cut of the film is the same version screened in American cinemas, but not in Australian cinemas.

Earlier this year we reported that Roadshow Films had cut several images from the Australian cinematic cut of The Hangover to ensure an MA15+ rating.

Read the full report here!

Mild spoilers for The Hangover follow:

At the end of Todd Phillips' hit film, the main characters find a digital camera which has captured some particularly incriminating images from their forgotten Vegas bucks’ night. They agree to look at the photos, which are screened during the film’s end credits.

Two pictures show Zach Galifianakis’ character Alan receiving, ahem, oral pleasure from a middle-aged lady in an elevator. Suffice to say, a prosthetic penis was required for the brief sequence.

End of spoilers.

The aforementioned images will be re-inserted (no pun intended) into the Australian DVD release.

Last month we reported that Bruno, another picture edited for Australian screens, would be released uncensored on DVD.

Although it's great to know we will finally be able to enjoy the proper version of these films on DVD, it's still a shame that Australian viewers were not given the opportunity to enjoy them in cinemas.

Discussion: Is this trend of editing raunchy comedies for cinematic release unnerving to anyone else?

For your consideration! Best animated feature contenders!

source: awardsdaily.com

The Oscar season has officially arrived. I guess we could question whether it ever really ends, because it seems as soon as one Academy Award ceremony finishes, a new slate of films are assessed on their ability to claim prizes the following year.

Something I have a great interest in are the FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION ads taken out by studios in order to promote their films and suggest potential categories for nomination.

Awards Daily have kept a comprehensive collection of these ads for the past five years and have begun to post those relating to the 2010 Academy Awards.

What we find truly fascinating about these ads are the categories the studios believe the picture is capable of competing in. In the past, we have followed with earnest the attempted Best Picture campaigns for WALL-E and The Dark Knight, and to a lesser, more ironic extent, Mamma Mia and High School Musical 3.

Below, we take a look at the five biggest contenders for Best Animated Feature. We'll be featuring new ads for different categories over the next few months, so let us know which ones grab you, which are the most effective, which are the least, and which have no chance in hell of ever succeeding.

Click each image to enlarge!

Up
Best Picture, Best Animated Feature

Coraline
Best Picture, Best Animated Feature, Best Director, Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Cinematography, Best Film Editing, Best Art Direction, Best Costume Design, Best Make Up, Best Sound.

Ponyo
Best Animated Feature

Fantastic Mr. Fox
Best Animated Feature

Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs
Best Animated Feature

The 82nd Academy Awards will be held in Los Angeles on the 7th of March, 2010. The ceremony will be hosted by Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin.

Discuss: OK, could anything other than Up win Best Animated Feature? And as a side question, could Up and Coraline be genuine Best Picture contenders? After all, the field has expanded to 10 nominees?

Amy Adams' Leap Year trailer debut!

source: traileraddict.com

The trailer for the new Amy Adams romantic comedy Leap Year is a must watch ... to see exactly how not to create a trailer. Why pay for the movie when we can literally see the entire plot condensed into two minutes?

The Anand Tucker-directed film had us relatively excited once upon a time. After all, Amy Adams is worth watching in anything. However, Leap Year might be a bit of a stretch.

She stars as an uptight woman who is sick of waiting for her boyfriend to propose to her. While he's away on a business trip in Dublin, she decides to follow him there and fulfill an Irish tradition: She will propose to him on the 29th of February. A woman proposing to a man!?! Ca-razy!

However, when her plane makes an emergency landing in Wales, she asks a handsome and charming rogue to escort her to her hubby. Oh boy! I hope no sparks fly and cause a rift between her and her boyfriend!

Check out the trailer and let us know your thoughts below!



Adams is joined here by the hilarious John Lithgow, Adam Scott (Step Brothers) and Matthew Goode (Watchmen, Match Point).

Sadly, from the looks of the trailer, it's pretty standard rom-com fare, even down to the we-have-to-pretend-we're-married-so-we-better-kiss-reluctantly-but-then-we-begin-to-enjoy-it.

The Proposal also featured this exact scene. That film was an equally contrived romantic comedy. HOWEVER, the talented cast actually elevated the material to make it a highly entertaining and enjoyable flick. Could Leap Year do the same?

Leap Year hits American cinemas January 8th, 2010, with an Australian release to follow.

Discuss: What are your thoughts on this trailer?

Mary and Max enters the Oscar race!

source: variety.com

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences have announced the shortlist of films that will compete for Best Animated Feature at next year's Oscar ceremony. Australia's own Mary and Max is one of 20 films that are under consideration.

One of the Academy rules is that if more than 16 films are submitted for consideration, the category expands to five nominations.

The shortlist is as follows:

Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel
Astro Boy
Battle for Terra
Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs
Coraline
Disney’s A Christmas Carol
The Dolphin – Story of a Dreamer
Fantastic Mr. Fox
Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs
Mary and Max
The Missing Lynx
Monsters vs. Aliens
9
Planet 51
Ponyo
The Princess and the Frog
The Secret of Kells
Tinker Bell and the Lost Treasure
A Town Called Panic
Up

The last time there were five nominees was in 2002, when Studio Ghibli's Spirited Away took the top prize.

If I had to make some predictions, I would say the five frontrunners are Up, Ponyo, Coraline, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, and our very own Mary and Max. Critics didn't fall in love with A Christmas Carol, Monsters vs. Aliens or Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs. Perhaps the only wildcard is Wes Anderson's Fantastic Mr. Fox, which is yet to receive a wide release in the U.S.

Mary and Max is not the only major Aussie Oscar contender. Samson and Delilah has been entered for consideration in the Best Foreign Language Film category.

The 82nd Academy Awards will be held in Los Angeles on the 7th of March, 2010. The ceremony will be hosted by Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin.

Discuss: So, which four movies will lose to Up?

Would you like to go Head to Head?

We're not big on bragging here at Quickflix, except when it comes to our HEAD TO HEAD feature, which is, without question, the best thing to ever happen to the internet. Want to learn more about how to join in on the festivities? Scroll past the ninja cats and find out!

With our HEAD TO HEAD feature, we replicate the addictive sensation of a passionate and fiery film related argument. You have the opportunity to defend films you love and decry films you hate! You can argue about a film's artistic merit, or argue about the state of cinema in general! Or, like our resident reviewer Simon Miraudo, you can get really personal and question the mental stability of those that disagree with you!

You could win FREE MOVIE TICKETS by sending us mini-reviews of the movies you love (or love to hate)! Any film is on the table. Nothing is off limits. Be brave! Be daring! Be controversial! Defend the films no one else will, or cut down some tall poppies that always get a free ride!

"I'm telling you Richard, Michael Haneke is overrated!"
"And I'm telling you Eric, I'm going to punch you in your damn mouth!"

The best and most convincing reviews will be published on the Quickflix Blog in our regular Head to Head feature. Our Quickflix critic Simon Miraudo will argue against you, and the winner will be selected by the Quickflix community!

But don’t freak out! Win or lose, if your review is selected for publication, we'll send you FREE MOVIE TICKETS to a great new release film! Now we only have limited tickets to send out and ONLY THE PUBLISHED REVIEWERS WILL RECEIVE TICKETS.

Check out some examples here:

Happiness
Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince
Cloverfield
2001: A Space Odyssey

So what are you waiting for! Email us with your mini-review (no more than 150 words) and a picture of yourself (optional, but please do!) and you could find yourself the victor of Australia’s fiercest, most-brutal showdown since Thunderdome.

Ladies and Gentlemen, this just got real.

Send your reviews to us here!

Art attack - Night at the Museum 2: Battle of the Smithsonian DVD review

Night at the Museum 2: Battle of the Smithsonian – Starring Ben Stiller, Amy Adams and Hank Azaria. Directed by Shawn Levy. Rated PG. Originally published May 19th, 2009. By Simon Miraudo.

Let’s face it; there is only ONE thing parents want to know about the sequel to 2005’s megasuccessful Night at the Museum: "will it distract my kid for an hour and a half?" I really hate to reduce a film to such a base pre-requisite; but as dreary-eyed and sleep-deprived mums and dads prepare to hand over their well-earned money for a family outing, I feel it is my sworn duty as a film reviewer to prepare them adequately. The answer is yes. Mostly. Unless your six-year-old child is known for walking out of a cinema saying “the colour palette was great, but the pacing was way off.”

So parents, if you’ve managed to escape the clutches of your children for another five minutes, won’t you join us as we delve deeper into Shawn Levy’s Night at the Museum 2: Battle of the Smithsonian. Of course, attempting a profound analysis of NATM2:BOTS would be like attempting to swim up a skyscraper – unnecessary, painful and kind-of embarrassing. This film has no interest in being smart. This is a film in which even Rodin’s Thinker doesn’t really have much going on upstairs. It would be unfair to expect the same from the movie.

Ben Stiller returns as Larry Daly, the former night-guard of the Museum of Natural History-turned millionaire inventor. Although the exhibits at the museum still come to life at night (thanks to a magical Egyptian relic), Larry hasn’t found the time in his busy schedule to check up on friends Teddy Roosevelt (Robin Williams), tiny cowboy Jedediah (Owen Wilson) and cheeky Capuchin Dexter. In his absence, the exhibits have been packed up and sent for archival storage under the Smithsonian in Washington.

Larry decides to head on over to rescue his friends who are now under attack from newly resurrected Egyptian overlord Kah Mun Rah (a wonderfully hammy Hank Azaria) as well as Ivan the Terrible (an underused Christopher Guest), Napoleon Bonaparte (Alain Chabat) and Al Capone (Jon Bernthal). And no, you weren’t sleeping in history class; Kah Mun Rah is not an actual Egyptian figure. Kind of odd that screenwriters Thomas Lennon and Robert Ben Garant felt the need to invent a villain, despite having centuries of crazy dictators to borrow from. Saying that, I’m not sure how parents would feel about taking their children to a movie in which Adolf Hitler himself turns up to cause mischief. Maybe in Night at the Museum 3: Triumph of the Will.

So, it’s basically the same high-concept shenanigans as the first outing, although with some welcome new cast members. Amy Adams turns up as Amelia Earhart, to steal the heart of both Ben Stiller and the entire audience. Quite seriously, if there is a more lovable actress working today, I will eat my shoes. Saturday Night Live funnyman Bill Hader stars as General Custer, while his Superbad co-star Jonah Hill is an early highlight as an edgy museum guard. This is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to naming the great comic actors who spend their night at the Smithsonian; each of them having a great time and doing their darndest to make you laugh.

Sadly, with so many great actors, the film ends up being a bloated mess of missed potential, with virtually all secondary characters given (at the most) two or three minutes of screen time. To briefly speak of the picture's technical attributes, NATM2 features a smorgasbord of unconvincing CGI and green-screen acting. I’m not sure if anyone in this film actually acted alongside anyone else, or if the performances were all cut together in the editing suite. Finally, director Levy doesn’t have the visual chops of a Burton or a Del Toro to inspire awe in the audience. Seeing Stiller and Adams fly the Wright Brothers Plane through the Air and Space Museum should be jaw-dropping. It’s not. With the exception of a brilliant black-and-white sequence that I won’t spoil here, the film lacks imagination. But as far as distractions go, you could do a lot worse. I would go on, but I think the kids are waking up.

2.5/5

Check out my other reviews here

Kick Ass trailer debut!

source: traileraddict.com

The trailer for Matthew Vaughn's highly anticipated superhero satire Kick Ass has landed online with a bang. Literally.

The film, adapted from Mark Millar's comic series of the same name, has been building buzz ever since Vaughn showed off some footage at Comic Con this year.

Check out the trailer and let us know your thoughts!



Dave Lizewski (Aaron Johnson) is a teenager who dreams of fame and glory. He decides (perhaps unwisely) that the best way to achieve this is by becoming a masked vigilante named Kick Ass. Although his decision is first met with disastrous consequences, a leaked YouTube video of his exploits makes him a celebrated hero and a household name. However, with this fame comes higher stakes, as he gets the attention of some dangerous crims and meets some previously existing crime fighters, notably Red Mist (Christopher Mintz-Plasse), Big Daddy (Nicolas Cage) and Hit Girl (Chloe Moretz).

I love how the trailer is able to capture the gloriously anarchistic and celebratory violence of the comic book (of which I am a big fan). According to reports from Comic Con, Vaughn has not skimped on the coarse language or extreme volume of blood.

I look forward to seeing more footage of Moretz in action. Considering some of the eye-poppingly violent acts Hit Girl commits in the comic, I can imagine Moretz will become somewhat of a cult figure in 2010. She is also slated to star alongside Kodi Smit-McPhee as the vampiric Abby in Let Me In, the remake of the great Let The Right One In.

Kick Ass opens April 16, 2010 in the United States, with an Australian release to follow.

Discuss: Millar wrote the comic Wanted, which was also adapted for the screen in 2008. Does that make you more or less excited about Kick Ass?

Paranormal goat-ivity

source: youtube.com

Well, it had to happen sooner or later. The marketing team behind The Men Who Stare At Goats have attempted to cash in on indie spookfest Paranormal Activity by spoofing its now infamous trailer.

Check out the Goats TV spot below!



And, you can see the original Paranormal Activity trailer here.


The Men Who Stare at Goats stars Ewan McGregor and George Clooney. It tells the (partly) true story of an experimental wing of the Military who attempted to hone their soldiers' psychic abilities. You can check the feature length trailer here. The Grant Heslov-directed picture hits Australian cinemas February 4th, 2010.

Meanwhile, Oren Peli's Paranormal Activity, which may or may not be the most profitable movie of all time, arrives in Oz on the 3rd of December, 2009.

Discuss: Which film are you looking forward to most?

Clash of the Titans trailer debut!

source: traileraddict.com

We've made no secret of our excitement for Louis Letterier's remake of Clash of the Titans. After savouring nearly every image from the film's set, we finally have some moving pictures to salivate over as well!

As we've written previously, the film stars Ralph Fiennes as Hades, who threatens to seize power from Zeus (Liam Neeson) and unleash hell on Earth. It is up to Perseus (Sam Worthington) and his band of daring warriors to battle Hades' fearsome beasts and demons, and accept his own power as a God. The film also stars Gemma Arterton, Jason Flemyng and Mads Mikkelson.

Check out the short teaser below and let us know your thoughts.



Doesn't this look like a lot of fun? The 300 similarities are pretty apparent, but this looks like it will be more of a cotton-candy-coloured experience.

Also, I have great faith in any collaboartion between Warner Brothers and Legendary Pictures, who in the past two years have delivered some of the best and bravest mainstream pictures in recent memory (The Dark Knight, Watchmen, Observe and Report, Trick R Treat).

BUT, I do have one gripe. What is with that tagline? TITANS WILL CLASH?!? No duh. That's the best they could come up with? Maybe every movie tagline should be this obvious. "This summer, some couples are goin' on a retreat!"

Ahem. Anyway, Clash of the Titans will hit Australian cinemas April 1, 2010.

Discuss: What are your thoughts on the Clash of the Titans trailer?

Funkyzeit - Bruno DVD review

Bruno - Starring Sacha Baron Cohen and Gustaf Hammersten. Directed by Larry Charles. Rated MA. Originally published July 5th, 2009. By Simon Miraudo

There are more laughs to be had in Bruno’s brisk 80 minutes than in the combined entirety of pretty much every other comedy this year. Seeing this film in a packed cinema is about as much fun you can have in a theater without being arrested. In fact, Bruno might even challenge its spiritual predecessor Borat on the laughs-per-minute scale. However, the film is as vapid as its eponymous star. It is equally an evisceration and a tribute to the ultimately empty pursuit of fame.

Sacha Baron Cohen has ditched the mankini and donned the hotpants to embody everyone’s favourite homosexual Austrian fashion guru Bruno. The flamboyant celebrity is fired from his job as host of Funkyzeit mit Bruno after accidentally (wink) sabotaging Milan Fashion Week. Spurned by his fellow fashionistas, Bruno heads to LA to become “the most famous Austrian since Hitler”. Joined by his doe-eyed, 'plain-Jane' assistant Lutz (Gustaf Hammersten), Bruno attempts to produce an American television program, sort out peace in the Middle East, adopt an African baby, and eventually convert to heterosexuality. You know, just like any other average celebrity.

A plot synopsis doesn’t quite capture the visceral thrill of our hero’s bizarre and shocking adventure. Director Larry Charles skillfully welds the fabricated situations with the ‘gotcha’ style confrontations that have made Baron Cohen a legend. His run-ins with a terrorist leader and four homophobic camping buddies will leave you clawing at your eyes in cringe-worthy terror. (I would comment on the fact that a gun was pulled on the crew in the latter situation and not in the former, but I’ll leave that to more intelligent social commentators).

When it comes to jaw-dropping ‘how-the-hell-did-they-get-away-with-that’ moments, Bruno trumps Borat in a big, bad way. Hell, Borat looks like a mild-mannered bank teller when compared to the exploits seen in Bruno. The film has far too many highlights to mention, although I must admit that a particular incident involving a focus group had tears streaming down my face. In fact, I only need to write down the word ‘focus group’ to bring back the giggles. See, I did it again! (You can’t tell but I’m giggling as I write this).

Unfortunately, Bruno lacks the biting social commentary that made Borat a modern classic. In his last film, Baron Cohen eviscerated middle-American culture; he unearthed the bigotry, sexism, homophobia and nervous paranoia of George W. Bush’s U.S.A through the prism of a pseudo-Middle Eastern stereotype. In Bruno, Baron Cohen does reengage the Bible belt, employing the homophobia angle once again. However, he seems mostly concerned with mocking America’s culture of celebrity. And wouldn’t you believe it; he goes easy on them! Of all people, surely the Paris Hilton’s and the Perez Hilton’s of the world deserve a public shaming. Perhaps Baron Cohen is making too many Hollywood friends to have a real go at the glitterati?

The structure of Bruno also feels less organic than Borat's (which was already pretty inorganic). The picture struggles to find a through-line until well into the second act, and the storyline often feels like a rehash of Cohen’s past feature. In the end however, these flaws don’t really dull the gut-busting experience of Bruno. Virtually every punch line scores a hearty laugh, the cringe-worthy moments are beautifully unwatchable, and Baron Cohen’s precise, unflinching and sharp performance is once again pitch-perfect. This man is heading to the all-time comedy hall of fame, if he’s not there already. Of course, the flick won’t be for everyone. For instance, if you find penises (real or fake) confronting, you can pretty much write off a solid 40% of the film’s material. Dr. Manhattan himself would blush at the frequency (and sometimes even the application) of the members that turn up in Bruno. But hey, Sacha Baron Cohen doesn’t make movies for your grandmother. That is, unless she’s a pretty awesome grandmother.

4.5/5

Check out my other reviews here.

Reminder! The Brothers Bloom hits Australian cinemas this week

source: traileraddict.com

It has been a long time coming, but Rian Johnson's The Brothers Bloom will finally hit Australian cinemas this Thursday.

We first reported on this flick last September, noting our excitement for Johnson's follow-up to his cult hit Brick. After several shuffles on the release calendar, the film finally saw a bit of distribution in the U.S. Now, us Aussies can also bask in Mr. Johnson's latest effort.

The Brothers Bloom stars Mark Ruffalo and Adrien Brody as the titular con artists and Rachel Weisz as their eccentric mark.

Take a look at the trailer and check your listings for screening times this weekend.



Finally, if you are yet to see Brick, DO IT. Like, right now.

UPDATE! I have been reminded that Rian Johnson released an MP3 Audio Commentary track for The Brothers Bloom. You can listen to it here, or download it on iTunes (just search for Brothers Bloom in the iTunes store).

Discuss: Thoughts on Brick? Awesome, right?

Boyle follows Slumdog with real-life Saw

source: variety.com

Oscar-winning director Danny Boyle has announced that his next project will be 127 Hours, a biopic about the mountaineer Aron Ralston.

127 Hours will be Boyle's first film since Best Picture winner and all-round mega hit Slumdog Millionaire.

Although you might not immediately recognise his name, Aron Ralston's story has become mountaineering legend.

During a climb in May 2003, Ralston's forearm was crushed under a boulder. He was pinned in the same spot for nearly five days until he decided to pull out a knife (a dulled knife no less) and cut off his own arm. With only one remaining arm, he scaled a 65-foot sheer wall and hiked to safety.

Boyle has written the treatment, while his Slumdog-cohort (and fellow Oscar winner) Simon Beaufoy will write the screenplay.

However, according to a recent interview with Boyle, it seems as if Beaufoy might not have too much of a hard time coming up with dialogue for the actor playing Ralston.

Boyle insists that the first hour of the film will feature no dialogue. Just Ralston and the rock.

Although there is no official green light or budget, I can't imagine Boyle will have any trouble getting this picture off the ground.

He hopes to begin production March 2010, with a release later that year.

Discuss: OK, so who would you like to see play Ralston? The rumour is that Ryan Gosling is interested, but personally, this seems like a plum role for Sam Rockwell. And not just because of the name-related pun.

Prince of Persia trailer debut!

source: traileraddict.com

The trailer for Mike Newell's adaptation of the popular video game Prince of Persia has debuted online.

Just kidding. Here's a better look.

Jake Gyllenhaal stars as in Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time as Dastan, a street urchin who becomes the heir to the Persian throne. He teams up with Princess Tamina (Gemma Arterton, ahhh, the lovely Gemma Arterton) to retrieve the fabled Sands of Time from the villainous Nizam (Ben Kingsley).

Check out the trailer and let us know your thoughts!



It's clear that Disney are trying to deliver another Pirates of the Carribbean-flavoured franchise, and who can blame them. You can't argue with close to $3 billion in ticket sales.

Frankly, I've got a lot of faith in Gyllenhaal, Arterton and Newell. Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time hits Australian cinemas May 28, 2010.

P.S. You can watch the audio commentary for the trailer by the creator of the game Jordan Mechner here at IGN.

Discuss: Could Prince of Persia be the first video-game adaptation that works as a genuinely good film? Or do you already hold a special place in your heart for another video game movie?

Lesson learned - A Christmas Carol review

A Christmas Carol - Starring Jim Carrey, Gary Oldman and Colin Firth. Directed by Robert Zemeckis. Rated PG. By Simon Miraudo.

Robert Zemeckis’ adaptation of Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol is technically perfect. And so it should be. The director has spent the better part of the decade refining motion-capture technology for this very film; to capture the maniacally expressive Jim Carrey and turn him into Ebenezer Scrooge as well as the three Christmas ghosts who haunt him. Every inch of London circa 1800 has been stunningly recreated from within a bank of interconnected, ever-rendering computers. As a result, this is perhaps the closest we’ve ever gotten to an entirely faithful rendition of A Christmas Carol. However (and it’s a big however), Dickens’ tale is not famous for its stunning depiction of 19th century London. It’s famous for being one of the truest and most affecting morality tales ever told; a frightening, devastating, yet heart-warming story about what it means to be a good human being. The thing is, in Zemeckis’ Christmas Carol, there isn’t a human being in sight.

Motion-capture (or mo-cap as we’ll be referring to it from here on) has been met with equal amounts of acclaim and disdain since the technology debuted. When used to bring animals or inhuman characters to life, as in King Kong, Lord of the Rings and even District 9, it can be a stunning tool that aids the storytelling. Zemeckis is not happy with inhuman characters though. He is constantly in pursuit of capturing actors and animating them onscreen in slightly modified forms. It’s a valiant task. However, instead of giving us photo-realistic CG characters, or even slightly caricatured animated humans (as in Up or The Incredibles), he slides into the uncanny valley, introducing us to supposedly-realistic ‘humans’ that are both too human and not human enough.

Before I go on, a quick recap of the story that has been covered by everyone from The Muppets to The McConaughey. Ebenezer Scrooge has shuffled spitefully through his life, placing an emphasis on money over mateship. Living a life of isolation, he particularly despises Christmas, in which the spirit of poverty-stricken London is high. On the night before Christmas, he is visited by the Ghost of Christmas Past, Ghost of Christmas Present and the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come, who each try to warm his icy cockles and warn him away from a life without love.

How I wished throughout the entirety of this film that I was not seeing an almost perfect animated rendering of Jim Carrey, but instead a live-action version of the talented actor. I’d much rather watch him transform into elderly Ebenezer with his body; the greatest acting tool he has. Carrey throws himself courageously into the role, but to no avail. His voice work is subtle and stunning. I honestly believe that had Zemeckis gone the live-action route, there would be whispers of an Oscar with Carrey’s name on it. But he didn’t, so there won’t.

Carrey is not the only actor working hard for Zemeckis. The great Gary Oldman plays Bob Cratchit (Scrooge’s put-upon employee), Jacob Marley (the ghost of Scrooge’s former business partner), and even Tiny Tim (Cratchit’s crippled son). Phew. Bob Hoskins, Robin Wright Penn and Cary Elwes fill in the rest of the cast, each playing multiple small roles. Colin Firth also pops up as Scrooge’s nephew Fred. What a talented cast! What a talented director! What a great, great story for them all to sink their teeth into! Sigh.

Zemeckis does deserve points for his bravery. His adaptation is the straightest, most adult retelling of the Dickens’ tale I can recall. There are few laughs; not that the film is striving to make the audience chuckle. In fact, the picture edges closer to horror than comedy; some scenes are downright scary. I personally feel that Zemeckis’ take is too serious. There is no joy throughout the entire proceedings; not even in the final scenes as Scrooge experiences his epiphany.

Speaking of epiphanies, you’d be forgiven for not noticing Scrooge even have one in this film. What a shame, because in the end, the epiphany is the essence of A Christmas Carol. Throughout the adventure we look back on Scrooge’s life, understand where he has come from and why he is the way he is, and then he too understands why he must turn over a new leaf. No such revelation occurs in Zemeckis’ version; or perhaps I just didn’t notice it. Must be that pesky mo-cap again. The blame well and truly rests on the director’s decision to tell the story with this technology. It feels so unnatural; slightly off. We cannot engage with or care about these characters. All that is left is to sit back and ritually tick the checklist in our mind of the events that take place in Dickens’ tale. With a price tag of $175 million, Zemeckis might have even been able to pinch some pennies by abandoning the mo-cap and filming A Christmas Carol in live action. Hmm, I sound a little like Scrooge. Bah humbug!

2/5

Check out my other reviews here.