Showing newest 14 of 62 posts from December 2009. Show older posts
Showing newest 14 of 62 posts from December 2009. Show older posts

31 December 2009

Pure wild animal craziness - Fantastic Mr. Fox review

Fantastic Mr Fox - Starring George Clooney, Meryl Streep and Jason Schwartzman. Directed by Wes Anderson. Rated PG. By Simon Miraudo.

To say that Wes Anderson has a very particular, very identifiable film style is like saying that Woody Allen films often feature a neurotic protagonist. No duh. Anderson is perhaps one of the most instantly recognisable filmmakers working today; having emerged in the 1990’s alongside fellow indie auteurs Paul Thomas Anderson, Spike Jonze and Alexander Payne. Sadly, Anderson’s shtick has worn thin on the critical community lately, especially when compared to his peers who have each blended their offbeat comedy with melodrama, melancholy and blistering satire to the tune of multiple Academy Award nominations and victories. Perhaps his critics are just upset that Anderson seems intent on avoiding a challenge, having spent the past fifteen years creating visually and thematically identical films. Consider then Fantastic Mr. Fox to be the equivalent of Anderson throwing down the gauntlet to all his detractors.

Fantastic Mr. Fox is the first cinematic adaptation of Roald Dahl’s classic children’s tale, in which a mischievous fox attempts to steal chickens, ducks and cider from some unwitting (and frankly unprepared) farmers. It was a cool little story; notice that I didn’t call it “sweet” or “charming” as I would normally refer to a book from my childhood. The hero of Fantastic Mr. Fox was no cuddly little critter. He was cheeky. He was mischievous. He was kind of a jerk. It should be noted that these three attributes can also be given to Max, the lead character of another childhood favourite, Where the Wild Things Are (also brought to the screen ingeniously by Jonze this year).

Therefore, it makes sense that Wes Anderson would bring the story of one of literatures “coolest” creations to the cinema. He may not have much experience in animated films (with the exception of some stop-motion animation in The Life Aquatic). However, he has forged a career out of “cool” characters; not just in terms of attitude, but also in their iciness. The characters in each of his films, from Bottle Rocket to The Darjeeling Limited, are mostly aloof, indifferent and filled with an air of entitlement (much like a certain Mr. Fox). However, each of them feel a certain obligation towards their family – whether they like it or not. These themes are perfectly interwoven into the cinematic narrative of Fantastic Mr. Fox (the book was adapted for the screen by Anderson and regular collaborator Noah Baumbach).

George Clooney voices Mr. Fox, which makes sense because he is essentially the Danny Ocean of the animal kingdom. His undeniable charisma is turned up to 11 here as he plays a sly and incomparable chicken thief. His wife (Meryl Streep) makes him promise to give up his dangerous profession and settle down with her, especially considering the imminent birth of their first child. He agrees, and for almost a decade he keeps his promise. But the mid-life crisis arrives and suddenly writing a daily column for the local paper doesn’t cut it anymore. His strange pre-teen son (Jason Schwartzman) hasn’t grown up the way Fox had hoped and their new home is proving to be more expensive than anticipated. In an attempt to reclaim some thrills and escape the daily doldrums, he plans “one last heist” (we’ve heard that before). The mark: dangerous farmers Boggis, Bunce and Bean, whose delectable deposits of chickens, ducks and cider are too delicious to deny.

Fantastic Mr. Fox is oddly hilarious, enthralling and overwhelmingly heartwarming; it might even be the best film of Anderson's oeuvre. Part of the credit must not only go to the talented likes of Clooney, Streep and Schwartzman, but also Bill Murray, Willem Dafoe and Owen Wilson, who provide the vocal chords for some of the film's more memorable supporting characters. Special mention must go to acting amateurs Wallace Wolodarsky and Wes' brother Eric Chase Anderson. Wolodarsky nearly steals the show as Mr. Fox’s confidant and reluctant partner in crime Kylie (an opossum, of course). Eric Chase Anderson meanwhile gives a warm performance as the Fox family’s cousin Kristofferson.


Wes Anderson’s films are accused of feeling distant and cold, exemplified by his flattened mise-en-scene that continually keeps the viewer separated from his detached characters. I’m a big fan of Anderson’s style. However, his visual approach has often seemed like a unique trait without much deeper significance. Here, it highlights the storybook quality of the film. Each intricately orchestrated frame feels like a gloriously animated page of a picture book. Anderson has employed a team of ultra-talented stop-motion artists to achieve this (in painstaking manner no doubt). It’s not nearly as sleek as Henry Selick’s Coraline, but it isn’t supposed to be. The individual hairs on each of the animals and the gorgeous environment displayed in the film seem like the felt patches of a children’s book that are intended to be caressed against your cheek and held close to your chest.

You can pause any moment in an Alfred Hitchcock film and the captured frame will be so beautiful and so delicately composed that it would be worthy of hanging up as a work of art. Anderson achieves the same thing here, although the images conjured in Fantastic Mr. Fox would be better suited to the walls of your child’s bedroom. It is a film sure to be embraced by kids, adults and animals for generations to come.

4.5/5

Quickflix Charts - The top rentals of 2009

2009 has been a big year for movies. Every few weeks, movie lovers have gathered at the cinema to enjoy the latest event films such as Avatar, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen and Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince - and each have made an absolute killing at the box office.

But perhaps the more important films are the ones that entertained people in the comfort of their own homes. Films with lasting appeal; films that perhaps did not receive much attention upon its cinema release; films that continue to be beloved.

Therefore, it is my honour to present Quickflix's 25 most rented titles of 2009. There are plenty of blockbusters, but you might be surprised to see which smaller films were popular with members in the final year of this past decade. Let us know in the comments section below what some of your favourite rentals were in 2009!

14. WALL-E
11. Juno

and the top rental of 2009 is...

It makes me endlessly happy to see this excellent Coen Brothers flick take the top spot. Armed with a stellar cast that included George Clooney, Brad Pitt, Frances McDormand, Tilda Swinton and John Malkovich, the Coens delivered their funniest film since The Big Lebowski. It was a risky picture though; as dark and existentially perplexing as their previous film No Country for Old Men (which also found a spot in the top 25). It concludes in their typically unsettling and immediate manner, leaving the audience to consider that the previous 90 minutes has been one big (and undeniably hilarious) practical joke.

Does this mean their latest masterpiece A Serious Man is poised to take the top rental spot in 2010? We can only wait and see.

Burn After Reading now joins the ranks of previous top rentals Ratatouille (2008), Casino Royale (2007), Mr. and Mrs. Smith (2006), I Robot (2005), 50 First Dates (2004) and Bruce Almighty (2003).

Discuss: Is Burn After Reading a deserving victor? What were your favourite rentals this year?

Tripping up - Taking Woodstock DVD review

Taking Woodstock - Starring Demetri Martin, Imelda Staunton and Liev Schreiber. Directed by Ang Lee. Rated MA. Originally published August 25, 2009. By Simon Miraudo.

If Woodstock represented the coming-of-age of an entire generation, then surely Taking Woodstock is the ultimate coming-of-age film. Right? Well, not so much. Ang Lee’s latest is a mostly pleasant, mostly forgettable tale about the young man who helped host the most famous music festival in history. However, the film is light on the Rock and heavy on the Roll; it inoffensively passes you by and at the end of it all you can think is, 'well, that was ... nice'. Lee’s latest comes across as Cameron Crowe-lite. As anyone who has seen Elizabethtown will agree, that’s not a good thing.

Deadpan comedian Demetri Martin stars as Elliot Teichberg, a closeted interior decorator who has been forced to help his imposing mother (Imelda Staunton) and sickly father (Henry Goodman) run their flailing Catskills motel. Faced with foreclosure, Elliot contacts the recently displaced Woodstock Music Festival committee and offers them a venue: his parent’s land. Lord knows their motel could use the business of a couple thousand teenagers. Of course, much to the annoyance of the neighbours, more than a couple thousand show up. In fact, the final figure was somewhere north of 400,000. If you wanted admission to the Teichberg’s motel, you couldn’t be opposed to sharing your room with another person or six.

I’m not sure why they changed the last name of real-life host Elliot Tiber to Teichberg. After all, the film is based on Tiber’s memoir of the same name; there can’t have been too many other closeted motel owners who gave a home to Woodstock. Were they trying to keep his identity ambiguous? Regardless, Martin makes an impressive feature film debut in the lead role. At times he is frustratingly passive and he doesn’t quite sell the requisite coming-of-age revelation, but you can’t deny his charming appeal. Staunton and Goodman are also excellent as the parents who experience their own coming-of-age. There are a lot of pleasant surprises to be found in the film’s smaller roles. Liev Schreiber steals the show as a transvestite security guard, while Emile Hirsch brings some depth to an underwritten Vietnam vet.

Sadly, the wind is completely taken from the film’s sails (or should that be 'freak flag') in the third act, as all the drama disappears in a haze of Mary Jane. Many of the characters introduced at the beginning of the film are completely abandoned, while the rest decide to just ‘groove’ and experiment with drugs. I mean, hey, I’m no narc. It was Woodstock. I can dig it. But much in the same way that it’s no fun to be the only sober guest at a party, neither is it enjoyable watching characters giggling to themselves over something we can’t see. As the film plods to its conclusion, it begins to feel as if even Lee stopped paying attention. Maybe all that suspicious smoke finally got to him.

Ang Lee’s shining quality has always been his ability to find the universality of his subjects. At first glance, the Taiwanese director may not seem like a perfect fit for a film about an iconic American music festival. However, a quick scan of his filmography will reveal that he has previously captured both American cowboys and the British aristocracy with greater success than most filmmakers. Lee goes out of his way to make his subjects relatable, no matter how distant they may seem. Heck, he even turned the normally furious Hulk into a sad-sack with daddy issues. Unfortunately, Lee’s talent works against him in his latest film. The audience is given a grand tour behind the curtain of Woodstock; the tedious planning and approving of permits, the renting of motel rooms, the cleaning of porta-loos. Is this history’s greatest love-in or just another Big Day Out? The added realism strips away the wonder. Lee can’t tell us how the card trick works and then still expect us to think it’s magic.

The most glaring problem with Taking Woodstock is the complete omission of any notable music from the era. Sure, I understand that music rights are expensive, but this is like trying to make a biopic on Bill Gates and not being allowed to mention the word ‘Microsoft’. Even Wayne Campbell got Aerosmith to perform at his music festival in Wayne’s World 2. Does Mike Myers really have more clout than Ang Lee? Seemingly to compensate, Lee populates the film with tired hippy stereotypes to remind us that, yes, this film indeed takes place in the 1960’s. It adds to the overall disenchantment and relative failure of Taking Woodstock. It’s funny at times and even touching. But at no point did I feel like I was at Woodstock and surely that was the whole point.

2.5/5

Check out my other reviews here.

Quickflix Charts - The top rentals for December

Alright gang; here are the top 10 DVD rentals for the month of December, as Queued up by you.


Congratulations to Tom Hanks and that spectacular hairdo - you have claimed the top spot in the final monthly chart of 2009! A whole bunch of new releases stampeded their way into mailboxes this month, led by Terminator: Salvation, The Ugly Truth, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, Night at the Museum 2, Public Enemies and Bruno. Meanwhile, Twilight continues to prove its incredible stamina by grabbing 4th place. It is the oldest title in the entire top 10.

So that's it for Quickflix Charts in 2009! All that is left is to find out which DVD's were the most rented throughout the entire year! Keep an eye out in the coming days.

Discuss: What are your thoughts? What was the best film you saw on DVD this month?

30 December 2009

Aliens are people too - District 9 DVD review

District 9 - Starring Sharlto Copley. Directed by Neill Blomkamp. Rated MA. Originally published August 6, 2009. By Simon Miraudo.

If aliens ever visit our lovely planet, do you think they would be impressed or disgusted by the human race? I don’t mean in regards to our rampant, illogical racism or our obsession with killing one another. I’m talking specifically about YouTube. As an advanced race of super-intelligent beings emerge from the stars and finally make first contact, what are the odds that the rest of us will be gawking up with our iPhone’s instead of giving them a warm welcome. “Hey Trisha! Chek out this vid! WTF???” we’ll SMS to one another (or at least people who know someone called Trisha). What would get more hits? The alien invasion or that video of the laughing baby?

District 9 is an invasion movie for the YouTube generation. Director Neill Blomkamp does not lower himself to TMZ depths with his feature film debut, but instead delivers a potentially accurate account of alien/human relations through the use of interviews, news reports, CCTV footage and embedded reporters. All of it has been faked (obviously), but Blomkamp makes his sci-fi drama feel like an Errol Morris documentary. Blomkamp and producer Peter Jackson hypothesise that if aliens were ever to visit Earth, they would be rounded up and held in inhospitable refugee camps. An interesting theory, although it implies that human-kind is calm enough to respond to the unknown without launching countless nuclear missiles.

According to the film, an alien ship arrived over Johannesburg, South Africa more than twenty years ago. Discovered aboard the ship were numerous malnourished alien-beings referred to as Prawns, due to their Prawn-like appearance (racism has never been particularly inventive). With the world’s eyes on the South African government, the mostly-peaceful aliens were segregated from the human population and held in an area designated District 9. Over the years D9 turned into a ghetto of nightmares; slums that would make the cast of Slumdog Millionaire feel so lucky by comparison they’d likely break into another rendition of ‘Jai Ho’. Under the rule of MNU (a privately contracted division with plenty of secrets), a decision is made to move the prawns from D9 to the cleaner, smaller District 10. Wikus van der Merwe (Sharlto Copley) is hired to lead the transition. And then…ah, I really shouldn't give any more away.

District 9 is one of the greatest surprises I’ve been treated to in a long time. The trailers imply a sort of sci-fi mockumentary with the not-so-hidden agenda of discussing the rights of illegal aliens. Fear not. Although the film is dripping in satire (the correlation between the film and South Africa's explosive racial history is too obvious to discuss - and frankly, requires more room than is available here), Blomkamp is more concerned with delivering a balls-to-the-wall action film. District 9 has more in common with Aliens than Babel. Much like James Cameron’s sci-fi classic, Blomkamp builds an entirely believable universe with detailed alien creatures and some absolutely crazy extraterrestrial weaponry. The film is actually pretty damn funny as well, and harkens back to Jackson’s pre-Lord Of The Rings days; back when he used to make all those goofy, gory films like Bad Taste. The number of people that are liquefied or decapitated in District 9 almost becomes too great to count.

Sadly, the action comes at a price. The central premise of an alien refugee camp is terribly intriguing, but it is all but abandoned fairly early. The same goes for the film’s documentary style, which only re-emerges when it suits Blomkamp. He doesn’t commit to the cinema verite style as Matt Reeves did with the underrated Cloverfield. While the picture has some incredible action sequences, it feels as if Blomkamp didn’t know how to work it into a documentary form. The inconsistency is distracting at times, which is a shame because District 9 is genuinely special.

What mostly separates District 9 from other action films is the excellent character work. It was a bold move casting Copley in the lead role. Wikus is dorky, cowardly and sometimes just plain mean. Imagine a South African version of Steve Carell in The Office. This guy shouldn’t be an action hero, but somehow it works. His journey is the film’s central narrative, and his character’s evolution is both thrilling and touching. Also impressive is the characterisation of the prawns, most notably an intelligent engineer named Christopher who teams up with Wikus (for reasons I wouldn’t dare spoil). It is possibly one of the first times that a CG character and a real-life actor have engaged in a truly believable relationship on film. Jar Jar, eat your heart out.

4.5/5

Check out my other reviews here.

29 December 2009

Is Avatar the leading Best Picture contender?

On the 28th of December, 5777 nomination ballots were sent out to all voting members of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. Actors, writers, directors, producers and many others involved in each aspect of the filmmaking industry will decide on the films most worthy of Oscar glory. The mailing of ballots is perhaps not a monumental event, but nonetheless a significant moment for any film hoping for Academy consideration.

In what may prove to be serendipitous, James Cameron's Avatar led the U.S. box office to its biggest ever weekend over the Christmas break. It grossed $US75 million (the biggest ever second weekend in history), ahead of new releases Sherlock Holmes ($US62.4m) and Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel ($us48.9m). They contributed to a cumulative box office gross of $US270 million, almost $US10 million more than the weekend of July 18-20 2009, when The Dark Knight and Mamma Mia debuted to startling numbers.

Avatar has so far grossed $US623 million worldwide with no signs of slowing. It is looking more and more likely to crack the billion dollar mark by the time Oscar nomination ballots are due back on the 23rd of January 2010. It will be a tremendous feat and the Academy are likely to reward director James Cameron and his team accordingly. No one doubts that Avatar will sweep the technical categories of the Oscar ceremony (Best Visual Effects etc.). But can Avatar achieve the same success as Cameron's previous film Titanic? It seems unlikely that it (or any film) will match Titanic's $US1.8 billion gross. However, leading Oscar prognosticators believe the film might equal Titanic's haul of 11 Academy Awards - that includes claiming the Best Picture prize.

Pete Hammond over at the LA Times reports that Avatar was given a rapturous reception by the Academy at a packed members-only screening a couple of weeks ago. He continues on to claim it is now "the one to beat".

"Avatar seems strongly positioned to win Oscar's heart with its strong environmental and social messages, its not-so-thinly-veiled Bush bashing and, most important, its technological breakthroughs that present endless new possibilities for the movie industry. Make no mistake about it. It's the industry that is voting in this contest. I can see the academy that showered a record-tying 14 nominations and 11 Oscars on Cameron's last film, "Titanic," 12 years ago ready to do it all over again."
Hammond is not alone. Over at Movie City News, the Gurus of Gold also believe Avatar is the frontrunner in the Best Picture category, ahead of Jason Reitman's Up in the Air, Kathryn Bigelow's The Hurt Locker, Lee Daniels' Precious and Quentin Tarantino's Inglourious Basterds. Of course, this doesn't mean the critics believe the film deserves Best Picture over these other films. Movie City News also has a tally of Critics' Top 10 Mentions, which is topped by The Hurt Locker, Up in the Air, The Coen Brothers' A Serious Man, Pete Docter's Up and Inglourious Basterds. Avatar is 11th on this list.

So these are the facts. Avatar is making a ridiculous amount of money. Critics like it very much, but they don't love it. Audiences do love it however and the Academy would surely be aware that the inclusion of a beloved blockbuster in the Best Picture race would bring in viewers (I mean, that's why they expanded the category to 10 spots in the first place). Finally, it wouldn't be the first sweeping epic of Cameron's to claim Oscar glory.

So, yes, we can probably rest assured that Avatar will be nominated for Best Picture. And yes, based on the above, it wouldn't be crazy to consider Avatar a likely Best Picture winner (especially in the face of low-grossing former favourites Up in the Air and The Hurt Locker).

But what are the ramifications of Avatar winning Best Picture? Sure, the Oscars don't actually mean anything. Often, they're only brought up in conversation as movie lovers reflect on the Academy's most cringeworthy decisions (Forrest Gump over Pulp Fiction or Crash over Brokeback Mountain for instance). In fact, the Academy's declaration of "Best Picture" is ultimately pointless. Time will sort out the best films from the forgettable.

Therefore, the question becomes: "what can the Oscars mean?" What is more important for the film industry? Would we rather a zeitgeist capturing blockbuster (and certainly the most talked about film of the year) like Avatar be named the Best Film of 2009? Or does the glory need to go to the smaller films that deserve a box office bump? Does the attention need to be directed to filmmakers and screenwriters who could use some publicity and respect (the team behind 500 Days of Summer for instance)?

In my opinion, Avatar was a very good film. But it didn't match the genre-shattering heights of Inglourious Basterds, nor the touching honesty of 500 Days of Summer, the comedy and human drama of Up in the Air, the tearjerking power of Up, the existential mania of A Serious Man, the haunting beauty of Where the Wild Things Are or even the migraine-inducing thrills of The Hurt Locker.

Avatar was supremely well made and deserves to be remembered as a cinematic classic, if only for its technical achievements. However, if it claims Best Picture, it will be remembered as one of the many undeserving winners - an overrated movie. Perhaps that is the fate for every Best Picture winner (the backlash against Slumdog Millionaire has already begun to emerge). I would far prefer a filmmaker like Spike Jonze or Pete Docter or Kathryn Bigelow to experience the brief fleeting glory of the Oscars. Avatar was good filmmaking, but it wasn't brave filmmaking, and for once in Academy Award history, it would be nice to see a brave film take the top prize.

The nominees for the 82nd Academy Awards will then be announced February 2nd, 2010. The Oscar ceremony will take place on March 7th, 2010.

Discuss: What does the Best Picture Oscar mean to you? Should the prize go to the film that best capture the zeitgeist of the year, or perhaps a lesser known film that featured brave filmmaking?

Kevin Smith's Cop Out trailer debut

source: traileraddict.com

It seems lately that filmmakers only make movie trailers - especially if the onslaught of recent trailer debuts is anything to go by. The latest 2-minute film comes from Kevin Smith. The short picture is called Cop Out (formerly known as A Couple of Dicks) and stars Bruce Willis and Tracy Morgan. I hope he decides to expand it to feature length!

Cop Out is the first film directed by Smith not based on his own original screenplay. Las Vegas' writers Robb and Marc Cullen are responsible for this buddy comedy, in which two LAPD detectives must track down a stolen baseball card, rescue a Mexican woman and face off against memorabilia obsessed gangsters.

The film is also Smith's first for a major studio (Warner Brothers) after spending his illustrious career making films for Miramax and The Weinstein Brothers. The box-office failure of his last film, Zack and Miri Make A Porno, turned out to be a breaking point in their relationship, forcing Smith to head off in search of greener pastures.

And the result is this! Check the trailer out and let us know your thoughts:



OK, so it's not hilarious. But Smith works best blue, so I'm hanging out for a red-band trailer before I pass any further judgement. Besides, Morgan and Willis look like they make a good team. If Cop Out can capture the chemistry and comedy of those great 1980's police movies Beverly Hills Cop and 48HRS, then perhaps this will be Smith's first genuine box office hit.

Willis and Morgan are joined by Ana de la Reguera, Adam Brody, Kevin Pollak and Seann William Scott. Cop Out hits Australian cinemas February 25th 2010.

Discuss: Favourite Kevin Smith film? Clerks is a corker, but my heart belongs to Chasing Amy.

New Inception trailer is exciting/confusing

source: traileraddict.com

A second teaser trailer for Christopher Nolan's upcoming thriller Inception has debuted online. Submit yourself to it and have your mind bended accordingly.

The first trailer for this mysterious film had us perplexed, but the new footage is something else. Little is known about the plot, except for the oft-repeated logline that Inception is a "sci-fi actioner set within the architecture of the mind". We also know that Leonardo DiCaprio stars as a CEO involved in some sort of scandal.

What we know for sure is that the film features one of the best assembled casts in recent history. DiCaprio (no acting slouch himself) is joined by Ellen Page, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Marion Cotillard, Ken Watanabe, Cillian Murphy, Tom Hardy and Michael Caine. See if you can spot everyone in the trailer below.



Woah. There is a lot to digest in that trailer, so I understand if you need to take a moment and watch it again. I'll still be here.

OK, done?

Although Inception may not reach the billion dollar heights of Nolan's previous film The Dark Knight, there is a good chance this film could be a zeitgeist capturing hit- the first sci-fi flick of a the next decade and a new era. Here's hoping.

Meanwhile, the official poster has also debuted online.

It looks like Nolan has hired the same marketing team as the one who designed the campaign for The Dark Knight.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Inception opens July 22nd, 2010.

Discuss: Hypothetical - tomorrow you can watch either Inception or a sequel to The Dark Knight, but not both. What do you choose?

27 December 2009

Saving Sherlock - Sherlock Holmes review

Sherlock Holmes - Starring Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law and Rachel McAdams. Directed by Guy Ritchie. Rated M. By Simon Miraudo.

Well, well, well, what’s all this then? A smart action movie? I’m already suspicious. Just what are you hiding Holmes? Padding in the second act? A lazy dénouement? Come on, out with it! Since when does an action movie respect, nay, intrigue its audience? Guy Ritchie’s Sherlock Holmes may not exactly be cerebral, but it’s surprisingly thoughtful, articulate, and dare I say it, clever. In a year in which actioners featured robots with arthritis and sinking ice, Sherlock Holmes might as well be considered a work of genius.

Ritchie’s take on Arthur Conan Doyle’s classic literary figure Sherlock Holmes is energetic and vivacious. In fact, the story of the great detective feels less like a police procedural and more like a James Bond film. Makes sense really, as Ritchie’s Holmes is about as different to previous adaptations as Casino Royale was to its predecessor in the Bond series, Die Another Day. The style is indeed uniquely Ritchie (plenty of slow-motion; expanded explanations of scenes that took place earlier) yet it always feels faithful to the source material. Perhaps that can be attributed to Doyle’s rich slate of characters, each of whom have been on life-support for too long and have finally been given a shot of adrenaline to the heart.

The film begins with detectives-for-hire Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) and Dr. John Watson (Jude Law) stopping the dastardly Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong) from murdering another young women in the name of black magic. Blackwood is a worthy foe – just not worthy enough it seems. Having wrapped up their final case, Watson is ready to move away from Holmes and begin his life with fiancée Mary (Kelly Reilly). Holmes doesn’t dislike Mary, but he certainly doesn’t like the way in which she’s stealing away his other half. Having early retirement imposed upon him, Holmes retreats into his bedroom to experiment on gunpowder, flies and his dog – that is when he’s not bare-knuckle boxing with overbearing brutes. Consider it a mid-life crisis for a mad genius.

Blackwood is hung for his crimes and is soon declared dead by Watson himself. But, as is the case with all movie nasties, the dead don’t stay dead long. Blackwood is (supposedly) living large and loving it, causing havoc and spreading fear throughout the streets of London. Holmes and Watson’s final case is reopened, and even though widespread chaos and unspeakable evil threatens the lives of all in England, Holmes is more than a little excited to be back in action with the reluctant Watson in tow. The audience is then treated to the duos impressive powers of deduction and a mystery that is genuinely mysterious.

Robert Downey Jr. applies himself to the role of Holmes with aplomb. It’s an intriguing alternate take on Downey’s stable of frantic, sarcastic, aloof heroes. He could have easily given us Tony Stark with an English accent, but he doesn’t. Stark is overjoyed with his own intellect; glad to be smarter than everyone around him. Holmes is similar; except that he seems angry that no one else comes close to challenging his brilliance. I could imagine Law perhaps once being a frontrunner for the role of Holmes, but I feel he would have been too smarmy or even too charming. He’s a revelation here as Watson, reminding audiences that he was always at his best in supporting roles (The Talented Mr. Ripley, A.I., Road to Perdition).

Mark Strong and Eddie Marsan (as Inspector Lestrade) position themselves as two of the best character actors working today. Rachel McAdams, as Holmes former love and con-woman Irene Adler does not fare as well as the other cast members. For someone supposed to be Holmes’ equal, she never seems quite as quick, or frankly, as devious as he. McAdams is a talented actress terribly miscast; imagine if the far feistier Carey Mulligan or the smouldering Melanie Laurent had scored the role instead.

The mechanics of the plot feel organic and genuinely surprising, which is the least we should expect from Sherlock Holmes and more than we should expect from an action film as exciting as this. The fight sequences and action set pieces are gripping and plentiful; perhaps only the final showdown is a disappointment. The film is far from perfect; the Irene Adler subplot is tiresome, the finale is somewhat unsatisfying and there are moments where the script could have been funnier, as it too often relies on the charm of the stars for laughs. But Sherlock Holmes is worth celebrating. It heralds the return of a literary giant as well as a formerly beloved director. It is also a homecoming celebration for Downey Jr., who finally certifies himself as a bankable leading man; an intensely watchable action star, comedian and dramatic actor. The only crime here is that it’s taken him this long to arrive.

4/5

Check out my other reviews here.

25 December 2009

Come on! Let's 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 Jennifer, The Hurt Locker is powerful, visceral filmmaking!"
"And I'm telling you Simon, I'm going to powerfully and viscerally sock you in the 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:


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.


Fantastic Mr. Fox statistics!

source: awardsdaily.com

The Oscar campaign for Wes Anderson's Fantastic Mr. Fox is focusing on the spectacular statistics surrounding the making of the stop-motion animated film - and it seems to be working. Click on the poster below to see it in hi-res. How about those stats!

Although Pixar's Up has long been considered a shoo-in for the Best Animated Feature prize, Mr. Fox has proven to be quite popular in the precursor awards. It has already won Best Animated Feature at the Los Angeles Film Critics Association Awards and the New York Film Critics Circle Awards. It also won Best Adapted Screenplay at the San Diego Film Critics Society Awards. While the Indiana Film Journalists awarded it Runner Up Best Film of the Year.

I personally loved Fantastic Mr. Fox (I'll publish my review closer to its January 1st release date). Although it's not quite as good as Up in my opinion, it would be a worthy Best Animated Feature Oscar nominee. Frankly, it would be a worthy Best Picture nominee too!

Discuss: Does FMF have a shot at the Best Animated Feature Oscar?

24 December 2009

Overkill - The Lovely Bones review

The Lovely Bones - Starring Saoirse Ronan, Stanley Tucci and Mark Wahlberg. Directed by Peter Jackson. Rated M. By Simon Miraudo.

Peter Jackson is no stranger to the pressures of adapting a book to film. His last effort at such a task earned him a number of Academy Awards, millions of dollars at the box office and the rare feat of bringing new fans to the property whilst also satisfying the original devotees. He, along with collaborative screenwriter Fran Walsh, understands that elements of the original source must be changed during the adaptation to film. However, he also appreciates the importance of replicating the spirit of the source material. This was evident during each and every installment of the Lord of the Rings series. It is not at all evident in his interpretation of Alice Sebold’s bestselling novel The Lovely Bones, a film about spirits seemingly without one of its own.

Fans of Sebold’s novel (a category which I happily classify myself as part of) have always known that a film adaptation of The Lovely Bones could be overwhelmingly breathtaking to behold. We also knew that it would be a near impossible feat to pull off. Not that there can’t be good book-to-film adaptations; lord knows there are plenty of them. And The Lovely Bones isn't exactly a complex book; it just doesn’t exactly cater to the medium of film. It is cinematically unfriendly. The third act takes the reader in a very unexpected direction; a direction that only works in relation to the deliberate pacing of the first two acts. Sebold holds it together. Jackson doesn’t even take the risk; he mashes the book into a bite-sized, easy-to-swallow treat and subsequently forgets what the book was all about in the first place.

Susie Salmon (Saoirse Ronan) is a fourteen-year-old girl with a crush on a handsome boy, a fixation on photography and a deep love for her family, including her father (Mark Wahlberg), mother (Rachel Weisz), grandmother (Susan Sarandon) and younger brother and sister (Christian Thomas and Rose McIver). She’s a happy girl and they are a happy family; but sometimes terrible things happen to good people. One day she is stopped on the way home from school by Mr. Harvey (Stanley Tucci), an odd but unremarkable man who wants to show her the underground fort he has made in the middle of the local cornfield. Susie is young, curious and eager. She climbs down into the fort and is murdered at the hands of Mr. Harvey (the crime is far more nefarious and graphically detailed in the book).

Susie discovers that death is in fact not the end. Her spirit emerges from the underground fort and enters back into the real world, eventually passing on to another spiritual plane; not quite Heaven or Earth, but somewhere in-between. From here, she witnesses her family dealing with her death, their struggle to move on, and their frustrating hunt for the killer. It’s a premise that dances very closely to movie-of-the-week triteness. Although Sebold managed to avoid such corniness with her matter-of-fact prose, Jackson dives head-first into the saccharine melodrama of it all. Characters wail; they curse the heavens and howl “noooooo” into the sky. In quieter moments they delicately address one another and speak of the possible “in-between place” that Susie inhabits, while strings swell triumphantly in the background over an angelic choral singer. You half expect the love theme to Titanic to strike up at any moment.

Jackson has equipped himself with a cast and crew perfectly capable of delivering an excellent movie. You would imagine the fact that they were working with such an intriguing premise and such rich source material to only enhance the quality of the project. Sadly, Jackson’s film never had a chance. It is the very bones of his Lovely Bones that were broken from the beginning. The script carelessly compresses the decades-long events of the book into fleeting moments. For the sake of brevity I assume, but at the cost of emotional engagement. Susie’s family undergoes such overwhelming changes of personality at seemingly every turn; they make life-changing decisions based on information that the audience is not given (nor can they even infer). Worst of all, the script overlooks the heart of the book (Susie’s family) and instead focuses on the hunt for the killer.

The talented cast struggles with, and is eventually failed by, the material. They are not aided by their director either, who seemingly stood slightly off screen and urged them to “act bigger!” Saoirse Ronan and Stanley Tucci fare worst, but perhaps only because they are given the most screen-time. Susie never seems like a young girl, but instead an angelic, breathy soothsayer. Mr. Harvey meanwhile is presented like a minstrelsy sex predator; upon meeting him, no one could ever conceivably doubt that he is guilty of murder.

Just to reiterate, I don’t place the blame on the cast, but instead Jackson. He needs the performances to be big so that they don’t get swallowed by the special effects, particularly during the sequences that take place at Susie’s “in-between place”. Interestingly, shooting briefly halted back in 2008 when Jackson and the film’s art director disagreed over the film’s depiction of the afterlife. I guess the art director wasn’t a fan of What Dreams May Come, because that is the world that Jackson has created here. There are glimpses of boundless imagination, but they are suffocated by the nauseatingly over-sentimental depiction of life after life. It’s like getting a syringe full of sugar right into your forehead. Peter Jackson is a talented filmmaker, and his cast is made up of fine actors. I look forward to their next films. Alice Sebold’s novel is all about life (and death) lessons. Hopefully, Jackson has learnt his.

2/5

Check out my other reviews here.

23 December 2009

Would you like to star in the new Coen Bros film?

source: truegritcasting.com

Are you a 12 to 16 year old girl with a penchant for existential dramas with a twinge of black comedy? You are?! Good news! The Coen Brothers want you to star in their upcoming remake of True Grit!

Paramount Pictures have put out a casting call for any young girl eager to take on the lead role of Mattie in the Coen Brothers' latest. No experience necessary.

Here is what they are looking for:

"Fourteen year old Mattie is a simple, tough as nails, young woman in post-Civil War Arkansas. Her unusually steely nerves and straightforward manner are often surprising to those she meets. She possessed plenty of true grit and determination. Enough so that she insists on going with 2 marshals to hunt down the killer of her father. We are looking for a girl who's tough, strong and tells it like it is. Must be able to portray Caucasian."

The lucky young actress will join Jeff Bridges, Josh Brolin and Matt Damon. The Coens had previously stated that their remake would be based less on the film starring John Wayne, and more so on the novel by Charles Portis, in which Mattie is the main character.

So, if you are willing to spend some time in the U.S., attend an open call or submit an audition tape online! Check out the rest of the details here.

Discuss: I'm a 21 year old male with sideburns and a 'fro. BUT, I am able to "portray Caucasian". Have I got a shot?

Hellish delight - Drag Me To Hell DVD review

Drag Me To Hell - Starring Alison Lohman, Justin Long and Lorna Raver. Directed by Sam Raimi. Rated MA. Originally published July 21, 2009. By Simon Miraudo.

To describe Sam Raimi’s Drag Me To Hell as “kind-of scary” is like describing Bruno as “kind-of funny” or Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen as “kind-of stupid.” Some movies are just made for hyperbolic reviews and Raimi’s latest is one of them: it’s a rollicking rollercoaster ride through Hades that is certain to make teenage boys heave popcorn in the air in gorgasmic delight; teenage girls will shriek both in repulsion and glee; and damn near everyone else will whoop and laugh and holler as if they’ve wandered into a midnight screening of Rocky Horror Picture Show. Drag Me To Hell is a gin-u-wine endorphin generator that might be a wildcard contender for best film of the year. Too hyperbolic? Well, wait until you see the movie.

Christine Brown (Alison Lohman) is a sweet, timid loan officer who is just the kind of horror heroine that is naive enough to wind up in some really awful situation. Her prickly pear arrives in the form of an elderly woman named Sylvia Ganush (Lorna Raver); a one-eyed Romanian who’s about to have her home repossessed. Christine doesn’t want to reject the old lady’s third loan application, but she also needs to prove to her boss that she can make the ‘tough decisions’ and earn that Assistant Manager position at the bank. So she sends grandma packing. I cannot stress enough how much she will regret this decision.

What Ganush lacks in financial savvy she makes up for in gypsy curses, and she dooms Christine to suffer three days of supernatural torment before eventually being dragged to ... well, hell. Without giving too much away, Christine endures some of the grossest, funniest, most horrifying physical and emotional torture since Cheryl unwisely decided to stroll through the woods in The Evil Dead. Seriously, Lohman is an incredible sport for putting up with everything Raimi throws at her. With the help of her charmingly concerned boyfriend (Justin Long) and a surprisingly expensive medium (Dileep Rao), Christine attempts to call off the demons. The thing is, these demons don’t take too kindly to reasoning. I’ll stop before I ruin any more of the film. And I haven’t even gotten to the goat yet!

Drag Me To Hell is Raimi’s first horror film since he completed his Evil Dead trilogy in 1993, and I didn’t realise how much I had missed him. The film was co-written by Sam with his brother Ivan before he abandoned the genre to work on the Spiderman trilogy (maybe you’ve heard of it). In the interim, thrill seekers had to resort to whatever Saw sequel or J-horror remake would be playing in cinemas for their fortnightly jumpscare. During that time we forgot that scary movies weren’t simply comprised of creepy children, grizzly torture sequences and female nudity (although they can sometimes be very important ingredients). Raimi exercises both Hitchcockian restraint and Argentian-excess to create one of the most effective horror films of the decade. It’s like the greatest fairground haunted house in the world.

As scary as the film is, it is still downright hilarious in all the right (and sometimes very wrong) ways. I fear that the more casual horror fans won’t quite get the joke; the joke of course being that the entire film is actually One. Big. Joke. Drag Me To Hell is both an old-school celebration of classic eighties horror flicks and a pitch-perfect spoof of modern-day terror-tropes, from its Danny Elfman-aping score to its Ghostbusters-esque spectres. It would all be laughable if it still weren’t so damn frightening. Raimi teases the audience like a master seducer (note one sequence featuring a pesky fly flirting with Lohman’s upper lip). Each moment is almost unwatchable for its intensity, but you’d be crazy to look away. His scattershot Spiderman 3 felt like it came from a director unsure of himself. I think it's safe to say Raimi has his mojo back.

I mentioned previously that most audiences might not appreciate the tongue-in-cheek silliness of Drag Me To Hell. They might be expecting an Unborn or a Grudge or something terrible like that, and misunderstand Raimi’s goofy project as absurd. I implore audiences to give the film a chance and understand that Raimi and co are laughing with you. This is a spoof movie of the highest degree; one which stands up as a solid scary movie as well. Drag Me To Hell is a genre-buster; one of the funniest and most satisfying films of 2009, and quite simply a perfect horror film. It also has possibly the greatest final-reel shock since Carrie. I dare you to walk out without a smile on your face. A twisted, demented smile.

5/5

*Drag Me To Hell was also one of my 10 favourite films of 2009. You can see the rest of the list here.

Check out my other reviews here.