AUGUST RUSH

I had high expectations from seeing the trailer for this film months ago. It finally came out in Australia on Thursday and we went and saw it last night.

To say the film peaked at the trailer wouldn’t be an overstatement.

THE SET UP? Evan Taylor is eleven years old and he lives at a boys home in New York state. He doesn’t want to be placed with a family because he is waiting for his parents to find him, deep down he believes that they always wanted him. He stays sane in the face of rejection and bullying through music. He doesn’t have an ipod or anything but he finds music in everything, the wind, footsteps, etc etc. The audience soon learns the genesis of this budding music protege is his parents. A Juilliard trained classical cellist mother and a blue-collar irish rocker father. And their musical romance is a one-night-stand. Evan leaves the boys home and travels to New York to find his parents. The rest of the film is the journey of Evan, his mother and his father to finding each other, unsurprisingly, music is their guide.

THE CAST?
Freddie Highmore is Evan Taylor (a.k.a August Rush). The London native does well in a near flawless American accent and few actors of his age are able to encapsulate pure joy as Highmore does in most of his roles, but excellently in August Rush. Surprisingly for a young actor, even if he is the central character, Highmore gets top billing and it is well deserved.
Keri Russel plays Lyla Novacek, the cellist. I’ve had a girl-crush on Russel ever since Felicity. Just to look at her onscreen is a joy, but in this she actually pulls off the Juilliard trained cellist well. And in most parts, the seeking mother is well realised too. On a side note, there is something ridiculously sensual about cellists that I find totally alluring (in a 100% platonic way).
I wish I could say the same for Jonathan Rhys Meyers. (I’ve had the opposite of a crush on him since Bend it but I’m not letting that little thing get in the way of an objective assessment of his performance). Meyers falls short as the irish front man, Louis Connelly, and love interest to Russel’s character. Something about him seemed like it didn’t fit – a round peg in a square hole type situation. It seems Meyer’s is trying his best but it just isn’t working for him. I personally believe they needed a slightly more masculine ‘leading man’ opposite Russel’s sweetness. But Meyer’s isn’t the only mis-cast actor in this film.
Another is Robin Williams. Though I haven’t mentioned his character in the set up, Williams plays Wizard – a kind of Fagin (from Oliver Twist) who fosters Evan’s budding musical gift (for his own gain). Its kind of hard to express how Williams is a mis-cast here, but saying he is ‘faganesque’ would lead you to see my point.
Terrence Howard with his beautiful, dewey eyes plays the child services officer handling Lyla’s claim. Howard is not a mis-cast here and brings great depth to the amount of screen time awarded to his character.

WHY YOU SHOULD SEE THIS FILM? As to be expected the music is rather spectacular. There is some likable rhythmic editing around the better musical pieces. The performances, with the exception of Howard, all lack something, the something is less in Russell and Highmore than others. The characters are developed but Highmore’s character in the middle and towards the end seems to clash with what the audience has learnt thus far about him. Also SPOILER ALERT the ending is too abrupt, as the audience we have journeyed with these characters as they seek to find truth through the whole film and the moment where they find each other is over practically before it begins.
Its not a must see, let me put it that way. But it is a rather cute fairy tale style story of love.

WHO SHOULD YOU SEE IT WITH? Preferably someone not like me, who will laugh inappropriately and snicker at the tragic lines.

ANYTHING TO KNOW ABOUT? Not really. Although, just on a personal note, it bugged me how they totally romanticised and glorified what was a one-night-stand between Lyla and Louis. -But this is true to the fairy tale template.

THIS FILM GETS 3 GOLD STARS.

THE KINGDOM

I finally saw this film on DVD the other day. When I first saw the trailer I was intrigued. I love movies that explore topical issues, especially if they are coming from the Hollywood machine.

Then there was the thing that Michael Mann was one of the producers. As a director I have really appreciated his work so I started to get excited about The Kingdom.

Then I heard it was basically a action film so I lost interest and, yeah, only saw it the other day on DVD.

I wished I had seen it on the big screen.

THE SET UP? After an attack in an American compound by radical Islamic suicide bombers in Saudi Arabia, four FBI agents head to the Kingdom to find the masterminds behind the bombing(s) and bring them to justice (read: killing them). Things get complicated when they end up in harms way.

THE CAST?
Jamie Foxx is doing his thing as Ronald Fleury, the FBI division leader who takes the team to Saudi Arabia.
Ashraf Barhom – I wanna give guy the billing he deserves, in the film (and consequently on IMDB) he got billing after the four actors playing FBI agents. This actor you’ve never heard of is exceptional in this film. I had never seen him in anything before The Kingdom but look out for more from this talented actor in the future. Barhom plays Colonel Faris Al Ghazi, the Saudi police officer charged with ‘babysitting’ the FBI agents. Barhom is able to invoke such empathy in the audience for his character and his character’s situation – more than any other actor in the film.
> Chris Cooper is near his Adaptation-best as bomb expert Grant Sykes.
Jennifer Garner does her best to be un-Sydney Bristow -like as CSI type Janey Mayes. Garner is quite good in this, she shows that she is capable of acting outside of her type-cast, though that may sound hard to believe (considering the genre of this film) and not be the central character.
Jason Bateman plays computer/analyst geek Adam Leavitt. I like Bateman, he can practically do no wrong – he does seem slightly out of place in this film because of his comedic and irreverent recent past, but he still does the job well.
Jeremy Piven does HIS thing as fast talking US diplomat on the ground in the Kingdom, there to get the FBI agents out and back on home asap.
Piven has the best line in the film: [to Janet Mayes while preparing her to meet the Saudi Prince] Can we dial down the boobies? [Mayes is wearing a cream tank top (presumably with t-shirt bra) and cargo pants].

WHY YOU SHOULD SEE THIS FILM? While this film could be described as primarily an action film, it was never intended that way – it was intended to be an exploration into Middle Eastern politics and the extent of US involvement in the oil riddled lands. This film shows both sides to the issue, looking at what it all means for the Americans and the muslims (this is the Middle Eastern perspective shown in the film). The final lines of the film are exquisite in their irony and respective selfish perspectives. Merely as an exercise in learning more about the world we live in I’d recommend The Kingdom. All technical aspects of the film are also well done.

WHO SHOULD YOU SEE IT WITH? Anyone who likes controversial films or action films. However it would be better to see it with people who enjoy controversial films so you can have a debrief about it afterwards.

ANY BITS TO KNOW ABOUT? Lots of action – bombs, gunfire. There is a reasonable amount of swearing thrown around – but it is highly amusing to see how the Saudi police officers react to the ‘profanities’.

THIS FILM GETS 3.5 GOLD STARS

JUMPER

Against my much better judgment I went to see this ……”film” last night with my film pal extraordinaire, Marita (my cousin). Really I should have known better, I mean half a star from Margaret and David wasn’t exactly a vote of confidence.

…but the trailer made it look so good!….

(Well at least I didn’t waste any money, and I don’t really wanna waste much time on it now so this will be quick and relatively painless – I hope)

THE SET UP? While the concept has promise, the plot and resulting script are shameful. David Rice is a JUMPER – a human being able to teleport himself instantly to any location in the world he can visualize. He discovers this gift as a fifteen year old dork with an impossible crush on friend, Millie. He leaves home and begins his career as a bank robber. Years later he’s told by fellow jumper, Griffin, that jumpers have been hunted down and killed by the paladins (stupid name) for centuries and he is within the their sights. So David returns to see Millie and take her to Rome – on a plane. The rest of the film is a wild jumper-and-paladin chase around the globe with David, Griffin, and Millie as they run from Paladin leader Roland.

THE CAST?
Hayden Christensen plays David. I always had the sneaking suspicion that this guy couldn’t act, but because – I don’t know – he was just so darn cute I thought I’d apply naivety in his case. No more. Christensen really needs to find a day job – and so does the person who cast him.
Jamie Bell is Griffin. Billy Elliot is growing up and, unlike his co-star, is growing into a fine young actor. Its a massive shame that Bell’s character wasn’t cast as the film’s protagonist. Bell plays a much more likable character who evokes empathy and understanding in the audience while Christensen frustrates as the selfish and self-important David.
I just wanna know why in the hell were these characters written this way?!
Rachel Bilson is Millie. Arghhhh…. Just….bad. (but not as bad as Christensen). And, not that this is Bilson’s fault, but she looks nothing like the younger version of Millie at age fifteen – its like its a different character.
Samuel L. Jackson plays Agent Roland. Sammy L, Sammy L what are we going to do with you? His performance here is so UNmentionable that all I can say is his white hair piece was an awesome abomination.

WHY SHOULD YOU SEE THIS FILM? I hope I’ve made it pretty clear you shouldn’t.

WHO SHOULD YOU SEE IT WITH? Assuming you’ll do what I did and ignore all your inner thoughts instructing you that watching your dog throw up his meaty-bites would be better viewing than this drivel…it wouldn’t really matter who you went with.

ANY BITS TO KNOW OF? Besides bad acting, a bad hair piece and rather dull SFX, there is some electronic related violence – but you’re not going to see it anyway so no need to go any further.

THIS FILMS GETS 1 GOLD STAR and it belongs solely to Jamie Bell, and the boom operator who did his job really well.

It was just incredibly frustrating to watch the potential of this concept of jumping/teleportation squandered on this.

THERE WILL BE BLOOD

>INITIAL RANTING After a rather shocking day, winding up a five-week long saga over a computer I bought (I’m fine now, thanks for asking) my dad insisted we go see “the movie about the oil”.

Not wanting to spoil the surprise (that the film was less about oil and more about Daniel Day Lewis), we headed off to my work (where we see movies for free, oh yeah, you’re so totally jealous).

MORE RANTING/THE SET UP? I jokingly say There Will Be Blood is about Daniel Day Lewis because that is probably the first thing you knew about it. In fact when I first saw the poster on apple trailers I thought it was some shocking horror movie, the words “There Will Be Blood” tend to evoke in me feelings of horror rather than excellent acting. But when I heard that the aforementioned actor was in it and the rather spectacular Paul Dano (of Little Miss Sunshine) I was there!
For those of you who haven’t seen the trailer yet and are a little in the dark as to what “the new Daniel Day Lewis movie” is about I’ve youtubed it for your convenience.

The basic set up is self-titled “oil man” Daniel Plainview and his “partner”, only son H.W. (about 7 y/o) are told about a province rich in oil. The majority of the film takes place at this province, Little Boston. As I sit here trying to think about how to write this film’s plot overview I am suddenly struck by the realisation that there isn’t really that much of a plot. Its a really character driven (who would have guessed?) piece. It kind of has the feel of really well developed characters being put in a series of connected and unconnected situations and seeing what happens and where things end up. I know this is probably heresy to all those millions of critics who proclaim this film as brilliant – which it is – but not a great deal of plot happening.

The really interesting “plot” developments occur between the exchanges of Plainview and Eli Sunday, Little Boston’s protege evangelical minister (read: televangelist, without the tube).

THE CAST?
>Daniel Day Lewis embodies Daniel Plainview. As fan-flamin’-tastic Day Lewis is, I can’t help feeling I thought he was so good in this because we’ve all been told he is so good in this (via reviews/awards/etc). Maybe I’m being too harsh on the greatest actor of his generation.
Paul Dano is Eli Sunday. Dano excels in this truly disturbing depiction of God’s anointed, I shudder to think where he did his research. If you’ve seen the trailer and the clip linked below (and especially if you are a Christian) Dano’s performance in these short clips should send shivers down your spine. I feel like I’ve seen aspects of Sunday in a few places in different “houses of God” over the years, however this is like those memories, but in my worst nightmares, and if I was on crack. “Overacted.” – That statement was made to me last night by one of my colleagues at the cinema. I think not, Dano’s just performing as the performer who is Eli Sunday. Dano shows he’s a great actor here, and can hold his own again you know who. But a part of me felt I was seeing Dwayne with a different haircut, a dated wardrobe, and a religion of church rather than Nietzsche. Am I wrong?
Dillon Freasier plays H.W. Plainview. This kid is too cute. But I feel somehow inadequate to judge his performance – its one of those that could go either way – its either genius or really bad. I’d like to err on the side of genius. (Freasier has no other credits on imdb except this film.)

Check this out and click on the “I have abandoned” clip just to the right of the screen that will come up.

Full on, eh?! I watched this clip before I saw the film and to the actors’ credit, the way you imagine the context of this scene within the whole film would be (through the acting of Day Lewis and Dano), is dead on.

WHY SHOULD YOU SEE THIS FILM? If the above clip doesn’t intrigue you enough, let me tell you more. The cinematography is gripping and awfully beautiful, the music is amazing – really new, really fresh, really different – possibly a bit too overwhelming at times but maybe that’s what they wanted. You know when music in films (or like, LOST) is just so in your face and makes you feel claustrophobic, horrified, squeamish and entranced at the same time. Yeah, be prepared.

WHO SHOULD YOU SEE IT WITH? Hmmm…. preferably someone who will want to dismantle it with you after. I don’t think I need to tell you not to take kids to a film with this title.

ANY BIT TO KNOW OF? Awe inspiring acting and music. Some rather strong themes – pertaining to twisted versions of Christianity – abound, as well as the odd unexpected bullet. Not much else.

Actually I didn’t really like this film, but I have to practice what I preach and judge it on whether it was good or bad. Its oh so good: THIS FILM GETS 4.5 GOLD STARS.

Sorry it took so long

I hope you all out there will indulge this very Australian-centric post.Today, after decades of waiting Australia’s indigenous population will finally hear an official apology from the current Australian government for previous Australian governments policies of removing aboriginal children from their families. This was government policy and happened for half a century in Australia and was the leading cause of the degradation of their culture.Unlike some commonwealth and colonised countries, Australia shuns its indigenous peoples and has up until now failed to officially acknowledge the irrevocable damage caused by its governmental policies.Today this is changing. Thank God. There has been very few Australian films (full stop, but especially) that have dealt with issues of aboriginality. It would seem. not only do we want them ignored in our “multicultural” society but also in our entertainment. However there is one film that comes to mind, by the skilled and experienced Australian director Phillip Noyce: Rabbit Proof Fence.If you haven’t seen this film I encourage you to see it, depending on where you live it may be hard to find it. There are also several clips of the film on youtube.Last year I wrote a paper for my Australian cinema class about how aboriginality has been shown throughout Australia’s film history. Here is an excerpt:”The media is often a reflection of the dominant attitudes and values of a society; the medium of film is no exception. Through looking at Australian films of the last century we are able learn something of the attitudes that existed towards the indigenous population. Firstly it is important to note that it is only recently, in the last twenty years, that indigenous Australians have taken positions behind the camera. Since the 1920’s aboriginals have been in front of camera, blatantly portrayed, almost without exception, as savages. Exploitation of indigenous Australians in film was commonplace, further accentuating the belief of the aboriginal as ‘other’. They were either seen as part of the flora and fauna, mysterious forces to overcome, or ‘sub-hominids’. Racial prejudice continued into the 1970’s, perhaps in a more sophisticated fashion than in earlier days but was manifest in the misrepresentation of history, the aboriginal culture and oversimplifying moral and social issues. Indigenous characters were crafted to add to the stereotyped ideas about the aboriginal people rather than the characters being individuals who were also aboriginal. The use of aboriginals in film was never as protagonist, the aboriginal characters were never designed to be understood by the audiences, they served the function of savage, or noble savage.”…“Films exploring indigenous issues in Australia do not come more perfectly realised than Phillip Noyce’s Rabbit Proof Fence. Noyce left Hollywood, where he had established himself as a prominent film director, to return to Australia and direct Christine Olsen’s adaptation of Doris Pilkington Garimare’s text Following the Rabbit Proof Fence. The story concerns three young “half-caste” girls, two sisters and their cousin, Molly, Daisy and Gracie (respectively) who were removed from their mothers in 1931 and taken to Moore River Native Settlement under the order of the chief protector of Western Australia A. O. Neville (Kenneth Branagh), 1600 miles from their home in Jigalong. The eldest of the three girls, Molly (played by Everlyn Sampi) convinces her sister and cousin to escape and the three set out on the near impossible journey home. The rabbit-proof fence that stretched from the south of the continent to the north was their guide home. The two sisters made it back to their mother at Jigalong, but Gracie was recaptured and returned to Moore River. The three girls made their journey with the help of some aboriginals and Europeans along the way, pursued by the police and aboriginal tracker Moodoo played masterfully by David Gulpilil. Noyce says he was attracted to the project because it was an emotional and compelling story, but also because it was a true story and the films central protagonists are alive today. The film concludes with narration from the real Molly, in her native tongue, and footage of Molly and Daisy at Jigalong. The decision to conclude the film in this way was nothing short of inspired. Veteran American film reviewer Roger Ebert revealed that ‘not since the last shots of “Schindler’s List” have I been so overcome with the realization that real people, in recent historical times, had to undergo such inhumanity’. “