Reviews

... and the best thing was that it WAS all hype, because that's what Baz Luhrman set out to achieve. Remember Strictly Ballroom? Romeo + Juliet? Well, then it should be no surprise that Moulin Rouge turned out the way it did and if you didn't like the way it was directed and edited, you should have known better from Luhrman's previous films.

The best thing about Moulin Rouge was the hilarious highs and the heart-wrenching lows and all that brilliant colour in between. People with their thumbs up have pretty much said what I wanted to say but I just wanted to chip in with a bit of "Moulin Rouge delivered everything it promised considering the cast and the director" to those who can't help but spoil all the fun.

My faith in films made from books has declined somewhat in the past few years and this is an example of why. Although Marchetti wrote the screenplay, some of the most important things lost their meaning. The film was a mere pastiche of the book. Obviously time constraints meant that they couldn't film the whole book but I thought that certain things could have retained some adherence to Josie's insecurity about her ethnicity and illegitimacy. As a film it was great, but people who loved the book will probably be disappointed.

I've been a Branagh fan for a while but until yesterday, had not seen "Dead Again". How good is this film?!? I was intrigued the whole way through. The acting was superb, especially the main characters played by Branagh, Thompson and Jacobi and the alternating between the present life and the past (black & white) was a really clever effect.

I liked how the film unravelled in its own way, at its own pace, instead of employing cliches to handle difficult parts of the plot. I won't say anything more - you have to see for yourself.

What else can I say? Brilliant.

At the time at which I write, American Pie has not yet hit the Australian box office. I, along with a few lucky punters taking part in a promotion, was pleased to discover that the Mystery Movie at our local cinema was this film (thank god it wasn't Big Daddy or Deep Blue). Anyway, I remember this one time, at band camp...

What can I say? The whole thing is almost a conglomeration of cliches but I've studied films in cultural studies that twist familiar things to make them interesting and original - like American Pie. I think all the 'bad' guys (Stifler and Sherman) get what's coming to them, as does Jim though he's actually pleased. Everything works out rather nicely and surprisingly - I mean, how many people thought things were going to be resolved about halfway when Finch seemed to have everything under control, Jim has the Czech girl over his house, Oz had 'won' the girl and Vicky had finally decided to do it with Kev? But the film ploughed on and these situations started to change and I was like, so how are Jim and Finch supposed to get laid now? But with very clever twists it all gets resolved. Love this resolving that's running rife in movies these days!

Well, I must say it was an enjoyable film, utterly hilarious at parts (the apple pie is just one bit). You gotta love quotes like "Scotch in the cupboard on the right... aged 18 years - just the way I like it." (Stifler's mother) and little things like Jim's 'strip' which almost saved him from humiliation (the deftly aimed shirt). I'll shut up now. Go and see it or you won't know what anyone's talking about.

I remember this one time, at band camp...

Well, Branagh has impressed me once again. The whole film was rich in colours and emotions which was summed up so perfectly from the moment I saw everyone rushing to get ready when I thought - this is going to be a fun version of the play. I was right and it was. The acting was particularly good in the comic moments (Benedick not being able to sit on the chair after he hears that Beatrice loves him in particular) but Robert Sean Leonard I think, overacted a little. I'm not sure whether it was because it was Shakespearean because he's good in other films but he was too much for Claudio. An exhilarating film.

I saw Go! as a knot with no bows - a very interesting look at how teenagers can get themselves into a tangle without any decoration at the end. The format was excellent and Sarah Polley looks and acts like a young Uma Thurman (Pulp Fiction already?).

Well, onto its parallels with Pulp Fiction, Go! reads like a younger sibling that's not quite smart enough or confusing enough to cream its elders but it is original all the same.

The action is racy (as you would expect from something named Go!) and the comic bits are actually funny which makes it enough to be called a comedy/drama. There are two sides to every character - one shown from another's point of view, and then from their own. Everyone is both a hero and a victim in their own right which makes Go! an exciting ride. (Not taken literally, Simon).

Though I thought Shakespeare's play 'The Tempest' was crap, this film adaptation is even worse. I mean, if I hadn't have read the play beforehand, I don't think I would have known what was going on half the time. This film, though very artistic (the 6 out of the 6/10 I gave it is for the artistry) shows a complete lack of Shakespeare. Greenaway should have just changed the names and the plot a little and made his own film instead of calling it an adaptation of 'The Tempest'. It's also too much of a romp in the land of (sexual) fantasy to be taken completely seriously. Creative, but no banana.

I had to watch and read 'The Comfort of Strangers' for film studies and I must say that though Schrader and the film did what it could to match the complexities of the book, it didn't completely succeed.

The cast was strong but the casting wasn't - neither Colin nor Mary affected me like they did in McEwan's novel. Rupert Everett is a good actor, but I think he was a little too effeminate for this role. Richardson tried her best to be Mary, but I think she was too soft and dependent. Thumbs up to Robert and Caroline; they lived up to McEwan's characters.

Book better, go read it.

I read the book, saw the film - the film doesn't touch Heller. It has the main events happening and the recurring theme of Snowden's death haunting Yossarian but... it doesn't come close to the intricacies of the novel.

Buck Henry has tried his best to make the film as funny as the book but instead of the satire of Heller, humour it transformed into something more outright, I guess so that people who wouldn't 'get' it in the book can laugh at the film. However, I began to think of things as tragic when in the novel they were funny (like McWatt flying into a mountain). Where's the dead man i Yossarian's tent? I even laughed in advance remembering the incidents in the book. So, I must say that this is a very poor adaptation of Catch 22, it loses the essence, the satire that was Heller's purpose for writing it.

If you can get past the swearing and the exaggerated Australian stereotypes, then this flick is probably your cup of tea. It has good actors, a brilliant and neatly connected plot, some drama, some crime, some violence and a splash of comedy. Nothing is really out of place in this film (we were debating about the presence of the ghost but decided it had some relevance in the fact that it was Jimmy's brother who was kind of 'protecting' him).

Anyway, my media tutor said it was 'Tarantino-esque' but I believed it was more unpolished in the dialogue with less meaning involved (not that it was analysis-barren). Also had more comedy, the stuff that is physically funny, not witty. BUT, this is not to take away for the brilliance of its plotline, the way everything is a karma (what goes around comes around) and how satisfactory the ending is in its neat little package. I also appreciated the fact that the romantic factor was minimal but important in the plot. Well done!

While many people were hyped for Phantom Menace, I was gunning for "AP2". Ironically enough, I saw Star Wars before AP2 (albeit, two hours before). Anyway, people had been spewing out of the cinemas saying that it was better than the first (I saw it the second night it opened here and half the people I knew saw it on the opening night) and I was quite bewildered because nothing could've been as good as the first - I mean, I have the damn movie on VCD and I watch it all the time. So I went into the cinema not quite sure what to expect because we'd lined up for nearly an hour only to have our session sold out so we hung around for another 2hrs for the next session and then we had to line up to get IN to the theatre... the point of this story is - it was fantastic! It really was better than the first. The humour was more daring (quite a few movie allusions in there), the grossness more than hairy chests and snaggle teeth... to this day, coffee and homing devices make me cringe.

Dr. Evil, by far the best character, is more developed, as is his 'clan' of evil-doers. All of the hilarious moments involved Dr Evil - like the Jerry Springer appearance, mini-me, 'Just the Two of Us' and the page to the White House, his obscene shaped rocket, his seduction of Frau Farbissina etc. Austin was still Austin but Felicity Shagwell wasn't as good a 'sidekick' (shag?) as Agent Kensington. Too bad about the gunpowder jubblies. Thing about Ms Shagwell was that she had eyes like golf balls and strange hair - NB: Liz Hurley, much better.

All the innuendoes were still there, as was the cool car (the Shaguar) and the VW of a time machine, the clever nudity scenes (how's the opening credits for a dance scene to match AP1?) and that shadow thing in the tent. Fat Bastard was cringeworthy - "get in my belly!" but they played with him quite well in the end. This is the first movie I've had to line up for and the first where everyone clapped when it ended. Smashing stuff. Incredibly smashing.

I didn't really choose to see this film as it was embedded in a movie marathon but it turned out to be the most intriguing one (out of 10 Things I hate about you and Enemy of the State). It was an 'arthouse' film, I reckon, something more that I couldn't see at that time of night (/morning). I was trying to tell my sister about it afterwards and it was only then that I realised that it was so much more complicated and worldly than I had first imagined. It was sort of corny, semi-funny and didn't really hit the spot it was supposed to. However, It was a bit like missing the target and then hitting bullseye on the next door target because 200 Cigarettes ended up being an almost satirical portrayal of the 80s. The reason I say 'almost' is because the 80s were a parody of itself (ok, that's really bad grammar and I give up). My vision of it resulted in a picture of what it was like then, through a lens which bent back on itself to distort that picture, leading to a 'true' representation of the issues at hand at the beginning of the 80s. In three words: underestimated, disappointing, surprising.

Much too slow for a comedy. The camera lingered on faces for far too long and if they'd only cut that technique out, the film would've been 20mins shorter. Thing is, I think they played on the actors rather than the characters. Hugh Grant with his bewildered blue eyes and Julia Roberts with her smile etc etc (and Rhys "Spike" with his utter lack of hygiene). Anyway, there was too much of the staring thing and not enough acceleration although I guess they had to hide the fact that it was really just "together apart together apart together" the whole time. It had its moments though, especially Thacker's family and some of the cultural input was interesting. A slow film - don't pay for it at the cinema, hire the video or something.

I think it was in May ('99) that I SAW STAR WARS FOR THE FIRST TIME. It was just after my 18th birthday and a friend who was SHOCKED that I had never seen it (except "about 15 mins of Return of the Jedi") lent me the first three tapes and I watched them straight. Mesmerising stuff. Totally captured me for 6 hours without so much as blood, guts or a nookie in the closet. Anyway, I wasn't fanatical about it when it came out so I didn't mind if I didn't see it for ages and ages after it had been released (so it would come off the 'no free list' and I could be a cheapskate and use one of my free movie tickets) but some friends invited me to the movies...

All I have to say is - WOW. I think only George Lucas can turn such a moderate storyline into such a great execution of colour, light, fantasy and galactical scope. The only thing I didn't like was Jar Jar Binks because it took me too long to understand what the hell he was saying. Jake Lloyd was better than the criticism he received although he did rely on the other actors (ie the real ones like Liam, Ewan and Natalie) to take him through his role. Nevertheless, it was a fun ride and now I hope to hell the merchandising will get off this fun ride before I throw up.

Ah, now THIS is a fun movie. So ditzy and whacko - love the flashbacks, the dream sequence and the sweet revenge Romy and Michele exact on Christy Masters and her snob squad...

If ever you've been picked on in high school (and let's face it, who hasn't unless you're on Christy's side), this is the greatest movie to watch with the loose moral underneath about "being yourself" and "friends over popularity". Sorvino and Kudrow pull this off smoothly and are aptly coupled together as the aspiring blondes. Fun film, good stuff.

I had the Anne of Green Gables abridged picture book when I was younger - I never read the actual book and I never saw the actual movie... until now. What an exquisite treat! There were so many laughs and actual cries (you know, when Anne pleas not to be sent back, Matthew's death etc) that this must be the most emotive movie of all time. The characters were exactly as described and imagined and the period so sweetly portrayed - oh! I can't say any more or I'll be gushing.

I was afraid that I'd lost Fantasia so when my friend had a vege out night, I suggested we take a nostalgia trip and hire Neverending Story. I hadn't seen it since I was 5 or thereabouts (I'm now 18) and the whole movie was like a stroll down memory lane (the only thing that I could distinctly remember was Bastian going into the library and him waking up next to Falkor). It ended up being one of those movies at which you keep going "I remember that" "It's all coming back now" etc. This returns me to the good ol' days when a movie didn't need gratuitous violence or sex to appeal. Apart from the blue screen scenes which I notice now I am in adulthood, the film is a treat for everyone with a moral in it, ever applicable as time goes on.

There's a "shrew" and she's tamed. Actually, she's not all that tamed so I don't see how it's based, albeit loosely, on "Taming of the Shrew". Well, Taming of the Shrew tended to be a lot patriarchal anyway so it was welcome to see Bianca punch out Joey and Kat paving her own way as herself.

I don't think I've seen a teen flick since "Clueless" so this was out of the league of movies I usually see (it was in a movie marathon, ok?). My verdict - you could generally see what was going to happen but the difference with this movie was that it was hard to guess how it would happen. It had its amusing moments, its 'heroes' and 'villains' and the obligatory prom and love and all that teeny stuff you get enough of on TV. Not bad, probably better than what some others would have done with "Shakespeare".

"Shakespeare in Love" didn't jump out and shout 'I'm a classic movie and you will worship me for years to come' but it DID quietly whisper a subtle elegance in execution. Witty, charming, bawdy, dramatic... words to describe even the bard's own work. Though some people found some of the allusions a little esoteric, I was laughing most of the way. Shakespeare's own themes were reflected in the one screenplay - love, drama, passion, mistaken identities and misplaced affection... along with some slapstick fun. The cast were wonderfully connective and the setting, accurate. It would be hard to imagine how "Romeo and Ethel the Pirate's Daughter" would have taken off... but after all, aren't plays just all "words, words, words"?

I was fortunate enough to see "Madeline" on a plane trip. Through babysitting, I had viewed the cartoon series and even read a book. I'm happy to say that I quite enjoy Madeline's adventures and was pleased to see it turned into a movie. I was saddened, however, when the movie, though accurate, did not turn out to be as adventurous as I had imagined. Full credit to the cast - it was not their acting but rather the pathetic state of the staging where three storylines were written rather stiltedly. It was mild entertainment but I'd only recommend it to fans of the series/books and younger children. Better luck next time...

Yes, the technology was mighty-mighty, the allusions came thick and fast... but I only laughed once and I don't even remember which joke that was at. I understood their jokes - I just didn't think they were funny. Plot too predictable and characters too formula. That's all I have to say.

This movie is possibly the most classic of comedies for the 90s. Ridiculous storyline satirising the 'formula' of a spy movie, gags, allusions, clever visual humour and a wacky Mike Myers complete the whole movie. Never have I watched a movie so many times and found it as refreshingly humorous the first time as I did the fifth. "Austin Powers" stays beyond the screen as well. People have picked up "Shagadelic, baby!", "It's freedom, baby - yeah!" and "Oh behaaave..." and one time a friend spontaneously did the Dr Evil 'dance' (when he's showing Scott that he's 'hip' and 'with it'). Who else bites the knuckle on their pinky? This movie is truly, truly a classic and will be a foundation on which others will build on for time to come.

"Occasional Coarse Language" is the type of film people go to see because the movie they wanted to see wasn't showing or was sold out. With mixed reports from the reviewers, I decided to check it out on a whim. What confronted me was a plotless meandering through the so-called life of Min Rogers and her friends due to the loss of boyfriend, job and flat. It's heavy on the sex and there is the occasional coarse language but its originality will charm and it is absolutely hilarious. Unforgettable scenes, unlikely situations... I won't spoil it.

The thing I love most about Due South is the subtle humour interspersed between the morals and action in the show. The characters are particularly strong - something which drives the series. Fraser's manner is charming and the origin for many jokes, but his character, specifically, is unusual (a Canadian mountie in Chicago?) and his whole purpose (finding his father's killers) including the free reign given to Diefenbaker (the wolf who chooses to follow him around) adds to his appeal. Kowalski is tougher, but shows a more vulnerable side at the same time, having been through too many harrowing experiences and concurrently learning from them. Love the way the plot progresses, love the subtle humour.

Covering 30 yrs of a person's life was always going to be hard, but this film manages it without interrupting the flow. Mr Holland, faced with everything to hold him back from completing his opus, more than impacts on his music appreciation class - from those who said they couldn't, to those who had to break free and try their hand at the city lights. I liked the subtle time changes with the cars and the aging characters. The Cole sub-plot was a little bit misplaced (although I can't see how else they could have done it) and overall the story was predictable, but it was an inspiring movie all the same.