Reviews

I've seen a number of old screwballs from the 40's and this film taps into that style of humour... in the end. Problem is, it takes an hour to get there, and the first third gives little indication there will be any laughs at all. Martin Scorcese is not the man for this job, with over stylised camera and emphasis on suspense ill suited to the material. It is also hard to stomach, filled to the brim with creepy odd balls. Only the premise - of a man who goes on a late night date being unable to get home due to a number of ridiculous unforeseen circumstances - keeps it somewhat interesting.

Probably because the premise is wholly unbelievable, this had the makings of a good farce, but ultimately takes its role as hand on heart patriot and propagandist too seriously to be considered comedy. Of course, they save the biggest lie til last - that Paine would admit guilt, and the good guys win. They are more than happy to reveal their corruption so long as you believe said corruption has triumphed throughout history. That is why this film is so heavily promoted, despite revealing so much. Taylor and his likes control the senate and the press and everything, oh but Lincoln was a good guy who somehow usurped all that. Yeah, right... And I say this as someone who is neither politically left nor right - how can one take sides when it is all corrupt?!

If you were to treat it simply as fiction and entertainment then it is well made. There are a few laughs, and the villains in particular - Paine and Taylor - give superb performances.

A Russian poet Gorchakov travels with an interpreter to Italy, to research the life of musician Pavel Sosnovsky. We spend most of our time in a small town by a spa believed to have healing powers, where they take interest in a lunatic who once kept his family locked inside for seven years. The only reason I made it to the end is because Tarkovsky has previously impressed me with Ivan's Childhood and Andrei Rublev, but where those two anchored his poetic images to interesting characters and story progression, this one leaves it all at sea, with mundane characters and empty interaction. Further, while shooting in colour was effective for differentiating between past and present, it did him no service artistically - the ugly off greens are not befitting of such a visual master.

If the film is about anything, its loss and alienation. There are frequent flashbacks to his family left behind in Russia, he shows no interest in the attractive interpreter who openly courts him, and feels no comfort in Italy or God, whose presence he doesn't feel, though we are told is there (in voice over, by God himself, no less). The final shot places Gorchakov motionless in the snow, in front of his Russian home, planted inside a massive abandoned abbey. It is a stunning visual, his heart (Russia) joined together with his body (Italy), possible only in film. Unfortunately however we are given no reason to care for these bleak visual metaphors, and making it to that final shot with your eyes open is a real chore.

The slow zoom is reminisce of Kubrick's Barry Lyndon, released some 8 years earlier, while the cutting back and forth from present to past is reminisce of Fellini's 8 1/2, both of which are much superior.

So packed with fantastic visuals is Pinocchio I'm amazed naught but the lengthening nose could be remembered from childhood. I'm further amazed it occurs only once in the entire film, and that it not only lengthens, but grows a birds nest! Child theft, puppet burlesques, donkey transformations, whale sea escapades - stunning sequences all, yet apparently they left no impression. Who can understand the mind of a child?

As an adult I can appreciate and enjoy every little flourish and embellishment of animation, filled with gorgeous settings and countless idiosyncrasies, giving a charm that belies the dark story. On the other hand, its flawed as a morality tale. It ends with Pinocchio rescuing his father from the belly of a whale, which no doubt took courage, daring, heart, a great amount of humility and unselfishness - but had nothing to do with overcoming his two major flaws - temptation and dishonesty. Also, I want their lung capacity to breath underwater.

The set up has great potential: A dying man tells a group of unrelated roadside travellers the whereabouts of hidden cash. After failing to find a reasonable way to co-operate and split the money between them, the group take an every man for himself approach - driving, flying, hitchhiking and cycling their way to the site. Partners are switched and police join the chase, but no matter what happens, it all falls apart in epic fashion. There is a moral here about the woes of chasing money, but unfortunately only one character has any scruples, and they are caught up in it anyway.

Shot on 70mm for cinerama, with huge ensemble cast including many big name comedians, 3hr plus runtime and numerous stunts, it was an extremely ambitious project - the studios threw everything at it - which is probably the only reason anyone still hears about it today. The jokes fall flat completely. Slapstick had its heyday some 30 or 40 years earlier, and this is wacky, rather than clever. The final sequence mimics both Harold Lloyds 'Safety Last' and Buster Keaton's (who is given a tiny cameo, and manages a clever little blink and you'll miss it gag - the kind of detail laced throughout his own films sorely missing in this one) epic stunts, but pales in comparison. 'Airplane!', which came later, is also a far funnier flight disaster comedy.

I saw the longer version - where beautiful pristine footage of the original release was intercut with far less well preserved footage (originally omitted), along with some still images accompanying dialogue they didn't have footage for. The film was too long anyway, and the added footage didn't add anything necessary, nor improve upon what was already there, so I strongly recommend watching the shorter version instead. The less of this the better.

So Woody's love letter to Manhattan is a 90 minute whine where he manages to blow two relationships, following two already failed marriages by age 42? Charming! Right from the start we see this is a confused film, unsure of what it ought to be, with Woody re-writing his opening monologue numerous times, each with a different tone. It appears a final version was never settled on, as the cinematographer makes a romance, but Woody is caught somewhere between a clown and Fellini, whilst failing to convince anyone he's a Casanova with women.

A stunningly beautiful film in every which way, before it all comes crumbling down. Two young working class lovers from Stockholm, feeling trapped by their unsympathetic jobs and families, flee their troubles by boat to an idyllic island. Their love blooms, freedom bathes them, she becomes pregnant, and they vow to care for each other forever. Had it ended there it would have boasted a bliss rarely matched in cinema, but alas, that would not be cynical enough for Bergman. Instead he needs no motive to have a stranger light their boat on fire, turn Monika into an unbearable whine and thief, and end with adultery and divorce. Instead of a coming of age tale, it only serves to underline the bleak opening statements - that joy can be found only in escape - not in the 'real' world of family and work. I'm sorry he feels that way.

On the surface its a simple film - set in the Middle Ages, with the black plague rife, a knight returning from the crusades questions his faith after being approached by the reaper, called death. That much is compelling, relatable for anyone who has questioned the afterlife, and immersive for the historical journey. The cinematography is superb, and atmosphere rich.

But under the surface is something much more complex - an allegory full of religious symbolism, much of which is immediately difficult to grasp. It is repressively dark, with plague, rapists, adulterers, flagellants, witch burning, and the ever lingering presence of death. It also misuses Bible prophecy. The opening of the seals are future events, while the Middle Ages are past. People of the time may certainly have mistaken current events for the end times, but they are not the ones who wrote and titled the script!

While its outlook is often bleak and pessimistic, we at least get some ray of light. The names Jof and Mia, the travelling jesters, are Joseph and Mary in English (not coincidentally the same name as Jesus parents). They are often shown in pleasant surroundings and beautiful bright light, together with their baby. Their love for each other is pure and uncorrupted, their manner, unlike the others, is pleasant, and the most joyous scene depicts an idyllic afternoon, where they picnic and play lute. Jof has the gift of seeing visions, and once leaving the forest they are not pursued by the reaper, and are the only characters spared from death. As this charming couple receive the closing shot, wandering off into the light, it is they who provide the direction to be followed, the answer to our knights desperate questions, and there is room for optimism after all.

Patience is a central theme in 'Ten Canoes'. A young aboriginal man must be patient in his quest for a wife, and patient when listening to the stories of his elders, which can take days to recite. It takes just an hour and a half on screen, but we the audience must also exercise patience, for it unwinds slowly, and by modern Western standards, could have been told in much less time. Its worth it though, for we experience a fantastic cultural journey to Australian swamplands, where tribes live in small huts and hunt with spears, but have much the same troubles as anyone else - the desires and quarrels of love, complete with dick jokes. When a man's wife is stolen following the appearance of a stranger, said to be a sorcerer, he becomes revengeful, and walks a bloody path that ends in a fascinating death dance. The entire film is narrated, as though the elder is speaking to us directly, just as the story would be told in its natural setting. This breaks the golden 'show, don't tell' rule of filmmaking, but is apt for the purpose, and offers a unique cinema experience. Far from Hollywood and typical storytelling methods it feels authentic, and with no technology or fashion to indicate the era, 'Ten Canoes' is timeless, a tale just as relevant today as a thousand years ago.

'Holy Grail' is a one joke film, repeated endlessly. Set up an authority figure - a King, castle owner, knight in the woods, God - and make them seem ridiculous by getting lost in trivial conversation and absurd tasks. It's at times witty and humorous but at others just plain silly, and the joke quickly wears thin, with much of the best material occurring early. By the end, with a three minute long black screen, its plain the joke is on us, for having sat through such tripe.

Jarrod likes video games and trains to fight an old schoolyard bully. He is an indulgent, depressed individual and believes the bully is responsible for all his problems. Along for the ride is Lily, a young woman recently fired from a fast food store, who has fallen in love with him. It's a quirky comedy about two social misfits in the spirit of Napolean Dynamite, with the key difference that Napolean was still in high school, whereas Jarrod is 28. That decade gap makes all the difference, as it is quite unbelievable a man of his age would still be so immature, and pursue such a course of action, to the point he attacks a cripple with nunchucks. As Jermaine Clement, of Flight of the Concords fame, was cast as Jarrod, but not credited as a writer, it makes me think the original script might have been initially written with a teenage lead, only to be cast with a name actor for marketing appeal. At least there was Lily, excellently played by Loren Taylor, who filled the screen with humble sweetness, and gave Jarrod a saint-like love, far beyond what he deserved. It was funny at times and heartfelt at others, but also quite painful.

I keep reading 'Streetcar' is symbolic for the destruction of the graceful and sensitive classic era (represented by Blanche) by the brutally direct modern era (represented by Stanley), but all I see in Blanche is a dishonest delusional drama queen whose antics deeply disrupt her sisters marriage, when she is pregnant, no less. If sensitive it was only towards herself, and is far more modern than old fashioned. I hear there was tremendous sexual chemistry between Stanley and Blanche, but it exists in the reviews only. Stanley - played by a confident, muscular Brando in the prime of his youth - is no doubt a fitting image for female's animal desire, but he sees Blanche for what she is the very first time they meet, and from that moment on feels nothing but contempt. He can't wait for her to leave, and buys her train ticket out. The climax may be shocking, but it is simply bad writing. Blanche, admitted often throughout the movie, is past her prime. So why would this married man who despises her want anything to do with her sexually, on the eve his baby is born, no less? He wouldn't. Only in the movies (or theatre, which this was based upon) would that happen. After all Blanche's tricks, she is supposed to win our sympathies? The only thing more confusing is Stella, who for some reason is very understanding towards her sister flirting openly with her husband.

The unravelling is unfortunate, because otherwise its quite poignant thematically - a lament on the loss of youth, and the weight of past woes. The shadowy cinematography is excellent, and the acting quite good, except for Leigh as Blanche, who couldn't in performance gain any of the respect missing in character.

The whole film rests on the premise that after being separated from her friend who is jailed, a young attractive female revolutionary will fall in love with a mid 40's General of the opposition, and the very man responsible for the separation! What makes him so attractive, you ask? Well, he "loves Russia." So convincing!

It is all an attempt to make an unlikable character seem likeable. We are shown him first as he is after the fact - suffering badly, poor, alone, and seeking work as a Hollywood extra. We are told he's a General who doesn't want to waste the lives of his troops. What a lovely guy! I guess we just ignore that he was part of the wealthy elite damaging the lives of many and treating revolutionaries badly. That might ruin the sentiment. It's unfortunate the script goes this way, for the plot is based on an interesting story, and there is some wonderful photography.

A film notable for its urban realism, where three troubled youths from the rough side of Paris brood about looking for trouble - street fights, violence against police, and theft - much of which is arrogant and unmotivated. It well captures a certain character and culture, but has no depth, and is not pleasant company. Cops no doubt have their issues but the real problems with society start much higher up the income chain, and all this movies hate is wayward.

A four part mini series with movie length episodes, based on the autobiography of Albert Facey. I enjoyed reading the book when younger, but so much time has passed between then and watching these films I'd forgotten all that happened. It was a great reminder! This mini series presents the early years of his life, from a child living and working in the bush, to a soldier fighting at Gallipoli in WWI. As desirable as a longer series would have been, it is wonderful they didn't try to cram it all into just one film length episode, allowing the story a chance to breathe. Although not a romance, there are beautiful moments of couples dancing to a phonograph, and despite the hardships, the bush surroundings are viewed with a cheer befitting the title. To end with marriage was fitting thematically, as if it to say every hardship is worth it for love.

Though the strings weep, you will not mistake this for an overly sentimental film. The storytelling is handled in a direct manner fitting the settings characters, and our lead has as much control over the harmonica as the English language. What he lacks in vocabulary he gains in character, with a strong moral stance against unjust authorities, and the ability to retain an easy going nature while enduring much. A fantastic journey back in time.

Five friends travel by van to an abandoned countryside house, where they will be murdered by a chainsaw wielding psychopath. Loosely based on the story of Ed Gein, this is not reality, its imagination, a twisted minds fantasy. There are certain people who only seem to delight at a shock of blood splashed across screen, and all the gruesome ways one might meet their end, which they are unlikely to encounter in their own mundane lives. For them, this will be horror porn, and the sight of a young woman hung alive on butchers hook will be pleasure - humorous, even. I am not one of them. Its not clever, its not in good taste, its not even well shot or acted. I don't care how small the budget was, it was too big.