Don't Take My Wife, Please!

Only in February and I've already undertaken my third double feature at the cinema. Yep, time for another current movie review, with the second to follow later this week. But what did I see first? Well, since Shame and My Week With Marilyn both are in limited release (see my second blog from last week for my thoughts on that development), I went with my back-up option. That doesn't mean I thought this movie was going to suck, or else I wouldn't have seen it, it just wasn't something I was hyped for. If I didn't think it was worth watching on the big screen, I'd have held off until DVD (like I will for Man On A Ledge, which is really more of a space filler in case I fail to reach 50 releases in 2012, which is my goal. If I don't have to see it this year, no big loss. If I do, I'll wait until I can get it cheap).
Anyway, let's get right into The Descendants, based on the book written by Kaui Hart Hemmings.

Matt King (George Clooney) has a lot on his mind: he is the trustee of a huge amount of land that has belonged to his family for generations and needs to sell it, due to a law dealing with perpetuities, and faces huge pressure from his family to go a certain way. But he has a more pressing matter, with his wife, Elizabeth (Patricia Hastie), in a coma that she will not wake up from (that is NOT a spoiler, you find out within the first twenty minutes) and he has to figure out how to tell his two kids, little Scottie (Amara Miller) and teenage wild child Alexandra (Shailene Woodley), as well as deal with the revelation that she was having an affair.

I understand that this film is quite the critical darling and is up for several Academy Awards. So, I have to ask: is there something I'm not seeing? I mean, it's not a bad film, it has a few things in its favour but is this really Best Picture material? Why? Because it's based on a book? Because of the shots of Hawaii? Can someone please tell me why?!

But I'm getting ahead of myself. There are good aspects to this film, the stuff that perhaps lead to the nominations. George Clooney's never been a favourite actor of mine, mostly due to Batman And Robin and how people gush over his looks. While that last part may not have anything to do with his acting ability, it overshadows everything else he has to offer. Same goes for Brad Pitt but not for Johnny Depp because he defies the fanbase that constantly raves about “he is so hot” and such and chooses better roles to help solidify his credibility. Clooney, for a while, couldn't do that. There's an episode of American Dad! Called “Tears Of A Clooney”, which, for a while, captured my feelings accurately. I won't go into a recap here since that would just stretch the blog out a little more but I will say even after seeing more of Clooney's work and my opinion of him changing, it's still one of my absolute favourite episodes of the series.
But anyway, what I'm trying to say is, in the right hands, he's capable of toning down the smugness and being really good. The movies he's done with Coen brothers, for example, show what happens when he applies himself. And in this movie, you can actually relate to his character, somewhat. Often looking disheveled and struggling to juggle everything, there's no falling back on his “killer good looks” here. He hits the right emotive spots, and his anger is especially believable. Despite calling himself the “back-up parent”, he's not comically out of touch with his kids, or incredibly stupid, just astounded by how the kids of today act (that's how I relate to him, anyway. I swear I'm a rocking chair away from telling kids to get off lawns and talking about how music was better in my day). He is the best thing about this movie, so at least I can see why he got nominated for Best Actor for this film.

Another good point: the soundtrack is nice and lovely, fits in well with the Hawaiian setting. Considering the shots of the islands and dialogue about the people of Hawaii, the music goes hand in hand. Having anything else would seem jarring.

But... the film has two big problems. Since one is a spoiler, we'll save that till later. The first big problem comes with the supporting cast and some of the main characters. I will say that some actors and actresses are deserving of praise (Judy Greer, Matthew Lillard, Robert Forster), some don't do much but they do well with little they have (Beau Bridges), some are passable (Amara Miller, Shailene Woodley in the second half) and some... why are they here? I speak mostly of Nick Krause as Sid, Alexandra's useless friend/boyfriend. I don't know what he was like in the book (if he was even in the book) but I hated him from the first time he spoke, since he had the whole “Whoa, dude, I'm like a California surfer!” style of speech. He almost always has a dopey grin on his face and he says whatever's on his mind, without tact or much thought at all. Some of the best moments in the film are when people insult him or when Forster's character punches him. I was WAITING for someone to do that and I cheered when it happened. At one point, he's listing off what he thinks are his best traits and he says something like “And I always have good weed”. Oh that explains so much about you, twit. And why does Matt still let him hang around his 17 year old daughter after Sid mentions the weed like it's an accomplishment on par with medical training?

And early on, Alexandra's not easy to like either, being a typical “wah, my parents don't love me so I'll drink and do drugs and I've probably had sex by now” brat. I hate kids like that. You ever stop and think that maybe they did love you but if they ever truly stopped, it was BECAUSE of how you were acting? It's not that their lack of love causes your behaviour, it's your behaviour destroying their love. And that's not even true in her case, things are just tense. She grows a little, though, but it's still a little hard to like her at first.

But what bugs me the most is what I got from the ending. As such, I will do a new paragraph so that if you want to get to the final thoughts, skip these upcoming spoilers (if you can call them that).

As the life support for Elizabeth is being shut off (per her wishes), the wife of the man she had an affair with (Judy Greer playing the wife) comes to see her on behalf of her husband as a sense of closure and says she forgives Elizabeth for what has transpired. That's fine, she's been dealt this major revelation and she needs to stay strong for her family, even though she doesn't know what the future holds from there. Matt also seems forgiving of her transgressions and kisses her on the forehead, saying nothing but sweet things.
Here's my problem: never mind how angry he was about the affair and the fact that she was going to ask for a divorce, the fact that he's at peace by the end just kind of pisses me off. Yes, I know that he's come to terms with things and he's had time to process, but among his last words to her, he says “My joy”. Except that she was going to leave him. So, you mean to say you've forgiven her? But you don't know how long she's been planning to leave you. How do you know she's been happy all that time? Maybe she's been faking it, for the sake of happy families. And when you look at that, wouldn't it put all your memories into question? Some of them are probably tainted now, its like one of those TV shows or movies with someone falling for someone or pretending to fall for someone for some plan, and when it's all revealed, the other person asks “Was it all a lie?” Actually, an episode of Prison Break's second season had a character ask another that question, or at least the opposite of “Was any of it real?” (OK, the answer in that case was along the lines of “Yes, it was all real”).
My point is, how much of that joy she brought you was real and how much was for the masquerade? To forgive her after all that just doesn't ring true. I don't care if they're your final moments with her, she has denied you the truth. You will always be wondering what was going through her head. Her final acts have brought nothing but anger and depression. She should not have been forgiven so easily.
I'm sorry but after going through something similar myself, maybe I'm just blinded by my own rage on the subject. But even so, doesn't change the fact that the questions linger, with the answers always eluding Matt.

Despite all that, it is a good film but over-hyped. I give it 3/5. Though, one last thing: what's with the title? I mean, we're all someone's descendants. That's like saying “The Children Of People Who Owned Some Land”. I mean, In Good Company's not called “The Boss' Daughter With Some Guy”, just as Wonder Boys isn't “Old Professor Muses On Life With Other People”. I know I'm saturating the point but the title is lacking. Even if I know what its referring to, it bares little to know relevance with the main story and with that “The”, it makes it sound definitive, like there's something ominous about the whole thing. If I were to come up with another title, what about “All The Money In The World”, which would reflect on how even with how rich Matt is, he can't buy anything that will bring his wife out of her coma or buy closure to anything the movie throws at him.
OK, may not be the best choice but it's still something. And “The Back-Up Parent” sounds more like a wacky comedy, so that's out. The search continues...

My, My, This Here Anakin Guy

With The Phantom Menace currently out in cinemas again (this time in 3D, for better or worse, depending on how much you liked the film the first time around), I thought now was the right time to go over my thoughts on the film.

I don't think I need to go into great detail about the Star Wars franchise, it's a worldwide phenomenon and has been since the release of A New Hope in 1977. Even someone who hasn't seen the films knows the most basic details. The original films changed the way films were regarded and their influence can not be denied. And the reach extends out to other mediums, too. Tons of books, video games, comic books, action figures, assorted toys and just about everything else under the sun. And with a live action TV series under development, this juggernaut's not stopping any time soon.

Every now and then, creator George Lucas re-releases these films with alterations or new features, be it on the big screen, VHS, DVD or Blu-Ray over the years. These have been the subject of many debates, arguably the most famous being who really shot first, Han or Greedo (for the record, I'm all for the Han shooting first side, mostly because... well, how the Hell do you miss someone sitting right in front of you?! Greedo's a bounty hunter for cryin' out loud!) and now, he has seen fit to add 3D to the first episode in the series, with the potential for the rest of the series to be relaunched on the big screen in 3D.

But enough about that, let's move on to the movie itself, Episode 1 of the Star Wars series, The Phantom Menace.

The planet Naboo has been surrounded by battleships, dispatched by the Trade Federation. After attempts at diplomacy have failed, Queen Amidala (Natalie Portman), Qui-Gon Jinn (Liam Neeson) and Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor) flee the planet and land on Tatooine, after their ship is attacked. They encounter a slave child named Anakin Skywalker (Jake Lloyd), an aspiring pod-racer with Force potential greater than ever encountered.

I could go on with the plot synopsis but here's the thing: if you know anything about Star Wars, chances are you know this story anyway. And if you don't, there's too much to go into detail about and that's actually one of the film's biggest problems. The reason these events are set into motion is a retaliation to taxation on trade routes. I've seen the film several times and I'm still not 100% sure on all the details involved. Mainly because I, like most of the audience, do not care. This may seem weird considering my stance on films doing things differently, as I went over last blog, but this is a Star Wars movie. I do not care about political and economical aspects. I could barely follow it then and I don't much care now. Luckily, the sequels tone it down slightly (Episode 3 almost abolishes it altogether). We come to Star Wars for action in space, lightsaber dueling and interesting creature and locals, as well as a glorious soundtrack and some often memorable lines (mostly from the original series, especially anytime Darth Vader speaks. “I find your lack of faith disturbing”, anyone?) If I want discussions about space laws (not even sure how that would work anyway, I can understand the currency being universal but laws would be harder to enforce), I'll watch Star Trek going over and over the Prime Directive (and for the record, only Star Trek I know at this point is the 2009 film).

So, with that out of the way, I actually find the film to be a little mixed. I actually remember seeing this when it first came out in cinemas as a birthday treat, with my sister, brother-in-law and younger brother. At first, I was excited but by the end, I kept checking my watch. I put that down to being a little tired but the film wasn't easy to sit through. That doesn't mean it was entirely bad but I didn't have that problem with the next two films, which I also saw on the big screen.

To counter the bad above, here's something I did enjoy: the new characters Mace Windu (Samuel L. Jackson), Darth Maul (Ray Park but voiced by Peter Serafinowicz) and Qui-Gon Jinn. Mace doesn't get to do much, but that is rectified in the next films.
Darth Maul gets only a little more screen time but man is he the best thing about this movie. He's taken seriously, he's a ferocious fighter and he has a sense of mystery about him. His story is never revealed and he says very little, always dedicated to his mission and his master, Darth Sidious (Ian McDiarmid). His dedication to his master is unique, in the sense that in the teachings of the Sith, it is expected that the apprentice will kill the master and ascend to the position. Maul doesn't appear to have that desire, at least not from what the film shows us. The fact that Ray Park has experience in martial arts, swordfighting and gymnastics makes Maul all the more impressive, especially with the moves he pulls off. The fight between him and Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon is one of the greatest in the entire series and is the highlight of the entire movie.
Qui-Gon is pretty badass too, preferring to play by his own rules, but he's still rational and logical and even a father figure to Anakin. I just don't think Liam Neeson is capable of a bad performance, regardless of the film he's in.

But on the other side... there's Jar-Jar Binks. Ugh, I hate this character. Half the time, you can't even understand what he's saying and the other half, he's finding new ways to screw up the missions. And that smile... Shudders. I think George realized he was missing a comedy duo, since he didn't write a big part for Anthony Daniels as C-3PO and R2 spends most of his time with the Queen and decided he'd go with one character for the comic relief. Well, he does relieve the comedy by sucking it out of the scene.
And besides side characters like Watto and Sebulba, Anakin is the only other character that I can't think of anything positive for. His “Yippie!” makes me want to throw rocks at him, he talks like he's cock of the walk and the entire space battle at the end just shattered my disbelief. I know he's supposed to be a hotshot pilot but that's just ridiculous, he looks like a kid who got into his father's car and started driving, not knowing exactly what he should be doing. He's a snotty little brat and when he's one of the main characters, that's a bad move.
Natalie Portman fares a lot better, being kind and sweet, and much more likable than Anakin. But the dialogue between them is cringe-worthy. “Are you an angel?” The kid sounds like he's trying a pick-up line!

The big draw of the film is supposed to be a big race with unique looking vehicles. While I admit I like the atmosphere, the vehicles and the two-headed announcer (seriously, I like him better than Anakin), the whole thing also kind of detracts from the film. It serves no real purpose except to show that Anakin is skilled with vehicles. Now, that may play an important part at the end but since I just said that I wasn't impressed by the space battle (or the Gungan effort, because it decided not to kill Jar-Jar), I wouldn't have missed it. Maybe it works in 3D, I don't know.

I'm sorry that is short and mostly based on character but since character and story are very important to me, that's usually what I look for. I could say a lot more but this is probably the most reviewed movie of the series, due to the mixed reaction it invokes. Suffice it to say, despite all the potential the film has, it has annoying, yapping things that won't shut up and go. For that, I give the film 3/5.

Will I see it in 3D? Nope. I saw it in the cinema the first time around, I don't need to see it again with a gimmick. The same applies for the next two as well. The original trilogy, however, I am open to, since I never got that chance to see them on the big screen and they are films that need to be seen on the big screen.

I will come back to the rest of the films some day and I will include The Clone Wars movie. Perhaps sooner rather than later.

Have You No Shame?

It should be no secret that I love movies (WHOA! That's a shock right there! I'd better leave you all to recover!) and I also love going to the cinema. The atmosphere, the grandeur of the big screen, the prospect of things to come in the movie world, good stuff. In the past two years, I've found myself going to the cinema more and more. Compared to between 2007-2009, when I only saw literally five movies each year (2007- Wild Hogs, Ghost Rider, Transformers, Spider-Man 3 and The Simpsons Movie; 2008- Juno, Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber Of Fleet Street, Iron Man, Indiana Jones And The Last Crusade and The Dark Knight; 2009- Watchmen, Angels And Demons, X-Men Origins: Wolverine, Harry Potter And The Half-Blood Prince and Saw 6), my film horizons have expanded. 2010 saw a little over double that and 2011 was a huge improvement on that, with 2012 looking to be even bigger still, with it being only February and I've seen seven movies in the cinema, with another two planned for this weekend (which I will be blogging about, expect them early next week).

But where am I going with this? Well, despite the year holding many promising films still to come, some of which will go straight to DVD but I still highly anticipate, there have been several films that I have had a strong desire to see, but my local cinema has decided to forgo them. And before the question is raised, no nearby cinema had screenings either. In fact, through one big cinema chain (one branch being my local cinema, about a fifteen minute drive from where I live), only three of their cinemas were showing each of the films I wanted to see. So far, there have been four films I have been denied: Young Adult, Martha Marcy May Marlene, Shame and now My Week With Marilyn, which was due this week down here.

Now, another question that may be raised is “why can't you go to one of those few cinemas playing if you want to see the movie so much?” Here's why: I work six nights a week, and in the later half of the week, I often come home at erratic times. Driving to an unfamiliar location, not knowing how long it will take, not even knowing if I'll make the movie and then having to account for the time coming back, it makes it hard to do. Even on my night off, when I don't have to worry about getting back in time to get some sleep before work, it's a hassle. So, I pretty much have the one cinema. But with these four films bypassing my local cinema, I'm annoyed. Yes, I know they'll be on DVD before the year's end but I fear this is the start of a trend.

I've noticed that all four of these films could be considered arthouse or films for a more select crowd. That's what I believe the problem to be. That the films don't hold enough “mainstream” appeal to be shown at every cinema. And I get that these films need to make money, obviously, and that appealing to niche markets instead of a more general audience isn't something that brings the consumers en masse. But if the films are limited to such a small number of cinemas, well, that's WHY they lose money. You're kind of screwing yourself over if you keep these things small.

Also, let's take a look and see what aspects of these films that the “mainstream” (I'm not putting the word in air quotes to be pretentious, it's just hard to pin down exactly what the mainstream is so it's kind of an undefinable term) audiences would be attracted to.
Young Adult is directed by Jason Reitman, written by Diablo Cody and stars Charlize Thereon. Jason and Diablo previously worked together on Juno, Jason has also directed Thank You For Smoking and Up In The Air and Diablo created The United States Of Tara and wrote Jennifer's Body. So... you're telling me THIS lacks “mainstream” appeal? Hell, it has Charlize Thereon and it's a romantic comedy with dramatic elements, isn't that what studio suits love to hear?
Martha May Marcy Marlene, that I can understand. The director and cast are relatively unknown and the plot isn't something that screams “date night” or “fun for the family” (it deals with a woman who escapes the clutches of a cult and her attempts to live a normal life). Doesn't mean it should be shunted, though.
Shame, much like the above film, has a plot that might seem confrontational (sex addict has a sister that comes to live with him, and that's being very brief and not doing it any service), but since it stars Michael Fassbender and Carey Mulligan, I thought that might have been enough to warrant some attention.
And now, My Week With Marilyn. It's a film about Marilyn Monroe during the filming of The Prince And The Showgirl, starring Michelle Williams, Kenneth Branagh and Emma Watson. I'm sorry, where's the factor that would keep most audiences from seeing this? Marilyn Monroe is well known to even the younger crowd (surprising, seeing as how kids these days hate anything that was created before them) and it's a biopic, which don't tend to do too badly (except maybe J. Edgar, I don't know how well it's going).

Without trying to come off as pretentious, it saddens me that cinemas will fall over themselves to get endless Chipmunk sequels and in the case of my country, any old crap we'll make (Any Questions For Ben? Yeah, I have a question: why does you suck?) but we won't broaden our horizons and try to cater to markets looking for something new?

That's not to say I'll shun anything “commercial”, I'm on the edge of my seat for The Dark Knight Rises, The Avengers and Skyfall. Hell, I've seen all seven Police Academy movies, I own them in a collector pack and I actually like all of them (well, six of them and I tolerate Mission To Moscow. Just barely), so I'm the last person to turn to for higher culture. I'm as dumb as they come, ask anyone I know. My criteria for film isn't based on being an indie or being the summer blockbuster. It basically goes “What's it about and does it have anyone in it that would make me want to jump out a window after setting myself on fire?” I believe it was Roger Ebert who said, and I may be paraphrasing slightly “A film's not about what its about, its how it goes about it”. That's all I need from my movies. I can sit there and watch comedy capers like Rat Race and Those Magnificent Men In Their Flying Machines, but I can also appreciate deep and thought provoking fair like Memento and One Hour Photo. All I want is to be allowed to see these films daring to be different.

And is that too much to ask?

You Can Learn All The Math In The 'Verse...

Ah, Valentine's Day. Of all the “global” (for lack of a better term) holidays, it is perhaps the one that gets the biggest mixed reaction. Some see it as a romantic Christmas-styled day, the day in which romance is at its greatest and like Christmas with joy, it's the day that people in love celebrate that love the entire day. But on the other side (again, not unlike Christmas), to many, it is also considered a crass, money-making venture, in which the corporations mass produce garbage and fool people into buying nonsense in the vain pursuit of keeping love.

And while very few people to no one at all gives a damn about my opinion, that's not going to stop me from delivering it (why would you be here otherwise?)

Much like the general mixed reaction of the world's population, I too am on the borderline of Valentine's Day and the celebration thereof. I haven't dated a lot of women, so I don't have that many Valentine's Day experiences. So, if you came here looking for sad or hilarious anecdotes on the perils of one nerd's dating experiences, you're outta luck. Move along, nothing to see here, go to YouTube and look up bears on trampolines or something random like that.
But my mixed feelings come from that fact that while I don't hate Valentine's Day, I don't embrace it and spread the message for all to hear, either.

I think a lot of that stems from this one thought: as cliché as it is, and it may look like I'm trying to score bonus points, but I'm someone who thinks when you love someone, you don't save it all up for one day, like you're a squirrel storing nuts for winter, but you show it in little or big ways throughout the year, and every year, if that person means so much to you. And, yet again, the same does apply to Christmas, in that we should be expressing these emotions and executing these actions more often. There's no law that says you can't buy something, wrap it up nicely and present it to a loved one when it's not February 14th. Or take your spouse out for a night on the town. And there shouldn't be an end goal, either. Not one that isn't “showing my love”, “showing how much I appreciate my other half” or “making my partner happy”. Last time I checked, Valentine's Day was a day of celebrating love, not “the day where you definitely get some action, it's like, a rule or something”. Really, if sex is your end goal, just go to a bar and be done with it. And I am not suggesting you cheat on your partner, just that if you can't put aside your primal urges and be more romantic, then maybe you shouldn't be in a relationship, unless that's what your relationship runs on.

That's not me trying to be a prude or to rain on anyone's parade, or an attempt to lecture people on how to live their lives. It's just that... well, I'd like to think romance isn't dead. I wouldn't say I'm the most romantic person in the world, or that I'm an expert on it (far from it. Seriously, words can't express how much I would suck at it) but I'd like to think that romance does win the day when it comes to relationships. That it's not all about the lust, or the idea of being with someone so you don't die alone, or any reasons that wouldn't make a long term relationship work. That two people can be with each other, weighing up the pros and cons and deciding that the good is worth all the little things you may not like.
In fact, I think everyone NEEDS a flaw. It's these little imperfections that keep a person interested. True perfection has to be imperfect. And to not quote or paraphrase someone else, I look at it this way: being first or the best all the time sets up tremendous pressure to maintain such status and you're always going to have people waiting for you to crash and burn. By building yourself up as perfect, you're setting yourself (and others) up for a fall. When something is subjective, there is no 100%. But if you're like me, you still think anything over 50% is good, so that's what you should strive for. Not to be the best, just to have qualities that someone will be attracted to. That's not to say you can't try to better yourself or work on your flaws but you shouldn't have to do a complete personality overhaul. Like it has been said “Learn to love yourself first”. Well, I don't know if I should be saying that. I mean, I don't hate myself, but I think I'm above average. Except in the looks department, that's where I drop the ball, but I can't really help a lot of that and I don't much care, to be honest. But back to flaws, obviously some are deal-breakers, like alcoholism or history of abusing others. Stuff like that just makes me with the justice system of the Western world would man up and just remove the scum, exile them to an island with fierce creatures (or that one with the Smoke Monster, get that one). But little things like singing in the shower or love of sci-fi or something, those can be worked around. Hell, that's even if you call them flaws in the first place, it's not like I can speak for everyone. But if you're with someone who's funny, intelligent, good-natured, caring and just all around beautiful in mind, body and soul, and the worst thing about them is they embarrass you when they dance, that shouldn't be an issue. You shouldn't be trying to fix these things, you should be thinking “As much as I'm not fond of that aspect, I'll take it any day of the week over not being in their arms”. If people change, it should be out of a desire to do so on their own. They shouldn't be pressured into it, they should make that decision on their own.

So, in summary, while I can admire that there is at least one day for romance, can't we just spread the love around? And also, can people (mostly guys, I'm calling you out) actually remember to get their gifts BEFORE Valentine's Day, unless it's set up on the day itself? And enough with the last minute “cards, chocolates and flowers” schtick. Your partners deserve better. That is, if you still have partners after that.

So, for love to truly conquer all, we have to let it show a lot more often. That's something I hope to do.

(Also, apologies for the title. It doesn't make much sense to non-fans of that franchise but since my best friend will be reading this, I know he'll enjoy it. So, you're welcome, buddy).

With This Ring, You'll Be Dead (Part 2)

And welcome back to my review of the 2011 live action Green Lantern film. Last blog, I went over how uninteresting or downright irritating I found the supporting cast of Hal's friends on Earth, while Hal himself was well acted.

In contrast to the Earthlings, the members of the Lantern Corps are much more fun to hang with. Tomar-Re (Geoffrey Rush) NEEDED more screen time, that's how criminally underused he was. Playing the role of gentle mentor to Hal, Geoffrey's little screen time was not wasted.
And Michael Clarke Duncan as Kilowog? He's a hoot, and he even gets to say “Poozer”! Like Ryan, he's a fan of the comics and much like Geoffrey, I demand he get more screen time in the sequel (which I hope they do).

Luckily, the film does have an ace up its sleeve in terms of supporting characters with Mark Strong as senior Green Lantern, Sinestro. Even when things are at their worst, and death seems imminent, Sinestro remains calm and level-headed and that inspires our confidence that he's an exceptional Lantern. Though distrusting of Hal at first (cos of the whole “humans have never been Lanterns” thing), he doesn't come down especially harsh on him, just skeptical, with Sinestro being a creature of logic and all. Considering how much time the movie spends on Earth, he gets a fair amount of screen time (though a little more wouldn't hurt) and he might just be my favourite character in the movie (tied with Tomar-Re).

But it's not all fun and games in space. Our main villain, Parallax, isn't something I'd praise the creative team for. Visually, he looks like one of aliens of Mars Attacks with tentacles and for that, it kind of detracts from the menace he's supposed to project. Also, I know it might have been a little taxing to adapt Parallax directly from the comics but besides the prominent use of yellow, he doesn't resemble a giant bug at all. Yeah, that probably doesn't sound very menacing but its all about delivery. He's almost as badly mangled from the comics as Galactus was in Rise Of The Silver Surfer (seriously, a giant cloud? Really? That's your best idea? Look, the attire of Galactus may look silly, but making him a bad special effect out of some Twister knock-off isn't an acceptable alternative. I'll get to those movies eventually, too, though before the reboot, since no one has any clue on when that will hit our screens).
Character-wise... well, he's not much of one. Standard villain dialogue and motivation of conquest, blah blah blah. But what really pisses me off is how the film deals with him in the end (spoiler warning, best to skip ahead if you have yet to see this film)

Now, it's probably no shock that he gets killed off. He's a supervillain in a comic book movie after all, we're more shocked when they don't die/vanish. Basically, Hal and Parallax duke it out in space and Hal uses his ring to create a giant green fist and punches Parallax straight into a nearby sun. Parallax is vanquished, Hal's fellow Lanterns take him to the Lantern homeworld, Oa and Hal is given the respect he deserves.
That last part doesn't bother me. Again, par for the course. No, it's the fact that we have yet another comic book movie in which the rookie hero, with little to no training, takes out the major threat, sometimes through dumb luck. Biggest offenders before Green Lantern were Daredevil (come on, the Kingpin's solid muscle! I don't care if Daredevil had been active for some months before the movie, the Kingpin's been doing this for YEARS!) And in Fantastic Four, despite even less training (did they even experiment with their powers, besides Reed?), Dr. Doom gets his arse handed to him. Granted, he wasn't all that adept a fighter but that's for another blog somewhere down the line.
My point is, these are the representations of the supervillains from the comics that are just so badass and cool. To see them on the big screen go down like weaklings feels like a disrespect to their comic counterparts.
Let's compare to how some other supervillains are defeated in other movies. In Spider-Man, Green Goblin takes himself out and its a homage to the comic, and the scene is a shock to the system for anyone who never read the comic beforehand. Batman Begins, again, the villain doesn't get apprehended by the hero. Batman does stop his plan but Ra's Al Ghul chooses not to save himself, basically committing seppuku with a train. Iron Man, Stane's had less time in his suit than Tony and it's Pepper who delivers the final shot, so to speak. That one gets bonus points for having the love interest play an active part in the villain's defeat. In fact, she pretty much kills him (not in cold blood, mind you). Yes, those movies are much better than Green Lantern regardless but if Parallax had been sealed again or weakened to the point of near-death, I wouldn't be so annoyed. Or if it had been Sinestro or Kilowog or the Guardians who faced him down, but no, can't have that, gotta have the rookie be the one that takes on the supposed menace. If Hal had weakened him and Sinestro had been the one to finish him off once and for all, it would have given Sinestro closure for Parallax causing the death of his friend, Abin Sur. It would have looked awesome and Hal still would have been a hero, for his bravery and effort.

But also, was Parallax chosen just because they needed the Earth threatened in a big way and thus build him up? You're telling me that other Green Lantern villains wouldn't have worked? Granted, I don't see The Icicle or Solomon Grundy being dangerous to the world or universe at large but what about the Manhunters? Or Mongul, despite his association with Superman as well? Kanjar Ro appeared in the DC Original Animated film Green Lantern: First Flight but he could work again, as he wasn't even the main villain in that. And while it might seem too early, having members from the other Lantern Corps would have worked, the Red Lanterns in particular, being powered by rage and all (but explaining all the different Corps would take a whole other blog on its own and this one's way long already).

To summarize, Green Lantern's biggest problems were not enough time spent in space, with the interesting characters, and spending too much time on Earth, with the dirtbags we don't care about and the cliché of the rookie overcoming the big bad too easily. For all that, though, I still award it 3.5/5, if only because there is promise here. With Sinestro crossing the threshold to villainy like in the comics, he'll get his day and maybe we'll get an epic space battle. We can only hope.

This Little Light Of Mine, I'm Gonna Let It Shine (Part 1)

Even though I've given it a mini-review of sorts in my blog on the movies I saw in 2011, Green Lantern is a film I've been wanting to review for sometime now. I've held off mostly due to all the films I've seen this year and as an attempt to spread my wings a little with what I review, since I have done a fair few comics and comic book movies. Granted, that won't be stopping (not with this year seeing the release of some great comic book movies and some more titles from the New 52) but I feel now I should go over my feelings about the Green Lantern film.

Now, considering how many Green Lanterns there have been in the comics, I won't be giving a brief history on the Corps itself. However, I do want to go into Hal Jordan's origin.

Hal Jordan was created by John Broome and Gil Kane during what was known as the Silver Age Of Comics (when a lot of silly stuff happened), making his debut in October 1959. Despite his title, he was not connected to the previous Green Lantern, Alan Scott (who was not connected to the Corps. Long story, for another time). Whereas Alan was a solo hero with a magic lantern, Hal was part of the Green Lantern Corps, an intergalactic police force. Dividing the universe into 3600 sectors, the Guardians created the Corps and dispatched at least two Lanterns per sector and gave them a ring harnessing green energy representing willpower. Thus, to be a Lantern, you needed great willpower and the ability to overcome fear. This willpower allows the ring bearer to create constructs of anything they can think of.
Hal was special for at the time, he was the first human to be a Lantern and in the public consciousness, he is the face of the Corps. Other Lanterns from Earth would come and go and some would even gain popularity in other mediums (John Stewart in the DCAU production Justice League for example) but Hal is who most people would think of, regardless of which Lantern they grew up with or read first.

So, naturally, he was the Lantern selected to be the focus for the live action film. At this point, DC's track record of putting their heroes on the big screen is mixed. On the one hand, Batman and Superman have well known and well loved films, with the reboot of Batman changing not just how comic book movies (and comic books to some extent) are done but the industry as a whole (as did Inception. I'm going to go ahead and call it, Nolan is some kind of sorcerer, he's just too damn good). On the other... well, that's it for DC's A-list roster on the big screen. Despite having such strong and solid characters like the Flash, Wonder Woman and the Teen Titans, most of what DC fling at us are characters with a smaller following. Now, I'm not against that, I'm happy to see DC try and get some more characters into a wider scene but why exactly does Jonah Hex get his own movie before someone like Green Arrow? And Steel, from way back? I can understand The Losers, being a Vertigo imprint (for non comic fans, Vertigo's essentially a section inside of DC, mostly focusing on more “mature” content, like Sandman, Preacher and Hellblazer) and Watchmen is a standalone work, which are always easier to adapt. But how can you expect a Justice League movie when only two of your major players get the screen time? And yes, there WAS a Justice League movie being planned but that got scrapped and I don't see it happening anytime soon.

But I'm getting off-track. In short, having Green Lantern on screen gave me hope that things were moving forward, and that maybe Aquaman, Flash and Wonder Woman films would soon follow.
Now, let's get to the movie proper. Due to how much I have to say about this movie, I'm splitting the review in two posts. I don't like doing it because it feels a bit cheap and it seems like I'm favouring a movie (despite the rating I give it) but considering everything I have to say, plus the text above, I feel in this case that it's necessary.

Hal Jordan (Ryan Reynolds) is a cocky and smug test pilot for Ferris Aircraft, who's putting the careers of his co-workers in jeopardy while showing off during a test flight. One night, he is drawn to the crash site of a dying alien, Abin Sur (Temuera Morrison) and is inducted into the Green Lantern Corps. Hal soon learns of Parallax (voiced by Clancy Brown), a being of immense power, capable of destruction on planetary levels and that Parallax has his sights set on Earth. It's up to Hal to prove his worth amongst the Corps, under the watchful eye of Thaal Sinestro (Mark Strong) and save the Earth.

OK, there's a bit more to it, but we'll get to that. Green Lantern is a mixed film. For just about every good element, there's something that needed to be tweaked or removed altogether. Rather than do a point by point on every good and negative aspect, I'll try and keep it short and go with just a few of each.

Let's start with something good: Ryan Reynolds is a damn good Hal Jordan. A huge comic fan, it's always nice to see Ryan in any comic book movie, because you know he cares. Would I say Hal is his best? No, but when you've played Wade Wilson, it's a hard act to follow (and he better be Deadpool when that movie finally takes off. Seriously, he was the best thing in X-Men Origins: Wolverine). Ryan plays Hal as smug but noble, traits the character has had in the comics since his creation and hearing him say the oath, you can't help but be pumped. Though, part of that might be due to how awesome the oath is on its own.
Hal's a quick thinker, too, and the constructs he creates are wonderful. There's the standard giant green fist, and guns and swords (in a damn good scene, no less, between Sinestro and Hal in which they practice with sword constructs) but without giving them all away, they're way better than I expected and easily a highlight of the film.

For something bad... there's the supporting cast of characters on Earth. They range from being average (pretty much everybody not about to be mentioned) to being poorly developed (Hector Hammond, Thomas Kalmaku) to being Blake Lively.
Yeah. I hate Blake Lively. What exactly is a Gossip Girl doing in a movie like this? There's no himbos to slut up to or drugs to snort, so why was she chosen over candidates like Jennifer Garner or Eva Green? Really, throughout most of the movie, she just looks pissed off or vacant, like she doesn't want to be there. Well, that's fine, we don't want you there. I get that comics aren't big to a lot of Hollywood stars but why would you cast someone so superficial? At least get someone who gives a damn. Hell, Jennifer Garner has already been in a comic book movie (what's that? Elektra got a spin-off? I don't know what you're talking about and let us never speak of that again) and another potential for the role, Keri Russell, voiced Wonder Woman in the movie of the same name released under the DC Original Animated line (and she suited that role to a tee, and helped make it the best movie of the entire line). So, what did Blake offer that they couldn't? Could be worse, we could have that Heidi Montag skank. Having seen that “audition tape” she sent for the third Transformers movie, I would pay someone to punch her parents for letting her exist.

But on to Hammond, as the secondary villain. Before being infected with an aspect of Parallax, he's an average guy, and so far, no complaints from me. Once the infection kicks in... what the Hell? I've read his debut story. He may have a big head thanks to the alien influence but why does he look like Quasimodo's bastard son? In that story, while his head was big, he still looked dapper. But that doesn't compare to the characterization. Again, pre-infection, nothing wrong, everything seems promising. After... he becomes a whiny, petulant, creepy stalker. The scene that reveals he knew Carol (Blake's “character”, and if Carol Ferris was real, she'd kick Blake's arse for raping her name) and Hal back in their youth is right about the time I realized this movie wasn't getting any better. Oh look, another “everybody knows everybody” movie. It doesn't add to anything, he doesn't do much with Carol and no one cares about his eventual fate anyway, so if we were supposed to sympathize with him, you failed, movie. And to add insult to injury, the biggest recurring characteristic is his sour relationship with his father and how he keeps bitching about him. What I hate about that is that it made me think of Blackheart from Ghost Rider. And I HATE Blackheart. “Wah wah, Daddy didn't love me, I'm going to use my superpowers in rage against him RAAAARGHBARGBLEGH!” and you just wish someone would hurry up and shoot them in the goddamn head (and I'll get to reviewing Ghost Rider, probably just before the sequel comes out).

Next time, I'll get into the other members of the supporting cast and the villain.

Smashing Time, Old Boy

One of my all time favourite gaming franchises is the all-star fighting series, Super Smash Bros. From the first game on the Nintendo 64, to Melee on GameCube and culminating with the Wii's installment, Brawl. I can still remember when my brother and I rented the first one and how amazed we were that something we had wanted for so long, our favourite video game characters coming together for good-natured battling, was real. And we've both enjoyed the series since then.

A while ago, it was announced that the upcoming Wii U would be receiving the next installment and that there may be a handheld game to go along with it. I, for one, am excited by this news, and I await the announcements of the roster of characters available.
Until then, I can only speculate and hope for certain characters to make their debut. Provided below is a list of the characters I want to appear in the next game. Now, like the rules for the development team when including characters, there are two things that will be considered for this list:

- No licensed characters/characters that primarily appear in other mediums (in other words, no Spider-Man, Robocop or any other movie/comic/TV show characters. They have to be video game characters and primarily video game characters).
- The candidates have to have appeared in a Nintendo game before inclusion (basically, Master Chief and Big Daddies won't be showing up here). If they started off on another system or even the arcades but released a game through a Nintendo console, handheld or otherwise, they are eligible.
I will also add this additional rule: with the exception of characters from the Marvel Vs. Capcom series and the like, characters that come from fighting games won't be here because, well, they already fight in their own games and most of them are much more violent than the nature of Super Smash Bros. Though, the exception only extends to the other characters of the Capcom side of the Marvel Vs. Capcom series, since they are not fighters by nature. Or, fighters of that nature anyway (for anyone slightly baffled, Capcom is behind the Street Fighter franchise).

Before we get to the top 10, here are some honourable mentions and some of their games to check out (titles will not always be the same for each console, I'm mostly going by franchise name, unless the character didn't start off on a Nintendo console. In which case, I will list a game or two you can find on those systems, most likely their Nintendo debut). Now, I acknowledge that most of the characters mentioned throughout this blog are from the NES. Well, I grew up with that system and most of the best franchises had their genesis on it, so of course I want to see them return to the gaming world in some fashion.
Anyway, let's get started on the honourable mentions:

Dirk The Daring (Dragon's Lair- NES, SNES, GB)
Kuros (Wizards And Warriors series- NES, GB)
Zeke and Julie (Zombies Ate My Neighbours and Ghoul Patrol- SNES)
Arthur (Ghosts 'N' Goblins- NES, SNES)
Waluigi (Mario Party 3/Mario Tennis- 64)
Crash Bandicoot (Crash Bandicoot: The Wrath Of Cortex/Crash Of The Titans- GC, Wii)
Jill Valentine (Resident Evil- GC, Wii)
Little Mac (Punch-Out!!- NES, SNES, Wii)
Spyro the Dragon (Spyro The Dragon: Enter The Dragonfly- GC, Wii)
Bill and Lance (Contra- NES, SNES, GB, DS)
Erik, Baleog and Olaf (The Lost Vikings- SNES)
Lolo (The Adventures Of Lolo- NES)
Billy and Jimmy (Double Dragon- NES, GB, SNES)

Now, a lot of those choices would sound a little strange but I never said they would actually be considered, it'd just be nice. Though, Arthur does appear in Marvel Vs. Capcom 3 and I think Jill Valentine appears in a Capcom crossover fighting game.

But now, for the main ten I want to see, not really in any particular order, bar the first three. So, without further adieu, the top ten characters I want to see in future games of Super Smash Bros.

10. Pac-Man (Pac-Man/Pac In Time- NES, SNES, GB, GC, DS)
What do I have to say about Pac-Man? He's one of the most beloved gaming icons and he's still cherished today. And hey, if Mr. Game And Watch and ROB can be included, why not Pac-Man? Granted, I don't know what kind of move they'd give him to get himself back up in case he falls but as for his Final Smash? Well, gee, what else COULD it be?! (By the way, the Final Smash is like an ultimate move that other players will find hard to avoid and usually ends with a few K.O's)

9. White Bomberman (Bomberman- NES, GB, SNES, 64)
No stranger to multiplayer fun, Bomberman seems like a natural fit to the series, and he'd be sure to hold some surprises with some non-bomb related moves. And again, his Final Smash is too obvious to warrant typing but suffice it to say, he'd go out with a bang!

8. SOPHIA (Blaster Master- NES)
She's not the main character but she's perhaps the most memorable. Maybe it's because she's a kick-arse tank. Maneuverability might be a little tricky but if she falls, her jet power will get her back up and she has no shortage of weapons to keep her in the fray. Heck, she could even use Jason, the pilot, as an alternate mode. And for her Final Smash, maybe a mecha mode?

7. Rash/Zitz/Pimple (Battletoads- NES, GB, SNES)
They may have been long forgotten but back in the day, the Battletoads could have been serious contenders to the Turtles for animal dudes with attitude. And I think anybody with a NES remembers their first game (something I covered in a previous blog) and how mind-numbingly hard it was. Their move pool is easy and they have fantastic leaping ability. We'd only need one, though, and I'm happy with any of them. Final Smash? Wish I could think of one, but I bet it would be a humorous one if they are included in a future game.

6. Bub and Bob (Bubble Bobble- NES, GB)
Double bubble trouble with these two! If we can have the Ice Climbers, from just one game, team up and be counted as one character for the selection, why not these two? Their way of staying afloat is simple and their Final Smash could involve Baron Von Bubba! God that guy pissed me off. Anyway, I want to see these guys back in the limelight.

5. Robotnik (Sonic The Hedgehog- GC, GBA, Wii, DS)
The only villain in the top ten and the only one from a franchise that's already had characters introduced in a previous game (Sonic made his debut in Brawl). And no, I don't call him Eggman because that's stupid. That's like a line-of-sight name. So, he's egg-shaped and he's a man, thus he's Eggman? Screw that, he started off as Robotnik, he'll stay as Robotnik. Anyway, the games could do with some more villains and seeing as how he's a robotic genius, his arsenal will make for good moves. His Final Smash would easily be one of his vast vehicles.

4. Master Higgins (Adventure Island- NES, GB, SNES)
Another character from the good ol' days that had a good run but faded away. Considering he had axes and dinosaur buddies, it's easy to see what his move pool could consist of and he has an easy way of not falling to his doom with his flying buddy. And the Final Smash could see all his dino friends team up and take out his opponents.

3. The Lemmings (Lemmings- NES, GB, SNES)
OK, hear me out. Anyone who has played Lemmings knows that you assign Lemmings different jobs to get them across one side of the level to the other safely. Well, much like Mr. Game And Watch using moves from his different Game And Watch games, you could apply those jobs here for the Lemmings. The ones with the parasol could prevent you from falling (or the builder) and our little explosive friends could be the Final Smash (OH NO! 'POP'. Sorry, that always cracks me up). I should see if there's a DS version of the Lemmings.

2. Simon Belmont (Castlevania- NES, GB, SNES)
The whip wielding vamp hunter has been gone far too long. Sure, the series lives on with various generations of Belmonts and other hunters, but Simon was the original (in production terms) and still one of the best known. Though I wouldn't say no to his grandfather, Trevor Belmont. Or Alucard, though debate could range on whether or not he counts since he's not an original video game character. However, the video game version is different enough. Anyway, some of the series secondary weapons could be his attacks (especially the cross) and his whip will keep him out of harm's way should the level collapse. And his Final Smash could involve a sealing spell of some sorts. OK, those happened on the DS but I can imagine he'd have done something similar.

And the character I want most is...

ECCO THE DOLPHIN!
Nah, just kidding, what kind of stupid franchise is that?
No, seriously...

1. Mega Man (Mega Man- NES, GB, SNES)
Yes, I am aware that there are several versions of Mega Man (I want Classic, though, the one from Mega Man 1-10 and the Game Boy versions) and that he's playable in Marvel Vs. Capcom 2. Don't care, he made the big time on the NES, now he needs to come home. The Blue Bomber's games are some of the greatest I've ever played and as a kid, Mega Man 2 was always fun, even if that's another game my brother and I never completed. With so many powers to choose from, his weaponry would be the easiest to program and it'd be so nostalgic (ideally, I imagine Cut Man's, Metal Man's and Shadow Man's powers to be included). Add in Rush as his method of transport and you're set. And his Final Smash? Easy: combine with Rush, charge the Mega Buster and unleash. BOOM!

Well, hope anyone remotely interested in the series enjoyed this list, or even got you thinking about who you want to see. Maybe you what Tails from Sonic? Or Slippy from StarFox? Or even Birdo from the Mario franchise? Maybe the Prince of Persia even?
I could go on about other stuff I want from the sequels, like level designs, but I think its best we end here (though about levels, I will say this: I want a Tetris level, resembling the NES version, complete with the music lifted straight out of the game. Get to work!)

So, let me know, which Nintendo characters do you want to see in future games?

It's All Fun And Games Until Someone Gets Struck By Lightning

And to close out the week, I have been provided with yet another cinema offering to blog about. This time, it's the found footage-style film, Chronicle.

Andrew (Dane DeHaan), Steve (Michael B. Jordan) and Matt (Alex Russell) encounter a strange glowing object underground, after attending a rave. After blacking out while around the object, they awaken to discover they have gained powers and abilities beyond those of mere mortal men. Using Andrew's camera, they document their experimentation with their powers and bond over their discoveries. But things take a darker turn, leading to great abuse of the power provided...

For those unsure of what found footage films are, think of The Blair Witch Project (or don't, it's crap, and that's being nice to that atrocious garbage), Cloverfield (this, on the other hand, is outstanding and the pinnacle of the found footage genre) or the Paranormal Activity films (which I find to be rather average, but hilarious. If that's not intentional, well, the movies have a problem but still, I have fun laughing at them). Basically, it's a film made up of footage from cameras, like the person in the movie is filming the events for their own reasons. Andrew's reason is... well, he just decided to. And later on, it serves to document the boys testing their powers like invulnerability, telekinesis and flight.
However, his is not the only camera that footage is garnered from. Footage is utilized from different cameras, including Casey, a blogger who often films things as material for her blog and from police cameras. It's really clever, offers different viewpoints from the supporting cast/random bystanders and keeps the flow going, rather than taking a break out to show things off-camera, if that makes sense.

Some of the film's best scenes are, unfortunately, the ones seen in the trailer, in which the teens test their new-found powers by pulling pranks and simple tests. It is the bonding between the teens that makes these scenes work, as all of them become ecstatic when they make new discoveries (see the scene in which they take flight for the first time, they're all completely amazed. And it's hilarious, too, seeing Matt try and not quite get it the first few times and keep falling) and praise each other when they do something the others haven't yet or aren't quite up to speed with (Andrew's telekinesis is much stronger than Matt's and Steve's, as shown when he constructs a Lego tower with it, whereas Matt can barely hold two blocks in the air). Naturally, these scenes are early on and they do the best job of building the relationship with the characters, even though Matt and Andrew are cousins and thus, already have a pre-existing relationship. Despite being from different cliques in school (Andrew's the “weird, lonely, picked-on kid” and remember that, it will be important later; Matt's the everyman, the guy who may not be THE most popular guy but he's got friends and he's generally well-respected; and Steve is one of the most popular guys in school, even in the running for class president), even before they get their powers, they all treat each other with respect, even though they rag on each other at times. But then, that's what teens do, don't they?

Steve is probably my favourite of the characters, mostly because he doesn't seem too concerned with the politics of the school system and is more casual and easygoing, but when he and Andrew start hanging out more, he sincerely wants to help Andrew get out of his shell more, culminating in Andrew entering a talent show (using his powers, of course) and him winning the crowd over and becoming the man of the hour.

Matt takes a bit to warm up to, it doesn't seem like he has a whole lot of respect for Andrew, acting like an older brother who has to scold his little brother and set him right. Once the powers kick in, he starts seeing Andrew as someone capable of providing great things to the world. Again, like an older brother. However, as the film goes on, his better traits do shine through and he's a lot more noble and selfless than expected.

Andrew, however, is the odd man out (and here there will be spoilers, and this will be long, so it might be best to skip ahead).
Andrew's problem is two-fold: in the way he's written and the way he's portrayed. Well, maybe not so much written, but more in the backstory itself. This will probably be branded a superhero film, since, well, the kids have powers. And by the end, you can see that happening. But if that's the case, if you haven't seen the trailer, you'll guess that Andrew is the most likely to go evil and abuse his power. Why? Well, here are the factors: he has a deadbeat, alcoholic father who loves to beat the crap out of his son and berate him (and this we learn within the first five minutes, with only his voice to go on, so already we're supposed to hate him. And I hated him as soon as I heard him speak his first line); his loving mother is dying of cancer (gee, that's not going to end badly is it?); as mentioned before, he's not popular in school, constantly being beaten up and belittled; and he's had no luck with girls. When you add it all up, you're really stacking it against the kid aren't you? You might as well put a big neon sign above his head saying “Future supervillain right here!” The trailer even hints at it, the scene in which he crushes a car, with a scowl on his face.
The problem is, as a supervillain origin story, it's not exactly original. Father's an abusive loser, only family member you love dies, your peers can't stand you. You know who pops into my head when I write that? Doctor Octopus. Seriously, take out the glowing object, replace it with science and age him up, it's Doc Ock. Hell, the Riddler had the abusive father angle too. And look at Harry frickin' Osborn, his father's a psycho! The Penguin avoids the abusive father angle (if I recall correctly) by having his father die early but Penguin does have the “picked on by kids his own age” schtick going for him, based on his appearance and the fact that he carried an umbrella everywhere (at his mother's insistence) .
And after all the crap he has to endure, including the quick loss of his new popularity, is it any shock that he goes on a rampage and basically becomes what Carrie would have been if she had lived?
If it were me, I'd have changed things slightly: I'd have written the father out, made him slightly less of a weird loner and maybe not even have it set in high school, maybe they've just graduated or starting college, and have his start of darkness be based on the fact that even with all his powers, he can't stop his mother from dying, and he turns to crime as the means of making her better (which he does do in the movie but not for long, as its towards the end of the movie and we have the final showdown to get through), with his full blown villainy erupting because he sees himself as a failure for not being able to do anything for her, even though, in his mind, he's on the verge of godhood. Not only would it be slightly more original, he'd be more sympathetic and he could be more mature when talking to his friends, and not lashing out.

This brings me to the next part of the problem: now, Dane DeHaan does a really good job with the role, for the most part, but more often than not, regardless of the situation, he sounds like he's about to cry or whimper or moan. In some cases, like when he's beaten at the rave in the beginning, of course that's natural. But in everyday conversation? OK, I get it, you're being bullied at school. You're not alone, dude. I went through something similar and I hated high school. Those who say they enjoyed it were usually the ones who tormented the ones who didn't. But I never took my abuse out on anyone who DID want to help me, and I always appreciated it and eventually, I moved on with my life. Yes I still hate it, but I hate a lot of things people do, you just have to find new ways of dealing with it. Hell, I had more balls than you in school and I couldn't bloody fly!
So, really, what it boils down to is, he's not as likable as the other two because of inconsistent characterization and a telegraphed origin story. That's not to say he doesn't have his good moments, like when he experiments with his powers or the talent show, which was a delight. Just that early on, it's hard to like him.

But back to the positives, one of the film's biggest strengths is its breakneck speed. Unlike the telegraphing of the origin story for Andrew, when the film wants to deliver something fast, BAM! The first time the guys fly, it's great and fun and perhaps the highlight of the film but then a plane comes and suddenly we're somewhere else. We can guess what happened but it happened that fast that our minds need to catch up. It's disorienting and we ask questions, but in a good way. It's more of a “Holy crap, did you see that?! What was that?!” kind of way, as opposed to “...What the Hell was that crap?!” Now, I've already spoilt enough, but I will say this: the lightning storm. That gave me such an emotional response and I still didn't fully grasp the situation until a few minutes later. That's just how good that scene was directed, written and acted.

So, when scoring this film, how does it fare? To be honest, it would have been a 4 if not for the high school cliches, the origin story cliches and Andrew's inconsistent characterization. Despite that, the fun of seeing the powers in use and the surprises do make this a very good film and thus, I give it 3.5/5

Spy Vs. Spy Vs. Some Other Spies Vs. Some More Spies

And now, for the second movie I saw on Monday night, this one being the film I was going to hold off for a while until it became apparent that I wasn't going to be able to see this or J. Edgar during the morning and decided to make a night trip to my local cinema. Now all I have to do is wait for Young Adult (and now, as I have found out, Martha Marcy May Marlene) on DVD and my original plans are back into place.
Anyway, today's review is for Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, a film that overseas locations have had for a while but for some reason, we've only had it for about two weeks.

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is based on the book by John le Carre and before this film, it was previously adapted for TV, with Alec Guinness playing the lead role in a seven-part series.
During the 70's, British Intelligence is trying to establish an alliance with US intelligence agencies using Soviet intelligence, codenamed “Witchcraft”, authorised by the recently promoted chief, Percy Alleline (Toby Jones). Due to suspicions of a mole in the upper echelon of British Intelligence, George Smiley (Gary Oldman) is brought out of retirement to track down the mole and ascertain the full story on what happened in the incident that lead to his forced retirement.

Like a lot of movies I've seen in the past few years, I did not read the book before seeing the movie and in a lot of cases, it's because when I find out about the movie, I find out about the book at the same time and it usually doesn't give me enough time to track it down and read it before the movie gets released. That's not to say I haven't, though, I made a special point of doing so for The Lovely Bones and as for One For The Money, I had read the book long before a movie was even considered (and despite the casting of Katherine Heigl, I'm still very much looking forward to it).
And nor have I seen the original adaptation either, I probably will one day but it's a manner of finding it.

If you've noticed that I've gone this far without saying much else on the movie itself, well, there's a bit of a confession to that: besides the points I'll get into below, I actually don't have much to say on this one.

That's not to say it's a bad film, no, not at all. It's just... average, really. The spy stuff is pretty much the usual fare for the genre. I will say, though, that it almost acts more like a mystery thriller as opposed to action thriller. I mean, sure, there's bit of action but not loads and loads of shootouts or anything like that. Usually just a single shot to the head or torso, taken out relatively quick and painlessly. So, that does work in its favour.

The tone and feel of the film is very bleak, very depressing. Most colours you see are drab and dreary, it's almost like there's a shadow over England thanks to all this spy business (locking horns with the Soviets wouldn't have helped), almost like the paranoia has manifested into grey skies. Though that's probably in the book, that theme. But since I haven't read it, I still think it's a somewhat valid observation.
Related to that is its a quiet film too, if that makes sense. Characters don't normally talk unless they have something important to say. George Smiley might just be the quietest of the lot, speaking only when he needs to and keeping it short and sweet, for the most part. I'm guessing they've got a mindset of not saying too much lest they be monitored by paranoid superiors or enemy agents.

Speaking of Smiley, well, what can I say about Gary Oldman? I believe at one point he was dubbed “the ultimate chameleon” or something along those lines and really, when you look at his filmography, you can see how he earned it. Personally, while I've never hated anything I've seen him in, and some of what's been a part of are among my favourite films, my pick for his best role is a tie between Norman Stansfield in Leon and Mason Verger in Hannibal (I bet no one's ever actually put those two roles as a tie for first). And is we've come to expect by now, he's more than capable here. I believe within the first 10-15 minutes of the movie, he doesn't say a word and, much like I said above, he says very little. Gary and fellow actor John Hurt (who plays Smiley's boss, before his death) both look weary and you get a vibe that says “we can't keep going on like this”, most likely because of the line of work they're in. You may also notice that they are two of the few people portrayed as being relatively good, being not corrupt or backstabbing.

Out of the rest of the uncorrupted, the strongest performance (no pun intended) comes from Mark Strong, playing Jim Prideaux. Now, I want to take a moment out go state this: holy crap, someone actually cast Mark Strong in the role of a good guy! I mean, as good a person as you can be in this line of work, but still, he's not the villain! OK, he's been a fantastic villain and I acknowledge he hasn't always played a villain (see Stardust) but come on, when you think of him, what's the first role of his you think of? Most likely, RocknRolla, Sherlock Holmes or Kick-Ass (and don't say Green Lantern is an example of a heroic role. While Sinestro was indeed a good guy in that film, and Mark being one of the best features, the sequel will change all that and that is not a spoiler, even if you're not a comic book fan. So, let's say Green Lantern is on the borderline).
But with that out of the way, he's one of the most conflicted characters in the movie. After being forced to leave the services of British Intelligence, he becomes a supply/substitute teacher and forms a somewhat odd bond with an odd boy, acting like a sort of mentor/father figure.
Mark's portrayal is that of a bitter and angry man, feeling betrayed by the very people he thought he knew and often craves his solitude, fearing his past will seep into anything new. His is my favourite performance of the film and he's quickly becoming one of my favourite actors.

So, that's all I have to say. Sorry that there couldn't be more meat to it but I just didn't find much to comment on. And that doesn't make the film bad, just not something to write home about (despite writing a blog about it... I need a better analogy). Anyway, I still recommend it and give it 3/5

Gaze Into The Abyss And The Abyss Gazes Into You

So, on Monday night, I undertook the second double movie session of the year (first was The Muppets and The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo, for new readers and to clarify, I do choose which two movies I want to watch if time is on my side for two). Even though I usually go in the morning for cinema releases, neither of these films was feasible for a day-time showing (one of them was a film I had planned to see on its opening day until it became apparent I would need to wait for a night off), so I chose to go last night since I had it off from work.
The second film will be covered in my next blog, but first, here's the latest Clint Eastwood film, the biopic J. Edgar.

I've never known much about J. Edgar Hoover, and I'm unsure as to whether or not any biographies have been written about him (though I'm going to assume so, he seems to be a very controversial person, even to this day, and we all know how much controversy sells), but even I know that some of what's on display will have to be taken with a grain of salt. So, we'll have to see if the film can balance out being relatively truthful, portraying the subject realistically and also being entertaining.

J. Edgar covers several points in the man's life, going back and forth through time as it needs to. From his final days (not a spoiler) and getting his memoirs done, to his starting up the FBI, and various cases along the way like taking on gangsters and trying to solve the Lindbergh kidnapping. All the while, the film also shows what J. Edgar (Leonardo DiCaprio) was like in private and his relationships with his second-in-command, Clyde Tolson (Arnie Hammer) and his mother, Anna Marie (Judi Dench).

Of all the films I've seen recently, this is perhaps the most uneven and mixed. Is it bad? Not at all, but there a few things I found myself questioning and thinking about.

Let's start with something small: the time skips. Now, being a biopic in which the subject himself is narrating, obviously most of the film is going to be in flashback form. That's fine, I don't have a problem with that. But seeing as how we bounce all over the place, and sometimes when we cut back to the present there are new people we weren't introduced to before, it gets a bit confusing and we shouldn't have to play catch-up (more on the new people later).

Also, despite one scene early on, Naomi Watts really doesn't add that much to the film as Hoover's secretary, Helen Gandy. It's a scene in which Hoover and Gandy are on a date and he proposes marriage to her after impressing her with his skills in locating a book in a little over a minute, using a card catalog system. They're on their third date and Gandy declines, citing her desire for work over marriage. Hoover is impressed with such a reaction and offers her a position as his personal secretary. While this scene works well to establish how she came to be in his employ, after this, her role is reduced to simply being... well, a secretary. I'm not going to fault the movie for that, but since all she does is announce things over an intercom (up until the very end anyway), I fail to see why you needed Naomi Watts for a thankless role. You could have just gotten someone on the production crew to do it, or left it voice only. It's almost like, if the movie itself was Hoover, like the living, physical embodiment, the film is punishing her for refusing his proposal. It's like “Turn me down? Well, to Hell with you, hussy! I'll banish you to a less than adequate supporting role!”

No, for the significant female role, we turn to Judi Dench as Hoover's mother. Now, she plays the role quite well, as we expect, though I wonder if I'm the only one who kept thinking of Norman Bates' mother whenever she spoke. Big difference here is that whereas Mrs. Bates was an abusive monster... Anna Marie was just abusive, though emotionally so. Unlike Mrs. Bates, she did love her son but she was one of those “I will not accept deviation from the norm and you will climb to the top or else kill me now because you're breaking my heart” type of people. And in her mind, not being white and heterosexual was deviating from the norm. So, when she does die (again, not a spoiler, she lingers on for a while and each time you keep thinking “aaaaand now she's dead” before the umpteenth time jump), it's hard for us to feel sorry. Or, it was for me, since she was racist and homophobic. I don't care if they were the values of the time, they've always been pathetic values since their inception and it doesn't help when later, Hoover's wearing one of his mother's dresses and breaks down crying (the only time that Hoover's reported cross-dressing is even brought up).

Now, let's go into some good: Leonardo DiCaprio is once again showing he's breaking away from the “pretty boy” phase he once went through. OK, he's been out of that for a while but it's nice to know he's not going back and his role as Hoover is filled with confidence and poise and he is the best thing about it.
Also of note, Arnie Hammer as Tolson is both extremely sympathetic and witty. Of course, the dialogue helps, but out of all the people who are portrayed as people we're meant to be sympathetic to, he is perhaps the only one who is worthy of such sympathy.

But here's the thing: throughout the film, you can see them together, while not being “together” together and while it is taken seriously for the most part, I can't help but feel Eastwood was taking the piss with some of the moments with just the two of them. For example, when Hoover announces to Tolson that he's considering marrying his current partner, Tolson loses it. Hoover tries to calm him down but Tolson will have none of it and smashes anything he can find. The two fight, before Tolson kisses him square on the lips, leading Hoover to throw him out and whispers “I love you” to himself, before bursting into tears.
What problem do I have with the scene? Well, besides all the innuendo leading up to it seemingly being played for comedy, the physical portion of the fight looks more like they're play-fighting and it kind of demeans the film. I mean, I get the feeling that Hoover was a self-hating homosexual but the film can't make its mind up if it wants to mock the two of them or be sympathetic to the two of them. When you contrast the rest of the film, showing Hoover's efforts in law enforcement, its like Eastwood was told he had to have a comedy subplot or the film wouldn't be shipped and someone thought this should be treated with humor. Seeing as how the fight is never brought up again, it feels like it should have been a verbal confrontation only, seeing as how that's handled with better judgment.

That being said, the parts of the film that do handle the law enforcement aspect are very well done, especially the section that covers the Lindburgh baby kidnapping. I have to wonder how much of this Hoover had a personal hand in, when it comes to the forensics, but it's still impressive and if you don't know the story of the child, it's actually quite gripping.

But, if there is one thing, above all else, that drags the film down, it is this one fact: the film itself decides to show J. Edgar Hoover in a largely sympathetic light. I know his legacy in real life, about how he many presidents tried to get rid of him, about all the measures he took, but rather than lay out events, the ill deeds, along with the good, and let him be judged accordingly, the film largely feels like it was written by Hoover himself, glorifying him whenever possible. As I mentioned with DiCaprio's portrayal, he's confident, always has an answer (his relationship with his mother is perhaps the one time he's portrayed as being somewhat weak) and he stonewalls everyone who gets in his way. But he still looks like the good guy doing so.
He goes through at least three different typists for his memoirs, most likely because they'll ask a question or two and his response is to just be rid of them and put someone new in. It could also be down to paranoia but the truth is, he just wanted things to go his way and didn't like defiance, even when the people in power sometimes need to be defied, like Hoover himself had done in the past.
He only gets called out for his exaggerations towards the end, by Tolson, but that never leads to anything, since Hoover dies not long after. In the end, he was as stubborn as he ever was.

In a nutshell, the film is too sympathetic to a controversial figure and I have to wonder what Eastwood is trying to say.
Still, for all its faults, it still manages to entertain and the performances are noteworthy. Weighing all the factors up, I award the film 3.5/5

Worst. Armour. EVER

I think it's time I confess something when it comes to me and video gaming. Now, I've been playing games for over two decades now (Hell, I think Mario's only slightly older than me!) and I have several consoles, old and new, at my disposal. But, despite all that...

I haven't completed that many games.

When it comes to games, I buy them when they're cheap (or when I see something I've been eagerly awaiting, like Batman: Arkham City, though I paid for mine in advance) so that when I have more free time, I'll get around to them. My reasoning for that is if I waited until I had a couple nights off work, with no new DVD's to watch, the games I wanted might not be there anymore and I might lose out on some rare treasures in the meantime (like I did with Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem. I didn't want to dip into my savings to buy it, so I waited until I got paid next and by that time, it had been sold. OK, I got Super Smash Bros. Melee to make up for it but that's not the point. And for anyone who asks, I have played the game several times but that was while I was living at home with my younger brother, who owns that copy of the game).

Speaking of my brother, he's the opposite: he buys tons of games and completes them seemingly instantly. The amount of games he has would be enough to kill a man if you kept piling them on top of him. And he's completed a Hell of a lot of them.
Though, we both have different ideas about completing games. His is mostly “beat the final boss, do all the interesting stuff, done”. Mine is usually just beating the final boss, most likely because I've either gotten the interesting stuff as I've gone along or the game was average and I didn't care for all the collectibles.

But the point of today's blog is (provided no one's taken away my gamer card) to talk about the games of the NES that between me and my brother, we never completed. The games of the NES were among the hardest little bastards in all of gaming (that's why the trope is called “Nintendo Hard” and not “Dreamcast Hard”) and despite our many attempts at these games, we've never completed them (well, my brother might have through an emulator, I'll have to ask him).

Now, in order to make this list, the following applies:

We have to have owned the game or rented it frequently to count, so don't say “Metroid was way harder, your list is stupid!” or “What about Zelda 2: The Adventure Of Link?” We never owned those and we only rented Zelda 2 a couple times so we couldn't really get much play out of it (and especially don't ask about Contra, I don't even know if we GOT Contra over here, I do remember a game almost exactly the same called Probotector, which had robots instead of the two guys, but that was a long time ago)
If we could get up to, but couldn't beat, the final boss, it doesn't count because while it's a game uncompleted, I'm focusing on the games so hard we could barely make it halfway. So, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 2: The Arcade Game won't make it because we would constantly make it to Shredder but always be defeated by him and we were so disillusioned that we just played something else and kept trying over and over on other days
I'm focusing solely on the NES because most of our uncompleted games were on that console, we had more games than on most others and by the time the more advanced ones came around, higher focus on schooling and other aspects meant we wouldn't be completing games anyway.
We never had Game Genies or anything like that, so don't ask. Not that we would have used them, most likely.
Even though some games had special conditions for winning, in the mind of me and my brother, if we beat the final boss, that counted (biggest example I can think of is Bubble Bobble)

Now, much like my last blog, this will not be a top ten list and there will not be rankings (though, again, the final entry will be what would essentially be a number one)

So, what games frustrated us the most?

Battletoads
This one's first up since this is one we rented a few times, and every time, we got stuck on the third level (the one with the jetski-things). Now, the first level was tons of fun and hilarious, with some interesting gameplay choices, though the second level was hard. That third level? Forget it, you kept crashing into the walls. From what I hear, the game is unwinnable in two player mode anyway so what the Hell?

Bart V.s The Space Mutants/Bart Vs. The World
Tied because the gameplay was similar, difference being we had to rent the latter. Space Mutants, geez that was hard! The first level is annoying as all Hell with those useless items (what's with the whistle that summons a dog that hurts Bart?), you can't jump on most of the enemies and you have no real weapons to defend yourself. The second level has what I believe was wet cement. That pretty much broke it for me, we never got further than that. I don't even know what the rest of the game looks like!
Bart Vs. The World was a little kinder, and gave you a weapon, but most of the jumps were ridiculous and that ice level... ugh.

Adventure Island 2
While this game had some hilarious death sequences and was generous with the dinosaur buddies who would provide some extra power and provide another “hit point”, they weren't enough in the late stages. I can't remember where we got stuck on but I do remember a snow world and my brother somehow bypassing to one of the later worlds and not getting far. A prime example of how NES games were more difficult than the later consoles, due to most characters being one hit-point wonders.

The Flintstones: The Rescue Of Dino And Hoppy
Yeah, we had our share of licensed games, so what? A Hell of a lot of fun, it's one of those “frustrating but you're still enjoying yourself” kind of games, with a neat soundtrack and good graphics. The first boss is a cakewalk, the second was a little trickier but I put that down to my brother and I just wanted to speed through him and just clobber him with Fred's club, but otherwise he's not too hard. The next boss is a vampire and that's where things fall apart. I remember him being the most tricky part for a while. Sometimes we would conquer him, only to fail miserably on the next level.

The Incredible Crash Dummies
Yeah, we loved that one episode of the Crash Dummies and had some of the toys, so getting the video game was natural. And it too was very fun. Great music, good graphics and an actual attempt at varying the playable characters. That being said, using the white Dummy on the unicycle (can't remember the names, it's been years, people!) could be bothersome and again, we only got a couple levels in and I don't think there were passwords. There were so save states, which is what most games should have had, so that didn't help. In fact, the lack of save states, infinite continues and passwords were often the reasons why these games were so hard.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
Surprisingly, we DIDN'T have trouble with the dam level, that was easy (why does everyone think it's so hard? It was annoying, yes, but not hard. Level 3 had several jumps that I call bullcrap on (why is that ledge preventing me from jumping that long distance to the next part of the stage?! I don't want to fall in the water that a turtle can swim in anyway!) and by the time you reached the next level, you had probably lost two of the Turtles anyway. Again, I had no idea what the endgame held, until I saw the Angry Video Game Nerd's video in which he revisited several games that he couldn't get past and we saw the Technodrome. Yeah, it looked impossible.

Ghosts 'N' Goblins
One of the earliest games I can remember playing. As a kid, it kind of freaked me out (mostly the eyes on the zombies and that sound effect but also the intro music). As I got older, it was one of the games that pissed me off the most. Arthur can only sustain two hits. On that second hit, he goes down for the count. And after the first, he loses his armour. What kind of knight loses their armour after something as simple as a zombie touch?! And several of the minions took several hits to kill and some could fly! Also, sometimes you would accidentally pick up a new weapon that replaced your never-ending javelin/spear supply. You had knives, which were pointless since they were basically the same as his regular weapon and fire, which rarely hit its target without major effort. I think we only got up to Level 3 and that's when they added ladders and such to make it harder because you'd take a leap of faith only to end up in the water. One of the absolute hardest for the NES.

The Legend Of Zelda
Unlike the other games listed, this did have a save state. But after Level 5, it was easy to get lost, in the labyrinths or out of them and too easy to get overwhelmed. Really, we just ended up replaying the early dungeons over and over because that's what we were good at.

Now, before we get to the final entry, I must admit this one bends one of the rules slightly, the one about “games that we couldn't get halfway on” but I saved this for last because this will probably cause the most uproar and bring my gamer status into question. Well, here goes...

Super Mario Bros.
Yes, that's right, the original. The two NES sequels, completed. Hell, Super Mario Bros. 3 we completed several times over (even my mother, who has never been much of a gamer, has defeated Bowser a few times!) and even done so on the ports like in Super Mario All-Stars for the SNES. But the original? Nope. I attribute that to the hit point factor again. Something they fixed in the third game and since then was giving Mario an extra hit if he loses his current power like the Fire Flower or the Hammer Suit. He'll go back to Super Mario, no worries. But if you lost the Fire Flower here, tough luck, you go back to regular Mario. And in a game where the Hammer Brothers are actually competent and the Bullet Bills waiting to get you (not to mention only one way to kill off a Buzzy Beetle. Or were they the red winged ones from the third game... damn my aging memory!), you need every bit of power you can get. Now, we did know of the cheats to get to the final Warp Pipes but I'm someone who likes to play through the whole game and get the whole experience. Also, that first level in World 8 is frickin' impossible! A great game but I doubt I'll ever complete it, at least not in the foreseeable future.

So, that was my list of tough NES games my brother and I struggled on. How about the rest of you, what NES games made you pull your hair or throw your controllers against the wall?

Film Wonders From Down Under

Despite the fact that it's the day after Australia Day here, it is still January 26th for a large part of the world, so I'm posting this today instead (plus work has been hectic and draining and I wanted to be in a good place when I did this blog). Now, I'm not going to post a history of the day, or what I'm proud of in Australia, because the truth is, while the country itself is one of the most beautiful, I'm not much for Australian history (if there were knights in it, maybe) and I don't care much for a lot of the people. Basically, if I don't know them, I don't care. It may sound harsh but then, they don't care about me and I'm fine with that. Plus, a lot of them tend to piss me off anyway.

So what to blog about that's related to my country? Well, I don't feel like ranting so it won't be on retired tennis player Margaret Court's homophobic rantings (Margaret, you are wrong. It may be your opinion but your opinion is wrong and that's a fact, so go to Hell already you bigot.) or how four fire trucks and assorted rescue crew were called out to rescue a silly bird that got its leg stuck (what, was it a slow day? No one owned it either, but you required four fire trucks?)

No, instead, I will stay on one of my favourite topics and list some of my favourite Australian films.
Now, Australia's film industry and I have a love-hate relationship. They love to provide me with crap and I love to see their crappy movies fail. Despite that, every now and then, we are capable of making magic happen and a great film is born. Unlike some of my previous lists, these films will not be ranked (though I will save my absolute favourite for last) and there may not necessarily be a specific number in mind.
So, without further adieu, I present some of my favourite films that my country has provided the world with.

Red Hill (Patrick Hughes)
The most recent film on this list that I have seen, the film stars Ryan Kwanten (you overseas viewers know him best as Jason Stackhouse in True Blood) as rookie cop Shane Cooper, who has moved to the town of Red Hill with his pregnant wife, Alice (Claire Van Der Bloom). On his first day (as opposed to being one day from retirement), he learns that a convicted killer by the name of Jimmy Conway (Tom E. Lewis) has broken out of prison and is heading into town to claim his vengeance against the police force.
A quiet little action thriller, it's good to see Ryan back at home and delivering a very good performance (yes, I still think True Blood is the finest thing he's ever done but that's not here or there) and the film maintains a strong balance between delivering enough exposition to keep the story going while letting the silence do the talking (so to speak), and shows off the Australian landscape to great effect, while not letting it overtake the movie's focus (something a lot of Australian films are guilty of, Lantana especially. Basically, a lot of our movies amount to scenery porn).
Another great factor comes with the mystery of the antagonist. He barely speaks, he's determined in his goal, he's not to be underestimated and there's more to his backstory than we're lead to believe.
Like I said, it's the most recent film on this list and probably the best we've offered lately (and probably the best we will be offering for some time).

Animal Kingdom (David Michod)
If there's one genre Australia manages to do well exceptionally well in, it's the crime genre. Loosely based on Melbourne's Pettingill family, it's a story about a young man, Joshua (James Frecheville) growing up in a household in which most of his family are dealing in criminal activities. He finds himself torn between family loyalty and the letter of the law.
I have to admit, this will be a little short since it's been a little while since I've seen it (a refresher course sometime soon might be in order) but this 2010 film (Red Hill was also a 2010 release, so a better year for Australian film all round) is still worth watching. Joel Edgerton perhaps gave the best performance, to me, and was the most likable character, which can be hard when most of the family are irredeemable at best. And it always kept you guessing, never telegraphing its punches.

The King (Matthew Saville)
A telemovie biopic, this spans from the early career of one of our greatest entertainers, Graham Kennedy (Stephen Curry) to his later years.
Stephen Curry has long played comedic characters in feelgood comedies like Take Away and Thunderstruck but despite Graham Kennedy being one of the biggest jokers in the business, Stephen goes above and beyond in portraying his tortured side, the offscreen dramatic persona. Stephen rarely plays the leading role and it's about damn time he got the recognition he deserves.
And as an added bonus, Australian treasures like Shaun Micallef and Angus Sampson lend their considerable talents to this picture. I will admit I am not all that familiar with Kennedy's body of work but with a movie like this, it makes me want to learn more.

Chopper (Andrew Dominik)
Another biopic, this time about a notorious crime figure (told you we do the crime films really well) Mark Brandon “Chopper” Read. Based on the books written by Chopper himself, it's mostly about a stretch in Chopper's life in and out of prison.
Easily Eric Bana's best role to date (and this includes Hanna, which places second), he escapes into this role with ease and he looks like he's having so much fun. Chopper is equal parts intimidating, complex and hilarious (in one scene, Chopper is being questioned by police about a shooting, after the man has ended up in hospital and responds with “Why would I shoot a bloke BANG, then drive him to the bloody car and wizz him off to the hospital at a hundred miles an hour? It defeats the purpose of having shot him in the first place.” I love that scene). Might just be Vince Colosimo's best role, too and the film even adapts one of my favourite anecdotes from the first book (been a while since I've read those, though I am pretty sure it's the first book. It's not in one of the later books, since it was around the fifth of sixth that Chopper turned the series into a fictional one).
Not for the squeamish but for everybody else, an absolute must see.

The Castle (Rob Sitch)
One of the most well known Australian efforts. Darryl Kerrigan (Michael Caton) and his family have carved out their little piece of paradise but developers want to take that away by expanding on the airport the family lives near. Darryl won't take this sitting down and vows to fight them off and keep his home.
When Australians talk about “the little Aussie battler”, the Kerrigans are often considered to be the quintessential battlers. A modest, quiet and funny Australian film, with a fantastic cast (Eric Bana and Stephen Curry show up here too) and lovable characters, it really makes me wish we could be more like the Kerrigans. Enthusiastic, full of fighting spirit, loyal and loving to our families. A must watch.

But now, for not only my favourite Australian film but one that's in my top 100 films of all time (I'll probably get to that list somewhere down the track):

Suburban Mayhem (Paul Goldman)
Katrina Skinner (Emily Barclay) is interested only in the superficial things in life like cars and manicures and commits petty crimes for the Hell of it. Whatever she wants, she gets and if she can't get it, she'll make you regret denying her pleasures. So when her father plans on getting her daughter removed from her care, she puts into motion the biggest crime she can think of.
There is so much to love here. Emily Barclay is a triumph as the manipulative Katrina, who disappears into this role so easily, you wonder how Emily shook it off when filming finished. Despite knowing how it ended, the plot still managed to shock. And the soundtrack? Frickin' awesome! Little Birdy's This Is A Love Song, Suzi Quatro's 48 Crash, The Spazzy's Paco Doesn't Love Me, the list goes on. Kickarse songs by kickarse women.
Also, this movie has Mia Wasikowska in it, so you have this to thank.

I could go on with more films (like BoyTown, Bad Eggs and Crackerjack) but to make up for it, I will review them somewhere down the track. And possibly some of our great TV shows too. But for now, go out and seek some Australiana for yourself!