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?

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.

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

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!

The Cool And The Crazy Shapiro

Did you ever have one of those movies that you watched, enjoyed it, didn't think about it much for a while but then it comes back full force, compels you to watch it again and suddenly you love it? Well, that's what I had with the movie for today's blog, Hey Good Lookin'.

Directed by Ralph Bakshi, who also wrote and produced it, Hey Good Lookin' is set in the 50's and explores the typical things protagonist Vinnie (Richard Romanus) and his aptly named friend, Crazy Shapiro (David Proval) do with their time. Vinnie leads a gang called the Stompers, who are in constant conflict with rival gang the Chaplins. Vinnie wanders through life, not quite knowing what to do with himself, pursuing and also being pursued by Rozzie Featherschneid (Tina Romanus). Eventually, his ways bring forth a rumble between his gang and the Chaplins, with Vinnie struggling to decide where he wants to go in life.

Up until the third act, the film is largely a collection of set pieces, connected by its characters, with the rumble acting as the climax of the film and the culmination of what Vinnie's been heading towards since he got into the life he did. Actually, I should point out, the film has a framing device: a mysterious man tells a middle aged woman about where he got a jacket from, one he presents to her. This is what leads into the story of Vinnie.

Now, usually I would warn about spoilers at this point, but I think I can safely say what I need to without giving too much away. However, I do want to discuss the ending so I will put up an appropriate warning when we get to that.

As I mention in my introduction, I thought very highly of this film when I first watched it but after watching it again, I've been able to not only see things in a different way and understand them but also put my finger on what it is that brings me back.

First, the animation. Originally, the film was supposed to be a blend of live action and animation, much like Who Framed Roger Rabbit would be. Instead, it ended up being mostly animation (I say mostly, there were some live action shots with the animated characters). And it's amazing. It's very Looney Tunes-esque in places, while still being for mature audiences. Very mature audiences. The character designs, the little imperfections, the variance, it all works.
One scene in particular has some of the most amazing animation I've ever seen, in anything. Before the big rumble, several Chaplins are dancing and mocking the Stompers and the animation on the gang members is like another world unto itself. Even the trippy scenes have great attention to detail and certainly are memorable.

The characters themselves can prove to be quite complex, Vinnie in particular. Despite cultivating a tough guy image, inwardly he seems to be hesitant to actually be violent. He cares more about maintaining his looks (always seems to have a comb at the ready) and staying out of trouble than he does about anything gang related, despite being its leader. He kind of goes between a self-absorbed putz and a gentle, almost worldly fellow, particularly with Rozzie. One of his more positive traits is that he seems to be very respectful to women (usually), like in the scene in which he, Rozzie, Crazy and Crazy's girlfriend Eva (Jesse Welles) are at a hamburger joint and Vinnie insists that Crazy spend a little more time intimately with Eva. That could just be so he can have some privacy with Roz, but I'd like to think he has a code of honour when it comes to women (again, usually. I say that because he and Crazy do visit some prostitutes early on, though Vinnie seems to be unaware of this at first, with Crazy leaping right into it).
Throughout the film, evidence is dropped that indicates Vinnie's more of a talker than a fighter. He talks a big game but when the pressure's on to deliver on what he promised, he finds new excuses to weasel out of it. There's a scene in which he and Crazy have slept on a beach, and when they wake up, they find that the local mafia have all gathered, completely oblivious to the two. After Crazy goes off to ogle some of the women, Vinnie finds a corpse in the sand. His first reaction? Scream. Which brings both of them to the attention of said mafia. While Crazy's getting the crap beat out of him, Vinnie's hightailing it out and runs into the Chaplins, since its their turf. When Chaplins leader Boogaloo (Phillip Michael Thomas) suggests a rumble, Vinnie actually swallows his cigarette before regaining his composure and taking the offer up.

Crazy, on the other hand, shouldn't be called Crazy. He should be renamed Clinically Insane. I compared the animation to the Looney Tunes up above. Well Crazy could very well be the forgotten Looney Tune. He's always doing something wild, madcap. As is noted by Roz later, he might just have more balls than Vinnie, for its his actions that help bring the plot to the ending it reaches. Had he not been so hotheaded, things would have turned out differently.
In fact, early on, he's talking to Vinnie about how he loves going up to the roof of his place at night and looking at the stars and he feels like painting a picture. This hints at a deeper level of character, much like Vinnie, though it doesn't get explored all that much.

And for Roz, I feel kind of sorry for her (this will be addressed in the spoiler section) but she's still a pretty strong character in her own right.

One criticism I have for the film: now, I don't hate Eva but she's clearly the odd one out of the four of them. Dressed like she's in training to be a librarian, she doesn't seem like the type of girl to go for what Crazy's got going for him. But what's really weird is that she just disappears after the scene at the hamburger joint. She's never mentioned again, either. Uh, movie, did you forget something? Or someone?

(It is here that the spoilers will occur. If you wish to see this film and don't want to know the ending, skip ahead to my penultimate paragraph on the soundtrack.)

Remember the mysterious man and the woman he's telling the story to? As it is revealed in the final minutes of the film, it's actually Vinnie and Roz, neither of whom have aged very well. If you're wondering how it wasn't revealed at the start, it's because Vinnie's voice has aged and Roz doesn't speak at that point. Roz blasts Vinnie, saying he let her down by leaving and chickening out of the rumble but says he has a second chance to win her back now by fighting her husband who's going to walk through the door of the bar they're in at any moment. In his mind, Vinnie dismisses it and makes a crude remark about the female gender. However, he comforts Roz and makes it seem like he's going to stick around this time.

I'm not exactly sure of the intent, but I believe that while Vinnie's tempted to cut and run again, he ignores this impulse because that's all he's done in his life and he's tired of it. He's not getting any younger and he can't keep it up forever. Adding on to that, when he sweet talks Roz, he holds her like a lover would, suggesting he may just settle down after all.
Of course, that could just be me being foolish, but with the scene playing out the way it does, the evidence is there.
And this is where I go back to what I was saying about how I felt sorry for Roz. Just before Vinnie finishes his story, we see Roz going to a phone booth, barely containing her tears, wanting to make a dedication on the radio to Vinnie, who she believes died in the rumble. The emotion in that scene, emanating from the voice actress, really sells the whole thing and despite her own indiscretions and her tough girl attitude, she really felt something for the guy and I can't help but be a little moved by that.

(This ends the spoiler section.)

But one of the most memorable things is the soundtrack, which is probably the film's trump card. Oh my God, I love these songs! From the opening track baring the film's title, which sounds like it really was a song from the 50's, to Crazy's Theme, which is just as erratic and infectious as his character is, to the slick and stylish Burnin'. I'll often be humming along to Hey Good Lookin' or thinking of Burnin' and the soundtrack has just taken over my mind on occasion, as has this whole film. I really want a copy of this soundtrack, I am that obsessed with it.

I understand that this film is extremely hard to come by, no doubt in part because Bakshi himself has come to be displeased with it. Well, I say if you can find it, GRAB IT WHILE YOU STILL CAN! One of the greatest animated films I've ever seen, easily in the top five.

An easy 4.5/5 for this gem, and this will be the first of many Bakshi films I review (if not all of them but I'll save them for another time).

Should Have Taken Platform Nine-And-Three-Quarters

And to start off a new week, we have another 2012 release (by Australian standards, at least, like the last two movies I've reviewed) that I ventured out to see (still not Sherlock Holmes: A Game Of Shadows, and there will probably be a couple more films before that). This time around, I saw the latest Martin Scorsese picture, Hugo.

Hugo is based on the illustrated novel The Invention Of Hugo Cabret, written by Brian Selznick.
Hugo (Ava Butterfield) lives at a railway station in 1930's Paris after the death of his father (Jude Law), maintaining the clocks in secret while avoiding the station inspector, Gustav (Sacha Baron Cohen). Hugo strives to complete an automaton that he and his father were working on just before his father's death. This project involves him stealing parts from a local toy booth owner, Papa Georges (Ben Kingsley), who is apprehensive and cold towards the boy. His goddaughter, Isabelle (Chloe Grace Moretz), takes an interest in Hugo and together, the two set out to complete the automaton and uncover the secrets within.

Goodfellas. Taxi Driver. Gangs Of New York. Mean Streets. Casino. All works by Scorsese, all about violent people and none of them are definitely for the eyes of youngsters. Even his films like The Age Of Innocence and Kundun aren't really something he had in mind for the little ones. So, it's a huge surprise to see a film like this considering all that's come before. But I can understand wanting a change of scenery. I mean, he's got a daughter who I think is about 12 years old and it's not like she can sit down and watch any of his current filmography.

When I first saw the trailer, I have to admit I wasn't overly impressed. I kind of expected it to be a fantastical, whimsical and magical adventure, not unlike Harry Potter. I mean, it didn't look bad, but it didn't stand out. Having seen it now, I am relieved that the magic comes more from the heart than it does from spells and sorcerers.

Scorsese has assembled an impressive cast and a few of the actors and actresses I believe he's working with for the first time, too.
Though, oddly enough, it is the films lead that I find the most polarising. On the one hand, when he needs to emote, the kid can emote. His tears are sincere and when his face fills with wonder, it is such a joy to behold. But at the same time, the character can come off as unresponsive and rude (despite being told later that he has “good manners... for a thief”) as he doesn't say please when asking for things, especially whenever he asks for his notebook back and he doesn't respond immediately. And no, I will not accept “well, the death of his father at such a young age made sure he didn't develop the proper social skills” because whenever we see the flashbacks with his father, he seems a lot more well-adjusted. And yeah, the effects of death manifest in all different forms but it's not like he was raised by wolves when he died, he did have a life before the tragedy. If his father had died when he was an infant, this might make more sense. He does improve in the third act, but for the first two, you kind of understand why Ben Kingsley's character wants nothing to do with the boy.

Speaking of Ben Kingsley, his character is probably my favourite of the whole movie. Throughout the first two acts, he plays the role of a bitter, aged man without making him unsympathetic or hamming it up by bellowing for no reason. And by the third, when you understand his past better, it just makes him that much more a three dimensional character. And (spoiler alert!) knowing that the character is actually someone from real life, it makes the journey (character development-wise and literal) that much more heartwarming. It's not my favourite role of his (that's still his Dr. Watson in Without A Clue, equally tied with Itzhak Stern, and for the record, I have yet to see Gandhi or House Of Sand And Fog and a whole bunch of others).

If Hugo is aloof and serious, Isabelle is his antithesis. Well, she is serious but in the sense that she's mature for her age, not like Hugo who seems to be single minded. Chloe Moretz is delightful as the inquisitive, quick-witted adventure-seeking girl with a vibrant look on life. I actually think she makes a better protagonist than Hugo, which is kind of sad considering it's Hugo's movie.

Also turning in a great performance is Sacha Baron Cohen as the train station inspector. The man is able to come up with new and interesting performances with every project he undertakes and this is no exception. Despite being the closest thing this movie has to an antagonist (another factor I like about the movie, the lack of a conventional villain. I mean, sure, I love villains but if the film doesn't need one, it can make for more interesting viewing sometimes), he is still sympathetic with his own subplot about attracting the attention of a sweet and pretty flower girl (played by Emily Mortimer, who is ever so adorable in this movie. Not that she isn't in others, but especially here) and getting too tongue tied to strike up a conversation with her, not helped by his leg injury from the First World War. While his own backstory is only ever glossed over, it hints at a life not entirely unlike Hugo's and he also gets some of the funniest lines of the movie, like the running gag involving his conversations with another man expecting a baby with his wife, and is unsure if he is the father.

Much like The Muppets was a love letter from a lifelong fan to the entire franchise, so too is this a love letter to... well, movies themselves. The film goes into great detail about the first films ever made and describes how much of an influence they came to be. Hugo and his father loved the movies, and it is this that forms part of the drive for Hugo to complete his father's work. This film is a vessel in which Martin Scorsese is basically saying “For every thing you've allowed me to do and achieve in my career, this is my thank you.” He goes back to the beginning and it's not just the third act and all its revelations, the entire film holds homages to the silent era. A lot of the film relies on the expressions of its actors and scenes lacking dialogue to carry the movie and for the most part, they work. Heck, even the promotional poster of Hugo hanging from a clock is an homage to a film called Safety Last!, starring Harold Lloyd.

It may not be my favourite of Scorsese's filmography, but it is incredibly heartfelt. I give Hugo a 3.5/5.