Tyson, 2008

Jesse Stone: Death in Paradise, 2006

Paranormal Activity, 2007

Chalk this one up as the year's biggest disappointment. I should've known better than to believe the hype -- not that I envisioned in any way that this would be, as it has been described, "the scariest movie of all time". But I certainly thought I'd be at least a little bit scared. So much so, I watched the thing in the daylight, like a wuss. I had visions of Blair Witch, hoping against hope to be crapping myself here as much as I did in that movie.

No such luck. I think there is one genuine scare in this movie. The rest is smoke and mirrors silliness that will scare you only if you've never seen another ghost movie in your whole life. (The similarly filmed Lake Mungo was a hundred times scarier than this, and yet there's no hype surrounding that poor little movie. Where is the justice?)

I almost want to hand it to the filmmakers -- that they could spend $11,000 and build the necessary hype to win back $22 million in the film's opening weekend. You want to say, well done. But, then again, they've spent the money and duped audiences into coming along to something particularly boring, and a little bit stupid. So, instead of praising them, you want to hit them a bit.

Among the film's many issues is this: In a 90 minute film touted as so scary you shouldn't see it alone, why do the scary parts take up about 10 of those minutes? Are we going for a less is more effect? If so, we failed. I've seen scarier, more searing images in music videos.

What else sucked? The passivity of these characters is a good start. Ghosts are clearly in their home, running amok at night, but do Micah or Katie think to go to the police? Get help from actual authorities rather than ONE psychic? Nope. "I'm gonna solve this!" Micah says, more than once. And how? By just filming more shit. Even when the pair find a photograph in their attic that couldn't possibly be there if not for actual ghosts, or the possibility that Katie is lying and psychotic, they still just put it aside as creepy and keep filming. No taking it to the police, getting lab tests, finding out for sure what the deal is. Apparently, capturing spirits on film is a way to get rid of them.

That was the most frustrating part of this movie, and the one thing that made it so unbelievable. These creepy things happen, our couple acknowledge them, and for the most part just go back to day to day living when the sun's up. Why isn't Katie freaking out MORE that she was filmed waking up at 3am and standing by her own bed, staring at her boyfriend for three hours? Why were these people not more creeped out by the powder footprints in their hallway? How did they think MORE FILMING was going to work to ward of this apparent demon? Why does Katie get increasingly angry at Micah for filming yet does nothing herself to curb the issue at hand? Why doesn't Micah point that out to her? Why doesn't Micah, who spouts often about saving her, get her out of the fucking house and take her somewhere she can actually be protected? Why doesn't SHE point THAT out to HIM?

Further, this is an unseen, unknown, unexplored enemy. We know nothing about it, nor what it wants, apart from the possibility that maybe it's following Katie -- she saw something when she was eight, then when she was 13, and now again. There's no explanation as to why what she saw at eight was "a mass"-like shadow and this is not, or, why it didn't harm her or those around her the last few times it showed up. So, with no knowledge of this monster, it's hard to care one way or the other what it does. Particularly when it's battlers don't really trust in it either, at least not enough to really do something about it beyond Ouija boards and powdered floors.

Then there are the scares. I don't think these guys have studied their ghost flicks, their Argento, or their Asian ghost classic like A Tale of Two Sisters and Ringu. Bumps in the night aren't scary. Footsteps running through hallways aren't scary. Unseen chases and screams from other rooms just aren't scary. They might be slightly unsettling now and again, but not scary. And this film promised scares. I kept waiting for something big to happen -- when Micah entered the attic, when Katie wandered to the pool swing, when the psychic rushed outside due to the "aggravation" he felt inside. Waiting, waiting, for the big hit. Only to be met with more footsteps and door slamming or nothing at all. Bo-ring.

So, what's the point? Horror needs a point. This does not have one. And much as I tried to make it all a metaphor for the couple's relationship -- the angrier they get due to lack of sleep and stress, the more the demon feeds on their energy and whatever. But this failed, too, because the demon was around when she was eight. So, it's not really created evil from such a scenario. What is it? We'll never know.

Oh well, at least the filmmakers made some money. Good for them. And the bit where Micah gets dragged out of his bed did give me a genuine jump. But soon after it -- daylight again, and more arguing. So much teasing, absolutely no sustenance.

It Might Get Loud, 2009

Okay, so witnessing the makeshift band -- featuring Jack White, The Edge, and Jimmy Page -- performaing "The Weight" at the end of this movie might just be my favourite movie moment of the year.

The guys sing and play, with White putting a crazy carnival twist on the vocal that I freakin' loved, and as they're finishing, the camera pulls back to reveal the movie crew standing and watching.

This tiny concert, with its audience still, admiring these great musicians, really defines this film. You watch, in awe, of what these men can do. Whether you like their music, whether their particular music speaks to you, you come away with an appreciation of their art, their dedication, and the power of music.

I enjoyed it, from the history lesson, to the lessons in guitar craft and musicianship, it's all fascinating. And it's so beautifully shot -- Edge on the beach, Page on the grass, White in suit and tie in the Tennessee fields. These are three very different aesthetics that present these men perfectly. Each story comes together so that we know and respect them, what they do, and where they've come from.

It's more fascinating that all three pretty much got to where are based on the same drives, similar upbringings (albeit in vastly different enivornments), and with similar elements of luck that brought guitars into their lives in the first place.

If I can criticise, however... I was slightly disappointed that the eventual get together of the three men wasn't more rousing. These guys seem almost reserved with each other. I would have liked to have seen more of the meeting, unless it really was as unenlighteneing right the way through as it seemed in the snippets we get onscreen.

Also, while we learn all about the men and their music, we get very few warts. But perhaps the movie doesn't want to go down darker paths, which is fair enough. But it leaves the viewer feeling cheerier than White's bleeding hands during a Raconteurs show might suggest, or Edge's discussion of IRA terrorism, or even subdued, skiffle player Page's suddenly flaming purple trousers. What did all that mean? The interviews lack grunt, I suppose, as does the eventual meeting. Maybe it's just me?

It doesn't really get loud, it has to be said. But it's nonetheless very interesting.

Last Ride, 2009

Bronson, 2009

In the Electric Mist, (2008)

This was really good. Tommy Lee Jones is made for a New Orleans setting. HIs face, his walk, his slow drawl -- he fit in so wel amongst the Confederate soldiers, the blues men, and the very obvious Louisiana natives used as extras and bit-players here.

It's a mystery -- who is killing young women in the small fishing community of Iberia Parish. There are a wealth of suspects, and JOnes as Sheriff Dave Robicheaux must narrow these down while battling his own demons, that stem from an old murder freshly dug up, and the ghosts of the Confederate dead that haunt him in his weaker moments.

This is a fantasy/drama, and it's done well. The misty bayous are something to see, and these characters float about within, each intriguing in his own way. It's not the hardest of mysteries to solve, but with so many players, the writing here is keen enough to keep them all necessary, and wrap them all up.

I enjoyed it. I'd see more movies with Jones as this character. Quiet, swampy, good.

Balibo, 2009

So, probably one of the more confronting films I've seen in a while. For several reasons, mainly because it pulls no punches in it's portrayal of the Indonesian army and the devastation is unleashed throughout East Timor, and also because it highlights the ignorance of the average Australian towards this story and its impact on our politics, our national identity, our media, and, really, our very humanity.

While I was aware of the store of the Balibo Five, I knew very little about Roger East, the AAP journalist who went to East Timor to investigate their deaths. His story is deeply connected to theirs, and I was impressed at just how the filmmakers here tied the tragedies togeter. We get a sense of East's dedication, and of the ethics and, sadly, naivete, of the five missing men. These dual plots are cleverly interwoven, and although we aware of the outcomes, the filmmakers here have made their film suspenseful, and revelatory.

It's very hard going, and rarely a light moment. What I found most engaging, and somewhat a break from the heaviness of it all, was those moments where I found myself watching Anthony LaPaglia acting. I know they say you can tell good acting when you don't notice a man acting, or whatever, but strangely, I was so enthralled by LaPaglia that I sat there are watched him, trying to figure out just how he does it.

Like his performance in Lantana, in which his work is probably some of the most amazing ever put on the Australian movie screen, here he is mindblowing in his honesty, his emotion, his heart. He really is an incredible performer.

So, yeah -- watch it, learn something. I did -- mainly not to be so ignorant of our political history and the lives effected by bungled decisions and misinformation. SOmeone has to learn, because apparently the government won't.

Resurrecting the Champ (2007)

My themes again -- writers, journalism, history, profiles, true story.

But, this really wasn't the explosive drama I was hoping for (though, to be honest, not really expecting). It's a good story, it's told well -- all the relevant surprises are kept well-hidden, and are revealed so that they are effective. But, something about this film felt slightly drab, as though they wanted Joaquin Phoenix and settled for Josh Hartnett. As though, it meant to have punch, but couldn't quite get in the ring.

Not that Harntett doesn't do a good job. It's not his fault the script grabs only now and again (particularly when Peter Coyote finally arrives), and it's not his fault, either, that the story of the man foiled might not have been as exciting as the story of the foiler himself.

Still, I enjoyed it. Samuel Jackson is great, as always, and though it's not awesome, it's far from shitty.

Lake Mungo, 2008

It would appear the Aussie crime kick I am currently on as far as my reading material has crossed over into movies. I have a massive stack of DVDs from the shop here to choose from -- Public Enemies, Resurrecting the Champ, Tyson, Winged Creatures, big movies about big themes, the stuff I love. Yet, as soon as I saw that one on my pile was set in the country Victorian town of Ararat, I jumped on it.

(There's also a new Aussie one called Coffin Rock here, and then there's Balibo -- so a veritable field day for me.)

I don't know what it is, exactly, that's drawing me to Australian crime, a topic I've all but ignored in my reading life. For some reason foreign settings, particularly in the US, have always been of more interest. Maybe I'm craving familiarity? Don't know. Whatever the case, after reading a book on detectives in Wagga, and then the horrendous Snowtown murders, I'm reading all about the Silk and Miller killings in Melbourne. I'm finding myself strangely enthralled reading about places nearby -- Melbourne suburbs, for example.

So, yeah, when Echuca was mentioned in Lake Mungo, I felt right at home.

I'm happy I picked this one for another reason -- it was very good. I was skeptical about the documentary style, but the more this one went along, the more impressed I became at how well the actors handled faking their 'interviews'. And that's all this is, a bunch of interviews strung together with bits and pieces of live and taped footage in between, which eventually unravel a reasonably gripping mystery.

It's extremely well put together as far as timing and stroytelling. I was in, I know that.

The premise, very basically, is a girl drowns in a dam and then begins showing up in photographs and video footage taken by her brother. Is she a ghost, or is something else going on? Turns out, the answer to that question is not near as important as what happens next. The plot twists and turns, and reveals new information all the time, fleshing out the story and it's characters into a well-rounded drama about a damaged girl and her helpless family.

It's not a horror film, it's a very effective ghost story, that's more about the ghosts within than those floating about the house. Part-way through I was wanting to turn the lights on because there are some shots here that are rivalled in their spookiness only by those Asian masters of ghost-y films.

One spot, in particular, was so tense, I almost broke out into a sweat. The tension, though, dissipated naturally -- this is not a film where things jump out at you, even though you expect them to. The filmmakers here have done a great job in letting you feel something when you watch, but never really releasing that tension until that one key moment where it matters.

And those are the best scares -- quiet, subtle, to the point where you're left wondering what it is about you that's making you so tense, because the movie's not doing anything really scary at all. Really enjoyed this one.

Threesome, 1994

Watched this at my sister's house on my holidays. Kelli, Shelley, and I wanted to go back in time for a bit, so we picked an old-school classic that we found ourselves quoting earlier that day -- Threesome.

Funny how some movies and songs have such an impact that 15 years after you watch them, bits and pieces stay so firmly in your mind. I don't know that much time goes by that one of the three of us doesn't cap of a huge whining session by imitating Lara Flynn Boyle's big moment in this movie crying, "And I want a facial... And I want newww shooooes..."

The movie's still good. We each had little issues with it, which no doubt will happen when you've aged to the point of being 10 years older than the characters in the film. (Holy crap, how did that happen?) But still, there are a lot of good ideas here about sex and love and fidelity and happiness. I still love Lara in this movie -- she's so beautiful, and as much as she is a whiny bitch, I get her. I understand her drives, here. Although, I woulda picked Baldwin, I have to say. I love Knox, but what's hotter than a young Baldwin, seriously?

So, yeah -- it holds up. It was fun to reminisce, too. I miss the '90s.

The Taking of Pelham 123, 2009

Lessons Learned from The Taking of Pelham 123:

Lesson #1: You can tell how bad a character is by the amount of times he says "motherfucker" in a sentence.

Lesson #2: If you break the law, but do it for your family, and then save some people's lives, even though some other people died -- the Mayor of New York City won't send you to jail.

Lesson #3: Crooked Wall Street guys are smart enough to hijack a New York City subway train and extort 10 million bucks from the Federal Reserve, but aren't smart enough not to reveal their identities by telling the train dispatcher -- ie., everyone else as well -- stories specific to their lives.

Lesson #4: John Travolta does not look Italian. Apparently. That's why it's not weird when he consistently insults John Turturro with anti-Italian slurs like "greaseball".

Lesson #5: People still say "greaseball".

Lesson #6: Spending time in prison for white collar crimes can turn you into a ruthless murderer with a neck tattoo.

Lesson #7: Brian Helgeland still can't write. I'm blaming him for Travolta's inconsistent, stupid character.

Lesson #8: Flash cuts and pauses don't increase tension.

Lesson #9: The older, the better. The changes in this version from the original are stupid. Transit cop Lt. Zachary Garber was a much more interesting character than this film's Walter Garber (although I do enjoy the shout-out to Walter Matthau there who played Garber in the original). And the conceit in that film was better. This was all yelling and Travolta overacting, the original was a mystery, something had to be solved. Less chase bang chase, more... brains.

Lesson #10: Stop watching remakes. They are killing your brain cells.

Jesse Stone: Night Passage, 2006

This was disappointing considering how good the first Jesse Stone telemovie was. Stone Cold was superb, and set up the Stone character as an old-school hard ass cop with, as one woman in this new film says, tons of baggage. It's baggage we're not entirely privy to, which adds to the allure of the character.

Jesse Stone is compelling, he was in the first movie and he is here. But the story surrounding him this time around is so stale, it feels like Bo and Luke Duke could have figured it all out. Or, better yet, Magnum PI. It's small-time for the enigmatic and brilliant Jesse Stone.

In this film, a prequel to Stone Cold, we find Jesse heading out to Massachusettes to interview for police chief in a small bayside town. Stone shows up to his interview drunk and is hired regardless. Stone is on edge from here on in that something is awry. "I wouldn't have hired me," he says.

Add to the mix a violent ex-husband, a too-happy town councilman, and a dead former police chief and it doesn't take too much detective work to figure out who Stone needs to ask the hard questions. I was disappointed because Stone Cold was less about solving a mystery and more about watching Stone establish himself and his motives and actions. Here, we know Stone a bit better, and so, at least for me, I wanted this film to delve a bit deeper into Stone himself. Instead he just gets hit on a lot, and solves a basic crime.

Still, Stone is interesting to watch. Tom Selleck plays him with a repressed sort of rage that on the surface makes him appear quite calm and in control, but there are moments when you wonder if he's about to crack. He is direct, straight to the point, and honest to a fault -- with everyone. He's also logical and smart. He is not ashamed of his flaws or that the fact he is battling personal demons is written all over his face. He is fascinating, and I'd like to see his character with more to do than this.

And Tom Selleck is hot. :)

Trick 'r Treat, 2009

Oh dear. With such a big-shot team behind it, I was convinced this was going to be the horror for movie of the season. A new Creepshow for people like me who have seen Creepshow too many times to truly be scared anymore (um, and that happened about ten years ago).

But, sadly, it's lame. Double-dog-lame. O-rama.

Why? Where do I begin? Do I even care? Um, so three stories are interwoven, with comic-book notations informing us when they are taking place ('earlier', 'later', for instance), and they each twist and curve around to a giant finale featuring Brian Cox getting hammered by a living, breathing Sack Boy from Little Big Planet.

By the time Sack Boy worked his magic, I just didn't care. The three stories are so boring -- they've all been told before, much better than this. With horror short stories and flash fiction such a saturated industry, it's probably impossible to come up with anything truly original, so the idea, I assume, is to make the old new again. I think Bryan Singer and his team tried to do that here with their twisty, comic booky framing, but the stories are so badly written than even the (kinda) newness of the packaging can't hide the shittiness of the product.

I did think Sack Boy's wrap-up was adorable, and would've liked to have seen a whole movie based on the Brian Cox episode. Here it's just throwaway and alsp-dash like the rest of the film. It's not a modern classic as the reviews would have you believe -- it's a boring, too-clever-for its-own-good, rehash of all you've seen before. And, the most tragic thing, it really has no eventual point. I saw something, maybe about taking Halloween back to its roots here, but, again, that was throwaway stuff.

Despite the team behind it, this one just stinks.

Dark Mirror, 2007

Yeah, it was shit. I watched it because it looked spooky, and it was about a photographer. That's it. Sadly, there wasn't much photography in it, and it wasn't very spooky.

So, a couple and their son move into a new house with imported Chinese windows that instantly draw the attention of Deborah, the wife and photographer who is about to go slightly mad. Same old, same old. She takes a photo in the mirror, things start to go awry, people she's been in contact with start to die. So, what's the connection? Hmm... well, maybe it has something to do with the painter who lived in her house prior, and his missing family?

And on and on. It's kinda lame, with a typically unsatisfying ending you often come across in these low budget cheapies. So, what happened to eveyone? How did Deborah end up doing what she supposedly did? How can she be in five places at once? Well, none of that matters. Just be spooked! Ah, it wasn't spooky. Yeah, so, lame.

Up, 2009

It's hard to find a bad review of this movie. I went searching for some only because I couldn't pinpoint just what it was about the film that didn't move me.

Everyone else loves it -- the Tomato-Metre gives it 98%. It's got everyone caught up in its sense of adventure, and while, for the most part, I was also caught up, I'm wondering why, days later, I don't feel the need to watch it again.

Wall.E, Cars, and A Bug's Life were all movies I knew I had to buy. And re-watches of Toy Story never get boring. And Monsters Inc is just genius. Why didn't I feel that way about Up? I've read all those bad reviews on Rotten Tomatoes -- all six that were negative out of about 250 -- and I'm still not sure what it is about the film I didn't love.

Don't get me wrong, though -- it was a very good film, and I laughed, and I cried, and all those other things you're suposed to do in a Pixar film. But maybe the cantankerous old man who's lost his sense of adventure just wasn't enough to grip at my heartstrings over a basic tug?

Little Wall.E the robot still makes me well up every time I look at him. I see him and I think of wonder and adventure and love. When I see Eve from Wall.E, I think about innocence. Carl Frederickson from Up just makes me think of Ed Asner. And the little round kid who follows him into the air makes me think of all those other little round companions that have tagged along in these films for comic effect. Russell the Boy Scout is this film's Dory, this film's Mater. As wonderfully creative as Pixar is, it can still fall horribly back on cliche, even its own cliches.

Old man finds spirit of adventure thanks to a charmingly silly boy scout, some talking dogs, and a big bird who likes chocolate. God, it frustrates me that even though other Pixar films are just as standard, why did this one not bowl me over? It was very good, it just wasn't... something.

I'll keep thinking.

Management, 2008

Not all what I was expecting from the trailer. I thought this was going to be a cat-and-mouse kinda love-story-with-obstacles, maybe like 50 First Dates, with Steve Zahn a much more likable and funny leading man.

But it wasn't. The comedy here is slightly darker, and it's themes much deeper. What do we do when we fall for someone who is complete wrong for us? What do we do if that person gives us everything we need emotionally, but makes little sense on a logical, practical front? The big themes are handled well. I thought the movie slipped in one area, but it's not enough to dampen what was a genuinely affecting film.

Career-woman Jennifer Aniston has a one-night stopover in a small town motel. She's a very serious, with almost no sense of humour. But she has passion -- she attempts to talk the motel owner into making a recycling area for certain hotel trash. So, she cares enough.

Hotel co-manager Steve Zahn likes her straight away, and uses his position at the hotel to get inside her room. What transpires sets the two of them on such a weird, romantic, heartbreaking path. Very quickly you come to understand where both are in their lives, what they need, and why they might not be right for each other, even if they are.

So, the film dropped a bit for me when Woody Harrelson's character showed up. I think it would have been much more realistic for Jennifer Aniston to be seeing someone a lot less weird. Woody's character doesn't match what we've learned about Jennifer Aniston and her desire for comfort and stability. And it's over so quickly that I wondered why it even mattered. Her not wanting to be with Steve Zahn because of his station in life and peculiarities was enough. She didn't need to be involved with someone else. That really didn't move the story along.

Anyway, this is only a small part of the movie, so it wasn't too bad. I really enjoyed it. Steve Zahn is hilarious, and he's so sad to watch when he gets all serious. Jennifer Aniston is good, too -- she is so underrated as an actress, and a movie like this really gives her a chance to show just how good she can be.

I liked it. Good movie.

Red, 2008

Although packaged as such, taking full advantage of the screenwriter's previous work in schlock, Red is not a horror film. It's a study of one man's desire for answers, for a reason why his dog was killed in cold blood by a teenage boy. There are elements of horror within the story, but there's no gore here, and very little blood. This is solid storytelling, with a heartbreaking lead performance by Brian Cox that I can't help feeling would have been recognised come awards season were this not such a hideaway, low budget release.

Then again, it went to Sundance, so you never know. But the fact that it looks so "TV" -- think Masters of Horror -- will work against it, no doubt.

So, Brian Cox. How incredible is this man? His portrayal of the broken yet stoic man-on-mission in this film is breathtaking. I cried just looking at his face. He inhabits this character so well. His slow build from mild-mannered fisherman to a ball of broken rage is amazing to watch. Right up to the final shot of him, as his life begins again, he is the reason to watch this film.

The story was good and well-told up to a point. I do think it turned an unnecessary corner towards the end, and I blame the writer for that, and possibly the desire to maybe horror-up the piece. The incident in the forrest just went that bit too far, taking the film from a Pete Dexter-y look at the lowly man and his worth, to a very modern Grudge-like thriller. Didn't need that to happen, but it doesn't ruin the film. Cox is too good for that to happen.

So, yeah -- a real surprise this one. I expected schlocky horrror and ended up with a drama that left me bawling like I'd just lost my puppy.

Mao's Last Dancer, 2009

Michael Jackson's This Is It, 2009

Moon, 2009

Year One, 2009

It was stupid, but I laughed my ass off.

Much of my enjoyment, of course, owing to Jack Black, who makes me laugh regardless of how dumb he's acting. And Michael Cera is always entertaining, too, and is almost a caveman version here of George Michael Bluth with his big doe eyes and stuttered afterthoughts.

I did think that with the actors they wrangled here, and director Harold Ramis, that the story and its execution could have been slightly less ridiculous. But, then again, this is a caveman movie with Jack Blakc, so perhaps not...

The movie is very Apatow-ian in that stupid things pass for comedy, moments of crudeness ruin the overall sweet dumbness of the main characters and their plight, and scenes of no importance are used for comical effect in ways that are only really comical to dopes. Still, at least it's concise, and the story flows somewhat. These characters have purpose, and they reach their goals with little Anchorman-like random and pointless distraction.

Again, it's stupid, but it's enjoyable. The concept of a lazy caveman and his smart, workaholic sidekick exploring the holy lands for proof of God's existence and their purpose in life (one a believer, one not so much) is stupidly clever. The use of modern-day language in the film is often rather amusing, and it's kinda fun to watch seasoned actors just acting silly as religious characters like Abraham (Hank Azaria), a high priest (Oliver Platt), and Xander Berkeley (the King).

I laughed, and that, I suppose, was the whole point.

The Ugly Truth, 2009

Crazily enough, I liked it.

I'll do romantic comedies any day of the week provided I like the actors. I'm not convinced yet about Gerard Butler, but I'll watch Katherine Heigl do anything (so long as she promises never to work for Apatow again). She's just the snuggliest, most adorable woman. It's difficult to believe she struggles with romance given her face, her body, and overall warmth, but she manages to pull it off (just). Butler, on the other hand, I know little about, so seeing him as a pompous, chick-hating skunk was not so hard to believe. He did that really well.

So, basically, she's a news producer who wants to retain the seriousness of her program despite her bosses desiring a change to shift with the times -- i.e. to go for scandal over substance to gain ratings. The network brings on board Butler, host of a cable show called The Ugly Truth, which tells women and men like it is -- basically, Can't get a date? You're ugly. He describes the male psyche as lustful and not so smart, and informs Katherine that the perfect man does not exist. Men are all boobs and sex, not classical music and poetry. Katherine is furious, but realises he gets those ratings, and that means she keeps her job, so she runs with it -- not that she has to like it.

Then Katherine meets a potential good guy. To prove he knows how men and women operate, Butler makes a deal with her that if he tells her what to do as the relationship progresses, her date will fall for her head over heels. She agrees, and it works. But, drum roll, what happens when Butler-the-cynic starts to fall for Katherine-the-naive himself?

Standard rom-com hijinks ensue, but the writing here is crisp enough that, while standard, it's relatively enjoyable. For a rom-com, there's actually a lot of good stuff in here about men and women and their goals and values in relationships. Lots of home truths come out about how relationships start, why they fail, and what we think along the way. I, at least, found myself nodding in agreement with much of Butler's supposed cynical rantings. We really are very basic animals. But then, Katherine Heigl would probably make me see the bright side of life, too.

Sunshine Cleaning, 2008

Had no interest in this film whatsoever until I started hearing the trailer over and over at work. It sounded whimsical, as I thought, but perhaps a little smarter and edgier than I'd thought when first hearing about it. Generally, when I hear Amy Adams is in a movie, I'm skeptical. I haven't enjoyed her really in anything, and can only see her as the annoying dacing princess from Enchanted. Here, finally, she changed my mind. She can do edgy, apparently.

I really enjoyed this one. It's a good story -- I'd almost go so far as to say it's original in it's concept, and that's fairly rare these days. Two down on their luck chicks -- one with a kid, the other living with dad -- go into their own crime-scene cleaning business, and find that cleaning up the waste of the dead is about more than stains on the floor and the walls. They find it's an entry into people's lives at their most private. The fallout of such an emotional job seeps into their home and private lives, and ultimately changes the both of them, for better and for worse.

It's funny, well-written, clever, human, and interesting. Really good movie.

17 Again, 2008

Rewatched with my sister. I knew she'd love it. We're fans from way back of body-swapping flicks, and this fits the subgenre perfectly. Funny, charming, and, above everything, smart. It's a keeper.

Crush, 2009

WHY WHY WHY????

There's this ad on the loop tape at work that says something like "10,000 Australians work to make the movie you love watching, but buying and downloading pirated films is putting these jobs at risk". Usually, I feel bad for the film workers losing their jobs, because as the ad also says, "Australians make great films".

Then you watch Crush and want them all fired. You watch Crush and want to download a thousand movies to boot them out of a job quicker.

Australia makes great films. Um, no it doesn't. Australia makes some good movies. It also makes some hellish, stupid, and fucking pointless movies like Crush.

Ready? Just when the stakes are at their highest, just when the twist is ready for revelation, just when you think this sadistic woman couldn't be any more sadistic... you find out SHE'S A GHOST!!!!!! A ghost who deletes emails. A ghost of flickers off TVs. A ghost who floods toilets, and causes all manner of havoc in a boy's life, who, well, kinda deserves it after repeatedly cheating on his girlfriend and inviting the ghostly woman back more and more for sex games we're supposed to feel sorry for him for carrying out. This ghost is just too sexy to say no to.

Well, um, you dug you're own hole stupid boy. But wait -- this is not a comment on the male psyche, or an unravelling of human behaviour, or a deep look into the ways of seductive women, because SHE'S A FUCKING GHOST. And everything that happens means FUCK ALL.

Avoid. (PS. Downloading movies is bad.)

Ghosts of Girlfriends Past, 2009

I know, I know. Everyone said it was crap, and it looked crap and sounded crap, but I was in the mood for crap, so I watched it. And it was crap.

Only because it falls into that lame-o romantic comedy trap of altering a man's entire thought processes for the love a single woman. I'm the viewer who goes, yeah, and what about tomorrow? What about the next model who walks into photographer Matthew McConaughey's darkroom with her panties at her knees begging for a career boost? Is the love of Jennifer Garner, his childhood sweetheart, really enough to quell these desires?

In movie-world, yes. And if you consider this film a complete fantasy, then it might work for you. Maybe I'm thinking too hard about it. Basically, womaniser finds love. Great. Next.

Knowing, 2009

And then the guy turns around, opens his mouth, and this big blue light comes out! And then I wanted to beat myself senseless that a movie could lead me so close to something really awesome and then yank it away with one turn of a blue-light mouth-spewing head. FUCK YOU MOVIE!

Oh man! It started out so well. And it speaks directly to my point that movies just can't seem to end these days. They start out good, and then turn to crap in the interests of a quick wrap up.

The end of this film is DUMB. Supremely DUMB. And, as someone pointed out to me, not without its religious posturing. Holes everywhere.

Okay -- one good thing: Ben Mendelsohn was awesome. Otherwise, sucky crapola.

Synecdoche, New York, 2007

Every Little Step, 2008

I really wanted Rachelle Rak to play Sheila!

Generally, I agreed with Bob Avian’s choices in casting his 2006 revival of A Chorus Line, but I think he (unintentionally) confused Rachelle when he told her in the finals call backs to perform as she did eight months before in the open calls. She struggled to remember what it was about her initial audition that would have stood out, and it threw her. Not that I know a thing about theatre casting, but I wish Bob had let her find her vulnerability from a present place, not from eight months before.

Still, that was one of the things I really liked about this movie – learning the ins and outs of the casting process, how these iconic roles are cast after all this time. I enjoyed learning the story behind the show, how Michael Bennett came up with the idea, and how he and his producers shaped in into what it eventually became.

I had no idea that these stories are actually all true. I figured they were generalizations; stuff overheard in the audition rooms. I didn’t know they were actual, almost word for word the same, stories of Bennett and his friends. I got chills when I first saw the trailer for this, and heard the old tapes of voices and stories and then Michael Bennett says “I think this could be a show … called A Chorus Line.” It’s all real life, and the genius of Bennett and Marvin Hamlisch who wrote the music and Edward Kleban who wrote the lyrics is so evident is how they transformed the story into this heartbreaking and funny show.

The stories of the auditioning performers were interesting, too, as they always are (hence the show itself). It’s all big breaks and dreaming, and it’s nice to see some genuine people get their moment in the spotlight. I’m glad the filmmakers resisted the melodrama of, say the opera doco In the Shadow of the Stars, opting to retain much positivity throughout. A Chorus Line shows us the downside of the performing life and so we didn’t need to see it again here. I liked that choice – to keep it bright. That said, there’s a few sad or ego-soaked moments, when Nikki Snelson realizes Jessica Goldyn is a better “Val” than she is; when Rachelle gets her knock back; when Tyce Diorio talks about “his party”. But, overall, the vibe is a good one.

If I can have one more complaint, I would have loved to have seen how the “Morales” role was cast, and to perhaps meet the original Morales, as we meet original “Connie” and original “Cassie”. Morales was always my favourite.

I’ve always loved the film version, and while I’m not a dancer or a singer, and have no such designs, songs from the film have repeated in my head over and over at key points in my life, particularly “I Can Do That” and “I Hope I Get It”. It’s often said that A Chorus Line is the performer’s story, but it’s everyone’s story – everyone who has a dream and strives to fulfill that dream but knows that on stage, as in life, places are limited.

Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, 2008

I knew very little about this case prior to watching this film, and having seen it, I'm just appalled (again) at the US justice system. What a farce. From the outset, the whole thing was an almighty sham headed up but a judge who did nothing but make a complete mockery of the entire case, and cause unnecessary disruption to the life of Samantha Geimer, the girl Polanski raped.

The judge was known to be a womaniser and a wannabe celebrity. He made every decision in this case based on how the press would view it and him, with absolutely no reagrd for actual justice, the victim, the perpetrator, or the legal system itself.

That's my take, anyway. I think the lawyers should have spoken up about the judge's handling of the case and attempted to have him removed earlier. I don't think the arguments surrounding the case should be about whether or not Polanski was justified in his self-imposed exile. They should be about how ridiculous the thing was from the very start. Polanski would be forgiven for being elated that it went the way it did, that he got the judge he got. It's because of that judge that he ended up getting off scot-free from a serious, horrible, disgusting crime that he admitted to committing.

I'm floored that the family sought no incarceration. He drugged and raped Samantha Geimer -- she says this, Polanski admits this. I am astounded that the parents of this girl haven't been asked to account for just why they let their daughter to go to photo shoot with a man known to have had an affair with a 15-year-old model. I'm driven to distraction by the outpouring of support for Polanski by the Hollywood community. He drugged and sodomized a child. How is this a man we can stand by because of his "treatment" by the courts, or the quality of his art? The crime was committed, and everyone seems to be forgetting about, or ignoring the severity of that crime.

Or is this the sort of thing we just overlooked in Hollywood in the 1970s? Is this something we overlook because of varied cultural practices? Polanski stated in the intial police report that Samantha acted erotically towards him, and that her level of experience was obvious. He says this for no other reason that to attempt to justify his actions, blame his victim. She was 13. There is no such thing as consenual sex by an adult with a 13-year-old child. The man's arrogance overwhelms me. I was nearly sick to my stomach when, at the beginning of this film, Polanski tells Clive James that he likes young women, that he believes all men do. Still, after all that happened, he justifies his urges and his actions. There is no doubt Polanski has been through absolute hell in his life, from his childhood during the Holocaust, to the murder of his pregnant wife by the Manson Family. But this kind of trauma does not justify his causing such gross trauma to someone else.

I think it's horrendous the way the hearing went down, but I think Polanski needs to face this. I hope someone out there, whoever handles the case, treats it with the seriousness it deserves and properly executes justice. Samantha Geimer doesn't want the publicity -- that's fine, but Polanski is the reason this has happened. He is the reason this story has flared up again. The judge was removed from the case not too long after Polanski fled -- wasn't that an opportunity to see justice done? But Polanski doesn't seem to want justice, not the right kind anyway. He just wants to be left alone.

The film is very well done, eye-opening, with interviews from most of the major players in the case. It attempts to leave the viewer questioning the rights and wrongs of the case, even making us shake our heads in the final moments that yet another judge, years down the track, promised Polanski time served if his handling of the case were televised. It's all about the cameras isn't it? Poor Roman. Poor Roman who used those same cameras to his every advantage when it suited him. Publicity is a bitch when the shoe's on the other foot.

The Alphabet Killer, 2008

I want to say it wasn't lame, but it really was. It's just that Eliza Dushku and Timothy Hutton are cool to watch, so it didn't feel entirely, completely like shit, even though it was.

So, it's based on the Alphabet murders that took place in Rochester, NY, in the early 1970s. Someone was going around killing kids with first and last names that shared the same initial. (Carmen Colon, was one.) He would then dump the girls in towns with that initial. While suspects mounted, no one was ever charged with the murders, and two prime suspects suicided, while, one, Kenneth Bianchi the Hillside Strangler, continues to protest his innocence. The crimes, the initials twist anyway, stopped in 1973.

The basics of the crimes are in this movie, and that's about it. The movie focuses on Megan, a detective on the case who becomes obsessed with finding the killer. So much so that she is haunted by the girls' ghosts, hallucinates, and winds up with adult onset schizophrenia. She loses her job, ends up in therapy (where she meets sage-like paraplegic Timothy Hutton), and is considered insane by everyone at the police station. Still, nothing can stop her from solving this case, so on she progresses, uncovering clue after clue.

Sadly, though, none of her clues get her anywhere and she stumbles upon the killer in this version of events completely by accident. Kind of renders invalid her so-called detective expertise and apparent non-insanity, but still...

It's not the best story. There are plotholes galore, and if you're slightly familiar with police procedure, you'll be shaking your head at what this movie tries to pass off as an actual investigation. The biggest offence is the fake closing of the case by police who shoot an innocent man and then plant cat hair from the crime scenes in his apartment. Did these clever policeman not fear another murder? If they killed the wrong guy and planted evidence in his house, and then another girl was found dead, would that not leave many unanswered questions? Dear, oh dear.

Well, I wasn't totally bored. Bill Mosely showed up, which was fun. As did Michael Ironside, who lifts to watchable even the Z-gradest of trash (like Watchers). And Eliza is just so pretty.

I give it 2 stars out of 5 for tricking me into not thinking the killer was who I knew it should have been all along.

District 9, 2009

Fame, 2009

Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus, 2009

How embarrassing.

State of Play, 2009

Drag Me to Hell, 2009

Adventureland, 2009

Funny People, 2009

Love the Beast, 2008

Wake in Fright, 1971

Ghost Town, 2008

Inglourious Basterds, 2009

The Hangover, 2009

Will no doubt end up my surprise of the year. I was not expecting to hate this film, but I wasn't at all expecting to like it as much as I did. It's not the funniest movie of all time (as I've been told by many, many people), but it is good, and I laughed a lot.

Why is it good? Well, for several reasons. Mostly, I enjoyed the fact that it wasn't crude. I was waiting for much crudeness, in line with Superbad and Step Brothers -- another couple of films I was told were the funniest movies ever (they weren't). Resisting an avalanche of farty, pooh-y, sex gags (which pass, it seems, for comedy these days), this movie has a real innocence to it, which adds to its premise of four fish very much out of water. These are not your Trent-like Swingers Vegas-babies, they're four men (well, perhaps with the exception of Alan) who live fairly standard lives thrown into a world they think they understand -- they've obviously seen Swingers a few times -- but they really don't. Even the alpha, Phil, is less cocky and more assured when he stands up to take charge of each bizarre situation.

In effect, these men are easier to relate to and it's more fun watching them get into scrapes when we see they're just as normal as we are, and we would also be as confounded in tangles with Mike Tyson, Vegas mafioso, strippers, and a tiger.

That said, the guys still know how to party. But this movie is not about the good times, but the after effects. The scrapes -- like a post-modern After Hours -- are not what bring the comedy here, but the guys' interaction. The nerdy, safe one, the crazy one, the soon-to-be-married one, and the uber-male -- they all react differently, and their reactions to each other are what make this movie funny. There are some great one-liners, some hilarious conversations, and even though it all leads to an ultra-standard cutesy ending, you get there with a sense that modern comedy may have shifted yet another gear -- one miles from the pooh and the farts and more towards actual, relatale, character-driven scenarios. Let's hope so.

I Love You, Man, 2009

My Sister's Keeper, 2009

Carl Barron: Walking Down the Street, 2009

Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist, 2008

Entre le murs (aka The Class), 2008

Saw this at the Deckchair Cinema in Darwin with Asha. Under the stars, a crisp, gorgeous night, in the most uncomfortable deckchairs ever. Good thing we brough extra pillows. Still, it's not about the chairs -- this place is all atmosphere. Where else can you watch a movie and see weird bugs flying around, and hear noises behind your seat that could quite possibly be a possum? And where else can you watch a movie and eat chili and scalloped potatoes?

A really fun night.

The movie? I enjoyed it. I found out later that the actors in the film are not actors at all but the real people in the life of the featured teacher. They all trained for a year to get up to scratch to act in what is sort of a documentary, sort of not. It's a fictionalisation of the real life of Francis Begaudeau, a teacher in France dealing with a range of students from a variety of backgrounds. He's the kind of Morgan Freeman-y teacher who wants to reach these kids in ways the school system doesn't often allow -- by being direct, by administering punishment based on case by case analysis of situations, by treating his kids as individuals rather than as a collective.

Good thing is, though, this is not like Lean on Me -- this is reality, or as close as a film like this can get without being a documentary, and so there are successes and there are failures. The happy endings you might expect don't necessarily come, and so the film reaches the truth about education and the education system -- only rarely will the teacher get through to everyone who needs getting through to. And it resists massive drama, too -- it's a slowly-told film that lets you in rather than dragging you through with any sort of melodrama. The story and the characters are fascinating enough.

A good film, an interesting experiment in style, and a thought-provoking story.

Sketches (aka Breaking the Rules), 1992

Revisited this with Trish. We used to watch this A LOT when we were 16. I've seen it over and over throughout the years, so it's all firmly planted in my head. Trish, however, hadn't seen it for years, and it was great hearing her say lines along with the film, and laugh BEFORE funny things happened because she remembered it so well. It's the kind of movie that sticks with you.

A great reminisce. And I still cry. We both cried. It's just a gorgeous film. Holds up, too, after all these years, The leads are so good here. Makes my heart break to see C. Thomas Howell acting his way through the worst shit these days when this movie so clearly lets us know how good (and deserving) an actor he is.

On the upside, the world has finally given Jason Bateman his dues. And, I remember reading an interview with his a few years ago wherein he mentioned this movie, and how much it means to him. It means a fuckload to us, too. In one of those unexplainable ways. It's just perfect.