Australia

On October 5 I was surprised to see that the preview screening I got to be a part of was Australia by Baz Luhrmann. This was a very rough version of the film, the color timing wasn’t finished, visual effects were rough at best, and the film did not have it’s score in place amongst many other things.

I’m going to start with the negatives of the film, but keep in mind that as this was a rough version it is doubtful that my negatives will stay negatives once all of the films elements are put together. First, there are tonal shifts in the film that don’t feel completely out of place, but they do feel clunky. However, I have full confidence that once the film is finished these tonal shifts will not feel out of place. Also, there were a few things that were kind of hard to follow – characters moving from a to b, etc. but again, I think this will go away.

I’m also going to address what I think people will really object to in the film – it’s length. The film clocks in at almost three hours at this present time, and that is without titles. I believe it is perfect at that length. Yes, it’s long, but I do not think there is anything that could be trimmed from this movie without eliminating an entire necessary point of the film. Australia is a rich old fashioned film, with many characters, plot lines and elements that are all intertwined through the course of the film. Removing even one scene would necessitate removing entire storylines from the picture. Just sit still, get pulled into the story and you will not notice the time.

Now to the positives. I knew after seeing Strictly Ballroom, Romeo + Juliet and Moulin Rouge that Baz can direct a film and do it beautifully, and I knew that Australia would be in a different style. What I did not expect was for the movie to be as sweepingly beautiful as it is. Baz needs to win a best director Oscar some day and I think he can possibly do it for this movie – and that opinion is based on a rough cut of the film.

Another HUGE positive is the actors in the film led primarily by Hugh Jackman and Nicole Kidman. They are phenomenal in this film and really seem to connect with the material in a very personal way since it’s about their home country.

The journey Kidman takes from tight-laced ice queen to open hearted maternal figure is utterly genuine and so gradual and motivated that you can’t see anything else happening to her character. This is a character that is forced to grow up and mature in a whole other way than an adolescent would and watching her do it is fascinating.

That being said I think that Hugh Jackman steals the show. I truly thought his performance in The Fountain was mesmerizing and Oscar worthy, and I think his turn in Australia again proves that he is one of the best actors of this generation. He truly is the stuff of old Hollywood and has a charisma that would rival Cary Grant or Jimmy Stewart – the man was discovered in Australian theatre to play a comic book character and has somehow parlayed that into mainstream Hollywood and art house films. When he walks on screen he immediately captures the entire audience male and female and I think Baz Luhrman needs to count his lucky stars that Russell Crowe dropped out of the role because Hugh brings an almost boy-next-door quality to the Drover character that Russell Crowe just doesn’t have in him.

It is my hope and prayer that 20th Century Fox does not mess with this movie before it is released, and I hope to be just as thrilled when I see the final theatrical cut of the film which I will be reviewing as well.

Director: Baz Luhrmann
Writers: Baz Luhrmann, Stuart Beattie, Ronald Harwood, Richard Flanagan
The Drover: Hugh Jackman
Lady Sarah Ashley: Nicole Kidman
Nullah: Brandon Walters
King Carney: Bryan Brown
Neil Fletcher: David Wenham
Kipling Flynn: Jack Thompson
Dutton: Ben Mendelsohn
Katherine: Essie Davis

Twilight

Twilight--MAKEOUT!! lol
Originally uploaded by hvyilnr

Twilight was the number one film at the box office over the weekend; we all knew it would be because Harry Potter was pushed to the summer. I read the books and from the trailer and advanced footage I was able to see I knew the movie was going to have issues; unfortunately, I was right. The filmic version of Twilight reads like it was A) directed by someone who never read the book and B) put out by a studio that simply wanted to push out a movie based on a hot commodity ASAP.

One of my biggest issues with Twilight was the editing of the film – I do not have a bone to pick with the editor, but the director. It’s a basic filmmaking rule that every cut you make and shot you choose needs to have a purpose. Catherine Hardwicke seems to have forgotten this. More than once she will cut away to something like the camera moving through trees, or hand held, canted, swinging camera shots that pull you away from the characters and the emotional impact of what is happening and make you think about what the camera is doing. When she should be sticking with the characters she goes elsewhere.

Then there is the random cutaways in the movie to the villains activities (which are totally unnecessary) and the cuts to the flashbacks (also totally unnecessary). Both of these pull you away from something crucial that is happening to our main characters. While I understand the desire to show the villains before they confront our main characters this also takes away some of the impact of our villains – they lose some of the scare factor when you see them “playing with their food”.

The flashbacks and dream sequences were another kind of bad entirely – not only were they pointless, but they were really stupid. The flashbacks were filmed in sepia and when they were used even though they were being narrated by characters they seemed entirely unmotivated – I am really not sure how that was accomplished. Rather than having the flashbacks add to the story they detracted from it because they were so incredibly different than everything else on screen and thus pulled you again out of what was happening to our characters and made you feel like you were watching a TV documentary.

The dream sequences were very similar to this. Instead of helping the movie they hindered. Most specifically there is one image that kept repeating that was not only out of character for the film but having read the book it had no place being associated with Bella our lead character; this would be the classic gothic image of Bella in a black dress, draped across a bed with Edward in classic Dracula-esque attire draped over her. This is the image of lust of both for blood & sex – it’s the image of fear not endearment. One of the crucial things that makes Bella and Edward different from the characters in an Anne Rice-type novel is that they are not defined by their lust or the traditional image of the vampire and victim – Bella and Edward fight any urges that would make them into this stereotype for the safety and well being of the other.

I also took issue that Bella all too often seemed afraid of Edward. One of the most crucial things about Bella is that she is never afraid of Edward. Between her dreams, and her reactions to Edward Bella very much seems to be frightened of Edward at crucial moments – her actions do not fit her dialogue.

One of my biggest problems with the films structure was actually the last shot of the film. Instead of remaining on our lovers Edward & Bella who again, should be the focal point of the story we are taken to Victoria one of the villian’s of the piece. It is an obvious trick to set up a sequel and it is unnecessary as the story is already left open for the next chapter by Edward and Bella in the scene before.

On the technical side of things I had to major issues – the makeup and the special effects.

Let’s start with the makeup. All of the Cullen family looked painted white – not only was this unimaginative, but it looked bad. On top of this the makeup staff did not take the time to blend the color into the characters necks or other exposed skin so the vampires looked two-toned. This oversight was student film bad.

Then you come to the special effects; I understand that this film didn’t have a huge budget, but with a film that requires a certain amount of effects and CGI you make sure that you get the best bang for your buck and that it all works in the story instead of detracting from it. One of the major differences between Twilight’s vampires and traditional vampire mythology is that these vampires are not hurt by sunlight, the reason they do not go into the sun is because it would attract attention and show them as otherworldly – they sparkle in the sun. When my friend and I saw Edward step into the sunlight we actually laughed – the effect was cheesy and unfinished looking – it merely looked like they’d sprinkled the actor with glitter. Then you have the fun of the fast moving, quick reacting, super strong vampires – it looked cheap and out of place, not to mention it was used at the oddest times; if you can’t afford the shots find a way to shoot around it without cheating your audience.

There were some good things about this film, but I will save that for if I review this movie again. I do feel like I could study Twilight more and it would be beneficial for me to diagnose why the movie did and did not work; parts of the movie were good and captured the characters decently well, but these were so few and far between that they could not overpower what was not done well in the film. I have seen movies that are much better than Twilight, but I have also seen movies that are way worse than Twilight. In the end I really think that if you handed me the existing footage I could edit the film into a better movie.


Director: Catherine Hardwicke
Writer: Melissa Rosenberg
Bella Swan: Kristen Stewart
Edward Cullen: Robert Pattinson
Charlie Swan: Billy Burke
Esme Cullen: Elizabeth Reaser
Charlisle Cullen: Peter Facinelli
Alice Cullen: Ashley Greene
Rosalie Hale: Nikki Reed
Jasper Hale: Jackson Rathbone
Emmet Cullen: Kellan Lutz
Jacob Black: Taylor Lautner
Billy Black: Gil Birmingham
Laurent: Edi Gathegi
Victoria: Rachelle Lefevre
James: Cam Gigandet

Edward Cullen: And so the lion fell in love with the lamb.
Isabella Swan: What a stupid lamb.
Edward Cullen: What a sick, masochistic lion.

The Day The Earth Stood Still

The Day The Earth Stood Still
Originally uploaded by twm1340

The Day the Earth Stood Still is a science fiction classic. I have been trying to see it for years and only successfully saw it when I got it from my Netflix queue a few days ago.

On principle I shouldn’t like The Day the Earth Stood Still because it is a message movie, but I do; the message in this movie is give up your nuclear arms and wars or you’ll pay the consequences. This is the entire message Klaatu braved hundreds of thousands of miles in space to deliver. This all makes sense for the film when you realize that it is a cold war film and people across the globe were afraid of the bomb.

Despite being a message movie at its core The Day the Earth Stood Still is quite entertaining; the characters are fully developed, all the relationships make sense and the plot moves at a nice speed that unfolds information for the audience as they need it not before.

I think that Klaatu is a great member of the annals of film aliens. While he represents a different view of the otherworldly outsider than Kingdom of the Crystal Skull did this year, it is a view of the alien type that probably influenced Spielberg when creating his earlier science fiction works like E.T.. There is both a fear of the outsider and a curiosity about what they can bring to us.

However, I do have to say that my single favorite thing in The Day the Earth Stood Still was Gort. A giant (mind you eight foot tall was big for special effects at the time) robot that was capable of destroying everything in its sight and who only Klaatu could control – that’s my kind of cold war paranoia. Gort is not only a protector of Klaatu but you find out that the robot is some sort of intergalactic peace officer created by Klaatu’s people.

The Day the Earth Stood Still is a highly enjoyable film even if it has slightly suffered from being so era specific; however, seeing the original has me highly excited to see the remake when it comes out next month. Just imagine Gort with modern cgi.

Director: Robert Wise
Writer: Edmund H. Noth
Klaatu: Michael Rennie
Helen Benson: Patricia Neal
Tom Stevens: Hugh Marlowe
Professor Barnhardt: Sam Jaffe
Bobby Benson: Billy Gray
Gort: Lock Martin

Strictly Ballroom

Baz Luhrmann is a contemporary film god – at least I think so; Luhrmann makes films that manage to dazzle and thrill me and make me feel like a ten year old kid watching the movies all over again – granted a ten year old kid with vast film knowledge but still, the metaphor works. The very first film that Luhrmann dazzled me with was not his first film, I had never even heard of Strictly Ballroom before I saw Romeo + Juliet, but I finally found the film a few years ago and I have loved it ever since.

Strictly Ballroom is really the only “happy” movie in the Red Curtain Trilogy; the film follows Scott Hastings a rising ballroom star in the Australian dance world who wants to change things up. However, being unconventional is not acceptable and his partner breaks up with him and sends his dancing career into a spiral in what everyone assumed would be his year to take the championship. Scott’s parents run a dance studio where Fran takes classes and she boldly approaches Scott and offers herself as a new partner willing to dance his way. The couple keeps their partnership a secret fearing the disapproval of his family and mentors as she is still a beginner and her families overprotective nature.

Like all of Luhrmann’s films Strictly Ballroom is about love; in this case love of the dance and a love story between Scott and Fran; like every other film in the Red Curtain Trilogy Luhrmann uses bright and vivid colors to enhance the worlds in which his film takes place – this film really is partially told through the colors. The world of ballroom dancing is not a sedate one – it is filled with pulsating rhythms and colors & costumes to match.

What I really like about Strictly Ballroom is the main character Scott played by Paul Mercurio. The actor hasn’t gone on to do many well known projects since Strictly Ballroom but he manages to play Scott up both the arrogant and boy next door sides of Scott with equal ease and still make the character endearing which is quite a feat.

If you’re a fan of dancing, a fan of Luhrmann or just want to enjoy a fun couple of hours I highly recommend Strictly Ballroom.

Director: Baz Luhrmann
Writers: Baz Luhrmann & Craig Pearce
Scott Hastings: Paul Mercurio
Fran: Tara Morice
Barry Fife: Bill Hunter
Shirley Hastings: Pat Thomson
Liz Holt: Gia Carides
Doug Hastings: Barry Otto

Scott: Look, a beginner has no right to approach an Open Amateur.
Fran: Yeah, well an Open Amateur has no right to dance non-Federation steps, but you did, didn't you?
Scott: But that's different.
Fran: How is it different? You're just like the rest of them! You think you're different, but you're not, because you're just, you're just really scared! You're really scared to give someone new a go, because you think, you know, they might just be better than you are! Well, you're just pathetic, and you're gutless. You're a gutless wonder! Vivir con miedo, es como vivir a medias!

Brand Upon The Brain!

Brand Upon The Brain!
Originally uploaded by planetacid

Guy Maddin is a fascinating contemporary filmmaker to me. His films are unique in a way that I don’t recall anyone else’s being unique; part of this uniqueness is that somehow most of his films are autobiographical. While the films are not strictly “true” he takes obvious things from his life and makes them a part of his movies. In Brand Upon the Brain! Maddin has an actor play him and revisits his childhood home; to the best of my knowledge that is where the truth ends and the rest of the movie begins.

The film is silent and almost exclusively black and white; Maddin has obviously studied the techniques of film and decades past. Brand Upon the Brain! is an art film told as a silent film with a narrator and score; Maddin uses hyperkinetic editing and exaggerated situations to get his tale of strange childhood remembrances across. While I did not get to see the live performance at festivals and select locations Brand Upon the Brain! toured with a live narrator and orchestra; the DVD is narrated by Isabella Rossellini and is truly an interactive experience as you can select other narrators.

I really am stumped on how to describe Brand Upon the Brain! because I think it is a movie I will be processing for a long while. It is the story of a mother who alternately smother and spurn her children, and quests for perpetual youth. Guy’s older sister is the rebellious youth who is experimenting with her sexual awakening and wants to explore and experiment with life. Guy’s father is a closeted madman who has the children and (to an expent) his wife terrified of him. Guy himself is in the past and present of the film as he journey’s home as an adult to prepare his childhood home for his mother to see it before she dies and in the past when he is exploring and hiding along with his sister.

Brand Upon the Brain! will not be enjoyed by a wide audience. This is really a film that is only for those willing to undertake something new and different. That does not mean it isn’t a good film, it merely means that the film is merely too outside the typical movie fare that percolates across the theatre chains of America.

Director: Guy Maddin
Writers: Guy Maddin & George Toles
Mother: Gretchen Kirch
Young Guy Maddin: Sullivan Brown
Sis: Maya Lawson
Chance/Wendy Hale: Katherine E. Scharhon
Father: Todd Moore
Older Guy Maddin: Erik Steffen Maahs
Narrator: Isabella Rossellini