THE FLASH, Arrow, Constantine: one of these is quite not like the others.
Hint: it's Constantine.
After the success of CW Network's DC Comics entities The Flash and Arrow, and Fox's Gotham, there was a lot of hype surrounding Constantine's debut on NBC.
While it is solidly entertaining, there is absolutely no way Constantine can match those heights, and even only two episodes in it is clear to see why it was canned.
I have never read the comics so can only base my opinion on the TV show, but Constantine feels like a program that, had it arrived in the mid-1990s, would've had a long run.
It appears to be a show that is better suited a different time.
Comic book properties are all the rage (and have been for the last decade), but while Marvel's films and TV shows took the world, Arrow proved to be DC Comics' first real success.
The Flash was gladly accepted, potentially moreso than Arrow, while Gotham was met by warm, improving reviews.
Constantine, while solid, does not feel like a program that is easily accepted.
Matt Ryan has done a good job in his performance as Constantine, and Angelica Celaya's Zed Martin adds another dimension to the show, but there appears to be something missing.
Whether it's a character, another great performer, better writing - whatever it is, the series severely lacks due to its absence.
Still, even knowing the series was cancelled at the end of one season, Constantine is a program I'll definitely keep watching.
Ryan will reprise the role in Arrow (and The Flash, perhaps?), so thankfully Constantine will not disappear from our screens yet.
Saturday, October 10, 2015
Bounce of the Ball ventures to the box
IT HAS been a solid seven months since the last time Bounce of the Ball featured fresh material, but that is about to change.
During the long hiatus from what is my avenue to write about topics I may not get the chance to at work (or where it's more of a fit), I spent a lot of time watching various programs on various-sized screens, and feel it is just about time to return.
Where before Bounce of the Ball was a home to film reviews, it will transform to have more of a televisual focus.The occasional sport stories will still appear, but entertainment is the focus.
Let me know what you like, what you want to see and how often and I'll try to accommodate.
During the long hiatus from what is my avenue to write about topics I may not get the chance to at work (or where it's more of a fit), I spent a lot of time watching various programs on various-sized screens, and feel it is just about time to return.
Where before Bounce of the Ball was a home to film reviews, it will transform to have more of a televisual focus.The occasional sport stories will still appear, but entertainment is the focus.
Let me know what you like, what you want to see and how often and I'll try to accommodate.
Sunday, March 08, 2015
Focus
THERE were only two things that disappointed me in Will Smith and Margot Robbie's latest effort, but apart from those few things - which I'll cover later - I thoroughly enjoyed Focus.
Smith stars as seasoned con-man Nicky Spurgeon, whom Robbie's Jess Barrett tried to seduce and con. Nicky knows what's on and smoothly works his way out of the situation.
He takes Barrett under his wing, teaches her the tricks of the trade, and the pair make millions as Nicky's crew goes to work through a series of slick scenes.
The pair develop an intimate relationship despite Nicky's father warning him to never get involved with anyone in the operation, but that is shattered when the crew disbands after a successful haul.
From there the film essentially restarts a few years in future, but even though that sounds like a bad thing it works well.
Both Nicky and Barrett, as well as the returning Farhad (Adrian Martinez), develop over the the three-year gap and their progression serve to give their stories a new edge.
But even a few days after watching the film I'm still struggling to work out both how to describe Focus, and into which genre it would fit.
Parts of the film seem to be borrowed from drama, another part is from thriller, there's plenty of comedy and the romantic focus on Nicky and Barrett obviously adds another aspect.
While they can work well if they're put together the right way, directors Glenn Ficarra and John Requa can't seem the get the right balance.
The finished product remains a jumble of what it is trying to be versus what it actually is.
The film is still bloody good despite those issues, which is disappointing when you imagine what it could've been had they got it all right.
Smith stars as seasoned con-man Nicky Spurgeon, whom Robbie's Jess Barrett tried to seduce and con. Nicky knows what's on and smoothly works his way out of the situation.
He takes Barrett under his wing, teaches her the tricks of the trade, and the pair make millions as Nicky's crew goes to work through a series of slick scenes.
The pair develop an intimate relationship despite Nicky's father warning him to never get involved with anyone in the operation, but that is shattered when the crew disbands after a successful haul.
From there the film essentially restarts a few years in future, but even though that sounds like a bad thing it works well.
Both Nicky and Barrett, as well as the returning Farhad (Adrian Martinez), develop over the the three-year gap and their progression serve to give their stories a new edge.
But even a few days after watching the film I'm still struggling to work out both how to describe Focus, and into which genre it would fit.
Parts of the film seem to be borrowed from drama, another part is from thriller, there's plenty of comedy and the romantic focus on Nicky and Barrett obviously adds another aspect.
While they can work well if they're put together the right way, directors Glenn Ficarra and John Requa can't seem the get the right balance.
The finished product remains a jumble of what it is trying to be versus what it actually is.
The film is still bloody good despite those issues, which is disappointing when you imagine what it could've been had they got it all right.
Sunday, March 01, 2015
We Need To Talk About Kevin
Spectacularly constructed film with a performance to leave the hairs standing on the back necks everywhere, We Need To Talk About Kevin is an underrated yet unsettling film.
Told as a combination of flashbacks and present day, WNTTAK highlights shows Kevin Khatchadourian's (Ezra Miller/Jasper Newell) develop from a creepy child to a sociapathic teenager through the eyes of helpless mother Eva (Tilda Swinton).
Lynne Ramsay adapts Lionel Shriver's international best-selling novel brilliantly, even if the jump between present and past is sometimes annoying.
The fascination lies in the mental disintegration of Eva, as Kevin becomes increasingly manipulative.
He is clearly in control in any of their interactions, and both Miller and Newell portray the perfect amount of "creep" to show it. The utter disdain in their (older and younger Kevin respectively) eyes and tiny "I'm in the power position" smile they wear is terrifying.
I had a similar reaction to WNTTAK as I did Snowtown, in that it was difficult to watch because it was so well-crafted. While I still believe Snowtown did a better job at making the audience wish they were anywhere but in front of the screen, WNTTAK presented Kevin's descendence into madness in a manner that was similarly uncomfortable but just as compelling.
A tough but rewarding watch.
Told as a combination of flashbacks and present day, WNTTAK highlights shows Kevin Khatchadourian's (Ezra Miller/Jasper Newell) develop from a creepy child to a sociapathic teenager through the eyes of helpless mother Eva (Tilda Swinton).
The fascination lies in the mental disintegration of Eva, as Kevin becomes increasingly manipulative.
He is clearly in control in any of their interactions, and both Miller and Newell portray the perfect amount of "creep" to show it. The utter disdain in their (older and younger Kevin respectively) eyes and tiny "I'm in the power position" smile they wear is terrifying.
I had a similar reaction to WNTTAK as I did Snowtown, in that it was difficult to watch because it was so well-crafted. While I still believe Snowtown did a better job at making the audience wish they were anywhere but in front of the screen, WNTTAK presented Kevin's descendence into madness in a manner that was similarly uncomfortable but just as compelling.
A tough but rewarding watch.
Why is #Gogglebox so appealing?
THE ONLY reality programs I've enjoyed are the second season of Big Brother, the first season of The Contender and some snippets of So You Think You Can Dance and Dancing With The Stars.
I'm quite open about my disdain of reality television.
I dislike the format, I don't particularly like the talents thrust onto my screen, and I hate the complete saturation of coverage where I can't watch other programs I like without at least four or five ads or references to the reality shows.
That said, I am at a loss to understand why Gogglebox is SO DAMN GOOD.
I'm a little late to the party, having just finished binging on the first three episodes almost four weeks after the Australian version of the hit UK show premiered.
When Gogglebox was first advertised I looked at it with disdain. The concept sounded silly: instead of watching "real" people compete in cooking competitions or being stranded on an island, let's watch people watch programs from the week prior.
It is, essentially, Twitter for television, and maybe that goes some way to explaining why I want more Gogglebox.
For those that follow me on Twitter, you already know I'm slightly addicted to the social network.
I tweet about just about anything: politics, random thoughts, conversations, my thoughts on film and television, and commentating or tweeting live sport.
Therein lies my strange fascination with a program that shows "real" people passing comment on programs from the previous week.
A lot of the scenes, particularly those that covered Four Corners' live baiting investigation and Top Gun, are reminiscent of what happens when I watched the same programs. The shock at seeing defenceless piglets tied to lures for greyhounds, the debate as to whether to allow 15 and 16-year-olds to watch the program in the first place (the Daltons decide to let them watch, but both leave), and the general reaction to Top Gun (particularly THAT volleyball scene) are all real.
I think that is one of the most important aspects: this reality program feels more real than any before.
In programs like Survivor, Big Brother, and Masterchef, the contestants are in an artificial situation that doesn't reflect reality. Masterchef particularly tries to capitalise on the "everyday people", yet trot out recipes and meals with ingredients most families wouldn't have used.
Gogglebox gives us a real situation of which we can all relate. The scenes depicted in the 10 lounge rooms are reminiscent of the viewing experience of most people watching television. Where the 10 groups verbalise their opinions with their offsiders (as they have to for the program to work), a lot of people express themselves via Twitter or other social networks.
The casting seems to dissect society and represent the general quite well, with people from different social economic class. That said, there is one thing that stands out: they're awfully white. The only non-white group are the Sri Lankan Delpechitas. I'm not going to make an issue about it as others can do a far better job of it, but it does stand out for mine. Hopefully that will change when it is (hopefully?) renewed for further seasons.
That aside, there's been a strong variety of programs they've chosen to air, and the casting has been perfect. The groups look to be from extremely different backgrounds, and most have hammered home countless one-liners that have had me in stitches. I haven't genuinely laughed as loudly or openly during a television show as I have watching Gogglebox, and I hope that doesn't change.
Gogglebox airs on Lifestyle Channel at 9.30pm Wednesdays (8.30pm in Qld) and Channel 10 at 9pm Thursdays.
I'm quite open about my disdain of reality television.
I dislike the format, I don't particularly like the talents thrust onto my screen, and I hate the complete saturation of coverage where I can't watch other programs I like without at least four or five ads or references to the reality shows.
That said, I am at a loss to understand why Gogglebox is SO DAMN GOOD.
I'm a little late to the party, having just finished binging on the first three episodes almost four weeks after the Australian version of the hit UK show premiered.
When Gogglebox was first advertised I looked at it with disdain. The concept sounded silly: instead of watching "real" people compete in cooking competitions or being stranded on an island, let's watch people watch programs from the week prior.
It is, essentially, Twitter for television, and maybe that goes some way to explaining why I want more Gogglebox.
For those that follow me on Twitter, you already know I'm slightly addicted to the social network.
I tweet about just about anything: politics, random thoughts, conversations, my thoughts on film and television, and commentating or tweeting live sport.
Therein lies my strange fascination with a program that shows "real" people passing comment on programs from the previous week.
A lot of the scenes, particularly those that covered Four Corners' live baiting investigation and Top Gun, are reminiscent of what happens when I watched the same programs. The shock at seeing defenceless piglets tied to lures for greyhounds, the debate as to whether to allow 15 and 16-year-olds to watch the program in the first place (the Daltons decide to let them watch, but both leave), and the general reaction to Top Gun (particularly THAT volleyball scene) are all real.
I think that is one of the most important aspects: this reality program feels more real than any before.
In programs like Survivor, Big Brother, and Masterchef, the contestants are in an artificial situation that doesn't reflect reality. Masterchef particularly tries to capitalise on the "everyday people", yet trot out recipes and meals with ingredients most families wouldn't have used.
Gogglebox gives us a real situation of which we can all relate. The scenes depicted in the 10 lounge rooms are reminiscent of the viewing experience of most people watching television. Where the 10 groups verbalise their opinions with their offsiders (as they have to for the program to work), a lot of people express themselves via Twitter or other social networks.
The casting seems to dissect society and represent the general quite well, with people from different social economic class. That said, there is one thing that stands out: they're awfully white. The only non-white group are the Sri Lankan Delpechitas. I'm not going to make an issue about it as others can do a far better job of it, but it does stand out for mine. Hopefully that will change when it is (hopefully?) renewed for further seasons.
That aside, there's been a strong variety of programs they've chosen to air, and the casting has been perfect. The groups look to be from extremely different backgrounds, and most have hammered home countless one-liners that have had me in stitches. I haven't genuinely laughed as loudly or openly during a television show as I have watching Gogglebox, and I hope that doesn't change.
Gogglebox airs on Lifestyle Channel at 9.30pm Wednesdays (8.30pm in Qld) and Channel 10 at 9pm Thursdays.
Saturday, February 28, 2015
About Time
IT MAY not be the best film of all time but there's something about About Time that I loved.
(I'll try to keep spoilers at a minimum but watch the trailer)
Domhnall Gleeson, who you probably better know as Bill Wesley from Harry Potter, stars as lead Tim Lake.
When Lake turns 21 his father, played by Bill Nighy, reveals to him the family secret: the men of his family can travel back in time. But not just any point in history - it has to be a time and place they've already been before.
Lake is discouraged to use his power for monetary gain or fame, so the red-haired, seemingly socially awkward man uses his gift to improve his love life.
Time travel is a gift many people wish they had. Whether it is to lead more financially lucrative lives or find fame, or if its simply to change the way an interaction, conversation or meeting played out, a lot of people, myself included, have wished they could simply go back in time and do it better.
Lake gets to do just that but he uses it for his love life, though it doesn't work out exactly as he hopes it would the following summer with sister Kit Kat's (Lydia Wilson) friend Charlotte, played by Neighbours alumni and future Harley Quinn Margot Robbie.
A move to London opens the door for a chance meeting with Rachel McAdams' Mary, with whom he shares a night flirting at a restaurant. The two connect, but Lake learns another lesson of his unique gift: if he changes the past, he will inevitably change his future.
My major beef with this film is Gleeson is a little too creepy.
When he meets Mary for the first time (again), he is the type of creepy of which would have police and security called within seconds. Defying utter logic (and obviously feeding on rom-com aspect), she instead agrees to meet him for dinner.
It just doesn't make sense.
If it was someone like Ryan Gosling or Hugh Grant in that scene, their natural charisma and charm would've made it a totally plausible outcome. Gleeson is just creepy all round - the way the lines are delivered coupled with the scary intensity of his eyes sends shivers rather than the suggestive signals he was supposed to.
His social awkwardness and reactions to certain situations do deliver some extra laughs, and to his credit Gleeson softens up in different times of the film.
McAdams is perfect as always, Nighy adds energy to the family, Wilson's free-spirited Kit Kat is a troubling yet refreshing sidestory to the main plot, and Richard Cordery's minor role as Uncle Desmond is hilarious.
Even though Gleeson is a little on the creepy side at times About Time is a film that will make you smile, laugh, and leave you coming back for more.
(I'll try to keep spoilers at a minimum but watch the trailer)
Domhnall Gleeson, who you probably better know as Bill Wesley from Harry Potter, stars as lead Tim Lake.
When Lake turns 21 his father, played by Bill Nighy, reveals to him the family secret: the men of his family can travel back in time. But not just any point in history - it has to be a time and place they've already been before.
Lake is discouraged to use his power for monetary gain or fame, so the red-haired, seemingly socially awkward man uses his gift to improve his love life.
Time travel is a gift many people wish they had. Whether it is to lead more financially lucrative lives or find fame, or if its simply to change the way an interaction, conversation or meeting played out, a lot of people, myself included, have wished they could simply go back in time and do it better.
Lake gets to do just that but he uses it for his love life, though it doesn't work out exactly as he hopes it would the following summer with sister Kit Kat's (Lydia Wilson) friend Charlotte, played by Neighbours alumni and future Harley Quinn Margot Robbie.
A move to London opens the door for a chance meeting with Rachel McAdams' Mary, with whom he shares a night flirting at a restaurant. The two connect, but Lake learns another lesson of his unique gift: if he changes the past, he will inevitably change his future.
My major beef with this film is Gleeson is a little too creepy.
When he meets Mary for the first time (again), he is the type of creepy of which would have police and security called within seconds. Defying utter logic (and obviously feeding on rom-com aspect), she instead agrees to meet him for dinner.
It just doesn't make sense.
If it was someone like Ryan Gosling or Hugh Grant in that scene, their natural charisma and charm would've made it a totally plausible outcome. Gleeson is just creepy all round - the way the lines are delivered coupled with the scary intensity of his eyes sends shivers rather than the suggestive signals he was supposed to.
His social awkwardness and reactions to certain situations do deliver some extra laughs, and to his credit Gleeson softens up in different times of the film.
McAdams is perfect as always, Nighy adds energy to the family, Wilson's free-spirited Kit Kat is a troubling yet refreshing sidestory to the main plot, and Richard Cordery's minor role as Uncle Desmond is hilarious.
Even though Gleeson is a little on the creepy side at times About Time is a film that will make you smile, laugh, and leave you coming back for more.
Sunday, January 25, 2015
The Man with the Iron Fists
The DVD case splashes "Quentin Tarantino presents" in red across the top while the tagline "You can't spell kung fu without F and U" sit prominently in white under the main image. Any expectation you have of the film is then shattered when you see a cast littered with the likes of Russell Crowe, RZA, Lucy Liu and Dave Bautista.
This film can only be described as wild.
The epic opening sequence fuses the rap of RZA and Howard Drossin with a crazy fight scene in which the leader of the Lion Clan, Gold Lion, is murdered. The film's plot comes from this event, with his son Zen-Yi (Rick Yune, Day Another Day) seeking revenge when he learns of what happened.
We soon meet Russell Crowe's Jack Knife - "I am Mr Knife, but you can call me Jack" - an opium-addicted British soldier named after his weapon of choice. Knife takes refuge in a brothel which is home to several hilarious Crowe scenes.
Dave Bautista plays Brass Body, a massive unit capable of turning his body to metal. The character wouldn't be out of place in an X-Men film, and his existence in this simply bizarre world RZA and Eli Roth have created I don't think has been answered.
Meanwhile RZA, the film's director, producer, screenwriter, and half of the composing team (with Drossin), plays the lead role as "The Blacksmith". The Blacksmith's main role is to rescue his lover Lady Silk (Jamie Chung) from the Pink Blossom - the same brothel in which Mr Knife took refuge.
The four are brought together by the common purpose of stopping the Lion Clad, and through 90 minutes of terrible scripting and gravity-defying fight scenes featuring tunes from Wu-Tang Clan and RZA we are ripped through RZA's homage to the martial arts film genre.
I felt the film wasn't necessarily bad but it isn't good either. It's 90-odd minutes of top-quality entertainment with glimpses of humour, but it is a film that most will smirk when they read the blurb and continue on by.
Is it worth 90 minutes of your time? Only if you want to hear pearlers like "These motherfuckers got a Gatling gun" and see a bunch of throats get ripped open.
One more thing: the trivia section on IMDB says RZA wanted this film to be four hours and split into two. Thankfully Eli Roth stepped in and said 90 minutes is enough.
The epic opening sequence fuses the rap of RZA and Howard Drossin with a crazy fight scene in which the leader of the Lion Clan, Gold Lion, is murdered. The film's plot comes from this event, with his son Zen-Yi (Rick Yune, Day Another Day) seeking revenge when he learns of what happened.
We soon meet Russell Crowe's Jack Knife - "I am Mr Knife, but you can call me Jack" - an opium-addicted British soldier named after his weapon of choice. Knife takes refuge in a brothel which is home to several hilarious Crowe scenes.
Dave Bautista plays Brass Body, a massive unit capable of turning his body to metal. The character wouldn't be out of place in an X-Men film, and his existence in this simply bizarre world RZA and Eli Roth have created I don't think has been answered.
Meanwhile RZA, the film's director, producer, screenwriter, and half of the composing team (with Drossin), plays the lead role as "The Blacksmith". The Blacksmith's main role is to rescue his lover Lady Silk (Jamie Chung) from the Pink Blossom - the same brothel in which Mr Knife took refuge.
The four are brought together by the common purpose of stopping the Lion Clad, and through 90 minutes of terrible scripting and gravity-defying fight scenes featuring tunes from Wu-Tang Clan and RZA we are ripped through RZA's homage to the martial arts film genre.
I felt the film wasn't necessarily bad but it isn't good either. It's 90-odd minutes of top-quality entertainment with glimpses of humour, but it is a film that most will smirk when they read the blurb and continue on by.
Is it worth 90 minutes of your time? Only if you want to hear pearlers like "These motherfuckers got a Gatling gun" and see a bunch of throats get ripped open.
One more thing: the trivia section on IMDB says RZA wanted this film to be four hours and split into two. Thankfully Eli Roth stepped in and said 90 minutes is enough.
Sunday, January 11, 2015
The Hobbit trilogy
A central place for my reviews of Peter Jackson's film adaptations of JRR Tolkien's The Hobbi.
Click the links to read the reviews:
The Hobbit
An Unexpected Journey
The Desolation of Smaug
The Battle of the Five Armies
Click the links to read the reviews:
The Hobbit
An Unexpected Journey
The Desolation of Smaug
The Battle of the Five Armies
Saturday, January 10, 2015
The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies
I remember watching The Hobbit: The Desolation of Smaug and despite enjoying the film more than I did The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, had hope the third and final chapter would be even better.
After watching The Battle of the Five Armies I can't help but feel a little disappointed.
The final chapter in Peter Jackson's adaptation of Tolkien's masterful works set in Middle Earth finally came to Australian screens on Boxing Day 2014, more than 10 years after he started (with Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring).
One of the criticisms of the LOTR trilogy was their length, but even with the excessive run times (more than three hours-odd each) Jackson had to cut a lot of content from the book (Mr Bombadil's story arc anyone?). The same criticism can easily be directed at The Hobbit, in which Jackson manages to stretch a single novel - which is smaller than each "third" of LOTR - into three long films.
The main criticisms I have for The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies stem from this issue.
Instead of one or two action-packed films that could sweep audiences across Middle Earth at a brisk pace as Bilbo and the Dwarves complete their quest, fight Smaug/orcs/elves/men/each other, and try to overcome their greed (I'm looking at you Thorin Oakenshield), we are treated to three films that lack any real punch.
As a big fan of the series it pains me to say The Battle of the Five Armies was boring.
Way too much time was spent on the negotiation sequences between Thorin, the bunch of Elves with a grudge and the Men whose town was destroyed by Smaug (thanks Thorin/Bilbo). The way the Dwarves were chilling up top looking down at Bard (from the destroyed city of Laketown) and Thranduil (leader of the Elvish army) looked like it came straight out of a Monty Python film.
Richard Armitage (Thorin) did his best to look as if he was slowly being overcome by evil as the film mercilessly dragged on, which was capped by a dream sequence in which I'm certain he drowned in a pool of gold (which, funnily enough, was the point at which he woke up from his evil/greed/lust).
Despite those two main problems, there are several positive aspects.
The multiple combat/battle sequences were all outstanding, even though a) it takes a REALLY long time for several characters to die, and b) I'm not sure how the injection of just nine Dwarves can change a battle being waged by several armies each numbered in their hundreds. Yes I know they are our heroes (and I know it's fiction and follows a source text) but am I seriously expected to believe that could happen? Even if a film is set in some mythological/fictional place I will happily accept whatever happens if I believe it could. Had it been nine wizards or Ents, yes I'd cop that battle-winning change. Nine Dwarves? Nup.
The way Jackson slipped his nods to the events of LOTR were expertly done. He included just the right amount of information (Legolas' instruction to track down Strider/Aragon for example) to make fans want to run back home and buckle in for the next leg of the ultra Middle Earth marathon.
The Battle of the Five Armies does its job, albeit poorly after being let down by previous chapters, decision making, and the corporate dollar (whatever you believe to be the reason The Hobbit was stretched into a trilogy). The loose ends from Desolation of Smaug are tied up, we get a resolution to Bilbo's quest and get to see him get home to the Shire (I'm still filthy over its omission from Return of the King Mr Jackson), and there is just enough included to set up LOTR.
>I would like to know whatever happened to Radagast the Brown however. He is seen in the climatic scenes of Battle of the Five Armies but doesn't appear in the film versions of LOTR at all (he is in the books).
Perhaps we will find out if/when Mr Jackson tackles The Silmarillion...
After watching The Battle of the Five Armies I can't help but feel a little disappointed.
The final chapter in Peter Jackson's adaptation of Tolkien's masterful works set in Middle Earth finally came to Australian screens on Boxing Day 2014, more than 10 years after he started (with Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring).
One of the criticisms of the LOTR trilogy was their length, but even with the excessive run times (more than three hours-odd each) Jackson had to cut a lot of content from the book (Mr Bombadil's story arc anyone?). The same criticism can easily be directed at The Hobbit, in which Jackson manages to stretch a single novel - which is smaller than each "third" of LOTR - into three long films.
The main criticisms I have for The Hobbit: The Battle of the Five Armies stem from this issue.
Instead of one or two action-packed films that could sweep audiences across Middle Earth at a brisk pace as Bilbo and the Dwarves complete their quest, fight Smaug/orcs/elves/men/each other, and try to overcome their greed (I'm looking at you Thorin Oakenshield), we are treated to three films that lack any real punch.
As a big fan of the series it pains me to say The Battle of the Five Armies was boring.
Way too much time was spent on the negotiation sequences between Thorin, the bunch of Elves with a grudge and the Men whose town was destroyed by Smaug (thanks Thorin/Bilbo). The way the Dwarves were chilling up top looking down at Bard (from the destroyed city of Laketown) and Thranduil (leader of the Elvish army) looked like it came straight out of a Monty Python film.
Richard Armitage (Thorin) did his best to look as if he was slowly being overcome by evil as the film mercilessly dragged on, which was capped by a dream sequence in which I'm certain he drowned in a pool of gold (which, funnily enough, was the point at which he woke up from his evil/greed/lust).
Despite those two main problems, there are several positive aspects.
The multiple combat/battle sequences were all outstanding, even though a) it takes a REALLY long time for several characters to die, and b) I'm not sure how the injection of just nine Dwarves can change a battle being waged by several armies each numbered in their hundreds. Yes I know they are our heroes (and I know it's fiction and follows a source text) but am I seriously expected to believe that could happen? Even if a film is set in some mythological/fictional place I will happily accept whatever happens if I believe it could. Had it been nine wizards or Ents, yes I'd cop that battle-winning change. Nine Dwarves? Nup.
The way Jackson slipped his nods to the events of LOTR were expertly done. He included just the right amount of information (Legolas' instruction to track down Strider/Aragon for example) to make fans want to run back home and buckle in for the next leg of the ultra Middle Earth marathon.
The Battle of the Five Armies does its job, albeit poorly after being let down by previous chapters, decision making, and the corporate dollar (whatever you believe to be the reason The Hobbit was stretched into a trilogy). The loose ends from Desolation of Smaug are tied up, we get a resolution to Bilbo's quest and get to see him get home to the Shire (I'm still filthy over its omission from Return of the King Mr Jackson), and there is just enough included to set up LOTR.
>I would like to know whatever happened to Radagast the Brown however. He is seen in the climatic scenes of Battle of the Five Armies but doesn't appear in the film versions of LOTR at all (he is in the books).
Perhaps we will find out if/when Mr Jackson tackles The Silmarillion...
Thursday, August 07, 2014
Lucy
I’ve never been one for drugs but I imagine Lucy is best described as a bad trip.
Luc Besson’s latest effort features Scarlett Johansson in
the titular role and Morgan Freeman as world-leading scientist Professor Samuel
Norman. But even the combined star power of The
Avengers star and the world’s most regonisable voice can’t stop this film
from descending into a farce.
Highly successful French director Besson sprung to Hollywood’s
attention with his 1997 effort The Fifth
Element but more recently produced The
Transporter and the Taken series.
He forces you to keep an open mind, and as shown by the
films of which he has directorial, screen-writing and production credits he isn’t
afraid to go all out on action and leave plausibility at a minimum.
Lucy not only
forces an open mind; it blows it apart.
But not in a good way.
The ambitious film explores the idea of humans using only
10% of their brain power, and attempts to show what could be possible if one
person accessed the full 100%.
We are thrust straight into the story, with Lucy forced to
cooperate with a drug deal which goes horribly wrong.
She is made a drug mule without her consent, and she (and
three other men) are forced to fly to four different world destinations with a
bag of drugs sown into their stomachs to complete the deal.
Lucy is kept in captivity but passed to a new group, and it
all goes downhill once the new gang’s leader literally lays the boot in,
splitting the bag inside her stomach and allowing the drug into her system.
The drug itself is interesting. Dubbed CPH4, the drug is a
highly valuable synthetic that essentially unlocks the 90% of the brain we don’t
use.
As it is absorbed into Lucy’s system, she begins
experiencing heightened abilities, and it all goes downhill very quickly from
there.
For the next 70-odd minutes we’re taken on a wild ride
across Europe as Lucy races to stop the other three packages from reaching
their intended receivers.
But for the same 70-odd minutes we’re left wondering what
the hell is going on.
Lucy’s sole saving grace is an awesome car
chase through the streets of Paris that is highly unbelievable but highly
entertaining.
Yes, it is quite simple to follow how Lucy accesses more of
her brain power thanks to the massive white numbers on a black background that
pop up throughout the film, but the presentation is so ridiculous you spend it
scratching your head and deciding whether or not to walk out.
I’m glad to say my record of not leaving films early still
stands, but Lucy is the closest I’ve ever been to an early exit.
Wednesday, June 11, 2014
Edge of Tomorrow
I have already rated Edge of Tomorrow as one of my top films of 2014.
Starring Tom Cruise as Major William Cage, an advertising man who is suddenly thrust onto the frontline of humanity's war against the invading Mimics, and Emily Blunt as Sergeant Rita Vrataski, the "Angel of Verdun", Edge of Tomorrow sees Cage stuck in a Groundhog Day-like situation where he continually relives the opening day of the human army's offensive.
In his first reluctant trip to battle, Cage watches on as fellow soldiers are killed around him, and eventually comes face to face with several mimics. He miraculously manages to kill an Alpha, and is covered in its blood moments as he dies. The only thing is he doesn't die - he relives the past 24 hours.
Eventually he comes across Vrataski, who happened to go through a similar ordeal as Cage. She offers to train Cage from his non-existent military background to a level of which he can take the fight to the Mimics.
This film is amazing.
I love the story, the performances of Cruise and Blunt are brilliant and the action sequences are top-notch. Bill Paxton's minor role as Master Sergeant Farrell was hilarious, while the surrounding members of the cast, particularly those who portrayed J Squad members, did all they had to to make this film work.
I can't rave enough about the design of the alien species. The beauty of science fiction is that the imagination is the only limitation when it comes to the design or depiction of alien creatures on-screen, and Edge of Tomorrow really played with the concept that these things didn't have to conform to our perception of physics or credible movement. Yes, they moved in a logical manner and though they couldn't slip through a hole in the time-space continuum, they still had enough alienness to have me suckered in. The occasional erratic movement of the aliens in which they seemed to spasm for a moment before retaking their "full form" really boded well. The tentacle-like nature of the beasts only added their design.
Groundhog Day will be, to me anyway, the original time loop movie, but Edge of Tomorrow will probably take the mantle of my favourite. As a big science fiction fan, Edge of Tomorrow may edge out its time loop rival based purely on that fact, but its one of those rare, edgy movies that comes off really well. This film could easily have been let down by a garbage plot, but Christopher McQuarrie, Jez Butterworth and John-Henry Butterworth combine to develop Hiroshi Sakurazaka's All You Need Is Kill into an awesome cinematic experience. A lot of credit has to go to director Doug Liman and cinematographer Dion Beebe, as the look and feel of the film help make it even better.
With all of that said however, the story itself could have used a tad bit more refining as far as the earlier alien base is concerned, and the last scene was a bit too "gotcha".
Cruise and Blunt's performances help make this one of the best films of the year and by the end you're left craving more. Despite a sequel not being necessary and not even being looked at (though Sakurazaka is writing one), I would eat up a spin-off or a game based on this world.
Will I be heading back to the cinema to relive my viewing experience? Most definitely.
Starring Tom Cruise as Major William Cage, an advertising man who is suddenly thrust onto the frontline of humanity's war against the invading Mimics, and Emily Blunt as Sergeant Rita Vrataski, the "Angel of Verdun", Edge of Tomorrow sees Cage stuck in a Groundhog Day-like situation where he continually relives the opening day of the human army's offensive.
In his first reluctant trip to battle, Cage watches on as fellow soldiers are killed around him, and eventually comes face to face with several mimics. He miraculously manages to kill an Alpha, and is covered in its blood moments as he dies. The only thing is he doesn't die - he relives the past 24 hours.
Eventually he comes across Vrataski, who happened to go through a similar ordeal as Cage. She offers to train Cage from his non-existent military background to a level of which he can take the fight to the Mimics.
This film is amazing.
I love the story, the performances of Cruise and Blunt are brilliant and the action sequences are top-notch. Bill Paxton's minor role as Master Sergeant Farrell was hilarious, while the surrounding members of the cast, particularly those who portrayed J Squad members, did all they had to to make this film work.
I can't rave enough about the design of the alien species. The beauty of science fiction is that the imagination is the only limitation when it comes to the design or depiction of alien creatures on-screen, and Edge of Tomorrow really played with the concept that these things didn't have to conform to our perception of physics or credible movement. Yes, they moved in a logical manner and though they couldn't slip through a hole in the time-space continuum, they still had enough alienness to have me suckered in. The occasional erratic movement of the aliens in which they seemed to spasm for a moment before retaking their "full form" really boded well. The tentacle-like nature of the beasts only added their design.
Groundhog Day will be, to me anyway, the original time loop movie, but Edge of Tomorrow will probably take the mantle of my favourite. As a big science fiction fan, Edge of Tomorrow may edge out its time loop rival based purely on that fact, but its one of those rare, edgy movies that comes off really well. This film could easily have been let down by a garbage plot, but Christopher McQuarrie, Jez Butterworth and John-Henry Butterworth combine to develop Hiroshi Sakurazaka's All You Need Is Kill into an awesome cinematic experience. A lot of credit has to go to director Doug Liman and cinematographer Dion Beebe, as the look and feel of the film help make it even better.
With all of that said however, the story itself could have used a tad bit more refining as far as the earlier alien base is concerned, and the last scene was a bit too "gotcha".
Cruise and Blunt's performances help make this one of the best films of the year and by the end you're left craving more. Despite a sequel not being necessary and not even being looked at (though Sakurazaka is writing one), I would eat up a spin-off or a game based on this world.
Will I be heading back to the cinema to relive my viewing experience? Most definitely.
Monday, June 09, 2014
X-Men: Days of Future Past
The best X-Men entry in the franchise so far? It's bloody close.
Days of Future Past is the first film of the franchise to combine the cast from the original trilogy and those from First Class, and actually does the seemingly difficult job in a simple and effective way.
Days of Future Past acts as a sequel to both 2006's X-Men: The Last Stand and 2011's X-Men: First Class. The original cast - Hugh Jackman (Logan/Wolverine) Patrick Stewart (Charles Xavier), Ian McKellen (Magneto) and Halle Berry (Storm) - act as the supporting cast to the First Class cast of James McAvoy (Charles Xavier), Michael Fassbender (Magneto), Jennifer Lawrence (Raven/Mystique) and Nicholas Hoult (Beast), with Jackman's Wolverine ushering the newer cast through their side of the story.
The story revolves around a future in which Trask Industries have developed a series of weapons (Sentinels) that can absorb the power of and defeat mutants, and have wiped out almost all mutants apart from a select few of our favourites. The original Xavier (Stewart) and Magneto (McKellen) work together on a plan to have Kitty Pryde (Ellen Page) send Wolverine back in time to alter history, and prevent Bolivar Trask (the outstanding Peter Dinklage of Game of Thrones fame) develop the first Sentinels. His mission is to bring the younger Xavier (McAvoy) and Magneto (Fassbender) together when their relationship was at their worst.
I cannot fault this film at all.
Bryan Singer returns to X-Men's director's chair after leading X-Men, X2 and X-Men: First Class, and again proves why he is the man who should head up all X-Men films. He knows how to tell the stories in a way the layman or non-comic book reader can follow, similar as to how J.J. Abrams' effort on Star Trek and Jon Favreau's Iron Man. And with Days of Future Past, proves he can get the best out of this franchise.
The Sentinels are some seriously awesome machines, and the action sequences of which they're involved are seamless, inventive and downright amazing. The main driver of this film is the First Class cast, and the powerful Fassbender and McAvoy deliver. They steal every scene they are in, and you can seriously believe the McAvoy's anguish as he fights the darkest of battles within himself. Jackman is in the purple patch of his career, delivering top-notch performance after performance. His turn as Wolverine in Days of Future Past is no different, in fact I'm glad there isn't a "younger" Wolverine as I find it impossible to imagine anybody else in the role.
Days of Future Past is seriously the best entry in the X-Men franchise, but you don't have to have seen the others to follow the story. The only thing you may miss is a few character references (William Stryker for one, whose character appears in First Class and X-Men Origins: Wolverine), but a tiny bit of research after the film can fill in the gaps. The post-credits sequence has me even more excited for X-Men: Apocalypse, which is due to hit screens in 2016 - and with Singer in the director's chair again.
Days of Future Past is the first film of the franchise to combine the cast from the original trilogy and those from First Class, and actually does the seemingly difficult job in a simple and effective way.
Days of Future Past acts as a sequel to both 2006's X-Men: The Last Stand and 2011's X-Men: First Class. The original cast - Hugh Jackman (Logan/Wolverine) Patrick Stewart (Charles Xavier), Ian McKellen (Magneto) and Halle Berry (Storm) - act as the supporting cast to the First Class cast of James McAvoy (Charles Xavier), Michael Fassbender (Magneto), Jennifer Lawrence (Raven/Mystique) and Nicholas Hoult (Beast), with Jackman's Wolverine ushering the newer cast through their side of the story.
The story revolves around a future in which Trask Industries have developed a series of weapons (Sentinels) that can absorb the power of and defeat mutants, and have wiped out almost all mutants apart from a select few of our favourites. The original Xavier (Stewart) and Magneto (McKellen) work together on a plan to have Kitty Pryde (Ellen Page) send Wolverine back in time to alter history, and prevent Bolivar Trask (the outstanding Peter Dinklage of Game of Thrones fame) develop the first Sentinels. His mission is to bring the younger Xavier (McAvoy) and Magneto (Fassbender) together when their relationship was at their worst.
I cannot fault this film at all.
Bryan Singer returns to X-Men's director's chair after leading X-Men, X2 and X-Men: First Class, and again proves why he is the man who should head up all X-Men films. He knows how to tell the stories in a way the layman or non-comic book reader can follow, similar as to how J.J. Abrams' effort on Star Trek and Jon Favreau's Iron Man. And with Days of Future Past, proves he can get the best out of this franchise.
The Sentinels are some seriously awesome machines, and the action sequences of which they're involved are seamless, inventive and downright amazing. The main driver of this film is the First Class cast, and the powerful Fassbender and McAvoy deliver. They steal every scene they are in, and you can seriously believe the McAvoy's anguish as he fights the darkest of battles within himself. Jackman is in the purple patch of his career, delivering top-notch performance after performance. His turn as Wolverine in Days of Future Past is no different, in fact I'm glad there isn't a "younger" Wolverine as I find it impossible to imagine anybody else in the role.
Days of Future Past is seriously the best entry in the X-Men franchise, but you don't have to have seen the others to follow the story. The only thing you may miss is a few character references (William Stryker for one, whose character appears in First Class and X-Men Origins: Wolverine), but a tiny bit of research after the film can fill in the gaps. The post-credits sequence has me even more excited for X-Men: Apocalypse, which is due to hit screens in 2016 - and with Singer in the director's chair again.
Godzilla (2014)
The return of arguably the most famous kaiju to Hollywood copped quite the flogging in its reviews but 2014's most anticipated monster movie had a lot to love.
Much of the preview criticism centred on a few things: the lack of Bryan Cranston, a Godzilla that was a little tubby around the edges, and a lead character (Ford Brody, played by Aaron Taylor-Johnson) who makes it very hard to connect with.
I agree with two of those points, but the amount of care on Godzilla's appearance - so what? Godzilla is a mythical monster, who cares about his size? Cranston is brilliant as ever as nuclear physicist Joe Brody (Ford's dad), but everyone else in the film just feels one-dimensional, wooden, and simply boring. The way this film (or any other version of Godzilla should be) told, they are all simply supporting talent to the massive on-screen presence of Godzilla. But they don't have to be so bad.
Taylor-Johnson just lacks some of that appeal, and I think I would have been happy to see he and Cranston switch roles. While it might have been difficult to buy Cranston as a military man, it might have made the film a lot better.
The story itself is not overly bad. With the Japanese tsunami and the ensuing chaos surrounding Fukishima's nuclear plants still fresh in the memory, writer Max Borenstein feeds off this to give a fair reasoning as to why Godzilla and a handful of his kaiju buddies appear. They feed off radiation, and manage to tie the United States' atomic bomb testing in as a cover for trying the wipe out these creatures in 1954. One day the father-son Brody pair are arrested and held for trespassing in a Japanese facility, with Ford left handcuffed in a vehicle while Cranston steals the scene with one of his special "going nuts" sequences. Finally we get to see a massive monster/kaiju emerge from the egg in the middle of the installation, escape and wreck havoc.
I didn't mind the film until the sequence where Ford is looking after a young child on a train in Hawaii that just happens to be following a line straight into the path of the fighting kaijus. The visual effects of the tsunami, Godzilla's emergence and the winged kaiju (and their fight) are all outstanding, but story-wise it's about the point when it falls apart.
How does Ford Brody just happen to be in the wrong place, at the wrong time, so often? How can he fly across the world and continually run into these warring kaiju? I don't mind a central human character to follow but make it a little believable. The 1998 Godzilla was horrible (even though I loved it as a child), but at least we could believe Matthew Broderick kept managing to run into trouble because he stayed in the same place. Old mate Brody flew across the world, across the United States, and happened to be on the spot when the kaiju first appeared AND during the climactic battle.
That doesn't mention how the US armed forces can have several helicopters in the air, fly out to and circle a desert facility, then take a few minutes to discover the HUGE trail leading from the facility to the massive kaiju wrecking havoc in Las Vegas. Ugh.
**********SPOILER ALERT*************
I have a serious problem with the ending too. Shave the last few minutes off and I'm okay with how it ends. Godzilla doesn't have to wake up, wink to the camera, be followed by a news station (where they slip the "King of the Monsters" reference in) and leave a completely destroyed San Francisco behind as he swims back into the ocean.
Unnecessary.
**********SPOILER OVER*************
All in all, Godzilla was not as bad as a lot of critics made it out to be, but it was in no way the best it could have been. The teaser trailer had me amped in the months leading up to its release, and it was devastating to discover that most of the footage was from the last 20-odd minutes of the film. I guess it was somewhat naive of me to expect that to be from the opening stages of the film.
Still, it was leaps and bounds better than the 1998 version, and for that we should be at least a little thankful.
Gunfight at the O.K. Corral
I've already seen early 1990s twins Wyatt Earp and Tombstone, so I am familiar with the story behind Wyatt Earp. We could say the story of Earp is the Robin Hood or the Bible of the Wild West - no two versions or interpretations are identical and the between the "good" and "bad" guys is continually blurred.
Gunfight at the O.K. Corral focuses heavily on the lawman Wyatt Earp (Burt Lancaster) and the construction of his relationship with gunslinger John "Doc" Holliday (Kirk Douglas) before the famous gunfight that made Wyatt Earp a Western legend.
This film is superb.
Having watched a few older westerns in the last few months as part of my university studies I found I had a much higher appreciation of the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral. While it is won't be on par with greats The Searchers and A Fistful of Dollars (you'd be hard-pressed finding any), I have to put this film up with some of my favourites.
The storytelling is simple, yet effective; Douglas and Lancaster are great as the leading men; the script, while obviously dated, is still fantastic - I loved everything about this film. The supporting cast, including the likes of Rhonda Fleming, Jo Van Fleet, Dennis Hopper, Lee Van Cleef (even only if for a few minutes), John Ireland and Lyle Bettger, all did exactly as much as they had to to give their characters the sense of realism the film craves, as well as add a lot of colour to what could easily have been a boring story.
Give it a look - it still rates as well as the later reimaginations of the Wyatt Earp tale.
Gunfight at the O.K. Corral focuses heavily on the lawman Wyatt Earp (Burt Lancaster) and the construction of his relationship with gunslinger John "Doc" Holliday (Kirk Douglas) before the famous gunfight that made Wyatt Earp a Western legend.
This film is superb.
Having watched a few older westerns in the last few months as part of my university studies I found I had a much higher appreciation of the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral. While it is won't be on par with greats The Searchers and A Fistful of Dollars (you'd be hard-pressed finding any), I have to put this film up with some of my favourites.
The storytelling is simple, yet effective; Douglas and Lancaster are great as the leading men; the script, while obviously dated, is still fantastic - I loved everything about this film. The supporting cast, including the likes of Rhonda Fleming, Jo Van Fleet, Dennis Hopper, Lee Van Cleef (even only if for a few minutes), John Ireland and Lyle Bettger, all did exactly as much as they had to to give their characters the sense of realism the film craves, as well as add a lot of colour to what could easily have been a boring story.
Give it a look - it still rates as well as the later reimaginations of the Wyatt Earp tale.
The Dangerous Throw from State of Origin I
As originally published at League Unlimited (@leagueunlimited).
If anything, Josh Reynolds and Beau Scott should be thanked for putting the dangerous throw back under extreme scrutiny. The New South Wales pair have been in the spotlight since Wednesday night's Origin opener at Suncorp Stadium, in which the Blues stunned their Maroon counterparts 12-8.
But it's the 27th minute tackle on Queensland winger Brent Tate that has had everyone talking. As Tate ran the ball from dummy half, he was met in a terrifying tackle from Reynolds and Scott which saw the North Queensland Cowboy suplexed into the turf. Further review of the footage shows Scott hitting Tate around the chest before Reynolds drives in with shoulder and ultimately lifting the Maroon.
The ugly incident, after which Tate said he had never felt more frightened, saw both Blues charged by the Match Review Committee - Scott with a grade one and Reynolds with a grade two. Reynolds successfully challenged the judiciary last night, leaving Queenslanders seething and New South Welshman celebrating the release of their saviour.
The biggest issue at play here, for me anyway, is the absolute ignorance by the NRL and their crackdown on the dangerous tackles. When Melbourne Storm's Jordan McLean was suspended for seven games after a tackle on Alex McKinnon left the Newcastle Knight in a coma, the NRL came out and announced a crackdown on lifting tackles, with harsher penalties to face any player who put the ball carrier in a dangerous position.
Just weeks after the incident, the NRL's fan base is up in arms with the inconsistent nature of the comments and subsequent incidents, which saw Greg Bird's charge downgraded to miss just two games and Reynolds downgraded to a grade one, meaning he misses no games. What message is this supposed to send to players and fans? As the Reynolds incident has seemingly shown, any player with a clean record can just about spear tackle their opposite number without fear of suspension - provided the ball carrier escapes serious injury. It is an absolute mockery of the rules, and raises more questions than ever.
What the NRL need to do is step in, send a clear message and STICK TO IT. I'd would be supportive if David Smith or Todd Greenberg came out and said "this is the crackdown, anyone found guilty of putting players in a dangerous position will sit a minimum one week out".
In my ideal world, if a player is put in a dangerous position, all defenders involved in the tackle receive a minimum one-week ban, and the bans/gradings are identical. As it is now, and as was shown by that incident, two players involved in an illegal tackle can somehow receive different punishments. You can't get two blokes in a tackle and then argue over who had more of an impact - they're rugby league players, not physicists. The fact is, there's two blokes in the tackle, they've both contributed to the dangerous position, and they should both cop an equal penalty. If they have to make them harsh, make it harsh - let's ensure we are never faced with another McKinnon, and avoid other players forced to play with a turtle shell like our man Tate. It might make players think twice about lifting tackles, but more importantly, it will send a message to EVERYONE in the game, which could ultimately make the game safer.
Even though the dangerous tackle count is rare as it is, I'd expect the rate to go down even further, and we could even get a boost of participation at grassroots level as parents know something is being done.
VIDEO & IMAGE CREDIT: Channel 9
If anything, Josh Reynolds and Beau Scott should be thanked for putting the dangerous throw back under extreme scrutiny. The New South Wales pair have been in the spotlight since Wednesday night's Origin opener at Suncorp Stadium, in which the Blues stunned their Maroon counterparts 12-8.
But it's the 27th minute tackle on Queensland winger Brent Tate that has had everyone talking. As Tate ran the ball from dummy half, he was met in a terrifying tackle from Reynolds and Scott which saw the North Queensland Cowboy suplexed into the turf. Further review of the footage shows Scott hitting Tate around the chest before Reynolds drives in with shoulder and ultimately lifting the Maroon.
The ugly incident, after which Tate said he had never felt more frightened, saw both Blues charged by the Match Review Committee - Scott with a grade one and Reynolds with a grade two. Reynolds successfully challenged the judiciary last night, leaving Queenslanders seething and New South Welshman celebrating the release of their saviour.
The biggest issue at play here, for me anyway, is the absolute ignorance by the NRL and their crackdown on the dangerous tackles. When Melbourne Storm's Jordan McLean was suspended for seven games after a tackle on Alex McKinnon left the Newcastle Knight in a coma, the NRL came out and announced a crackdown on lifting tackles, with harsher penalties to face any player who put the ball carrier in a dangerous position.
Just weeks after the incident, the NRL's fan base is up in arms with the inconsistent nature of the comments and subsequent incidents, which saw Greg Bird's charge downgraded to miss just two games and Reynolds downgraded to a grade one, meaning he misses no games. What message is this supposed to send to players and fans? As the Reynolds incident has seemingly shown, any player with a clean record can just about spear tackle their opposite number without fear of suspension - provided the ball carrier escapes serious injury. It is an absolute mockery of the rules, and raises more questions than ever.
What the NRL need to do is step in, send a clear message and STICK TO IT. I'd would be supportive if David Smith or Todd Greenberg came out and said "this is the crackdown, anyone found guilty of putting players in a dangerous position will sit a minimum one week out".
In my ideal world, if a player is put in a dangerous position, all defenders involved in the tackle receive a minimum one-week ban, and the bans/gradings are identical. As it is now, and as was shown by that incident, two players involved in an illegal tackle can somehow receive different punishments. You can't get two blokes in a tackle and then argue over who had more of an impact - they're rugby league players, not physicists. The fact is, there's two blokes in the tackle, they've both contributed to the dangerous position, and they should both cop an equal penalty. If they have to make them harsh, make it harsh - let's ensure we are never faced with another McKinnon, and avoid other players forced to play with a turtle shell like our man Tate. It might make players think twice about lifting tackles, but more importantly, it will send a message to EVERYONE in the game, which could ultimately make the game safer.
Even though the dangerous tackle count is rare as it is, I'd expect the rate to go down even further, and we could even get a boost of participation at grassroots level as parents know something is being done.
VIDEO & IMAGE CREDIT: Channel 9
Thursday, May 08, 2014
Flickerfest 2014: Short Film Tour
I have never been one to spare the time (or have it at all) to check out film festivals, with this only the second I've attended in my life (the first was the Sydney Film Festival that visited Grafton a month or two ago).
It is not often I check out films such as these, with most of my forte only being those with a widespread release.
With Flickerfest, it is an opportunity to see film produced at its most basic.
No multi-million dollar budgets, usually no multi-million dollar personalities, no reality-bending visual effects.
This showed film at its rawest, fuelled only by a burning passion to share a story and hopefully entertain those who watch along the way.
Flickerfest is a short film festival in its 23rd year, but visited Grafton for the first time.
It is not often I check out films such as these, with most of my forte only being those with a widespread release.
With Flickerfest, it is an opportunity to see film produced at its most basic.
No multi-million dollar budgets, usually no multi-million dollar personalities, no reality-bending visual effects.
This showed film at its rawest, fuelled only by a burning passion to share a story and hopefully entertain those who watch along the way.
Flickerfest is a short film festival in its 23rd year, but visited Grafton for the first time.
We Keep On Dancing
Director: Jessica Barclay Lawton, Writer: Rhys Mitchell, Producer: Jessica Barclay Lawton & Rhys Mitchell, Running Time: 8:30 min, Year: 2013, Country: Australia
The firstto screen on the night, We Keep On Dancing was a great little piece set entirely within a mechanic's garage. A man named Alan (William Gluth) brings his beloved but smoky Beetle into the garage requests assistance from the mechanics. After being told it was too costly to repair and he'd be better off disposing of it, Alan reminisces about his late wife, and unexpectantly touches the sensitive side of Danny the Mechanic (John Brumpton) which forces the mechanic into action, but not necessarily how you think.
This is a great little film. It took me a little bit to get into, but once I was in I was hooked. Alan is in his own little world as he shares his story, and draws the audience in as easily as he draws Danny and the rest of the workshop's mechanics. The last few numbers were some of the funniest of the night.
Vote Yes
Director: Nick Waterman, Writer: Nick Waterman, Producer: Melissa Beauford, Running Time: 11 min, Year: 2013, Country: Australia
Set on May 27, 1967, Vote Yes is a look at the day Australia held a referrendum on Aboriginal rights. We spend most of the film following Susan (Mirrah Foulkes), a married mother-of-two, and Elizabeth (Miranda Tapsell), an indigenous girl I can only describe as their helper (servant? nanny?). Elizabeth is keen to have her say, and despite not knowing if she's legally allowed to vote, Susan is open to taking her to the polls, even if it means getting offside with seemingly racist husband Howard (Nathan Page).
I enjoyed this little piece. It's one of the more serious social topics to be tackled by the films screened on the night, with Indigenous recognition in the Australian Constitution still lacking (the film was also accompanied by several ads saying "vote yes" and "recognise"). It is simple - what major films could have done looking at a whole community, Waterman uses the family home to an even better effect.
In The Air
Director: Kimberley West, Producer: Jodie Bell, Writer: Dot West, Running Time: 13:06 mins, Year: 2012, Country: Australia
In The Air is a romantic comedy about feisty camp cook Sue, a jealous, impulsive woman who just wants her man. Chris wants a peaceful, uncomplicated life and finds solace with the seductive voice on radio every night. This sends Sue into a tailspin and eventually sabotages her own attempts at love. Her final attempt gets her kicked out of camp and out of his life, but not necessarily for good. (Synopsis mainly from Flickerfest).
In The Air is a great little film that I think ran too far. The interactions between Sue and Chris at the camp told so much of what we needed to know that later scenes seemed to be too long or unneeded. For instance, the talk between Sue and the radio host felt so unnecessarily long it took away from overall product. That said, the advice she gives Sue is a major turning point in her character, sending up an unforgettable ending. It just could have been tighter for mine,
In The Air is a romantic comedy about feisty camp cook Sue, a jealous, impulsive woman who just wants her man. Chris wants a peaceful, uncomplicated life and finds solace with the seductive voice on radio every night. This sends Sue into a tailspin and eventually sabotages her own attempts at love. Her final attempt gets her kicked out of camp and out of his life, but not necessarily for good. (Synopsis mainly from Flickerfest).
In The Air is a great little film that I think ran too far. The interactions between Sue and Chris at the camp told so much of what we needed to know that later scenes seemed to be too long or unneeded. For instance, the talk between Sue and the radio host felt so unnecessarily long it took away from overall product. That said, the advice she gives Sue is a major turning point in her character, sending up an unforgettable ending. It just could have been tighter for mine,
The Fence
Director: Lucy Gaffy, Writer: Lucy Gaffy, Producer: Lyn Norfor, Kiki Dillon, Running Time: 16 min, Year: 2013, Country: Australia
Set in 1992, The Fence tells the tale of Cambodian refugee Virak (Kenneth Moraleda) who has been living in the Villawood Refugee
Hostel with his daughter waiting for his application for asylum to be
processed. He is saving money so he can afford to bring his wife to Australia, but the day he is promoted at his job a fence is erected around the hostel...
Probably the most emotion-charged film for me. Virak and his fellow refugees are an honest, hard-working group who want to do just that - work. Moraleda's performance communicated the internal struggle he faced brilliantly. You can read how Virak struggles to cope with the changing environment, as the fence is erected, concreted into the ground, and is finally topped with barbed wire. One scene towards the end is gut wrenching, as Virak almost gives up hope. Must-watch from Lucy Gaffy who did a great job as writer/director.
N.B: Villawood Refugee Hostel is now known as Villawood Immigration Detention Centre.
Tango Underpants
Director: Miranda Edmonds & Khrob Edmonds, Writer: John Collee, Producer: Tania Chambers, Stephen Van Mil & Miranda Edmonds, Running Time: 13:40 min, Year: 2013, Country: Australia
One of the funniest of the night, Tango Underpants proved a hit with the audience. Set in Argentina, it follows the daily struggle of young Australian backpaper Carolyn (Emma Booth), who set off on an adventure after a bad breakup. There she discovers the wonder of the tango dance, but also the importance of the right underwear.
A simple idea based around the perception of your clothes reflecting your personality or state of mind. Carolyn has several pairs of plain, ugly underpants in her suitcase, and is hesitant to engage while wearing them (shown by her refusing to dance). One day she chances upon a store for a new dress and picks up more ugly, boring underpants, but shopkeeper Lina (Mirta Busnelli) refuses, eventually (and hilariously) pushing her to purchase a new and "more exciting" new pair. It sounds bizarre and my words don't do it justice, but Miranda and Khrob Edmonds and John Collee show it perfectly on screen.
The Gift
Director: Lloyd Harvey & Spencer Harvey, Writer: Lloyd Harvey & Spencer Harvey, Producer: Lloyd Harvey & Spencer Harvey, Running Time: 15:45 min, Year: 2013, Country: Australia
Grace is forced to face her own sexuality and the strain on her marriage
when her son Charlie, who has Cerebral Palsy, asks to lose his virginity
for his birthday. We meet the family on the night of Charlie’s birthday
as Grace prepares the gift to arrive (synopsis from Flickerfest website).
I didn't necessarily like The Gift. It may have been because it took me so far out of my comfort zone and shoved this issue in my face with no escape but I can't be sure. And that is frustrating, because it is shot brilliantly, it's written even better, and I can't fault the performance.
It asks serious questions of what is right and wrong, and brings into question the way we perceive and judge others based on profession. Here, Charlie's conservative mother Grace (Anne Tennay) tells sex worker Susan (Hannah Marshall) straight out she doesn't believe in what she does as a job, and is shocked to learn that Susan is married.
Having thought about it even more I think the only problem is it went for under 16 minutes - I wish The Gift was much longer and had the time to seriously flesh out these ideas.
Woody
Director: Stuart Bowen, Writer: Stuart Bowen, Producer: Jodi Matterson, Running Time: 10 min, Year: 2013, Country: Australia
I put Woody last as it was the best of the night. Woody is a black-and-white animated film based on our main character Woody, who has dreamt of playing the piano since he was a child but can't because he has wooden paddles for hands.
The setting, the music, the evolution of the story - everything is perfect and that is a credit to Bowen. Similar to The Gift, I wish I could learn more of Woody and follow his adventures even though this short has a very clear conclusion. The idea, but moreso the presentation, is so simple yet effective you can't help but emotionally connect with this character who is literally nothing more than sculptered wood. Must watch.
Saturday, May 03, 2014
Transcendence
There's only one problem with Transcendence: everything.
Okay that's not completely true, but it was tough finding positives after seeing it earlier this week.
I think the biggest thing for me was the film would have been a lot more effective if it was made 15-20 years ago. The fact they even name-drop the Y2k thing reinforces that point.
I am ragging on the film a bit but it is a complete shame - I had such great expectation of Transcendence and it failed reach anywhere near the heights I hoped.
The idea of technology becoming self-aware and a threat to human society is one that deserves to be explored a whole lot more in film. It's one of my favourite scinece fiction themes, which leaves an even more bitter taste in my mouth.
Johnny Depp stars as Dr. Will Caster, one of the world's foremost researchers of Artificial Intelligence who is working to create a machine that can develop independent thought and the full range of human emotion. After delivering a keynote presentation, he is shot by anti-technology extremists with a poisoned bullet that will eventually kill him. Caster's wife Evelyn (Rebecca Hall) and best friend Max Waters (Paul Bettany) work out how to upload his consciousness to the machine - or transcend. It does more harm than good, with his thirst for greater knowledge posing a deadly threat to human civilisation.
The idea is great but the execution is off. Maybe it was because I wasn't feeling too great, but I struggled to get through it.
Morgan Freeman is solid as always as Joesph Tagger who struggles to deal with the consequences of Caster's transcendence, and I still struggle to see Cillian Murphy (Agent Buchanan) as a "good guy" because he is so good as a bad guy. Murphy does put in a good performance but I feel he is miscast.
Okay that's not completely true, but it was tough finding positives after seeing it earlier this week.
I think the biggest thing for me was the film would have been a lot more effective if it was made 15-20 years ago. The fact they even name-drop the Y2k thing reinforces that point.
I am ragging on the film a bit but it is a complete shame - I had such great expectation of Transcendence and it failed reach anywhere near the heights I hoped.
The idea of technology becoming self-aware and a threat to human society is one that deserves to be explored a whole lot more in film. It's one of my favourite scinece fiction themes, which leaves an even more bitter taste in my mouth.
Johnny Depp stars as Dr. Will Caster, one of the world's foremost researchers of Artificial Intelligence who is working to create a machine that can develop independent thought and the full range of human emotion. After delivering a keynote presentation, he is shot by anti-technology extremists with a poisoned bullet that will eventually kill him. Caster's wife Evelyn (Rebecca Hall) and best friend Max Waters (Paul Bettany) work out how to upload his consciousness to the machine - or transcend. It does more harm than good, with his thirst for greater knowledge posing a deadly threat to human civilisation.
The idea is great but the execution is off. Maybe it was because I wasn't feeling too great, but I struggled to get through it.
Morgan Freeman is solid as always as Joesph Tagger who struggles to deal with the consequences of Caster's transcendence, and I still struggle to see Cillian Murphy (Agent Buchanan) as a "good guy" because he is so good as a bad guy. Murphy does put in a good performance but I feel he is miscast.
The Lego Movie
EVERYTHING ABOUT THIS FILM IS AWESOME.
Sorry I had to get that off my chest but, much like the title song, The Lego Movie is awesome in every way.
Even if it is a 100-minute advertisement for Lego, it is another contender for one of the best films of the year.
I'd been looking forward to The Lego Movie ever since it was first advertised, and I'm glad to say it didn't disappoint.
The story was great, the screenplay was outstanding - everything was awesome.
In the vein of 90s Disney films, The Lego Movie was done in a way that was not only a wild adventure for kids, but a hilarious nostalgia-fuelled ride for parents too.
The story is a simple one: a prophecy dictates a "special" will save the Lego universe from eternal stasis by the tyrant Lord Business (Will Ferrell). Emmett (Chris Pratt), a regular construction worker, is mistakenly believed to be that "special", and is recruited to join the quest to stop Lord Business!
An amazing cast features in this classic, with Pratt, Ferrell, Liam Neeson, Will Arnett, Elizabeth Banks, Alison Brie, Morgan Freeman all lending their voices to various major characters. For mine, its Liam Neeson who is the standout as Good Cop/Bad Cop. His parts are utterly hilarious, and even though Pratt, Ferrell and Banks (Lucy) enjoy most of the air time, Neeson's Good Cop/Bad Cop scenes are filled with laughs. He's the perfect "villain", even if he is the secondary antagonist (behind President Business).
It's such a fun movie and you're bound to leave the theatre with a smile and an "Everything is Awesome" earworm.
Sorry I had to get that off my chest but, much like the title song, The Lego Movie is awesome in every way.
Even if it is a 100-minute advertisement for Lego, it is another contender for one of the best films of the year.
I'd been looking forward to The Lego Movie ever since it was first advertised, and I'm glad to say it didn't disappoint.
The story was great, the screenplay was outstanding - everything was awesome.
In the vein of 90s Disney films, The Lego Movie was done in a way that was not only a wild adventure for kids, but a hilarious nostalgia-fuelled ride for parents too.
The story is a simple one: a prophecy dictates a "special" will save the Lego universe from eternal stasis by the tyrant Lord Business (Will Ferrell). Emmett (Chris Pratt), a regular construction worker, is mistakenly believed to be that "special", and is recruited to join the quest to stop Lord Business!
An amazing cast features in this classic, with Pratt, Ferrell, Liam Neeson, Will Arnett, Elizabeth Banks, Alison Brie, Morgan Freeman all lending their voices to various major characters. For mine, its Liam Neeson who is the standout as Good Cop/Bad Cop. His parts are utterly hilarious, and even though Pratt, Ferrell and Banks (Lucy) enjoy most of the air time, Neeson's Good Cop/Bad Cop scenes are filled with laughs. He's the perfect "villain", even if he is the secondary antagonist (behind President Business).
It's such a fun movie and you're bound to leave the theatre with a smile and an "Everything is Awesome" earworm.
Captain America: The Winter Soldier
I saw this film the week it came out and have no idea why it took me so long to write about it.
Bluntly, it's one of my favourite movies for 2014 and quite possibly the best in the entire Marvel series.
The Winter Soldier continues the story of Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) as he becomes more comfortable being Captain America.
There isn't too much I'm going to say about this film as it's been a while since I've seen it, but it's one I definitely seeing again, and would advise to watch multiple times.
As someone unfamiliar with the comics it is the first time I've learned of the Winter Soldier, and I have to say I'm a super fan of Sebastian Stan's character. The story arc including the rise of Hydra is an interesting one to me - it seems so early to bring in the super villainous corporation. In saying that, it is the second wave of the Avengers series of films and they won't be around forever, but I felt as if the seeds of Hydra could have been planted here and developed in the third wave.
In any case, Anthony and Joe Russo make this film push all the right buttons.
There is nothing I can point to as being bad - it's really one of the most complete films I've seen.
Samuel L Jackson has a bigger part in this film as Nick Fury, taking a central role in the story's development where Samuel L. goes all Samuel L. on Hydra operatives. Robert Redford is great in his scenes as Alexander Pierce, while Anthony Mackie's Sam Wilson continues his growth in the series as we see Falcon for the first time.
But I have to tip my hat to Scarlett Johansson, who is stunning as Natasha Romanoff. This film further showed why Johansson will not have her own film exploring Black Widow's origin, as it (and The Avengers) have developed enough of her character so far. It adds to the mysterious past Black Widow seems to have, and I am completely comfortable with the way they are developing the legend of Black Widow by revealing crumbs of information with each chapter. I imagine they'll do the same with Jeremy Renner's Hawkeye who appeared in The Avengers.
I'm more curious to see what they do next with not only Black Widow, but other characters in the Marvel Universe in the build up to The Avengers: Age of Ultron which is slated for a 2015 release.
Bluntly, it's one of my favourite movies for 2014 and quite possibly the best in the entire Marvel series.
The Winter Soldier continues the story of Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) as he becomes more comfortable being Captain America.
There isn't too much I'm going to say about this film as it's been a while since I've seen it, but it's one I definitely seeing again, and would advise to watch multiple times.
As someone unfamiliar with the comics it is the first time I've learned of the Winter Soldier, and I have to say I'm a super fan of Sebastian Stan's character. The story arc including the rise of Hydra is an interesting one to me - it seems so early to bring in the super villainous corporation. In saying that, it is the second wave of the Avengers series of films and they won't be around forever, but I felt as if the seeds of Hydra could have been planted here and developed in the third wave.
In any case, Anthony and Joe Russo make this film push all the right buttons.
There is nothing I can point to as being bad - it's really one of the most complete films I've seen.
Samuel L Jackson has a bigger part in this film as Nick Fury, taking a central role in the story's development where Samuel L. goes all Samuel L. on Hydra operatives. Robert Redford is great in his scenes as Alexander Pierce, while Anthony Mackie's Sam Wilson continues his growth in the series as we see Falcon for the first time.
But I have to tip my hat to Scarlett Johansson, who is stunning as Natasha Romanoff. This film further showed why Johansson will not have her own film exploring Black Widow's origin, as it (and The Avengers) have developed enough of her character so far. It adds to the mysterious past Black Widow seems to have, and I am completely comfortable with the way they are developing the legend of Black Widow by revealing crumbs of information with each chapter. I imagine they'll do the same with Jeremy Renner's Hawkeye who appeared in The Avengers.
I'm more curious to see what they do next with not only Black Widow, but other characters in the Marvel Universe in the build up to The Avengers: Age of Ultron which is slated for a 2015 release.
Oldboy (2003)
No, not the US remake - this is the original South Korean Oldboy.
And boy is it good.
I first heard about Oldboy on The Film Podcast, and the way they raved about it made it a must see.
I'm glad to say they were Bang. On. The. Money... In a big way.
This movie is excellent.
It's one of the best "you screwed my life over, now I'm going to find and kill you" revenge movies I've ever seen.
Min-sik Choi stars as Dae-su Oh, who is kidnapped at the start of the film and imprisoned for 15 years for apparently no reason. While imprisoned, he finds out his daughter has been killed and somehow he is the prime suspect.
Fifteen years to the day since his kidnapping, Dae-su Oh is released from captivity, and driven by revenge, embarks on a mission of finding out who did this to him and why. And after spending much of those 15 years training himself to fight, you know he's going to kick some serious arse on the outside.
I'm not going any further into the plot because it's a film you have to see.
The Film Podcast crew hit the nail on the head regarding at least two memorable scenes.
The first: Dae-su Oh going into a restaurant and asking to eat something alive. The chef, Mi-do (Hye-jeong Kang), whacks an octopus in front of him and he promptly, you know, eats it. I don't know if it was seeing the octopus moving, the fact I had just served myself fish and chips or a combination of the two, but I could've been physically ill for quite a while afterwards.
The other scene is the hammer fight scene. The long take sees Dae-su Oh, armed only with a hammer and his awesome fighting skills, take on a whole bunch of bad guys in a corridor. And it is awesome.
Stick around as the twist at the end of the film is worth waiting around for (it took me by surprise though it probably shouldn't have), and you will be rewarded with having seen one of the best revenge/action films in world cinema.
And boy is it good.
I first heard about Oldboy on The Film Podcast, and the way they raved about it made it a must see.
I'm glad to say they were Bang. On. The. Money... In a big way.
This movie is excellent.
It's one of the best "you screwed my life over, now I'm going to find and kill you" revenge movies I've ever seen.
Min-sik Choi stars as Dae-su Oh, who is kidnapped at the start of the film and imprisoned for 15 years for apparently no reason. While imprisoned, he finds out his daughter has been killed and somehow he is the prime suspect.
Fifteen years to the day since his kidnapping, Dae-su Oh is released from captivity, and driven by revenge, embarks on a mission of finding out who did this to him and why. And after spending much of those 15 years training himself to fight, you know he's going to kick some serious arse on the outside.
I'm not going any further into the plot because it's a film you have to see.
The Film Podcast crew hit the nail on the head regarding at least two memorable scenes.
The first: Dae-su Oh going into a restaurant and asking to eat something alive. The chef, Mi-do (Hye-jeong Kang), whacks an octopus in front of him and he promptly, you know, eats it. I don't know if it was seeing the octopus moving, the fact I had just served myself fish and chips or a combination of the two, but I could've been physically ill for quite a while afterwards.
The other scene is the hammer fight scene. The long take sees Dae-su Oh, armed only with a hammer and his awesome fighting skills, take on a whole bunch of bad guys in a corridor. And it is awesome.
Stick around as the twist at the end of the film is worth waiting around for (it took me by surprise though it probably shouldn't have), and you will be rewarded with having seen one of the best revenge/action films in world cinema.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
