Reviews

What a shame. I so wanted to enjoy this movie. But it failed in every conceivable way.

It had the basis of a good yarn - 4 young male orphans sent on their first holiday by the sea. Their hosts were stalwarts of the church and lived in a small cove with 3 other families right on the sea. The youngest, Misty, overhears the young couple discussing adopting one of the boys and from there on in it is a competition to win the affection of the couple. Sounds good - throw in a beautiful location (South Australia) and an adolescent love interest and it all should have added up to more than it did.

There were, to me, many shortfalls. The adult characters were incomplete, un-rounded, almost cardboard cut out (with the exception of Skipper, the female church stalwart who is the kids' host). The soundtrack (other than the 60s pop music) was risible - sweet and sickly and wholly inappropriate - result being it was too intrusive and mawkish. Mix the sweet and sickly soundtrack with long shots of the stunning scenery and even that became dull and boring. The plot clunked along from one scene to the other, badly edited and without any smoothness or apparent connection. Decisions were made in isolation with little development. It all came across as unreal and unbelievable. And as for the apparitions and the last scene involving the boys as adults was laugh out loud absurd - half the audience certainly thought so when I saw it - howls of sniggering and laughter.

Shame really - as I said, wanted to enjoy it for a number of reasons - its Australian, its a good a story, I wanted Daniel Radcliffe to set himself up post Harry Potter (and he actually didn't do a bad job - the most convincing scene in the film involved adolescent embarrassment between him and Teresa Palmer) etc.. But no matter what, I have to be truthful and place this film alongside 'Inside Paris' as the worst films of the year.

'Boxing Day' is not an easy film to watch. Shot in and around a suburban Adelaide house and garden, we watch Chris prepare lunch on Boxing Day for his teenage daughter, ex-wife and new partner. The home is sparsely furnished - Chris is recently out of prison. He is obviously nervous, meticulously preparing the lunch and tidying his home. But an ex-prison mate turns up, to Chris' horror - to the point where he tries to make his mate think he's out. Chris wants everything to be perfect for his daughter - this sudden visit is not part of the game plan. But he gets to talk to Chris and reveals a not particularly well-kept secret about the ex-wife's new partner. From there on in, everything spirals out of control.

As the daughter, ex-wife and her boyfriend arrive, we see, in painstaking detail, the painful journey of a father who must finally decide to expose the dark and disturbing secret that threatens to tear his family apart.

According to publicity this was shot in three takes with an element of improvisation to the script. It's a slow burner of a film - some people will hate it, for sure. But whilst it may be short on 'action' and 'entertainment', it's an amazing achievement for a film that I understand was shot on a shoestring budget of AUD$175,000.

This has to be one of the worst films I've had the misfortune to see in quite some time. Five so called 'common, every day' scenarios attempting to create characters and situations to 'draw-in' the viewer and identify with either one of the characters or at least the situation.

Problem being that the characters were, generally, unsympathetic, badly formed, two dimensional and, on the whole, incredibly badly acted. In parts, the film was totally risible at the very time it was attempting to be serious. The only scenario that was anywhere near convincing was the situation with the alcoholic mother/reticent daughter. As for the rest - I wasn't interested enough in their characters to care what happened. And as for the American girlfriend. Someone put a plug in it, please!

Oh boy - didactic, revolutionary agit-prop, gay porn and underground anarchic 'chic' of Berlin collide in this ultimately dull and, quite frankly, annoying film. The plot, for what it is, is centred round the plans of the revolutionary bore, Gudrun(a cliché-driven political activist who, throughout, makes proclaimations of, to her, the heroic deeds of the Bader-Meinhof Gang)and her belief that there needs to be a sexual revolution prior to any successful social revolution. But the sexual revolution is for all heterosexuals to experience and accept the 'homosexualist' within.

Cue director/writer Bruce LaBruce's previous experience in gay porn movies. We are 'treated' to a whole series of absurd gay porn encounters (and even worse acting) involving macho terrorists 'forced' (yeah right)into explicit gay sex with colleagues (and their captive - the son of one of the wealthiest capitalists in Germany is kidnapped to further the cause), all in the name of the revolution. The director has self-censored,in part, the more explicit scenes (occasionally humorously, using photographs of world leaders - this certainly adds new meaning to 'giving head').

Use of strobe, abstract patterns, political banners and statements writ large on screen and the constant proclaiming by Gudrun in a monotonous rant attempt to explore socio-political underground themes and create an 'art-house' movie. But it fails miserably. It also fails as a hard-edged porn film for the same reasons!

I so wanted to be positive about this film, but to be honest I cannot. Its just one of those films which leaves you, ultimately, totally dissatisfied. Just what was it all about? Its a film where nothing happens but at the same time so much. Its unrelenting in its depressive 'story' - an ordinary man, married with a child and who has a fairly successful job, who, by the end, is forced to go through the garbage bins on the streets of Melbourne to try and secure food for him and his family.

Its the story of the downward spiral for a man who has scruples and where every character lies (or at best denies the truth)in some form or other. But just how much can you stand watching a man lose his job, watch his wife lose her job and then teeter on the edge of clinical depression, experience the first epileptic fit of his young daughter, know that his father is seriously ill and then witness his ultimate degradation of his experience of street-living? It ain't easy! Especially when the film runs for nearly 2 hours.

The saving grace of the film is the performances. David Wenham, possibly Australia's best, gives a superbly understated performance. No histrionics to be seen - simply a man who in some ways is simply defeated by circumstance - a wife, a child, a mortgage, a job in the Public Sector that is under threat - and a sense of values that are in some ways alien to modern society. There was also always a sense of underlying humour in his character, which helped, in parts at least, to lighten the darkness of the film. Frances O'Connor as his wife provides a spunky supportive role. And Robert Menzies as down-and-out Nick is great for the short period he is on screen.

I was somewhat puzzled, however, by 'Last time I saw Amanda I had $3' and the role she had in Nick's life. 'We see each other every nine and a half years....' Quick maths point out that the characters are in their mid-30s, but not sure about the basic premise of introducing the character Amanda! A pointer to the development of his life? Maybe. Emphasising the differences between them? Maybe. But take her and all references to her, and I don;t think that it would have had much impact on the film.

Ultimately, very disappointing - I gave it 5 for the performances.

In spite of the hype, I wasn't wholly sure I wanted to see 'Robots'. But two kids of 9 and 7 knew they did, so off we toddled to the local. And I was more than impressed. Some stunning animation scenes, references to other Sci-Fi films abound (the amazing scene when Copperbottom arrives at Robot City is stunning) and some genuinely funny, laugh out loud gags keep you highly entertained. It may not be the most original of stories (taking Azimov's - and the recent movie -'I Robots' one stage further where robots want to take over the robot world), and, with most animation, there is that occasional 'two dimensional feel' to the characters, but overall I thoroughly, and unexpectedly, enjoyed this - and I still laugh at the scene with the Waltons reference and certain bodily functions..

'Tom White' is by no means an easy film or, strictly speaking, an enjoyable one. But you come away thinking about the issues it raises, digging as it does into layers of emotional truth and 'life in the margins' (albeit, admittedly, somewhat romanticized).

Tom (a superb performance by Colin Friels) is a man who designs home for a living and then chooses to make himself homeless. Outwardly, he has all the signs of a comfortable, successful life - new home, loving family, successful if stressed career. But his shaking hands show something different - especially when it soon becomes clear that not everything is as it appears at work. Male middle aged 'crisis' is a huge issue in Australia at the moment, and the cause of many unexpected suicides. Tom White chooses a different path and cuts all bonds with his up to now normal life. He has chosen the margins, where those he meets, in spite of their position, have enormous self-dignity - the rent-boy, the ex-junkie, the gentlemanly tramp, the 14 year-old graffiti artist. Tom goes on a journey of his own and plumbs the depths of society, yet he overcomes and discovers his own dignity and understanding of who he is.

As mentioned, it can be somewhat romanticized, and there is little in the way of the real squalor of homelessness, but nevertheless the film presents food for thought in an attempt to present a broader understanding of those who are or chose to live on the fringes rather than endure life without any real meaning.

Reading through other comments about this film, I wonder if its the same film we saw. I personally found it deeply unsatisfying and a was majorly disappointed (as were the rest of my group who saw it).

Visually sumptuous, no question: lovingly crafted, without doubt: humane story with all the emotions, definitely. But somehow, in spite of all the cinematic visual, aural and emotional strings being pulled in every direction, the film was totally unengaging. End result was simply one of simply watching the story unfold rather than being drawn into the quest of finding the fiancé, post WW1. Virtually all the characters, with the exception of the fully rounded (literally) aunt and a superb Jodie Foster, were two dimensional.

Disappointing.

In the early 1970s, Jeff Bardon traveled to Papunya, a remote Aboriginal Western Desert community, west of Alice Springs. An idealistic young art teacher, he quickly became popular with his young charges, much to the chagrin of a number of the White professionals based in the community. The Aboriginal elders saw that Bardon had dispensed with teaching the kids to draw western icons, and was encouraging them to paint the patterns (hence his nickname and the tile of the film, Mr Patterns) he saw them drawing in the sand and dust. Soon, the elders approached him, wanting him to help them find materials to be able to paint the 'real' patterns. So began one of the most important art movements of the 20th century - the 'transference' of Aboriginal and Indigenous Art onto wood-bark, tiles, paper, canvas, wood. As the success developed, the co-operative Papunya Tula developed, with money raised from the selling of paintings fed back into the community/ 'For the first time, white people valued something that we Aboriginals were doing' stated one man on receiving cash for a painting sold.

But the triumph and excitement did not last very long - Bardon had walked into a minefield of Australian/colonial politics of the day - he was offering hope at the very time when all vestiges of indigenous culture were being at best disregarded, at worst crushed. Just 18 months after his arrival, Bardon, a gentle, sensitive, naive young man, left for Sydney, where he had what was later identified as a nervous breakdown. But even then he wasn't to be left without scars - a new treatment for mental illness left him an invalid for the rest of is life.

Through rare footage shot by Bardon on his home 16mm, interviews with Bardon, his wife and present day indigenous art curators as well as surviving artists from the time, a jigsaw is presented of the 1970s in Papunya and the impact it had on 20th century art. Unfortunately, there is also a degree of assuming that the viewer knows the story already, leaving missing pieces in the jigsaw. For example, the first work the Elders did was to create a mural in Papunya. After Bardon left, this was cemented over, destroying much of the unique work. There;s only a passing comment to the fact that it was covered - no reasons given, no explanations as to the outcome (socially and artistically). The reasons why Bardon was left an invalid again was not wholly clear - the gaps in the jigsaw were filled by friends who were able to let me know what had happened - the sign of a documentary that doesn't quite fulfill its objectives. But nevertheless its still an interesting insight into its subject - and a moving one at that.

Sumptuous is the word that springs to mind when watching this particular film, and it is truly stunningly beautiful to look at. The choreographed fight scenes between the Nameless Hero and the various would be assassins are spectacular, the stunning military scenes with the casts of thousands, the arrival at court etc leave you gasping for breath (the particular fight scene between Nameless and Sky in a very rainy and wet tavern is particularly stunning, even though virtually everything is various shades of grey!).

It does, however, lose itself. Told in a series of flashbacks, there is little in way of character development. There are few opportunities to identify with any of the characters (with maybe the exception of Moon, Broken Sword's young servant) - consequently there is little in the way of emotional involvement. Final result is one of merely 'watching' rather than being drawn in. There are too many one on one fight scenes, particularly early on, and, wonderous though they are, I found myself thinking 'not another one' as Hero faced Snow yet again in combat.

I may have been overgenerous with a 7 marking as I did leave disatisfied, but on reflection, it was spectacular to watch on a giant screen.

OK, so its a blockbuster with a not that original a storyline - so its robots that what to control the world rather than the mad scientist. But this is certainly one of the better blockbusters of this summer because there appears to been an investment in the script!

Based on Azimov's stories, its a simple story of a future where the world is moving towards a utopic existence with all the mundane, dirty work being undertaken by robots. But Detective Will Smith just doesn't trust them. Cue things starting to go wrong, the suicide of the genius behind the technology and Will is out to proove what he had felt all along.

Technology, road chases, shoot outs are all there, but its an intelligent piece of celluloid that has all the thrills and spills you want from an action movie.

What a major disappointment. What a mess. There were times when I laughed out loud (and many of those around us did the same), so embarassing was the scene/symbolism (I mean, the religious references as Spiderman was handed down the train over the heads of grateful passengers - you kiddin me?).

So wanted to enjoy this, but the pseudo-pyschology was risible, the baddie hardly threatening, the text stuck its own mire of garbled webbing, the erotic frisson about as sexy and believable as being caught in a giant spider's web in the dark during a particularly heavy storm... Shall I go on? Nope - not worth expanding on. Complete pile of tosh.

OK, so I guessed that there would be liberties taken to condense the story into some kind of realistic length. But only Hollywood could condense the 10 Year Trojan Wars into a fortnight with 12 days off for a funeral! The Trojan Wars were only the beginning of many of the fabled Greek stories. This version tied up so many loose ends that, according to this, we have nothing. Agamemnon meeting his end in the ruins of Troy? Begad - goodbye to the continuing saga of his wife Clytemnestra......

The whole thing was risible with the exception maybe of the feeling of an epic (ie it looked great on a giant screen). Thus the cinematography was the saving grace. Nothing else held up. The script (if that's the correct use of the word) was a joke, some of the acting so wooden that the Trojan horse itself was more animated (was a copy of the script being held just out of camera shot for Eric Bana to read as he went along? Orlando Bloom? Oh dear - Orlando Droop in this one. Peter O'Toole was amusing though - trouble was he wasn't supposed to be as the defeated King Priam!)

Sad, sad and thrice sad....

Dozens of checkpoints lie scattered throughout the West Bank and Gaza Strip, manned by the Israeli Defence Forces. Thousands of Palestinians pass through them every day, making them one of the major meeting points between both sides in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Many different encounters occur at these checkpoints each and every day, revealing a reality with its own rules and regulations, a reality that has a destructive impact on both societies.

Filmed over two years, 'Checkpoint' depicts the harsh and banal routine of these crossing points and documents the day-to-day situations that form a microcosm of the situation. The cameras film in a pure and non-manipulative manner so that the viewer feels part of the experience of 'checkpoint culture'. The film is an attempt to show the more human side of the situation, and, as with any such depiction, will show all aspects of the human condition - from the 'jobsworth' IDF recruits refusing to allow any variation from their 'orders', from the most obnoxious of members of the border security police at the Bethlehem checkpoint through to the very humane IDF soldier at the Nablus South checkpoint, we are presented with young men who are ultimately responsible for the overseeing of their country's security. Balanced by this is the terrible plight of how the situation affects 'ordinary' Palestinians. An ambulance stopped and searched, ditto a school bus - both will ensure a lot of anger at such depictions - until it is understood that both modes of transport have been used in the past for the carrying of explosives. It does not alter the impact on the Palestinians themselves - the checkpoints are mostly unacceptable. BUt the film at least humanises the process and delves behind some of the headline news.

A lonely, bookish 14 year old boy, Nadav is infatuated with his Aunt Nina, his mother's younger sister. When her husband is killed in a terrorist attack only a couple of months after their marriage, Nina is devastated. Fearing the worst, Nadav is sent by his mother to be with her. So begins 'the happiest days of his life, so far.'

The problem is that Nadav, in his innocence and naivety, believes this to be the beginning of something much more. Nina herself is oblivious to this, seeing only a loving nephew and young boy. Seen through Nadav's eyes, we witness the slightly bizarre reality of the world around him – Nina coming to terms with her grief, his parents dealing with their separation and his father's illness, his best friend (Menachem – a much older man) dealing with his budding relationship with Galina.

While under-stated, Nina's Tragedies is a genuine mix of comedy, pathos, anger and sadness (but thankfully avoiding melodramatic pitfalls), has fully-rounded characters, a tight script and a uniformly excellent cast. It is understandable why the film won eleven Israeli Film Awards in 2003 (including Best Feature).

Huda is bringing shame on her Christian Israeli-Arab family. She is thirty years old and unmarried. Her younger sister would also be bringing shame on her family if they knew of her behaviour with Zohir, the landlord's son. Then Alex, a Jewish Russian new immigrant, moves into the apartment block. Against all odds, a love affair between Huda and Alex develops.

Set in Haifa, the story is a simple Romeo and Juliet story. But unlike the Shakespearean classic, the film is not about feuding families. It is a humane story, exploring the complexities of love and simple survival of ordinary people against a backdrop of the wider political situation. But it is not a political film – the film does not seek to make judgements or take sides. Ultimately it is about human relationships and day to day existence.

There are times when the affair teeters on the unbelievable, and whilst inevitable, the ending is a bit obvious. But all in all this is a film worth seeing, a film that tries to transcend the politics and present an insight into the lives of a Christian Israeli Arab family - families and people that are rarely the subject matter.