I like being evil. It makes me happy.

AICN-DOWNUNDER

Well, I've recently returned from my trip to Everest, and man, is that thing a bitch to climb.

No?

Okay, I haven't had much time to write. The preparations for Bazura's upcoming second season (hooray!) have been taking up a lot of my time, and frankly, I haven't had much to write about (see below Reviews section for more on this).

Regardless, I am back, and with any luck I'll be able to keep this thing going with a bit more regularity than we've experienced this year. In the meantime, a small request for all of you out there: those who have read the column regularly... or a handful of times... or really just bumped into me on the street... will know that I host a movie show called "The Bazura Project". (Go to www.bazuraproject.com to watch it online!) Well, we were recently nominated for a few awards at the annual Antenna Awards (Best Director, Best Sound and Best Production Achievement). How can you help? There's a Viewers' Choice Award, that can be entered via email.

Yes, with only a few clicks of the button and keyboard, you could cast that vital vote that could make all the difference. Simply send an email with "The Bazura Project" in the subject line to c31viewerschoice@pkf.com.au.

I thank you -- in return, here is some juicy AICN-Downunder...

NEWS

Important fact for those of you overseas. Aside from the Prime Minister, the key figures in the Australian Federal Government are Health Minister Tony Abbott, Treasurer Peter Costello, and Foreign Minister Alexander Downer. So basically, our country is being run by Abbott & Costello and Deputy Downer. This speaks volumes as to the current state of our country. Nevertheless, Treasurer Smirksalot took centre stage to announce the new federal budget. Why do we care? Because the Australian film "industry" is almost exclusively funded by our government. This is why, if you live in another country, you don't see Australian films. This is why, if you live in Australia, you don't see Australian films. So what did ol' chinless have to say?

- As of July 2008, the Australian Film Finance Corporation, the Australian Film Commission and Film Australia will become one single entity: the Australian Screen Authority. This is good news for me, because having the word "Authority" in there gives me many more opportunities for punchlines. It's also good news for everyone not on the boards of these groups, because it'll be easier to refer to in the future. Seriously, I never understood the difference between the AFFC and the AFC, and before I started typing this paragraph, I'd never heard of Film Australia.

- The coveted 10B and 10BA tax incentives, which promoted private investment, will both be scrapped. In their place? A producer rebate scheme, and an increase in foreign investment incentives from 12.5% to 15%. All of these incentives will now be granted to big budget foreign films that conduct only their post-production here (ie: it's no longer necessary for them to film parts in Australia in order to take advantage of these incentives).

The general response from key Australian film industry entities (ie: people whose opinions are worth noting in newspapers and magazines; ie: those who are already incredibly successful and are unlikely to have their careers hampered by new tax incentives) has been quite positive. Though there has been some trepidation about the abolition of the 10B system, the consensus seems to be that more films will be made under this scheme. Baz Lurhmann hopes this will mean that more filmmakers will come back to Australia, but given the title of his current film, he might just be hoping they all buy tickets when it opens.

Hey, speaking of film industry changes, the Australian Screen Directors Association changed its name last week to the Australian Directors Guild. This is undoubtedly the most significant change since the AFFC, the AFC and FA became the ASA. Wait, that hasn't happened yet. Either way, the name change seems to be a symbolic declaration of a more active future role. I like the idea that directors will no longer be "associated" and will instead be "guilded" together. So much kinkier that way.

As one of the people who really dug UNDEAD, I'm looking forward to the Spierig Brothers' follow-up DAYBREAKERS. According to the Hollywood Reporter, the futuristic vampire-filled film has just signed Ethan Hawke to play the lead role. This project's been gestating for a long time, but with this news as well as the recent concept designs by Weta, it looks like production may begin very soon.

CLUBLAND is a new Australian feature film that will open on July 4 in the US. Regardless of what else is coming out that day, consider this your official counter-counter-programming, Yanks. Yes, that weekend is sure to feature a massive blockbuster designed for everyone, as well as a romantic comedy designed for the mothers and tweenage girls who don't want to see said blockbuster, and now CLUBLAND, which will appeal to the dozen or so people who really need to see a movie that weekend but don't want to see anything else on offer. Honestly, I hope the film does well -- I always experience feelings of pride and joy whenever any Australian film does well overseas -- but the decision to change the name from CLUBLAND to INTRODUCING THE DWIGHTS, makes me wonder if this isn't some Mel Brooks-inspired hope-it's-a-failure-so-we-get-rich scheme. I haven't seen it yet, but it's got 8 out of 10 on imdb, despite the fact it hasn't been released yet. At least we know the production staff like it.

AWARDS, FESTIVALS AND SCREENINGS

2007 FILM INK MOVIE AWARDS

This made me laugh, so I thought it was worth passing on: a long-time AICN reader who occasionally goes by the name of Syms Covington posted a very entertaining blog about this year's Film Ink Movie Awards. Check it out here: http://elasticsymscovington.blogspot.com/2007/05/film-ink-movie-awards.html

BOX OFFICE

This is the least-surprising box office result in history. And I'm even including Boxing Day of 1906 when THE STORY OF THE KELLY GANG hit number one after only five minutes in release.

1. SPIDER-MAN 3

2. BECAUSE I SAID SO

3. SHOOTER

4. PERFECT STRANGER

5. 300

RELEASED THESE PAST FOUR (!) WEEKS

A good example of that counter-programming I mentioned earlier, Zhang Yimou makes another film about slow-motion martial arts, Christopher B. Landon looks through his binoculars and sees the script for REAR WINDOW, the gosling becomes a goose, "...they then realised that they had become History Men...", the final chapter in the trilogy of MOUITH and EAIRES is released, Joel Schumacher removes his shoes and drops his pants and tells us how high he can count, je n'ai pas vu ce film, Bruce Willis appears in another cheapo thriller (Hahaha! I can say anything! What's he gonna do -- respond in talkback? Unlikely!), nobody realises I was joking when I pitched my Ten Commandments sequel to SE7EN, Gondry rips off the upcoming Pat Robertson-funded film THE SLEEPINESS OF SCIENCE, Mark Wahlberg begins shooting (no, really), and Spidey ignores wealth and fame until opening weekend.

BECAUSE I SAID SO

CURSE OF THE GOLDEN FLOWER

DISTURBIA

HALF-NELSON

THE HISTORY BOYS

NOISE

THE NUMBER 23

PARIS JE'TAIME

PERFECT STRANGER

THE REAPING

THE SCIENCE OF SLEEP

SHOOTER

SPIDER-MAN 3

REVIEWS

Okay, one of the reasons this column was delayed so long was that I wanted to come back with at least one review. The problem is that to review a film, you need to see it first. For some reason, two of the distributors have dropped me from their lists, and the ones that have me on seem to organise screenings for times that I just can't make! Also, I haven't had a drop of spare time to watch any of the screeners that have been sent my way. So I'm going to break with tradition and review a film that I actually paid cash money to see (like the rest of you plebs). Sony doesn't invite me to screenings, but SPIDER-MAN 3 is the only film I've seen in the past month, so screw it, here are my thoughts.

SPIDER-MAN 3

It was a comment on AICN that made me switch off. I'm not talking about switching off the film, but rather the endless trailers and clips that were released online. Someone on this site said something to the effect that they could piece the major story breaks together based on everything I'd seen. And this was fairly early on, too.

So, having only seen the first trailer released, I stopped watching. I didn't read reviews. I avoided everything. I wanted the experience to be as fresh as possible, given there was no chance I wouldn't like this film.

But I didn't like this film.

Whereas the first two films were tight stories with a single central narrative, S-M3 is what I believe Syd Field would refer to as a clusterfuck of Biblical proportions. I've heard people say that the film would have been better without the Venom plot. Or without the Sandman plot. Or without the Green Goblin Jnr plot. They're all right. You could have cut any of them out -- hell, any two of them out -- and ended up with something great. And that's the problem. I wanted to see a great film. What I saw was three great films cut into a montage so as to completely distill the elements of greatness.

Raimi said in the past that the first thing they do when they plot out a SPIDEY film is they sit down and work out Peter Parker's personal journey. Then they pick the villain that will best match this journey, and create a script that will best balance these elements. The first film did this really, really well. The second one did it brilliantly. What happened with the third?

The problem is that each of these three villains actually does reflect Parker's journey. They haven't sold this concept out, they've just convoluted it. Why was the black goo there and why did it disappear for about an hour of the film? What the hell was Sandman's motivation for killing Spidey again? Why is Harry Osborne suffering from explosive amnesia?

I also want to address the now-infamous dance sequence that apparently represents Peter's descent into darkness. I've read the arguments in favour of this sequence -- that Parker is a nerd, and this is what nerds do when they turn into dicks (I do like this element of the argument, btw) -- but I'm not convinced. And I'm not someone who loathes dance sequences, either. In fact, my favourite genre of film is the musical, and my favourite parts of musicals are the elaborate dance sequences. I guess my problem here is WHAT THE FUCK IS IT DOING IN A SPIDER-MAN FILM?!?

Despite the fact that these films are about a guy with special spider skills, Raimi always strives to create an honest emotional arc for his characters. You can believe that the characters you're watching are real people because they're acting and reacting the way that real people do. I have no problem with Peter's descent being "he starts acting like a bit of a tool", and taking Gwen to the bar that MJ is working at fits with that... but suddenly being able to play the piano like a pro? Dancing about the bar in a carefully choreographed sequence? It sucked me out of the film completely, even more than the way-overlong walking-down-the-street-pointing-at-women bit. It turned the whole exercise into a farce.

I did like the bits where he and Harry go at each other. (Incidentally, if you'd like to characterise me as an angry internet nerd, my reason is that I like violence and I hate dancing. If you'd like a deeper argument, please continue reading.) I liked them because they actually did feel honest. Every punch and every line of dialogue felt like that step you take over the line when you're fighting with a friend. You know you're going too far, but you're not completely in control anymore.

I'm not a big Spidey comic reader, by the way. I've just started reading the Ultimate Spider-Man line because a friend stuck about twenty trades under my nose and insisted I read (it's pretty damn good, by the way). I don't have any particular loyalty to any storyline from the comic, and even if I did, I know that work needs to be adapted for the screen. I've always liked Venom because of the way he was described to me by people (I hadn't read any actual Venom comics until recently). My point is that I'm not angry because I wanted to see storyline x instead of storyline y. I just wanted a good story, and this film did not have a good story.

It's not all bad, however. For every relative-of-Raimi-nepostically-given-too-much-screentime, there's that hilarious and sweet girl across the hall. For every worst-piece-of-exposition-in-history given by the crazy and unreliable butler, there's the emotionally-heavy Goblin/Peter fight where he's struggling to hold onto the ring. For every ridiculously fast I'm-Venom-you-hate-Spider-man-let's-team-up-yeah-okay bit of bridging, there's Bruce Campbell's genuinely funny John Cleese-esque cameo.

It's a mixed bag, and if they can get back to basics for the next film, I'll be happy to keep Film 3 in the collection as an essential but ungreat part of the collection. How do you make Film 4 great? It's astonishingly simple: ignore the toy company and give Spider-man one villain. Whenever a series gives in begins piling the bad guys in on top of each other as part of some desperate one-up-man-ship, it's shark jumping time. Raimi has done a brilliant job at setting up Curt Conners over the past two films, and casting Dylan Baker is spot-on perfect. Make Film 4 about the Lizard and the Lizard only. There's a big opportunity to tie in Connors's arc with Peter's MJ/Gwen problems, so go for it and give us the quality of film you gave us with SPIDER-MAN 2.

ZODIAC

As further indication of how long it takes me to get one of these damn columns out, since writing the bit above about not having the chance to go and see a film, I've gone and seen a film.

Recently, I've been failing at my attempts to third guess Hollywood. See, I have a problem with lazy casting, and I usually call it out when someone I know who doesn't know much about the film industry makes some sort of, say, casting suggestion. For example: "A film about an aging, really smart, creepy killer? How about Anthony Hopkins?" Now, this is lazy casting because the person in question is making an instant association with cinema's most famous creepy killer, Hannibal Lecter. I then have to patiently explain to them that actors very rarely repeat themselves, and experienced producers are able to think outside the box a little more than that! Then the trailer for FRACTURE hits the Apple website and you suddenly realise that your conventional wisdom is completely inaccurate.

Why go on about this? Because the lazy answer to "Who do we get to direct this film about people obsessed with a serial killer who keeps leaving elaborate clues?" is "David Fincher". And when said film actually gets made, the tempting response is "Well, that was exactly like the last serial killer film he made, no need to see it!".

Actual response? "Nothing like the last serial killer film he made, you have to see it."

I steered clear of most ZODIAC reviews when it hit the States, but I got the general feeling that it hadn't been well-received; that it had produced a general feeling of ennui from critics and audiences, and would only serve as a filmography padder for those involved.

I hope I've got that wrong, 'cos if I haven't, an awful lot of people have missed out on one of Fincher's best films. Obviously it's not near SE7EN or FIGHT CLUB -- those are unassailable classics -- but if his filmography only included ALIEN3, THE GAME and PANIC ROOM, we'd be talking about new heights for the man.

There's a real sense of period in this film. The opening shots -- which, incidentally, reminded me of the start of BLUE VELVET, leading me to briefly scream out "David Lyncher! Hahahaha!" in my head, before returning immediately to the film -- establish a tangible world. Unlike many period thrillers of this nature, where the time period appears to be largely incidental in the minds of the filmmakers, the time this film spans is absolutely integral. We're constantly reminded of dates, of how much time has passed. It's not tedious; we really feel the years passing as clues emerge, as suspects come and go, as people emerge and disappear.

As the Zodiac killings remain unsolved, the growing sense of frustration is apparent. These guys want someone to blame, and you want them to have that someone. I even found myself suspecting many of the people involved in the actual investigation.

It's some of the best work that's been given by the key actors, too. Mark Ruffalo has never been better, and Anthony Edwards apparently has a whole lot of range.

It's about to open in most parts of the world, so if you're umming and uhhing about it because the case remains unsolved -- don't. The film has an unexpectedly satisfying ending, and is never short of engrossing from start to finish.

NEXT WEEK

- - The Wayans Brothers to make a comedy about a black diabetic conman who has to disguise himself as a Jewish accountant in MESHUGA SUBSTITUTE

- Darren Aronofsky to direct the CRAZY FROG RINGTONE film, but promises to bring the character back to its gritty origin roots

- Spike Lee will head to China to make a streetwise comedy about a communist state engaging in rampant capitalism in MAO MONEY

Peace out,

Latauro

AICNDownunder@hotmail.com

_________________________________________________________________