Published at: March 18, 2011, 6:56 p.m. CST by AICNStaff
It's money and adventure and fame. It's the thrill of a lifetime and a long sea voyage that starts at six o'clock tomorrow morning.
AICN-DOWNUNDER
Give or take a few days, it's exactly eight years since my first ever AICN-Downunder report. Eight years is a long time to be doing anything, let alone an unpaid gig writing a bi-weekly column that took longer and longer to put together as I added more and more regular sections. I've been meaning to move on for a while, but I've become very attached to this column, and giving it up is not easy. There have been 214 AICN-Downunders on my watch, not to mention the six Annual Wrap-Ups, lots of Melbourne International Film Festival reports and countless standalone reviews.
(Looking back on that first column from March 15, 2003, I find it interesting to look at which bits of news actually came to fruition: Alan Tudyk did indeed get cast in Alex Proyas's I, ROBOT, and JOSH JARMAN was indeed filmed; but Nikki Gemmell's LOVE SONG was never made into a film, and Scott Hicks is yet to direct FIVE DOLLARS MORE. Pretty sure a 50% hit rate is still considered good on the internet.)
I can probably thank Drew McWeeny/Moriarty for giving me my first proper AICN exposure by publishing my unsolicited letter to Peter Jackson only two weeks earlier. That piece led to me taking over AICN-Downunder (which had previously been written by "Tasmin"), which has led to an extraordinary number of things in my life, including writing for magazines, appearing on radio and television, as well as the many people who are now in my life thanks to this flow-on effect. My life has been well and truly transformed by writing this column, which is why saying goodbye is so difficult. But it is the right thing to do. (There has, in fact, been a big catalyst for this decision, but it's something I can't talk about. The announcement is actually out of my hands, so I'll just have to settle for being mysterious at the moment. Rest assured, I will be telling all and sundry once it is announced.)
But we need not part forever! You can still follow my unfiltered thoughts (many of them film-related) on Twitter by clicking here. You can subscribe to my monthly film podcast Hell Is For Hyphenates (seriously, do it). You can check out Australian comic book publishing company FEC Comics, for whom I am writing four different comic projects. You could read my regular column for Onya Magazine online, or physically pick up print editions of Inside Film and The Big Issue, two publications I occasionally write for. And while I'm pimping out all the things I'm associated with, you can even go watch every clip from my movie-themed TV show The Bazura Project, archived online here.
This is not necessarily the end of my relationship with AICN. It's quite likely I'll submit news or reviews or general abuse in the future, but for now my association with AICN-Downunder is at an end. I've been honoured to be the Australian/New Zealand representative on AICN, and I've learned an awful lot about our local industries in that time. When I began, Australian cinema was in the gutter; as I leave, it's world class. (Although, for the sake of modesty, I should mention that wasn't entirely to do with me.) Films like THE PROPOSITION, BALIBO, SAMSON AND DELILAH and ANIMAL KINGDOM have stormed international festivals and awards ceremonies such as Cannes, Sundance, and the Oscars. It's been fantastic to watch 21st century Australian cinema find its voice with such confidence, and I'm so excited to see what's next for it.
In the meantime, thank you so much for reading, and for all of your feedback. The compliments have been flattering, the constructive criticism has been appreciated, and the furiously juvenile sections of the talkback have been amusing. Big thanks also to Harry, Quint, Merrick, Beaks, Herc, and everyone else at AICN for allowing me to basically do whatever I want in my small, mostly-unread corner of the site. It's been a pleasure writing for Ain't It Cool News, and it's an experience I'll certainly treasure forever.
NEWS
If you recall the extreme controversy that surrounded the 2009 Melbourne International Film Festival -- one that garnered worldwide headlines -- then you should know the controversy is still living on in a very real way. Documentary 10 CONDITIONS OF LOVE, about activist Rebiya Kadeer and the Chinese oppression of Uyghurs, is continuing to raise the ire of the Chinese government. 23-year-old Halmurat Imim has been arrested for holding a copy of the film, his charge described as "illegal possession of a counterrevolutionary propaganda DVD". At some point, someone's going to call out China for their increasingly-ironic use of the word "revolutionary", right? Oh, and their awful human rights record? Check out this fantastic doco if you get the chance, because it's something that needs to be seen by everyone.
Screen Australia has invested A Whole Lotta Money into local productions DRIFT and SATELLITE BOY. DRIFT is a surf drama starring Sam Worthington, and will be co-directed by Ben Nott and the film's writer Morgan O'Neill. (Want to read about the controversial relationship between O'Neill, Worthington and yours truly? Click here!) SATELLITE BOY is described as an "indigenous coming-of-age story", which initially sounds like it could be agency-baiting claptrap until you remember that some of the best films of recent years could have carried that same logline (MAD BASTARDS, SAMSON AND DELILAH, BENEATH CLOUDS). Sincerely hoping both of these turn out to be great.
Baz Luhrmann is a Gats Tease. "I'm not doing GATSBY right now," Lurhmann told New York Magazine, despite recent reports that everything was locked in and filming would begin later this year. This is interesting for more reasons than just cinematic ones: the New South Wales election is, at time of writing, mere hours away, and the incumbent state government made a big song and dance about securing GATSBY for the NSW economy. Of course, this is probably not a major concern for voters, but given the politicisation of big productions, it's an interesting development.
This isn't strictly movie news, but it's a bit outrageous and a must-read. The BBC has recently started airing "Twenty-Twelve", a TV show about the behind-the-scenes shenanigans involved in staging the London Olympic Games. It stars actors I love: Jessica Hynes, Olivia Colman, Hugh Bonneville and David Tennant, yet I'm not particularly looking forward to it. The main reason is its startling similarity to "The Games", one of the great Australian series ever made, and one that charted the shenanigans involved in staging the Sydney Olympic Games. If you think it's a coincidence, then you really need to read this piece. After you've read it, order the season one and two DVDs of "The Games", and enjoy the finest Australian comedy you'll ever see.
Speaking of Australian sitcoms starring Gine Riley, "Kath and Kim" is about to get a big screen treatment. THE KATH AND KIM FILUM will be directed by Ted Emery, and written by its stars Riley and Jane Turner. The plot sees the mother/daughter combo heading off overseas "on a whirlwind tour of love, lust and revolution".
AICN-Downunder's Follow Friday: (Drop me a line if there are any upcoming Australian or New Zealand films not mentioned here.) Read about the fascinating journeys Anti-podean films take from production through post-production and into release! Click to follow controversial Uighur documentary 10 CONDITIONS OF LOVE, crime epic ANIMAL KINGDOM, brilliant experimental soundscape DREAMLAND, reality television/terrorism satire ELIMINATED, the self-explanatory GHOST SHARK 2: URBAN JAWS, superhero movie GRIFF THE INVISIBLE, self-described "womantic comedy" JUCY, pop art adaptation LBF, the based-on-an-old-Australian-joke LITTLE JOHNNY, brilliant Aussie horror film THE LOVED ONES, self-described "graphic novel-style bushranger adventure film" MOONLITE, giant shark movie THE REEF, the dramatic thriller SAY NOTHING, the extraordinary Aussie doco STRANGE BIRDS IN PARADISE, star-studded romantic drama SUMMER CODA, giant squid movie $QUID, the award-winning box office hit TOMORROW, WHEN THE WAR BEGAN, Cannes's closing night film THE TREE, crowdsourcing horror film THE TUNNEL, and genre-defying web series WHERE WERE YOU. And for those still reading, this here is me.
AWARDS, FESTIVALS AND SCREENINGS
The Astor Theatre's 75th Anniversary
Two important things you may or may not wish to know about me: the first film I ever saw in the cinema was 1933's KING KONG, which I saw when I was three and still remember; and my favourite cinema in the world is the Astor Theatre. It seems only fitting that for my last column, I should be able to wish the Astor a happy 75th birthday, and that it would celebrate on April 3 with a screening of KING KONG '33. Tickets are available to the public, so Melburnians should go to the website and buy up, and I'll see you there!
2011 BigPond Adelaide Film Festival
In two months, the Australian psychological horror SNOWTOWN comes out, and I cannot wait to see it. My interest has only been further piqued by the film's audience award win at AFF. Best Documentary went to SENNA, and THE PALACE won Best Short. The international award for Best Feature went to INCENDIES.
BOX OFFICE
I'll level with you: the only reason I started reporting on box office back when I started this column was that I couldn't think of anything else to write about. But I'm a creature of habit, so I kept it going for the hell of it, even expanding it to include both countries and then taking it from five films to ten. For a section I don't care about, I certainly did my best to inflate it beyond reason. Don't forgot to click on the links to read my original review of the films!
A teenager must battle to save his community from ludicrous plot developments, someone found a unique take on the alien invasion concept: setting it in Los Angeles, New Zealand audiences are cheered from their recent woes by emotionally-devastating drama, this is probably not a sequel to THE COOK, THE THIEF, HIS WIFE AND HER LOVER, my favourite film of the year thus far will no doubt be many people's least favourite, Ben Affleck hits rock bottom, Gwyneth Paltrow makes the transition from singing to movies, billing itself as the first ever Australian superhero movie ignores the timeless classic that is 1984's THE RETURN OF CAPTAIN INVINCIBLE, I saw the greatest films of my generation destroyed by BATTLE: LOS ANGELES, Italian film THE LAST KISS gets a titularly-contradictory title, my interest in this film is limited, a New Zealand film attempts to get in on the box office success of every film that has "WEDDING" in the title, Sally Sparrow falls for Frank, Johnny Depp returns to Gore, Andrew Traucki goes from crocodiles to sharks, and Anthony Hopkins attempts to rite some rongs.
A HEARTBEAT AWAY (AUS) BATTLE: LOS ANGELES (AUS) BLUE VALENTINE (NZ) THE BUTCHER, THE CHEF AND THE SWORDSMAN (AUS) CERTIFIED COPY (NZ) THE COMPANY MEN (AUS) COUNTRY STRONG (NZ) GRIFF THE INVISIBLE (AUS) HOWL (AUS) KISS ME AGAIN (AUS) LIMITLESS (AUS/NZ) MY WEDDING AND OTHER SECRETS (NZ) NEVER LET ME GO (NZ) RANGO (AUS/NZ) THE REEF (AUS) THE RITE (AUS/NZ)
REVIEWS
THE RITE
Australian/New Zealand release: March 10
Given how much inherent potential there is for horror and creepiness and generally solid frights, it's surprising that so few exorcism films actually work. Maybe it's just that THE EXORCIST was so good it ruined the genre forever, but lately films like THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE and THE LAST EXORCISM have fallen short of the mark, a trend that is somewhat continued with THE RITE.
Actually, the RITE is a bit of a measuring stick. It's dead centre in the horror, a solid five out of ten, a perfectly-even mix of great scenes and terrible scenes, or, more often, a mix of good scenes and not-so-good scenes. It balances genuinely good ideas with genuinely bad ones, and as such it's hard to get a handle on what it is the film is trying to do.
Michael Kovak (Colin O'Donoghue) doesn't want to go into the family funeral business, so his only other choice (apparently) is to become a priest, and he's already thinking about quitting before he's begun. Fatthew Matthew (Toby Jones) sees his potential, and sends him to his old friend in Rome, Father Xavier (Ciaran Hinds). Father Xavier sees his potential and sends him to his old friend Father Lucas (Anthony Hopkins). Thankfully, Lucas breaks the trend before Michael is sent to Liam Neeson's gruff Irish priest, and Michael immediately begins helping Lucas with his exorcisms.
Although I had problems with the afore-mentioned EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE and LAST EXORCISM, both of those films are key examples of how spiritual films must be made in the modern day. It's impossible to tell a story about demonic possession without introducing real world skepticism, with LAST EXORCISM going so far as to have its priest demonstrating how he fakes the wall-shaking effects. THE RITE makes Michael into an atheist, constantly demanding that the so-called possessed are merely psychologically-damaged people acting out in accordance with an ingrained dogma. Michael is there to convince even the most skeptical of audience members.
It's a great angle that the film almost completely fails to explore. The script (by Michael Petroni) seems to be written as if to keep the audience guessing, whereas Mikael Hådström's direction tips its hand from the word go. The film makes no secret that demonic possession is real, through its use of special effects and makeup, desperately trying to up the tension without realising that these effects are actually draining it. There is a fantastic turn with a key character about two thirds through that could be a massive game-changer, a twist that seems to confirm both competing explanations, but again this is dispensed with, devoid of any real questioning.
The performances are also a mix, with Anthony Hopkins combining some questionable mugging with some utterly brilliant choices. Colin O'Donoghue is fine in the role, but his character is so thinly-sketched -- which is odd given the dilemmas he's facing -- I'm not sure there are too many actors who could have done much with it.
The film claims to be based on true events, but the movie has been run through so many obvious alterations and expansions, I wouldn't be surprised if those "true events" were the same ones that inspired the similarly life-unlike UNSTOPPABLE. It's not a terrible movie, but it's very middle-of-the-road. Don't go out of your way to either see or avoid it; neither option is worth the effort.
POTICHE
Australian release: April 21 // New Zealand release: TBA
I'd skipped out on the media screening of this film because (a) it was early morning, and (b) I don't like François Ozon. Well, I don't like the one film I've seen of his, 5X2, which made my worst-of-that-year list. It really, really rubbed me the wrong way, and though I shouldn't judge such a prolific director on a single film, working up the enthusiasm to see another of his films after my original reaction was tough.
Then, after landing tickets to the opening night of the French Film Festival, I ended up seeing it anyway. Expectations were destroyed: POTICHE is really, really good.
Unlike the irritable melodramatics of 5X2, POTICHE is a comedy set in the 1970s, in which Catherine Denueve's put-upon trophy wife suddenly finds herself in a position of power she wasn't seeking. What follows isn't so much a comedy of errors as a comedy of character, with nearly all the comedy -- and it is mostly very funny comedy -- informed by the differing needs and wants of the eclectic cast.
The film does have its problems, and these stem from its ambling towards an end point that is neither inevitable nor expected. It's as if the film ends two-thirds of the way through and we're watching the epilogue. But these annoyances are countered with some deft storytelling; just as you're thinking yourself smarter than the film for figuring out the really obvious plot twists and turns, the film anticipates your expectations and takes a swift left turn towards genuinely unexpected waters.
It's a definite crowd pleaser -- even though many I spoke to afterwards didn't really enjoy it -- and one that turned me around on a filmmaker I used to think I didn't like.
IN A BETTER WORLD
Australian release: March 3 // New Zealand release: TBA
This Oscar-winning Danish film from director Susanne Bier and writer Anders Thomas Jensen (both of BRØDRE and AFTER THE WEDDING) is not a lighthearted romp. It is a fairly intense look at what constitutes power in human beings, what constitutes weakness, how we react to death, and whether there can ever be objective moral absolutes.
The film does not feature characters sitting around discussing these themes, nor are said themes ever overtly acknowledged. The closest we come to seeing these ideas penetrate the text is when twelve-year-old Christian furiously explains to his father why reporting on the school bully instead of beating on him would not have worked. Christian's Law of the Jungle politics fly in the face of everything children are taught, but refuting him is difficult. It takes extremes to show Christian the error of his ways, a slippery-slope extrapolation played out in real life, unwittingly spearheaded by Christian himself, for him to realise the true damage of violent one-upmanship.
But it's not just about school bullies. Christian's friend Elias has a father who works as a doctor in Africa, and we spend some time there with him and his patients. At first, it's a jarring juxtaposition, forcing us to question the important of schoolyard bullying against harsher concerns, a sentiment we suspect Elias's father Anton initially shares. But these problems are all relative, and cunningly converge in importance in a manner that too many films do not touch upon. Too often the message in these films is, in fact, that we should stop worrying about our own problems because someone somewhere else has it worse; a well-intentioned but ultimately limp and meaningless ideal that does not reflect the reality of anyone's life. IN A BETTER WORLD has a much more challenging, tangible and uniquely true message that sets this film apart from others of its ilk.
It doesn't avoid its own pitfalls, though, with a somewhat-meandering collection of scenes towards the end that take the wind out of the otherwise-effective conclusion. It's also a film that's easier to admire than it is to really like, as it has a coldness that, whilst thematically relevant to the characters' challenges, distances the viewer.
There are few films that manage to wrench open that omnipresent theme of The Human Condition and find something new, which in itself makes IN A BETTER WORLD a must-see.
NEVER LET ME GO
Australian release: March 31 // New Zealand release: March 17
Kazuo Ishiguro's "Never Let Me Go" was a terrific book, but not for any particularly remarkable plotting: its science fiction elements were kept in the background, as a suitably-frustrating mystery that none of our main characters seemed interested in exploring. What worked about the book was the way our narrating protagonist Kathy saw the world: her interpretation of the people around her, the thought processes that went into her very human and very recognisable interactions. There was a real human drama in the book, and most of it was played stoically, shunted underneath the mundane. In a book, it works brilliantly. In a movie? Not so much.
It's no surprise that screenwriter Alex Garland had to take a different approach in adapting the story. So much of the book is gone, so many of the internal monologues that drove the original piece. What's strange about this approach is that the baby appears to have been edited out with the bathwater. Gone are many of the more overt character moments, a decision which could be explained if it were in service of a more linear plot, but even the headier mystery elements that drove the narrative have been lost. I feel like it's the book's synopsis that's been adapted, not the book itself.
I'm aware I'm reviewing the adaptation, and not the film, which is a pet peeve of mine when others do it. However, the difference between the two works gives me the advantage of identifying not just what was changed, but what doesn't work, and why. The mood and atmosphere are maintained, absolutely, and you get a palpable sense of the world they inhabit, but never of the characters themselves.
My partner, also a big fan of the book, was in tears at the end of the movie, and did not share my concerns. I can vaguely make out the film she saw, and it's possible I will do a complete flip on this upon repeat viewings. For now, though, I remain mostly unmoved by characters who were not as complex as they should have been.
This is not an indictment of the casting, mind. Keira Knightly is spot-on as the gently manipulative Ruth, and Carey Mulligan is equally perfect as Kathy, absolutely nailing the vulnerability and then confidence that the character experiences. Sally Hawkins is great as always, but the real revelation of the film is Andrew Garfield, whose sheer transformative physicality as Tommy tells us more than any single line of dialogue. There is no issue with the performances, nor with Mark Romanek's assured direction. There's also a fantastic score by Rachel Portman, surely the most underrated composer working in film today.
I feel that NEVER LET ME GO is a better film than the experience I had with it, and it's one I'll be checking back in with later. For now, though, my initial instincts tell me that this is beautiful but flawed film; one that lacks the depth it should have, but still manages to find a vein of genuine emotion. It's one I suggest you seek out.
DVD REVIEWS
THE 39 STEPS (February 16, Region 4)
The film: One of the best Hitchcock British Talkies -- sorry, but the man was so prolific, we need to divide his filmography into multiple sections if we're going to make any sense of it at all -- THE 39 STEPS almost serves as a preview of his later films with Cary Grant and Jimmy Stewart: relatively normal men caught up with international intrigue and mistaken identity. Here, the avatar is Robert Donat, as discombobulated and charming as any of the Hitchcock leads, unwittingly the subject of a murder investigation as he attempts to stop vital information from leaving the country. It's great stuff, and even though Madeleine Carroll's antagonistic love interest doesn't get properly introduced until about halfway through the film, their chemistry is more than worth the wait. An all-round brilliant film that would be considered Hitchcock's best if he hadn't made so many other all-round brilliant films.
The extras: The film boasts an all-new transfer from a "recently-restored print", and though it looks fantastic, I'd put it on par with the equally-terrific Criterion transfer. There's an audio commentary from Dr Wendy Halsem, an On Location featurette with Robert Powell, and -- the only special feature shared with the Criterion edition -- the complete radio broadcast from 1937 featuring Robert Montgomery and Ida Lupino. There's a great pull-out booklet featuring an illustrated essay on the film by Dr Brian McFarlane, which is the sort of thing you begin glancing through and end up reading cover to cover. Addictive stuff for Hitchcock fans.
Should you buy it: This is a film I'm more than happy to own multiple copies of, but if you're only going to have one in your collection -- and for a film like this, "one" should be the absolute minimum -- this is the edition to get.
THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH (February 16, Region 4)
The film: It occurred to me recently that if I was somehow in a position in which I could choose only one director's filmography to save from total annihilation, it would be Hitchcock's. In every stage of his career he crafted classics that pushed boundaries, yet never failed to exhilarate. So with that qualification established, allow me to make a controversial statement: the original MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH is not up there with his best. It is loved, and deservedly so: the Albert Hall sequence is remarkable, and the entire film is filled with visual inventiveness that didn't just give the audience something they'd never seen before for the sake of it, but informed the story with a deft shorthand. The film falls flat in an unusual way for Hitchcock: the characters. We're introduced to Jill Lawrence and her husband Bob: Jill is a snappy, sardonic woman happy to challenge men to sharp-shooting contests; Bob is a man who stands nearby, smoking and doing very little. When a mystery is thrust into the hands of the fascinating Jill, the first thing she does is hand it over to her infinitely-less-interesting husband, who then takes the lead for the rest of the film. It's not a brilliant choice, and I can see why Hitchcock chose to remake it two decades later with Jimmy Stewart, but my problems with the film only exist because of the high standard that Hitch commands. As a thriller, it's still something of a cracker.
The extras: The quality of the transfer is excellent, and certainly a step up from the earlier bare bones region four edition. Special features include an image gallery and a terrific illustrated essay on the film by Mairéad Philliips (included in the case as a booklet). Oddly, there's the original theatrical trailer for the film's remake, bringing a nice immediate contrast to the two productions.
Should you buy it: Hitchcock never made a film that wasn't worth owning, and this is the best edition of this film you're likely to get.
180° SOUTH (February 2, Region 4)
The film: I'm really not sure what to make of this film, and I think a lot of that has to do with the fact that the film doesn't know what to make of itself. At first, it seems like a quest documentary: "adventurer" Jeff Johnson wants to retrace the steps of his heroes Yvon Chouinard and Doug Tompkins, who scaled a mountain in Patagonia back in 1968. It starts well, with Chouinard and Tompkins both wise hippies with much to say. Johnson's journey comes across as a Kerouac-style travelogue, with the journey as important as the destination. But then he loses his way a bit: the film becomes a Michael Moore-esque look at how terrible factories can be on the wildnerness. His points are valid, but seem misplaced in this film, and by the time we get to its strangely unsatisfying conclusion, we're left wondering what the point of it all really was.
The extras: 85 minutes of extras which, I'll be brutally honest, I didn't watch.
Should you buy it: Whilst I don't think the film is necessarily bad, I don't think you'll ever want to watch it a second time unless you were heavily involved in making it.
LAST WEEK
- Martin Scorsese tells Christoph Waltz that his 1978 music documentary was "a warning"
- Lars von Trier to take over from Aronofsky on THE WOLVERINE as first choice Matthew Barney opts for THE CATWOMAN instead
- Roland Emmerich to make controversial new CGI-filled film which posits a not-too-distant future in which the world is not ravaged by natural disasters
