Monster

 Before you read this post I recommend you read the one on 21 Grams first. It will help you understand this review better. The reason being is both Theron and Watts were nominated for Oscars in their respective roles within the same year. I wish to juxtapose the two performances somewhat.

 I didn't see this on the big screen and I can't remember why. Charlize Theron can be an enigma as an actress. She can play some superb roles ( The Valley of Elah ) or some crummy ones ( think Aeon Flux ). She doesn't seem to have an inbetween type film. Unfortunately as a good looking woman she is used as eye-candy to gain an audienece for a film.

 But what a transformation for Monster! You wouldn't believe it is Theron at all. She gained weight and wore false teeth etc to radically change her appearance. But her apperance is only part of the story as this alone would not have been effective if Theron couldn't convince us of the role. She does...sublimely. 

 It is somewhat unfortunate when it comes to awards that with two great performances there has to be a winner and loser. Watts was breath taking in 21 Grams and I can't praise her enough. I went into Monster somewhat prejudiced in believing that Theron couldn't top Watts. Right throughout the film I kept that belief but the very last few seconds as Theron is led of to be executed I changed my mind.

 I don't think for one instance that Theron was better than Watts, she isn't, but nor is her performance any less than Watts. They are both brilliant and I won't say which one is better because it is simply uncallable. For me 21 Grams is by far the superior film overall. The acting and non-lineal method of its making lifts it way beyond Monster. Monster is a conventionally made film with it's strength in the power of both Theron and Ricci's acting. Sometimes a good script and acting can lift a film from good to great.  

 Monster is a great film because of Theron. She, like Watts 'becomes' the character. Ricci has been an under performing actress for many years but here she is superb and compliments Theron extremely well.

 It is somewhat unfortunate in the title. Theron's character is a seriously mentally ill woman who ends up killing her potential sexual clients for their money. She has gone down as a serial killer but, to me, just because she murdered 6 men doesn't make her one in the traditional sense. This doesn't, for my mind, make her a monster. She killed for money not the thrill and satisfaction that most serial killers do. It wasn't a thrill to her as it became a necessity to make money without giving up her body. And right after she started killing she displayed no pleasure in what she had done. I'd call her a multiple murderer rather than a serial killer.

 It is a sad film. It is an indictment that mentally ill people are so judged and abused because of their illness. They fall through the cracks of society as there is little help for them. And, whilst Theron's character did commit murder , which is unjustified,  the films wishes the viewer not to judge her, and highlights the moralities of the death penalty. She was ill and really didn't deserve the sentence. Life would have been more appropriate because her mental condition.

 Is it better than 21 Grams as a film...not even close! But Watts and Theron are stunning in their prospective roles, and both films should be seen for the two great female performances of 2003.

Click here for a synopsis:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0340855/

Here for more:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/1128647-monster/

3 Godfathers

 This is one of the four DVDs I rented several nights ago. I stayed up and watched it early this morning and then Monster, which will follow this appraisal.
 I must admit for many years I did not think John Wayne could really act. I suppose it comes from the fact he pretty much played the cowboy in most of his films. Sure he done war films but westerns were his real territory.
 Lately I have watched True Grit, The Searches, and now 3 Godfathers, and my opinion has somewhat changed. He is in the top ten on the American Film Insitiutes best actors list. Even though my opinion of his abilities is softening I still believe he is not that good to warrant being on that list. I digress here a bit because that list does not even have an actor of the more modern era in it. Johnny Depp, Robert Downey jr, Sean Penn, to name a few are the equals of Bogart, Stewart, Grant, Gable and company surely??
 Anyway it is just a personal observation and all opinions may differ from mine.
 But back to the legend of John Wayne! This film took me by surprise. I thought it was going be another western, but it wasn't. It is a western but it is like no other western I have ever seen. John ford was a great director of westerns and he was a director who got the most out of Wayne's acting abilities. Just watch The Searchers, Wayne's best role and one I would rather he had won his only Oscar for rather than True Girt.
 3 Godfathers is similar to Ben-Hur in having a very religious backdrop, but without a moralistic tone. This is what makes it so unique among westerns. I knew nothing about this film until I watched it, and the religious tone really floored me. It in a nutshell is a re-telling of Christmas within a western setting. I won't go into a overly detailed synopsis but the plot involves three bank robbers who are escaping the law and bump into a woman about to give birth, who subsequently dies. 
 Before she does she makes the three men the godfathers of her newborn. And here the film shifts into its religious tone. The men still need to out run the law,  and with a baby. They decide to head to a city called New Jerusalem after one reads a passage from the bible. Then the parallel between the three wise men following the star is played out as the three follow a star to their destination.
 Two die on the way and of course Wayne makes it with the baby in tow only to be arrested and slapped in jail with a lenient sentence. This is after saying he wouldn't turn his back on his promise to the dead woman to look after the child.
 I really liked this film. It has some quite humourous moments where the three struggle to come to terms with feeding and nuturing a baby. It is subtle comic humour and Wayne plays it superbly. It is somewhat dated with the shots between outside and in a studio glaringly obvious. But anyone with a sense of cinema history will see it and recognise how far effects in a film have travelled. It adds a certain charm to watching it, after all it is now sixty years old.
 The ending is somewhat absurd as the towns folk cheer  the outlaw who has been captured for robbing their bank. But to see the whole film is too realise this isn't a western of the classic type. It is subtle, gentle, and quietly beautiful. It is also a film from a completely different American era of film making. There is an innocence to this film that was soon to be lost. It is to me in one word beautiful, a strange word for a western but there it is. It is wonderful to see a film that didn't need to resort to explict, graphic bloodshed, excessive profanity, and nudity to be good.
 I again stress that this is a film on the cusp of the loss of innocence within American society and its film industry. It is a lovely, gentle film, and I truely recommend it.  John Ford has made a very quiet, subtle, and gentle masterpiece whilst  showing that John Wayne could act. 
 ( I am a John Wayne fan through and through and I hope I don't offend the purists of you out there. I feel that Wayne just lacked range, but the more films I see my view is, as stated , softening. He is a legend and rightly so).
Click here for synopsis and more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3_Godfathers
and here for more:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0040064/

Lord Of War

 I actually watched this several nights ago at about 2.00 a.m in the morning. As you can see by now I see alot of films and it can be difficult to keep up and review them all. I knew I saw alot but having to review them all has really hightlighted how many I actually do watch!!

 I'm not overly fond of Nicholas Cage, he, like Keanu Reeves, consistently appears wooden in his roles. With Cage it is always Cage playing Cage. But I must admit he was quite good in Kick Ass, a film I thoroughly enjoyed. In Lord of War I'm afraid it is just Cage playing Cage. But somehow this role fitted him and anyone else would have been too serious for the role. Cage somehow brings a nervous uneasiness to his role as an arms dealer that another actor may not have.
 When I think back this film did play here in Napier but because of Cage I didn't see it. Whilst not a great film overall the opening credits is something to be seen. It involves the life of a bullet. It goes through its machining and maufacturing stage, to its packing and delivery stage, to its loading into a weapon and then its firing, where we see it enter the head of a black guy in battle. It is a stunning opening credit to a movie and by far the best you will ever see. 
 As I have said this is not a great film. That does not mean it is bad either. It is the story of a Russian emigrant to America who is disillusioned with where he is going and virtually stumbles into selling guns. He starts out small but is not happy with the amount of money he is making and gradually gets bigger and bigger until he hits the big time selling post Cold War Russian armaments. 
 It is a movie based on true events. I have read papers from Massey University on the arms trade and I found this film to be quite accurate in its depictions.
 But it is a film that doesn't glorify the trade. In fact it does go into the morality of it. At the end Cage's character is released from a potential prison sentence because the American government needs him to deliver arms to a country it supports but without being seen to. It is a real blight on governments and the lies they tell while they are doing exactly what they are denying. Undeniability it is called. By using an arms dealer they can be seen to  be not supporting a certain regime when in fact they are. 
 But it also explores a sub-plot in regards to what money can do to the soul. Cage makes so much he can virtually buy himself a trophy wife and keep her in luxury. He owns many planes to transport his arms and can bribe virtually anyone he pleases.  But as he finds out it has a price and he loses his wife and child for lying about his business and refusal to leave it. It gets his brother killed and himself landed in jail. 
 Overall this film will never be regarded as great. But it has a valid point to make in hightlighting the arms trade and morality behind it. Cage is his usually wooden self but he somehow is perfect for the role.
 An unremarkable film but one with a worth while message.
Click here for a synopsis and other facts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_war
Here for the official site:
http://www.lordofwarthemovie.com/
Here for more:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0399295/
And here for more:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/lord_of_war/

21 Grams

 Well it is Saturady evening and I'm home from the video store with five DVDs ( and a reasonable bottle of scotch with which to enjoy the evenings viewing with!).
 How do I beginning reviewing 21 grams? This post is my second attempt at it!! I'll start with the fact that I also rented Monster. An unintentional fluke considering Naomi Watts and Charlize Theron were nominated for best leading actress in these films in the same year. It is now going to be interesting to watch and compare their respective performances. 
 For some reason I didn't see 21 Grams on the big screen. After viewing it I wish I had. This is one of those rarest of films that any superlative just can not be superlative enough. Brilliant and perfect in every way. I can't think of putting it any other way than that. From the acting to the non-lineal way it is made this film delivers in one of the best and emotionally charged films I have ever seen.
 It is absolutely emotionally harrowing. I can honestly say that I had tears in my eyes during two scenes of this film. 21 Grams is an incredibly moving story of three peolpe whose lives are turned up side down by an automible accident and the subsequent impact on them individually. It is a very human film. Any one of us could be one of those three characters and the viewer can not sympathise with one over the other. The viewer sympathises with them all.
 It is a very well thought out and made film. It uses a non-lineal technique to tell the three characters idividual parts in the tragedy. Some crtitics felt it didn't need it, but for me this is the most perfect way in which to have made this film. The scenes of each character are like a short vignette, not too long or too short, and meld the characters role in the events exquisetly. Tarantino's Pulp Fiction revolutionised this technique, but here in 21 Grams we see the technique in all its mastery with
each short scene out of sequence with flash backs, and looks into the future.
 This is a technique many don't like. I am a very big fan of it. 21 Grams is a perfect example of how it is done, and the film does it to perfection. I just love how, because of the short vignette nature of the scenes, a story could be told from three points of view simultaneously and still make a film of under two hours.  A non-lineal film would have been too complicated, too long, and too slow, to achieve the same impact.
 The non-lineal tecnnique only enhances the acting of this film. 21 Grams has some of the best acting  you will ever see in any film of any era. Period. Naomi Watts, Sean Penn and Benicio del Toro are on a level in this film thatIi have rarely seen before. It isn't one stand out performance it is three. The sub-characters are superb and give incredible support to the three main characters. It is a film with no weak links character or acting wise.
 What can I say about them, Watts, Penn , and del Toro?? Believe me I have struggled as to how to put into words their respective performances. Pean we all know is a superb actor and I shall never forget his performance in the outstanding Dead Man Walking ( again, one of the best film I've ever seen). Here he is at his absolute best and I'm hard pressed to decide which is the better performance. He is without doubt one of THE best actors of our times.
 Benicio del Toro is an actor who has somewhat slipped under my radar. He was in the outstanding The Usual Suspects (a favorite of mine!) , and the recent Wolfman, where he, Anthony Hopkins, and Emily Blunt's collective talents couldn't save a mediocre film. So del Toro in 21 Grams was a real revelation for me. He thoroughly deserved his Oscar nomination. Here he plays an ex-con who has turned on his old ways and to God. He accidently runs over Watt's husband and two girls and goes back to jail. Here is the real start of the perfromance as the character starts to battle his belief in God. "How could God let this happen. I done all he asked. I changed" he shouts at his minister. "Do you know where hell is? It's up here" as he thumps the side of his head. An amazing performance and I felt great empathy for him.
 As del Toro's faith in God wavers his whole body language changes. del Toro does it superbly and the makers even greyed his hair to give the look of a man who is under enormous emotional strain. The performance of del Totro is masterful. I really felt for him even though he had been a hoodlum in the past. This was a man who had genuinely wanted to, and had, changed but was pulled back into a world he thought he had left behind.
 Naomi Watts gained attention after Mulholland River. I haven't seen it yet but shall in the next few days. Again, it will be interesting to compare her performances in the two movies.
 Watts here left me breathless, and finding words for her performance is as emotionally draining as watching her performance! She is just brilliant and both times I shed tears in this film is because of Watts. She acts out of her skin as a mother and wife who loses her family. We can all feel her torment as we can put ourselves in her predicament and feel exactly what she is. Watts quite literally falls to pieces on screen, and it is hard to believe you are not watching a real person. This for me is one of the most outstanding female performances you or I will ever see.
 The three together are brilliant. As near to best career performances as any of them will do. Each plays a character so removed from the other but you never feel like you dis-like one over the other. You engage with their personal demons, share them, empathise, and then, like the characters themselves, are drained emotionally by them. It has a very gentle ending with some repemption and finding of peace for both Watts and del Toro. It is the cherry on top. It worked beautifully and left you with something  of a smile after the bruising you have just endured.
 21 Grams is one of the best film you can ever possibly see. It moves and batters you, and then grabs your heart and rips it out of your chest. If you can't cry through this then you are made of ice.  A brilliantly made film all round with acting that has to be seen to be believed.
 An unmissable gut-wrenching tour-de-force of film making.  
Click here for a synopsis and other facts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_grams
Here for the official site:
http://focusfeatures.com/film/21_grams
And here for more:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0315733

Beneath Hill 60

 I went out to see this film in Havelock North just before Christmas. I have the ticket stub but I have so many it would take me longer to find it than write a review! I wanted to review it as I think it is an important contribution to the world's understanding of the Great War.

 This film got virtually no build up or commercial push here in New Zealand which is unusual considering it is an Australian film. I did not know the film had been made until it appeared in New Zealand cinemas. 

 What surprised me was that it was ignored and yet it is also a New Zealand story. Australia was not he only nation to have tunnellers on the Western Front throughout the Great War. New Zealand also had miners there which is a somewhat forgotten fact of our history.

 I will not intrude on the Ausralian nature of this film. It is an Australian story of Australian men that served their country and yet have been somewhat forgotten since. The miners who enlisted to dig tunnels on the Western Front were never formally recognised as regular soldiers. This explains how they have fallen through the cracks of history. The New Zealand miners involved in the same activities suffered the same fate. It is only recently that their contribution to their respective country's military history has come to light and public acknowledgment.

 I think this is one of the better war films made. War films, until recently, suffered the fate of just being made to fill the genre and more often that not were historically inaccurate. Beneath Hill 60 does not suffer this fate. It is an unglamourous look at what these men done in some appalling conditions. It also shows how they not only battled mud, water, collapses, and German counter-tunnellers, but the also the British. Anyone who is from the 'Colonies' will understand the attitude of the British officers involved towards the tunnellers. It was a constant problem for both Australia and New Zealand soldiers throughout the war.

 The part I specifically liked about this film was the sets. The trenches are realistic, and the battle scenes are taut and portray the fear of the men superbly. It did not skimp on any detail to replicate an aunthentic Great War trench system and battlefield. It really is one of the most outstanding war films I have seen for realism. It is this realism that sets this film apart from so many war films made before it.

 It is a film that accompanies Gallipoli very well even though they were made almost thirty years apart. Gallipoli has seared its name on to the histories of Australia and New Zealand and the fact their soldiers were sent to the Western Front after that campaign is often forgotten. This film, whilst only a microism of the Australian war effort on that front, is an important step in filling Australia's (and New Zealand's) understanding of their involvement in that war. 

 I highly recommend this film to everyone. It is a war film but not in the traditional manner. The sets are superb and worth seeing to get even a remote feel for what it was like to serve in the trenches of World War One.

 Do not let this one slip you by.

Click here for more information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beneath_Hill_60

Here for the official site:

http://www.beneathhill60.com.au/

And here for an informative blog:

http://beneathhill60.blogspot.com/
This site is very good on the resrearch for the film:
http://www.beneathhill60.com.au/research.htm 

Jennifer's Body

 Well from a film that promised much and delivered little to a film that is just rubbish!! I rented this the other night and finally watched it earlier today.
 First let me get something straight. I'm not overly keen on Megan fox, as a supposed looker she is not my type. I rented this film to see wether she could stand up in a lead role after the Transformer movies. In a nut shell she can not.
 Amanda Seyfried is much more talented and I'm eagerly awaiting her latetest film Red Riding Hood. I hope it does not disappoint. Seyfried here completely shows up Fox's lack of talent. Seyfried has looks too but she can act within the roles she has been given. I like her and find her far more attractive than Fox. She is clean and natural where as Fox is just slutty.
 This film and the role of Fox comfirms why. We are expected to believe that Fox's character is a virgin as a group of young musicians sacrifice her to a demon to gain fame. This is after she had been wriggling her behind at every guy she sees and dressing like a tramp. Boy did the script writers get that one wrong. No one could mistake that sort of behaviour coming from a virgin. She is a slut pure and simple.
 It is just so poorly scripted that we are expected to believe that Fox's slut is best friends with Seyfried's geek. This film is aimed at hormonal teenaged boys who will dream of Fox and Seyfried after viewing it. It is so bad that the flaws of the script are supposed to be covered up by Fox and Seyfried doing sex scenes, both hetro and lesbian (Fox and Seyfried have a pashing session towards the end).
 The film is targeted as a horror but it is not even close. There is nothing scarey here, and any percieved horror is just lame. It can't even deliver any comedy when it attempts too. What is this film actually trying to be?
 I will tell you. It is just a smutty use of Fox and Seyfried. It is sad to see Seyfried use her looks in such a poor film that really degrades her ability as an actress. Sadly this film is nothing more that a cheap fanasty for naughty little schoolboys to get their jollies over.
 It is truely hard to believe that a guy who can make a truely fine film like the acclaimed Juno can sink to the level of this garbage. What oh what was he thinking??
  All in all this film is an insult to one's intelligence and as poor a film as it is possible to see. Cheap and utter rubbish. It should be avoided. It has no redeeming features and is nothing but a film for little boys.
Click here for a synopsis:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1131734/

The Green Hornet

 I saw this the day before Unknown. I had a free ticket and saw it at the 3.30p.m session.
 This film is based on an early Twentieth Century radio programme. This made it quite ambitious to be the first  attempt at a film version. I was expecting much from this film and the shorts to it looked promising. 
 Sadly I was let down. The idea is good and the film could really have gone places but it just straight out falls flat. I personally found Seth Rogen a big part of the problem. He plays a bumbling slacker but he doesn't play it well enough. It fact he is absolutely awful and totally iritating. 
 He tries too hard to be an idiot and his constant 'whoas' and 'awesome' quickly wear thin. Rogen can be quite good, think Pineapple Express, but here he fails to deliver a viable character. He is annoying and unescapable, which completely overshadows the whole film.
 Christopher Waltz is attempting to re-create the menace of his character in Tarantino's Inglorious Basterds. It is unfortunate type casting and I hope he does not full into that trap. He tries to be scary but just isn't, and fails to deliver a believable gangster who is under siege from the Green Hornet.
 It is a concern when the supporting cast are better than the two main protagonists. Diaz is just Diaz but she is still streets ahead of Rogen! Chou is something of an unknown and is probably the hightlight of the film. He plays the under-valued side-kick well. He is a character who really carries the Green Hornet and his bumbling ways.
 It is an action/superhero/comedy flick so there are lots of fights, explosions etc. and a very cool car that totally steals the show!! There is nothing new here action wise. The plot of an every day guy deciding to be a superhero was done better in the recent, and far superior, Kick Ass.
 This is an unfortunate film. It could have been a really good addition to the superhero/comedy/action/ genre. It fails to deliver on an initial promising premise. Seth Rogen is just painful. The humour is drab, and overall the film just fails on its initial promise. I seriously hope there is not a sequel!
 Too be honest....don't bother! You want it to be good but you will finish watching it disappointed in the fact that it just wasn't.
Click here for a synopsis and other facts:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0990407/
For more:
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/green_hornet/
And here for the official site:
http://www.greenhornetmovie.com/