Quickflix® DVD & Movie Blog

Mary and Max enters the Oscar race!

noreply@blogger.com (Simon Miraudo) — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 04:50:00 +0000

source: variety.com

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences have announced the shortlist of films that will compete for Best Animated Feature at next year's Oscar ceremony. Australia's own Mary and Max is one of 20 films that are under consideration.

One of the Academy rules is that if more than 16 films are submitted for consideration, the category expands to five nominations.

The shortlist is as follows:

Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel
Astro Boy
Battle for Terra
Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs
Coraline
Disney’s A Christmas Carol
The Dolphin – Story of a Dreamer
Fantastic Mr. Fox
Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs
Mary and Max
The Missing Lynx
Monsters vs. Aliens
9
Planet 51
Ponyo
The Princess and the Frog
The Secret of Kells
Tinker Bell and the Lost Treasure
A Town Called Panic
Up

The last time there were five nominees was in 2002, when Studio Ghibli's Spirited Away took the top prize.

If I had to make some predictions, I would say the five frontrunners are Up, Ponyo, Coraline, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, and our very own Mary and Max. Critics didn't fall in love with A Christmas Carol, Monsters vs. Aliens or Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs. Perhaps the only wildcard is Wes Anderson's Fantastic Mr. Fox, which is yet to receive a wide release in the U.S.

Mary and Max is not the only major Aussie Oscar contender. Samson and Delilah has been entered for consideration in the Best Foreign Language Film category.

The 82nd Academy Awards will be held in Los Angeles on the 7th of March, 2010. The ceremony will be hosted by Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin.

Discuss: So, which four movies will lose to Up?

Would you like to go Head to Head?

noreply@blogger.com (Simon Miraudo) — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 03:16:00 +0000

We're not big on bragging here at Quickflix, except when it comes to our HEAD TO HEAD feature, which is, without question, the best thing to ever happen to the internet. Want to learn more about how to join in on the festivities? Scroll past the ninja cats and find out!

With our HEAD TO HEAD feature, we replicate the addictive sensation of a passionate and fiery film related argument. You have the opportunity to defend films you love and decry films you hate! You can argue about a film's artistic merit, or argue about the state of cinema in general! Or, like our resident reviewer Simon Miraudo, you can get really personal and question the mental stability of those that disagree with you!

You could win FREE MOVIE TICKETS by sending us mini-reviews of the movies you love (or love to hate)! Any film is on the table. Nothing is off limits. Be brave! Be daring! Be controversial! Defend the films no one else will, or cut down some tall poppies that always get a free ride!

"I'm telling you Richard, Michael Haneke is overrated!"
"And I'm telling you Eric, I'm going to punch you in your damn mouth!"

The best and most convincing reviews will be published on the Quickflix Blog in our regular Head to Head feature. Our Quickflix critic Simon Miraudo will argue against you, and the winner will be selected by the Quickflix community!

But don’t freak out! Win or lose, if your review is selected for publication, we'll send you FREE MOVIE TICKETS to a great new release film! Now we only have limited tickets to send out and ONLY THE PUBLISHED REVIEWERS WILL RECEIVE TICKETS.

Check out some examples here:

Happiness
Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince
Cloverfield
2001: A Space Odyssey

So what are you waiting for! Email us with your mini-review (no more than 150 words) and a picture of yourself (optional, but please do!) and you could find yourself the victor of Australia’s fiercest, most-brutal showdown since Thunderdome.

Ladies and Gentlemen, this just got real.

Send your reviews to us here!

Art attack - Night at the Museum 2: Battle of the Smithsonian DVD review

noreply@blogger.com (Simon Miraudo) — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 01:00:00 +0000

Night at the Museum 2: Battle of the Smithsonian – Starring Ben Stiller, Amy Adams and Hank Azaria. Directed by Shawn Levy. Rated PG. Originally published May 19th, 2009. By Simon Miraudo.

Let’s face it; there is only ONE thing parents want to know about the sequel to 2005’s megasuccessful Night at the Museum: "will it distract my kid for an hour and a half?" I really hate to reduce a film to such a base pre-requisite; but as dreary-eyed and sleep-deprived mums and dads prepare to hand over their well-earned money for a family outing, I feel it is my sworn duty as a film reviewer to prepare them adequately. The answer is yes. Mostly. Unless your six-year-old child is known for walking out of a cinema saying “the colour palette was great, but the pacing was way off.”

So parents, if you’ve managed to escape the clutches of your children for another five minutes, won’t you join us as we delve deeper into Shawn Levy’s Night at the Museum 2: Battle of the Smithsonian. Of course, attempting a profound analysis of NATM2:BOTS would be like attempting to swim up a skyscraper – unnecessary, painful and kind-of embarrassing. This film has no interest in being smart. This is a film in which even Rodin’s Thinker doesn’t really have much going on upstairs. It would be unfair to expect the same from the movie.

Ben Stiller returns as Larry Daly, the former night-guard of the Museum of Natural History-turned millionaire inventor. Although the exhibits at the museum still come to life at night (thanks to a magical Egyptian relic), Larry hasn’t found the time in his busy schedule to check up on friends Teddy Roosevelt (Robin Williams), tiny cowboy Jedediah (Owen Wilson) and cheeky Capuchin Dexter. In his absence, the exhibits have been packed up and sent for archival storage under the Smithsonian in Washington.

Larry decides to head on over to rescue his friends who are now under attack from newly resurrected Egyptian overlord Kah Mun Rah (a wonderfully hammy Hank Azaria) as well as Ivan the Terrible (an underused Christopher Guest), Napoleon Bonaparte (Alain Chabat) and Al Capone (Jon Bernthal). And no, you weren’t sleeping in history class; Kah Mun Rah is not an actual Egyptian figure. Kind of odd that screenwriters Thomas Lennon and Robert Ben Garant felt the need to invent a villain, despite having centuries of crazy dictators to borrow from. Saying that, I’m not sure how parents would feel about taking their children to a movie in which Adolf Hitler himself turns up to cause mischief. Maybe in Night at the Museum 3: Triumph of the Will.

So, it’s basically the same high-concept shenanigans as the first outing, although with some welcome new cast members. Amy Adams turns up as Amelia Earhart, to steal the heart of both Ben Stiller and the entire audience. Quite seriously, if there is a more lovable actress working today, I will eat my shoes. Saturday Night Live funnyman Bill Hader stars as General Custer, while his Superbad co-star Jonah Hill is an early highlight as an edgy museum guard. This is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to naming the great comic actors who spend their night at the Smithsonian; each of them having a great time and doing their darndest to make you laugh.

Sadly, with so many great actors, the film ends up being a bloated mess of missed potential, with virtually all secondary characters given (at the most) two or three minutes of screen time. To briefly speak of the picture's technical attributes, NATM2 features a smorgasbord of unconvincing CGI and green-screen acting. I’m not sure if anyone in this film actually acted alongside anyone else, or if the performances were all cut together in the editing suite. Finally, director Levy doesn’t have the visual chops of a Burton or a Del Toro to inspire awe in the audience. Seeing Stiller and Adams fly the Wright Brothers Plane through the Air and Space Museum should be jaw-dropping. It’s not. With the exception of a brilliant black-and-white sequence that I won’t spoil here, the film lacks imagination. But as far as distractions go, you could do a lot worse. I would go on, but I think the kids are waking up.

2.5/5

Check out my other reviews here

Kick Ass trailer debut!

noreply@blogger.com (Simon Miraudo) — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 07:48:00 +0000

source: traileraddict.com

The trailer for Matthew Vaughn's highly anticipated superhero satire Kick Ass has landed online with a bang. Literally.

The film, adapted from Mark Millar's comic series of the same name, has been building buzz ever since Vaughn showed off some footage at Comic Con this year.

Check out the trailer and let us know your thoughts!

Dave Lizewski (Aaron Johnson) is a teenager who dreams of fame and glory. He decides (perhaps unwisely) that the best way to achieve this is by becoming a masked vigilante named Kick Ass. Although his decision is first met with disastrous consequences, a leaked YouTube video of his exploits makes him a celebrated hero and a household name. However, with this fame comes higher stakes, as he gets the attention of some dangerous crims and meets some previously existing crime fighters, notably Red Mist (Christopher Mintz-Plasse), Big Daddy (Nicolas Cage) and Hit Girl (Chloe Moretz).

I love how the trailer is able to capture the gloriously anarchistic and celebratory violence of the comic book (of which I am a big fan). According to reports from Comic Con, Vaughn has not skimped on the coarse language or extreme volume of blood.

I look forward to seeing more footage of Moretz in action. Considering some of the eye-poppingly violent acts Hit Girl commits in the comic, I can imagine Moretz will become somewhat of a cult figure in 2010. She is also slated to star alongside Kodi Smit-McPhee as the vampiric Abby in Let Me In, the remake of the great Let The Right One In.

Kick Ass opens April 16, 2010 in the United States, with an Australian release to follow.

Discuss: Millar wrote the comic Wanted, which was also adapted for the screen in 2008. Does that make you more or less excited about Kick Ass?

Paranormal goat-ivity

noreply@blogger.com (Simon Miraudo) — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 07:24:00 +0000

source: youtube.com

Well, it had to happen sooner or later. The marketing team behind The Men Who Stare At Goats have attempted to cash in on indie spookfest Paranormal Activity by spoofing its now infamous trailer.

Check out the Goats TV spot below!

And, you can see the original Paranormal Activity trailer here.

The Men Who Stare at Goats stars Ewan McGregor and George Clooney. It tells the (partly) true story of an experimental wing of the Military who attempted to hone their soldiers' psychic abilities. You can check the feature length trailer here. The Grant Heslov-directed picture hits Australian cinemas February 4th, 2010.

Meanwhile, Oren Peli's Paranormal Activity, which may or may not be the most profitable movie of all time, arrives in Oz on the 3rd of December, 2009.

Discuss: Which film are you looking forward to most?

Clash of the Titans trailer debut!

noreply@blogger.com (Simon Miraudo) — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 01:26:00 +0000

source: traileraddict.com

We've made no secret of our excitement for Louis Letterier's remake of Clash of the Titans. After savouring nearly every image from the film's set, we finally have some moving pictures to salivate over as well!

As we've written previously, the film stars Ralph Fiennes as Hades, who threatens to seize power from Zeus (Liam Neeson) and unleash hell on Earth. It is up to Perseus (Sam Worthington) and his band of daring warriors to battle Hades' fearsome beasts and demons, and accept his own power as a God. The film also stars Gemma Arterton, Jason Flemyng and Mads Mikkelson.

Check out the short teaser below and let us know your thoughts.

Doesn't this look like a lot of fun? The 300 similarities are pretty apparent, but this looks like it will be more of a cotton-candy-coloured experience.

Also, I have great faith in any collaboartion between Warner Brothers and Legendary Pictures, who in the past two years have delivered some of the best and bravest mainstream pictures in recent memory (The Dark Knight, Watchmen, Observe and Report, Trick R Treat).

BUT, I do have one gripe. What is with that tagline? TITANS WILL CLASH?!? No duh. That's the best they could come up with? Maybe every movie tagline should be this obvious. "This summer, some couples are goin' on a retreat!"

Ahem. Anyway, Clash of the Titans will hit Australian cinemas April 1, 2010.

Discuss: What are your thoughts on the Clash of the Titans trailer?

Funkyzeit - Bruno DVD review

noreply@blogger.com (Simon Miraudo) — Wed, 11 Nov 2009 01:13:00 +0000

Bruno - Starring Sacha Baron Cohen and Gustaf Hammersten. Directed by Larry Charles. Rated MA. Originally published July 5th, 2009. By Simon Miraudo

There are more laughs to be had in Bruno’s brisk 80 minutes than in the combined entirety of pretty much every other comedy this year. Seeing this film in a packed cinema is about as much fun you can have in a theater without being arrested. In fact, Bruno might even challenge its spiritual predecessor Borat on the laughs-per-minute scale. However, the film is as vapid as its eponymous star. It is equally an evisceration and a tribute to the ultimately empty pursuit of fame.

Sacha Baron Cohen has ditched the mankini and donned the hotpants to embody everyone’s favourite homosexual Austrian fashion guru Bruno. The flamboyant celebrity is fired from his job as host of Funkyzeit mit Bruno after accidentally (wink) sabotaging Milan Fashion Week. Spurned by his fellow fashionistas, Bruno heads to LA to become “the most famous Austrian since Hitler”. Joined by his doe-eyed, 'plain-Jane' assistant Lutz (Gustaf Hammersten), Bruno attempts to produce an American television program, sort out peace in the Middle East, adopt an African baby, and eventually convert to heterosexuality. You know, just like any other average celebrity.

A plot synopsis doesn’t quite capture the visceral thrill of our hero’s bizarre and shocking adventure. Director Larry Charles skillfully welds the fabricated situations with the ‘gotcha’ style confrontations that have made Baron Cohen a legend. His run-ins with a terrorist leader and four homophobic camping buddies will leave you clawing at your eyes in cringe-worthy terror. (I would comment on the fact that a gun was pulled on the crew in the latter situation and not in the former, but I’ll leave that to more intelligent social commentators).

When it comes to jaw-dropping ‘how-the-hell-did-they-get-away-with-that’ moments, Bruno trumps Borat in a big, bad way. Hell, Borat looks like a mild-mannered bank teller when compared to the exploits seen in Bruno. The film has far too many highlights to mention, although I must admit that a particular incident involving a focus group had tears streaming down my face. In fact, I only need to write down the word ‘focus group’ to bring back the giggles. See, I did it again! (You can’t tell but I’m giggling as I write this).

Unfortunately, Bruno lacks the biting social commentary that made Borat a modern classic. In his last film, Baron Cohen eviscerated middle-American culture; he unearthed the bigotry, sexism, homophobia and nervous paranoia of George W. Bush’s U.S.A through the prism of a pseudo-Middle Eastern stereotype. In Bruno, Baron Cohen does reengage the Bible belt, employing the homophobia angle once again. However, he seems mostly concerned with mocking America’s culture of celebrity. And wouldn’t you believe it; he goes easy on them! Of all people, surely the Paris Hilton’s and the Perez Hilton’s of the world deserve a public shaming. Perhaps Baron Cohen is making too many Hollywood friends to have a real go at the glitterati?

The structure of Bruno also feels less organic than Borat's (which was already pretty inorganic). The picture struggles to find a through-line until well into the second act, and the storyline often feels like a rehash of Cohen’s past feature. In the end however, these flaws don’t really dull the gut-busting experience of Bruno. Virtually every punch line scores a hearty laugh, the cringe-worthy moments are beautifully unwatchable, and Baron Cohen’s precise, unflinching and sharp performance is once again pitch-perfect. This man is heading to the all-time comedy hall of fame, if he’s not there already. Of course, the flick won’t be for everyone. For instance, if you find penises (real or fake) confronting, you can pretty much write off a solid 40% of the film’s material. Dr. Manhattan himself would blush at the frequency (and sometimes even the application) of the members that turn up in Bruno. But hey, Sacha Baron Cohen doesn’t make movies for your grandmother. That is, unless she’s a pretty awesome grandmother.

4.5/5

Check out my other reviews here.

Reminder! The Brothers Bloom hits Australian cinemas this week

noreply@blogger.com (Simon Miraudo) — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 06:35:00 +0000

source: traileraddict.com

It has been a long time coming, but Rian Johnson's The Brothers Bloom will finally hit Australian cinemas this Thursday.

We first reported on this flick last September, noting our excitement for Johnson's follow-up to his cult hit Brick. After several shuffles on the release calendar, the film finally saw a bit of distribution in the U.S. Now, us Aussies can also bask in Mr. Johnson's latest effort.

The Brothers Bloom stars Mark Ruffalo and Adrien Brody as the titular con artists and Rachel Weisz as their eccentric mark.

Take a look at the trailer and check your listings for screening times this weekend.

Finally, if you are yet to see Brick, DO IT. Like, right now.

UPDATE! I have been reminded that Rian Johnson released an MP3 Audio Commentary track for The Brothers Bloom. You can listen to it here, or download it on iTunes (just search for Brothers Bloom in the iTunes store).

Discuss: Thoughts on Brick? Awesome, right?

Boyle follows Slumdog with real-life Saw

noreply@blogger.com (Simon Miraudo) — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 00:55:00 +0000

source: variety.com

Oscar-winning director Danny Boyle has announced that his next project will be 127 Hours, a biopic about the mountaineer Aron Ralston.

127 Hours will be Boyle's first film since Best Picture winner and all-round mega hit Slumdog Millionaire.

Although you might not immediately recognise his name, Aron Ralston's story has become mountaineering legend.

During a climb in May 2003, Ralston's forearm was crushed under a boulder. He was pinned in the same spot for nearly five days until he decided to pull out a knife (a dulled knife no less) and cut off his own arm. With only one remaining arm, he scaled a 65-foot sheer wall and hiked to safety.

Boyle has written the treatment, while his Slumdog-cohort (and fellow Oscar winner) Simon Beaufoy will write the screenplay.

However, according to a recent interview with Boyle, it seems as if Beaufoy might not have too much of a hard time coming up with dialogue for the actor playing Ralston.

Boyle insists that the first hour of the film will feature no dialogue. Just Ralston and the rock.

Although there is no official green light or budget, I can't imagine Boyle will have any trouble getting this picture off the ground.

He hopes to begin production March 2010, with a release later that year.

Discuss: OK, so who would you like to see play Ralston? The rumour is that Ryan Gosling is interested, but personally, this seems like a plum role for Sam Rockwell. And not just because of the name-related pun.

Prince of Persia trailer debut!

noreply@blogger.com (Simon Miraudo) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 05:02:00 +0000

source: traileraddict.com

The trailer for Mike Newell's adaptation of the popular video game Prince of Persia has debuted online.

Just kidding. Here's a better look.

Jake Gyllenhaal stars as in Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time as Dastan, a street urchin who becomes the heir to the Persian throne. He teams up with Princess Tamina (Gemma Arterton, ahhh, the lovely Gemma Arterton) to retrieve the fabled Sands of Time from the villainous Nizam (Ben Kingsley).

Check out the trailer and let us know your thoughts!

It's clear that Disney are trying to deliver another Pirates of the Carribbean-flavoured franchise, and who can blame them. You can't argue with close to $3 billion in ticket sales.

Frankly, I've got a lot of faith in Gyllenhaal, Arterton and Newell. Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time hits Australian cinemas May 28, 2010.

P.S. You can watch the audio commentary for the trailer by the creator of the game Jordan Mechner here at IGN.

Discuss: Could Prince of Persia be the first video-game adaptation that works as a genuinely good film? Or do you already hold a special place in your heart for another video game movie?

Lesson learned - A Christmas Carol review

noreply@blogger.com (Simon Miraudo) — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 02:30:00 +0000

A Christmas Carol - Starring Jim Carrey, Gary Oldman and Colin Firth. Directed by Robert Zemeckis. Rated PG. By Simon Miraudo.

Robert Zemeckis’ adaptation of Charles Dickens’ A Christmas Carol is technically perfect. And so it should be. The director has spent the better part of the decade refining motion-capture technology for this very film; to capture the maniacally expressive Jim Carrey and turn him into Ebenezer Scrooge as well as the three Christmas ghosts who haunt him. Every inch of London circa 1800 has been stunningly recreated from within a bank of interconnected, ever-rendering computers. As a result, this is perhaps the closest we’ve ever gotten to an entirely faithful rendition of A Christmas Carol. However (and it’s a big however), Dickens’ tale is not famous for its stunning depiction of 19th century London. It’s famous for being one of the truest and most affecting morality tales ever told; a frightening, devastating, yet heart-warming story about what it means to be a good human being. The thing is, in Zemeckis’ Christmas Carol, there isn’t a human being in sight.

Motion-capture (or mo-cap as we’ll be referring to it from here on) has been met with equal amounts of acclaim and disdain since the technology debuted. When used to bring animals or inhuman characters to life, as in King Kong, Lord of the Rings and even District 9, it can be a stunning tool that aids the storytelling. Zemeckis is not happy with inhuman characters though. He is constantly in pursuit of capturing actors and animating them onscreen in slightly modified forms. It’s a valiant task. However, instead of giving us photo-realistic CG characters, or even slightly caricatured animated humans (as in Up or The Incredibles), he slides into the uncanny valley, introducing us to supposedly-realistic ‘humans’ that are both too human and not human enough.

Before I go on, a quick recap of the story that has been covered by everyone from The Muppets to The McConaughey. Ebenezer Scrooge has shuffled spitefully through his life, placing an emphasis on money over mateship. Living a life of isolation, he particularly despises Christmas, in which the spirit of poverty-stricken London is high. On the night before Christmas, he is visited by the Ghost of Christmas Past, Ghost of Christmas Present and the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come, who each try to warm his icy cockles and warn him away from a life without love.

How I wished throughout the entirety of this film that I was not seeing an almost perfect animated rendering of Jim Carrey, but instead a live-action version of the talented actor. I’d much rather watch him transform into elderly Ebenezer with his body; the greatest acting tool he has. Carrey throws himself courageously into the role, but to no avail. His voice work is subtle and stunning. I honestly believe that had Zemeckis gone the live-action route, there would be whispers of an Oscar with Carrey’s name on it. But he didn’t, so there won’t.

Carrey is not the only actor working hard for Zemeckis. The great Gary Oldman plays Bob Cratchit (Scrooge’s put-upon employee), Jacob Marley (the ghost of Scrooge’s former business partner), and even Tiny Tim (Cratchit’s crippled son). Phew. Bob Hoskins, Robin Wright Penn and Cary Elwes fill in the rest of the cast, each playing multiple small roles. Colin Firth also pops up as Scrooge’s nephew Fred. What a talented cast! What a talented director! What a great, great story for them all to sink their teeth into! Sigh.

Zemeckis does deserve points for his bravery. His adaptation is the straightest, most adult retelling of the Dickens’ tale I can recall. There are few laughs; not that the film is striving to make the audience chuckle. In fact, the picture edges closer to horror than comedy; some scenes are downright scary. I personally feel that Zemeckis’ take is too serious. There is no joy throughout the entire proceedings; not even in the final scenes as Scrooge experiences his epiphany.

Speaking of epiphanies, you’d be forgiven for not noticing Scrooge even have one in this film. What a shame, because in the end, the epiphany is the essence of A Christmas Carol. Throughout the adventure we look back on Scrooge’s life, understand where he has come from and why he is the way he is, and then he too understands why he must turn over a new leaf. No such revelation occurs in Zemeckis’ version; or perhaps I just didn’t notice it. Must be that pesky mo-cap again. The blame well and truly rests on the director’s decision to tell the story with this technology. It feels so unnatural; slightly off. We cannot engage with or care about these characters. All that is left is to sit back and ritually tick the checklist in our mind of the events that take place in Dickens’ tale. With a price tag of $175 million, Zemeckis might have even been able to pinch some pennies by abandoning the mo-cap and filming A Christmas Carol in live action. Hmm, I sound a little like Scrooge. Bah humbug!

2/5

Check out my other reviews here.

Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin to co-host Oscars

noreply@blogger.com (Simon Miraudo) — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 03:09:00 +0000

source: reuters.com

Comedy legend Steve Martin and one-time Oscar nominee Alec Baldwin have been named as the hosts of the 2010 Academy Awards ceremony.

The announcement of the hosting duo comes as a surprise following last year's Hugh Jackman-hosted telecast, in which the song-and-dance man aided in a ratings boost for the flailing awards show.

Martin previously hosted the 2001 and 2003 ceremonies. Baldwin, who was nominated for Best Supporting Actor in 2004 for his performance in The Cooler, is a first-time Oscar host.

The two are also starring together in the upcoming Nancy Meyers comedy It's Complicated, alongside Meryl Streep.

"I don't play the banjo but I'm thrilled to be hosting the Oscars -- it's the opportunity of a lifetime," Baldwin said in a statement.

"I am happy to co-host the Oscars with my enemy Alec Baldwin," Martin said.

Hairspray director Adam Shankman will co-produce the show. It will be held in Los Angeles on March 7th, 2010.

Oh, and It's Complicated hits Australian cinemas January 7th, 2010.

Discuss: I'm big fans of Martin and Baldwin, BUT, wouldn't it have been great if Meryl Streep could have also joined them. She is one funny lady. I guess the problem is that she's always nominated, so it's a bit of a conflict of interest to have her host as well. Anyway, your thoughts?

Money talks - Capitalism: A Love Story review

noreply@blogger.com (Simon Miraudo) — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 12:00:00 +0000

Capitalism: A Love Story. Directed by Michael Moore. Rated M. By Simon Miraudo.

Michael Moore, the documentarian, is manipulative, exploitative, self-aggrandising, and sometimes flat out incorrect. On the other hand, Michael Moore, the filmmaker, is funny, explosive, entertaining and always manages to find the emotional truth at the core of his subjects. Critics and fans alike have been wrestling with this dichotomy for the past two decades; each side of Moore threatening to discredit the other. Capitalism: A Love Story is unlikely to settle this debate. The director’s latest project claims to examine the financial credit crisis that sent shockwaves throughout the world. Of course, that’s just the entry point. As with all of Moore’s films, this is really about the fall of The American Dream, with Moore acting as our tour guide into the rotten core of his beloved country. And once again, his heart is in the right place. If only he could keep his ego out of it.

Growing up, I will admit, this man was my hero. I savoured every one of his pictures, including 1989’s Roger and Me, 2003’s Bowling for Columbine and 2004’s Fahrenheit 9/11 (which I saw three times in cinemas). I relished his television program The Awful Truth and I devoured all of his books. He introduced me to issues that I previously wouldn’t have blinked an eyelid at and he helped me develop a social conscience. His movies not only made me want to be a better person, but also made me demand a better world. They also temporarily turned me into a self-righteous pinko who had no qualms about making others feel bad for having a different set of ideologies to mine. Thankfully, it turned out to be just a phase, like Pokémon. Looking back on his films, I can acknowledge that there are some downright cringe-worthy moments that are embarrassing in their manipulative execution. So I view each new film by Moore with trepidation. Inside of me, fighting to be heard is both an emotional teenager and an adult who knows better.

Hmmm. If we’ve learnt anything from this review so far, it is that I have more in common with Moore than I’d like to admit; specifically, an obsession with talking about myself instead of the issue at hand. I apologise. Perhaps I’m dodging the film because it’s difficult to know how to come at it. After all, Capitalism: A Love Story comes at you; it doesn’t sit there waiting to be reviewed. I wish that I could examine this movie as an objective observer, but there is no room here for anything close to objectivity. Moore’s films are made to be viewed by fans, enemies, victims and criminals. Categorise yourself accordingly.

The basic thesis of Capitalism: A Love Story is that the American people have been betrayed by their Government, who are blinded by their own greed and their allegiances to the higher ups on Wall Street. Moore introduces us to a few middle-to-lower class families who paid the price for the greed of others. We meet an elderly couple unceremoniously kicked out of their home, and in a final humiliation, hired by the Government to take all their belongings to a dump. We sympathise with a young widow, whose husband’s death earned his employers almost $5 million in life insurance. And in the film’s most triumphant sequence, we watch as a group of factory workers revolt against their unfair dismissal and stage a sit-down strike. Moore, regardless of his own financial situation, has always championed the little guy, and for once, doesn’t try to pretend he is still one of them. In fact, the film’s running joke is that he must constantly deal with the fact that he is one of the most recognisable faces in America. He steps back from the limelight, and even cuts down on the doorstop intrusions (!) to let regular Americans tell their tragic stories.

Sadly, there are two films at war here. The first is a documentary, featuring the aforementioned tales of struggling American families. The second is your traditional Michael Moore polemic, in which he deploys strategically cut stock-footage and comic digressions to sell his opinion rather than discover the truth. In his previous pictures, he weaved these two elements seamlessly (and perhaps dangerously) making him possibly the most divisive filmmaker of the 21st century. In Capitalism, he has split himself in two as a means of appeasing both his fans and critics; to make it easier for them to distinguish between Fact and Fun. Of course, what good is Michael Moore if he can’t generate controversy and conversation? Love him or hate him, his films have been the cause of some electric discussions. I fear that if he acquiesces further and keeps on trying to please everyone, we will lose an important filmmaker.

The film has its flaws, a couple of half-truths and some maddening digressions (he asks Priests whether capitalism is a sin, in a sequence sure to lead both believers and atheists to squirm). Michael Moore will never be Errol Morris or Ken Burns. Viewers are aware that he is trying to manipulate them and the debate will continue to rage on over his qualifications as a documentarian. Moore knows that now, and he embraces it. He makes no apologies for his angry, passionate rants, and he’ll be damned if anyone tries to prove him wrong. But the core of his argument is sound: the American people deserve better. And no one argues as passionately, hilariously and heartbreakingly as Moore.

4/5

Check out my other reviews here.

Joss Whedon offers to buy Terminator rights for $10,000

noreply@blogger.com (Simon Miraudo) — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 11:14:00 +0000

source: deadline.com

Last month we reported that the rights to the Terminator franchise were about to be sold to the highest bidder. Well step aside Hollywood bigwigs. Joss Whedon is writing a cheque your butt can't cash.

The Buffy creator has penned a (tongue-in-cheque) letter to "The Terminator Owners" on his blog, in which he offers to take the franchise off their hands for an impressive five-figure sum.

And he writes:

"I will write a check TODAY for $10,000, and viola! Terminator off your hands. No, you didn't miscount. That's four -- FOUR! -- zeroes after that one. That's to show you I mean business. And I mean show business."

It's hard to argue with logic like that. Take a look at his proposed changes for the action series:

1) Terminator... of the Rings! Yeah, what if he time-travelled TOO far... back to when there was dragons and wizards? (I think it was the Dark Ages.) Hasta La Vista, Boramir! Cool, huh? "Now you gonna be Gandalf the Red!" RRRRIP! But then he totally helps, because he's a cyborg and he doesn't give a s#&% about the ring -- it has no power over him! And he can carry it AND Frodo AND Sam AND f@%& up some orcs while he's doing it. This stuff just comes to me. I mean it. (I will also offer $10,000 for the Lord of the Rings franchise).

2) More Glau. Hey. There's a reason they're called "Summer" movies.

3) Can you say... musical? Well don't. Even I know that's an awful idea.

4) Christian Bale's John Connor will get a throat lozenge. This will also help his Batwork (ten grand for that franchise too, btw.)

5) More porn. John Connor never told Kyle Reese this, but his main objective in going to the past was to get some. What if there's a lot of future-babies that have to be made? Cue wah-wah pedal guitar -- and dollar signs!

6) The movies will stop getting less cool.

Well, we can't deny that Terminator in the hands of Whedon would improve the series' flagging quality.

However, it is unlikely that "The Terminator Owners" would sign the rights over to Whedon for ten grand.

Nikke Finke reports that all the big studios are interested in the franchise, with Sony leading the charge. However, smaller studios like Summit Entertainment and Media Rights Capital are also interested in the Terminator package, which will include the rights to all Terminator films, spin-offs and television series.

Check out our complete write-up on the Terminator Rights Saga.

We'll be sure to let you know who ends up with the rights. In the meantime, I'll hand it over to Mr. Whedon to wrap up.

"I really believe the Terminator franchise has only begun to plumb the depths of questioning the human condition during awesome stunts, and I'd like to shepherd it through the next phase. The money is there, but more importantly, the heart is there. But more importantly, money. Think about it. End this bloody bidding war before it begins, and put the Terminator in the hands of someone who watched the first one more than any other movie in college, including "Song of Norway" (no current franchise offer). Sincerely, Joss Whedon."

Read his full letter here!

Discuss: OK, if we rally together, we could probably buy the rights for Whedon. I'm willing to chip in $10. Does anyone have a spare $40-60 million lying around?

Scrap metal - Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen DVD review

noreply@blogger.com (Simon Miraudo) — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 10:00:00 +0000

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen – Starring Shia LaBeouf, Megan Fox and John Turturro. Directed by Michael Bay. Rated M. Originally published June 23, 2009. By Simon Miraudo.

As Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen lumbered towards its 147th (and thankfully final) minute, I could barely move from my regulation cinema seat. My legs were weak, my ears were shot, and my eyes were just shy of bleeding. I felt as if I had been pummeled to submission by a fleet of the film’s skyscraper-sized robots; punished for my gluttonous fanboy wish to see more fighting robots than those featured in Michael Bay’s 2007 blockbuster Transformers. Now we get what must be approximately 130 minutes of robots punching on. Only 20 minutes or so are bearable. I can imagine post-traumatic stress wards being setup just outside screenings of the film; audience members rushed out on gurneys, screaming out from the strewn tears across their face: “Why won’t they stop fighting! They just won’t stop fighting!”

So, you may have noticed by now that this won’t be the most positive review of Transformers 2 that you’ll ever read. I’m sure many of you are wondering what I’m complaining about. “130 minutes of fighting robots? That’s incredible!” Hey, normally, I’d be right with you. But you know that cliché about your father finding you with a cigarette in your mouth, and then forcing you to smoke the whole packet? Bay’s latest is like that punishment, but instead of a whole packet of cigarettes, your father sets up a tobacco plantation in your lungs.

Describing the plot of Revenge of the Fallen pretty much equates to making “boom, crash, kablooey” noises, but I’ll attempt to distill all the boring, non-explodey elements into this bite-sized paragraph. Sam Witwicky (Shia LaBeouf) is headed to college, hoping to leave behind his ties to the Transformers and become a normal kid. Well, as normal a kid can be while still dating Megan Fox (who is all sex and no heart as Sam’s girlfriend Mikaela). However, his brain has been implanted with a map to a dangerous location, and the evil Decepticons, led by their fallen leader named, um, The Fallen, want it. Enter Optimus Prime and the Autobots to save Sam, and the world.

Now the plot of the first Transformers wasn’t exactly Chinatown by comparison, but the mood was light and the action fairly well paced. It was over soon enough and delivered exactly what it promised: a fun, exciting film based around a line of Hasbro toys. Bay earned a gold star in everyone’s book and we all awaited the inevitable sequel excitedly. Revenge of the Fallen however plays more like Pearl Harbor 2, from the heavy-handed seriousness to the clumsy racial stereotypes (a couple of ‘ethnic’ robots seem to have walked straight out of the Kirk Lazarus School of Racial Sensitivity). Bay does know how to put an action sequence together. The set-pieces in the flick are consistently satisfying, and yes, feature plenty of robots punching each other. But by the 2hour 20 mark, even the most hardcore action fan would be eying the exit.

Bay contrasts the ‘very serious face’ moments of the film with so-called ‘funny smile face’ moments (by the way, judging by the performances, I can only assume the above notes were the extent of the acting direction from the auteur). Applying his trademark sledgehammer sense of humour, Bay fills the film with ‘jokes’ and ‘one-liners’ that are the visual equivalent of the “stop-hitting-yourself” gag that was always pulled by the meanest and dumbest students of your high school class. I suppose some of the blame should fall on screenwriters Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman, but I cannot accept that the screenwriters of the wonderful Star Trek could stoop so low.

The original Transformers had two wild cards in its pocket. The first was charismatic star Shia LaBeouf, and the second was executive producer Steven Spielberg. This time around, LaBeouf plays second fiddle to all the robot-fighting, yet we’re still expected to connect to him as the film's emotional core. While The Beouf tries valiantly, not even he can salvage this mess. As for Spielberg, he must have been skiing while the script was being pieced together, because there is virtually no heart in the whole beast. Bay is not the man you hire for subtle characterisation; he is the man you hire for extravagant excess. In that respect, he delivers. However, this film sorely needed a couple of rewrites (the script was rushed due to the WGA strike) and a hefty edit. Then again, where would all the robot-fighting go? Be careful what you wish for I guess.

2/5

Check out my other reviews here.

Head to Head - Happiness

noreply@blogger.com (Simon Miraudo) — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 07:42:00 +0000

Welcome to the latest edition of Head to Head, in which our Quickflix critic takes on our readers in a rip-snorting battle to the death! You pick the film, and we pick the fight!

This week, we received our very first challenge from the United States of America! C. Fitzpatrick Biggs told us how unhappy he was with Todd Solondz's controversial film Happiness. You can win free movie tickets by sending your mini-reviews to us here at Quickflix!

C. Fitzpatrick Biggs will argue AGAINST the film, while Quickflix critic Simon Miraudo will argue FOR it. Let us know in the comments section below who you agree with. Spare no vitriol! Choose your side! There can only be one winner!

C. Fitzpatrick Biggs - 0/5

Happiness is a hip movie for critics to like, but it is entirely devoid of substance. Allen (P.S. Hoffman) and Maplewood (Dylan Baker) come off as caricatures, despite the actor’s intentions; any flaw in the characters is the fault of the writer/director, Todd Solondz, alone. I can see where this film tries to be innovative like Neil LaBute's efforts, but instead is an excessive exercise in self-congratulations a’la Michael Haneke. An in-depth look at human relationships, depression, and parenthood should create introspection in the viewer. What we receive instead is gratuitous ejaculation shots for the director's amusement and is just controversial for its own sake.

Simon Miraudo - 4/5

Fitz, I cannot sit idly by and let this challenging picture be completely eviscerated. While Solondz’ films have been known to get swallowed up in his own over-inflated sense of self-worth, Happiness remains a fascinating and thought-provoking picture about the nature of despair. How do these human beings deal with the revelation that they might be rotten at their core? I don’t believe Allen and Maplewood come off as caricatures; in fact, I believe Todd Solondz treats these depraved beings with love and respect, which is more than you could say for any character in a Haneke film. (I do agree with you on that point Fitz; Haneke is terrible. He hates his characters AND his audience. Funny Games – now THAT is a 0-STAR movie!)

Now it's over to you! What were your thoughts on Happiness? Let us know in the comments section below. And if you would like to be featured in the next Head to Head, and possibly win some free movie tickets, send your mini-reviews to us here at Quickflix!

Head to Head - Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince

noreply@blogger.com (Simon Miraudo) — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 01:53:00 +0000

Welcome to the latest edition of Head to Head, in which our Quickflix critic takes on our readers in a rip-snorting battle to the death! You pick the film, and we pick the fight!

This week, Adam Gerekink took out his wand and shouted "expectum crapola" in the direction of Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince. For his troubles, he received some free movie tickets. You can too by sending your mini-reviews to us here at Quickflix!

Adam Gerekink will argue AGAINST the film, while Quickflix critic Simon Miraudo will argue FOR it. Let us know in the comments section below who you agree with. Spare no vitriol! Choose your side! There can only be one winner!

Adam Gerekink - 2/5

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THE WORLD? First The Ring remake, and now this? A relatively talented director takes a series into quote-unquote Dark Territory and this is what we get? Sure, it may be lauded by critics, and sure, the fans may LOVE it, but all this film consisted of was a bunch of kids reading lines like a high school musical, a smattering of teen angst and hormones that are COMPLETELY over-wrought, an astounding cast of virtually every Brit thesp providing, I must admit, some very good performances, and the medium-age Tom Riddle was actually genuinely terrifying but that's not the point! All of these pros are pushed to the CG background while boredom and recitation takes centre stage. The battles were few and far between (and boringly sober to say the least) and every verbal confrontation between the students is laughably tame and faux melodramatic. So far, my wife, a friend and I are apparently the only people who didn't enjoy this at all, but we can't be the only ones right? Right?! Hello...? Either way, this viewer that enjoyed the book series is seriously considering skipping the next two films altogether, because you don't wash a mouth full of dirt out with a quick rinse of mud.

Simon Miraudo - 4/5

Oh Adam, don’t you remember what it was like to be young and in love? Think back to the first time you saw your wife; perhaps glancing over at her longingly, just hoping she would look back at you in the same way? In Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, David Yates and his incredibly talented young cast manage to recreate all those wonderful, awful, gut-churning feelings of unrequited teenage love. The film is full of good old fashioned adolescent ribaldry. As I wrote in my review, there are “luscious kisses in darkened hallways; drunken butter beer binges; experimentation with mind-altering ‘potions’.” Of course, as you mentioned Adam, Harry Potter 6 is primarily made up of darker elements. But I don’t resent this tonal shift; I cherish it. Once upon a time, children’s films didn’t pander to their young audience. Pictures like The Witches, The Goonies and Raiders of the Lost Ark provided family adventures that were sometimes terrifying. The Harry Potter franchise now happily sits amongst these golden oldies. Also Adam, you mentioned: “my wife, a friend and I” … I don’t know what kind of situation you’ve got going at your house, but I like it!

Now it's over to you! What were your thoughts on Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince? Let us know in the comments section below. And if you would like to be featured in the next Head to Head, and possibly win some free movie tickets, send your mini-reviews to us here at Quickflix!

Mad Max: Fury Road - What's the deal?

noreply@blogger.com (Simon Miraudo) — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 01:31:00 +0000

source: thr.com

There has been such a glut of rumours surrounding the long-touted Mad Max sequel, we've been reluctant to report any of it. After all, who knows what's what? Well, The Hollywood Reporter seems to know at least a little bit. Check out all the details, including the actor most likely to play Max, after the jump.

Let's break it down.

1. George Miller, writer and director of the three previous Mad Max films, is slated to helm the fourth installment of the franchise.

2. It will be called FURY ROAD, just as Mad Max 2 was really called THE ROAD WARRIOR. I'm sure the words MAD and MAX will be added to the front of the title soon enough.

3. Mel Gibson will NOT reprise his role as Max Rockatansky.

4. The new film will take place shortly after the events of Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome.

5. It will not be an animated film, as Miller has previously suggested.

OK, now here is the really exciting news.

6. British actor Tom Hardy (Rocknrolla, Bronson) is in negotiations to star as Max. (Sorry Jeremy Renner!)

7. Charlize Theron is set to play the female lead. Her role is yet to be disclosed.

8. The film will likely begin shooting in Australia next August. The $100 million local production will be distributed by Warner Bros.

Alright, so now I think we're officially caught up on Mad Max news. If you have any information on Fury Road, please let us know. I'm sure there are going to be plenty of tidbits about this highly anticipated production dribbled out over the coming months.

Discuss: Fury Road - Want it?

Jennifer's Body heading direct-to-DVD in Australia

noreply@blogger.com (Simon Miraudo) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 07:20:00 +0000

source: celluloidtongue.blogspot.com

The Diablo Cody-penned horror film Jennifer's Body, once considered a sure-fire hit for Twentieth Century Fox, will now head straight to DVD in Australia following a disastrous run in American cinemas. Honest to blog.

The Karyn Kusama directed film, which featured Megan Fox as a demonically possessed cheerleader, grossed a meager $16 million in the U.S. Disappointing, considering that the last film written by Cody, Juno, grossed over $230 million worldwide and earned her an Academy Award.

Jennifer's Body was originally set to debut in Australian October 28th. It was then delayed until December 10th. It has since been stricken from the upcoming cinema schedule, with a DVD release expected early 2010.

This is a shame. Horror-comedies are a tough sell for audiences these days. Sam Raimi's Drag Me To Hell also suffered at the box office, despite being not only one of the best horror films of recent years, but one of the best film's of the year PERIOD.

Having not seen Jennifer's Body, I can't exactly comment on the quality of the film and say whether or not it deserves a direct-to-DVD release.

However, there is no way in hell it could have been worse than The Final Destination 3D (ONE OF THE MOST TERRIBLE HORROR FILMS EVER MADE YES EVEN WORSE THAN THE WICKER MAN), which managed to gross, get this, $152 million worldwide.

Discuss: How much does this suck?

Roger Rabbit sequel in the works

noreply@blogger.com (Simon Miraudo) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 07:00:00 +0000

source: mtv.com

Robert Zemeckis has told MTV that the original screenwriters of Who Framed Roger Rabbit are, as we speak, working on a screenplay for a sequel to the hit 1988 film.

The men who gave Roger a voice almost two decades ago, Jeffrey Price and Peter Seaman, have been commissioned by Zemeckis to develop a script for a possible sequel.

Zemeckis has been hinting at a new Roger Rabbit film for the past few months, most notably at Comic Con earlier this year, where he could neither "confirm nor deny" plans for a sequel.

He went on to say: "I will tell you this, if that ever does happen, the 2D characters from the original movie will remain 2D. They will not be dimensionalized. Not to say there won't be 3D [in the movie]."

Zemeckis has spent most of this decade developing motion capture technology, which he employed in The Polar Express, Beowulf and A Christmas Carol.

The director must feel confident enough in the technology to test it on a follow-up to perhaps his most beloved film (Back to the Future and Forrest Gump excluded).

However, before we get all excited about a new Roger Rabbit film, this is all still in the development phase; nothing is certain just yet.

Also, while it's great to see Jeffrey Price and Peter Seaman on board, they haven't exactly spent the past twenty years honing their skills.

Scripts written by Price and Seaman since 1988:

Wild Wild West
The Grinch
Last Holiday
Shrek the Third

P-p-p-p-please Bob, don't let them hurt us!

Discuss: Would you be interested in a sequel to Who Framed Roger Rabbit? Or would you prefer it if a film like this was just left alone?

Quickflix Charts - The top rentals for October

noreply@blogger.com (Simon Miraudo) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 04:52:00 +0000

Alright gang; here are the top 10 DVD rentals for the month of October, as Queued up by you.

1. Twilight

2. Angels and Demons.
3. He's Just Not That Into You
4. The International
5. Watchmen
6. Knowing
7. Ghosts of Girlfriend's Past
8. Duplicity
9. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
10. Gran Torino

Mercy, mercy, mercy. Those shiny vampires remain at the top of the charts for the second month in a row. Considering that November is the month The Twilight Saga's New Moon hits cinemas, we can expect Twilight to hold onto that number one position for a little while longer. Angels and Demons is the highest new entry at number 2, while Ghosts of Girlfriend's Past debuted at number 6. The rest of the list is mostly made up of last month's favourites, except for Gran Torino, which just snuck into 10th place.

This month, we will see the hit films Star Trek, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, Bruno, Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, The Proposal and The Hangover hit DVD. Can any of them usurp the Twilight juggernaut? Please???

Discuss: What are your thoughts? What was the best film you saw on DVD this month?

Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon inscribe names on Oscars with Invictus

noreply@blogger.com (Simon Miraudo) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:59:00 +0000

source: traileraddict.com

Clint Eastwood's long-awaited feature film Invictus is only months away from release, and it has been given the Oscar-batiest trailer we've ever seen.

The film stars Morgan Freeman as Nelson Mandela (of course he does), and depicts the period following his election as President of South Africa. He teams up with rugby captain Francois Pienaar (Matt Damon) to inspire his divided nation to unite as one.

Cue swelling strings, inspirational speeches and Morgan Freeman voiceover. Oscar please!

OK, that actually seems kinda great. Although Freeman looks like he is phoning it in a little, Damon pulls off a pretty decent South African accent. Maybe he'll finally win a (long-deserved) Oscar. I mean, who else will he be competing with in the Supporting Actor category? Oh, right. Well, maybe next time Matty.

Invictus hits Australian cinemas 21st January 2010.

Discuss: Does Eastwood have another Oscar coming his way? Or is Invictus too obvious a choice for Oscar voters that it might be snubbed completely?

New Avatar trailer debuts!

noreply@blogger.com (Simon Miraudo) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:57:00 +0000

source: traileraddict.com

The international trailer for James Cameron's Avatar has landed online. It gives us a greater glimpse at the film's story and is, frankly, far more impressive than the teaser trailer that debuted a few months ago.

The marketing materials for Avatar up until this point haven't really been concerned about informing audiences of the film's plot. Instead, they were pinning their hopes on convincing moviegoers that Avatar would be the most important piece of filmmaking since Louis Lumiere captured a bunch of workers exiting a factory.

Check out the trailer below and let us know if Avatar will indeed change each of us on a chemical level.

What we see in this new trailer is far closer to the impressive footage we saw on Avatar Day (which you can read all about here).

However, I would still advise everyone to quell their expectations. I'm not implying that Avatar won't be incredible; simply, no film could reach the kind of hyperbolic heights people are anticipating.

Avatar stars Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana and Sigourney Weaver. It is Cameron's first film since 1997's Titanic.

Discuss: Are you aboard the Avatar train yet, or have you already jumped off?

It really is - This Is It review

noreply@blogger.com (Simon Miraudo) — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:15:00 +0000

This Is It - Starring Michael Jackson. Directed by Kenny Ortega. Rated G. By Simon Miraudo.

In March of 2009, Michael Jackson emerged from a long period of seclusion to announce a final comeback tour. “This is it,” he declared; it was the name of the show, an exclamation of excitement, and a nod towards finality. Rehearsals began. Dancers were hired. Pyrotechnics were tested. Every moment was captured by a number of high-definition cameras for Jackson’s private collection. The footage was never intended for general release. After all, why would anyone ever need to see it? Soon enough we would have the actual show to enjoy. Then on June 25th, less than a month before the tour was to begin, Jackson was pronounced dead at his home in California. Kenny Ortega, director of the High School Musical trilogy and choreographer of the shows, was enlisted to piece together the hundreds of hours of footage and bring the final document of Jackson’s life to the fans.

This Is It, much like its subject, is a pop cultural oddity. It is a documentary on (what are essentially) the final days of Michael Jackson’s life, released three months after his death. Cynics rightfully question the motives of concert promoter/film producer AEG Live, who no doubt lost hundreds of millions of dollars on the cancelled shows. Thankfully, Ortega has delivered a fine film that puts the electrifying raw rehearsal footage to good use. Most impressively, Ortega achieves something not even Jackson himself could in the past decade: he makes the King of Pop seem human.

What is most surprising about a film of this nature is the level of joy that emanates from the screen. This is no funeral dirge. We are introduced to Jackson’s backup dancers and band members, each incredibly thankful to be able to share the stage with one of the world’s most exquisite performers. As the film reminds us, they really do have a lot to be thankful for. Jackson moves as lithely and confidently as he did when he debuted the moonwalk on Motown’s 25th Anniversary TV Special. If anyone were to suspect Jackson of being on the precipice of death based on this rehearsal footage, they might have similarly suggested Usain Bolt be rushed to the emergency room immediately after he broke the 100m world record.

The movie is primarily made up of reconstructions of Jackson’s songs, in which rehearsal footage and specially filmed miniature features are combined to give the audience the full experience. The effect is, surprisingly, seamless. In fact, it’s better than seamless. It’s flawed. In This Is It, Jackson stops songs mid-way to correct tempo; to redo dance moves; to chastise sound men. Although this isn’t exactly a ‘warts-and-all’ depiction of Jackson, it goes a long way to reminding us that this was actually just another human being. In this sense, Ortega has accidentally stumbled into a scenario in which he is able to present perhaps the truest version of Michael Jackson to the world. There is no perfect footage, so he has no choice but to show us imperfect footage. And because of that, it is among the best and most exciting footage of Jackson ever seen.

Michael Jackson led a life none of us could ever claim to fathom. He achieved the kind of iconographic fame usually reserved for world leaders and founders of religions. However, as his fame increased, his eccentricities emerged. His skin faded from black to white; he befriended Macaulay Culkin; he had a pet monkey. These are the facts. In comparison to the other rumours and allegations that plagued Jackson’s life, they seem as regular as brushing one’s teeth. Over the course of his career, and especially at the time of his death, two schools of thought on Jackson emerged: some saw him as a messiah, while others saw him as a monster. The fact that MJ often seemed to consider himself a messiah didn’t exactly quiet his critics. Jackson was never able to outlive these controversies; his name will always remain the punch-line to numerous unsavoury jokes. However, this film manages to reclaim a shred of dignity for MJ’s legacy.

This Is It is an interesting take on the traditional concert film. The essence of each song is broken down, reduced to their raw materials, and then reconceptualised. There is no audience, except for those actually involved in the production. Songs are not followed by rapturous applause, but anti-climactic silence, and sometimes even criticism from Jackson himself. This is not the way we expect to see Michael Jackson perform. He has always been about impeccable timing and movement. However, that had always made him seem untouchable; perhaps even inhuman, and contributes to the semi-messianic adoration from his fans. This Is It reminds us that it was always just a human being performing these songs. Sometimes he loses his voice and sometimes he even loses his temper. The film never shows us whether or not Michael Jackson had lost his mind. But it does show us that he never lost his talent.

4/5

Check out my other reviews here.

Adam Sandler to play his own sister in Jack and Jill

noreply@blogger.com (Simon Miraudo) — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 03:18:00 +0000

source: variety.com

Adam Sandler will star in an upcoming romantic comedy entitled Jack and Jill, in which he will play both Jack and his sister Jill.

Little else is known about the project, except that it will begin shooting next year for a 2011 release. The screenplay was written by former Saturday Night Live scribe Steve Koren.

Sandler was last seen in the Judd Apatow-directed dramedy Funny People, in which he played an actor/comedian named George Simmons who starred in a number of terrible comedies.

During the course of the film, we see a clip from Re-Do, a movie in which Simmons plays an adult man who turns back into a baby (see above). It was a wonderfully astute and cheeky dig at Sandler's back catalogue of silly, high-concept comedies.

Well, I guess the financial and critical disappointment of Funny People has Sandler running back to the genre he was mocking.

For what it's worth, I would rather see Re-Do.

Discuss: Is Sandler's career heading in the right direction? Should he try to do more dramatic roles (a'la the excellent Punch Drunk Love) or stick to dumb comedies?