After decades of mistreatment, The Dark Knight Detective is finally getting his due.

Over the years the fans have been subjected to the campy and satirical 60’s TV series starring Adam West , Tim Burton’s uneven and pseudo psychological blockbusters and, worst of all, Joel Schumacher’s god-awful cheese-fests such as Batman and Robin, one of the worst reviewed films of all time.

While most of the credit for Batman’s reinvention and resurgence in popular culture has to be given to visionary director Christopher Nolan (after all, The Dark Knight grossed over 1 billion dollars), one must not forget the numerous excellent Batman animated series and direct-to-DVD features that have been running since the early 90’s that have always been respectful to the source material.

The latest offering from the newly established DC Universe brand is Batman: Under the Red Hood, an adaptation of two popular comic storylines “A Death in the Family” and “Under the Hood”.

Under the Red Hood opens in Bosnia, with Batman feverishly racing towards a secret location where the Joker is holding Jason Todd (the second Robin) hostage. Meanwhile we cut to the Joker gleefully inflicting a brutal beating on Jason with a crow bar and beating him within an inch of his life. Unfortunately, Batman is too late and arrives just as the abandoned warehouse Robin is being held captive in is blown to pieces.

Proving once again that animated doesn’t necessarily equal kid-friendly and watered down, this opening sequence is not only disturbing and ultra violent but also instantly puts the viewer on the edge of their seat, setting the tone for the darkest animated Batman endeavor yet.

After the opening credits, we skip to five years later where Batman is still dealing with the guilt of his “second greatest failure” (the first being The Joker) and facing a new kind of threat in Gotham.

A new vigilante has emerged calling himself the Red Hood (the original moniker of The Joker) and he’s cleaning up Gotham’s Streets. Except unlike Batman he has no code and doesn’t mind killing to get the job done.

As Batman sets out to investigate, he gets a little help from Nightwing (Dick Grayson, the original Robin all grown up) and that’s where things get interesting. To reveal anymore would be unfair.

As usual with the DCU animated features films, the voice cast is exceptional but in a somewhat controversial move both of the biggest voices in Batman animation are missing. Kevin Conroy who voiced Batman/Bruce Wayne in Batman the Animated Series, Batman Beyond and the majority of the animated features has been replaced by Bruce Greenwood (Star Trek, Mao’s Last Dancer).  While some fan-boys will have a hard time admitting this, Bruce Greenwood does an amazing job. Greenwood infuses the character with an emotional depth not always seen and for the record his Batman voice is on par with Conroy’s if not better.

Also absent is Mark Hamill (yes Luke Skywalker himself), whose name is synonymous with the animated version of The Joker. Instead we have John DiMaggio (best known as Bender from Futurama) on voice duties for the Clown Prince of Crime. While he may not necessarily have the energy of his predecessor, DiMaggio’s interpretation is a riff on the iconic portrayal immortalized by the late Heath Ledger and it certainly fits well with the darker tone of the film.

DiMaggio’s work isn’t the only nod to The Dark Knight either, as observant fans will also notice various set pieces that pay tribute to that film.

Parents should be warned that this film is probably not suitable for most younger viewers and the M rating should be taken seriously.

Verdict:

Under the Red Hood continues the dark and intense vibe of Nolan’s Bat flicks and ends up feeling almost ground breaking. Looks like the world’s number one Superhero is finally in safe hands.

I’m a great admirer of films set predominantly in a single location. Often, they’re born out of necessity, not choice, by emerging filmmakers working with a shoestring budget. The reward is that these films tend to benefit from a greater emphasis on the two key ingredients of an exceptional film — characters and story — rather than effect-heavy action sequences. Films such as Alfred Hitchcock’s Read Window, Sidney Lumet’s 12 Angry Men, Quentin Tarantino’s Reservoir Dogs and Duncan Jones’ Moon are but a few examples of where less has proven to be more.

Unfortunately, British writer/director J Blakeson’s debut feature The Disappearance of Alice Creed is not about to join that list. The film, set almost entirely within an apartment where two kidnappers hold a rich daughter for ransom, falls apart at a screenplay level by forgoing credibility as it introduces one ludicrous plot twist after another. The irony here is that Blakeson, in his attempt to do a lot with a little, ends up doing too much.

That said, the first 20 minutes are electric. Not a word is spoken as the two captors Vic (Eddie Marsan) and Danny (Martin Compston) fastidiously prepare the apartment for their hostage, Alice Creed (Gemma Arterton). They’re seen picking up supplies from the hardware store, soundproofing the walls, bolting down the bed and padlocking the doors. The cinematography is crisp, the editing is swift and the score is exhilarating. Our anticipation for what happens next reaches boiling point.

It turns out, however, that kidnappings aren’t all that fun. Who knew?

Screaming at the top of her lungs, Alice is stripped, gagged and bound to the bed before her naked body is photographed next to today’s newspaper. Shortly after, she’s forced to pee into an improvised bedpan, tears streaming down her face. It’s dangerously exploitive and voyeuristic filmmaking. But to what end? What is Blakeson trying to achieve by forcing us to endure such raw torture?

If it were for gritty realism, he’d have been wise to keep things firmly grounded thereon in. Instead, the film repeatedly trips the “bullshit!” alarm every time it complicates the situation by suggesting there’s more going on here than meets the eye.  At risk of spoiling the absurdity, let’s just say these three make the twisted relationship between Luke, Leia and Darth Vader seem fairly conventional.

Perhaps Blakeson just wanted us to deeply sympathise with Alice before she takes on a more active role in the story? That seems like the logical answer, but it’s hardly what’s achieved. Gemma Arterton (Clash of the Titans, Prince of Persia) spends so long doing nothing but squirming and screaming the top of her lungs that we ultimately side with her captors and wish she’d just comply. Once the gag comes off, she becomes even less likable because of how foolishly she reacts to the situation.  As admirable as it is for Arterton to take on such a daring role just as her Hollywood career blossoms, it doesn’t stop her from being miscast and, more crucially, miswritten.

Eddie Marsan (Sherlock Holmes, Me and Orson Welles) and Martin Compston (Red Mist, The Damned United) are far more suited to their roles, although the latter’s dynamic performance is somewhat undermined by the improbable developments of his character. Marsan emerges as the most enjoyable of the three, balancing intense aggression with a growing vulnerability in a role that — thank goodness! — isn’t merely a vehicle for revelations.

While I struggle to applaud what Blakeson has achieved with The Disappearance of Alice Creed, I can commend what he has attempted. There’s a taught, evocative thriller hidden somewhere beneath all the tacky TV-movie twists. If only Blakeson wasn’t so desperate to shock his audience, the suspense he establishes early on might not have been so quick to join Miss. Creed in disappearing.

In the midst of all the explosions, car chases and shootouts that make Tomorrow, When the War Began one of the biggest Australian films in years are two emerging  Melbourne actors, Caitlin Stasey and Deniz Akdeniz.

Stasey, the 20-year-old actress who is best known as Rachel Kinski on TV’s Neighbours, stars as country teenager Ellie Linton in this adaptation of teen fiction author John Marsden’s best-selling novel. 21-year-old Akdeniz, who played Raff in Disney Channel’s As the Bell Rings, stars as Ellie’s rebellious close friend Homer. Along with five other mates,  the story follows Ellie and Homer as they go camping in the mountains for a week-long getaway. While they’re away, however, Australia is invaded by an unknown foreign force. It’s only when they return home and witness the devastation first-hand that they realise they must fight back if they want to live freely ever again.

While on a whirlwind national tour promoting the film last month, Stasey and Akdeniz sat down with me in their Adelaide hotel room to talk about Tomorrow, When the War Began. Slouched well into the sofa, the always-polite Stasey was clearly running on empty after days of non-stop interviews, now at the point where she was talking far more off-the-cuff than usual. In stark contrast, Akdeniz was as boisterous as he is on screen, sporting an everlasting smile and a bright summer t-shirt on what was otherwise a rainy day.

Once the interview kicked into gear, the two bounced off each other like twin siblings, often  finishing off each other’s sentences. It made for a fantastic conversation — they’re both very personable and funny people – but it also made for an incredibly difficult interview to transcribe. (While I would have loved to have uploaded the audio, the quality was far from desirable, sorry!)

If you’re in a hurry, here’s a quick breakdown of the things we talked about:
How they landed their roles.
Differences between the movie and the book.
How much freedom they had with their characters.
How film compares with TV and theatre.
Stuart Beattie as a first-time director.
The film’s many explosions.
Their favourite moment of production.
Their least favourite moment of production.
How they caused a stir by fibbing about an ice-skating injury.
What types of films they want to do next.
Who they’d most want to kiss on-screen.
Their political thoughts: Gillard or Abbott?

CUT PRINT REVIEW: So, are you two sick of us media folk yet?

CAITLIN STASEY: Yes. Yes I am. [laughs]

CPR: Well, in your defence, you have been non-stop promoting the film across the country. Deniz, have you been doing the same?

DENIZ AKDENIZ: No, actually I had a break while these guys went off and diddle-daddled in Queensland.

CAITLIN: [laughs] “Diddle-daddled”, did we?

DENIZ: [laughs] Yeah! That’s what you do on the Gold Coast. Diddle-daddle.

CPR: [laughs] So how did the two of you get involved?

CAITLIN: Well, just like anybody else really. I had the basic audition process and then had a call-back with Stuart [Beattie, the director] for an hour or so. And yeah, found out a few days later that I got the role!

But he thought I looked like Ellie, so he was looking out for me right from the beginning.

CPR: That’s interesting because didn’t John Marsden [the author of the novel] initially voice his concern about you playing Ellie?
[Pause]
Something along the lines of you being “too pretty” for the role?

DENIZ: See, she knew exactly what you were going to say, but she just wanted you to say it! [laughs]

CAITLIN: [laughs] Yeah, I was just waiting for it. Oh and I believe the exact quote was “too good looking”, but never mind. No big deal. [laughs]

No, the thing with that though is that Stuart has his interpretation and that’s essentially what all of us are. That’s essentially what this whole process is. It’s just an interpretation of John’s book by Stuart.

Although it was funny when John came on set for a day and we said, “So, do we look how you expected us too?”
And he’s kind of like, “Nope.”

CPR: Because of the 17-year gap between the Tomorrow film and the Tomorrow book, the film is aimed at a generation of teenagers different to that of the novel. Were there any elements of the book that had to be modified so that it spoke specifically to today’s teens?

CAITLIN: Not really. Well, you do have to make things contemporary, in the sense that language is now a bit different and that everyone now has mobile phones. Because when something big happens these days, people just pull out there phones. So that had to change.

DENIZ: Yeah, so it was bought from 1993 to now. But the same themes are there, the same story is there and the same characters are there. So anyone who has read the books – and even those who haven’t – should really enjoy the film. Hopefully!

CPR: Ellie is obviously the most developed character of the story, so Caitlin, did you get a chance to bring anything new to Ellie or were you fairly restricted to what was on the page?

CAITLIN: No, because I think when you go and see a performance and someone says “oh they’ve included themselves in the character” I think that’s incorrect because you’re not really supposed to be your character. You know what I mean? You’re meant to be separate from them.

I think you can use your own experiences to empathise with your character. So because Ellie is a teenage girl like me, I understand her motivations a lot of the time. But to understand a character is very different to personally involving yourself in a character.

So no, I guess I didn’t. I mean, I know for a fact that if I was in her position, I’d just make run for it.

CPR: [laughs] Oh yeah, me too.

Deniz, you give off the impression that you’re a joker off-camera as well as on. Do you and Homer have much in common?

DENIZ: Well, yes and no. I definitely have the same sense of humour as Homer…

CAITLIN: Toilet humour.

DENIZ: [sarcastically] Toilet humour. Yes, that’s…hilarious. Thanks Caitlin. [laughs]

CAITLIN: Continue with your interview, Deniz.

DENIZ: [laughs] Sorry! Yes, well I’m not so much of a trouble maker as Homer in terms of law…erm….law…ahh…

CAITLIN: …Breaking.

DENIZ: Law breaking. Yes. That’s the word I was looking for! Yeah, so at the start it was cool getting to play this guy who just mucks around the whole time and doesn’t take anything too seriously. And then going from that to stepping up and using all the skills he’s learnt from being a dickhead to, you know, helping the group survive.

CPR: You’ve both done your fair share of TV work with Neighbours [Caitlin] and As The Bell Rings [Deniz]. Did that prepare you for your first feature film?

CAITLIN: I think television is a really good training ground because you have to film a lot of stuff in a short space of time. It’s a quick turn-around. With Neighbours, you have to film 20 minutes of footage in a day so it makes you quite well equipped to work quickly.

DENIZ: Yeah, my experience was quite different. As The Bell Rings was the first time I’d done screen professionally. So that was quite the learning experience in the sense that – just getting to know what the hell was going on! So I guess that did and didn’t prepare me for the huge, massive set of Tomorrow.

CPR: You were a stage actor before, right? [Deniz nods] How does that compare?

DENIZ: They’re very different…

CAITLIN: I think every actor should do theatre first.

DENIZ: Yeah. I just love the stage and I’ll keep going back to it as much as I can. It’s just different because you get a direct response from the audience. I mean, with this film, I waited six months until I actually sat in a room with an audience and watched the film, with people I didn’t know, and saw how they reacted. And that was weird because when you’re on stage, you get a sense of what the audience is going through. You know if you’re drawing them in or if what you’re doing isn’t working.

CPR: This is also Stuart’s first time in the director’s chair, so it’s a big learning curve for him too. Did he know what he wanted from the word go?

CAITLIN: Yeah, pretty much. He’s had visions of what he wanted to do for the past two years or so.

DENIZ: And you would pick that the he’s a first time director. I mean, as soon as he got on board with us, it was great. It was an awesome team effort from the get-go. We were doing improvisations instead of a table reading. Stuff like that, you know? He really gave us a chance to flesh our characters out. He’d just poke us in the right direction.

CAITLIN: He even let us choose our own music!

DENIZ: Yeah! He even went to us for music choices.

CAITLIN: Because he has baaaaad taste in music.

[Everyone laughs]

CAITLIN: It’s the one thing I questioned about him. With everything else I trusted him completely.

CPR: So what songs did you suggest?

CAITLIN: ‘Flame Trees’ by Sarah Blasko was one of my suggestions.

DENIZ: For my character’s entrance, I suggested the Wolfmother song ‘Joker and the Thief’. But we couldn’t get that, unfortunately, so we chose ‘Cosmic Egg’ instead.

CPR: He’s a first-time director, but Stuart’s obviously no stranger to the business having established himself as a screenwriter for movies like Pirates of the Caribbean. He really does bring that big Hollywood feel to the movie, doesn’t he?

DENIZ: Yeah, Stuart made sure that it had the feel of a real action film. It’s a war film in the sense that the explosions are real – they all happened.

CPR: So they’re all real, in-camera explosions?

DENIZ: A majority of them are, yeah! We blew up that lawnmower, we blew up a miniature [model] of that bridge…. [looks toward Caitlin] what else did we blow up? Oh, that car. We blew that up too!

CPR: Exactly how ‘miniature’ was that bridge explosion?

DENIZ: It was a 1-to-5 scale of a 150-metre long bridge.

CPR: Wow, so it was still a sizeable bridge. A big miniature.

DENIZ: Yeah, so it was a 30 metre bridge that they blew up. They had like 8 cameras on it and one Phantom HD camera that films at something like 1000 frames per second. It was awesome.

CPR: It was! I haven’t seen an explosion that big in an Australian film for a long long time.

DENIZ: Exactly. So it was worth it.

CPR: For all the Hollywood influences though, this is still very much an Australian film. There’s even one scene where you guys are sitting around a camp fire eating Vegemite straight from the jar! But really, who DOES that?

CAITLIN: Oh, Phoebe [Tonkin] does that just for fun.

DENIZ: Yep, Phoebe really does that. She eats it like a lollipop, scooping it up and licking the spoon.

CAITLIN: Which is disgusting even by Australian standards. But she was loving it.

CPR: So if that was really Phoebe eating Vegemite from the tub, was that really you, Caitlin, driving the truck?

CAITLIN: No, I did a lot of stuff in a sound studio because, well, I can’t drive. So to get someone without their licence, let alone someone without their license doing that kind of stunt work, is just impossible. So I had a stunt double.

DENIZ: How old was this stunt double?

CAITLIN: [shuffles uncomfortably] I don’t know….

DENIZ: [looking sheepish] What was his or her gender?

CAITLIN: [reluctantly] He was a male. Yes, yes; I had a male stunt double…

DENIZ: [smirks] Yeah, there you go!

But he was an incredible driver though. You should have seen the things he was doing. I was on set when he pulled up to the church and he really got that garbage truck moving.

CPR: Was there a defining moment while filming that made you think “wow, this is really happening”?

DENIZ: For me, personally, it was the scene where Caitlin was in the Showgrounds and she runs across to the truck for cover, but she takes four steps and then the spotlight shines on her.  I think of that scene because I was a big fan of the book and in the book that was a BIG deal. That was a really tense moment and Stuart really brought that out in the film. I just really liked it. It was the first time that it sunk in that “this is the film.”

CAITLIN: For me it was when Lincoln Lewis took his shirt off.

[Everyone laughs]

DENIZ: But that happened quite often on set!

CAITLIN: It was actually quite surprising when he put it back on.

No, I think for me it was when John Marsden walked on set. That’s when it became real.

CPR: Did you ever get to consult with Marsden about your characters at all?

CAITLIN: No, because we had Stuart. I mean, people are going to go mad when they hear this, but it was Stuart’s story, you know? I know that John wrote it, but this is Stuart’s version of it. You can’t say “this is my interpretation of your song” and just do the exact same thing. You’ve got to do your own thing. That’s what Stuart did.

DENIZ: Yeah, Stuart definitely did that. From the get-go it was all character and story. He knew them both back to front. There was no question he couldn’t answer.

CPR: So I’ve asked you about your favourite moments, what were your least favourites? When did you just want to get the camera out of your face?

DENIZ: [sarcastically] Any scene I had with Caitlin. They were an ab-so-lute chore.

CAITLIN: [rolls eyes] Oh ha-ha.

No, I think it was just when we got really tired. We were like babies; always sleepy. But some nights we just started at 6pm and finished at 6am and we’d just get home as the sun was coming up and just die.

DENIZ: For me it was just getting tackled by Lincoln so many times. No, actually that was fun. Oh, ok here’s a worse one. I did my ankle one at the start of a day of shooting…by jumping a fence. You know, out of all the crazy things going on – explosions and guns and what not – I did my ankle jumping a fence. How manly, right?

So something little like that left me hobbling around for the rest of the day. And of course, that was the day we were jumping on bikes, running around and getting shot at. So that day wasn’t much fun for me, surprisingly.

CPR: Did you guys spend much time together during pre-production in order to bond as a group?

DENIZ: Yeah, we did have some bonding sessions.

CAITLIN: We went ice skating.

DENIZ: Yeah and how long did we do that for, Caitlin?

CAITLIN: Oh about 10 minutes. Because what happened Deniz?

DENIZ: Ah, didn’t you hurt your ankle?

CAITLIN: I think you told someone I hurt my ankle….

DENIZ: Ok, ok. So we were ice skating and there was this primary school there and they were really good, while we really weren’t.

CAITLIN: And I was really hungry…

DENIZ: As always. So then I sort of made up a lie that Caitlin had hurt her ankle. That didn’t go down so well with the production team.

CAITLIN: Yes, it sort of backfired. Doctors were called and days of work were cancelled.

DENIZ: Production takes everything very seriously. So yeah, we know now to never do that again.

At the film’s Melbourne premiere. Left to right: Caitlin Stasey, Lincoln Lewis, Rachel Hurd-Wood, ChrisPang, Andrew Ryan, Denis Akdeniz, Ashleigh Cummings and Phoebe Tonkin.

CPR: So what kind of film would you like to do next?

CAITLIN: I’d like to do a nice character driven two-hander. Without any explosions. Don’t get me wrong, I love the action genre. I think it’s brilliant. Action with heart is great. But I’d like to do a nice romantic drama. Not a romantic comedy though. I can’t do comedy.

DENIZ: I’ll do anything really. I’m keen to take on whatever comes. See what happens.

CPR: If you could share an on-screen kiss with any actor/actress in the world, who would it be?

DENIZ: [pause] Keira Knightley? I like her.

CAITLIN: Penelope Cruz.

DENIZ: Really! I’d pay to see that.

CAITLIN: She’d be up for it. She’s done Vicky Cristina Barcelona. Or Angelina Jolie because she has those lips.

CPR: Great choices! Ok, one last question before I let you go: Julia Gillard or Tony Abbott? Or neither?
(Note: this interview took place before Election Day)

CAITLIN: [perks up] Wow, I can’t believe you’re asking us that! That’s the first time we’ve been asked.

Well, a disclaimer first: my political reviews don’t reflect the views of the film and so forth. But in all honesty, I don’t really know enough at this point. I just know I don’t want decisions about my ovaries being made by someone else. So for now, I’m going to go with Greens.

I do, however, think the women of Australia should vote for Gillard just to balance out those morons who won’t vote for her just because she’s a woman. Just so that they cancel them out.

CPR: Deniz? How about you?

DENIZ: Australian Sex Party.

CAITLIN: What the f*** is the Australian Sex Party?

DENIZ: It’s a party! Look it up.

CAITLIN: Yes, I get that. But what is it that the Australian Sex Party wants?

DENIZ: Don’t care. They’re called the Australian Sex Party. Doesn’t matter what they want.

CPR: Well, that’s it from me. Thanks guys! It’s been a lot of fun!

—

Tomorrow, When the War Began is in cinemas across Australia now.

Director Antoine Fuqua exploded on to the Hollywood scene a decade back with the critically acclaimed Training Day, which is often considered one of the quintessential cop/crime dramas but ever since has struggled to follow up that hit, releasing a string of mediocre films that never broke out at the box office (see King Arthur, Shooter).

While his latest offering doesn’t necessarily reverse that trend it does at least return Fuqua to the dirty cop genre that made him famous in the first place.

Brooklyn’s Finest is an ensemble police drama headlined by a fine cast including Richard Gere (does this guy ever age?), Don Cheadle and the ever reliable Ethan Hawke (reuniting with Fuqua for the first time since Training Day).

Gere plays Eddie Dugan a burnt out veteran officer a mere 7 days from retirement. He is reluctantly assigned the task of overseeing rookies while patrolling some of the worst areas of the city.  Eddie has a less then exemplary service record and has “seen too much”, though we never really get any insight into what in particular is haunting him. He leads a destructive life of drinking whisky for breakfast and his only friend is a hooker with a heart of gold, whom he intends to make an honest woman out of.

Ethan Hawke (Daybreakers) is Sal, a desperate cop who’s turned to stealing drug money in an attempt to provide for his growing family which includes a sick and extremely pregnant wife. How far will Sal go to make ends meet? Will he risk losing it all?

Meanwhile Don Cheadle (Iron Man 2) gets possibly the meatiest role of Clarence “Tango” Butler, an undercover narcotics detective. Tango’s been deep undercover for so long that it’s wound up costing him his marriage and his identity. He’s finally offered a way out by his superiors (an underused Will Patton and a surprisingly wrinkly Ellen Barkin) but it means setting up his close friend Caz (Wesley Snipes with a pony tail), whom he owes his life to. Can Tango go through with sending his good friend back to prison and does he still know whose side he’s really on?

If it all sounds a little familiar, that’s because it is. There is nothing here we haven’t seen before and seen done better. But the one reason the film doesn’t completely fall flat is due to excellent work from the headliners. Gere, who hasn’t been this good in quite some time, is the backbone of the film and it’s the intensity and conviction of his performance in particular that helps gloss over the abundance of cop movie clichés on offer. He lends his scenes some much needed weight, especially during the film’s climax when the three stories come to a head.

Brooklyn’s Finest also marks the cinematic return of Wesley Snipes, whose been languishing in straight to DVD hell for the last six or so years. While there isn’t anything particularly note worthy about his performance, he does share good on screen chemistry with Cheadle, which lends credibility to the pair’s friendship.

Praise should also be directed towards Marcelo Zarvos for his moody score that helps give the film an underlying sense of urgency, often making the film feel more exciting than it actually is.

While Brooklyn’s Finest may not come close to achieving the greatness of Training Day or even manage to restore Antoine Fuqua’s status in Hollywood, it isn’t a bad watch and it will have to do until the next truly great cop/crime drama comes along.

Harry Potter is about a nerdy 10 year-old boy who is informed by a wise and powerful wizard that he is the ‘chosen one’ fated to stop an evil force from taking over the world. In contrast, The Sorcerer’s Apprentice is about a nerdy 10 year-old boy who is informed by a wise and powerful sorcerer that he is the ‘Prime Merlinian’ fated to stop an evil force from taking over the world.

Of course, the two are nothing a like: one uses the word ‘wizard’, while the other opts for ‘sorcerer’. But the real point of difference is that the former is imaginative and entertaining, while later is imitative and really quite boring.

In the same way the Pirates of the Caribbean series was loosely based on the Disneyland ride of the same name, The Sorcerer’s Apprentice is loosely based on the segment from Disney’s landmark film Fantasia (1940) where Mickey Mouse uses sorcery to bring to life a battalion of broomsticks and mops to do his housework. Seventy years later and big-budget producer Jerry Bruckheimer and National Treasure director Jon Turteltaub have fashioned that classic sequence into a generic live-action blockbuster, complete with soulless storytelling, lazy humour and senseless amounts of CGI. Since when did all of the above come to mean “fun for the whole family”?

The film begins with a sloppily-produced prologue that explains how unaging sorcerer Balthazar (Nicolas Cage), one of Merlin’s apprentices, has been searching for his master’s successor, the ‘Prime Merlinian’, ever since 704 AD when his master was murdered by the evil sorceress Morgana (Alice Krige).

Cut to the year 2000 and Balthazar’s long search for the Prime Merlinian – supposedly the only being powerful enough to destroy Morgana – leads him to a 10-year-old New Yorker named Dave Stutler (Jake Cherry). Dave accidently sets free Horvath (Alfred Molina), the rotten egg of Merlin’s three apprentices, who in-turn intends to free Morgana from her magical prison so she can unleash the army of the undead upon the world. That’s Villainy 101 right there.

Fast-forward to present-day where Dave, now played by nerd-for-hire Jay Baruchel (She’s Out Of My League, Fanboys), is a genius Physics student still lusting after his schoolyard crush Becky (Australia’s Teresa Palmer) in one horribly tacked-on romantic subplot. With Horvath on the verge of freeing Morgana, Dave is reapproached by Balthazar – looking more and more like hobo every time we see him — who pressures him into becoming his apprentice. If only Dave just kept on walking like most people do when confronted by a homeless fruitcake claiming to have magical powers, a $150 million dollar stinker might have been avoided.

The Sorcerer’s Apprentice is essentially what would happen if The Mummy took a wrong turn at Hogwarts and ended up at a Dungeons and Dragons convention. The screenplay by Doug Miro, Matt Lopez and a small army of others (never a good sign) is a rhythmless mess of confrontations that inevitably result in a flurry of blue energy balls being hurled across the screen. Sure, the special effects are all technically sound, but through sheer repetition, they evoke nothing but sighs. What director Jon Turtletaub doesn’t seem to realise that the real magic of movies like Harry Potter is not in the big action battles, it’s in the niceties of scenes where the students are sorted into houses by a talking hat or try to outdo each other during Potions class. Insignificant as they seem, these moments help create a living, breathing and enchanting world in which magic serves a purpose beyond pure spectacle. If The Sorcerer’s Apprentice wasn’t in such a hurry to get to the next bloated action set piece, it could have spent more time fleshing out the intricacies of the world in which it feebly conjures.

Nicolas ‘Crazy Hair’ Cage (Knowing, Kick-Ass) is up to his usual tricks as the eccentric sorcerer Balthazar, arguably not hamming it up enough – words I never thought I’d say – if he’s hoping to be the next Jack Sparrow. Jay Baruchel is as goofy as ever as Dave, walking that fine line between endearing and annoying that inherently comes with the nerdy routine. Reliably, Alfred Molina (Spider-Man 2, Prince of Persia) steals the show as the deliciously evil yet sophisticated villain Horvath. He’s the kind of baddie you hope will prevail when it comes time for the final showdown.

While Jerry Bruckheimer got it completely right with 2001’s Pirates of the Caribbean and mostly right with this year’s Prince of Persia (a guilty pleasure of mine), he has lost the plot – in both senses of the world – with The Sorcerer’s Apprentice. If Bruckheimer continues down the path of adapting Disney’s classic animations and attractions, I fear it’s only a matter of time until he turns the famed Disneyland ride ‘It’s a Small World’ into an all-out action blockbuster. I can see it now; Nic Cage stars as a wacky sea skipper who must stop an army of evil singing and dancing children from taking over the world, one continent at a time.

Oh wait. That’d just be High School Musical 4.

In the cinema of Hollywood, finding a film that is not about love presents a real challenge. We’ve had so-called “true love” (The Notebook) and the twisted “I’m so in love with you, I want to eat you” love (Twilight). We’ve had love based on “intense experiences” (Speed), the “oops, we’ve made a baby” love (Knocked Up). Most prolifically, we’ve had gun love (anything with Arnie). But in thinking about love and the way it is portrayed by the medium that has captured out hearts, have we ever really had “Honest” love? And as it is in life, love in the movies is not an easy thing to handle; many films fall short in terms of story, believability or in casting a leading couple with minimal chemistry. Going the Distance proves it can be done right.

With her lovable laugh and down-to-earth charisma, Drew Barrymore embodies Erin, a lady trifecta – smart, pretty and funny. She’s a grad student on her way to making her name in journalism, but the bitterness of the print industry is taking its toll. When she meets a friendly guy named Garrett (Justin Long) they are both merely looking to put a Band-Aid on the bullet-holes in their lives with a one night stand, but find that geeking out together for more than one night is ultimately, the best remedy. With help from Garret’s crude housemate Dan (Charlie Day) and sarcastic friend Box (Jason Sudeikis), Erin and Garrett outline their need to keep things simple, but find themselves unable to tear themselves away from each other.

Going the Distance belongs to Drew Barrymore and Justin Long; their strong chemistry — a result of their off-screen history together — is what makes the film so convincing. We’re caught up in their relationship as it grows, taking until the midpoint of this movie before the hinge swings and they are forced apart. This alone marks a departure from most romantic films where love is presented instantly — think Twilight — and we’re expected to believe it. They find common ground through video games, movies and music, and like most lasting couples they realise they are each other’s their favourite person in the world. Then, of course, comes the complication.

When Erin lands her dream job in L.A, we trip between the coasts of the U.S as they go the distance and try to sustain a healthy, passionate relationship from different time zones. Here, we have a couple who are not super good-looking, super-talented nor super-spies/assassins. What we do have are two people who find a connection and try to nurture it despite the forces of jobs, money, family, friends, temptations and of course, distance. Without being pressured into a hokey Hollywood ending, the two never compromise their individuality as they have a genuine crack at making a life together.

First time screenwriter Geoff LaTuillipe doesn’t invent anything new here, but his realistic take on love proves that we can still be reminded why something tried and true – like a romantic comedy — can still make us warm and fuzzy inside. Director Nannette Burnstein (American Teen) has found the missing beat between a standard Hollywood rom-com and how people actually are.

Verdict:

Going the Distance will hopefully reach cult status as an authentic romantic comedy. Whilst the influence of Judd Apatow’s style is here — particularly in demi-crude comedy and the relationship between Erin and her sister (Christina Applegate) — this is an original film that gets it right when it comes to exploiting both love and laughs.

Before it won the Audience Award at both the Melbourne and Sydney film festivals, Taika Waititi’s Boy became the highest grossing New Zealand film of all time. For good reason, too; this captivating coming-of-age drama tackles sobering themes with comedic sensibility, masterfully balancing big laughs and big heart without compromising either.

The year is 1984 and Michael Jackson’s Thriller is inescapable even the remote coastal community of Waihau Bay, New Zealand. One of MJ’s biggest fans is 11-year-old Alamein Jr. (James Rolleston) — or ‘Boy’ as he prefers to be known — who lives with his Grandma after the death of his mother and absence of his jailed father, Alamein Snr. (Taika Waititi). When Gran leaves for a week, it’s up to Boy to look after the farm and look after his withdrawn 6-year-old brother Rocky (Te Aho Aho Eketone-Whitu).

One night while Gran is away, three gruff-looking men wearing bikie jackets roll up to the house in a black muscle car. “I’m your dad” says one of the men, prompting Boy to invite them in for a cup of tea.

Far from the heroic Shogun warrior he had envisioned, Boy’s father is really a daft man-child who spends his days smoking pot and avoiding all responsibilities, only returning home to recover a bag full of money buried in the paddock. Whatever his reasons, Boy is just glad to be able to spend some quality time with his dad, viewing him through the same starry eyes as the King of Pop.

This is only Waititi’s second feature film to date (after 2007’s Eagle vs. Shark), yet the writer, director and actor already exhibits the kind of across-the-board talent of a master filmmaker. Although the story is fictionalised, Waititi has drawn from his own upbringing in rural New Zealand during the 1980s, credibly capturing a time, place and atmosphere that is uniquely Kiwi in character. If The Castle is Australia’s national treasure, Boy might very well be New Zealand’s.

With no previous acting experience, 11-year-old Rolleston is exceptional in the titular role, countering his childlike optimism with a level of maturity far beyond his age. Opposite Rolleston, Waititi plays the kind of deadbeat character audiences are usually predisposed to loathe, but the strength of his restrained screenplay and on-screen charisma is that we’re just as susceptible to Alamein’s charms as his son. As a result, we become so emotionally invested in  both these characters that we go against our better judgement and hope, wishfully, that things work out between them.

Boy is often quite tragic in its depiction of unfit parenting, abandonment and various addictions, yet the film’s deft sense of humour – reminiscent of TV’s excellent Flight of the Conchords, episodes of which Waititi has directed – keeps you smiling even when you’re on the verge of tears.

Not since 2008s Oscar winner Slumdog Millionaire has pleasure and pain come together so beautifully.

Piranha 3D can be summarised, and reviewed, in just two simple words:

3D boobies.

Guys, be sure to sit extra close to the front. You can thank me later. Girls, I guess it’s just you and me now.

Directed by French (mad)man Alexadre Aja (Mirrors), Piranha 3D is a tongue-in-cheek horror movie about – surprise! – flesh-eating Piranhas. And yes, it’s as tacky and silly as it sounds, but deliberately so. Just like the 1978 original, Piranha gleefully rips-off – limb from limb – classic monster movies such as Jaws to produce an equal share of giggles, gasps and gratuitous carnage. Oh, and it’s essentially soft-core porn.  For the sake of copious amounts of nudity, writers Pete Goldfinger and Josh Stolberg have traded in “we’re going to need a bigger boat” for “we’re going to need a bigger cup size.”

The mayhem all takes place in Lake Victoria, a small country community overrun once a year by ravenous, wild and oily creatures called… teenagers. It’s Spring Break, you see, a wild week in March where shirts become illegal, under-age drinking becomes compulsory and boobs become a commodity. In other words, it’s heaven for predators, particularly predators of the carnivorous man-eating fish persuasion. As luck would have it, an earthquake has just cracked open an ancient underwater cavern beneath the lake, home to thousands of prehistoric Piranhas eager to feast on the unsuspecting college crowd.

While the cheesy CGI Piranhas are the stars of the show, often pausing in front of the camera to show off their sharp pearly whites, there’s some other characters at prey play: Elisabeth Shue (Hollow Man) co-stars as the town’s devoted sheriff Julie, Steven R. McQueen (TV’s The Vampire Diaries) her hormonal 17 year-old son Jake and Jerry O’Connell (TV’s Sliders) the manic pornographer Derrick shooting his latest X-rated video in which the busty Kelly Brook (Survival Island) is set to star. Of course, none of these characters really matter in the scheme of things; they’re just glorified bait. In a film like this, an actor’s talent is best measured by who screams the loudest, or by whose body parts protrude the furthest from the screen. With that kind of logic, Kelly Brook should win an Oscar.

After 45 minutes of wet t-shirt competitions, nude underwater ballet and the occasional bloody demise, the film builds up to an impressively gruesome climax where hundreds of limbs are ripped apart like Velcro as the lake becomes the very definition of a bloodbath. Memorable deaths are in abundance, as are the in-your-face 3D effects where Piranhas make a habit of jumping out at you at any given moment. As far as cheesy, sexist and violent B-movies go, Piranha 3D is a blast.

But being a B-movie is also a bit of a problem for the film. Generally speaking, the main draw of a B-movie is that they’re a cheap $4  Blockbuster rental, not a $19 ticket stub. I guess you could always see the film in 2D and save a few dollars, especially since the 3D isn’t exceptionally good – it’s not true in-camera 3D like Avatar, it’s post-production 3D like Alice in Wonderland. Then again, do you really want to be known as the guy who saw the first ever 3D film with nudity in plain ol’ 2D? No, I didn’t think so.

Of course, you could just skip the film all together and go see an extended cut of James Cameron’s Avatar that is also being released this week, apparently because the $3 billion the film made in its first theatrical run only gets you half a Death Star (you know how the economy is these days). It’s ironic that Avatar should be re-released on the same day as Piranha 3D, firstly because Cameron’s debut film in 1981 was actually Piranha 2: The Spawning, something I imagine the Oscar-winning director prefers to keep on the down-low. Secondly because one of the new scenes in the extended cut of Avatar is also making provocative use of the 3D technology by featuring a steamy Na’vi sex scene between Jake and Neytiri. Apparently they even “touch tendrils.” Yowza!

So between blueberry bestiality and the bouncing boobies of botoxed beauties – hooray for alliteration! – it’s good to see Hollywood starting to unlock the true potential of 3D.

Or should that be 3-DD?

When Michael Winterbottom’s The Killer Inside Me premiered at the Sundance Film Festival in January, one of the film’s stars, Jessica Alba (Fantastic Four), reportedly walked out of the cinema half way through the screening. But who can blame her? This grim look into the psyche of a serial killer is so sadistically violent in parts, its borderline torture porn. As far as crime thrillers go, it’s also quite a bore.

The film marks the second failed attempt to adapt the controversial yet acclaimed 1952 novel by American crime author Jim Thompson, proof that some great pieces of literature just don’t belong on the big screen. The story follows Lou Ford (Casey Affleck; Gone Baby Gone), a well-mannered and respected Deputy Sheriff in a small Texas township.  Or so he appears. Lou’s deep-rooted psychopathic tendencies take over while cheating on his loving girlfriend Amy (Kate Hudson; Bride Wars) with a prostitute named Joyce (Jessica Alba, reminding us she can do dramatic acting). What begins as sado-sexual affair turns deadly when Lou ‘snaps’ and commits a twin murder, arranging the bodies so that it appears as though the victims killed each other. He initially has the town fooled, but a hotshot city attorney (Simon Baker; TV’s The Mentalist) holds Lou in suspicion and is determined to find evidence that will bring him to justice.

The setup certainly holds intrigue – I usually lap up dark and confronting crime stories like this — but Winterbottom’s detached direction and Jim Curran’s patchy screenplay leaves the audience out in the cold. First off, it’s imperative in a film about getting away with murder that you actually believe they get away with murder. Obviously, this isn’t easy. Many films fall apart at a narrative level due to glaring plot holes, farfetched conveniences and silly character judgments. The Killer Inside Me has all three. For instance, when someone is gruesomely bashed to death, the perpetrator is sure to have some visible bruising and cuts on his hands — if not broken fingers — that would be an obvious giveaway.  Not according to this film. This might seem like a petty critique, but when the source material takes itself this earnestly, it needs to be convincing if it wants to be compelling.

Casey Affleck’s understated performance attempts to unnerve with subtle intimations of the monster within, yet he doesn’t quite capture that burning inner anger, nor possess enough charisma an antagonist needs to win us over. John Curran’s screenplay is also at fault, revealing frustratingly little about Lou’s thoughts and motivations for murder. Never underestimate the power of the personal pronoun ‘I’; without being placed in the first person like the reader is in Thompson’s novel, we never truly get to know the killer within.

The Killer Inside Me shares the brutality of No Country For Old Men, but lacks the suspense. It depicts a similar decent into madness as American Psycho, but is without the compelling characterisation of its criminal lead. It’s clear Winterbottom (Genova, 9 Songs) set out to make an unnerving and provocative crime drama, one he hoped would linger in the back of the mind after leaving the cinema. It’s provocative all right, but purely because of the lurid depictions of violence. Emotionally, the film doesn’t register. We care little for those onscreen, causing the rather baffling conclusion to arrive as a moment of relief, rather than a moment of contemplation.

– This review was originally published on July 16th, 2010.

Would you laugh at a film depicting a man with explosives strapped to his body? No, probably not.

But what if he were dressed in costume like he’s come fresh from the set of Sesame Street? It’s hard not to in Four Lions, an audacious satire about the inner trials of a suicidal jihadist quintet.

The concept behind the film is certainly not easy to swallow, especially given the state of the world since, say, September 11th 2001 or July 7th 2005. Fortunately, the feature film debut of UK satirist Christopher Morris – England’s equivalent to the Chaser boys – is just as hilarious and heartfelt as it is controversial. Sure, you might find it insulting to think that the pride and might of England could crumble at the hands of five bumbling idiots, none of whom are competently schooled in their own radicalist ideology. But the one thing Morris and co-writers Jesse Armstrong and Sam Bain constantly remind us is that you don’t have to be an evil genius to blow yourself up.

Hailing from Sheffield and ingrained with a culture more English than they would like to admit, ring-leader Omar (Riz Ahmed), confused sheep Waj (Kayvan Novak), Islamic convert Barry (Nigel Lindsay) and the highly sensitive Fassal (Adeel Akhtar) meet their inabilities and inconsistencies head-on with skewed visions of martyrdom. While aiming their aggression toward the West and voicing disdain for capitalism and McDonalds amidst a haste to off themselves and take as many as they can with them, the four realise they are out of their depth. While attending a “wedding”, code for terrorist training in Pakistan, Omar and Waj discover how unprofessional they are at the Jihadist business and return home determined to find infamy as holy warriors. In their time away, Barry recruits Hassan (Arsher Ali), an angry, directionless college boy that serves as easy prey for their cause. The win over his loyalty by promising that the afterlife is like a wild ride at a theme park. Minus the queues, of course.

These five ‘lions’ come together alarmingly well, evoking a team spirit with their original mix of loyalty, pride and playfulness. Despite their horrific displays of racism and malice, they are strangely sympathetic characters — mostly through our pity and their inability to see the great life afforded to them by the very society the plan to attack. Omar, as the most intense and seemingly capable of the group, is blinded by his misguided objective and fails to see how beautiful his wife is and how much his son could do with a father on earth, rather than in ‘heaven’.

As the laughs pile high, time runs out for these would-be terrorists who have an explosive date with destiny. We watch with unease as their nerves get the better of them, causing their plans to crumble under the weight of their own incompetence. Still, Morris plays devil’s advocate during the film’s tense climax where the reality of the situation sinks in, resulting in a powerfully emotive punch line that is far from being as tasteless and inane as you might expect. Four Lions is a provocative gem that doesn’t glorify terrorism as much as it does smart, courageous filmmaking.

Zero gravity shootouts, chaotic car chases and mammoth explosions that would make Michael Bay green with envy. Yes, the new Sci-Fi thriller Inception is your typical Hollywood blockbuster.

Only it’s not.

Hidden somewhere beneath all that fandangle action lies something studio executives would usually hiss at while clutching a crucifix; a clever plot. Few films have one nowadays, possibly due to the word ‘clever’ being misinterpreted as ‘clichéd’ by screenwriting monkeys, or possibly because thinking films generally wind up in art-house theatres with a total audience of four. For this reason, if a big-budget action film wants to make a profitable return, the story must go something like this: boy meets girl, girl has giant knockers and runs around in super slow motion, boy discovers he can shoot lasers from his elbows, girl is impressed. Roll credits.

Inception, for reasons I’m about to tell you (so be patient!), is an exception to this rule. The film deals with psychological concepts that would give Dr. Freud a braingasm, such as the veracity of our dreams, the conceptual fabric of ideas and the uncontrollable influence of our subconscious.  Surprisingly, these dense themes haven’t stopped the film from exploding at the Australian box office, earning an impressive $16 million in its first two weeks. That’s practically unheard of for a film that is neither based on a pre-established franchise nor made by James Cameron.

So does this mean that your average moviegoer is actually getting smarter?
Goodness no!

You see, the real genius of Inception has little to do with how impenetrably complex the story is, but rather how well it convinces you that it’s impenetrably complex.  Given that almost every important plot detail is plainly verbalised by the characters, and that the story is actually without any game-changing twists, the film is arguably quite straightforward and easy to follow. Sure, things get a little bit hazy if you decide to read into it on a deeper level, but between dodging freight trains and outrunning avalanches, you don’t get much time to think too hard about the intricacies of the plot before the film is over. As a result, Inception leaves everyone feeling as though they have a PhD in psychology because they ‘get it’.

It’s interesting to note that Inception’s writer/director Christopher Nolan actually began formulating the story over ten years ago, right around the time a little film called The Matrix was making the rounds. Larry and Andy Wachowski’s reality-bending thriller went on to earn a sizeable $460 million globally as both audiences and critics alike ‘got it’. As with Inception, The Matrix succeeded not only because it squeezed on the adrenal glands like any good action film should, but because it tricked the brain into thinking the plot is actually more confusing than it really is.

As for the two Matrix sequels, Reloaded and Revolutions? Well, they’re a mess. It’s as if the Wachowski brothers drew a line straight down the middle of their screenplay in order to divide brains and brawn – smart people and dumb people – so that they never crossed paths. If Reloaded wasn’t chasing down teleporting albino twins in one of many pointless chase sequences, it was forcing us to endure some of the most confusing expository dialogue from a pompous twat who looks like he should be selling us fried chicken. What sets the original Matrix apart from these lacklustre sequels is that nearly all of the action scenes are integral to the telling of the story (yes, even the bullet-time). The same goes for Inception; the gravity-defying action is undeniably there to show off some big budget effects, but more importantly, it’s there to craft an engaging narrative in the most exciting way possible.

As you can imagine, it’s not easy to achieve a perfect balance between smart but not too smart, exciting but not senseless, and still prove to be hit at the box office. In all of cinematic history, I can only think of a few other quality Sci-Fi films that fit the bill: 2001: A Space Odyssey, Planet of the Apes, Back To The Future, Total Recall, Minority Report and WALL-E (as much as I’d love to include Blade Runner, the fact remains that the film was a critical and commercial flop when it was first released). These films effectively unite three radically different types of moviegoers; those who go to the movies purely for the spectacle, those who think all films should be profound explorations of the human condition and those who like to dress up as Chewbacca on weekends.

And that, my friends, is a beautiful thing.

– This article first appeared in On Dit Magazine (78.9).

Lovers of condiments, I have some unfortunate news; Salt, the movie, has absolutely nothing to do with salt, the mineral. Well, both go great with popcorn. But that’s about it.

Lovers of action movies, however, are in luck; this full-tilt espionage thriller from Australian director Philip Noyce hits the sweet spot neglected of late by bland genre mash-ups such as Killers and Knight and Day. Unlike these films, Salt doesn’t mess around trying to be funny or romantic, instead focusing solely on the one thing that counts: pulse-pounding action.

So who, exactly, is Evelyn Salt (Angelina Jolie)? At first, she would appear to be a devoted CIA agent happily married to a German arachnologist (August Diehl). But that’s before a Russian defector named Orlov (Daniel Olbrychski; Taras Bulba) accuses her of being a KGB sleeper agent left over from the Cold War. Rather than refute the claims, Salt decides to make a run for it. Not a good look for someone who says they’re innocent.

While on the run, Salt might as well be the sister of Jason Bourne, daughter of James Bond and cousin to MacGyver.  They’ve clearly taught her everything she knows, from creating makeshift bombs to jumping off bridges and onto speeding trucks in order to evade her CIA trackers, Agent Winter (Liev Schreiber; Defiance) and Peabody (Chiwetel Ejiofor; 2012). Like the rest of us, they just want some answers. Answers she’s not prepared to give.

Having helmed a number of 90s suspense thrillers such as Patriot Games and Clear and Present Danger, director Philip Noyce reaffirms his ability to capture exhilarating action, thankfully resisting the urge to resort to rapid-fire editing and nauseating camera jerks. Somewhat fitting for a dated Cold War-era paranoia plot, Noyce restores some classic sensibilities to the action genre that, nowadays, seems to think it has to wink at the audience every time something cliched or unbelievable happens. Salt doesn’t bother to point out just how silly it gets, retaining a straight face even when it goes from depicting the improbable to the downright impossible. It works because Noyce employs few CGI effects — the action is all in camera — and Jolie,  remarkably, does all her own stunts. Such visual authenticity makes it surprisingly easy to suspend disbelief and just get caught up in the moment.

If Clint Eastwood’s Changeling flexed Angie’s acting chops, Salt just about flexes everything else. Jolie spends most of her screen time dodging death and swatting down whoever dares stand in her way, delivering all of about four lines of dialogue in the process. The lack of exposition is a deliberate attempt by screenwriter Kurt Wimmer (Law Abiding Citizen) to keep us guessing as to Salt’s true identity — is she the protagonist or antagonist? — but it partially backfires in that we never really feel any sympathy for her plight. How can we care when we’re told so little about who she is or what her motives are?  Thankfully, Jolie makes for such an exciting and energetic action hero that her shallow characterisation is hardly the detractor it should be. Whether she’s Russian or American, blonde or brunette, Angie’s an absolute blast to watch.

At just 100 minutes long, Salt doesn’t overstay its welcome, wrapping up in a semi-satisfying way that leaves plenty of room for a sequel. If they end up calling it Pepper, I bet it’ll be a real… *ahem*…cracker.

I regret nothing!

Cairo Time is a nod and a wink to women of middle age. Contesting western attitudes, the gentle and understated film reveals there are escapades, challenges, and dark exotic men to be had by women on the wrong (or let’s say greater) side of fifty. The lead female is aptly named Juliette (Patricia Clarkson), as writer/director Ruba Nadda’s (Sabah: A Love Story) film summons Shakespeare’s theme of impossible love; a romance between ‘a pair of star-crossed lovers’.

Arriving in Cairo to meet her husband, Mark (Tom McCamus), a UN worker stationed in the Gaza strip,   Juliette Grant discovers he has been delayed, and instead meets her husband’s former UN co-worker, Tareq Khalifa (Alexander Siddig). In Mark’s absence, Juliette, an inquisitive and quietly audacious woman, is left to explore the alluring and unfamiliar city. As she is isolated from her husband, and as her two adult children have recently flown-the-coop, she is at one of life’s crossroads. However, in this exotic locale, her life is almost unrecognisable. Lusted-after by young men, lured by tales of lost love and affairs, and cautiously, and unofficially, courted by Tareq, Juliette gracefully and gradually yields to these unexpected and enchanting moments. Juliette is no longer anchored by familiar people and places, she is cast out into a new sensuous and far-removed existence; she is living in Cairo Time.

In actuality, not much happens within this film, though that is part of its charm. The story is told, and the romance is evident, through a series of low key nuances and glances. Whilst this reveals clever construction and proficient acting, it also exposed my status as an outsider to the films intended demographic. Whilst Juliette and Tareq’s companionship develops into forbidden emotional foreplay, or an unspoken mating dance, the threat of middle aged sex ominously loomed. Whilst the target audience was teased by an amorous glance or an expressive stare, I was bullied.

A picture of grace and refinement, I heard many comments about how lovely Juliette, or Patricia Clarkson, is by the fifty-something audience. Whilst her muted softness is engaging, I found her a little too precious. Whether she is confronted by gun toting soldiers, frustrated with her missing husband or taken off guard by her affection towards Tareq, Juliette remains in her Zen like state. Furthermore, whilst she is seemingly an intelligent and astute character, who engages and appreciates this mysterious land, Juliette displays blatant western ignorance and righteousness, though I find her feminist arguments hard to condemn.

A major draw card for the film, and I dare say Egyptian tourism, is the incredible visuals of Cairo. The audience is taken on a journey into the amazing city, without the need for a current passport or booster shots.  There is always something fascinating to survey, including images of staggering pyramids, The Great Sphinx, a bustling street market, or an impressive desert.  It seems director Nadda purposefully provides scenes to flaunt the fascinating city and culture, which I find completely justified and encourage in such a charming and scenic setting. Grittier aspects of Cairo are also explored, as poverty is delicately handled, despite Egyptian censorship constraints.

Verdict:

Cairo Time’s narrative is manna for the menopausal, but, at the very least, worthy for the rest. The sightseeing alone makes the film a fascinating interlude.

Ask a group of Australian teens to name one home-grown movie they’ve seen at the cinema in the last few years and you’ll likely receive a bunch of blank looks. And that’s hardly the result of ignorance. For reasons likely relating to budgetary constraints, our film industry tends not produce anything for younger action-craving demographics, which is a real shame considering how lucrative that market can be.

While far from perfect, Tomorrow, When the War Began deserves kudos simply for filling that void. Based on the immensely popular teen fiction novels by Australian author John Marsden, this action-packed directorial debut from screenwriter Stuart Beattie — best known for co-writing the Pirates of the Caribbean series — follows a group of teenagers as they struggle to survive in the wake of a shock invasion of Australia.

** Read our exclusive interview with stars Caitlin Stasey (Ellie) and Deniz Akdeniz (Homer) here! **

Tomorrow is our answer to the Hollywood blockbuster, boasting an attractive young cast, thrilling action set pieces, impressive special effects, and — just in case you start to think you are watching a Hollywood film — a scene where Vegemite is devoured straight from the jar. Next to riding Skippy to school, that’s about as Aussie as it gets.

But as is the case with most films dedicated to appeasing short attention spans, Tomorrow struggles to register on an emotional level. What was both a fascinating and frightening “what if?” scenario in Marsden’s novel is merely an excuse for repeat explosions in Beattie’s film, losing much of its intensity to far-fetched plotting and histrionic direction.

The film begins breezily when seven high school friends from a small country community decide to go on a camping trip to escape civilization (which is defined nowadays as being without mobile phone reception).   Each of the characters are prominently defined; there’s Ellie (Caitlin Stasey) the determined leader, Corrie (Rachel Hurd-Wood) her gossiping BFF, Kevin (Lincoln Lewis) the football jock, Fiona (Phoebe Tonkin) the prissy beauty queen, Robyn (Ashleigh Cummings) the staunch Christian, Homer the immature prankster and Lee (Chris Pang) the reticent son of Thai immigrants.

While sleeping under the stars, the group is awoken by dozens of military planes flying overhead, yet it’s only when they return to their eerily deserted homes that they realise the reality of the situation; Australia, for reasons unknown, has been invaded by foreign forces. Ellie and her friends come to the conclusion that if they want to survive the war, they’ll have to stop acting like kids and start thinking like soldiers.

Witnessing these teenagers forcedly mature in the face of adversity is an intriguing subtext somewhat spoilt by Beattie’s clumsy screenplay, where characters tend to verbalise exactly what they’re feeling rather than allowing for the actors to simply portray it. It’s a disservice to the performances that are generally quite solid, particularly for a young and relatively inexperienced cast. Ex-Neighbours star Caitlin Stasey has a strong screen presence as Ellie, exhibiting some impressive range as the headstrong protagonist. Stasey occasionally narrates the story in attempt to bring Ellie’s first-person perspective from the book to the screen, but it’s so feebly implemented that it really shouldn’t have made the final cut.

Up-and-coming Aussies Deniz Akdeniz and Ashleigh Cummings are also commendable in their roles, each clearly in sync with the nature of their characters. In fact, the only real disappointment comes by way of newcomer Chris Pang as Ellie’s love interest Lee. His dialogue is unconvincingly delivered and his presence on screen borders on awkward.

Ultimately, it’s hard not to feel slightly disappointed by what could have been a more nuanced look at how today’s teenagers respond to life-or-death situations, especially when you find yourself chuckling at scenes asking to be taken seriously. That being said, Tomorrow, When the War Began should equally be applauded for its ambitious Hollywood scale, featuring some of the most explosive action sequences to come out of our industry in years. This is a film made for teens, and it’s important to remember that while watching. It’s just a shame that those who first grew up with Marsden’s books are now of an age where they prefer their drama with less pulp and more polish.

In late high school, like so many action movie fan boys, I dreamt up the ultimate cheesy action movie. That idea was Fight Team, an all-star action extravaganza that would feature the greatest names from action movie history: Sylvester Stallone, Jean Claude Van Damme and Steven Segal among them, with a special appearance from Arnold Schwarzenegger, and a surprise final-boss fight with Chuck Norris. At the end of the movie, they would all fist bump and yell “FIGHT TEAM!” It would be action awesomeness on an unparalleled scale.

The year is now 2010, and I have discovered to my great delight that The Expendables essentially is Fight Team. It’s a straightforward action flick with a simple but well executed plot, stunning fight scenes, giant explosions and some killer one liners. It’s also one of the most enjoyable movies I’ve seen this year (a surprisingly close second to Inception – who would have thought!). The driving force behind the project, Sylvester Stallone (Rocky) — who directs, co-writes and stars in the movie — has assembled an all-out who’s who of testosterone-oozing, bulked up, gun-toting, kick-ass action stars for the brawl flick of the year.

Before you all start rolling your eyes however, don’t jump the gun too fast. A film whose selling point is largely its sprawling cast can often turn unwieldy, incoherent and altogether terrible. Stallone, however, pulls off a surprising mastery of direction and control over such a potentially flop-worthy project that turns The Expendables from a bad-joke into a must-see for action junkies. Harkening back to some 1980s classics such as Predator, Commando and Rambo, the film feels old — but old in a good way, where special effects are live-action stunts and the material is treated seriously with a touch of wryness. The cast is huge; however half are really just cameos, with the core group forming around Stallone, Jason Statham (Transporter 3), Jet Li (The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor), Randy Couture (Big Stan, UFC), Terry Crews (Terminator: Salvation) and Dolph Lundgren (Direct Contact). If that’s not enough (it never is…), there’s also Mickey Rourke (Iron Man 2), Steve Austin (WWF Raw), Eric Roberts (The Dark Knight), David Zayas (Dexter), Giselle Itié (Bela a Feia) and Charisma Carpenter (Angel). Oh, and Arnold Schwarzenegger and Bruce Willis briefly show up too.

The story follows a tough-as-nails mercenary group called The Expendables, a collection of misfit warriors who’ve found themselves in the lucrative world of international private “security”. They bust up targets with high-powered weaponry, plastic explosives, and when that doesn’t work hand-to-hand smack downs. When a new but dangerous job comes their way, the group is hesitant to take it on, until the mission evolves to the point that it becomes not a matter of money but of personal redemption. In fact, one of the film’s more powerful scenes is a surprisingly dark and heartfelt monologue by Rourke, essentially exploring the film’s key theme of the loss of humanity that is practically inevitable in their line of work. Who said B-action movies couldn’t be deep?

Of course, the story, characters and themes are all obviously secondary to the most important aspect of the movie – the action. That’s where The Expendables truly shines. From the choreography to the stunts to the editing to the sheer amount of gunfire, punches and things that go BOOM, Stallone nails exactly how action should look, sound and feel. The effect is surreal, almost spiritual. The largely young male audience in the theatre literally whooped and applauded (myself included) at some of most iconic moments of carnage and destruction. The film’s climax delivers and delivers and just keeps topping itself, making it possibly the most satisfying experience since cheeseburgers after a very big night.

Naturally, The Expendables will not be everyone’s cup of tea. It is designed through and through to be the ultimate action flick. In this respect, Stallone has triumphed beyond all expectation and left me badly craving a repeat viewing. Oh, and by the way, there was even a fist bump at the end. Fight Team lives!