Please, please, please say it isn’t so. In what is quite possibly the most disturbing and unexpected piece of casting news of the week, Nicole Kidman, the Academy Award winner currently deemed by critics to be box office poison and one of my personal favourite actresses, has reportedly joined the cast of the upcoming rom-com Just Go For It.

That’s right, the actress responsible for powerhouse performances in films like The Hours, Dogville and The Others is joining Adam Sandler, Jennifer Aniston and current Sports Illustrated cover girl Brooklyn Decker, in a less-than-lacklustre story of a man (Sandler) so afraid of commitment that he tells his girlfriend (Decker) that he is married. When she threatens to leave him, he persuades a woman (Aniston) and her children to act as his family to prove his honesty. Kidman is poised to play Rae Ann Devlin, a character whose exact role in the film has yet to be announced.

Whilst many believe that Kidman could simply be appearing in a cameo appearance, ala her ex-husband Tom Cruise’s cameo in Tropic Thunder, I can’t help but think that this particular career move is still going to be massacred by the critics, especially since her previous forays into the comedy genre, such as The Stepford Wives and Bewitched, have been critical and commercial flops. And this is a shame really, because she once possessed a winning talent for dark humour and comedy, such as To Die For and Margot at the Wedding. So maybe if Nicole really wants to do comedies (which at the moment it seems she does) then I think she should look for a script that is darker, and not so much romantic-fluff. This casting announcement is equally unexpected because her recent line up of films Rabbit Hole (completed) and The Danish Girl (announced), hinted to her fans of a possible return to the dramatic, powerhouse performances that once made her the Queen of Hollywood and the toast of award ceremonies. I wait for this film with baited breath.

As a gamer myself, I have always dreamt of seeing big budget adaptations of my favourite video games. Unfortunately, The Legend of Zelda, Fallout or Shadow of the Colossus haven’t made it to the silver screen. Some fans, however, would dread the production of these titles – for good reason too. The general consensus is that film adaptations of video games are poor and unsatisfactory viewing experiences.

Therefore, most of my life I have avoided these films, partly because of the bad reputation, but also because almost every title released so far seemed like a really poor idea or (in the case of Max Payne and Silent Hill) received generally negative criticism. Although, I do have it on good authority that Super Mario Bros is an excellent piece of cinema: adapting the hit title from the Nintendo Entertainment System. But, I digress.

Now another popular, critically acclaimed, video game franchise is getting the movie treatment, with one small difference: it might actually be good. From Jerry Bruckheimer and Disney comes Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, a seemingly loose adaptation of the similarly titled video game. So far, promotion of the film has featured impressive trailers boasting a strong cast and high budget visuals – something that may help it break the stigma associated with video game films.

Having played the game, I was impressed to see Jake Gyllenhaal cast as the protagonist, a highly acrobatic, handsome and fearless prince who becomes the bearer of a mystical dagger, which can turn back time. He suited the character well, while bringing strong talent to a film that could easily have cast B grade actors. Actors Alfred Molina and Sir Ben Kingsley add even more welcome flavour to the proverbial talent pot.

The trailer primarily shows off Gyllenhaal as Prince Dastan who sports a characteristic British accent and some attitude. Romantic tension is established with an accompanying female beauty (Gemma Arterton), complete with amusing banter. Chemistry between Arterton and Gyllenhaal remains to be seen, but so far looks promising.

In playing the Sands of Time game, key elements of enjoyment came from the game play (primarily fighting, time travel and acrobatics) as well as the visuals. Thankfully the film seems to borrow heavily from these great elements. The trailer shows off familiar costume and weapon design, parkour acrobatics and swordplay involving the manipulation of time.

Other than focusing on a magic dagger which can manipulate time, the story borrows more from The Lord of the Rings, than the Prince of Persia games. The foreboding narration during the trailer immediately sounds familiar as it describes Dastan’s task to deliver this magic dagger (the one ring) to a “guardian temple” (Mount Doom) to hide it from those that will use it to “destroy the world” (Sauron). There is also a set of evil assassins, which act dubiously like Ring Wraiths. Either way, it shouldn’t matter, because the original game’s story was never that engaging anyway.

With Jerry Bruckheimer producing another action adventure for Disney, sites around the web have drawn a similarity between it and Pirates of the Caribbean (e.g. this from IGN). This is a fair comparison, considering the current trailers advertise it from the “producer of Pirates of the Caribbean” and the film seems just as light hearted. If this formula can be maintained, the film is destined for, at least, moderate success.

The potential for a great adventure movie is definitely there. Well choreographed set pieces and humour are the bread and butter of action adventure movies. The film makers have clearly tried to draw upon the game’s strengths and make the movie worthwhile for fans. Whether the plot has too many shortcomings to be ignored is another matter, but that will be discovered upon release. The biggest success of the production, so far, is that a video game has been transformed into a high budget film that is clearly seeking the top box office position – a welcome move for any video game movie.

Sources:
[Trailer Addict]
[Disney]
[IGN]

Latest Trailer:



Generally speaking, penises shouldn’t ever be laughed at. Unless, of course, that penis is the star of Tyrannosaurus Sex, a fiercely funny and wildly creative puppet rock opera about an insecure lil’ pecker named Bob. Certainly not one for the easily offended, this adults-only show is like the Avenue Q of the Adelaide Fringe.

Originally written, designed and performed by puppet maker Philip Millar for the Melbourne Fringe Festival a few years back, Tyrannosaurus Sex has made its way to Adelaide thanks to the talented puppeteers of the SA-based Pooka Puppet Co. They skilfully animate Bob, a normal-sized penis who has been saturated by idealistic media stereotypes and believes that he’s never going to get lucky unless he’s hung like a grandfather clock. Every night he sits flaccidly in front of the telly, beer in hand, flicking between adult infomercials – hosted by a sleazy arse-faced salesman named Bumshark – and classic monster movies where giant prehistoric penises wreck havoc through Bob’s self-esteem.

The laughs come hard and fast as the show builds up to a spectacular climax, where Bob, happily reunited with the rest of his body, erupts into the catchy chorus of ‘Every Penis Has a Brain’. Much like that last sentence, the lyrics are packed full of witty sexual innuendos, made all the more memorable by Derek Rowe’s original score. He dabbles in genres such as techno-funk, heavy metal, heartfelt ballads and soaring pop anthems to illuminate Bob’s plight, one that is more relatable than many men would care to admit.

The real brilliance of Tyrannosaurus Sex lies with Millar’s provocative puppets, all of whom are teeming with personality and are scrupulously detailed down to the smallest of veins. With many credits to his name — including stage productions of The Hobbit and The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe — Millar’s talent is immense, utilising table-top puppets, hand puppets, shadow puppets, full body suit puppets and even animatronics to full comedic effect. It’s all seamlessly integrated into a rapturous 45 minute show which, like Bob, is just the right length.

[Review originally written for Buzzcuts]

—

Presented by Puppet Palace Projects & Pooka Puppets in association with Puppet Vision

Feb 12 – Mar 13 (excl Feb 15,16,19,22 & 23; Mar 12,8 & 9)

—

Read many more great Fringe reviews at the Buzzcuts website!

The Adelaide Fringe Festival runs from the 19th February – 14th March. Check out the program guide and buy tickets online at www.adelaidefringe.com.au

While George W. Bush was prematurely touting “Mission Accomplished” from the deck of the USS Lincoln back in May 2003, super soldier Roy Miller (Matt Damon) was going Rambo through the streets of Baghdad, determined to uncover the truth as to why US intelligence was so incredibly wrong about Iraq harbouring weapons of mass destruction.

Much of that last sentance, I hope you realise, is complete hogwash; no rogue soldier singlehandedly unearthed the WMD scandal, and even if he had, he most certainly wouldn’t have done it while running and gunning his way around war-torn Iraq as if it were a videogame. Yet this is exactly the kind of nonsense preached in director Paul Greengrass’ (The Bourne Identity, United 93)  misguided political thriller Green Zone, a title derived from the Coalition’s safe zone in Baghdad during the Iraq occupation.

In a flagrant effort to get box office takings into the green zone of a different kind, the film abridges and drastically rewrites the messy history of the Iraq invasion to better suit Hollywood heroism, turning a potentially intelligent and provocative political thriller into little more than a generic Bourne sequel.

Even as cushy popcorn action, Green Zone misfires. Only during the opening act — where Chief Warrant Officer Miller and his outfit make a move on a suspected WMD site only to discover cobwebs – was I genuinely thrilled. Nearly all of the action that follows comes across as derivative and detached, namely because we’re given no reason to care for anyone but Miller on the battlefield. Since he’s played by leading man Matt Damon, suspense is hard to come by as you can rest assured knowing he won’t be killed off any time soon. As for the rest of his squad of brave soldiers? Who cares; we barely get to know their names.

That’s where Brian Helgeland’s screenplay stumbles: it’s so intensely focused on just one character, everyone else is reduced to cardboard cut-outs. Greg Kinnear’s character Clark Poundstone — a Pentagon Special Intelligence operative who thinks the needs of Iraq are synonymous with the wants of the US – makes for such a two-dimensional baddie, he could very well be the next Bond villain. Then there’s Brendan Gleeson as sceptical CIA chief Martin Brown, most notable for sounding like an angry pirate. Lastly, Amy Ryan portrays Wall Street Journal correspondent Lawrie Dayne, an insipid character who more accurately should have been credited as ‘Plot Device’.

Matt Damon, who always manages to look good wielding a gun, uses his understated charisma and down-to-earth disposition to prevent Miller from coming across as the superhuman action hero he really is.  Along with some impressive art direction – particularly in the early scenes where we see the devastation left behind by the initial airstrike – Damon saves this film from completely bombing.

Cinematographer Barry Ackroyd’s (The Bourne Identity, The Hurt Locker) notoriously shaky camera work is certainly disorienting, but thankfully isn’t as nauseating as it has been in the past (maybe I’m just getting used to it). Far more frustrating was the excessive use of film grain, which made it damn near impossible to see what’s going on during the poorly staged night-time action finale. If it weren’t for a few crystal clear cutaway shots to Army Headquarters, I would have said that the print used for the preview screening was smeared in sand.

One of the many reasons why The Hurt Locker recently left the Oscars with the title of Best Picture is because it doesn’t get bogged down in the politics of the Iraq war. Why is that a good thing? Without an agenda, the film had time to get down and dirty with the characters – you know, those things audiences connect with – making the action all the more gripping as we genuinely cared for, and believed in, the soldiers depicted. Green Zone, making the same mistakes as all the other films set in Iraq, places the politics before the people.

Looking like a dishevelled British rocker badly hung-over from an all night bender, Mark Butler seems like the kind of guy who would sooner consider calculus to be a comic book superhero than a mathematical theorem. It turns out, however, that before he became a talented comedian and an Adelaide Fringe regular, he spent four years as a maths teacher in the UK. So why the drastic change in career? If his entertaining debut play Rogue Teacher has any truth to it, Butler’s morals are far better suited to the stage than they are the classroom.

Adapted from Butler’s novel ‘A Playground for Disobedient Dinosaurs’, this semi-serious play focuses on Red Thomas (Butler), a crooked maths teacher who takes advantage of his students, and more scandalously, their teenage girlfriends. The result is a diverting classroom drama that is both capably performed and thoughtfully written, in spite of a few issues with pacing and a desperate need for a more suitable venue.

Butler, partly putting aside his knack for comedy, avoids trivialising events by not overdoing the humour, instead subtly infusing hints of wit to make the serious issues at hand more palatable. The show has been written specifically for this Fringe, meaning it’s packed full of references to Adelaide locations, such as St Peters College where most of the events transpire. It’s a nice touch as it helps the audience better envisage the locations outside of the main classroom setting, especially since the only props on the small stage are a desk and blackboard.

He claims to have never acted before, yet Butler’s subtly nuanced performance as Red is standout, the flippancy of his character being both credibly depicted and strangely endearing. The small supporting cast – including Aaron Nash as a hot-headed student, Alicia Case as his promiscuous girlfriend and Alex Cheers as a naive and self-absorbed sports teacher – all perform well, despite the occasional slip-up in what was their second performance to date. Look out for Gary Heartly as the school’s high achieving principal and Robyn Brooks as a student’s overtly suggestive mother; both are scene stealers in their all-too-brief roles.

The show is playing at the Producers Bar inside the Electric Light Hotel, a grungy venue on Grenfell Street that is far better suited to moshable music gigs than sit-down stage shows. On top of the theatre entrance being obscurely located within the main bar, the seating is severely limited (some were forced to stand up) and the heat was almost unbearable as the sole air conditioner ceased to operate. Such unacceptably high temperatures took their toll on the cast, who clearly started to run out of energy by the hour mark, while the audience grew restless in their seats. It wasn’t long before programmes became personal fans.

Ultimately, those hoping for a joke-a-minute might want to consider enrolling elsewhere, as the balance of comedy and drama in Rogue Teacher is definitely in favour of the latter. But if you’re keen for a dramatic lesson in concepts such as chaos theory – which suggests even the smallest of actions can have a life changing effect – you’d be wise not to wag this one.

[Review originally written for Buzzcuts]

Presented by Mark Butler/Alex Cheers
Electric Light Hotel, 235 Grenfell St
February 20 – March 6 (excl. Feb 21-25 & 28; Mar 1-3)

—

Read many more great Fringe reviews at the Buzzcuts website!

The Adelaide Fringe Festival runs from the 19th February – 14th March. Check out the program guide and buy tickets online at www.adelaidefringe.com.au

Something unexpected happened around the half hour mark of the ho-hum romantic drama Remember Me. No, the film didn’t start to improve. Don’t be silly.  Rather, I realised that leading man Robert Pattinson – or RPattz as his legions of adoring Twilight fans call him – was in the middle of doing something many critics said he wasn’t capable of. Yes, he was acting. And doing a pretty darn good job of it too.

However, aside from allowing Pattinson a chance to flex his acting chops, Remember Me isn’t good for much else. It sits awkwardly between the heavy drama and teen romance genres, and much like a misunderstood teenager, it isn’t sure where it belongs, ultimately alienating itself from both.

With an uncanny resemblance to James Dean, Pattinson portrays angst-ridden Tyler Hawkins, a 21-year-old Brooklyn boy with daddy issues. Still cut from by the loss of his older brother years before, Tyler channels his anger toward his father Charles (Pierce Brosnan), a successful businessman who places family a distant second. After a clash with a jaded police detective (Chris Cooper) lands him in jail for the night, Tyler’s best friend Aidan (Tate Ellington) suggests he enact his revenge by wooing the officer’s daughter Ally (Emilie de Ravin). However, the two find comfort in each other’s company and eventually fall in love, causing Tyler to bury the truth behind their supposed ‘chance’ encounter.

As implied by the film’s tag-line ‘Live Life in the Moment’, screenwriter Will Fetters has scribed a story about appreciating the little things. That’s fine, but did those little things all have to be this mundane?  While the dialogue flows naturally, most of the drama in Remember Me lacks any real weight of consequence, haphazardly strung together by director Allen Coulter (Hollywoodland) without much consideration for dramatic tension. If it wasn’t for Marcelo Zarvos’ poignant score, I wouldn’t have known at any given time what emotion I was supposed to be feeling.

With Remember Me predominantly appealing to starry-eyed teenage girls, it doesn’t help that the romance between Tyler and Ally is criminally underwritten. The two barely get a chance to share sob stories before they’re in each other’s pants. I guess when you’re the adored star of Twilight, girls don’t put up much of a fight. Nevertheless,  the credibility of their relationship suffers as a result, which seems more interested in giving Pattinson and De Ravin an excuse to show off some skin than develop in any kind of meaningful way.

De Ravin, let down by the two dimensional nature of her character, leaves little impression as Ally, which is a shame because the 28-year-old Lost star has talent. With a far meatier role, Pattinson crafts a likable character out of Tyler, handling each emotional shift far more convincingly than he ever did as Edward in Twilight. He goes head to head with acting veterans Chris Cooper and Pierce Brosnan and surprisingly comes out on top, proving he’s more than just a pretty face. In fact, the only time he is truly outshone is during his scenes with the tremendously talented 11-year-old actress Ruby Jerins, who plays Tyler’s younger sister Caroline. Their touching relationship is easily the highlight of an otherwise unremarkable film.

And that’s the cruel irony here; Remember Me is totally forgettable. It knows it, too. That’s why it features a shock ending that arrives like a sharp stab in the back, a desperate act to bleed emotion out of the audience in the most shameless of ways.  If it is to be remembered, it’ll be for all the wrong reasons.

You would be forgiven for expecting a lot of sharp comedy from Grant Heslov’s The Men Who Stare at Goats. The plot contains an interesting mix of elements that should act as seeds for engaging, thematic humour. Unfortunately, the film restricts itself to a few moments of hilarity, leaving the rest of the story to become ‘quirky’ and rather average. It is by no means bad, of course, but rather a case of what ‘could have been’ that becomes the disappointment in the end.

When reporter Bob Wilton (Ewan McGregor) loses his wife to her lover, a man with one arm, he is forced to re-evaluate his life. Determined to make something of himself, Wilton travels to the Middle East to write on the current Iraq war in hopes of gaining some journalistic integrity. In an attempt to cross the Kuwait/Iraq border he meets Lyn Cassady (George Clooney) who convinces Wilton that he is part of a psychic arm of the US military. The desperate Wilton believes Cassady’s story, which includes a ludicrous description of soldiers as “Jedi’s” and their ability to kill goats by staring at them. It soon becomes apparent that the previous commander of this psychic division, Bill Django (Jeff Bridges), has disappeared and Lyn Cassady is on a mission to find him.

The film follows Bob and Lyn as they traverse war ridden Iraq in search of Django. This is mixed with sequences detailing the creation of the psychic division (known as the New Earth Army) and Django’s involvement. Overall, this works well to maintain variety, but the scenes with Clooney and McGregor are significantly more entertaining and leave you wanting less back story.

The Men Who Stare at Goats builds up well, but falls short during the final act. There are several moments in the film where the audience is left to question the validity of Lyn Cassady’s psychic power. These moments build up our expectations of discovering whether the New Earth Army is truly paranormal, or a complete sham – either outcome would be rewarding. Unfortunately this ends in disappointment, as the film doesn’t submit itself to either during the climax. This may be because the story is supposedly based on true events, but guessing which parts of the film are embellished (for comic/artistic license) and which are factual isn’t nearly as enjoyable as receiving a definitive answer. Leaving the audience uncertain can be disappointing for fiction; it sometimes works – but not here. A documentary on the true story would have been more acceptable and engaging, regarding this.

If you can overcome the disappointing climax (which also relishes in silliness instead of sharp humour) you can enjoy The Men Who Stare at Goats as a decent comedy. George Clooney exudes confidence as Cassady, who exasperates Ewan McGregor’s character frequently with his unquestionable reliance on psychic ability. Their dynamic is quite enjoyable to watch and the humour is varied and unpredictable. There is a sense of uncontrollable adventure following these two characters, who find themselves in some deliciously hairy situations. One scene in particular satirises the role of private contractors in war perfectly. If only more of this unpredictable, intelligent and topical comedy had pervaded the other half of the quirky storyline.

Unfortunately the scenes depicting Bill Django’s involvement in the New Earth Army aren’t nearly as good. Watching a group of US soldiers become hippies, taking drugs and dancing feels like a cheap shot at humour. Even Kevin Spacey’s presence as Larry Hooper, the antagonist, feels weak and single layered. Luckily it isn’t all about these characters.

There are some great moments in The Men Who Stare at Goats and those who are looking to be distracted with some light entertainment will find it worth the price of admission. However, the potential for comedy, in what reads as an incredible synopsis, falls short. Themes of superstition and cults mixed with war and politics are not comically explored as they could have been. It’s a letdown in this respect, but I admit that relies heavily on expectations. Don’t expect anything too multi-faceted and you should have a fairly enjoyable 90 minutes at the cinema.

Each time this year, the Fringe Festival hits little old Adelaide in an explosion of art and culture, engulfing the city of churches in a lively bohemian atmosphere. The festival sees live performers from all over the world come to flaunt their stuff, be it comedy, dance, music or theatre. I’ll be emerging from the dark depths of the cinema to catch some of the shows on offer, reviewing them for a great site called Buzzcuts.

Here is an excerpt from my review of Mada vs. Vegas, courtesy of Buzzcuts:

Magic meets melodrama in Mada vs. Vegas, but they don’t exactly hit it off.

You’ll already be familiar with the premise of the show if you’ve seen the 2006 film ‘The Prestige’: two rivalling magicians – who were long-time friends prior to a trick going horribly wrong – take to a smoky stage in a battle of wits, card tricks and pyrotechnics.

The idea is certainly novel – not often does stage magic get dealt a narrative – but the execution is lacking. The theatrics of their conflict are considerably underplayed, with the back story explaining why the two became rivals reduced to an offhand remark. Perhaps we could have seen the performance that started the feud?

Their greatest adversary here is time, not each other. An hour isn’t nearly long enough to adequately balance magic and drama, forcing a compromise to be reached. As a result, we get two magicians occasionally casting each other moody glances, trying to outdo one another by way of the more elaborate examples of pub magic.

There’s no questioning the talent of these Sydney illusionists, both being experts at sleight of hand and the performance of the illusion itself. But aside from a particularly daring opening trick (with a very real risk of injury), there’s nothing terribly elaborate here. Nothing you couldn’t see performed, say, by a skilled busker in the mall.

The high level of audience participation keeps everyone on their toes, but it works counteractive to the dramatic tension they’re trying to build. The show is at its best during the last act where the two don’t break the fourth wall, thereby allowing full immersion in their characters. Like something out of Mad Magazine’s comic ‘Spy vs. Spy’, both magicians resort to dirty tactics to get ahead, playing tricks on each other and not just the audience. It makes for an amusing dramatic spectacle and offers a brief glimpse of the show’s true potential.

So who is ultimately crowned top dog? Neither Mada nor Vegas in my book, but rather their accompanying magician Julia Madotti, who enthrals between each act with a magic-infused dance routine. As one of few female illusionists in Australia, she shows the boys how it’s done.

Read many more great Fringe reviews at the Buzzcuts website!

The Adelaide Fringe Festival runs from the 19th February – 14th March. Check out the program guide and buy tickets online at www.adelaidefringe.com.au

Alice in Wonderland is the result of Disney inviting director Tim Burton, a certified specialist in cinematic lunacy, and author Lewis Carroll, the pioneer of literary nonsense, to the same tea party. In other words, it’s the closest you’ll get to absolute madness without being locked in a room with padded walls. But being bonkers isn’t so bad. As Alice’s father remarks, “all the best people are.”

As the first ‘big’ family movie of 2010, Disney/Burton’s reimagining of Carroll’s classic tale almost lives up to some lofty expectations, remaining a wondrous piece of escapism despite some narrative shortcomings. It’s more of a sequel than a remake, with Alice (Mia Wasikowska), now 20 years old, falling back down the rabbit hole for the second time.

Or so the White Rabbit, still running late as ever, seems to think. He’s convinced that she is the same Alice who visited years before, but as she recalls, it was only a vivid dream.  He’s also having a hard time convincing his wacky companions, such as bulbous twins Tweedledum and Tweedledee (each voiced by Matt Lucas); a small but feisty Doormouse (Barbara Windsor); a cynical but wise caterpillar (Alan Rickman) and, of course, the Mad Hatter (Johnny Depp),   whose tea parties have been spoilt by the wicked Red Queen (Helena Bonham Carter) and her destructive rule over the kingdom.

Cherry picking concepts and characters from Carroll’s books, Linda Woolverton’s screenplay has plenty of peculiar wit to chortle at, in spite of a narrative that seems a tad undercooked. It doesn’t start that way; the framing story is both clever and amusing – Alice’s visit to Wonderland takes place during her own engagement party for a predetermined marriage she’s not exactly chuffed about – but before long,  the plot  starts to smell a lot like one of Disney’s previous ventures, The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe. It doesn’t help that fate is the key component to Wolverton’s story, adding to the predictability of events given they’re foretold to us early on, causing the CGI heavy climactic battle to underwhelm when it does inevitably arrive.

But notwithstanding the ho-hum narrative, the delightful characters and dazzling setting is more than enough to make this a joyous trip to the cinema. Burton is a true visionary, who doesn’t just vividly create surreal settings, but proceeds to dance his way through them with childlike vitality. Eye-popping 3D effects provide the rabbit hole with much more depth than before, the creature designs and animations – from the devious Cheshire Cat (Stephen Fry) to the utterly lovable bass hound Bayard (Timothy Spall) —  being particularly excellent. Comparisons to Avatar are to be expected, and indeed valid, as James Cameron has set a lofty benchmark for digital imagery. While Underland isn’t quite as lush or photorealistic as the moon of Pandora, it’s still beautiful place to visit with all its endearing eccentricity. In a way, it’s a bit like watching Avatar while high on opium.

Sitting somewhere between Saoirse Ronan of The Lovely Bones and Cate Blanchett in age and looks, pale Australian beauty Mia Wasikowska is perfectly cast as Alice, full of wide eyed wonder and compelling determination. Burton’s leading man Johnny Depp is up to his usual tricks, mixing up some of his most memorable personas to become the Mad Hatter. He bears the quirky disposition of Willy Wonka, with the tender insecurities of Edward Scissorhands and the occasional, near uncontrollable burst of Jack Sparrow zing. Maybe it’s just me, but you just want to give him a big hug every time he appears on screen, even though there’s a good chance he’ll try and nibble on your ear if you do.

Rounding out the impressive cast, Little Britain’s Matt Lucas provides solid comic relief as the Tweedle twins, while Burton’s partner Helena Bonham Carter – barely recognisable behind her digitally enlarged head and marvellous make up – makes being evil look more fun than it should. Perhaps it’s because the righteous alternative is made out to be so dull, the result of Anne Hathaway being both miscast and misdirected as overly mannered White Queen.

This is a Disney film, so it’s obviously not one of Burton’s darkest moments, but there are still a few gloomy scenes — such as floating, decapitated heads being used as stepping stones — that could frighten youngsters. Otherwise, they’ll be having a ball.  Adults, there’s plenty here for you too. Take, for instance, the Mad Hatters self-professed ability at the suspiciously suggestive “funderwhack” dance.

There’s sure to be ladies everywhere queuing up to see Depp perform that in 3D.

With the 82nd Academy Awards ceremony just under two weeks away, the movie blogging community is going rabid with their predictions. Here at Cut Print Review, however, we’ve kept quiet on the subject, as down here in Australia many of the Oscar nominated films don’t see the light of day until the weeks leading up to the ceremony, and often,  long after it has passed. Now that I’ve had a chance to see most of the films nominated, I thought it was about time to chime in with my predictions.

Unlike last year, where Slumdog Millionaire was a far and away the favourite across the board, there’s a tad more ambiguity surrounding some of the chief categories, particularly for Best Picture. Some argue that this is a result of the Academy’s decision to increase the best picture field from five to ten nominees. I disagree. If you ask me, all that’s done is give five pictures – District 9, The Blind Side, Up, An Education and Precious – a false sense of hope. The remaining five, however, are all in with a chance. But as much as I’d like to see Up in the Air or Inglourious Basterds take the Oscar, the last few weeks have seen two favourites emerge: Avatar and The Hurt Locker.

My prediction is that The Hurt Locker will edge out Avatar for two reasons. Firstly, because I really don’t think Avatar, although highly entertaining, is best picture material. Secondly, because it’s incredibly rare for the Best Picture winner to be different to the Best Director winner. Since Kathryn Bigelow is practically a shoo-in for the director statuette – Jim Cameron has had his day as King and it’s about time a woman director won — one would therefore assume her film would also pick up Best Picture. Wouldn’t it be great if during her acceptance speech Kathryn said “I’m the Queen of the world!” just to really rub it in.

As for the Best Actor category, I’m not convinced there is a clear cut winner like many suggest. Jeff Bridges of Crazy Heart is often cited as the favourite, but I feel that because he appears in a movie that isn’t nearly as good as his performance, he tends to come out looking better by comparison. George Clooney on the other hand appears in a fantastic movie and still manages to shine, which to me makes his performance all the more commendable. I wouldn’t rule out Jeremy Renner (The Hurt Locker) or Colin Firth (A Single Man) either, Renner entirely possible for the upset. But I’m going with Clooney.

Best Actress? I honestly haven’t the foggiest. One thing I can say for certain is that I do not want Meryl Streep to win. Not only did I find her performance in Julie & Julia irritating, the actress has Oscars practically for earrings. Same goes for you, Helen Mirren. I say give it to one of the newbies, preferably Carey Mulligan over Gabourey Sidibe. Say what you like, but I’m still not convinced Sidbe’s performance is all that good in Precious. Chances are though Sandra Bullock will win gold for The Blind Side, purely because the Academy felt sorry that she was involved in the disaster that was All About Steve (which our reviewer Katina went against the grain to give a lukewarm review).

Far more predictable are the supporting actor/actress categories; I wouldn’t be surprised if Mo’Nique (Precious) and Christoph Waltz (Inglourious Basterds) had already cleared a space out in their trophy cabinets. While I’m secretly rooting for Anna Kendrick of Up in the Air and Stanley Tucci of The Lovely Bones, it’d be a huge upset if Mo’Nique or Waltz lost.

In the best Animated Feature category, I’d almost be willing to bet my left testicle that Up will win. Since the Pixar film was also nominated for Best Picture, surely that would mean it is guaranteed to win Best Animated, right? It just seems so logical. (By the way, I’m still devastated Adam Elliot’s clay-animated masterpiece Mary and Max didn’t make the nominees, as with the insanely entertaining Cloudy with A Chance of Meatballs).

As for all the other categories, I suspect most of the technical awards will head the way of Avatar (and rightfully so) and art/design awards will be fought between The Young Victoria, Sherlock Holmes and Nine.

Below is a full list of nominees for the 82nd Academy Awards:
My predicted winners are listed in blue, however the nominees I’d like to win (however improbable) are listed in green.

Best Picture:

“Avatar”

“The Blind Side”

“District 9″

“An Education”

“The Hurt Locker”

“Inglourious Basterds”

“Precious: Based on the Novel PUSH by Sapphire”

“A Serious Man”

“Up”

“Up in the Air”

Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role:

Morgan Freeman – “Invictus”

Jeff Bridges – “Crazy Heart”

George Clooney – “Up in the Air”

Colin Firth – “A Single Man”

Jeremy Renner – “The Hurt Locker”

Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role:

Meryl Streep – “Julie & Julia”

Sandra Bullock – “The Blind Side”

Helen Mirren – “The Last Station”

Gabourey Sidibe – “Precious: Based on the Novel PUSH by Sapphire”

Carey Mulligan – “An Education”

Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role:

Christoph Waltz - “Inglourious Basterds”

Christopher Plummer – “The Last Station”

Matt Damon – “Invictus”

Stanley Tucci – “The Lovely Bones”

Woody Harrelson – “The Messengers”

Performance by Actress in a Supporting Role:

Penelope Cruz – “Nine”

Vera Farmiga – “Up in the Air”

Maggie Gyllenhaal – “Crazy Heart”

Anna Kendrick – “Up in the Air”

Mo’Nique – “Precious: Based on the Novel PUSH by Sapphire”

Achievement in Directing:

James Cameron – “Avatar”

Kathryn Bigelow – “The Hurt Locker”

Quentin Tarantino – “Inglourious Basterds”

Jason Reitman – “Up in the Air”

Lee Daniels – “Precious: Based on the Novel PUSH by Sapphire”

Adapted Screenplay:

“District 9″ by Neill Blomkamp and Terri Tatchell

“An Education” by Nick Hornby

“Precious: Based on the Novel PUSH by Sapphire” by Geoffrey Fletcher

“Up in the Air” by Jason Reitman and Sheldon Turner

“In the Loop” by Jesse Armstrong, Simon Blackwell, Armando Iannucci, Ian Martin and Tony Roche

Original Screenplay:

“The Hurt Locker” by Mark Boal

“Inglourious Basterds” by Quentin Tarantino

“A Serious Man” by Joel and Ethan Coen

“Up” by Pete Docter and Bob Petersen

“The Messenger” by Alessandro Camon and Oren Moverman

Best Animated Feature Film of the Year:

“Up” – Pete Docter and Bob Peterson

“The Princess and the Frog” – Ron Clements and John Musker

“Coraline” – Henry Selick

“The Fantastic Mr Fox” – Wes Anderson

“The Secret of Kells” – Tomm Moore

Best Documentary Feature:

“Burma VJ” – Anders Ostergaard and Lise Lense-Moller

“The Cove” – Nominees to be determined

“Food, Inc.” – Robert Kenner and Elise Pearlstein

“The Most Dangerous Man in America: Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers” – Judith Ehrlich and Rick Goldsmith

“Which Way Home” – Rebecca Cammisa

Best Foreign Language Film of the Year:

“Ajami” – Scandar Copti and Yaron Shani, Israel

“A Prophet” – Jacques Audiard, France

“The Secret of Her Eyes” – Juan Jose Campanella, Argentina

“The White Ribbon” – Michael Haneke, Germany

“The Milk of Sorrow” – Claudia Llosa, Peru

Achievement in Art Direction:

“Avatar” – Art Direction: Rick Carter and Robert Stromberg; Set Decoration: Kim Sinclair

“The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus” – Art Direction: Dave Warren and Anastasia Masaro; Set Decoration: Caroline Smith

“Nine” – Art Direction: John Myhre; Set Decoration: Gordon Sim

“Sherlock Holmes” – Art Direction: Sarah Greenwood; Set Decoration: Katie Spencer

“The Young Victoria” – Art Direction: Patrice Vermette; Set Decoration: Maggie Gray

Achievement in Cinematography:

“Avatar” – Mauro Fiore

“Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” – Bruno Delbonnel

“The Hurt Locker” – Barry Ackroyd

“Inglourious Basterds” – Robert Richardson

“The White Ribbon” – Christian Berger

Achievement in Costume Design:

“Bright Star” – Janet Patterson

“Coco Before Chanel” – Catherine Leterrier

“The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus” – Monique Prudhomme

“Nine” – Colleen Atwood

“The Young Victoria” – Sandy Powell

Achievement in Film Editing:

“Avatar” – Stephen Rivkin, John Refoua and James Cameron

“District 9″ – Julian Clarke

“The Hurt Locker” – Bob Murawski and Chris Innis

“Inglourious Basterds” – Sally Menke

“Precious: Based on the Novel PUSH by Sapphire” – Joe Klotz

Achievement in Makeup:

“Il Divo” – Aldo Signoretti and Vittorio Sodano

“Star Trek” – Barney Burman, Mindy Hall and Joel Harlow

“The Young Victoria” - Jon Henry Gordon and Jenny Shircore

Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures (Original Score):

“Avatar” – James Horner

“Fantastic Mr. Fox” – Alexandre Desplat

“The Hurt Locker” – Marco Beltrami and Buck Sanders

“Sherlock Holmes” – Hans Zimmer

“Up” – Michael Giacchino

Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures (Original Song):

“Almost There” from “The Princess and the Frog” – Music and Lyric by Randy Newman

“Down in New Orleans” from “The Princess and the Frog” – Music and Lyric by Randy Newman

“Loin de Paname” from “Paris 36″ – Music by Reinhardt Wagner Lyric by Frank Thomas

“Take It All” from “Nine” – Music and Lyric by Maury Yeston

“The Weary Kind (Theme from Crazy Heart)” from “Crazy Heart” – Music and Lyric by Ryan Bingham and T-Bone Burnett

Achievement in Sound Editing:

“Avatar” – Christopher Boyes and Gwendolyn Yates Whittle

“The Hurt Locker” – Paul N.J. Ottosson

“Inglourious Basterds” – Wylie Stateman

“Star Trek” – Mark Stoeckinger and Alan Rankin

“Up” – Michael Silvers and Tom Myers

Achievement in Sound Mixing:

“Avatar” – Christopher Boyes, Gary Summers, Andy Nelson and Tony Johnson

“The Hurt Locker” – Paul N.J. Ottosson and Ray Beckett

“Inglourious Basterds” – Michael Minkler, Tony Lamberti and Mark Ulano

“Star Trek” – Anna Behlmer, Andy Nelson and Peter J. Devlin

“Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” – Greg P. Russell, Gary Summers and Geoffrey Patterson

Achievement in Visual Effects:

“Avatar” – Joe Letteri, Stephen Rosenbaum, Richard Baneham and Andrew R. Jones

“District 9″ – Dan Kaufman, Peter Muyzers, Robert Habros and Matt Aitken

“Star Trek” – Roger Guyett, Russell Earl, Paul Kavanagh and Burt Dalton

Best Documentary Short Subject:

“China’s Unnatural Disaster: The Tears of Sichuan Province” – Jon Alpert and Matthew O’Neill

“The Last Campaign of Governor Booth Gardner” – Daniel Junge and Henry Ansbacher

“The Last Truck: Closing of a GM Plant” – Steven Bognar and Julia Reichert

“Music by Prudence” – Roger Ross Williams and Elinor Burkett

“Rabbit a la Berlin” – Bartek Konopka and Anna Wydra

Best Animated Short Film:

“French Roast” – Fabrice O. Joubert

“Granny O’Grimm’s Sleeping Beauty” – Nicky Phelan and Darragh O’Connell

“The Lady and the Reaper (La Dama y la Muerte)” – Javier Recio Gracia

“Logorama” – Nicolas Schmerkin

“A Matter of Loaf and Death” – Nick Park

Best Live Action Short Film:

“The Door” – Juanita Wilson and James Flynn

“Instead of Abracadabra” – Patrik Eklund and Mathias Fjellstrom

“Kavi” – Gregg Helvey

“Miracle Fish” – Luke Doolan and Drew Bailey

“The New Tenants” – Joachim Back and Tivi Magnusson

Who are your picks for the Oscars? Leave a comment below.

I may be going out on a limb here, but if the Coen brothes recent gem A Serious Man was a lot more, well, serious and the religious themes were replaced with homosexual ones, then the result might look something like A Single Man. Look closely and the two films share more than just a similar name; both are set in 1960s America and concern a College Professor trying to find clarity in their lives after they’ve each been given a royal shake-up. And both are driven by the masterful performances of their respective leads, which in the case of A Single Man is British idol Colin Firth, who has leapt out from Hugh Grant’s rom-com shadow to deliver his most earnest and refined performance to date. For good reason, Firth is in the running to be the third actor in five years to win the best actor Oscar for portraying a gay man, the previous winners being Sean Penn in 2008 for his role in Milk and Philip Seymour Hoffman in 2005 for his role in Capote.

But there’s a lot more to like about A Single Man than Firth’s performance. As the feature debut of fashion designer Tom Ford — who scraped the top off his millions to fund the film himself — there is a sophisticated style to the composition of this film that makes it quite simply beautiful to behold. First off, Ford has delicately retouched Christopher Isherwood’s acclaimed novel of the same name to lend it more cinematic tension, framing the protagonist George (Firth) as suicidal rather than just broken-hearted.

George’s depression is a result of the sudden death of his partner of 16 years, Jim (Matthew Goode) in a car accident. Unable to overcome his grief, George commits himself to one last miserable day on Earth before he plans to end his own life later that night. But as the day progresses, fleeting moments of clarity and colour manage to seep their way into George’s life through various encounters; an enamoured young student Kenny (Skins star Nicholas Hoult) looking to explore his sexuality, a Spanish hustler looking for a one-off fling and George’s best friend and ex-lover Charley (Julianne Moore) looking to snuggle up to something that’s not a bottle of gin. George, all the while, cannot stray his mind from his beloved Jim, recounting the fondest, and most distressing, memories of their relationship through vivid flashbacks.

Immaculately dressed in tailored suit designed by Arianne Phillips and made in Ford’s menswear factory, Firth looks every bit the part as George, making it understandable why everyone he meets wants a piece of him. Yet it’s the thoughtfulness of his character, and the delicacies of Firth’s layered performance, that makes him so charming to the audience, even with his constant state of misery. In support, Moore and Hoult both showcase their talent in their individual scenes, the former adding a touch of humour by playing a drunk eccentric while the latter charming the screen with his boyish good looks. The focus, however, never strays away from Firth.

Through the lens of cinematographer Eduard Grau, Ford milks significance out of every moment in George’s day, frequently using slow motion tracking shots and lingering extreme close-ups of the smallest of details. The sound is just as immersive, slowing down with the visuals so that each tick, clamour and whoosh rings throughout the cinema.  It’s a deeply aural and visual experience — reminiscent of Sam Mendes’ brilliant feature debut American Beauty –  that benefits immensely from being seen on the big screen.

Yet the fastidious, highly stylised nature of A Single Man can also be its greatest flaw. The film is so methodically structured that (almost) every plot development can be seen coming well before it does, which coupled with the limitless number of slow motion shots, can make the film feel sluggishly paced. There is also an odd cinematic trick used whenever George senses a moment of joy, where the drab hues swiftly blossom with saturated colour before reverting back again. It’s an interesting technique, but due to its blatancy, it’s also a distracting one.

For the most part, however, A Single Man is a subtle, sophisticated and heart-rendering portrait of the love lost between two men, while in wider context – this is certainly not a uniquely gay story – it’s a film that explores our fears of growing old and being not just alone, but without happiness.

Thanks to Ford’s acute sense of style, such sobering themes have never looked so good.

Each time this year, the Fringe Festival hits little old Adelaide in an explosion of art and culture, engulfing the city of churches in a lively bohemian atmosphere. The festival sees live performers from all over the world come to flaunt their stuff, be it comedy, dance, music or theatre. I’ll be emerging from the dark depths of the cinema to catch some of the shows on offer, reviewing them for a great site called Buzzcuts.

Here is an excerpt from my review of  Jason Chong’s Reel Life:

Packed with channels of high-definition humour and guaranteed to receive a great reception at this year’s Fringe Festival, Jason Chong’s Reel Life is the digital upgrade to analogue comedy.

He may be a bit of a techno geek, but it’s hard not to be charmed by the talented young Adelaide comedian – who proudly bears a shirt that confesses his love for his parents – as he cleverly interacts with a digitized universe being projected onto a three metre wide display situated onstage.

The show unassumingly kicks off with a typical stand-up routine, but before Chong can reach any sort of punch line, he is interrupted on-screen by the much reviled Paperclip help feature from Microsoft Office. Does the winner of 2009s Adelaide Comedian of the Year need help telling a joke? Certainly not.

Things go from funny to slap-the-skin-off-your-knees hilarious as Chong must put his routine on hold after his shoulder devil is accidently let loose within the digital world projected behind him. The imagination soars as we’re taken on a madcap journey through a collection of pop-culture sight and sound gags – from Super Mario to Star Wars – where Chong sets out to bring an end to his evil alter ego’s reign of terror. [...]

Read the rest of the review, plus many more great Fringe reviews, here!

The Adelaide Fringe Festival runs from the 19th February – 14th March. Check out the program guide and buy tickets online at www.adelaidefringe.com.au

Magic is a fascinating art form because it plays with our need to discover the illusion, whilst feeding our desire for it to be real supernatural power. Neil Burger’s The Illusionist takes this desire and runs with it, constructing a world where the audience is asked to question whether events in the film are mystical or trickery. The same technique was used in Christopher Nolan’s thriller The Prestige with great success. Unfortunately, The Illusionist provides a less stimulating experience, falling short of the rewarding turn of events in Nolan’s film. However, Burger’s movie still executes an intriguing plot with a decent cast and a strong visual and aural atmosphere.

Eisenheim the Illusionist (Edward Norton) is a successful performer in Vienna at the dawn of the 20^th century. His popularity garners the interest of the Crown Prince Leopold (Rufus Sewell), who attends one of Eisenheim’s shows and volunteers his date, Sophie (Jessica Biel) for the final magic act. Eisenheim discovers Sophie was his childhood sweetheart, a relationship disallowed by their difference of class. Eisenheim and Sophie’s romance reignites and they begin to disrupt the plans of Prince Leopold, who needs to marry Sophie as part of a plan to overthrow his father, the Emperor in an attempt to introduce a new form of government. Paul Giamatti plays Inspector Uhl, who is ordered by Leopold to discover Eisenheim’s the secrets and stop him interfering with his plan.

The performances overall are engaging, Norton and Giamatti evoke calm and deliberate characters, although it would have been nice to see a little more intensity between the two. Jessica Beil is very complimenting as Sophia and Rufus Sewell shines as the frustrated, violent and yet intellectual Prince. He is an unlikely antagonist, carrying ideas of fair government and rational thought – an interesting adversary to Eisenheim, who lives off mysticism, illusions and suspension of logic.

Overpowering the performances is the visual style of the film, the use of a strong tungsten filter and moody dark vignetting pervades most scenes, which partly detracts from any sense of realism and thrill. It feels calmer to watch though, especially with the slower movement of the camera and less erratic cutting of many modern pictures. Whether this style is too slow or relaxing will depend on the mood of the viewer, it certainly has the ability to go both ways for each individual.

The sound design compliments the visual style well. The overall feel would have been atrocious if there was a busy soundtrack, and luckily there isn’t. A downplayed sound mix with excellent brooding music by composer Philip Glass is a treat. Fans of Glass will not be disappointed by this score.

Unfortunately comparisons to The Prestige are going to haunt this film, and vice versa. The topic and mechanics of the stories are too similar. There are fewer thrills in The Illusionist and it maintains a slower pace. The magic tricks are based more in fantasy than The Prestige, some are even performed through obvious computer generated visual effects. The conflict between the characters is also less complicated and intense. Therefore Neil Burger’s film is a lot easier for the audience to follow, although the end portion of the film may be too abrupt for some.

For those of you who haven’t seen either picture, The Illusionist is still worth a watch. Food for thought and debate will certainly come from this movie – something any viewer should want out of a mystery.

Think of Shutter Island — the much anticipated mystery/thriller from movie master Martin Scorsese (Raging Bull, The Departed) — as the act of a master stage magician slightly past his prime.  His production values are top notch, and the performances of his stage hands make for great diversions, but his technique isn’t as refined as it used to be.  His sleight of hand isn’t so ‘slight’ anymore. We therefore catch him in the act of deception, and before he has time to finish the trick, we’ve sussed it all out.

But the magic isn’t lost. Against all odds, Shutter Island remains a good, borderline great, film purely because Scorsese still knows how to put on one hell of a show. The visual grandeur, pitch-perfect tenor and captivating performances is more than enough to keep the film in sailable waters, despite the often clumsy plotting. Still, it’s a shame that there is a problem at all, considering  Dennis Lehane’s mind-mulling story is brimming with great characters and clever concepts. The issue comes lies with the clunky way in which it has been adapted to the screen, where  information is fed to the audience in blatant chunks of exposition, making it almost impossible not to notice the trickery being conducted.

Leonardo DiCaprio stars as Teddy Daniels, a US Marshall assigned to help investigate the whereabouts of a missing patient from the psychiatric hospital on Shutter Island. Surrounded almost entirely by a perilous cliff face and with only one way in or out, the fictitious island situated off of America’s east coast is the perfect location for an insane asylum, and for that matter, a 50s-styled horror movie.  With the help of his new partner Chuck Aule (Mark Ruffalo), Teddy starts asking around only to find straight answers hard to come by, particularly from the institute’s chief physician Dr. Cawley (Ben Kingsley), who claims his methods of rehabilitation to be of a calming and nurturing nature.

Teddy doesn’t buy it. If there’s anything the Second World War taught him as a soldier – which we see in stunningly recreated flashbacks and creepy dream sequences — it’s that people are inherently brutal. He’s convinced there’s something much more sinister happening on the island, and although a Category 5 hurricane looms, he’s determined to get to the bottom of it.

While the plot tends to thrash about like it has been unwillingly strapped in a straight jacket, Shutter Island remains entirely  absorbing for one key reason; atmosphere. From  the immaculately dressed sets, amalgamation of eerie locations, cleverly manipulated lighting and a score that reverberates through your skull with nothing less than the sound of pure doom, the film is engulfed in such a ominous atmosphere, it just about seeps off the screen. In the same way Stanley Kubrick brought to life the isolated hotel setting in The Shining, Scorsese has constructed the imagined isle with great attention to detail and an acute awareness of space.  Grand set pieces are favoured over digital environments, lending a  fantastic tangibility to the setting often missing from digital-heavy films.  It makes for a deeply immersive experience, and much like the Overlook Hotel from Kubrick’s film, you never once feel at ease being on Shutter Island, which is how the film manages to keep you on the edge of your seat for over two hours.

Having cast DiCaprio in no less than four films, Scorsese knows exactly how to get the performance he wants out of the maturing actor in a role you wouldn’t normally associate him with.  Teddy is a deceivingly complex character, with a great big chip on his shoulder, and it’s really a credit to DiCaprio’s talent that he pulls it off so convincingly.  The 35 year old actor still has that Titanic glint in his eye that marks him as a man of passion, compelling us to follow him head-first on his downward spiral into the deepest and darkest secrets of the Island. Just as perfectly cast is Mark Ruffalo as Teddy’s agreeably soothing partner and Ben Kingsley as the politely spoken chief doctor, who unnerves in a ‘can’t-put-my-finger-on-it’ kind of way. Elsewhere, Patricia Clarkson, Emily Mortimer and Jackie Earle Haley all have a memorable impact in their brief but vital roles, which to discuss in any detail would spoil the mystery.

Chances are, though, you’ll spoil it for yourself, probably before the 20 minute mark if you’re a genre buff.  It was never going to be easy for screenwriter Laeta Kalogridis to adapt a film with such a twisted agenda, especially since The Sixth Sense fooled us back in 1999 and consequently made us more aware moviegoers.  But subtly in deception is the key here, and there’s not quite enough of it. What there’s an abundance of, however, is good ol’ fashioned movie magic, where the fun is not in how it ends, but in the journey getting there.

Pixar movies have become quite serious of late. Ever since Finding Nemo was released in 2003, comedy began to take a backseat to drama and stronger themes. I do not deny the increasing popularity and critical acclaim of recent Pixar films, a company who have replaced Walt Disney Animation Studios as the top dog in children’s storytelling.

I genuinely enjoyed Finding Nemo, for its great balance between comedy, beautiful storytelling and morality. However, the fun I had watching Monsters Inc. was ten times that, because it was cracking jokes with the pace of Rodney Dangerfield and still had time for a decent plot. Nemo was beautiful, Monsters was a good time; my point here is that, for me, these two movies mark the end of the Pixar gag film (more or less if you don’t count Cars – does anyone count Cars?) and the definite beginning of the serious Pixar film. Wall-E and UP have shone since then, not only as heartfelt kids’ entertainment but supposedly masterful, emotional, storytelling.

Now there is a new film on the horizon that could potentially bring Pixar back to its roots in Toy Story 3. As I’m sure some of you have noticed, trailers for the sequel have been released depicting the next adventure outside Andy’s room for the toys. Time has progressed as many years as ours in the world of Toy Story 3; Andy is now grown up and leaving for college. Woody, Buzz and the rest of the gang find themselves a new home in Sunnyside Day Care Centre, put at the mercy of energetic toddlers. Thus, hilarity ensues.

Of course, a new play room means new toys, including a very 80’s Ken doll, a female triceratops and a purple plush bear, who looks suspiciously like a Care Bear. No doubt Sunnyside is more than it seems, as the toys try to find a way to escape to get Woody back home, Andy’s most cherished toy.

Pixar has targeted this film perfectly, covering a broad demographic of viewers. Firstly, the “family” audience: this is a kids film for parent’s and grandparent’s to treat their children, without sacrificing their own enjoyment due to the sharp humour. Secondly, and most interestingly the “young adults”, those who watched the original films as kids and are coming back for some nostalgia.

Being part of the latter, I can certainly say I was excited after hearing another hilarious quip from John Ratzenberger who plays the sarcastic piggy bank, Ham. Tim Allen returns as ‘commanding officer’ Buzz Lightyear and Tom Hanks as the forward thinking, yet emotionally conflicted Woody. If you have a favourite character, it looks like it will very well appear in Toy Story 3, with Jessie, Slinky, Rex, the Potato Heads and many more featuring in the current trailers.

Providing the film’s plot doesn’t descend into a heavy thematic exploration of lost youth or otherwise, it can safely be said that Toy Story 3 is looking to become another amusing “old school” Pixar adventure.

Watch the trailer below: