Prince of Persia Film Review

Posted by Should I See It on Monday, May 31, 2010 , under , , , , , , , , | comments (0)





Film: Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time
Directed By: Mike Newell
Starring: Jake Gyllenhaal, Gemma Arterton, Ben Kingsley and Alfred Molina
Plot: Prince Dastan comes into a possession of a mystical dagger that can turn back time. With the help of Princess Tamina, he must return it to its safe keeping place before it falls into the wrong hands.


I know that Prince of Persia is based on a video game. I never played it, but for my brothers it was one of the defining moments in their game-playing lives (in other words the game is AWESOME). SO how well it compares to the original game I have no idea. I am sure there are plenty of fan boys elsewhere on the web who can tell you all about it, but not here I’m afraid.

I guess it's fun watching Jake Gyllenhaal jump around. His muscles are in good form, but his performance less so. He is uneven. At times, perfectly charming, at other times, he looses it. Though he thankfully never decends into the Orlando Bloom realm of boring (but more on that later).


 
Of course there is a love story, and for this type of movie, this couple fare better than most. I appreciate the film maker’s restraint in resolving the relationship at the end of the film.  Gemma Arterton as Princess Tamina does well enough. She has to deliver some awful lines. But she makes her way through with sunk and sparkle as best she can. 
 
Alfred Molina brings the charm and the funny that almost, though not quite, makes up for the lack of it in the rest of the film. I have to say that I did actually learn some thing from this film: Ostriches are really ugly.
 
Prince of Persia is a decent film, but it never crosses into the 'fabulous' territory that it desperately wants to. The dialogue could have done with some revising. A lot of the intended laughs fall flat. The continual references to destiny seem a little hyperbolic for a film of this kind. And, perhaps a more streamlined plot would have worked better: As it stands, the ‘dagger’ is lost and retrieved so many times it’s dizzying. This is a movie, people, not a video game. And at under two hours, it feels like a lot longer.
 
 
 
 
Of course, comparisons with Pirates of the Caribbean are inevitable. the film is coping a lot of criticism for not being 'clever' like Pirates, as is Jake Gyllenhaal for not being Johnny Depp. But in perspective, Johnny Depp was the only good thing about the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie (the other two I cannot comment on). Without Depp, there is no movie. At least Gyllenhaal fares better than his real POTC counterpart Orlando Bloom, who manages to be as bland as rice crackers in every movie he's in.
 
But, back on topic.
 
Mike Newell could have been a little bit more adventurous shot wise, particularly in the action scenes. I was actually excited about Newell directing this, as I really enjoyed what he did with Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire. But, I don't know, he didnt bring the funny that I was after.  Nor did he bring the depth of character that I expected.
 
 
 
To sequel or not to sequel, that is the question.
 
Even though i dont think this film is strong enough to warrant a sequel, I cant imagine it's far from the producer's minds. Films far less worthy have had sequels. I guess it will depend on the $$$$$$ it makes at the box office.







Should I See It?

If you just want a bit of fun, go for it! But don’t expect anything too……deep.





Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time Official Site here.

The Mentalist Season 2 Review

Posted by Should I See It on , under , , , , , , , , , | comments (0)






Show: The Mentalist: Season 2 (WB/CBS)
Creator: Bruno Heller
Starring: Simon Baker, Robin Tunney, Tim Kang, Owain Yeoman and Amanda Righetti.
Plot: After is wife and daughter are murdered by serial killer Red John, a former fake psychic joins the Califonia Bureau of Investigation. He uses his extraordinary powers of observation to help close cases often  to the chagrin of Agent in Charge Teresa Lisbon and her team: Agents Cho, Rigsby and Van Pelt.


Please be advised that spoilers abound. Don't read if you don’t want to know!





 



In 2008 the first season of The Mentalist burst onto screens, quickly becoming one of the most watched programmes in the United States (and here in Australia, too).

Is the second season of The Mentalist as good as the first? No, not really. It's getting too easy to spot the killer and too easy to recognise when Jane is pulling one of his stunts.

Actually the stunts are getting old, too. And, I never thought I would say this, even Simon Baker’s charm is wearing thin. Patrick Jane is incredibly narcissistic, no doubt about it, but this season he has turned into a downright jerk.

Season 2 has been plagued with inconsistencies and an inability on behalf of the writers to really follow through. Unfortunately, Season 2 suffered from a severe lack of character development and team dynamics. The writers were dropping character based subplots faster than you would hot potatoes. For example:

We learn that Lisbon was in love with Bosco…. And? She looks morose for a couple of episodes, and then it‘s never to be mentioned again.

Then we have Grace give that ‘pretend’ speech about her sister committing suicide…. And…..that’s it. Surely if you were going to the effort of bringing back Kristina Frye, you would have her interact with the only member of the team that ACTUALLY believes in psychics. We could have found out if there really was a dead sister… or we could at least have some clue as to what the ‘trauma’ was that makes her so emotionally unavailable and afraid of commitment.



Well to be fair, the season started of close enough to what we originally knew as The Mentalist. But something, somewhere changed. The tone of the show changed. The show has always had a glossy exterior, but you were always aware of the tension lurking underneath. It’s almost as if Season 2 has been stripped of both the gloss and the tension. I have no idea how that happened. All I can put it down to is poor writing, particularly the character of Jane. So much of the show relies on Jane. And maybe that’s the problem. The focus on Jane means the (incredibly talented) supporting cast are neglected. Unfortunately.

Since we are having a go at the writers, let’s have a look at some of the biggest mistakes they’ve made this season.


THE BOSCO STORYLINE:



The plot of the first eight episodes was enough to fill a whole season. Then we would have at least been emotionally invested in Bosco and his team.

His Red Right Hand (Episode 8) had too much story, too little time. Actually it would have made a great two-part season finale. The introduction of Madeleine Hightower would have been a great way to kick off season 3.

The Bosco storyline did provide some insight to Lisbon's story (though I am finding Lisbon a little bit annoying this season) but as previously mentioned it didn’t go anywhere.

For the record, I actually liked Bosco. I just thought he was terribly under used.


RIGSBY AND VAN PELT:



How could we discuss season 2 of The Mentalist without talking about Rigsby and Van Pelt?

Well, I started out happy that they FINALLY got together. Though when it happened in Episode 5 I was a little concerned that it might be a bit soon. And, my concern was not unwarranted.Unfortunately, they were majorly mistreated by the writers (and that’s not just the disgruntled shipper in me talking).

Red Bulls (Episode 7) gave us the wonderful scene of the pair in the ambulance. I thought it was well written and well played by both the actors. Actually, Amanda Righetti proves that she is a MUCH better actress than her credits (The OC, the Friday the 13th remake) would have you believe. However, I found this scene to be incredibly misleading. After watching this I was convinced that the writers were going to treat the characters and their relationship with respect. I almost feel a little betrayed by writers for giving them the incredibly childish argument that ended with, ‘Fine, do whatever you want, Grace,’ merely six episodes later. We are seriously expected to believe that they decided to announce their relationship to the rest of the team without discussing their future together or the future of their careers (particularly as this was an obstacle for them getting together in the first place)?

Why resolve the ‘will we be able to keep our jobs?’ scenario in Episode 13 only to have it repeated a few of episodes later with the introduction of Hightower. My question to the writers: why would you get them together if they are only going to breakup 13 episodes later???? (and for two of those episodes they were barely speaking to each other). We didn’t learn anything about them in order to actually justify the breakup (or the relationship itself, for that matter).

And as a side note: All that canoodling in the office, did they really expect to keep it a secret?


THE LATE ARRIVALS:



Madeline Hightower and the return of Kristina Frye.

Two of the most poorly though out arcs of the show.

Hightower. DO NOT LIKE HER. She has eyes like a snake. You can never tell what she is thinking. It’s almost as if she is waiting to strike.

And let’s not ignore the way she has made Lisbon completely redundant, undermining her authority over her team, in front of her team, too.

I miss Minnelli. He cared about the other characters. He ALWAYS had the team’s back. Jane was expendable.

Hightower has some weird reversal of priorities. She is ready to off anyone, EXCEPT Jane. Can she not see that he is the root of (most) of the trouble????


And don’t even get me started on Kristina. Who ever had the idea to bring her back should be permanently removed from the writing staff. A LOVE INTEREST FOR JANE? ARE YOU KIDDING ME???? Their ‘flirting’ scenes were embarrassing. Seriously, I had to close my eyes, they were that disturbing.

Did anyone actually care that she was ‘taken’ by Red John? Good riddance, I say.


*exhales* Rant nearly over.

So, overall, there were some good episodes and some …. Well, not so good.

In brief:

Episode 7: Red Bulls

As previously mentioned, I thought the Rigsby/Van Pelt relationship was particularly well written in this episode. However, overall I thought it was an enjoyable episode. I particularly liked the chase scene. Most importantly, I liked the scene between Bosco and Jane at the end. Very insightful, particularly into Bosco’s character. Too bad he was offed in the next episode.


Episode 10: Throwing Fire

I didn’t seem to hate this episode as much as some people did. I particularly enjoyed the performance of Chris Brochu as young Jane. Lack of curly hair aside, I felt he resembled Baker, not only in looks, but he did a particularly good job of capturing the mannerisms of Patrick Jane.


Episode 12: Bleeding Heart

Sean Maher guest stars! Two Simons in one episode! (FYI Sean Maher played Simon Tam in Joss Whedon’s Firefly). I thought I was going to die of excitement! i liked the interviews with each member of the team: particularly Cho's. Omigod. Cho is awesome.


Episode 13: Redline

Welcome Currie Graham as Walter Mashburn! What a breath of fresh air! I would have like to see him romance Lisbon a little bit in later episodes; for example having embarrassingly large displays of flowers sent to the office. As Jane says ‘A little empty glamour, would have been good for her!' I hope he returns soon!!!!


Episode 14: Blood In, Blood Out

The episode was a bit of a mixed bag. It started off well enough, but was let down by a completely unbelievable final act. The best part about it was that it gave Tim Kang a chance to shine; he proved himself to be a very talented actor; with an ability to convey so much with very little. He proved himself worthy of being a leading man.

And NOTE TO WRITERS: one big episode for Cho does not mean that he should be abandoned for the rest of the season. Apart from a couple of Awesome! chase scenes, Cho had very little to do except say ‘yes, boss’.


Episode 16: Code Red

I really disliked this episode. Though there was some classic banter between Lisbon and Jane (‘go and buy yourself a candy bar’). Jane’s behaviour to Lisbon (making her think she was dying) was absolutely cruel. Not to mention some dodgy acting from the guest cast.


Episode 23: Red Sky in the Morning


Great title, but what a waste of a season finale.

First of all, whose idea was it to bring back Kristina Frye?

Secondly, whose idea was it to bring back Kristina Frye?
Apart from the appearance of Red John in the last 4 minutes of the episode (which actually freaked me out a little but more than I would like to admit), this episode was pretty much a joke.

Note to the writers: the season finale is supposed to make viewers excited about the series return, not make them loose all hope that this show will ever be good again.



So, season 3…..

I give them four episodes to win be back. Unless they get back to what made the show good in the first place: the cleverness, the unexpectedness, the charm AND the darkness co existing, I will be switching off The Mentalist for good.

Maybe the writers are just getting complacent, since they have one of the highest rating shows in America. But for how much longer, I'm not sure. FYI for the overseas readers, the ratings for The Mentalist in Australia are far below what they were in it's first season. Most weeks it barely scrapes into the top 20 most watched programs.
Perhaps the writers will pay attention to the outcry and sharpen up their act.

But, I doubt it.



Should I See It?

Meh. Not nearly as good as Season 1, so don’t say I didn’t warn you.



Read What We Learnt on Season 2 of The Mentalist here.

The Mentalist official site here.


All photos property of CBS.

Beneath Hill 60 Review

Posted by Should I See It on Wednesday, May 26, 2010 , under , , , | comments (0)





Film: Beneath Hill 60
Directed By: Jeremy Sims
Starring: Brendan Cowell, Gyton Grantley, Harrison Gilbertson.
Plot: The extraordinary true story of an Australian mining division on the Western Front during World War I.






Beneath Hill 60 is actually a better film than I thought it was going to be. Actually, let me clarify. I really didn’t know what to expect, apart from the fact that it is a war film, and I wanted to support the local film industry.

But despite my expectations, (or lack thereof) Beneath Hill 60 is a remarkably well made film which engages the audience from start to finish.

It is very violent and graphic. There is a real sense of danger and death always feels as though it’s lurking just around the corner. I mean it is a war film. The violence and brutality forms so much of the environment of risk and danger that it can’t really be done without.

But even out of the horror of war, in true Australian fashion, come many moments that are as funny as they are endearing.



I am not as against the use of flashbacks in the film as some of my fellow film critics have been. To be honest, I do understand their criticism. The flashbacks do feel as though they have come out of another film. However, they provide a necessary escape from the brutality of war. The light, colour and air of rural Australia allow for temporary relief from the bloody battle front. And it also allows the audience to be privy to the wonderful dynamic of William and Emma Waddell (Gerald Lepkowski and Jacqueline McKenzie).

Performances all round are engaging. As an audience, you care about the characters. It is genuinely distressing when SPOILERS *some* of them die END SPOILER. Brendan Cowell as Oliver Woodward, the captain of the mining unit, is a solid lead. The ensemble are terrific. Particular standouts were Alan Dukes and Alex Thompson as father and son fighting side by side, and Harrison Gilbertson as young recruit Tiffin.



The only notable exception to otherwise exceptionally strong cast is Bella Heathcote as Oliver Woodward’s love interest, Marjorie Waddell. She is wooden and unnatural, and she made me cringe every time she came on screen. The ‘romance’ troubled me greatly in this film. Oliver seems far to old for Marjorie, who is only sixteen at the beginning of the film. I couldn’t see his interest in her to be anything more than loyalty to her dead brother.

Aside from that misstep, the film does provide same interesting moments: such as Oliver’s interaction with a sixteen year old stretcher bearer, the insights behind the German lines (all done in German too!) and seeing the men return from the war.

Ultimately, this is a really solid entry into Australian filmmaking. Beneath Hill 60 brings to light an aspect of Australian History that has not been widely known. This film is a worthwhile contribution to the cinematic ANZAC legend. While it won’t exactly leave you on an ‘upper’, making the effort to support the local industry is definitely worth it!




Should I See It?

Yes, Absolutely!





Beneath Hill 60 Official Site here.


Beneath Hill 60 Official Blog here.


You can also check out some great behind the scenes footage on the Beneath Hill 60 YouTube channel.

Die Fledermaus Opera Australia

Posted by Should I See It on , under , , , , , , | comments (0)





Show: Die Fledermaus
Presented By: Opera Australia
Directed By: Lindy Hume
Starring: Antoinette Halloran, David Hobson, Amelia Farrugia
Date Reviewed: Friday 14 May, 7.30pm
Plot: I’m not even going to tell you the plot, because really there isn’t much of it, this show is all about farce, silliness and fun.


I was very excited to see Die Fledermaus as part of my subscription to Opera Australia. But this production of Die Fledermaus is a bit of a mixed bag.

The show starts off well enough. Actually, Act I works very well even with the complete translation into English. I didn’t even mind setting the show in the 1930s. It added a touch of class, glamour and sophistication. The direction is energetic and there is a pizzazz that carries the whole thing.

Then, unfortunately interval happens. All the energy and whim that made Act I so enjoyable somehow disappears. And the questionable directorial choces begin.

What the HELL is Cole Porter’s ‘Night and Day’ doing in a Strauss Opera???? And don’t even get me started on the random appearance of Marlene Dietrich in the party scene in Act II. Well, I know what it was doing there; It was meant to capture the ‘flavour’ of the thirties. Unfortunately their addition sat at odds with the rest of the show. And it doesn’t help that Yvonne Kenny sounded like a drag queen and completely managed to ruin a perfectly lovely song. If you are going to the trouble of adding a song (God knows why you would want to do that to Strauss, I’m sure he’s probably turning in his grave) why don’t you just put it in a key she can sing it (oh, I know she was actually trying to sound like Marlene Dietrich, but why ANYONE would WANT to sound like her is beyond me). And it didn’t help that it was accompanied by some seriously awkward choreography that made the whole song far more painful than it needed to be.

And then there was the random “let’s put in all of Strauss’ famous waltzes so we can have a pointless dance scene where the leading actors, their dialogue and the plot get completely lost!!!” scene which seemed to go FOREVER. And then there was a very big misstep of the extended third act opening, which included interaction with the conductor and concluded with an extract of ‘Take Me Out to the Ball Game.’

There is not a lot of plot to begin with, and with all of the (unnecessary) additions to the second and third acts, as well as TWO intermissions for a running time that totals 3 hours and 15 minutes, the plot and the momentum get completely lost (much like the purpose of this sentence). In making these decisions, director Lindy Hume managed to suck all the energy and freshness out of the show, leaving the rest of it less than satisfactory.

There were a few high points: The sets were remarkable. They perfectly captured the style of the era. Amelia Farrugia as house maid Adele was the stand out performance of the night.. Loving the hammy characterisation- clearly enjoying herself and the audience enjoys watching her. Also charming, well actually HILARIOUS was Stephen Smith as Italian lover, Alfredo.

The rest of the cast were decent, but not outstanding. Antoinette Halloran flubbed several of her big notes, and David Hobson was not nearly as debonair as the role needed him to be.

This could have been a fabulous show, but some unfortunate decision making left this production as merely decent.





Should I See It?

Well, it's not a must see.


Opera Australia Official Site here.

New Moon Review

Posted by Should I See It on Tuesday, May 4, 2010 , under , , , , , | comments (0)





Film: The Twilight Saga: New Moon
Director: Chris Weitz
Starring: Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson and Taylor Lautner
Plot: The second instalment in the Twilight Series. After her lover, Edward, abandons her, Bella Swann finds solace in her friend Jacob Black.


Saga: a series of events or a story stretching over a long period.

Well, at least the LONG PERIOD part of that definition is true of The Twilight Saga: New Moon. It goes FOREVER. And just when you think it is about to end… there’s still more. Of course they could cut the running time in half if they got rid of all the long shots of Kristen Stewart looking mopey!

And when did Twilight become s self important that it began to refer to itself as The Twlight Saga?

It just shows how delusional this whole ‘Twilight’ world is: it doesn’t even see that it is only an example of a less that mediocre being gobbled up by an people who genuinely don’t know any better.

I still find myself frustrated by the popularity of the Twilight series. Especially the films.

The films are characterised by poor production quality and scripts so lame that I can’t believe someone actually got paid to write that dialogue.

The acting is god-awful, The scenes where Bella wakes up screaming from nightmares in which she is old are hilarious! I hate to break it to you Bella, but those nightmares don’t affect only those girls with Vampires for boyfriends, they happen to all women over the age of twenty five.





I also resent the film trying to ram down the audience’s throats that The Twilight Saga is the modern day equivalent of Romeo and Juliet. The Twilight books and films have none of the skill, imagination or fully drawn characters that any of Shakespeare’s works have. Why devalue Shakespeare by aligning it with this drivel?

The story is silly. The characters motivation doesn’t even make sense. Why would Edward, the only person who can protect Bella from the evil vampires, abandon her?

And why is it that none of the men in this film seem to be able to keep their shirts on? May i remind you that this is Washington State.! Not the Caribbean! At least Taylor Lautner is BUFF. Robert Pattinson without a shirt is gangly and weird!





Moreover, the message that it sends to young girls (the film’s target audience) is especially disconcerting.

New Moon basically tells young girls that if a boy loves you he will leave you, and not contact you, you will spiral into a deep, dark depression (which is okay, because that’s glamorous and people will understand that you are just a girl in love), then after putting you through hell he will come back and ask you to marry him. And you should say yes, despite the fact that a) he is a masochistic jerk, b) put you (and your family) through hell, and c) he is a member of the undead and every day he struggles with the desire to kill you.



Towards the end of the film, there is a scene when Bella is surrounded by the Volturi (sort of like ‘Royal Vampires’) and they are acting all creepy and threatening, and she is really scared hiding behind Edward. I couldn’t help but think to myself, ‘WWBD’. WHAT WOULD BUFFY DO?

Simple: Kick Ass.

Something Bella Swann is entirely incapable of doing.

I wonder how the actors felt when they were filming this, knowing that what they were doing was complete and utter crap.


 
Should I See It?

Absolutely not!







The Twilight Sage: New Moon Official Site here.