Mother and Child Review

Posted by Should I See It on Tuesday, June 29, 2010 , under , , , , | comments (1)




Film: Mother and Child
Director: Rodrigo Garcia
Starring: Annette Bening, Naomi Watts, Samuel L. Jackson, Kerry Washington and Jimmy Smits.
Plot: Tells the intersecting stories of three women: Karen, who gave up her baby at age fourteen, Elizabeth, a career woman dealing with an unplanned pregnancy, and Lucy, who is struggling to adopt. 

 



You just don’t see enough nuns in movies any more. Apart from Sister Act and The Sound of Music, nuns are seriously underrepresented in films. Mother and Child has a very nice nun: Sister Joanne played by Cherry Jones, is very sweet, and definitely not a scary nun from those old Catholic schools that you hear about. I single out Sister Joanne because she was my favourite character in the film.

Mother and Child is essentially a melodrama. The presence of the nun probably has already alerted you to that. Several other plot points emphasise the failure of original storytelling, culminating in a series of coincidences that kick the resolution into gear (that Dickens, king of the coincidence would have loved) order on the improbable. The dialogue is horribly stilted, especially from Watts. Her opening scenes are particularly painful.



It is interesting that all the mothers represented in the film are single mothers. I spent a lot of time wondering about what this film says about the state of the female, and the state of modern marriage. The women of Mother and Child are defined by motherhood, or rather the lack of it. I think that the film intends for motherhood to be empowering, but as the characters spend most of their time miserable, I can’t help but think the intention of the film is misguided.

Annette Bening plays a woman, Karen, who at fourteen got pregnant and gave her baby up for adoption. As a consequence she is unable to mature beyond the age fourteen. Seriously. She spends most of the film as a moody teenager, thinking the world is conspiring against her. Giving up her baby at fourteen has defined her life, bordering on the point of obsession.So much so that she is unable to move forward. The baby of long ago threatens her realtionship with her dying mother and everyone around her.

Naomi Watts (Elizabeth) who is the hard working, nomadic career woman, actually turns out to be the daughter that Annette Bening gave up! Really? Are we surprised? Indeed, having her tubes tied at age seventeen means she (like her mother) cannot mature beyond that age! Elizabeth’s outright rejection of her ‘role’ as a woman (her career drive, having her tubes tied, seducing another woman’s husband, I could go on and on about her ….indiscretions….) means the film cannot sustain her in her entry into mother hood, and thus she dies.



Lucy (played by Kerry Washington) can’t conceive, yet is so blinded by her desire for a baby she can’t see that her marriage is falling apart.

And don’t even get me started on Ray the college student who got herself knocked up and is planning to give her baby to Lucy to adopt. Her attitude towards the potential parents of her child is irritating. Yet even Ray, who was raised by a single mother, cannot resist the 'transformative' power of motherhood, and eventually decides against giving Lucy her baby.

Does Mother and Child do a disservice to women? For the film seems to imply that women are only connected to their children, and thus can only be define by their children. The men in the film do not seem to have the same connection to their children as the women do.

But what does it say about director Rodrigo Garcia? Writing and directing film about women who are completely and utterly defined in their roles as mothers? Can he, as a man, accurately depict the complicated nature of motherhood? Or is he spreading his own ideal, shared by other men, of how women should be?

Mother and Child could have been a wonderful film, but it so one-note, unrealistic and the characters so unlikable, the film fails to fully capture the reality of motherhood.







Should I See It?



No. Mother and Child does not come highly recommended.





Mother and Child Official Site here.

Animal Kingdom Review

Posted by Should I See It on Sunday, June 27, 2010 , under , , , , , , , , , , , | comments (0)




Film: Animal Kingdom
Director: David Michod
Starring: Ben Mendelsohn, Joel Edgerton, Guy Pearce, Sullivan Stapleton, Jackie Weaver, Luke Ford and James Frecheville.
Plot: Tells the story of seventeen year-old Josh as he navigates his survival amongst an explosive criminal family and the detective who thinks he can save him.


Animal Kingdom is the latest offering in Aussie Cinema. It comes highly recommended, having won the Grand Jury Prize for World Cinema at the Sundance Film Festival this year. There's no doubt that Animal Kingdom is going to sweep the Australian Film Institute Awards at the end of this year, but gven it's Sundance win, I will be very interested to see how it fares in the international circuit.

Gang dramas have never really been of much interest. Yet Animal Kingdom intrigued me. It is not nearly as glossy, far grittier and dare I say better acted that it’s television counterpart, Underbelly. (I have never had much time for the Underbelly ‘Phenomenon’ as it glamorises Australian Underworld and don’t even get me started on the way it objectifies women.)

Animal Kingdom is based on the Walsh Street Police Killings that occurred in Melbourne in the 1980s, however the film never pretends to be a true account of the events or the Cody clan, the family at the centre of Animal Kingdom. The film is clearly fictionalised, made most noticeable by updating the story to the present day. However, that doesn’t make the film any less intriguing.



Animal Kingdom is a dark film. I was wary of how violent the film would be, however most of the violence is implied or occurs off screen. The darkness comes from the characters and their motivations. For example, when one family member is shot by another, no one blinks an eye. Rather it’s accepted as part of ‘the life’ they lead. Similarly, the opening sequence that shows Josh watching Deal or No Deal, calmly waiting for the paramedics to arrive to treat his mother who has overdosed on heroin, tells you everything you need to know about his life and the world he lives in. Frecheville, making his film debut here, is particularly good.

Performances are great all round. Ben Mendelsohn as Andrew ‘Pope’ Cody is a particular standout, and Luke Ford is thankfully less embarrasing than he was in The Mummy III.

Jackie Weaver plays the creepiest grandmother you will ever see on screen. I have heard her compared to Lady Macbeth; however, I think she is far more evil. Unlike Lady M, Janine Cody is very maternal. It’s just that her maternal instincts verge on the border of obsession. She insists her sons kiss her on the lips, and is willing to sacrifice the life of her grandson in order to get her sons out of jail. Jackie Weaver’s performance is unashamedly brilliant.



To be honest there are a few issues in the film that could have been addressed: a second lawyer shows up without any introduction, and the scenes featuring Detective Leckie's (Guy Pearce) disabled daughter feel as though they might go somewhere, but never actually do. For the most part though, David Michod directs the feature with a skilled hand. Michod has a clear grip on his characters and does the film justice.

You may need to do something happy after seeing this film; I thoroughly recommend a good dose of chocolate. Though there is an upside to seeing a film like this: After spending two hours with the crazy Cody’s, your family will seem like the Brady Bunch in comparison.

Though, to be completely honest, the most disturbing thing about the movie would have to go to Guy Pearce’s moustache.


Should I See It?

Yes, Absolutely.



Animal Kingdom Official Site here.

Sherlock Holmes Review

Posted by Should I See It on Wednesday, June 23, 2010 , under , , , , , , , , | comments (0)





Film: Sherlock Holmes
Director: Guy Ritchie
Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law, Rachel McAdams and Mark Strong.
Plot: A remake of Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes stories. Sherlock Holmes struggles against a villain who has dreams of taking over London and the world.


There are two words I hate when talking about film adaptations of ‘classics,’ and they are modern re-telling. While the film itself is set in ‘Victorian London’ (and I use those words liberally) Sherlock Holmes, for all intensive purposes, is ‘modern’.

There’s no doubt that some elements of the Sherlock Holmes persona have become stereotyped: The deer stalker hat and ‘Elementary, my dear Watson’ never actually appear in the books, and thankfully don’t make an appearance in this film. But Robert Downey Jr.’s Sherlock Holmes who is a boxer, an explosives and chemical warfare expert and a stunt man who doesn’t hesitate jumping out of a window into the Thames, regardless of the diseases he would catch when doing so. This Sherlock Holmes feels even further from Arthur Conan Doyle’s original character.



While watching the film I wondered if the film makers have even read any of Arthur Conan Doyle’s stories. The plot is not so much a whodunit, but a whydunit, which removes any sort of suspense. And of course the why is not really very interesting: like all bad guys, he wants to take over the world.

The film breaks one of the cardinal rules of the detective story: “The reader must have equal opportunity with the detective for solving the mystery. All clues must be plainly stated and described.” The ‘big’ secret of the film, how bad guy (I can’t even remember his name, that’s how much I cared) manages to ‘rise from the dead,’ (seriously) rests in a super duper wonder drug developed from a flower only found in the Amazon Rainforest, or some such rubbish. The audience’s insight to this remarkable clue rests in a two second shot of the aforementioned flower in a midget’s laboratory (seriously, you can’t make this stuff up!).

The plot vaguely touches on Victorian England’s preoccupation with the supernatural. However, the introduction of the Temple of the Four Orders (read: Knight’s Templar) turns the film into a Victorian National Treasure.


 
There isn’t any air in this film; I know London air at this time would have been smelly at best, but let the picture breathe a little. The shots feel tight and enclosed. When we do get some sense of space is ruined by particularly bad CGI. Surely technology has come so far that doing CGI to buildings should be unnoticeable.

Robert Downey Jr.’s accent makes him unintelligible. Half of the time I could barely understand what he was saying. June Law as Watson is actually very good.

The film bored me. The film was so obsessed with getting as many (poorly done) special effects and fight scenes in as possible, it seemed to forget about the story.


Should I See It?

If you want real mystery, the real Sherlock Holmes, read the books.




All pictures courtesy of Warner Brothers.
Sherlock Holmes Official Site here.

Glee: The Back Nine Review

Posted by Should I See It on Monday, June 14, 2010 , under , , , , , , , | comments (0)





Show: Glee: The Back Nine Episodes 14-22. (Fox)
Creator: Ryan Murphy
Starring: Diana Agron, Chris Colfer, Jessalyn Gilsig, Jane Lynch, Jayma Mays, Kevin McHale, Lea Michele, Cory Monteith, Matthew Morrison, Amber Riley, Mark Salling, Jenna Ushkowitz.
Plot: A High School Spanish Teacher attempts to revive the once promising Glee Club at his Alma Mata.


Glee has made its long awaited return from its mid season hiatus. Since then Glee has developed into somewhat of a phenomenon. Not only has it seen a spike in its ratings (ESPECIALLY here in Australia), Glee can now boast a swag of awards, a performance at the White House, a performance on Oprah (you can decide which is more impressive, or if there is actually any difference between the two), and launching its own national tour.


For the most part, the back nine episodes of Glee provide more of the same: Fun dance numbers, uneven character development and (sometimes) plots that take fascinating leaps of logic in order to get from point A to B.


Hell-o

Hell-o wasn’t really a strong return for the series. It spent most of the time recapping the last 13 episodes. One thing that really irked me about this episode was the dialogue that lead into “hello, Ilove You.’ It was definitely Glee at it’s worst.

However this episode also gave us THE BEST LINE OF THE SERIES: 'Did you know that dolphins are just gay sharks?' delivered absolutely perfectly by Brittany (Heather Morris).

Musical Highlight: I am going to say (probably quite controversially) Rachel and Jesse singing Lionel Ritchie’s ‘Hello.’ It was a delight to see Lea Michele reunited with her Spring Awakening co-star Jonathan Groff. And any time Jonathan Groff is singing is okay by me.


The Power of Madonna

While plot and character development were most decidedly on the back burner in this episode, It gave us lots of Musical goodness. It was lots of fun! The numbers were well chosen and pulled off with such energy and gusto that you couldn’t help but be entertained.

Musical Highlight: Sue Sylvester singing ‘Vogue.’ Omigod! Brilliant! Loved it! Though I think my favourite part of that episode was Kurt Hummel living out his America’s Next Top Model fantasy in the 'Vogue' video.



Home

This was probably my least favourite episode of the back nine. I was bored. Bored. Bored. Bored. I actually found myself fast forwarding through most of this episode.

Home saw the (totally unnecessary) return of Kristin Chenoweth as drunkard April Rhodes. While I loved her in Episode 4: The Rhodes Not Taken in the first half of the season, but this time around I felt as though she was playing a caricature of a caricature

Her earlier appearance certainly helped steer the show in the right direction, but now that the show has found its feet, she didn’t need to be there, at least not yet. Perhaps the writers could have saved her return for a little bit later in the show's run? (Perhaps when it is in desperate need of a lift?) I don't know that I could handle another Kristin Chenoweth episode anytime soon.

I quite enjoyed the scene between Quinn and Mercedes. Quinn has undergone quite the transformation hasn’t she? Just think, if Puck hadn’t gotten her pregnant she never would have turned into a nice person. But whether she is still nice in season 2 remains to be seen.

Musical Highlight: By default it is Kurt singing ‘A House is Not a Home’ because I hate ‘Beautiful’ (sung by Mercedes in this episode) and every other song featured Kristin Chenoweth being annoying.




Bad Reputation

Whenever Sue Sylvester is front and centre, Glee shines. Bad Reputation was no different. She became a top seven hundred recording artist in this episode!

Unfortunately we did get the return of Will rapping. But it was over quickly, thank goodness.

And I did love the ‘Run, Joey, Run’ video. It was totally Rachel Berry. They boy’s reactions were great too!

Musical Highlight: While I enjoyed half of the Glee Club attempting to create chaos in the Library with ‘U Can’t Touch This,’ the standout number was definitely Olivia Newton John’s duet with none other than Sue Sylvester! Let’s Get Physical!!!


Laryngitis

Finally an episode without Rachel singing EVERY SONG.

Is anyone surprised that Finn sang ‘Jessie’s Girl.’ I have been waiting for that song to come up ever since it was announced that Jonathan Groff would be playing a character called Jesse St James.

And who knew Santana (Naya Rivera) could actually sing?

Musical Highlight: As bizarre as the Puck/Mercedes relationship was, I really enjoyed the arrangement of their duet ‘The Lady is A Tramp’.




Dream On

The much anticipated Joss Whedon episode, in true glee fashion, was uneven. While it did give us a bit more back story to Rachel and Artie and Tina, it was the Neil Patrick Harris plot I couldn't stand.

Though there were some shots that were trademark Whedon (the flare of the sun in the background of the shot where Artie and Tina kiss and the final shot of the episode come specifically to mind) I expected more from him. It felt like we had to wait FOREVER for there to be a musical number

Surprise Surprise! Indina Menzel is Lea Michele's mother! But the big question is.... When do we get to meet Rachel's gay dads?

Musical Highlight: Artie’s ‘Safety Dance’, just because Kevin McHale never gets enough screen time and I loved the use of the video cameras inter cut between the ‘traditional camera’ shots.




Theatricality (otherwise known as the Lady Gaga Episode).

At least we know that McKinley High School is somewhat grounded in reality. Proof: it is packed with Twi-Hards (*shudder*).

The best part of the episode was definitely Tina the Vampire!

This week’s subplot was Finn and his mum moving in with Kurt and his dad. I really appreciate the way the writers have handled the relationship between Kurt and his father. This week was no different. The moment where Burt placed his hand on his son’s shoulder said so much about their relationship.

Musical Highlight: I really enjoyed the ‘Poker Face’ duet between Michele and Menzel. I think I liked this version more than the original. An honourable mention goes to Puck and the boys singing ‘Beth’.



Funk

Sue and Will… Oh my god! It was somehow amusingly painful to watch. However, I have real difficulty in believing that Will thinks the best was to hurt Sue is to break her heart. (‘What heart?’ I hear you ask. Yes, that is another mystery of the Glee-verse).

The pregnant girls dancing were ….weird. I can’t believe that any girl, no matter how good a dancer would be able to move that way with an eight month pregnant belly.

Oh and I hope you were paying attention this week, because somewhere between Theatricality (in which Jesse was conspicuously absent) and Funk, Jesse decided to quit the Glee Club. The Rachel /Jesse storyline started off quite well, but its conclusion was less than satisfactory. Jesse admitted to Shelby (the Vocal Adrenaline coach) that he did actually kind of like Rachel and yet had no trouble smashing eggs on her face or trashing the choir room. Yet another storyline left hanging. I doubt it will get any resolution.

Musical Highlights: New Directions singing ‘Give Up the Funk’ and proving they were not 'soulless automatons'.


Journey

I think we are all relieved to have the baby storyline all wrapped up. However, I did enjoy the scene of Puck and Quinn and the hospital watching over their new born daughter.

Think I went into shock when Matt (Dijon Talton) actually spoke! I thought he was mute. Seriously. I think that was the first time in the entire season he said ANYTHING!!! They are adding new high school characters in season 2. Perhaps they should hold off a little and develop the characters they already have. Perhaps they should go all out and let Matt have two lines next season!

Sue surprised us all by voting for New Directions. Though it wasn’t much of a surprise that they didn’t win Regionals. As much as we are supposed to root for New Directions, they are clearly inferior to Vocal Adrenaline in the choreography and staging of their numbers. So I am glad that New Directions didn’t win for two reasons: 1. it would have been TOO unbelievable and TOO cheesy, even for Glee and 2. Now we have a narrative drive for season 2.

I have to say I am getting a little bit over the whole: Sue Sylvester wants something, the school board wants something, the glee club doesn’t have any money.... so glee club might not exist anymore. Hopefully the writers can be a little bit more creative than ‘everybody hates glee club in season 2.

Musical Highlights: Vocal Adrenaline singing ‘Bohemian Rhapsody’, for sheer obnoxious over-the- topness.
 
Should I See It?

Of course, (but it would help if you have seen the first thirteen episodes!)


 




Glee Official Site here.

All photos courtesy of Fox.

Emma BBC Review

Posted by Should I See It on Sunday, June 13, 2010 , under , , , , , , , | comments (1)





Show: Emma (BBC miniseries)
Director: Jim O’Hanlon
Starring: Romola Garai, Johnny Lee Miller, Michael Gambon.
Plot: Based on the Jane Austen novel of the same name, this four part miniseries follows Emma Woodhouse, a lively and very rich young woman in 19th Century England.

Jane Austen adaptations always fascinate me. I always wonder who it was that thought yet another Jane Austen adaptation was absolutely necessary, let alone who thought THIS version of Emma was indispensable to the Austen canon.

The Jane Austen Renaissance of the mid nineties produced three version of Emma alone: the darker made for TV version starring Kate Beckinsdale, the light and sparkling film version directed by Douglas McGrath and starring Gwyneth Paltrow and Amy Heckerling’s teen comedy Clueless.

While each of those brought something different to the story (particularly Clueless, which, incidentally, is my favourite adaptation) this latest offering from the BBC seems to be nothing more than a rehash of what's already been done. It doesn't add anything new. Indeed, it does pretty much what the McGrath version does, but takes TWICE as long.

This version of Emma suffers from poor pacing, particularly in the first two episodes. There feel like there is a lot of filler as opposed to story. This is perhaps most obvious in the ill-advised opening sequence which focuses on the childhood of Emma, Frank Churchill and Jane Fairfax. Apart from shouting to the audience 'look at all the ways we are different to all the other adaptations!' the sequence itself is rather pointless.



Director Jim O'Hanlon and screenwriter Sandy Welch also utilise an odd variety of narrative techniques. The audience is privy to Emma's private thoughts, her fantasies and imaginings and (most bizarrely) Emma delivers full fledged monologues. They occur sporadically (*Clueless shout out!*) and inconsistently and seem out of kilter with the rest of the other wise naturalistic production values.

However, this version does allow Frank Churchill to come across as the blackguard he is (I always felt he got off a little to easy in the McGrath version). I also enjoyed seeing a little more of John and Isabella Knightley.

But perhaps the biggest obstacle Emma faces is not poor pacing, but Romola Garai. I am still trying to decide whether she was miscast or misdirected. Emma is not unintelligent, rather her intelligence, as Mr Knightley puts it, is misapplied. Unfortunately in the hands of Garai, Emma Woodhouse is almost insipid. Most of the time Garai is wide eyed and overacting. Emma is a character you love because of her flaws, however, Garai is just irritating without being endearing. It is difficult to believe that Mr Knightley would be attracted to such a silly girl.



Johnny Lee Miller is quite nice to look at as Mr Knightley (but once you remember that he was married to Angelina Jolie he loses some of his appeal). He is a gentler Knightley than other adaptations, oh heck, even the book suggests, but it works for Miller, even though you get the feeling that he knows that he is in love with Emma all along.

There is nothing particularly outstanding about the rest of the supporting cast: Jodhi May is watery eyed as Mrs Weston, and Michael Gambon just does the Michael Gambon thing.

All in all, this adaptation of Emma does not offer anything new. It is over long, a little too over indulged and severely lacking in focus. It even manages to lose the Austen wit and charm that is central to the enjoyment of the story.


Should I See It?

Most likely it will disappoint even the most die hard Austen fans.


 Emma Official Site here.

All pictures courtesy of the BBC.

What we learnt in Season 2 of The Mentalist

Posted by Should I See It on Tuesday, June 1, 2010 , under , , , , , , , , , | comments (0)




In Season 2 of The Mentalist we learnt that...


Rigsby's father was a biker.


Cho is awesome.


Cho is REALLY awesome.


The CBI has no screening policy for it's employees (Case in point: the CBI Psychiatrist, Rebecca).


The CBI has no screening process when people enter the building ('The Fixer' from Episode 2 [who ended up being a murderer] and a man we can only assume is Red John [who is a murderer/ crazy serial killer]).


Lisbon is not as straight laced as she thinks she is.


Sometimes Jane really deserves to be punched.


Patrick Jane is safe for anything short of murder.


Your supervising agent will let you date your co worker, but the big boss won't.


Sometimes the head of the CBI needs to tell the media where to stick it.


There are never any consequences if you are Patrick Jane.


It's okay to blackmail your co workers into doing what you want.


If you want to keep your relationship a secret, don't use the same shower gel.


Kristina Frye might just actually be a real psychic (or in cahoots with Red John, you can decide which is worse).


Red John likes poetry, scary masks, home movies, bloody mary's, and killing people. He dislikes copy cats, even though they (for some reason) think he's the best thing since sliced bread.


Did I mention that Cho is awesome?






The best one liners are.....


‘You're gonna die alone.’ Cho to Rigsby, Episode 2 The Scarlett Letter.

‘Semper Fi, sissy britches’ Jane, Episode 6 Black Gold and Red Blood.

‘Lisbon, I had a horrible dream. I dreamt that Jane escaped the county jail. I dreamt that the sheriff, the AG and the district super all called to yell at me. Now you're gonna wake me up, yes?’ Minelli to Lisbon, Episode 6 Black Gold and Red Blood.

‘Keep an eye on Jane. If he screws up too bad, shoot him. There's not a court in the land that would convict you.’ Minelli to Lisbon, Episode 8 His Red Right Hand.

‘Go to hell and take a toothbrush.’ Lisbon to Jane, Episode 11 Rose Coloured Glasses.

‘You're brain's a fool.’ Cho to a suspect, Episode 11 Rose Coloured Glasses.

‘Is that a useful aha or an annoying aha?’ Lisbon to Jane, Episode 11 Rose Coloured Glasses.

'I'm not the po-po, I'm the po-po consultant.' Jane, Episode 18 Aingative Baa.

‘You're the poster girl for the NRA.’ Jane to Lisbon, Episode19 Blood Money.

‘We’re like the FBI only more conveniently located.’ Cho, Episode 21 18- 5- 4.

'What are you using, dial up?' Jane to Kristina Frye, Episode 22 Red Letter.




Read The Mentalist Season 2 Review here.