MSO Pops: Some Enchanted Evening

Posted by Should I See It on Monday, September 6, 2010 , under , , , , , , , | comments (0)




Concert: Some Enchanted Evening: The Best of Rodgers & Hammerstein
Presented By: The Melbourne Symphony Orchestra
Conductor: Martin Yates
Date Reviewed: Saturday 14th August, 8pm.
Rating:


I am going to be honest: this review will contain numerous usages of the word beautiful and synonyms thereof.

Some Enchanted Evening was a wonderful night with the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra. Selections were from Rodgers and Hammerstein's most popular shows: Oklahoma, Carousel, South Pacific, The King and I and The Sound of Music. I must admit I was a little disappointed not to hear some selections from their lesser known shows like Allegro or Me and Juliet, but you have to please the masses. Highlights of the night were definitely ‘The Carousel Waltz’ and the encore of ‘You’ll Never Walk Alone’. ‘The Carousel Waltz’ was simply outstanding; the beauty of the melody demonstrated the ability of Richards Rodgers to create passion and feeling with only music.

The Orchestra were supported by vocalists and UK imports Jacqui Scott and Andrew Halliday. Ms. Scott was……particularly unimpressive. Her voice was weak, and she quite obviously struggled particularly in the selections from Oklahoma! Ms. Scott also committed the cardinal sin by managing to mix up the lyrics in just about every number from South Pacific. If you are celebrating the music AND lyrics of a particular writing team, then you really should get the lyrics right!

Though Halliday could pull out the full tone more suited to the style of a Rogers and Hammerstein score when absolutely necessary, notably in Soliloquy from Carousel and Younger than Springtime (South Pacific), his tone was mostly that of the modern pop musical theatre style that we are seeing more and more of today.

Overall, the show needed vocalists with warmer, richer tones that are more qualified to do justice to the beauty of Rodgers and Hammerstein’s work. Why did we need UK vocalists anyway? Isn’t there enough talent in Melbourne to do the score justice? It’s not as if Scott or Halliday are ‘names’ that could be potential draw cards. People are there to see the Orchestra, not the vocalists.

Apart from the average vocal performances, the only major misstep of the night was ‘Oklahoma’ (the song). The Orchestra were wonderful, but having only the two vocalists sing it left something to be desired. It felt empty. The song really needs a rousing chorus of voices to it justice.

Rogers and Hammerstein gave the world some of the most beautiful songs ever written. The lyrics are timeless; the expressions of love so simple that the songs will continue to transcend time.

Hearing these wonderful songs by arguably musical theatres most successful writing team made me realise that people don’t write shows like that anymore! Bring back the golden age of musical theatre!!!

For those who are not connoisseurs of classical music, the MSO Pops is a great place to start. They will finish their 2010 with a selection of Disney classics, which is a nice way to ease into the world of MSO.




Some Enchanted Evening played only 3 performances.



MSO official site here.

South Solitary Review

Posted by Should I See It on Thursday, September 2, 2010 , under , , , | comments (0)




Film: South Solitary
Directed By: Shirley Barrett.
Starring: Miranda Otto, Barry Otto, Marton Csokas and Essie Davis.
Plot: A woman accompanies her uncle, a lighthouse inspector, to the Island of South Solitary.
Rating:


This year has seen the release of a number of wonderful Australian films. Unfortunately, South Solitary is not one of them.

Within the first half hour of the film, I found myself wanting the film  to be over (not a good sign). Even though the running time was under two hours, it felt closer to three. South Solitary was incredibly slow paced- and dare I say it (even at the risk of sounding unintelligent)- BORING. I can’t help but think that the material would have been more suited to a short film, at least then it wouldn’t have dragged.

As a viewer, it is frustrating to have characters who don’t learn from their mistakes. It is incredibly difficult to emotionally invest in Meredith, since she seems to have no powers of reasoning or any critical judgement. Meredith is an incredibly weak, incredibly flawed character, who annoys more than intrigues. Part of that has to do with Miranda Otto’s performance. The girly high pitched voice and attempts at wide eyed innocence do not convince, and only add to the frustration towards the character.

Barry Otto as the uncompromising head Lighthouse keeper is the only breath of fresh air in the otherwise stale film.

The resolution of the narrative with the relationship between Meredith and fellow lighthouse keeper, Fleet, feels forced and inorganic.

The scenes where Meredith has to run the lighthouse by herself show potential, but they are over far too quickly to alleviate the monotony of this film.

The beautiful score and beautiful location (shot at Cape Nelson and Cape Otway) can’t make up for the lacklustre script and poor pacing of the film.

South Solitary is a lot like life as a lighthouse keeper: Long and incredibly dull.


Should I See It?

Don’t waste your time!





South Solitary Official Site here.

Me and Orson Welles Review

Posted by Should I See It on Monday, August 2, 2010 , under , , , , | comments (0)




Film: Me and Orson Welles.
Director: Richard Linklater.
Starring: Zac Efron, Claire Danes, Christian McKay.
Plot: A week in the life of teenager Richard Samuels (Efron), who finds himself cast in Orson Welles’ 1937 production of Julius Caesar. Based on the novel of the same name by Robert Kaplow.
Rating:



I have been waiting a long time to see Me and Orson Welles, especially considering it was first released two years ago at the Toronto International Film Festival.

Originally, I was sceptical about the casting of Efron in the lead role. However, he is good. Solid. Not fantastic. In some scenes he is stronger than others. This film was shot between High School Musicals 2 and 3, which may explain some of the lackluster of Efron’s performance. Say what you will about High School Musical 3 and 17 Again, but these films proved Efron’s charisma and ability to carry a film. In Me and Orson Welles, Efron does well, but perhaps he was not quite ready for this role. He is often overshadowed by his co-stars, though he does work particularly well with Danes, who plays Welles’ girl Friday.




The real revelation is Christian McKay as Orson Welles. Making his film debut, McKay carries the film in a way Efron cannot. To be fair, McKay is playing Orson Welles, the sheer magnitude of his presence would suggest that if McKay DIDN’T steal every scene he was in, he would not be doing his job.

One scene in particular, during the rehearsals for Caesar, McKay delivers a soliloquy in such a way that you believe you are watching Welles, not an actor playing him. To call McKay an impersonator is to complete disservice to his ability. Not only does he look like a young Orson Welles, but he completely inhabits him. McKay has a presence, he captures the bravado that Welles had, the bravado that only comes with sheer genius. I think I can join the chorus of voices who say that McKay was snubbed by the Academy for a Best Supporting Actor nod.



Welles infamously cut the script of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar down to under 100 minutes running time. Linklater provides us with roughly ten minutes of the opening night performance. Julius Caesar is wonderfully recreated, demonstrating a huge amount of research on behalf of the film makers. I found myself wishing I could borrow Doc Brown’s time machine and head on back to 1937 and watch the actual production.

The side plot, involving Richard meeting an aspiring writer Gretta (Zoe Kazan, who reminded me of Regina Spektor in this, no idea why) feels shoe horned in (it did in the novel, too). The chemistry in those scenes feels a little off.

The soundtrack is wonderfully bright, fully of Jazz standards. I particularly admire that period in music: it gave birth to so many classic songs. The opening scenes, where Richard and Gretta discuss the death of Gershwin and the beauty of Richard Rogers’ melodies, makes you remember that those ‘oldies’ were indeed once new songs.



My major gripe with the film was a distinct lack of air and space. Not a lot of filming was done on location in New York, most of the filming was done on soundstages in London (and, bizarrely, the Isle of Man), and thus the film has a very enclosed feel; which is fine inside the theatre, but the stagey-ness of the exterior scenes in particular made it difficult to be fully immersed in the film.

Essentially, Me and Orson Welles is a film about the theatre and all that goes on before opening night- the backstage politics, the disastrous rehearsals. It hypothesises what it would have been like to work with Welles: all the ‘waiting for Orson,’ the abuse, the drama of working with a genius; yet, the applause of an overwhelmed audience makes it worth it.

Perhaps Me and Orson Welles doesn’t quite pack the emotional punches it intends to, but you leave the cinema warm and fuzzy and content.



Should I See It?

Yes!

Me and Orson Welles Official Site here.

Inception Review

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





Film: Inception.
Director: Christopher Nolan.
Starring: Leonardo DiCaprio, Ellen Page, Marion Cotillard, Ken Watanabe, Joseph Gordon-Levitt.
Plot: In a world where technology exists to enter the human mind through dream invasion, a highly skilled thief is given a final chance at redemption which involves executing his toughest job till date, Inception.
Rating:


So Inception has made A LOT of money since its release. No surprise really, considering its credentials: It’s written and directed by Christopher Nolan (Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, and stars Leonardo DiCaprio. Well it stars a few other people too, but, let’s face it, Leonardo is the only one that’s a real draw.

Is Inception a good film? Yes it is. Actually, it’s refreshing to be treated as an intelligent person, as opposed to being forced to accept some of the drivel that studios turn out in droves. It’s an exhausting two and a half hours in the cinema. The audience is forced to concentrate on information that’s thrown at them faster than a spin ball from Glenn McGrath.



However, it is not “OMG THE MOST AMAZING FILM I HAVE EVER SEEN IN MY LIFE!” as some people would have you believe. I think that talk of an Academy Award for Best Picture is a bit pre-emptive, there is still A LONG time to go until the Oscars, and remember, the Academy is not a huge fan of Sci-Fi.

The special effects were excellent. The no-gravity sequence was particularly well done (though it begged the question why does the zero gravity of the van, only affect one layer of the dream, not them all). The early dream sequence where the Parisian Streets turn in on themselves is also remarkable.



I guess is should make some sort of comment on the supposed ‘twist’ ending. So, here it is:

Does the final shot really raise the stakes of the film, or does Christopher Nolan just chicken out? My vote goes to the latter: Christopher Nolan chickened out. The point of cutting to black without knowing whether the spinning top falls, is just an attempt to force some sort of debate in the audience as to whether or not Leonardo DiCaprio was dreaming the whole time. As soon as I realised the film was about dreams inside dreams, my mind immediately sprang to the idea that the whole thing was a ‘dream.’ If you weren’t thinking that while watching the film, then….well, there’s not much hope for you, is there?

Is Inception as complicated and esoteric as it makes itself out to be? If you pay attention, the film isn’t nearly as complicated as it makes itself out to be.

Is it really as original as everyone keeps saying? Inception is sort of Memento meets The Matrix, but it is put together in such a way that feels fresh.

I realise that the last couple of paragraphs may seem like I am particularly derisive towards Inception. That is not so. I enjoyed it. The film held me it every step. It was inense, engaging, surprising and well crafted. I have no doubt that Inception will become a staple of film schools the world over. I just ask that you take the pseudo-intellectual debate that surrounds the film with a grain of salt.

 
Should I See It?

Sure. It’s an intelligent film that deserves to be seen.





Inception Official Site here.

Knight and Day Review

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





Film: Knight and Day.
Director: James Mangold.
Starring: Tom Cruise, Cameron Diaz, Peter Sarsgaard and Viola Davis.
Plot: The life of a woman (Diaz) is turned upside down, when she accidently becomes involved with a rouge Federal Agent (Cruise).
Rating:


I really wonder what it is like to not be afraid of pain. When I watch action movies and the characters leap between cars or off buildings, I always wonder if they ever think, ‘if I miss that car/truck/building I will most certainly break every other bone in my body, sustain severe spinal and brain injuries and may never walk again…’ or do they think… ‘if I miss this car/truck/building, then ….. bring on the pain! I’m not afraid of pain.’

The reason I mention this, is because Tom Cruise’s character in Knight and Day leaps off an alarming number of buildings, cars trucks you name it, without a second thought. Granted he lands every time, MOSTLY sustaining nothing but a few minor injuries (unless of course, it is dramatically important for injuries to occur). But I had to wonder, do characters in action movies ever get scared? Or do they know they will be transformed into Computer Generated Images and thereby negating all fear?



Anyway, that’s all beside the point.

What is there to say about Knight and Day?

It delivers exactly what it promises. Explosions, car chases, gun fights, a bit of romance and a bit of comedy in there for good measure. If you can ignore the silliness of it all, it is actually quite a fun time. Expert film making: not really. Fun: well, yes.

The plot of Knight and Day is inherently ridiculous. For that reason, the film hinges on the performances of Cruise and Diaz more than you would expect, actually. Tom Cruise is funny. Who knew? Cameron Diaz delivers what she does in her usual rom- com fair, just with a gun and some explosions this time around. Not that it’s a bad thing. She is a good foil for Cruise.



Knight and Day boasts quite a few big names in the supporting cast: Peter Sarsgaard, Paul Dano, Viola Davis (her performance made me cringe) but the movie is really Cruise and Diaz doing what they do best: looking pretty for the camera.

Knight and Day is a date movie. Plenty of love-y bits for the girls, plenty of guns and explosions for the boys.


Should I See It?

Only if you’re in the mood for mindless fluff.



Knight and Day Official Site here.

A Very Potter Sequel Review

Posted by Should I See It on Sunday, July 25, 2010 , under , , , , , , , , , , | comments (0)





Show: A Very Potter Sequel
Presented By: Team StarKid
Director: Matt Lang
Starring: Darren Criss, Joey Richter, Bonnie Gruesen, Lauren Lopez, Joe Walker and Brian Holden.
Plot: Lucius Malfoy is up to no good. He turns back time to try and kill Harry Potter during his first year at Hogwarts School and Witchcraft and Wizardry.


 

Big things have happened to Team StarKid in the year since A Very Potter Musical became an accidental international internet phenomenon. Their other major non-Potter outing, the musical Me and My Dick, was the first student-made musical to hit the Billboard cast recording charts. Over the weekend, their compilation album, A Very StarKid Album, trumped Lady Gaga and Glee on the ITunes album charts.

So it is no wonder that the announcement of A Very Potter Sequel on the first of January this year was greeted with rabid excitement and anticipation. After the live performances in May and its video premiere at Potter convention Infinitus, A Very Potter Sequel finally hit the internet on the 22nd of July.

A Very Potter Sequel doesn’t quite live up to the impossibly high standard set by A Very Potter Musical. The plot doesn’t flow nearly as well; it’s not as streamlined as it was in A Very Potter Musical. Lucius Malfoy’s desire to get rid of Harry Potter begins the show, and we expect it to be the main drive of the plot, but the show gets side-tracked; making it feel like the show lacks a clear focus.

Turning back time sends us back to Harry Potter first goes to Hogwarts, and it feels like a lot of recapping: The returning characters don’t really develop much more. I guess that is part of the dilemma of the time travel scenario: How do you develop characters backwards?

There are a lot of references to A Very Potter Musical: which start out cute, but get old really quickly. A lot of enjoyment of the show relies on a solid knowledge of AVPM, which means A Very Potter Sequel never really invents anything for itself. And for this reason, A Very Potter Sequel never really hits the mark set by A Very Potter Musical.

I remember after watching A Very Potter Musical for the first time I had “Going Back to Hogwarts”, “Granger Danger” and “Ginny” stuck in my head on a constant loop. The score doesn’t have the same sticking power this time around. The line “He’s Harry Freakin’ Potter” from the song of the same name comes closest to being catchy, as does Umbridge’s disco number ‘You Were Never My Lover (Stutter)”. A few other songs create nice theatrical moments: “Those Voices” where Harry sees his parents in the Mirror of Erised is incredibly poignant, and Criss shows his adoration of Disney composers Alan Menken and Howard Ashman (check out his Disney covers on YouTube) in Harry’s solo upon arrival at Hogwarts ‘To Have a Home’.

The choreography by James Tolbert is great! I particularly loved his work in “Harry Freaking Potter” and “You Were Never My Lover (Stutter).” Tolbert also demonstrates great imagination in staging the Quidditch match number “Let the Games Begin.”

While all of the actors are back, not all of the characters return. Our old favourites Criss, Richter, Gruesen and Lopez are in great form. But for those in new roles, the actors show how talented and versatile they really are. After are five second cameo as Ginny Weasley, Jamie-Lynn Beatty is excellent as Rita Skeeter. Joe Walker as Umbridge is an inspired piece of casting.

Tyler Brunsman, Cedric Diggory in A Very Potter Musical, is in his element as Lucius Malfoy. Not only does he look great in the tight pants and blonde wing, but he prances around the stage with such flair, that he steals every scene he is in (I will never be able to look at Jason Isaacs [Lucius Malfoy in the films] the same way). After this performance, I would love to see him as Cinderella’s Prince in Into the Woods.

Don’t get me wrong, there is fun to be had with A Very Potter Sequel. Matt Lang is proving himself to be an incredibly solid director; the use of puppetry is great; I never knew you could have so much fun opening the door to a train carriage and I will laugh whenever someone asks “did you get my text?”

I will watch anything and everything produced by Team StarKid because they are incredibly talented. I love the fact that they are making things happen for themselves. There’s a reason that they have experienced the success that they have!


Should I See It?



For StarKid fans only. Make sure you have seen A Very Potter Musical first.

















All images courtesy of Team StarKid.



Toy Story 3

Posted by Should I See It on Tuesday, July 20, 2010 , under , , , , , , , | comments (0)





Film: Toy Story 3
Director: Lee Unkrich
Starring: (the voice talents of) Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, Joan Cusack and Michael Keaton.
Plot: With Andy headed to college, the toys are donated to a local Day Care Centre.


Usually, by the time film franchises have reached their third instalment, they have grown tired, old and generally overstayed their welcome. Luckily for us, Toy Story 3 is as fresh as the first time around; we feel as though we are being reunited with old friends.

Toy Story 3 sees Andy (the owner of Woody, Buzz Lightyear and co.) all grown up and headed off to college. The Toys, already suffering from a serious lack of playtime, are faced with either the attic or, their worse fear, the trash. A series of events sees them donated to Sunnyside Day Care centre, that’s ruled by the evil strawberry scented teddy bear Lotso.



So much of the characters come from the actors that voice them. Performance wise, Tom Hanks and Tim Allen deliver what they always have. Michael Keaton is in his element as the “I’m not as girls toy, but I love my wardrobe more than life itself” Ken. Barbie and Ken’s first meeting is almost worth the price of admission alone.

The opening sequence is a particularly charming, effortlessly capturing the imagination of a child during playtime. In what other world but a child’s imagination could a cowboy and an astronaut save a runaway train, apprehend special shield slinky dogs and become victims of an evil space lord money box pig?



But the real standout is the ending that’s handled with such poignancy that just might have you reaching for the tissues.

The film is a little overlong. The trash sequence at the end was unnecessary. Also unnecessary was the 3D Transfer as it didn’t do anything to enhance the visuals or the story, it seemed to be merely buying into the 3D hype.

Toy Story 3 is not just for the kids, it’s a hit for the parents as well.


Should I See It?

Yes!!!!!



Toy Story 3 Official Site here.

Dead Man's Cell Phone Melbourne Theatre Company Review

Posted by Should I See It on Sunday, July 11, 2010 , under , , , | comments (0)





Show: Dead Man’s Cell Phone.
Presented by: Melbourne Theatre Company
Directed by: Peter Evans.
Starring: John Adam, Daniel Frederiksen, Emma Jackson, Sue Jones, Lisa McCune, Sarah Sutherland.
Plot: A lonely woman in a café answers the ringing cell phone of a dead man. She is drawn into his family and his life.
Date Reviewed: 9th July, 8pm.

I won’t lie to you: I had an awful amount of trouble trying to write this review. Not because of time constraints or computer issues, but because of the play itself. Dead Man’s Cell Phone failed to excite any emotional response.

It’s easy to write on something you hate. A little more difficult to write on something you love. But when you have to write on something that you didn’t react to whatsoever, that is a challenge.



Last night’s theatrical experience was rather bizarre. The play never fully engaged nor really annoyed; it just WAS. I have never felt as passive in the theatre as I did Friday night, and judging by the tepid response of the rest of the audience, I was not alone.

I understand the play was trying to make a comment about our society; it’s just that I wasn’t entirely sure what it was actually trying to say. At first I got it: in this world of technology, does it really bring us closer together or keep us apart. Actually, the play isn’t clear on this point either. Ironically, it is through the ‘dead man’s cell phone’ that June is able to forge ‘human connections’, it’s just that the connections in the play are so ‘un-human’ that makes the point difficult to comprehend. The romance between Jean (Lisa McCune) and the dead guy's brother Dwight (Daniel Frederiksen), is supposed to be sweet, but the whole thing is so stilted (their love affair begins over embossed paper, seriously) that it never accumulates any depth that the audience can invest in emotionally.



Then, in Act II, something weird happens. Jean dies (well, I think she dies, or maybe she was actually dead the whole time, I'm not sure) and goes to a Laundromat heaven planet (no joke), and that was when Dead Man’s Cell Phone started to loose me. And the fact that Jean described that whole sequence as a Laundromat heaven planet indicated that the characters themselves actually had no idea what was going on. And when the characters in the play have no idea what is going on, how is the audience expected to follow? I'm still not sure what a laundromat has to do with heaven (or hell, or personalised heaven planets for that matter). The play is so busy being existential and surrealist, that it's not even sure of the point it's trying to male

The unnatural dialogue and the sheer force with which the play rams it ‘messages’ down the throats of the audience makes the play so alienating to watch, that it simply washes over the audience instead of inviting them in.



The performances were decent. Accents were passable, if not over pronounced and unnatural. Highlights were the dead man’s monologue and the beginning of act II. John Adam carried the whole thing with a bravado that actually made the awkward, stilted dialogue work. Lisa McCune was satisfactory enough, but her character lacked any sort of past. Why was Jean so lonely? Why did she lack connection with other people? She may be lonely now, but how did she get that way?

Dead Man’s Cell Phone is quite nondescript, really. It is neither magnificent triumph nor epic failure. It hovers somewhere in between, never really deciding what it is about or what it is trying to say.


Should I See It?

It’s not outstanding, but not a painful experience.




All photos courtesy of Melbourne Theatre Company.

Dead Man’s Cell Phone runs through to August 7.

Melbourne Theatre Company Official Site here.


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.