Different_Voices Reviews

Come and Go (2000 TV Short)

Powerful Beckett Hampered by Rather Lacklustre Direction

[6/10 · 12 August 2006]

Many critics have argued that master surrealist Samuel Beckett's work should never be put on film, and with Come and Go its not hard to see why. The play is a stark, brutal examination, of what can fester under the surface over time. The basic premise centres around a group of three women, all of whom are meeting up again after a few years of absence. As the play progresses, they all reveal a horrible secret about each other, leading the audience to believe that maybe there's something hiding under the surface, something terrible that we can't quite make out...

A lot can be drawn from Beckett's work and that's what marks him out as a wonderful stylist. Interpretations of his plays are open and can be read as one sees appropriate. I for one, think that Come and Go is a fable about how we lie to each other, and even ourselves. The meeting initially seems perfect but sooner or later we see the cracks emerge and this is really where the play becomes more universal. Its an exploration of all of our lives: how we all want to pretend everything is perfect, when really we're rotting away under the surface...

But now I better get to the crux of the matter: this film version really isn't that good. The direction is quite poor. Although there are some nice touches (characters eyes are obscured by their over-sized hats) the director makes a fatal mistake: the camera moves far too often. Although this sounds quite simple, it is a fatal flaw. By zooming and panning and dollying we are immediately reminded that we are watching a film, and thus are removed from the work.

This is very unfortunate. It would have been nice to see a better director handle the piece in a more interesting way. Maybe we could have had an exceptional film.

However it would take someone like Michael Bay to mess up such a wonderful script to the point of it being a truly awful cinematic experience. At the moment we're left with a wasted opportunity: a film that could have been exceptional but is simply average.

Shame, isn't it?

Traffic (2000)

Left me very, very Cold

[6/10 · 8 August 2006]

Traffic is a movie I'll never really understand. Yes its intelligent, yes its very well crafted but all the same it really only demonstrates to me that Stephen Soderbergh doesn't know how to handle emotion. The film follows a number of parallel story-lines, all of which follow the central theme of drug-running. Many characters in the film are on collision courses with each other, men and women who have really forgotten who they are.

The storyline sounds very promising. Maybe there is an exceptional movie in Traffic somewhere. But this definitely isn't it. For example one of the story-lines follows the tale of a U.S. Drug czar (Michael Douglas) who slowly comes to realise that maybe not all is right at home. His final speech at the end of the film is indicative of his story on the whole: yes its very intelligent, but at the same time it leaves you cold. Its too cerebral: there's really no tragedy, or even the slightest hint of emotion in the tale. The film gets you thinking, but not for very long. Themes come first, characters later, creating a cinematic experience that while enlightening us, never shocks or touches us.

Another one of the story lines that left me unmoved was the tale of a Mexican cop (Benicio Del Toro) who takes on a powerful drug runner. Although there is a lot of potential there for a great story its never really used to its full potential. We never get to know the character: he's incredibly distant, almost forgotten by the film at its finale. There's not enough there for us to become convinced that he's a real hero. Although one would be foolish to call the character a villain, he never really inspires us at all.

The film would have worked wonderfully had it been a documentary, following the real life story of drug addicts or drug runners. Maybe then Soderbergh would have had an excuse for leaving us so untouched by the end of the film. He could have claimed the movie was only meant to make us think, not immerse us in these characters lives. Nevertheless the direction is pretty amazing. Soderbergh has a wonderful eye for beautiful images and colour schemes. As I've said before, its just sad that he just can't handle character's lives.

Steve Gaghan went on to do wonderful things with Syriana. This film however, is a major letdown for the writer. Maybe he's the one to blame: his story keeps us distant from the characters, never really revealing anything about their lives or motivations. They're cold figures on the horizon, nothing more, nothing less.

This was one of those films I just wish I could have loved. Unfortunately it only strengthened my secret conspiracy that maybe Stephen Soderbergh is in fact a robot.

Blue Velvet (1986)

Disturbing, Twisted, but Wonderful.

[10/10 · 7 August 2006]

What makes a movie great? Of course this is a question that will vary from person to person. Some will say that an amazing movie has to be entertaining. Others might claim it needs to have some kind of educational value. And a select few may even say a brilliant cinematic experience will need unforgettable acting, or maybe even direction. I for one think a really superb movie needs to touch a chord somewhere deep inside of you. A film doesn't necessarily have to be entertaining. At the very least you should never forget it.

So under this definition, Blue Velvet is a wonderful movie. Filled with extraordinary scenes that are truly impossible to forget, the film does something to you. Its hard to say exactly what. There's just something deep within you that's changed. For example, after seeing the movie again, don't you just start to see Frank Boothes all over the place? Don't you imagine what people are doing behind the locked doors of suburban houses? And whenever you hear Roy Orbison's classic 'In Dreams' don't you just imagine a teary eyed Dennis Hopper, a beleaguered Kyle MacLachlan and a completely insane Dean Stockwell?

Blue Velvet ripped our ideal of suburbia apart. It made us realise that we are a world of closed doors. White-washed houses, plain picket fences...aren't they all just smoke and mirrors used to hide the truth inside?

Many people have compared Blue Velvet to American Beauty and its not difficult to see why. Both films expose the lies and hypocrisy of middle America, although of course they both do it in very different ways.

However Blue Velvet is not just concerned with tearing Middle-America apart. It also questions our role as a viewer. In some of the scenes Jeffrey Beaumont (Kyle MacLachlan) watches Issabella Rosselini undress while hiding in a cupboard. Through the discreet use of a few point of view shots Lynch questions who we are. He almost wants us to delight in seeing Rosselini's bare flesh. Because really as human beings, isn't it sex that drives us at heart? This is what Lynch sets out to question and he does so brilliantly.

In conclusion Blue Velvet is a wonderful movie. You won't forget it easily.

Brokeback Mountain (2005)

I am *not* homophobic but...

[4/10 · 7 August 2006]

Its very hard to critique movies that everyone else seems to love, especially if they deal with controversial themes. I for one, did not like Brokeback Mountain at all. Of course, as soon as I say this everyone naturally assumes I'm a homophobe. This is entirely unfair. For years I've been a huge fan of Pedro Almodovar and Gus Van Sant. Both directors have dealt with homosexual themes years before Heath Ledger, Jake Gylenhaal and Ang Lee ever even set up their first shot. My Own Private Idaho deals again with the theme of homosexuality and is far superior to Brokeback for a number of reasons. For a start, I think its hard to see any love at all between the movie's two central protagonists Jack and Ennis. The very fact that two heart-throbs were cast as homosexual lovers makes me think that maybe they were more attracted to each other's body than anything else. Also there is really no connection between the two leads before they first have sexual intercourse. The two seem to be in lust, not love. The fact that Jack goes to visit a Mexican hooker in order to fulfill his desires seems to suggest he's really only addicted to sex. He doesn't need Ennis; he just needs anyone to relieve his sexual longing.

Then again maybe the movie just didn't strike a chord with me personally. The ending which many found tragic (a woman sitting next to me was crying so hard she actually had to leave the cinema) left me cold. I didn't respond to the characters at all. The direction I found rather flat: the landscape seemed to do all the work for Ang Lee. He was just very lucky with where he set up all his shots.

So in conclusion please do not label me as homophobic. Is it wrong to dislike a film because it deals with gay characters? Does that mean that any movie, no matter how terrible that contains the theme of homosexuality should be left uncritiqued?

Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai (1999)

A film of complex duality

[9/10 · 2 August 2006]

Jim Jarmusch is, in my eyes, a contemporary genius of cinema. His movies never fail to bowl me over, drawing me into stories that are both entertaining and complex. Ghost Dog: Way of the Samurai is no different.

The film follows the journey of a young hit-man, Ghost Dog, brilliantly played by Forest Whitaker, who is betrayed by a dysfunctional Mafia family after a bungled hit. Although it sounds pretty generic, the film is filled with thought-provoking questions. We begin to analyse our own moral and philosophical beliefs as Ghost Dog analyses his. If this description sounds fairly pretentious, that's probably because it is. When a film is trying to be this philosophical there are going to be some rather conceited moments. That said however, these are few and far between. For the most part, the film is emotional, powerful and intelligent.

But the really great part about Ghost Dog, is the fact that it never takes a clear path. Jarmusch explores an interesting duality when dealing with his protagonist's unswerving loyalty. On the one hand, Ghost Dog's obsession with tradition leads to his own personal downfall. However, on the flip-side of the coin, it is this loyalty that sets him apart from the rest of us. Sure he suffers as a result, but in the end isn't Ghost Dog a better man than most of us?

Even the film's tag-line exemplifies this duality: live by the code, die by the code. Aren't they both as important as each other?

Now I've rambled for a bit, I implore you to go see this movie. It might change the way you think about Jim Jarmusch…but it might not. Either way, see what you think. Give Ghost Dog a try.

The Manchurian Candidate (1962)

The film that dared to be different (if you'll excuse my cliché)

[10/10 · 16 July 2006]

I love old black and white movies. I don't know exactly what it is, but there's just something that draws me into them. Maybe its' the rather clichéd dialogue, the trademark camera zooms or the unimaginative editing. Whatever I love about them, they never fail to give me a bit of B-movie fun. However, on the downside they rarely feel real. Even when dealing with working class characters, the stories are always imbued with a sense of haughtiness, of moral righteousness. The villains always get their just desserts, and of course the hero runs off with the girl into the sunset.

But the Manchurian Candidate, the landmark political thriller is one of the most shocking, emotional and intelligent films I've seen in a long time. I don't know how it feels so real, but it does. The camera work is pretty by the numbers, and some of the supporting cast overact but there's just something that marks it out from the other rather more artificial films of the same time period.

And for a political thriller it sure packs a punch. I've never been a fan of the action/adventure genre, but I love this film. The emotional core is Lawerence Harvey's exceptional performance as Raymond Shaw, a political chess-piece exploited by powers he can't control. Thanks to the wonderful screenplay we get a real insight into his hopes and dreams and as a result, Raymond is never a staple hero or a villain. He's a real human being, and this is what makes the film so exceptional.

On top of that the movie has a very unhappy ending. At the time of course this was almost unheard of. Films had to end with the bad guys getting what they deserve, not with heroes having their lives ripped to shreds. I don't want to ruin the film's denouement, but trust me, it's anything but upbeat.

Platoon (1986)

Beauty in Chaos

[10/10 · 16 July 2006]

It takes a master filmmaker like Oliver Stone to find real beauty in chaos. The two are of course polar opposites, and yet the talented director fuses them in a movie that is both haunting and amazing.

I saw this film two years ago when I was only fourteen. Usually I wouldn't make personal comments in a review, but I think its important to understand what effect this movie had on me. I was young and knew that I wanted to be a filmmaker but it was this film that really encouraged me to make movies. I was spurned on by the artful camera-work, brilliant screenplay and dynamic acting that, as clichéd as it sounds, really created an unforgettable screen experience.

The movie still haunts me. Despite scenes filled with drug abuse, violence and an overall sense of menace, there are some moments which speak volumes to us all. There's an attention to detail usually lacking in war films: characters actually sound like real people instead of cardboard cuttouts.

All in all this is a movie I'll never forget.

Watch it and you'll see what I mean.

Lone Star (1996)

The film Crash owes a lot to

[9/10 · 16 July 2006]

Crash, Paul Haggis' directorial debut, has been called a masterpiece of modern cinema. In fact it was so critically lauded that it beat Capote, Munich and Brokeback Mountain at the 2005 Oscar ceremony.

Although the film was praised for its originality it owes a lot to John Sayles' masterpiece, Lone Star.

Both films deal with racial disputes, although Sayles does with much more subtlety. In Haggis' film, characters seem too clean cut: they're either heroes or villains. In Lone Star however the line between good and evil isn't quite as easy to see. We enter a moral grey zone, where our protagonists become antagonists, where villains show a more tender, intellectual side to their characters and where it is almost impossible to tell right from wrong.

On top of that, both films have a collection of central protagonists. Instead of focusing on one story, Crash and Lone Star pick a number of 'heroes' to guide us through this moral swamp. And although Haggis' screenplay does this well, it doesn't quite reach the level of complexity that Sayles' does. Lone Star unfolds like a novel. In the film's opening we are presented with a rather simplistic view of a local lawman. But as the film progresses and our narrator changes, we soon realizes there's more to this story than we could have ever imagined...

It's always good to see where a film has ripped off from. So go off and see Lone Star today. I'm sure you won't regret it.

The Exorcist (1973)

Well it still scares the living daylights out of me...

[9/10 · 15 July 2006]

Lately many people are beginning to claim that The Exorcist isn't all its cracked up to be. According to a whole new generation of audience it's just not scary anymore. In all truth, I have to disagree.

It's a rare occasion when I'm truly scared by a film - but this movie freaked the hell out of me, to put in simply. And its easy to see why. Unlike the Eli Roths of today Friedkin is an extremely talented director. Sure he's made some flops, but this definitely isn't once of them. Taught, psychological and really very clever, this movie deserves its classic place in the history of cinema.

Again, unlike Roth Friedkin uses subtle gestures to terrify his audience. There are never any exceptionally violent moments. Instead a cold feeling of quiet horror begins to build up in the audience member's mind.

Some scenes, such as a deep male voice emerging from the mouth of a tiny girl are utterly unforgettable. I know I've said it before, but I'll say it again: its these moments of quiet horror that are much more terrifying than Roth's bloodletting will ever be.

In short, see this film instead of popping out to watch the newest Alien clone, or the brand new Rob Zombie film.

You won't regret it.

Amores Perros (2000)

Violent and Coarse, But also very very Powerful

[8/10 · 14 July 2006]

Amores Perros is not for those with weak stomachs. The movie is relentlessly violent, filled with moments of gut-wrenching gore and power. That said it's also a brilliant movie.

Alejandro Gonzalez Inniratu's hold-no-prisoners, in your face style nicely suits the wonderful screenplay by Mexican born Guilermo Arragia. Characters in this movie don't necessarily find the redemption they are looking for but they're journey is nevertheless powerful and stunning.

The film basically center's on a group of characters all of whom have fallen in love, lost it or are becoming dissatisfied with it. For example a political hit-man named El Chivo lives like a hermit with his motley gang of dogs. He carries deep emotional baggage and desperately wants to reach out to his estranged family.

The movie's script is absolutely flawless although its hard to keep up when we move at such a breakneck speed. That said this truly is one of the best movies of recent years. The ending is especially powerful, and will haunt you till after the credits have rolled.

So what more is there to say? Go out and watch this movie! William Friedkin loved it, so why shouldn't you?

Beyond the Sea (2004)

Flawed but Still A Hell of a Lotta Fun

[7/10 · 14 July 2006]

Albino Alligator hardly established Kevin Spacey as a film director. An unfocused mess, the movie veered from clichéd melodrama to rather poor comedy. I think Spacey is a tremendous actor, but I was rather worried about how Beyond the Sea would turn out.

As a result I am delighted to report that I had a hell of a good time with this movie. Although it still wasn't perfect I can safely say this is a film which will provide you with a lot of good, old-fashioned fun.

Some scenes are rather clichéd, and the movie seems determined to portray Darin as a saint: he stands up for black people, he's an amazing husband, his son loves him dearly and so on and so forth. One could also question Spacey's casting of himself: he's far too old to play the role, and as a result its very easy to mistake this film for a vanity piece.

Nevertheless the movie is great fun. If you're a big fan of Darin (which I certainly am) you'll have a whale of a time, and even those who have never heard of the great singer will surely get a lot out of the toe-tapping classics such as 'Mack the Knife' and 'Splish-Splash'. But the real standout is Spacey's amazing direction. The shots are all tremendously well thought out and the musical scenes are truly exceptional. Spacey throws you right into the moment, giving the film a sense of fun and energy. Only Bob Fosse has managed to handle musical numbers quite this well.

It would have been nice to see a few more complex characters: all of the main players are saints. No one drinks or gambles or even swears. There's not a single flawed character in the movie but hey, when you're having this much fun you don't really give a damn.

Spacey sings most of Darin's classics with great vigour and energy. The young Bobby isn't nearly as talented, but again you look over the movie's flaws when you're enjoying yourself so much.

In a way Beyond the Sea feels like an old-school musical. This is most probably a deliberate choice as it fits in nicely to Darin's life and in particular his rather clichéd, meteoric rise to fame.

So now I've rambled through this review I think I'm about done. All I can say is this definitely a flawed movie, but still very very fun. For a while it wasn't going to be screened over here in Oz seeing as we're in that 'other' hemisphere. But I must say I'm very glad it did.

The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover (1989)

A Scary, Disturbing but Utterly Brilliant Film

[9/10 · 13 July 2006]

Peter Greenaway's The Cook, The Thief, His Wife and Her Lover is one of the few films that has made me want to scream out loud in horror.

Sleighted upon early release, The Cook, The Thief etc. has become a cult favorite in recent years. And it's not hard to see why: although the film is dark, depressing and utterly disgusting it is one of the best depictions of decadence ever captured on screen. Almost every character in this film is flawed: The Cook is an egotistical snob who allows thugs into his restaurant simply because he is obsessed with wealth; the thief is one of the most disgusting characters ever captured on screen, the wife takes bloody revenge without battering an eyelid and so on and so on.

There are few redeeming characters in this movie but really, isn't that what life's really like?

Lives intersect, men are murdered, affairs destroy lives in an instant and although the film's end seems initially hopeful we quickly discover no one has pure intent. This movie does not provide us with an easy ending and that's what makes it great. Because in reality, there's no such thing as happiness without a price. And this movie captures that wonderfully. Although you'd never call this movie 'entertainment' I still encourage you to go out and grab a copy of the DVD.

Trust me: This is a movie you'll never forget.

Lucky (III) (2005)

Not really worth waiting for the punchline...

[2/10 · 1 July 2006]

LUCKY came third in the Sony Tropfest film competition a few years ago - quite undeservedly so.

Although the film was well made it was ultimately rather pointless. The plot went nowhere - basically 'Lucky', the film's protagonist, tries to escape a moving car. And that's it. The whole storyline.

Need I say more?

It's a shame to think what Lucky's success means in the greater shape of things. Tropfest clearly chose this film for its technical capabilities and stunts as opposed to real story-telling.

That alone seems to go against everything the festival stands for.

Bomb (2005)

Hilarious!

[10/10 · 1 July 2006]

The short film BOMB is nothing short of hilarious! Alister Grierson, the Australian director who has now gone on to make KAKODA, spins a brilliant tale of an angry little man who has just come out of the dentists after a painful operation on his tooth. However as the film progresses and our hero goes from mishap to mishap we reallies that the misfortunes surrounding him may soon take a terrible turn for the worse... This film is also quite interesting as a satire. I'd like to say that this short movie is a satire of contemporary life - but that would make it sound more serious than it actually is!

All in all BOMB is a great little gem! But try to find it before someone ruins the punchline for you ...