6 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
Macbeth (I) (2006)
5/10
Melbourne Macbeth
20 August 2006
The famous Macbeth play is uprooted from old Britain to 2005 Melbourne. The transplant is only successful with immunosuppressant drugs, i.e. & e.g. I was quite melancholy depressed when I saw this movie. The front half of the theatre was empty; sitting in the first occupied row in the centre of the theatre, the view of the dark emptiness blended with the mood of the film.

Rather than the cloud world of kings and queens and nobles, this Macbeth is set in the glamorously untouchable underworld. Guns and drugs and lots of unhappy good-looking people. That kind of stuff. A modern day tyrant king and his world could have been paralleled with a representation of some of the most powerful and wealthy people in the modern world, rather than a petty crime lord. Oh well.

Initially the movie is violent nasty crime. As it goes on it becomes more and more surreal. The hit men and thugs that play for modern lords and nobles seem to more and more live in an enchanted mediaeval world albeit decorated with guns and motorcycles and televisions and security cameras and mobile phones. The strange Shakespeare speech seems less and less ridiculous, more fitting and real. This is true for the weaker actors and stronger actors both.

Macbeth is played by Sam Worthington. He struggles with the Shakespeare dialogue sometimes but he is charismatic, enticing; he does seem like a brave champion with a dark side. Victoria Hill does a similar job as his wife, the Lady Macbeth. She splutters the dialogue sometimes yet always seems to actually be the Lady Macbeth. She's unhappy and cold and charming and manipulative. Gary Sweet is very good as Duncan. Steve Bastoni, Lachy Hulme and Kat Stewart all are very convincing. Mick Molloy drew unintentional laughs of recognition even though he is very good. A famous Australian comedian, he is just right as one of the menacing cutthroats. Bob Franklin and Kym Gyngell are two other famous Australian comedians with small roles well performed.

The film looks very polished and professional from a production standpoint. The film is actually a bit too flashy and aesthetically oriented. The famous psychological struggles of Macbeth and the Lady Macbeth are skimped over and caricatured. Ambiguous things are made unequivocal and one of the most memorable parts of the entire play, involving Lady Macbeth and her hands, is rushed by so quickly that it's almost skipped by entirely.

Overall this production has the same depth of a poor adaptation of a famous book, comic or TV show. Most everything famous about the play is included in some form but not in an emotionally involving or mentally engrossing way. At all. This film is worth seeing once.
20 out of 37 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Blood and Honey (1991– )
10/10
Tony Robinson takes it all the way back
20 August 2006
Easter 1994. Coming back from a depressing night out to the void of home. A silent prayer to the stars for something, anything, decent on television to take my mind off things for a moment. And there it was, the very first Blood and Honey episode, late on a Sunday night on the ABC (of Australia).

Personal anecdotes aside, this show is a charming little gem that has gone unnoticed by just about everyone. It consists merely of Tony Robinson wandering around historical sights of West Asia, telling Biblical stories. Sounds dry and dull? But it is Tony Robinson. Anyone who watched his show "Tales from Fat Tulip's Garden" as a child will know what a wonderful storyteller Tony is. It is alchemy. He is amusing, entertaining, delightful. He takes you into stories better than any but the best movies, merely with his storytelling ability.

The Biblical stories are interpreted rather than told word-for-word. This show is so gentle and sweet to watch; that's the honey. The blood is the sardonic shades of the show. The title of the show comes from the announcement of arrival at the land of "Milk and Honey". "Blood and Honey more like", one of the people replied. The show's name sums it up beautifully.

If only it was out on DVD...
8 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
I love those breaky noises
20 August 2006
This movie was mistakenly marketed as and is still mistakenly perceived by a lot of people as a children's movie. Kids can enjoy it but there is much in this movie that young children won't understand. Then this movie sits between two worlds: adults are loathed to embrace the sillier and more child-like moments of this movie while children will be confused and bored by all the sad and slow moments.

The story is all about Lizzie trying to make her way in the world. The problems she encounters are juxtaposed with poignant childhood flashbacks with her imaginary friend, Drop Dead Fred. Early in the movie Fred crowbars his way into Lizzie's adult life. Trouble ensues...

Rik Mayall is crazy good as Drop Dead Fred. His acting is as colourful as the bright green suit he is always wearing. Being an imaginary friend he is quite invisible so he has no direct interaction with any of the cast except Phoebe Cates as Lizzie. This must have been quite a test for all the cast and they all do well variously pretending that they can't see Rik Mayall when he's right beside them or they can see him when no-one is there at all. Phoebe Cates does the best job of all in this regard. In many of her scenes with Rik Mayall you can easily forget that it's just Phoebe pretending to be shaken, pushed or spoken to by Rik; you have to step back for a moment to marvel at how natural her physical and emotional performance is.

Some moments of this movie are so funny and some are so sad. The movie has a strong point to make about life and the way people treat each other and it all comes together beautifully at the end. The final scene between Fred and Lizzie is amazing, awesome.

I don't know, this movie is just a joy. How could you not love it?
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Closer (I) (2004)
10/10
Addictive
13 July 2006
Closer is a movie chamaeleonic in time. The movie changes from viewing to viewing.

And that's all. Love it eventually. Love everything eventually.

The emotional starkness of the film is ravaging in two different ways. When the scenes are being played poorly it is enough to make one literally and audibly wince. When the scenes are being played well the movie is sad enough to bring tears.

The performances are easy to examine because the cast is only four strong. Jude Law is middling. When he is with Clive Owen he is good; the rest of the time he is poor. Natalie Portman is shocking in her compromised delivery of dialogue. It is almost as though she is entirely without emotional empathy at a biological level. Julia Roberts plays a photographer. Whenever she holds a camera it looks like the first time she has ever done so in her life. Her scenes with Natalie Portman are bleak. Clive Owen is awe-inspiring. Whether he is facing off against the absent Portman, struggling Roberts or competent Law, he always seems to be his character and totally immersed in the moment at hand.

There is lots of humour in this film. Some of it comes from the movie being good (mostly scenes with Clive Owen). Most of the humour comes from the agog awfulness with which the other actors handle their roles.

Anyone living anything less than a contented life full of love, preferably also an exciting and cosmopolitan life, will find this movie challenging and uncomfortable and unsettling and polarizing. It will leave you numb from how bad it can be and numb from how good it can be. It will make you laugh in mocking and laugh from being caught up in the moment with the characters. It is melancholy both in its nihilistic view of human existence and in the realist way it was compromised in casting to be brought to the screen. This movie is a sublime contradiction. It is undeniable. Every time one watches this movie there is more to love. It is so bubbling with confusing hot electric energy that one's emotions and thoughts are enlivened like bare skin in a chilly breeze. This movie can get inside your bloodstream. Like all addictive things, it is poisonous and at first your mind will try to reject it. If you can forget this initial unpleasantness, it will be a movie to love.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Giggles of all kinds
11 July 2006
Okay. Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest is fun. Lots of fun.

It's a long movie. At least 2 hours. It feels long but it doesn't drag. This is the main difference between this Pirates movie and the last one, The Curse of the Black Pearl. Black Pearl was becalmed in the waters of excitement by the end; Dead Man's Chest does whatever the opposite sailing analogy of 'becalmed' is.

It is a British movie. The cast is lots of fun and all the supporting players are talented. British actors everywhere. One actor who is not British is Stellan Skarsgård. He is superb. He's always superb, he's a great actor. Jack Davenport brings the humour and coolness that Coupling fans expect. Orlando Bloom is less underwhelming than in his last Pirates appearance. This seems to be partly from being given less dialogue and partly from improvement in his acting. Keira Knightley is also good.

The two main actors are Johnny Depp and Bill Nighy. Depp had everyone in the theatre laughing and Nighy is so good as the voice of (and presumably the CGI model for) Davy Jones that he isn't recognisable. Davy Jones is all you see and he seems very alive and convincing.

Speaking of Davy Jones, the special effects in this movie are good. They are not completely realistic but they are less comical and obvious than the effects in the last Pirates movie, even when the effects are trying to be comical and obvious.

The music is clichéd and stale but it would be weird to have genuinely moving music in such a silly movie.

The movie is absurd. Just like the last Pirates movie there is all kinds of comical action. It is very amusing.

This movie is worth seeing. The entire movie is fun. A packed theatre suits the movie well.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
Clumsy industry film
1 July 2004
This movie was bad. The story was clumsy, it made no sense the way the main characters would behave from one scene to the next. The cast was good for the most part; Lindsay Crouse and Paige Moss were a believable mother/daughter. Zoe McLellan may have been hamstrung by the bad story or maybe she is a bad actress, I'm not sure. Jay Thomas is like Robert Horry scoring reliably for the LA Lakers, a talented veteran underused. The way that lighting and music is used to try and create tension brought me mirth instead. This film is horribly clichéd and very predictable. I cannot compare it with any movies without giving the whole movie away. After ten minutes the viewer will know already how things are going to end. I found this movie boring indeed. It is only watchable if you are a fan of the elusive Paige Moss, or of one of the other stars.
4 out of 19 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed