Rant and Rave Reviews

This blog has now moved to http://rantandravereviews.wordpress.com/

2010-11-12T02:56:00.001-08:00

Catch-22

2010-10-22T00:41:00.000-07:00

It is difficult to imagine never having my favourite food again. I could happily gorge myself on prawns for all three, or six (depending on which magazine you read) meals a day. I might never get the chance to make enough money to eat that much seafood though. There simply won’t be any edible creepy crawlies left in the ocean by the time the world wakes up to the fact that film critics are a basic need and therefore should be paid accordingly.

The feature documentary, The End of the Line, focuses on the plundering of the sea. Because the depths of the ocean are largely hidden from us, the conservation of marine life does not get nearly as much attention as the conservation of land-based wildlife. While the scourge of rhino poaching has made headlines in South Africa and elsewhere in recent months, there has been little focus on the poaching of the ocean.

The documentary is based on the work of investigative reporter, Charles Clover, who also wrote a book on the matter. His research shows that the fishing industry has simply become too tech-savvy for the ocean’s creatures to keep up. The seas, he says, is not a “food factory”. Unlike many other conventional sources of food, fish is not renewable. Cattle can be reared; crops can be grown; fish are just taken from the sea and consumed. Glover warns that if fishing continues the way it does now, we will see the end of most seafood by 2048.

Bluefin tuna, for example, which once fed Roman legions during battle, now feeds the fashion conscious at sushi bars. Countless species – including prawns – are being decimated. This, despite international laws which prohibit fishing in areas where there’s hardly anything left. As Glover points out, “Every other fish on your plate was stolen – stolen from you.”

The problem is not only compounded by a lack of political will, or the financial impact on global fishing conglomerates. What about the livelihood of individuals whose main source of income is the ocean? In Canada, 1992 saw the collapse of cod stocks off the Newfoundland coast, forcing the government to place a moratorium on fishing cod. 40 000 people lost their jobs overnight, sparking riots and mass demonstrations. It didn’t even matter though – fishing stocks have still not recovered and neither have the communities.

The End of The Line is well-researched and balanced, but this is its downfall. Audiences want to be entertained. Documentaries are notoriously difficult to promote as feature films, simply because people associate movies with leisure. Documentaries that have done well commercially, such as An Inconvenient Truth, had celebrity punch (or in this case, the political clout of Al Gore). Having Ted Danson (does anyone even remember him?) narrate the film is not enough.

Gluttonous sushi-lovers are depleting fish stocks.

Even visually, the film does not push boundaries when it should. It’s unfortunate but a bit more blood, the glassy eyes of hordes of dead fish and groups of starving people would hit a lot harder than graphs and researchers explaining the problem. There is, a nice symbolic series of close-up shots at the end of the film, showing the gluttonous masses stuffing sashimi and other ocean delicacies into their mouths. This is followed by a fast-forward sequence of factory lines where fish is packed en masse, ready for consumption. Why the director did not use these kinds of visual metaphors across the film is a mystery.

Documentaries like The End of the Line simply do not have mass appeal, which is a shame as a very compelling message is lost on the very people it is intended for. The film did lead to celebrity chef, Jamie Oliver, removing bluefin tuna out of his recipes, while several UK supermarkets have stopped selling some endangered fish species. It’s just not the same as having Paris Hilton (much as I cannot stand her) denouncing sushi made from the last surviving salmon in the Atlantic.

Director: Rupert Murray
Rating: 2½ out of 5

For more information on what fish to buy or which restaurants and retailers promote responsible consumption in South Africa, visit http://www.wwfsassi.co.za/.

The End of the Line will be screened at selected Ster Kinekor and Nu Metro cinemas.

The supervillain, the three Annies and the million minions

2010-10-08T16:45:00.000-07:00

Supervillain, Gru, and his willing minions.

After the disaster that was umpteenth Shrek, comes an animated film that is both entertaining and witty, though perhaps a tad predictable. Despicable Me is Universal Pictures’ first CGI feature and Pixar may have to watch out.

In a friendly suburban neighbourhood stands the dark and dreary house of the world’s greatest villain, Gru (voice of Steve Carell). He is the kind of man who takes pleasure in popping children’s balloons and watching them cry. Beneath his house, Gru has a secret laboratory where, he, his assistant – the aptly named Dr Nefario (voice of Russell Brand) – and their myriad yellow, pill-shaped minions develop all kinds of gadgets with which to take over the world.

But, Gru’s reputation is threatened when another baddie steals the pyramids and makes headlines as the world’s new über villain. Gru realises he needs to pulls off his greatest heist yet – stealing the moon. However, his funds are as miserly as he is and, thus, he approaches the Bank of Evil (formerly Lehman Brothers – really) for a loan. Gru’s credit rating is akin to that of a student and he is told he has to steal the shrink ray he needs to complete the job, before he will receive the money.

To Gru’s consternation, his nemesis, the annoying and geeky Vector (voice of Jason Segel), procures the shrink ray before he can. Now, Gru has to steal it back from Vector’s fortress and Gru is at his wits’ end. After all, what kind of villainous legacy can one leave when trumped by a teenager whose greatest invention is a piranha gun?

When three orphan girls selling cookies knock on Gru’s door, he formulates a master plan. He decides to adopt Margo, Edith and Agnes (voices of Miranda Cosgrove, Elsie Fisher and Dana Gaier), so they can sell cookies to Vector and distract him. In the meantime, Gru and a couple of minions steal the shrink ray. The scenes of the break in and subsequent theft are as hilarious as they are tense.

The three little Annies, who steal Gru's heart.

After this, the story unsurprisingly turns into Annie. The girls draw on Gru’s walls, demand he walk them to ballet classes and destroy his lab. Nevertheless, while Gru is, at first, not the kind and loving father they had hoped for, the orphan trio crawl turns his heart to mush and all of a sudden he's Oliver Warbucks.

Carell is known for his comic timing in the U.S. version of The Office (*note – which is not nearly as funny as the original British version) and his German-accented Gru is no different. The dialogue is filled with enough real-world reference for adults to appreciate, while children will love the cute, bumbling minions and naughty children – a perfect family film then.

Despicable Me has been released in 3D, something that has become an unfortunate trend with animated films. The gimmick is wearing off and the in-your-faceness of this technology often detracts from the story and animation itself. Rather spend the money on popcorn and Slush Puppies and leave the cinema with the fuzzy feeling created by the series of ‘awe’-moments at the end, instead of a headache.

Directors: Pierre Coffin & Chris Renaud
Cast: Steve Carrell, Jason Segel, Russell Brand, Julie Andrews
Rating: 3½ out of 5

The Last Airbender 3D falls flat

2010-09-14T02:08:00.000-07:00

Noah Ringer as the Avatar

Any director who adapts a film from another source is taking a chance whether from a book, stage or television. There is always the threat that the ‘spirit’ of the original work will not be captured in the film. But the risk is not as great with literature or theatre, which have more ‘limited’ appeal than television, which is after all, the medium of the masses. When a director decides to translate the small screen onto the big one, there is big risk of alienating the fans of the first.

This is exactly the problem with the very talented (but lately-struggling) director M. Night Shyamalan’s latest project, The Last Airbender. The film is based on the highly successful Nickelodeon television series and the response has been all but complimentary.

The film is set in a post-apocalyptic world, inhabited by four nations represented by the four elements – air, water, earth and fire (anyone thinking Captain Planet?). Each nation has benders who can ‘bend’ their element and wield it as a power. Then there is the Avatar who is a “special kind of special”: he can bend all four elements and are also the people’s bridge to the spirit world. Only one is born to each generation, and he’s always a reincarnation of the Avatar before him.

When the boy Avatar, Aang (Noah Ringer) disappears, the fire nation murders the rest of the tribe, hoping to destroy any chance of Aang reappearing. The fire nation, led by the evil Fire Lord Ozai (Cliff Curtis), then launches a systematic attack on the other three nations, seeking to enslave them and rule the world.

Enter two members of the water nation, Katara (Nicola Peltz), a waterbender, and her brother, Sokka (Jackson Rathbone). When the two teenagers find the missing Aang they convince him to join them in a quest to save the world. The hero must of course first face a series of tasks and challenges before he is ready to lead the battle but with his two sidekicks to help him, he learns to muster courage and face his own demons.

I have not seen the series, but one of the biggest criticisms is that the film has completely ignored the anime roots of the small screen version, instead trying to sell the film to fans with a watered-down 3D adaptation. Admittedly, there there is a paradoxical ‘flatness’ to the 3D. Perhaps it is time directors realise that not all films lend themselves to the format, just as they should understand good television does not necessarily make for good film. The Last Airbender does not quite seem to capture the physical manifestation of the benders’ powers – they are too obviously computer rendered. The worst is the portrayal of the firebenders’ fights: there just is not enough, well, firepower. The flames have none of the warmth or magnificence one would expect.

But it was not the visual aspect of the film that bothered me most. The problem lies with the script. The dialogue is completely convoluted. Shyamalan’s films are mostly about individuals with extraordinary gifts or powers which they may not want but have to confront and accept. But, extraordinary or not, children simply do not speak the way the characters in The Last Airbender do, meaning they just do not seem real. Example (from the mouth of the teen-queen of the water nation): “We have to show them that we believe in our beliefs as much as they believe in theirs” – huh? This makes it difficult to connect with the characters leaving me indifferent as to whether Aang wins or not.

The main actors are mostly unknowns with backgrounds in martial arts (Ringer is a Texas Tae Kwondo champion). It is a real shame that award-winning actor, Dev Patel (Slumdog Millionaire) condescended to play the Fire Lord’s exiled son, Prince Zuko, who is a character with no depth and therefore a waste of some serious acting talent. The main characters are all a far cry from that of Cole Sear, the ghost-seeing child in Shyamalan’s masterpiece, The Sixth Sense (1999). Indeed Shyamalan does not seem have been able to script or create another film that so captured the imagination as The Sixth Sense did.

The Last Airbender was obviously created with a host of sequels in mind, to follow Aang’s journey until he finally conquers all evil. But, judging by the ratings, The Last Airbender will likely be the first and last ‘bending’ film.

Director: M. Night Shyamalan (The Sixth Sense 1999, Unbreakable 2000, The Village 2004)
Cast: Noah Ringer, Nicola Peltz, Jackson Rathbone, Dev Patel
Rating: 2½ out of 5

When evil comes to town

2010-07-27T13:09:00.000-07:00

It’s difficult to ‘genrify’ Michael Haneke’s award-winning film, The White Ribbon ("Das weisse Band"). Drama, horror and humour are blended to tell an unnerving story about a series of strange events that disrupt life in a pre-World War I village in Northern Germany.

The film is narrated by the local schoolteacher (Christian Friedel), whose Christian name is never mentioned, and opens with a description of the first of many 'terrible incidents’ to befall the town. The local doctor (Rainer Bock) is seriously injured as his horse trips over a wire that has been deliberately spanned between two trees. A local farm worker’s wife falls through the rotten floorboards of the mill. Next, the baron's son (Fion Mutert)is kidnapped and beaten. A blind, disabled child is assaulted. What makes these crimes so terrifying is not so much the violence of them, but the fact they are perpetrated by someone who the villagers is unable to identify but know lives among them.

While the events that occur at first appear random they soon take on the appearance of a ritualistic almost religious punishment, for, in this village, everyone has a dark and terrible secret. The ‘good’ doctor molests his daughter and emotionally abuses his mistress. The baron’s wife cheats on him, while the pastor (Burghart Klaussner) ties his son’s hands at night so the child cannot ‘defile’ himself by masturbating

And then there are the children themselves. Children are meant to be symbols of purity and innocence, but the viewer soon discovers something is amiss here. Not since the 1960 classic horror, The Village of the Damned, have there been children so sinister at the centre of a plot. The young 'uns in Haneke’s village seem are as austere and pious as saints, but there is something very creepy about them. You just cannot quite put your finger on it. Bar one scene in which two boys fight the baron’s son for a whistle, the children are never shown doing anything wrong. Haneke lets the viewer infer that through suggestion, creating a sense of apprehension that permeates the film. The fact that Haneke doesn’t name most of his characters, but refer to them by generic names such as The Pastor or The Baron, adds to the unease. Who are these people?

Themes of sin and purity, innocence and guilt form the core of The White Ribbon.The title of the film refers to the white ribbon the pastor makes his children wear around their arms if they’ve committed a wrong. Like a scarlet letter, the ribbon reminds them and others of their shame. In an interview at the 2009 Cannes film festival, where The White Ribbon won the Palme d’Or, Haneke said he wanted to look at how children internalise the absolutised values of the adults around them. These absolutes, Haneke said, whether political or religious, “become inhuman and leads to terrorism.” Thus, a vicious cycle is born – parents, adults, those in authority bully children, their workers, those who are subject to them. The bullied in turn become the bullies and so it continues.

The film raises more questions than answers. The viewer never discovers who the perpetrators really are and there is no proper denouement to the plot. The film ends with the villagers gathering in church, faced with a war not only from outside but the uncertainty of an internal onslaught. All the audience is left with is the question: will the sins of the father keep being passed on?

Director & Screenplay: Michael Haneke
Cast: Christian Friedel, Ulrich Tukur, Burghart Klaussner, Rainer Bock

Awards: Academy Award Nominations for Best Foreign Language Film and Best Achievement in Cinematography 2010; Won Golden Globe Best Foreign Language Film; Won Palme d’Or at Cannes 2009

Rating: 4 out of 5

No more layers, please...

2010-07-15T19:25:00.000-07:00

By the time you reach adulthood, you realise the saying “love and marriage goes together with a horse and carriage” really is a bunch of wish-wash, even in a place called Far Far Away. Forget Snow White and Rapunzel, it seems fairytales are not about 'forever afters' after all – just ask our favourite ogre, Shrek (Mike Myers).

In Shrek Forever After, the fourth and (reportedly) final instalment of the saga, Shrek gets the so-called ‘itch’. Despite being married to his one true love, Princess Fiona (Cameron Diaz) and having several children, Shrek feels trapped and longs for his days as a mean bachelor-ogre, alone in his swamp (fairytale for ‘man-cave’) with no responsibilities. Once a revered creature, Shrek is now resigned to autographing the pitchforks of the very villagers he used to frighten.

So, the friendly monster signs a deal with the proverbial devil, in this case, the devious Rumpelstiltskin (Walt Dohrn). Shrek is fooled into swapping one day of his current, menial life for a day free of nappies and arguments with his better half. But, being the power-hungry dwarf we came to know in the Grimm brothers’ fairytale, Rumpel takes the day Shrek was born. Now, Shrek is dumped into a Far Far Away which he never saved, where Rumpel is king, Shrek and Fiona never met and ogres are hunted creatures.

And thus, the journey of the hero begins, yet again. Shrek has to reacquaint himself with his best pal and ally, Donkey (Eddie Murphy) and join the underground ogre-resistance, led by none other than Fiona: princess-turned-warrior a lá Joan of Arc. Shrek also has to convince a much more cynical Fiona to fall in love with him again and give him “true love’s first kiss”, otherwise the day will run out and he’ll cease to be.

Shrek Forever After is an average animated family film, which lacks the originality and wit of the first two (the third being the predictable prelude to the fourth). The story is tired and Disney would do well to leave it be now. The most stimulating thing about the film was making me wonder whether children will pick up on the theme that marriage is entrapment and children a career-killer. Sure, the film has the obligatory happy ending but how many cycles of misery, happy ending, misery, happy ending must one endure? While the new 3D version of Shrek adds some visual interest, this ogre is best left alone, forever after.

Director: Mike Mitchell
Cast: Mike Myers, Cameron Diaz, Eddie Murphy, Antonio Banderas
Rating: 2½ out of 5

'All Things Wise and Wonderful...'

2010-07-09T19:43:00.000-07:00

When Charles Darwin wrote what is one of the most groundbreaking works ever written he was well aware the kind of repercussions it would have. Darwin delayed finishing and publishing On The Origin of Species for years, realising it would shake the very foundations of both science and religion.

Darwin’s theories on natural selection and transmutation explained how species adapted to changing conditions, in other words, how they evolved. The implications were immense: the earth was shown to be much older than a mere few thousand years and the idea of creatures being created in isolation and independently of one another no longer held water. In short, the determinism of the Church in its approach to life and humanity was proven wrong.

Jon Amiel’s film, Creation, is about the life of Darwin (played superbly by Paul Bettany) and his immense personal struggle in writing On The Origin, which was finally published in 1859. Darwin had studied to become a parson and was a firm believer in God when he rejected theology because of a keen interest in plants. He’d had no formal training in botany when he joined the HMS Beagle on a five-year voyage across the world as a researcher, yet, he filled notebook upon notebook with observations, hypotheses and drawings.

The film focuses on Darwin’s relationship with his deeply devout wife, Emma (Jennifer Connelly) and the strain science puts on their marriage. Their relationship is further tested by Darwin’s inability to come to terms with the death of his daughter, Annie (Martha West).

While Amiel demonstrates Darwin’s keen sense of observation through beautifully-crafted close-ups of nature and its life-cycles, some explanation of his theories would have gone a long way to highlighting exactly why they were, and remain, so controversial. Bettany shows his true calibre as the angst-ridden scientist wracked by guilt over the fact that while he may unravel the secrets of life, he cannot preserve it.

The scenes in which Annie’s ghost haunts Darwin are somewhat emotionally ‘overcharged’, resulting in the viewer feeling desensitised after one too many appearances by the apparition. However, I did find myself unashamedly captivated by a scene in which Darwin and an orang-utan reaching out to one another in a mirror of Michelangelo’s painting of God creating Adam on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

Creation is about one man’s war, not with God, but with himself. A fellow scientist, congratulated Darwin on his discoveries by saying, “You have killed God, Sir”, which is not at all what Darwin had set out to do. Ironically, Darwin barely mentions the word ‘evolution’ in On The Origin of Species, with the only reference in the very last sentence of the book. For all its faults, the film manages to embody Darwin’s belief that “there is grandeur in this view of life … [and] whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.”

Director: Jon Amiel
Cast: Paul Bettany, Jennifer Connelly, Jeremy Northam, Toby Jones
Rating: 4 out of 5

Way below anyone's league

2010-06-24T21:14:00.000-07:00

I am living proof of Einstein’s relativity theory on the time-space continuum. On a Thursday afternoon around 3 weeks ago, I wasted five hours of my life I can never get back. Okay, it was only two. Still, it felt like five – time being relative and all.

After cringing and daydreaming my way through She’s Out of My League, the forces of all that is good about film compel me to ask: what the hell has happened to American romantic comedy? I am no film guru by any means, but I think there’s a reason I have never heard of director Jim Field Smith. Even imdb.com didn’t help much: I’ve never heard of any of the other films Smith has directed, written or starred in.

She’s Out of My League seems to be a kind of male version of the Cinderella story: an average guy meets the girl of his dreams, who happens to be blonde, busty, funny and sweet – WAY out of his league. But, with a little encouragement, Kirk (Jay Baruchel) takes a chance and asks Molly (Alice Eve) on a date. And, she says yes (hey, this is Hollywood). But Kirk can’t believe his luck – why would a girl like Molly ever date him? See, according to one of his very ‘wise’ friends, Kirk’s a five and Molly’s a ten, and the ‘rules’ of dating dictate you can’t jump more than two points above your own rating. Kirk can’t even play the money or fame card: he lives with his parents and is a security guard at the airport.

After a few dates, Kirk decides Molly is too good for him, and he breaks up with her. Of course, as soon as he has, he realises that looks don’t matter and that he doesn’t have to hover around the relegation zone anymore. The writers probably intended for this epiphany to be endearing in some way or to be empowering to the Joe Soaps of the world. It just isn’t. The crude jokes – including a truly awful ball-shaving scene – are tired and weighed down by clichés.

Perhaps it would be better to place She’s Out of My League in the ‘bro-movie’ sub-genre rather than label it a romantic comedy. However, this would be an insult to films like The Hangover, which could actually be enjoyed by both sexes. Even a largely male audience will surely derive no pleasure from the obvious sexual innuendos without the gratification of any actual onscreen sex.

I have to wonder whether the critic from Rolling Stone magazine (a publication that has some reviewing credibility in my eye) who called it “A Date Movie Must” has ever been on a date with a real person. I cringed my way through every agonising second it took for the film to finish and it was not because of the jokes were too ‘naughty’. I was simply embarrassed for the actors, the director, the producers, the technicians and anyone who is remotely connected to the movie.

Only if you’re desperate and dateless (or wish to remain so).

Rating: 1 out of 5
Director: Jim Field Smith
Cast: Jay Baruchel, Alice Eve, TJ Miller, Mike Vogel, Lindsay Sloane

* She's Out of My League releases in South African cinemas on Friday, 25 June.

Women beyond birth

2010-06-03T04:46:00.000-07:00

Does a female have to give birth (or at least be able to conceive) in order to claim the title “woman”? Is it selfish to make a choice not to have children when there are women who would do anything to experience pregnancy? Does blood even matter – will a mother love a child more if she gave birth to him/her than if she adopts? Motherhood, like most human relationships, is inherently complex. It’s also one of the most inexplicable: the unconditional love, the raw hatred, the joy, the pain... Nothing hurts like a mother’s rejection or disappointment.

Rodrigo García’s film, Mother and Child, considers some of these questions (and raises the rest). As both the director and writer of the film, García constructs a narrative around three women and their experiences of motherhood and particularly, adoption. Karen (Annette Bening) is a 51-year old physical therapist, whose erratic behaviour and cold demeanour is as a result of being haunted by the memories of the baby girl she was forced to give up for adoption when she was 14. Lucy (Kerry Washington) and her husband desperately want their own child, but Lucy is unable to conceive and has to try to convince her reluctant partner that genetics don’t matter. Elizabeth (Naomi Watts) is an ambitious lawyer, who doesn’t seem to need any emotional closeness, perhaps due to a lingering feeling of loss because she was given up for adoption as a baby.

While the stories in Mother and Child are all told from women’s perspectives, it also explores the impact the influence of men in the three women’s struggles. Karen has been taking care of her invalid mother for years – not giving her much of a chance to meet a man. However, a new male therapist at the nursing home she works seems inexplicably drawn to her standoffish ways, and encourages her to try and find her daughter. Lucy’s husband puts pressure on her as his parents want to continue their blood lineage, causing her to question her ‘usefulness’ as a woman, while a seemingly meaningless office romance turns Elizabeth’s lone eagle world upside down when she discovers she’s pregnant.

It’s strange to think that the ability to carry your own child is still a contentious issue. Women who choose not have children are often scorned or berated by those who can’t fall pregnant. But, just because you cannot bear your own children doesn’t mean you can’t have any. There’s adoption and surrogacy. Perhaps I’m not qualified to judge – I’ve never had the desire to experience pregnancy. After all, as one of the nun’s at an adoption agency in the film says, blood doesn’t matter – it’s the time spent together that does.

As the plot progresses, the three stories intersect to highlight these concerns, in an engaging and probing way. The way in which García navigates through script reflects the brilliance of the writing of his father, Nobel prize-winning author Gabriel García Márquez. In addition, García managed to cast the roles particularly well. Annette Bening is never anything but masterful. She is to any film what a supermodel is to a potato sack (not that the script cannot stand on its own). Meanwhile, Watts and Washington both prove that they’re fast on their way to achieving Bening-status.
Motherhood, pregnancy, adoption – these are all intensely personal issues, and the film treats them as such. And perhaps, because of the personal nature of the content, it left me feeling somewhat uncomfortable. Then again, it means the film engaged me with the subject matter, whatever my attitude towards it. Mother and Child is tearjerker that’s certain to leave any mother grabbing for tissues.

Writer & Director: Rodrigo García
Cast: Annette Bening, Naomi Watts, Kerry Washington, Samuel L Jackson
Rating: 4 out 5

Seriously? Yes.

2010-05-24T13:16:00.000-07:00

Michael Stuhlbarg as the nerdy Professor Larry Gopnik

Ethan and Joel Coen’s filmic offerings are the kind that you either love or hate. Their penchant for dark comedy-drama is offbeat to say the least, and their latest production as writers/directors, A Serious Man, is a clear illustration of this. Loved by many critics and hated by the box-office, the film at least managed two Academy Award nominations, one for Best Picture and the other for Best Original Screenplay.

As usual, the Coen brothers present a story that is dark and well, odd, to say the least. Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhlbarg) is a meek physics professor at a small-time university somewhere in the Midwest. A series of tribulations befalls the faithful Jewish man. Not only does his wife, Judith (Sari Lennick), want a divorce, she forces him to move out of their house and into the Jolly Roger motel down the road. She wants the more capable and aptly-named Sy Ableman (Fred Melamed) to live with her. Larry's daughter also steals his money while his son, Danny, is very uninterested in his impending Bar Mitzvah. Someone is writing defamatory letters to the university to prevent him from getting tenure, while a student tries to bribe him for better marks. And he bears with it. Other critics have called Larry the modern day Job, and in a sense, he is: patient and annoyingly enduring.

A Serious Man is filled with many ‘unserious’ moments. Scenes like the one in which Larry’s son attends his Bar Mitzvah stoned, or the incessant calls from a salesman at the Columbia Records club demanding payment for orders Larry never sent, are full of uncanny wit. The Coens’s absurd sense of funny didn’t go down so well with the lady sitting next to me in the cinema, however. Her rumblings about the film being irritating distracted me almost as much as Larry is distracted by his female neighbour’s nude sunbathing. My (cinematic) neighbour kept complaining about how annoying the film is. And it is indeed incredibly frustrating watching the submissive Larry being walked over by everyone around him. At one point I had an intense desire to scream “Just tell them to go screw themselves!” And that is perhaps exactly what the Coen brothers intended: for the audience to experience the frustration of Larry’s seemingly meaningless life, rather than just watch it on screen.

The film essentially embodies Larry’s lectures on Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle, which concerns Schrödinger's Cat paradox. If you are scientifically-inclined, forgive my inadequacies regarding physics, but the paradox is basically about a cat in a box. Until you open said box, you cannot verify whether the cat is alive or dead. Therefore, it is both dead and alive at the same time, hence, the Uncertainty Principle. If you don’t understand this it doesn’t matter - quantum scientists themselves say that if you understand quantum, it means you don’t. Nevermind, the point is that the Uncertainty Principle that Larry enjoys teaching so much is the reflection of his own existence: is he really alive or dead?

Unlike Job, Larry questions God. He consults three different rabbis for advice on his crumbling life. All Larry really wants is to be respected, to practise his faith in peace, to be a serious man. He asks the universal question: “Why does God make us feel the questions if He’s not gonna give us any answers?” However, none of the learned men is able to give him any clarity. Thus, we return to Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle. As Larry tells his students, “It proves we can’t ever really know what’s going on.” All that’s left is quiet acceptance and faith. Or is it?

Fans will (probably) like it. Non-fans (probably) won't. As for those unfamiliar with the Coens, it's like a cat in a box...

Rating: 3½ out of 5
Written & Directed by: Ethan and Joel Coen (Fargo, The Big Lebowski, Burn After Reading)
Cast: Michael Stuhlbarg, Sari Lennick, Fred Melamed, Richard Kind
Awards: Academy Award Nominations for Best Picture and Best Original Screenplay

Peace, love and rock 'n roll

2010-05-06T13:32:00.000-07:00

Of all the arts, music is arguably the one that is best understood. Music evokes feelings, wherever it's from or whatever language it's written in. It is the universal language. People often connect particular songs or artists to a certain time or person in their lives (Def Leppard, for example, recalls that first awkward boy-girl dance in Standard Five, while any saxophone jazz reminds me of my first love). Music has power. It can change history.

And that’s exactly what happened in August, 1969. Forget Glastonbury. 375 000 people over three days of Robbie Williams live at Knebworth? Please. The Woodstock Music and Arts Festival is, according to Rolling Stone magazine, “the most famous event in rock history.” Around half a million people swamped the town of Bethel, New York, for the concert, with tens of thousands more never making it there due to state-wide traffic jams that resulted in the county declaring a state of emergency. For decades, it was the biggest live concert ever performed.

This is the backdrop of indie comedy, Taking Woodstock. Academy Award-winning director, Ang Lee, ditches the drama of Brokeback Mountain and Lust, Caution and tells the true, and often bizarre, story of Elliot Teichberg (Demetri Martin), who became one of the accidental organisers of the festival. After failing to make an impression as an interior designer in New York City, Elliot moves back in with his parents at their small-town, dingy motel, the El Monaco (a misnomer if there ever was one). Business is not good, and as the bank wants to foreclose, Teichberg spots a newspaper article about a local music festival being banned from the nearby town of Wallkill. He contacts the producer of a company called Woodstock Ventures (the concert was named after the company not the actual town), to offer his parents’ property and a neighbour’s farm to host the festival.

The good townsfolk, however, are not happy when thousands stream there ahead of the concert. The dope-loving, fornicating hippies will be “stealing by day and raping cattle by night,” according to one resident. But, while there was plenty of sex, drugs and rock ‘n roll, the festival was later lauded for taking place without incidents of violence, and for creating a sense of peace and community during a time when there was great antagonism over the Vietnam War.

The film takes a fun and offbeat look at how Woodstock came to be such a landslide event. Unfortunately, Lee almost completely ignores the music. Granted, Michael Wadley’s award-winning 1970 documentary, Woodstock, examined the festival’s musical relevance in great detail, and perhaps Lee didn't want to tamper with perfection. Taking Woodstock has a fantastic soundtrack with tracks by artists who performed at the festival, such as The Grateful Dead, Jefferson Airplane, and Janis Joplin. It’s just a shame the director couldn’t reflect this in the film. While Lee’s movie is about the experience of the festival, not the artists, he could easily have built the film up to a climax ending with one a song or two by one of the musical icons, such as Janis Joplin or The Who.

Still, Taking Woodstock offers plenty of laughs and provides more than average entertainment. Demetri Martin’s performance as Elliot is a little bland, especially considering he’s struggling with issues around his sexuality amid all the hippie-preaching of free love. However, watch out for 'groovy’ performances by Liev Schreiber, as the cross-dressing ex-marine, Vilma, and Emile Hirsch as a soldier recently returned home from Vietnam.

Peace out.
Director: Ang Lee
Cast: Demetri Martin, Emile Hirsch, Henry Goodman, Liev Schreiber
Rating: 3½ out of 5

In a nutshell, the film will make you want make love, not war.

Suit up!

2010-05-02T06:54:00.000-07:00

Good Charlotte was wrong: girls don’t like cars and money. Girls like guys in suits. Furthermore, they like hot guys in suits, heroes, men of steel, or in this case, iron.

And this is exactly what Hollywood blockbuster, Iron Man 2, gives us: Robert Downey Jnr in body armour, kicking ass. As a classic skop, skiet en donner-flick, it was interesting that the audience of the show I watched was largely female. Perhaps women are embracing their ‘masculine sides’. It could also just be RDJ’s pristine abs. Not that this makes the film ‘girly’ in any sense. As expected, bullets, explosions and fights make up the bulk of the plot.

Downey Jnr reprises his role as rogue hero, Tony Stark, in director Jon Fraveau’s sequel to the wildly successful first Iron Man movie. And, just as before, Stark is bunches of fun. Unlike most superheroes, he does not hide his identity. In fact, he widely broadcasts his status. He’s the antithesis of the geeky Spiderman and tortured Superman – there’s no sign of internal torment as he tries to come to terms with his superhuman abilities (probably because he’s a self-made saviour). He’s an egotistical, pleasure-seeking, womanising son-of-a-bitch and with good reason. The man has, after all, “successfully privatised world peace” with his arms company, Stark Industries, and prevented nuclear war in his metal suit. We wouldn't want him any other way than the narcissist he is.

However, powerful or not, the hero must always face some difficulty. In the second film, Stark desperately searches for a replacement to the palladium core of his heart and which powers his suit. The one he developed in the first movie is making him ill and weak. To distract him from his quest, is his work colleague, Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) and his new legal advisor, Natalie Rushman (Scarlett Johansson). He also has his intermittent daddy-issues to deal with. And then there is the Russian baddie, played by Mickey Rourke (who’s retained his muscles from The Wrestler), who is out to make Iron Man bleed. And bleed he does. It just takes a little long.

As a pure action film, there is too much pseudo-drama, which distracts from the battles at hand. As I mentioned before, Stark is not the same kind of self-reflecting citizen hero as Batman. Thus, sex would have been a better sub-genre than romance. Miss Potts is a yawn-inducingly boring leading lady and more time should have been given to Johansson’s Natalie Rushman (aka Russian agent Natasha Romanov, aka The Black Widow) who is sizzling. In the Marvel comic series, she seduces Iron Man, and the director could have explored this in the film.

I don't think it's unfair to compare a sequel to its predecessor. After all, you make another a second film for a reason, even if it's only to ride on the succes of the first. Iron Man 2 does kick ass, but only on one butt cheek. It simply lacked a little ‘punch’. To quote Elvis it needs “a little less conversation, a little more action, please.” But, with a soundtrack featuring only classic hard-rockers, AC/DC, and an appearance by the god of ass-whipping himself, Samuel L Jackson, the film hits the spot enough for me to want to punch a fist in the air and yell “Yeah!”

Perfect popcorn-and-candy Saturday night entertainment.

Director: Jon Favreau
Cast: Robert Downey Jnr, Gwyneth Paltrow, Scarlett Johansson, Don Cheadle, Mickey Rourke, Samuel L Jackson.
Rating: 4 out of 5.

Going nowhere slowly in The Last Station

2010-04-27T13:02:00.000-07:00

Historical dramas, like book-to-film adaptations, are by nature contentious among film critics. Purists will nitpick at every factual inaccuracy while directors often feel liberties must be taken in order for the audience not to feel as if they are watching the History Channel. Fair enough…

But, however and nonetheless, the idea behind making a film about a particular historical figure is surely to highlight his importance and examine the mark he made. It should, at the very least, let the audience get a sense of zeitgeist while being offered the opportunity to explore the nature and depth of the subject. Michael Hoffman’s latest film, The Last Station, however, does none of the above. It traces the last days of one of literature’s greats, Russian author Leo Tolstoy (b. 1828-1910), and what a subject! Yet, Hoffman disappointingly fails to lend the gravitas an icon like Tolstoy both commands and deserves.

The plot focuses on the relationship between Tolstoy (Christopher Plummer) and his wife, Countess Sofya (Helen Mirren) during the writer’s last days. While their marriage is based on passion and love, the union is a turbulent one. After 48 years together, Tolstoy is no longer the same wealthy nobleman Sofya had married. Following the publication of what may arguably be two of the greatest novels ever written, War and Peace (1869) and Anna Karenina (1877) – which Dostoevsky called “flawless as a work of art" – Tolstoy turns his attention to the plight of the poor in Russia. He’s become a ‘pacifist anarchist’ (an oxymoron perhaps?). He turns away from fiction and instead turns to writing papers advocating so-called ‘passive resistance’. Private property is to be relinquished and wealth distributed to the masses, including Tolstoy's own (much to the chagrin of his wife).

Tolstoy’s beliefs and writings inspired a Hippie-like cult following, who called themselves Tolstoyans, and the sub-plot of the film concerns this group of ardent worshippers, who saw the writer as a kind of Messiah. They don’t believe in indulging the pleasures of the flesh. Sex is strictly forbidden – perhaps it’s not passive enough? Meat and money are also frowned upon. Tolstoy’s greedy lawyer, Vladimir Chertkov (Paul Giamatti), deviously uses this group to encourage the writer to relinquish the copyrights to his books and ‘bequeath’ it to the people. To help him, he dispatches the young Valentin Bulgakov (James McAvoy) to keep a watchful eye on Sofya.

There is a lack of depth and focus to the film, which gets bogged down in details that contribute nothing to an understanding of the subject. Granted, Tolstoy is not the protagonist of the film. The story is meant to be seen from Bulgakov’s point of view, which explains why we’re forced to endure the developing, and exceedingly dull, romance between Bulgakov and a fellow (female) Tolstoyan in detail. McAvoy’s character in The Last Station is an echo of the blue-eyed, innocent boy he played with so much candour in The Last King of Scotland. This time, however, there is no sparkle to his performance. It could be the fault of the script or the direction – Bulgakov’s contribution to both the plot-development and denouement simply feels redundant.

One of the film’s few redeeming qualities is the performance of the inimitable Helen Mirren, who cannot put a foot wrong. As the hysterical, melodramatic Countess Sofya she once again dazzles, earning her an Academy Award nomination for Best Actress earlier this year. Christopher Plummer was also nominated for Best Supporting Actor, although he was never going to rival Jeff Bridges.

The Last Station feels a bit helter-skelter and lacks cohesion. It starts off with enough pace, but slows down to the point where I was left wondering when the train would finally dock at the station and I could disembark.

Director & Screenwriter: Michael Hoffman
Cast: Christopher Plummer, Helen Mirren, James McAvoy, Paul Giamatti
Awards: Academy Award nominations for Helen Mirren (Best Actress) and Christopher Plummer (Best Supporting Actor)

Rating: 2 out of 5

Ps. I think I shall go for an action blockbuster next to get the pulse racing - Iron Man 2, here I come!

The Birth of a Parent

2010-04-19T10:43:00.001-07:00

Parenthood, especially for first-timers, is a bit like suddenly deciding to pack your life into a backpack and set off for a trek across Antarctica. You know it will be a long, arduous journey. It’s pure madness. And, it’s shit-scary. Being a parent means you have to take complete responsibility for someone else – a life is literally in your hands. Despite the numerous books on parenthood that have been written, there is no real answer to the question “How do I not screw this up?”

These questions are explored by director Sam Mendes in the quirky new comedy-drama, Away We Go. When 34-year old Verona (Maya Rudolph) falls pregnant, she and her boyfriend, Burt (John Krasinski), question whether they can be ‘good’ parents. With Burt’s own parents deciding on the spur of the moment to move to Belgium, the couple don’t have the support structure they had counted on, and so, they decide to find a new home. The two embark on a trip across North America, visiting towns and cities where they have family and friends to find a place that’s suitable for raising a child.

Krasinksi (who’s best known for his role as Jim in the US version of the TV series The Office) and Rudolph (also better known on the small screen as a regular on Saturday Night Live), are a breath of fresh air. Their comic timing is impeccable (it could also be that Mendes’ direction is just really good) and their individual performances as part of the kooky couple are compelling. Mendes is experienced in deconstructing everyday relationships in suburban America in film – both American Beauty (1999) and Revolutionary Road (2008) addressed this theme, but in a more cynical manner.

Away We Go, on the other hand, is fun while lending the necessary gravity to make the story seem real. Moreover, the script allows the characters the freedom to transgress the norm of portraying pregnancy in film using extremes: if the scene of Katherine Heigl giving birth in Knocked Up didn’t leave women (and men) retching, nothing bar Cyclical Vomiting Syndrome (it’s a real disease) will. Away We Go is a more honest, more genuine account of the tumultuous emotional experience of pregnancy for both women and their partners.

At one point, Verona asks Burt, “Are we fuck-ups? ... We don’t even have the basic stuff figured out ... like how to live.” But, the point is: no one does. As they travel from city to city, Burt and Verona realise that everyone makes mistakes and that all parents fear they’ll irreparably fuck up their children without ever intending to. To use a boring, but apt cliché, parenthood, like life, is a journey – one in which the future is unclear and the decisions you make today can reverberate for years to come. But, you can only try and do your best. As Verona tells Burt, “All we can do is be good for this one baby.” Verona tells Burt towards the end of the film. “We don’t have control over anything else.”

Postscript – Great as it was, the film still didn’t make me want to have children.

Director: Sam Mendes
Cast: John Krasinski, Maya Rudolph, Maggie Gyllenhaal
Rating: 4 out of 5

No bounty here

2010-04-07T12:20:00.000-07:00

RANT OF THE WEEK

Pursuing a thriving and respected career in film following a role in a sitcom as wildly successful as FRIENDS is damn near impossible. Just ask David Schwimmer, Matt LeBlanc, Matthew Perry, Lisa Kudrow and Courteney Cox. Out of the cast of FRIENDS, one of the six pals managed to make a semi-decent job of transitioning from the small to the big screen: Jennifer Aniston.

The problem with Aniston, however, is that it’s difficult to say whether she really been successful or not. Despite a long line of nowhere films, she’s made a decent romantic comedy or two, such as The Break-Up with Vince Vaughn in 2006. Aniston’s also shown that she has some real acting talent in films like Friends With Money (2006) and The Good Girl (2002). However, roles such as the latter two have been (shamefully) few and far between for Aniston. Whether this is because they don’t get offered to her or whether she opts for commercial refuse herself is another matter. What I would like to ask, with reference to her latest romcom, The Bounty Hunter, is: “Really, Jen?”

The reason for this question is that, just as her previous film in this genre, Management (2009), The Bounty Hunter is neither funny nor romantic. While most of the gaga that Hollywood calls comedy these days belongs in a toilet, Tinseltown has shown, with films like It’s Complicated (2010) and Something’s Gotta Give (2003), that it can still have an audience in stitches with real humour and a little love thrown in the mix.

Not so with The Bounty Hunter. Firstly, the plot is thinner than wax paper. An ex-cop-turned-bounty-hunter called Milo (seriously?), played by Gerard Butler, lands the job of ‘bringing in’ his ex-wife, Nicole Hurley (Aniston) – perhaps Nicole’s last name could be an unintended reference to another actress, who has an unfortunate lack of talent? Nicole has missed a court appearance following her arrest on something ridiculous like clipping a police horse – she’s too busy being a serious journalist to honour her bail conditions, you see. Now, of course, it’s up to Milo to find and arrest her, a thought he relishes in. However, Nicole finds herself being chased by some bad guys with worse skin after uncovering a murder. Milo gets drawn into the mess, and everybody starts chasing everybody else yak, yak, yak ... Bored yet?

Because, I was. Incredibly bored, that is. As good-looking as they both are, Butler and Aniston have no onscreen chemistry. Milo never seems quite angry and vengeful enough in his pursuit to see Nicole in jail and she doesn’t really look like she hates him all that much. They never seem all that attracted to one another either. It’s all just a little too wishy-washy to be believable.

The Bounty Hunter is not even good date-movie material. The only thing worthwhile in the whole film was the scene in which Milo inspects his ripped abdominals in the mirror. Gerard Butler is completely yummy and just for that, I’ll give the film a bonus point. However, a five-second glance at Butler’s upper body is not worth R45 a ticket. I’d rather rent The Break-Up on DVD for the fourth time and spend the rest of the money on half-price Easter eggs at Woolies.

Director: Andy Tennant (Fool’s Gold, Hitch)Cast: Jennifer Aniston, Gerard Butler
Rating: 2 out of 5

Place of pain

2010-03-31T02:44:00.000-07:00

In Iraq the term, "hurt locker" is a colloquialism among soldiers for a place of ultimate pain, a place where you go when a bomb explodes, a prison from which there is no escape except through death.

Kathryn Bigelow's Academy Award-winning film, The Hurt Locker, traces the final 39 days of deployment of an elite bomb squad within the US Army's Bravo company. The film begins with a quote by former New York Times war correspondent, Chris Hedges: "The rush of battle is a potent and often lethal addiction, for war is a drug". And Staff Sergeant William James (Jeremy Renner) is addicted. Each of the 873 bombs he's disarmed is a hit. "What's the best way to go about disarming one of these things?” asks one of his superiors in the army. "The way you don't die, sir", he replies. Just like that – don't die.

James arrives at Camp Victory in Iraq’s capital, Baghdad – a little ironic since victory is a very distant concept in a war that has been dragging on since 2003. He’s taking over as team leader of the squad after his predecessor died while disarming an IED, or Improvised Explosive Device. Iraqi cities are full of these homemade roadside bombs, which are much harder to detect than conventional bombs, and therefore much deadlier.

James joins Sergeant JT Sanborne (Anthony Mackie) and Specialist Owen Eldridge (Brian Geraghty) in their uphill battle to clear the streets of the city. While Sanborne and Eldridge display a healthy fear in the execution of their task, James seems intent on taunting death. He dismisses the body suit that would protect him should a bomb explode while he is busy working. He keeps a box full of bomb parts or other “stuff” that nearly killed him. There is only one thing he loves, one thing that makes him feel alive – the immanence of death.

This isn't your average Will Smith action movie. It's something like a terror-suspense-drama-action. There is no hardcore rock music playing in the background as the hero walks away from an explosion in slow motion. In fact, there's little background music at all. Because in real life, in a real war, there is no soundtrack. The soldiers don't brush off the shrapnel and bullets like flies. Real soldiers are shit-scared. They know they can die any minute. There's no way to tell which of the locals are friends or foes. In one scene a local films the squad as they disarm a bomb and Eldridge wonders whether they will soon be YouTubed (executions of American soldiers by Islamic militants are often broadcast on the web).

The film caused a lot of ‘buzz’ in Hollywood, perhaps because of its competition with, Avatar. While the latter has now become the largest global box-office hit in history, The Hurt Locker is the lowest-grossing film ever to win the Oscar for Best Film. Then there is the fact that the directors, James Cameron and Kathryn Bigelow were previously married. And Bigelow’s Academy Award for Best Director was the first given to a woman in that category.

There was never any doubt that the Academy would pick either one or the other to walk away with the top award. The question is: which film deserved the golden statuette more? Well, the films are so different - Avatar is a fantasy while The Hurt Locker tries to portray the gritty reality of war. Avatar is visually beautiful and easy to watch. The Hurt Locker is none of these. Avatar is effect-driven. The Hurt Locker is plot-driven. Although film as a medium naturally relies on the visual, giving Avatar the edge, it lacks depth. And then there is the ideology of war film.

Although the Academy praised The Hurt Locker for being "apolitical", just because a film isn't overt propaganda, doesn't mean it isn't ideologically imbued. American soldiers suffer in Iraq, and the film’s portrayal of the realities of working for a bomb squad is pretty accurate judging by a recent documentary broadcast on the investigative journalism television show, Carte Blanche. However, like the documentary, the does have a one-sided slant. In all likelihood, it may be impossible for an American to make a film that isn’t just a little sympathetic in its attitude towards the war against terrorism. And US Defence Secretary Robert Gates liked The Hurt Locker, which is enough for me to detract ever so slightly from its credibility. However, there’s no denying that the film is less sexy than other Hollywood productions like Kingdom of Heaven or In the Valley of Elah.

The Hurt Locker at least has some indie-cred – it’s low budget and there are no big names attached to it. I didn’t even recognise the director's name until I Googled it and saw she had directed the surfer cult-classic, Point Break. And the lead actor, Jeremy Renner has also been flying under the radar for a while with supporting roles in films like 28 Weeks Later.

Bigelow does lend some hope that American directors are now trying to distance themselves from rhetoric and instead, tell ‘real’ stories. The upcoming (South African) release Matt Damon’s upcoming Green Zone, which has been huffed and puffed about for its supposed “anti-American” sentiment. We can but hope this is trend...

Director: Kathryn Bigelow - Point Break (surfer cult classic)
Cast: Jeremy Renner, Anthony Mackie, Brian Geraghty
Awards: 6 Oscars including Best Film, Best Director and Best Cinematography.
Rating: 4 out of 5

Singularly brilliant

2010-03-18T01:56:00.000-07:00

Many critics aren’t fond of novel-to-film adaptations because they believe the visual can’t capture the nuances of the written word, particularly third-person narration. And I tend to agree. While The Scarlett Letter is a classic piece of literature, the on-screen version left much to be desired (although it could be because Demi Moore played the lead). The same happened with Perfume (Tom Tykwer), Love in the time of Cholera (Mike Newell) and, although it's narrated in the first-person, the recent The Lovely Bones (Peter Jackson) – all great books because the narratives are expressed through thought rather than dialogue or action. And all films that lack the weight of the central characters’ self-contained worlds.

Perhaps that is why I fell in love with A Single Man (I've also been in love with Colin Firth for a while) – I didn’t read Christopher Isherwood’s novel, upon which the film is based, and so, I can’t venture an opinion on the appropriateness of using first-person narration in film as an attempt to translate the imagination of the protagonist, something which is more easily captured in words. And that is probably a good thing because there is a chance I would not have appreciated the film as much had I read the novel first.

Fashion designer Tom Ford’s directorial debut is a film scholar’s dream. It has everything that is necessary for a film worthy of analysis: plot, character, award-winning actors and the kind of cinematography that makes you want to weep for its beauty. Every mise-en-scène has been carefully constructed so that everything has meaning. Ford has been heavily criticised for making the film ‘too beautiful’. The Guardian’s Peter Bradshaw called it “Bereavement by Dior”, while Mail & Guardian reviewer, Shaun de Waal, though it “over-styled”. But film is a visual medium after all. It is like comparing paintings by Kandinsky and Hieronymus Bosch and calling the latter cluttered.

The film traces a day in the life of George (Firth), a gay literature professor living in Los Angeles during the Cold War-obsessed 1960s. He’s grieving the loss of his life partner of 16 years, Jim, who died in a car accident eight months before. George struggles to carry on, partly because he’s never had the chance to go through the ritual of saying goodbye to his lover (Jim’s family refused to let him attend the funeral). The death of a loved one results in a sense of disconnectedness from everyday life – how does the world simply go on while one’s own has stopped? As George sits in his bathroom he stares out the window and observes the outside world: his neighbours arguing, a little girl playing in the dirt, a young boy squashing a butterfly – echoing the brevity of life. “Just get through the god damn day”, he tells himself.

George meticulously plans his suicide as he goes through the routine of the day and the contrast between his thoughts and actions results in something that recalls theatre of the absurd. George’s life, as life in general, is made up of a series of moments that seem meaningless at times. However, as the day progresses, he encounters different people who all make him reassess his life – a conversation with a struggling actor, dinner with his best friend, Charley (Julianne Moore) and a drink with a student, Kenny (Nicholas Hoult). These moments are ones of “absolute clarity, when for a few brief seconds the silence drowns out the noise and [he] can feel rather than think, and things seem so sharp and the world seems so fresh”.

What makes the film so enjoyable is that there is plenty of dark humour behind the drama. The scene in which George tries to kill himself is comical in its absurdity. He wants to shoot himself but can’t get comfortable on the bed. He then decides to rather kill himself in the shower (perhaps to save someone the trouble of cleaning up all the blood off the sheets) but he slips and falls down. He then rather bizarrely proceeds to lay out a sleeping bag on his bed and zip himself up completely. The phone rings, ruining the 'moment' and he postpones his plans.

In A Single Man, Firth has managed to score his ‘role of a lifetime’. While he’s always been a solid lead actor, he’s never been this emotional, this immersed in a character. And Julianne Moore is radiant (as always) as Charley – Firth’s drama queen former lover and closest confidante. Nicholas Hoult on the other hand is barely recognisable – the cute kid from About a Boy is gone and in his place is a grown-up, sexy and promising young actor.

A Single Man shows how life is about human relationships, about our connection to others. Grief serves to cut us off from this but, just as in every shot of the film, there is something that has meaning and that maybe, as George concludes, “everything is exactly the way it was meant to be”.

Director: Tom Ford
Cast: Colin Firth (George), Julianne Moore (Charley), Nicholas Hoult (Kenny), Matthew Goode (Jim)
Awards: Oscar nomination for Best Male Actor – Colin Firth
Rating: 5 out of 5 (I don’t seem to have watched any really awful movies lately?!)

Uncomplicated fun in Streep comedy

2010-03-13T15:26:00.000-08:00

Finding a witty romantic comedy that isn’t drenched in clichés is like finding something in your size (that you would actually consider wearing) at a clothing sale – highly unlikely. Then again, few romcoms can boast the talents of one the greatest actors of our time, Meryl Streep, or the comic genius of prime-time television giant, Alec Baldwin (30 Rock). With It’s Complicated, writer-director Nancy Meyers manages to hit the funnybone yet again, following her success with The Holiday (2006) and Something’s Gotta Give (2003).

Jane Adler (Streep) has been divorced from Jake (Baldwin) for ten years, after he left her for a younger woman. Jane has moved on with her life – she’s finally renovating her house, she runs a very successful confectionary and she looks absolutely incredible for a woman her age (the exact number is never mentioned in the film but it’s safe to say she’s probably somewhere in her 50s). However, she laments the fact that she has no sex life or even the possibility of romance.

Then, at their son’s graduation, Jane and Jake have a little too much Pinot Noir and end up in bed together. Despite Jane’s initial reservations and feeble protests, the two embark on a delicious affair that sees them questioning whether their relationship could have a second chance. At the same time, Jane’s newfound spontaneity leads her to date her architect, Adam (Steve Martin).

While Streep is not new to comedy (she did win a Golden Globe for The Devil Wears Prada), we’ve never seen her let loose the way she does in It’s Complicated, and it is a feast. Funnyman Steve Martin hasn’t been, well, funny, in quite some time. But, after a string of feeble comedies over the past few years, he’s back and he makes good use of his all-too short time in the film to show that he can still elicit some laughs.

It’s Complicated is the Sex and the City for women over 50 – it explores ideas around women, sex and relationships in the later years of life. The plot is fabulously uncomplicated but Meyers treats the story with intelligence and a sense of fun. It’s pure, light-hearted, Saturday night, I-don’t-want-to-think-of-anything-serious-right-now entertainment.

Writer & Director: Nancy Meyers
Cast: Meryl Streep (Jane Adler), Alec Baldwin (Jake), Steve Martin (Adam)
Rating: 3½ out of 5

Golden Globe nominations:
Best motion picture – musical or comedy
Best actress in a musical or comedy
Best motion picture screenplay

Bright Star fails to shine

2010-03-09T09:49:00.000-08:00

RANT OF THE WEEK

Period dramas inevitably appeal to a largely female audience. This possibly has to do with the pretty costumes and classic romances, and the film, Bright Star, satisfies on both accounts. It get scored an Academy Award nomination for Best Costume Design. This does not mean that a male audience cannot enjoy the latest period drama from director Jane Campion, but be warned, it certainly does appeal to the romantic senses.

The film traces a three-year period in the life of the Romantic poet, John Keats (Ben Whishaw), who is considered among the greatest talents ever to come out of England, with his contemporaries - Wordsworth, Shelley and Byron. The year is 1818 and following the failure of yet another publication of poems, Keats meets Fanny Brawne (Abbie Cornish), a skilled and fashionable seamstress, with whom he begins a love affair. The film is based on a series of love letters between Keats and Brawne as well as the love sonnet, "Bright Star", which Keats dedicated to Brawne.

'Ere long, however, reality darkens the happiness of the two lovers. They are essentially involved in a love triangle, with Keats's close friend and fellow poet, Charles Brown, jealously trying to keep the couple apart. A lover, Brown believes, will distract Keats from his writing. The couple also cannot marry because Keats is penniless and he becomes severely ill after contracting tuberculosis. It is not hard for those who aren't familiar with history to infer that tragedy is not far off.

The film is well-crafted but almost too much so. Brawne tells Keats, "The beginning of your poem has something quite perfect", referring to his poem, Endymion. And the film is the same - quite perfect at times but at other times simply too beautiful. The numerous scenes of fields of lavender and trees full of spring blossoms are exquisite, but they are too surreal to become immersed in. And, while Campion is a master of using silences and scenery to convey emotion, the film drags on about 20 minutes longer than it should.

Bright Star, like the Romantics, is a little melodramatic. In one scene Keats writes Brawne a letter in which he explains that he will be living in London, away from her, for a while. Brawne reacts rather severely to the news as demonstrated by the dialogue between her little sister, 'Toots', and their mother:
"Fanny wants a knife", Toots says.
"What for?", asks Mrs Brawne.
"To kill herself."

Campion's treatment of love is refined almost and this works well for the portrayal of a new love affair. But anyone who has ever experienced heartache knows it is raw rather than beautiful. It is only once Keats dies that Campion lets Fanny display the naked agony that heartbreak offers yet, it comes too late for the film to shine as brightly as it could have.

Director: Jane Campion
Cast: Ben Whishaw, Abbie Cornish, Paul Schneider
Rating: 3 out 5

Life is Precious

2010-03-07T12:36:00.000-08:00

RAVE OF THE WEEK

If Slumdog Millionaire was last year's little film that could, then Precious is 2010's. It's 1987 in Harlem, New York City and the future of Claireece Precious Jones (Gabourey Sidibe) is nothing less than dismal.

An illiterate, obese and abused teenager, Precious has just been kicked out of school after falling pregnant with her second child. This baby, like the one before, is the product of years of being raped by her father. Instead of protecting her daughter, Precious's mother, Mary (Mo'Nique), blames her for "seducing" her man and violently abuses her.

No one loves her. No one values her. Nobody thinks she is precious. "Don't nobody want you. Don't nobody need you!", her mother yells at her.

To escape the nightmare that is her life, Precious imagines herself as a star. As her father assaults her yet again and her mother throws another pan at her head, cameras flash around her while she signs autographs for adoring fans.

Despite her circumstances, Precious tries to forge ahead. She begins to attend an alternative school, where her teacher, Ms Rain (Paula Patton), instructs students to keep daily journals. Here, by penning her thoughts in her childish handwriting and bad grammar, Precious discovers an alternative life – one in which love is not equated with pain.

The film is grim and very difficult to watch. It feels as if you're in a never-ending fistfight. Just when you lift your head after one punch, you're being kicked in the gut and you're left to wonder, how many knocks can one 16-year-old girl take before she doesn't get up again?

And yet she does. After every blow, Precious pushes forward. Her children, her improving reading skills and Ms Rain make her realise that there is hope. People, like Ms Rain, have “a lot of things around them that shines for other peoples. I think that maybe some of them was in tunnels. And in that tunnel, the only light they had, was inside of them. And then long after they escape that tunnel, they still be shining for everybody else”. Almost without realising it, Precious also begins to escape her own tunnel and shines her own light.

Both Gabourey Sidibe and Mo'Nique are new to film - Sidibe has never acted in anything outside amateur theatre while Mo'Nique is better known as a stand up comedienne. Both actresses have been nominated for several awards for their roles, but it's Mo'Nique who has been raking in the statuettes (she's already won the Golden Globe for Best Supporting Actress in a drama and looks set to get the nod from the Academy as well). Mo'Nique's portrayal of so a godawful-a-mother is so potent that you want to hit her every time she strikes at Precious. Sensitive ears be warned though - Mary swears until you feel so dirty all the water in the sea couldn't wash you clean.

Which is also kind of like the feeling you have after watching the whole film. It is profoundly moving and yet, as one critic said, completely affirmative - I left the tunnel of the cinema feeling as if I was carrying a torch with me.

Director: Lee Daniels
Cast: Gabourey Sidibe, Mo’Nique, Paula Patton, Mariah Carey, Lenny Kravitz
Rating: 5 out of 5

Country cool - Crazy Heart rocks

2010-03-07T11:14:00.000-08:00

I really am not a fan of country music - it reminds me too much of boermusiek and I think I'd rather pull out my toenails and chew them before I submit myself to that kind of torture. So it was with a little trepidation that I approached the film Crazy Heart. But, being a sucker for award-buzz, I decided I would just have to take the chance. And "howdy, cowboy!" I loved it. Ahem...

Bad Blake (Jeff Bridges) is a washed-out, alcoholic country singer who crisscrosses America playing in seedy bars and bowling alleys. He's one big cliché: he smokes himself to death and sleeps with a different woman in every town, while he slates his former protégé, Tommy Sweet (Collin Farrell), who's now more successful than Blake ever was in his heyday.

But, there's nothing like a good woman to make a bad man turn his life around. When Bad meets Jean Craddock (Maggie Gyllenhaal), a small-town music journalist, and her four-year-old son, he decides to pull up the dirty socks inside his cowboy boots and turn his life around. However, things are never that simple - a lifetime of bad decisions cannot be undone by going to rehab or phoning a son you haven't seen in 24 years.

The film is, admittedly, slow but in a beautifully poignant and graceful way. Bridges' performance has earned him a Golden Globe and he's pegged to take the Oscar for Best Actor too. He captures the regret of a life wasted with every look, and the fact that he sang all his own songs is impressive as well. Maggie Gyllenhaal produces, as ever, a heavy-calibre performance while Collin Farrell's portrayal of the new, 'sexy' face of country is also noteworthy.

What made the film really worthwhile, however, is the music. There was little of the fiddler playing square-dance music in a barnyard that I expected. Instead, the score (which has also drawn some Oscar nods), is a compilation of haunting melodies with bluesy undertones and simple lyrics. It grabs a "Hold on You", as one of Bad's old hits rings.

Crazy Heart has been compared to The Wrestler but Bad Blake is just not quite as tragic a figure as Mickey Rourke's character was. That said, do in-depth, character-based films need to be tragic in order to be any good? While Crazy Heart is a drama through and through, it is thankfully a not mind-numbingly depressing film. There are just too many of those on circuit right now.

Director: Scott Cooper
Cast: Jeff Bridges, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Colin Farrell
Rating: 4 out of 5

Jozi is a goldmine

2010-03-07T10:28:00.000-08:00

It's not often that South African filmmakers produce good comedy. In fact, the best we're used to is the "toilet humour" (as my father likes to call it) of Leon Schuster. Does anyone except children still find a farting white sangoma funny?

But there's a new generation of local talent afoot and, finally, there is a movie that is genuinely funny while being truly South African at the same time. First-time director Carl Freimond has brought us Jozi, the local nickname for SA's largest city, Johannesburg.

James (Carl Beukes) is a comedy writer whose writer's block has less to do with his cocaine addiction than with the fact that he doesn't find anything funny anymore. After a group of friends stage an intervention, James is sent to the Daspoort rehabilitation centre - an ominously religious, military-style facility where there has been at least one suspicious death (a reminder of the suspicious death of a 'patient' at the Noupoort rehab centre a few years ago perhaps?). This is all just a little too much for James, who escapes and hitches a ride back to Jozi.

But, if James thinks he's escaped hell, the city of gold has more in store for him. His girlfriend (Jena Dover of KTV-fame)has dumped him for his friend, he has nowhere to live, he becomes a victim of crime and for god's sake... will the bloody feather duster vendors that decorate each traffic intersection of Jo'burg not let the poor man be?

Jozi is about the city that everyone loves to hate. Everyone (especially European tourists) raves about Cape Town. Everyone hates Bloem (except the people who live there). But Johannesburg has always caused mixed feelings. As James says about Jozi, "Sometimes I love her. Sometimes I hate her".

From the mine dumps that decorate its outskirts, to the violent crime and the squalor of the inner city, Johannesburg can be a very ugly place. But, as one of James' new friends, Brenda (Lindiwe Matshikiza), reminds him, Jozi is also a beautiful city. The thunderstorms that highlight the characteristic Ponty-tower skyline, the people, the melting-pot of cultures - these are the things that make Johannesburg a place of hope.

The film will be a great laugh for all South Africans - if you can't identify with the frustration of having blow-up dolphins, outdated maps and cellphone chargers stuck in your face every time you stop at a traffic light, you've been living Downunder for too long.

Director: Craig Freimond
Cast: Carl Beukes, Lionel Newton, Jena Dover, Nick Boraine, Lindi Matshikiza
Rating: 4 out of 5