Sunday, April 8, 2012

Worth Watching March 2012

Worth Watching:

·         The Cell (2000), Tarsem Singh – Tarsem Singh is a genius, but a warped one at that. This intriguingly structured serial killer flick is an extremely disturbing watch. The literal journey into the mind of a serial killer allows Tarsem’s mind to run wild and you receive full evidence of why he is possibly the most visually arresting filmmaker alive. Vince Vaughan reminds you how fantastic a dramatic actor he is, whilst Vincent D’Onofrio is chilling.

·         Grizzly Man (2005), Werner Herzog – This doco tells the tale of an incredibly individual dude, Timothy Treadwell who spends half his year living with bears in Alaska. The portrait Herzog crafts shows us a man who doesn’t just like bears but wants to be one (or even thinks he is one?) The film, complete with Herzogian voiceover, reminds you how great a documentarian the German is. The film takes a broad view of the subject, considering the spiritual side, ecological side and criticisms of Treadwell. A confronting movie.

·         Carnage (2011), Roman Polanski – To be clear, this is more a competently filmed and well acted conversation than a film. The characters start off as symbolic constructions rather than fully formed characters. Evolves nicely into a better second half, where Cristoph Waltz takes the acting honours. And finishes on one of the great closing shots of recent times.

·         Take the Money and Run (1969), Woody Allen – A highly amusing early Allen film. Like most slapstick, this delivers jokes at a very rapid rate and not all of them work. But enough of them are inspired that the film breezes by, as Allen’s bumbling hero attempts and fails to lead a life of crime.

·         The Fall (2006), Tarsem Singh – This is a film that is totally visually focused. A man, befriended in hospital by a young girl with a broken arm, spins a fairy tale to gain her favour. In reality this is an anti-fairy tale with a cowardly hero and themes of despondency and suicide. A funny, classic adventure story which looks truly spellbinding. 

·         A Separation (2011), Asghar Farhadi – This awards darling conveys a society far removed from the one I live in. A society where religion and ‘norms’ pervade every aspect of daily life. It is masterfully made and evolves into a detective yarn like nothing you have every seen before. There is richness and nuance here, in the narrative but also in the father-daughter and mother-daughter relationships.

·         Immortals (2011), Tarsem Singh – Tarsem brings his indescribable visual flair to what otherwise could have been standard studio fare, and also tacks on some of his former works hyper-violence. There is a lot of poor acting, but this romp set in the world of Greek mythology so successfully combines the gritty realist with the fantastical in its visual presentation that it is really worth checking out.

·         John Carter (2012), Andrew Stanton – Mainstream sci-fi silliness, but managed with enough charm to outstrip its faults. The story, a civil-war veteran transported to Mars where he finds himself in the middle of another civil war, is inspired. And the creation of the various creatures is impressive visually. Also sports an incredibly cute alien pet dog.

·         21 Jump Street (2012), Phil Lord & Chris Miller – I am in no way familiar with the original T.V series. But this is a cracker of a mainstream comedy. Jonah Hill is hilarious, returning to his broad comedy roots, whilst perhaps a little surprisingly he is matched by the comic timing of his offsider Channing Tatum. Hopefully there can be a few more comedic gems like this to help forget the tepid comedy output of 2011.

·         Jurassic Park III (2001), Joe Johnston– Sam Neill returns to the third entry in this iconic series. For me, one word sells the film – Pterodactyls. These flying creatures really do elevate the action in this, the silliest but possibly most fun entry in the series. A lean running time ensures this is a great fun contemporary B-schlock film.

·         Creature from the Haunted Sea (1961), Roger Corman – Incredible animated opening credits give way to an inspired, hilarious opening half which skewers James Bond and monster films. It’s all wonderfully absurd (especially once the monster appears) and could easily be a Peter Sellers or early Woody Allen film. But as good as the first half is, the second half is just weird, spiralling down into a nonsensical, exceedingly awkward multifaceted love story



·        The Hunger Games (2012), Gary Ross – A great, but far from original premise, results in a film that is far from great, but engaging enough. This is mainly due to a cast in fine form. Lawrence is good as the new teen heroine, Stanley Tucci is wildly over the top and both Woody Harrelson and surprisingly Lenny Kravitz add a lot. Yes, the film could have been more action packed, more violent etc, but what is here is appealing enough.


Not Worth Watching:

·          Alias Season 5 (2005), J.J. Abrams – Can’t shake a general sense of frustration at the overarching storyline across all seasons. Seems it had not been thought out in advance. The up and down flip flopping of the character of Sloane is a prime example. A tame conclusion to a series that started out so much better.


If you only have time to watch one Grizzly Man

Avoid at all costs Alias Season 5













Tuesday, March 20, 2012

My Favourite... Film Franchise


It seems that every single film these days is followed by a rubbish sequel or three. But ever so often comes a film franchise where the sequels match the original film, or at the very least build on their legacy. Here we take a look at our all time favourite film franchises.
Jon from The Film Brief writes: 
A good film franchise is rare, and attempting one is usually ill-advised. Unless a work is originally conceived as a series, the option to open the floodgates for sequels inevitably gets taken too far, and you wind up with aliens in your Indiana Jones, or Jar-Jar Binks and “I don’t like sand – it’s coarse and rough, and it gets everywhere. Not like you...” in your Star Wars. It’s best just to push George Lucas as far away from the creative process when it comes to building a franchise, really.
For me, whittling down the candidates for my favourite franchise was fairly easy. My eventual choice Back to the Future was just about the first series that came into my mind – those movies were really the first that made me realise just how fun movies can be. The Godfather series was another contender – those movies were really the first that made me realise just how cinematic and complex movies could be. My love for that franchise, incidentally, extends to the third and final movie, which sums up the vicious cycle of the triumphs and tragedies of the Corleone family and their cohorts brutally and powerfully. Most people, in my experience, can’t get past Sofia Coppola’s admittedly poor acting in a very small role.
I digress. Back to the Future is my favourite franchise. I know full well that the evocation of Westerns in the third instalment is cheesy, poor and superficial, but it matters not a jot. I love that movie (admittedly not as much as the first one – come on, is there a better example of a science-fiction/nostalgia/romantic comedy?) because of its riffing on the same good jokes and the hope, however contrived, that Doc may find love. The second film in the series just about captured the enthusiasm and zeal of the first. At its time of release, Back to the Future Part 2’s evocation of America in 2015 seemed tongue-in-cheek, but clever and predictive. We’re still waiting for hoverboards and Jaws 19, directed by Max Spielberg. But all the kids are wearing 80s clothing.
The Godfather films are universally revered by those worth listening to as essential viewing for anyone wishing to be versed in the language of cinema. They are indeed powerful experiences, and are integral components of the cinematic currency of our time. Back to the Future is my favourite film franchise for very different reasons. They were the first movies to truly inform me of the cinema’s capacity for escapism. These films transport me back to the hopeful child I once was, before I turned into a cynical and over-analytical adult. I treasure them and the social connections they have afforded me with other like-minded, Doc and Marty-loving souls.

Jon Fisher is the creator and editor of The Film Brief and host of The Film Brief podcast which you can find on iTunes. 


Tim from Not Now I’m Drinking a Beer and Watching a Movie writes:
I wanted to be cooler about this. I wanted to be able to wax lyrical about Fritz Lang’s Mabuse films, or a series of short crime silents delivered by a Panamanian cubist painter between the wars. But without a doubt my favourite film franchise and that which has definitely had the greatest impact on my film life is the James Bond franchise.
I am a huge fan of film history and older films. Classic directors such as Buster Keaton, Billy Wilder, Fritz Lang, Alfred Hitchcock, Orson Welles etc etc etc are my filmmaking heroes. The James Bond series was my window into this world. Long before I would even contemplate watching any other film from pre-1995, I was trying to track down a copy of every Bond film. I have memories of trawling through my local video store, grabbing scuffed up VHS copies of them all. They were my favourite movies, and I would love having discussions with older cousins and uncles about what their favourite Bond film was. I was always enthralled by the exhilaration, the stunts. But equally as much, I was captured by the humourous patter between Desmond Llewellyn’s Q and whoever the Bond of the day was and the at times, extremely complex plots. In a way very little has changed. Even now, as I push myself to become more of a film historian, I often crack out my complete Bond DVD set for an arvo of beers and fun. Without a doubt, my most anticipated 2012 cinematic release is the forthcoming Bond film Skyfall.
One of the many things I love about the Bond franchise is the seemingly endless conversation starters. Favourite Bond? For me somewhat controversially it’s Timothy Dalton, but you could mount an argument for any of them. Favourite Bond Film? Hands down Goldfinger for me, but again you could mount an argument for a whole heap of the films. Least favourite Bond Film? Sorry George, but personally On Her Majesty’s Secret Service. Favourite villain, favourite Bond girl, and on it goes.
From a Western film perspective there is probably no more long running and iconic franchise than this one. Every time it seemed that the series was dead and buried, it would rise again reinvigorated. Sure, some of the films have been tired, but equally as many have been inspired. The one thing they all shared was a sense of fun, of sheer enjoyment. Let’s face it, a vast majority of cinema is escapism. I don’t know about you, but I often watch films to escape the world around me and as far as sheer escapism goes, nothing beats Ian Fleming’s great creation.
Here’s an iconic scene from my all time favourite Bond flick.
James from Film Blerg writes:

I distinctly remember being told not to watch Scream. I was 9 or so when it first came onto late night television and stories had circulated far enough that parents were aware of Wes Craven's new horror film and the desires of most children my age wanting to see it.

As most cinematically inclined and authoritatively yielding children do, I managed to sneak a peek at an old television that barely picked up a signal. The first image I saw through that static mess was Drew Barrymore's lifeless corpse hanging from a tree with her slashed stomach ghoulishly hanging out for one and all to see. I immediately turned off the television in horror.

A few years later, the film came back on television on a Saturday night, this time with the sequel screening straight after it. Popcorn was prepared and by this stage, I had my own television and was ready to give it a second chance.

Immediately I fell in love with the franchise. Perhaps I was too young to pick up on the satire, intertextuality and genre conventions that were at play, but I was entranced regardless. The underlining plot of Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell) continually battling against knife wielding maniacs was too much fun. It was almost like a soap opera with the relationships between the main characters, an element enhanced by the franchise's creator Kevin Williamson of TV's Dawson's Creek fame.

Drew Barrymore's unexpected and untimely death shocked audiences around the world and saw the beginning of what would be called the slasher genre. Spawning similar films such as Urban Legends, I Know What You Did Last Summer, and the spoof franchise Scary Movie, Scream’s instant legendary status was evident almost immediately.

Following the success of the first film, three more films were released in 1997, 2000 and 2011, all with Wes Craven and the original three cast members including Campbell, Courteney Cox and David Arquette. Scream 4 may be the weakest, and like the other sequels, becomes more of a playful, fun film rather than inflicting actual fear, horror and suspense. However, it still does the job and does so with much more tenacity than most in the genre.

It may be rather trashy, but the Scream franchise will always have a special place in my heart.
 
James Madden is the Editor of Film Blerg. He is currently undertaking a Master of Arts and Cultural Management at the University of Melbourne and is a Screen Editor of Farrago Magazine. James has contributed to countless student and online publications including Portable, T-Squat and Upstart.




Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Worth Watching February 2012


Worth Watching: 
  • Martha Marcy May Marlene (2011), Sean Durkin – This features probably the best performance by an actress over the past 12 months, from Elizabeth Olsen. She believably portrays a young woman full of anguish and vulnerability with no requirement to revert to histrionics. Once you settle into the film’s back and forth structure it engages and provokes thought, taking the viewer on an original (and at times harrowing) journey.
  • The Artist (2011), Michel Hazanavicius – An excellent film. A homage to classic Hollywood and the transformative power of cinema at that time. The influence of Singin in the Rain (1952) is plain to see. The pride of the main character makes him a frustrating figure. Full of positives, the highlights are the cracking cinematography and the two joyful lead performances from Jean Dujardin and Berenice Bejo.
  • Man on a Ledge (2012), Asger Leth – Sam Worthington establishes himself as an action star well worth watching in this, following in the footsteps of Aussie brethren Russel Crowe. This is a classically, simply shot action film that reminds just how enjoyable a film like this can be. A lot of this is down to how the plot slowly, but surely reveals its secrets which helps to maintain interest throughout.
  • Shame (2011), Steve McQueen – A film about a man addicted to sex, or more specifically ejaculation. Fassbender is surreally good as the high powered exec living this life until his sister, the phenomenal Carey Mulligan, turns his world upside down causing him to reflect on how he carries himself. A character study of a man caught in the most shameful of addictions. McQueen is a stylist and a technician & this is adoringly shot with great use of light, angle and especially sound.
  • Hulk (2003), Ang Lee- This maligned film starts with a cracking credit sequence and never looks back. The most interestingly constructed comic book film I’ve ever seen, editing is masterfully used to truly make it feel like you are watching a comic brought to life on the big screen. Such a great vibe, truly inspired and don’t worry, Bana’s Hulk is awesomely destructive when the time comes. Jennifer Connelly gives a wonderful performance as well. Thematically as well as in looks, this is a much more ‘grown-up’ Marvel film.
  • Hugo (2011), Martin Scorsese – An extremely rich film worthy of repeated viewings. Dripping in mechanics and clockwork, it features a revelatory performance from Sacha Baron Cohen and a phenomenal one from Ben Kingsley. Of course this is Marty’s ode to cinema, but at times, that is clumsy with dialogue serving as film lecture. It is a bit po-faced at times, but overall an amazing film.

Not Worth Watching:
  • Flowers and Trees (1932), Burt Gillett – This Disney effort was the first ever winner of best animated short at the Oscars. It is classically Disney in style and nicely conveys the joys of the natural world. However the film has dated pretty bad and with no story to speak of there is precious little emotion to be found. Take a look:

 
  • Search by Image, Recursively, Transparent PNG, #1 (2012), Sebastian Schmieg – It’s a clever idea. The results though are underwhelming. For far too long its just pictures of space, and the lack of any soundtrack really hurts it. Gets a lot cooler when the images begin to change, but these cuts are much too fast. It’s rare for a 4 minute film to feel too long, but this achieves that because too many of the images just aren’t that interesting. Check it out: 



  • Bluebeard (1944), Edgar G. Ulmer – One of my favourite fairytales is transformed into a pretty poor film. No real attention paid to establishing the film’s period chops and Bluebeard doesn’t even have a rockin beard. The film is about as atmosphereless as a film can be, even the invocation of the Faust tale can’t help. To top it all off the background music is incessant, and I don’t think anyone actually paid any attention to the music chosen. Really, truly terrible. And if it still sounds like a film you want to watch, you can check it out here: 





  • One for the Money (2012), Julie Anne Robinson – Katherine Heigl stars, featuring a whole lot of fake tan and as bad an attempt at an Italian accent you will ever come across. What starts as fun, light fare with a rockin hardboiled voiceover descends into inanity at lightning speed. Poorly acted (the supporting cast are atrocious), with an even more poorly constructed plot this woeful film is one I assure you you can afford to miss.
  • The Incredible Hulk (2008), Louis Leterrier – Supposedly this is the better of the recent Hulk films. I must have missed something cause this bored me to tears. Somewhere between a sequel and a reboot, having all the same characters played by different actors is distracting. And not one of them is as good as what came in Ang Lee’s take, with Ed Norton & Tim Roth particularly miscast. Derivative, you can see the Bourne and Casino Royale (2006) references all over this one but they add little. And the decision to have the Hulk’s transformation triggered by heart rate rather than anger is a major fail.
  • The Spanish Apartment (2001), Cedric Klapisch – Really slow start, with the most notable aspect being a number of (failed) attempts at funky aesthetics – onscreen graphics & images in fast forward. Gets into its stride, accurately conveying the sheer unfamiliarity of a new city, and a meta apartment with residents from all over Europe in each other’s pockets. In the end though, there are so many characters that none of them are really given the narrative attention they deserve. A surreal, comedy of errors that is perhaps too ambitious in the end.
  • Extremely Loud and Incredibly Close (2011), Stephen Daldry – An exceedingly annoying film with one of the most misjudged central characters ever. This painful child character, with the infernal tambourine he takes everywhere, is paired with an infuriating voiceover for a lot of it. Sandra Bullock is surreally good, and she evokes more emotion in her small part than the entire rest of the film. And whilst Max Von Sydow is also very good, his character is symptomatic of what’s wrong with the film. If the young central protagonist, and Sandra Bullock’s character had their screen time swapped, this might have been bearable. It isn’t.

If you only have time to watch one Hulk

Avoid at all costs One for the Money









Wednesday, February 29, 2012

The Blockmaster


At least in Australia, Boxing Day 2011 saw two new Steven Spielberg blockbusters open on the very same day. And in typically Spielbergian fashion the two films would struggle to be more different. War Horse (2011) is a serious, ‘Oscar-bait’ drama, a WWI-set love story between a horse and a boy, whilst The Adventures of Tintin (2011) is the director’s first animated venture, a 3D mo-cap adaptation of Herge’s iconic series of adventure comics (and was awesome – featuring in my top 10 films for 2011). This sudden output would be a surprise were it to have come from any other director. But where Spielberg and big budget flicks are concerned, nothing is a surprise, or at least shouldn’t be after all these years.
When you talk about blockbusters, not just by Spielberg, you really cannot start off by not talking about Jaws (1975), which in many ways signalled the birth of the big-budget ‘event’ picture. This is for a couple of very important reasons. Traditionally, films opened gradually across the states. They would open in a big centre or two and then expand out. The major advantage of this is that it would slowly build hype as word of mouth spread. And by the time it opened in a particular city, people would be ravenous to see it because of all they had heard and read. Jaws broke with this tradition with a mass release, being simultaneously released on something like 450 screens. Although this is commonplace now, why make such a change? Well for starters it mitigates the effect of shit reviews because everyone (in theory) just rushes out and sees the film on the first weekend. Whilst there were concerns to the contrary, Jaws in the end had very few poor reviews to counter, going on to become a cinematic classic. But this approach works well when you have a modern day dog such as Clash of the Titans (2010) on your hands. This approach also shifts the timeframe in which you need to generate hype for the picture. So instead of post-release reviews hyping the picture, it is achieved through a pre-release advertising and merchandising blitz encompassing making-ofs, press tours, Happy Meals and a whole lot more. The other major point to make about the release of Spielberg’s killer shark thriller is timing. Summer in the states, had traditionally been a bit of a dead period for releases. Awards season was still many months away so there was no need to build any films for that (and this is I guess a bit more of a modern phenomenon anyways). And more importantly it was summer surely everyone had better things to do like lick ice creams on the beach rather than sit inside a dark cinema catching a flick (this logic is foreign to me, but apparently some people are into other things besides watching movies). But the summer release of Jaws started a tradition that lives on to the present day, with many massive flicks geared to capture the summer blockbuster market.
Now onto Spielberg’s film itself. I thought I had seen it before I sat down to watch it the other day, but I now suspect that I had just seen part of one of the sequels on T.V. Whilst I was expecting a thriller, Jaws is really a horror film par excellence. With a young child being one of the first to meet their maker at the hands of the man-eating shark, the film immediately establishes that no-one is safe. The scene is beachside holiday, with holidaymakers frolicking in the blue ocean under the bright shining sun. The enjoyment of these frolickers helps to build the tension, so when that music kicks in, the tension has been built to almost unbearable heights. The swift transformation from peaceful calm to the terror stricken atmosphere of a shark attack was for me reminiscent of a Nirvana song shifting gear from quiet to loud. As for that music in the film, even though you’ve heard the score 14 million times (surely one of cinema’s most iconic, up there with the James Bond and Halloween (1978) themes), it is still awesomely chilling. The film, whilst carrying this horror streak throughout, also evolves generically. It increasingly weaves in dramatic elements (Drahor? Horrama?), before finishing with a second half that is classic closed setting thriller. Is there a more isolated setting than three men, alone upon a boat, tiny against the comparative vastness of the ocean? Here also, the final hunt creates quite the emotional event out of a hunt that could have been in other hands played simply for action and machismo.
The film opens with a wonderful night-time scene which allows Spielberg to dazzle with his expert cinematography. The combination of light is managed perfectly so that the night is seemingly all-pervasive, yet you can still actually see what is occurring perfectly. A number of the characters in this film are much like archetypes of the Western genre. Roy Scheider’s Martin Brody for example is a lone cop, fighting for the people he is employed to protect, against the tyranny of bureaucracy and the tourism dollar. Surprising depth is lent to the film by the depth and nuance of the relationship between Brody and his wife Ellen played by Lorraine Gary. They have just moved from the big smoke to Amity Island, thinking they would find peace. But struggles await their relationship as the titular shark begins terrorising the town. Robert Shaw’s fisherman Quint starts out as a saltydog caricature, but his character too gradually builds depth. Before the final shark hunt, he prepares his fishing gear like a cowboy prepping his gun, getting ready for battle, with Spielberg showing this meticulous preparation in slow detail. He is a cowboy, getting ready to track his foe, and his caricature gains much nuance, most notably through an expertly delivered monologue aboard the boat recalling a famous wartime ordeal that establishes his connection to sharks. Probably the film’s best performance comes from Richard Dreyfuss as the young oceanographer Matt Hooper. The friendship that gradually grows between him and Scheider’s Brody is wonderfully drawn, being borne out of the mutual desire to get the powers that be to recognise the seriousness of the situation. And his verbal sparring with Quint on the final hunt has the dual effect of at times lightening the tension, and other times heightening it.
It says much for Spielberg’s highly evolved storytelling chops that in a film about a killer shark, the real villain is not the shark, but rather the mayor of Amity Island. The mayor ignores numerous warnings that there is a highly dangerous shark on the loose, preferring to put the almighty dollar above all else. There is also a fantastic plot twist where one shark is caught, but turns out not to be the one doing the killing. But the grubby mayor will not listen to reason in this regard either. This back and forth between the Mayor and Scheider’s Brody is reflective of current arguments over how to deal with sharks that start to kill, arguments that seem to erupt every summer in Australia. Should the shark, surely just doing what comes naturally, in its natural environ, be left to its own devices. Or should it be hunted down to protect swimmers? And what role does the tourism dollar’s importance to a coastal town’s economy have to do with the final decision? At the end of the day though, this is pulp horror/thriller, yet just like a Peter Temple or Cormac McCarthy novel, it is elevated above pulp by the excellence of its execution. In this vein, the discovery of Ben Gardner’s body is one of cinema’s great frights. I had seen a clip of this scene before, yet it still scared the snot out of me when it came.
There are numerous classic myths about the shark used in the film. That the first time it was put in the water it sunk straight to the bottom of the ocean, that they continually ballooned up, got caught in seaweed and so on; the veracity or otherwise of these myths has often been argued about. What is for certain though is that Spielberg is able to work brilliantly with what he has, which is a physically imposing model that looks clunky and fake as all hell, and I imagine would have to audiences in the mid-70s. The first shots of the beast are delivered from an extremely high angle as it cuts through the ocean, which makes the model look ok, and its size suitably intimidating. The issue with the shark is really not so much what it looks like but how it moves, and this comes out in the couple of close ups of the shark attacking which in some ways are a little comical given the clunkiness of the model’s attacks. Moviegoers can probably be thankful for the poor quality of the model though, as it served to make the director consider deeply how much to show the shark, and how much to just hint, however overtly at its presence. In the end, Spielberg nailing that balance is one of the great joys of the film.
This is a wonderful film, perhaps in my top 10-20 favourite of all time. This is big-budget, Hollywood at its best, and it shows that when this type of filmmaking is done well, it is as worthy as any style in cinematic history.  
Verdict: Longneck of Melbourne Bitter

The next blockbuster of Mr Spielberg’s that I am going to examine will always hold a special place in my heart. Jurassic Park (1993) was one of the first films I remember seeing in the cinema, and my Nan and Pop took me to see it with my sister. I remember everyone jumping when that motherfucking Velociraptor sticks its head through the wall (I still jump every time I see that). And I remember that, as a dinosaur nut at the time, I absolutely loved it. I also remember my grandparents not liking it, thinking it was a little too violent for my 7-year old sensibilities.
I’m a little surprised that Jurassic Park’s opening scene has not become more iconic. It immediately sets the tone for the whole film, establishing its sci-fi stylings and soaring, classic adventure film soundtrack. It also has the brilliant close-up of a mouth screaming “shoot her” as the dinosaur claims its victim uncontrollably. The film does not look back from there. There are self-referential (in a good way) nods to Indiana Jones, and I think in many ways Spielberg is here riffing on and expanding upon his entire preceding oeuvre. The other thing the film definitely does is create a wondrous world for the audience to lose themselves in. From the moment Richard Attenborough lovingly says “welcome to Jurassic Park” the audience is taken there, and the outside world is lost. The scenery is visually spectacular and it is populated by numerous, huge creatures rendered using effects that still expertly hold their quality today, 18 years of advance down the road.  They still look so real, and there are no Jaws-esque dodgy models on offer here.
Script wise Michael Crichton has helped craft something both more engaging and intelligent than the source novel he also wrote. It is great that in a blockbuster such as this, the script maintains a level of scientific enquiry, with guesses at how dinosaurs lived. What’s more the more scientific aspects of the dialogue are actually incorporated into the overall screenplay, rather than feeling like bits of a uni lecture which have been tacked on. Thematically, the attainment of and profit from scientific knowledge is specifically acknowledged in dialogue from Jeff Goldblum’s character, and the film explores this on a broader level - especially through the relationships between the characters and their underlying motives for finding themselves on this island off the coast of Costa Rica. The creation of this scientific and inquisitive tone to the film, results in the birth in a lab of a baby dinosaur being as exhilarating to witness as a T-Rex attack.
But enough of all that, how about all the dinosaurs going nuts and ripping people’s heads off? Well there is plenty of that going on here too. I mentioned my first viewing of this film as a youngster, and my two most memorable recollections of that screening fall into this category. The first is the ‘toilet’ scene which sees the first major attack of the film. A man is plucked from the toilet scene, and I have never forgotten that, or the Jeff Goldblum quip that follows it. The second scene is where the Velociraptor bursts through the wall just as Laura Dern’s character has restored the power. It’s the film’s big shock moment, and I remember afterward my pop joking about how hard my sister had dug her nails into his arm at this point. Just like in Jaws Spielberg uses calm as a counterpoint to courage. Most famously the first Tyrannosaur attack is preceded by a close-up of a glass of water, with the ripples in the liquid signalling what is to come. The end result of Spielberg’s ability to render chaos and destruction is a film that is really quite frightening and gruesome in parts.
Every so often there is a performance in a blockbuster film that will have people up in arms about the lack of recognition these types of films, and performances in them, get at awards time. Sam Neill’s turn in Jurassic Park is one such performance. It definitely deserves plaudits as he conveys the role of grumpy yet brilliant palaeontologist brilliantly. His character also evolves nicely into a morally upstanding dude of a father figure when required.  Whilst I am a fan of the sequel The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997), it definitely lacked something not having Neill on board. Richard Attenborough is terrific as the scientific ‘visionary’ behind the creation of Jurassic Park in the film. This character is part visionary, part mad scientist. Well he’s not mad, but Attenborough brings to life a man who struggles to reign in his obsessions and their illogicality. Then there is Jeff Goldbum’s chaos theorist, a man diagnosed in the film as suffering “from a deplorable excess of personality”. Goldblum really does bring that excess to life, playing a delightful nerd with fantastic glee. Actors must love these characters which allow them to play it up to excess but still be serving the purpose required by the film. And any film with Laura Dern yelling SHIT! SHIT! Over and over again is fine by me.

Even today, the best part of 20 years later this film still inspires me with a sense of awe. The same sense of awe I had for dinosaurs I had when I was a kid, collecting Dino mags. An intelligent film that is one of the supreme blockbusters ever made.  
Verdict: Longneck of Melbourne Bitter

Only one man could release a harrowing wartime blockbuster about WWII Jewish Genocide in the exact same year as a mammoth budget, thrills and spills dinosaur film. Schindler’s List (1993) is that film. I think that in many ways Holocaust films are easily dismissed these days as awards bait, and I think that in some circumstances that assertion holds merit. Films on this subject should never lose their impact, but I think that in some ways they have become a dime a dozen in recent years.
There is no such risk with Spielberg’s take on this horrendous moment in 20th Century history though. The atypical storyline ensures that the film provides a different view of wartime. The narrative concerns Oskar Schindler, played by Liam Neeson. Schindler is a member of the Nazi party who arrives in Berlin, looking to make money from the War. One good way to increase profits is to employ in his enamelware factory Jews who are in detention nearby, given that there is no requirement for him to pay them. The film tracks the relationship between this money hungry businessman, and the oppressed people he employs. I have to say, I did not think that Neeson was capable of delivering a performance of this quality. He is mind bogglingly good. Schindler is an intriguing character, so he has much to work with. Knowing the vague outline of the plot before seeing this film, I assumed that he would be a somewhat one-dimension figure, a rogue Nazi white knight who was morally pure, upstanding, could do no wrong and the film would adulate him. Spielberg is too good a filmmaker to engage in that kind of glossing over of reality though and what we get is a flawed man. Initially his motives are quite unclear, and when they are finally revealed, they are not as idealistic as one would have assumed. He’s a man who is hungry for money, who happily swans around in bars and woos members of the Nazi establishment. A man who only gradually comes to realise exactly what it is that he is witnessing before him, and gradually summons the bravery and the means to do something about it at great personal risk.
The most prominent member of the Nazis that Schindler regular comes into contact with is Ralph Fiennes’ chillingly portrayed Amon Goeth. Goeth is one of the great supervillains of film history. At times, the character and performance threatens to veer into moustache twirling, arch villain territory. But in the end the character works, as a representation and ultra manifestation of the Nazi scourge. The film starts slowly, and I actually found it a little confusing in the early going as it struggles for flow. Early on, I think the film also grapples with how best to portray the atrocities committed – should it be done graphically or more subtly. Both approaches appear in the film, but I think the first such event which really hit me during the film belongs to the latter camp. It is a scene of luggage being emptied, luggage that belonged to Jews who had just been sent to the gas chambers. The luggage is emptied and then painstakingly sifted through to locate anything of value. Heartbreaking. Once the film settles, it is repeatedly horrifying, and still has a massive impact to this day, showing the unmitigated horror of what occurred. The most tense of these ‘horrors’ that is portrayed is the travel of a train containing female Schindler Jews. The audience can only watch in horror as the train takes them, not to the location of Oskar Schindler’s new factory, but instead to Auschwitz. The notion of their looming location starts as a seed of thought, and Spielberg slowly adds on layers, til it becomes shockingly apparent where they are headed. The scene that follows in the ‘gas’ chamber is the film’s most unbearable to watch. The black and white cinematography is stunningly good, sharp and deep. I don’t know if cinematography is inherently better when black and white or if it is just the fact that this particular art form is highlighted more by the nuance that comes from shooting without colour.
Whilst I found the film achingly emotive, I did not find it to be manipulative. The scenes of the Jewish people being rounded up are truly horrifying, and it is during these Nazi raids that Schindler starts down his eventual path. He spots a young girl, dressed in red (a bold splash of colour by Spielberg) who he sees moving through this chaos. It is not a cheapened, instant transformation but rather this moment triggers deep thought and soul searching on behalf of Schindler which permeates the rest of his journey. The pacing of this change is a good thing, helping to make it feel legitimate. A film like this is always going to be a difficult one to finish in a satisfying manner. Schindler’s evolution of sympathy is finely finalised. However some of the ending is perhaps a little po-faced and sentimental with an abundance of big speeches and a group hug. However the last shot of the real-life Schindler Jews and their descendents visiting the grave of Oskar Schindler provides a fittingly poignant end.
I have spoken above about the complex construction and characterisation of the character of Oskar Schindler. It is worth noting that there is a thoughtfulness of the representation of all those involved in the War here. Whilst it is there, the film goes further than Nazis=good, Jewish people=bad. One example are the scenes of young children throwing stones at the Jews as they are corralled into ghettos, or making throat-slitting gestures as they are transported by train. Spielberg is showing us the indoctrinated, multi-generational hatefulness that pervaded Nazi Germany. Perhaps pondering how you stop that hatred, or the transference of it from one person to another. Have no doubt though, the sheer fucking evil of the Nazi regime is made abundantly clear, especially through the character of Goeth.
The film does have its critics though. Perhaps the most notable of them is Claude Lanzmann, the director of the 9 hour Holocaust documentary Shoah (1985) who attacked the film as melodrama and a deformation of historical fact. Whilst I have commented on what I perceive to be the interesting and complex characterisation of Schindler, it has been claimed that Spielberg overtly glosses over aspects of his persona, namely that his womanising ways are minimised, as is the role of his wife in the eventual saving of the Schindler Jews. The criticism has also been made, reputedly originally by Stanley Kubrick, that the film is celebratory about the fact that 600 Jews were saved by Schindler, yet 6 million were exterminated by the Nazis and the film chooses supposedly neglects that fact. This is a difficult one. I don’t know that the tone is particularly celebratory, and despite the fact Schindler is lauded at the end of the film, I think the portrayal of him is a nuanced one. I would think that no film could accurately convey the true horror, and especially the true scope of the Holocaust; and I don’t think this should stop aspects of these events being portrayed, if it is done in a manner that is as respectful as this. I do not have the knowledge or the first-hand experience to draw definitive conclusions regarding the criticisms directed at the film. I just feel that I should let you all know that people with both the knowledge and first-hand experience have both praised, and attacked aspects of the film and its treatment of the Holocaust, and that you should do your own research on these things.
The film is as powerful as the subject matter deems it should be. Parts of the film left me crestfallen. It is difficult to think with any depth about the Holocaust without feeling unbearably oppressed at the state of the human race. Does the film provide hope? I’m not sure, and if it does, it is not undue hope.
Verdict: Pint of Kilkenny
Progress: 54/1001

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

My Favourite... HItchcock Film


Hitchcock is a rare breed of director and probably the most iconic of all time. He is one of the very few directors whose films are a genre unto themselves – you can watch a Hitchcock film in the same way you can watch a Gangster or Western flick. Add to that the fact he made over 50 films, ranging from the silent era to the 70s, and you have a man who can generate diverse views. Let’s check em out. 


Tim from Not Now I’m Drinking a Beer and Watching a Movie writes:


I have never seen a Hitchcock film I did not like, and oftentimes I feel as though my favourite is the one I have seen most recently. That is sort of the case at the moment, as I loved Sabotage (1936) a British era adaptation of Conrad’s “The Secret Agent” and could easily write this piece on that.

However if I ponder a little more deeply on which is indeed my favourite, I come up with the same answer as Hitch himself did. My favourite Hitchcock film is Shadow of a Doubt (1943), the film Hitch always maintained was his favourite of those he made. Why is it my favourite Hitchcock film? It doesn’t have the sheer visceral exhileration of Psycho (1960), my first introduction to Hitchcock. Nor does it have the brilliant high concept conceit of Rear Window (1954) or one of the greatest scripts of all time like North by Northwest (1959). Despite not having any of these, for me the film eclipses them all.

Teresa Wright gets top billing over Joseph Cotten in the opening credits. Who deserves it? Hard to say as they are both fantastic, playing a namesake Uncle and Niece both called Charlie. Cotten’s character is a delicious one, he is delightfully evil. The audience knows it from the start but it takes a fair while to pin down exactly why. Cotten is having fun, playing Charlie with manipulative glee. His niece Charlie is a different kind of Hitchcock woman. She is whip smart and onto her uncle from the start. And lets just say that her actions at the end of the film don’t leave you thinking she belongs to the weaker sex (personally I think that much, not all, of the general thoughts on women in Hitchcock films as weak or failures is simplistic). Wright more than holds her own, easily accomplishing the difficult task of playing a believable teenager.

Many of Hitch’s films are urban set tales, but Shadow of a Doubt sees most of the action take place in small town America suburbia. It reminds me a lot of the setting of Orson Welles’ The Stranger (1946) but perhaps more nuanced. And the setting allows Hitch to cultivate a great family dynamic with each of the family members being allowed to craft distinctive characters. In fact the film is full of perhaps the most beautifully crafted characters in Hitch’s canon who have the pleasure of enchanting the audience with perhaps the slickest dialogue in any of his films. The film also has a lot of nuance and rewards the viewer by slowly but surely revealing its psychological depth.

More than anything, the film just gets you in. I re-watched it late the other night while drinking a beer. For no reason at all at one point, I paused the film, hopped up and poured the rest of my beer into a glass. It just felt right. Upon restarting the film, I realised that a character onscreen was at that moment also pouring a beer into his glass. The film just sucks you in and makes you part of what is happening onscreen like only the very best of cinema. If you haven’t seen this somewhat lesser known Hitchcock film, then go out and track it down.





James from Film Blerg writes:


Having previously adapted Daphne du Maurier’s Rebecca (1940) to triumphant acclaim, Alfred Hitchcock took on du Maurier’s 1953 short story The Birds (1963). Unlike the impressive Saul Bass designed openings seen in Psycho and Vertigo (1958), The Birds is much more understated. As the film opens, birds are heard fluttering back and forth. Already enough to send shivers down one’s spine, the birds then appear flying manically back and forth, forewarning of the terrors to come.

Having seen The Birds as an eight-year-old, I subsequently became anxious of overflying birds and their potential for ravenous depravity. Later screened in my first year cinema studies class at La Trobe University, the class continually laughed throughout the film’s entirety to my absolute and appalled shock. Susan Sontag wrote on the aesthetics of camp only a year after The Birds release, and much of the film’s retrospective humour can be derived from its references to camp.

Our lecturer Anna Dzenis warned us of the strange happenings that occur when she screened The Birds. True to her word, less than a week after the film was screened, I had an unfortunately incident with a bird on the golf course. It was true. When The Birds is screened, somewhere a bird will attack.

Hitchcock’s The Birds begins with prankster Melanie Daniels (Tippi Hedren). A young socialite coming from a wealthy and established family, Melanie is headstrong and intuitive. Upon meeting Mitch Brenner (Rod Taylor) in San Francisco and sparking a playful conversation, Melanie secretly arrives in Bodega Bay where Mitch spends the weekend with his mother Lydia (Jessica Tandy) and much younger sister Cathy (Veronica Cartwright). And then the birds attack…

Jessica Tandy is unsurprisingly the strongest performer of the ensemble, and details true fear with the utmost class and sophistication. Not to say that Hedren, Taylor or Suzanne Pleshette (who plays Mitch’s former flame Annie) give weak performances. Making her feature film debut, Tippi Hedren makes an indelible splash which never really reached the same heights.

An epic battle of man against nature, motionless child against pecking psychotic bird, Alfred Hitchcock creates pure terror with each horrific bird attack. Much of the horror is instilled through a lack of sound. The only thing that is audible as the birds attack is the sound of their attacking. The actors are left silent (sans the school children scene), striking up believable panic.


The following clip highlights the criminal mastermind nature of the birds. While detailed my distress during the screening, the clip does highlight a particular funny moment. Especially from 1:15 onwards.

James Madden is the editor of Film Blerg. He is currently undertaking a Master of Arts and Cultural Management at the University of Melbourne and is a Screen editor of Farrago magazine. He has also contributed to Portable,  T-Squat and Upstart.


Jon from The Film Brief writes:

Hitchcock's Rear Window exemplifies all the talents and class of the great director in a way that few of his other films manage -- the folksy, pragmatic presence of Jimmy Stewart, the fluidity of the photography, the perfectly-named Grace Kelly, and of course the voyeuristic undertones that Hitch knew to be the underpinning of all great cinema. We go to the movies to watch other people and Rear Window throws that concept back in our face repeatedly -- sometimes it is nauseatingly perverse (in the case of the attractive blonde dancer that Stewart ogles), sometimes it is sad (the not-quite-good-enough pianist across the way), sometimes it is intriguing (the domestically-challenged couple that become so important to the film's plot). Rarely, though, is it easy to turn away from, especially when we know we should.

Stewart plays LB. “Jeff” Jeffries a daring photographer, house-ridden due to injuries sustained on an assignment that turns to watching the other residents of his apartment complex through his rear window. He is resistant to the advances of his friend Lisa (Grace Kelly), preferring to obsess over the various characters of his daily real-life soap operas. As always with Hitchcock, the plot turns sinister, as Stewart witnesses what seems to be a clear-cut case of domestic tension turning into murder. The twist is something of a classic Hitchcock MacGuffin, though. This story may look to be a murder mystery on the face of things – and certainly the resolution of this aspect of the story is paramount to the film’s effect – but really it’s a movie about movies first and foremost, and a movie about a damaged man’s relationships second. Jeff’s
neighbours and their foibles make for fascinating viewing, particularly considering the lovely seamless way that Hitchcock films them and Jeff’s observation of them. But the main delight, for me, is the dialogue, the patter between Jeff and the people in his life – the little touches of humour in Stewart’s delivery, the gentle breaking of Lisa’s heart in every glance Jeff-wards, the way that Lisa cleverly wins into Jeff’s affection by becoming interested in his obsession.  Matched with the brilliantly languid camerawork, this is a movie that can be enjoyed with the sound off and the picture on, and vice versa.

Of course, as always with Hitchcock, there is a regrettable undertone of slight misogyny, a sense that women just aren’t up to the task of pleasing men. Grace Kelly is one of Hitch’s classic tortured female characters – beautiful, intelligent, but still unable to justify herself to the men around her. In Rear Window, Jeff manifests his love of the flawed mundanity of everyday life by criticising Lisa for being ‘too perfect’ all the time! As usual in Hitch’s films, his women bear the brunt of his men’s shortcomings. This unfortunate perspective has always grated me about Hitch’s movies, but his brilliance in all technical realms of the film-making art trumps his sometimes questionable morals.


Rear Window
is my favourite Hitchcock film. Something about it encapsulates everything about the old master that endears me to him. And I just love the fact that this is really a movie about movies and the voyeurism therein masquerading as a murder mystery.


Jon Fisher is the creator and editor of The Film Brief and host of The Film Brief podcast which you can find on iTunes.

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

Worth Watching January 2012

Worth Watching:

  • The Troll Hunter (2010), Andre Ovredal – Ah, ye olde found footage trick aye. This wisely keeps the ‘shaky cam’ to a minimum and focuses on being a mockumentary. It’s a good one as well, with the fantastic character of Hans, the titular hunter at its core. This is pretty light, and does lag at times. But it is fun and the performances are good, which makes it quality lazy weekend afternoon viewing fare. 
  •  Puss in Boots (2011), Chris Miller – This Dreamworks animation combines some great Western elements with fairytale mythology, all driven by a very cool protagonist. Somehow despite only going for 90 minutes, the film feels far too long. But there is plenty for all to enjoy, especially seeing as it wisely dispenses with the later Shrek films’ annoying obsession with pop culture references

  • Larry Crowne (2011), Tom Hanks – Had very low expectations, and a hammy tepid start backed this up. But then the introduction of the character of Tahlia, an inspired performance by Gugu Mbath-Raw, is a real shot of life for this film. Hip visual style of text messages appearing onscreen actually looks cool, rather than tryhard. This is a charmer of a film that unearths a new star (for me at least) and reminds you how good Julia Roberts and Tom Hanks can be with the right material.

  • Alice in Wonderland (2010), Tim Burton – This copped a bit of a panning as people tired of the Tim Burton/Johnny Depp double team. Lewis Carrol’s book is a very strange one, in reality a piece of rambling nonsense. This is a good fantasy film which chooses to reimagine Alice as older than in the book. Canberra’s own Mia Wasikowska is fantastic in the main role and Helena Bonham Carter and Matt Lucas also deliver really good turns.

  • Mad Bastards (2010), Brendan Fletcher – A bleak look at indigenous Australian life and the respect inherent in it. It’s lent a delightful, atmospheric air from the Pigram Brothers soundtrack. Central performance by Dean Daley-Jones as TJ, a man battling his many demons is very strong. The best bit is the actors sharing their real stories at the end of the film.

  • Alias Season 3 (2003), J.J. Abrams – This is the weakest series yet, with The Covenant nowhere near as menacing as The Alliance when it comes to super villainous adversarial organisations. Melisa George’s sheer inability to settle upon an accent for the entire season is annoying, as is the series lingering for way to long on one plot point concerning her character. Having said all that, the character of Jack Bristow played by Victor Garber deepens and evolves brilliantly this season. And me and my girlfriend sat down and knocked it over in about three days, so it’s clearly addictive.

  • Snowtown (2011), Justin Kurzell – A really washed out palette is used to portray lower class suburbia. I find it hard to use words to describe this film which is almost unwatchably brutal at some points. Whether it was ‘good’, ‘great’, ‘enjoyable’ or what. This was the most harrowing film I have ever watched bar none. I felt physically repulsed by it multiple times, and have never had that experience before. Daniel Henshall gives a fucking insanely good performance. This is a visceral, dirty film which makes you feel terrible to be part of the human race. If you can handle it, watch it. But there will be plenty who cannot.

  • The Adventures of Tintin (2011), Steven Spielberg – All kinds of awesome. Grand adventure on a Spielbergian scale. The mo-cap process has ensured a wonderful looking cartoon world.  Some wonderful, old school filmmaking especially some of the beguiling match shot editing. And by far the best opening credits sequence of the year.

  • Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol (2011), Brad Bird – This is a big, dumb action movie, but a good one.  Well acted, well shot and enough big budget ‘holy shit!’ moments to fill this kind of piece. Morgan Spurlock’s latest is clearly affecting me though, because again I found the product placement here extreme.

  • Alias Season 4 (2005), J.J. Abrams – More of the same really. More silliness, more Indiana Jones meets James Bond, more lengthy DVD sessions with the girlfriend. The show is a lot of fun despite the silliness. But I can’t help but feel this series is just biding its time a little for the final series. However the early episodes especially impress, playing like one off thrillers with strong self-contained narratives.

  • Duel (1971), Steven Spielberg – Spielberg’s first feature, and already you can see the assuredness of his direction. The film is mostly shot from inside the one car, and it says a lot for Spielberg’s skill that it always engages visually despite this, especially when using some of the extended first person shots. Despite some wooden acting, this is a taut thriller with effective characterisation, and above all some great psychological tension.

  • The Muppets (2011), James Bobin – I liked, rather than loved this. It sort of gets by on the quality & spirit of the pre-existing characters. You have to applaud the originality crafted by Segel et al, it is just a shame that it doesn’t all work. The film is far too self-aware and self-referential and the Chris Cooper character is a major misstep in tone. The inevitable ending is full of charm and joy though, which gives hope for another outing from this franchise. 

  • The Lost World: Jurassic Park (1997), Steven Spielberg – Not as good as the first, but actually quite a different film. This is a King Kongesque monster flick. A definite ‘vicious monsters on the loose’ vibe to it. An amazing cast including the returning Goldblum and Attenborough, along with new cast members Julianne Moore, Pete Postlethwaite and even a young Vince Vaughan don’t hurt. And if you are a dinosaur nerd like me, the fact they bring in new species like the stegosaurus, make this pretty much an automatic tick.


Not Worth Watching:

  • The Fast and the Furious 5 (2011), Justin Lin – Paul Walker and Vin Diesel are two of the less charismatic dudes to ever appear onscreen. They’re made to look all the worse because Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson is one of the more charismatic. For the most part this is a stupid, loud film but also at times slickly and excitingly shot with some cool old school stunt work. Ultimately though, there is too much Walker and Diesel trying to act, and not enough of The Rock, or car chases.

  • United (2011), James Strong – This often feels like a middling BBC TV drama and the initial exposition is very clumsy. That said David Tennant is very very good and the film does not shy away from portraying national heroes (Bobby Charlton) in an unheroic light. It is less tame after the huge tragedy that the film revolves around, but unfortunately the film is just not that great an experience.

  • Bad Teacher (2011), Jake Kasdan – More like bad movie.

  • Transformers: Dark of the Moon (2011), Michael Bay – Hated the first 2. Hijacks historical footage such as assassination of JFK, and veers into the offensive with its treatment of Chernobyl. Absolutely no one in this gives a halfway decent performance. Why the fuck is John Malkovich slumming it in this? Fights which should look visually stunning are incomprehensible. These films have no redeeming qualities, and this one is borderline unwatchable.  

  • The Smurfs (2011), Raja Gosnell – Nostalgia piece for me, I used to watch the original cartoon before school. The voicework has none of the charm of the original, and the film creates no sense of wonder which is essentially a given in an animated film. Joyless, with obscene product placement, a wasted Hank Azaria and some troubling attitudes toward women. The delightful performance from Jayma Mays is the only thing in the entire film with any charm.

  • Mr Popper’s Penguin’s (2011), Mark Waters – Jim Carrey is far too talented to be in films like this. Pippi, his tongue twisting secretary is one of the more annoying characters in cinema history. Far too many poo and ball in groin jokes mar what could have worked if they hadn’t bothered with the crassness cause it’s actually quite sweet in a lot of other aspects. Why is it in ‘family’ films that we are always meant to be cheering for the divorcee parents to get back together, even if one has moved on?

  • Black Swan (2010), Darren Aronofsky – Early on Aronofsky over-directs, clearly straining to put the viewer into psychological thriller territory and the whole thing feels forced aesthetically. The focus should have been on Portman’s character chasing her dreams and the lengths she was willing to go to achieve them. The strongest plot point, Portman needing to encompass the black & the white swan, is undermined by the underdevelopment of Kunis’ character in order to incorporate too many stock horror elements that detract from the film. The best performance actually comes from Vincent Cassel but overall I just found this a bit unfocused & annoying.

  • Superman Returns (2006), Bryan Singer – This is so poor. How a film this rubbish and boring could be made about our blue and red clad hero from Krypton befuddles me. The narrative is underdrawn and incomprehensible. There is zero excitement to be found, Brandon Routh doesn’t deliver much as Superman while Kate Bosworth is probably the worst Lois Lane ever. The attempts at visual stylistics either come off as bad CGI, or just looking like things other films did a whole lot better 10 years earlier.      


If you only have time to watch one The Adventures of Tintin

Avoid at all costs Superman Returns