shermanlazzar Reviews

Inglourious Basterds (2009)

Just brilliant!!

[9/10 · 24 January 2010]

Now, I am a Tarantino fan. But no matter what you think of his films there is no denying the man is a cinematic genius. This is one of the best films I have seen in a decade and may be Tarantino's finest work.

Inglorious basterds has that awkward intensity that is the hallmark of any Tarantino flick. Forget the violence (which perhaps isn't for the squirmish) What you will remember from this film is the awkward silences, those moments when Tarantino has run a dialogue scene so perfectly to its climax, that whatever happens next is purely secondary.

The film is a fictitious story about World War 2, and 8 Jewish American soldiers (the Basterds) leading an Apache resistance against the Germans. Now, the plot itself, whilst satisfactory is not the highlight. In fact, the Basterds themselves are not even the highlight. Surely the highlight of this film is cunning SS Colonel Hans Landa, the feared Jew Hunter of the Nazi Party played by Christoph Waltz. Tarantino has create immortal characters before but this is surely his finest yet. Like all killers that fascinate us, Landa is as charming as he is deadly. He chooses whether you live or die.

Then there is the beautiful Melanie Laurent as Shoshanna, the film central protaginist, a a Jewish girl living in disguise as a theatre owner in Nazi occupied France. When it comes to be that the Nazi war hero Frederick Zoller falls for the lovely Shoshanna, the latest propaganda film starring Zoller is to premiere at her cinema, the stage is set for a final battle between the Basterds and the Nazis.

As I've said the Basterds are only a player in this film. Pitt is amsuing as the conspicuous leader Lt Aldo Raine. The rest of the Basterds are mostly background. They drive the plot are not entirely the focus.

Diane Kruger is also excellent in her role as the closet Allied German film star. The two final chapters in this film are magic. The bar scene will used as platform for young filmmakers for years to come. The violence is graphic but not unnecessary. The dialogue in this film (predominatly in German and French) is sharp, witty and engaing. The characters are brilliant. A special mention to German actor August Diehl as the suspicious Gestapo Major, who, next to Landa, delivering a menacing cameo performance that gets better with repeat viewing.

The three house flew by in my opinion. Some may say it dragged on, but with characters this good, it could've gone on for longer and I've wouldn't have minded.

A gem.

Fatal Attraction (1987)

Actually not too bad

[6/10 · 17 October 2009]

For a movie now going on 22 years, Fatal Attraction is a still a worthwhile thriller.

Glenn Close gives a great performance. I felt like I had seen the movie already due to the numerous references to it in pop-culture throughout the years. As such I was probably not as shocked as I otherwise would have been. Nonetheless there are still some genuinely disturbing moments in this. One thing I have always wondered is why Glenn Close is the temptress in this, as good an actress as she is, I can't find her the least bit attractive. Although, in this she is actually done up to look quite pretty and I think another actress could've pulled off the psychopath woman-scorned act quite like she did.

Speaking of which, how many hot sex scenes has Michael Douglas been involved in? Sharon Stone and Demi Moore if you don't mind. Lucky bastard! Anyway, he was good in this too. Overall, not a bad flick.

The Simpsons Movie (2007)

I officially withdraw my support from this show

[1/10 · 6 October 2008]

At its best (circa early 90's) The Simpsons was a show possibly unmatched in its brilliance, not just for an animated show but for any comedy. 15 years or so later, and regrettably it has become one of the worst shows on television, culminating in one of the worst films I have ever seen.

The film has so little redeeming value I don't know where to start. I can remember only one scene which I almost laughed and there were SEVERAL where I cringed, one comment bordering on racist. As I watched this I felt many things; mainly bored and completely patronised. The plot s utterly stupid, its not even worth analysing needless to say it was so bad that I actually stopped paying attention.

The degeneration of this show couldn't have been captured more perfectly in this film. The main problem is that the characters have become so unlikeable, particularly Homer. Homer used to be lovable moron - but at the same time witty, he has become slapstick - in your face stupid, to the point of being extremely annoying - ditto Bart. The show has made the mistake of re-hashing jokes from the wrong types of characters. As many have mentioned, the token slapstick characters seem to have been given predominantly more airtime resulted further in the deterioration of the show - eg. Comic Book Guy, Cletus, cat lady and other one-card wonder characters. And is it just me or is Nelson and Ralph the too most unfunny characters - possibly in cartoon history. Can someone please write a threatening letter to Nancy Cartwright so we can just end them? Then write something scary to the writers of this film, though I'm they'll scare easy, having masterminded this abomination. Its perplexing that the show has fallen THIS far. I've lost all respect for Matt Greoning and those associated with the show since inception. How could they treat their fans with so much disdain.

I actually walked out on this film, its impossible for me to express how disappointed I was or how many levels it was awful, I'd suggest you see it for yourself, if nothing other than to finally withdraw your support from this brand. Switch over to Family Guy, at least that show doesn't take itself seriously, and remembers how to write adult humour.

Rest Stop (2006 Video)

About as bad as I expected

[2/10 · 29 September 2008]

Can't say I expected much from this film so I knew what I was getting myself into. The one comment I wanted to make about this type of movie...I am noticing a developing trend in the horror genre, that is the assumption that weird = scary. This movie appears to have been made entirely on this assumption. Perhaps the other assumption made, the unknown = scary. Add these two elements together, the movie relies completely on them and the plot provides little else.

The scene where Nicole gets in the Winnebago...this is an exact case in point of what Im talking about. It was so contrived and lazy it was laughable. And why did that wife keeping yelling 'whore!' when she finds that clichéd freak in a wheelchair taking photos??? Its like, yeah, weird, we get it.

This movie was not even close to scary, not even for a second. Direction was so amateurish I didn't have time to notice that anything that was happening could for one second be real.

I give it one more star than Cabin Fever, because it was slightly less disgusting and I did not laugh in this.

Swimming Pool (2003)

This is one of the most bizarre films I've seen...and not in a good way

[2/10 · 10 July 2008]

A crime novelist Sarah has writers block and and is offered by her publisher, to stay in his house in the south of France to get away so she can concentrate on her writing. After a few days, the publisher's young and beautiful French daughter Julie lobs at the house, her promiscuous ways and one night stands agitating Sarah and distracting her from her work. Meanwhile Sarah meets a young French man working at a nearby restaurant that she takes a shine to, but things become tense when Julie brings the man, Franck back to the house on one of her routine one-night stands.

To this point the film is slow and dull, from this point on the film becomes absolutely bizarre. Franck leaves Julie whilst she is giving him oral sex as he becomes uncomfortable, aware that Sarah is watching through the window and is disgusted. What (apparently) transpires is that Julie (unbeknownest to Sarah) kills Franck shortly after this incident by hitting on the head with a rock. From there it is even to bizarre for me to even summarise. Julie has some nervous breakdown and Sarah helps her through it. Sarah returns to London and meets the publisher who introduces Sarah to her daughter, except she is different to the girl she met in the house, her name is Julia, not Julie. I don't know what the hell that is about! I can only guess (and this is just a wild stab) that Julie was a figment of Sarah's imagination and was an inspiration for the book she was working on. Any takers? Well whatever. What a load a gutter tripe this film was. And what was with that final scene!!! Julie and Sarah waving to each other like they were both on acid. Its one of those rare moments where the film has gone so completely off the rails you have to laugh. This film made no sense at all.

A Few Good Men (1992)

A timeless courtroom drama

[9/10 · 16 June 2008]

This is one of those films that I never tire from viewing. Despite the fascination with legal dramas these days, this film is unique as it focuses solely on one trial, almost exclusively and does not get thrown off into tangents of relationships, sexual tensions between counsel, a shadowy villain who threatens the life of the protagonist or any other outlandish 'Hollywood' circumstances. This is an extremely well-made film, not without humour, that provides a fascinating insight into the military and the litigation process.

This is one of Cruise's best roles as the brash and confident young naval lawyer Daniel Kaffee, a talented attorney who has never been to trial before, who is assigned the case of defending two US Marines charged with murdering a fellow Marine. The cynical Kaffee is reluctant to take such a seemingly unwinnable case to trial, the facts of the case apparently very damning. But he is persuaded by the ambitious Commander Galloway (Demi Moore) that the two Marines have a case, and that there may have been a higher power responsible for the murder.

This is an absolute all-star cast. Keifer Sutherland and Jack Nicholson are terrific and despicable as the God-fearing, fanatical military superiors. Kevin Bacon delivers a solid performance as Captain Jack Ross, the ruthless but impartial prosecutor. This is a fantastic film full of twists and surprises and ultimately a very thought-provoking conclusion.

A Clockwork Orange (1971)

Deliciously sinister

[13 June 2008]

This is a film difficult to categorize. The central characters enjoy violence, rape and causing havoc. But really, at no time does this film make you feel uncomfortable as other films of this nature would. Occasionally funny, rarely frightening and always weird and entertaining, "A Clockwork Orange" remains a visual and conceptual masterpiece that is truly timeless.

The film is based on the book of the same name by Anthony Burgess. The book, whilst difficult to read due to the gangster language it is (and indeed the film) is written in, is certainly worthwhile and of course has an ending which could only be described as the polar opposite to the ending of the film. The story follows the youth Alex DeLarge, marvelously played by Malcolm McDowell, and his three hoodlum friends with a bizarre dress sense and a penchant for violence and mayhem of all forms. These dangerous sociopaths, lead by Alex wreak havoc on the wider community.

When he is betrayed by his crew the law catches up with Alex, he is sent to a correctional facility and becomes a guinea pig for an experimental drug, designed to rid criminals of their evil impulses. Needless, the say the film asks the ethical question; is it better to be able to choose to be bad, or become incapable of that choice at all? McDowell steals the show as Alex, surely one of the most enduring cinematic performances ever. And the film is everything you would expect from a Kubrick film; it transcends the normal world and dazzles the viewer with a visual spectacle.

There is also moments of humour in the film. A Clockwork Orange is probably most infamous for the way it 'glamourises' violence, particularly through Alex. Alex is a bad guy, the worst. But as he narrates to the audience/reader it is almost as if an endearing relationship of trust is being born. Alex refers to the viewers as 'my brothers' and at one stage 'my brothers and only friends' we can't help but feel some strange empathy for Alex. On the one hand he is vicious and calculated, but he himself is a child and very vulnerable. His mannerisms are often child-like, but he still possesses all the qualities of the dominant alpha-male. He is a complex character and one that has caused much controversy because he is notoriously hard to dislike. This is why this book and film was such a shock to the establishment. What is wrong with us if we like a person who does such evil things? Importantly, whilst that film does delve into ethical issues, it does not explore them at the expense of entertainment. Almost every scene is memorable and often haunting.

Entourage (2004–2011)

Hard to judge

[5/10 · 9 January 2008]

I watch this show only for the following reasons: the girls, the mansions, Ari and the other agents. In fact you could say I like most aspects of the show other the four douchebags on which the show is centred on.

None of Vince, Turtle, Eric or Drama are likable, in my opinion. Drama is just a whining, terrible actor shamelessly riding the coat-tails of his brother to pick up acting work. Turtle is just this annoying wannabe-homeboy leech, who does nothing other than reel off a few hit and miss jokes at Drama's expense. Vince is just this selfish, lazy and fairly simple movie star. He provides nothing to the show, no humour, no conflict really.

I used to think that Eric was the worst character and I still don't like him, but he is probably the least offensive of the four I would say. Ari is usually great as the pig-headed agent, but even his humour is becoming laboured and needs a fresh direction. I do enjoy his banter with the other agents - Harvey, Dana Gordon etc.

But I would not call this a clever show. Even Ari's character, the almost sole source of humour on the show only gets his laugh by being a loudmouth a-hole reeling off offensive one-liners about gays or his ex-Dana Gordon etc. The only way this show can derive its humour is by being offensive, which is fine really and its good to go along with the ride but its not all that clever.

It is hard for me to judge this show because it is enjoyable but tends to annoy the crap out of me as well. Maybe I should not analyse it so critically and perhaps I should just go along for the ride

From Dusk Till Dawn (1996)

What....just happened?

[1/10 · 9 January 2008]

These were the exact words I muttered quietly when I think it was Selma Hayek turns into a bat or something and turned this film into the biggest farce I have ever seen - some sort of vampire movie. My friends and I looked around in confusion, I reasoned that perhaps one of the characters was dreaming. Thirty minutes or so later, nope. Someone has abducted this script at the half way point and given it to group of 12 year olds in juvenile hall for the ending - that seems the only explanation.

Because prior to this unexplainable event, this film was quite good. There was a credible cast, Harvey Keitel, Clooney, Tarantino, Juliette Lewis,Selma Hayek. A family is abducted by two criminal brothers and Tarantino's character was chilling, I was genuinely interested to see where this film would go. Then the unthinkable happened. I find it hard to believe that anyone who was enjoying the first part of this film didn't turn it off at some point in the second half as I did.

DO NOT SEE THIS!

Cabin Fever (2002)

Were they trying to make the worst film ever?

[1/10 · 9 January 2008]

Seriously though. What is this film? I caught one night coming home late from work when I couldn't go to sleep and kept watching out of morbid curiosity that a film could be so bad.

This is the most disgusting, vile piece of trash I've ever seen. But upon seeing the ending I burst out laughing with some confusion. Well, it was an attempt at comedy by the 'writers' but why? It was as if they had come to the end of the film and, realising how much of joke the film was they attempted to go out with a laugh as if to say 'it was all in good fun'. Truly bizarre.

Blast, not 10 lines. I think they should make an exception with this film, its not worthy of two. Better re-cap the 'plot'. Group of teenagers go into the woods on vacation. A man comes to their cabin late at night and infects them with some flesh-eating disease, turns out it's coming from the river water. They all become infected, and die, gruesomely.

Ten lines yet, brilliant. Why can't you vote for zero? Guess that would mess up the rating scale

The Castle (1997)

Such a great movie - a must see for all Australians

[8/10 · 9 January 2008]

I guess you'd have to live in Oz to appreciate how much The Castle has become apart of Australian folklore. With so many pretentious films these days, doing everything they can to confuse to the audience - this film is the exact opposite. This simple story of a simple middle-class family in the outer suburbs fighting to keep their house from being torn in favour of an expanding airport has become a classic, not just for its uniquely dry Aussie humour but also for its satirical analysis of Aboriginal land rights in Australia.

Michael Caton is memorable as Darryl Kerrigan, the simple hard-working Aussie battler who loves his family and his home. Darryl becomes embroiled in a legal battle with the neighbouring airport and the Government, when they attempt to expand meaning that Darryl's house (among many) will need to make way.

It's hard to explain why this film is so great to non-Australians (which is why I say its a must see for Aussie's only) but it so brilliantly encapsulates almost everything that is uniquely Australian. There are so many great lines in this, but perhaps the most memorable is Darryl's insistence that "its not a house, its a home, you can't buy what I've got". Such a simple yet, profound truth - very attributable to Aboriginal land rights and Native Title which was (and still is) a contentious issue.

European settlers in Australia, and Australian society (until 1992 would you believe) long denied Aboriginal land rights because it seemed to absurd to waste land that could be used for commercial use and money, they could not fathom how the spiritual and cultural connection that Aborigines proposed to have with the land could be more important than making money or that couldn't be compensated. In this case, the Airport and the Courts could not understand why Mr Kerrigan would not take this 'generous' compensation. Whilst, Darryl appears a simple man (and is really) his priorities and values make him a lovable character. Again, us Aussies always side with the battler, the underdog which is Darryl.

Rob Sitch and Santo Cilauro (responisble for one the best Australian TV shows, Frontline) produce a tremendous script which is so laid back, funny and Australian but which also conveys a very important message.

I really love this film, I urge any Aussie who hasn't checked it out to do so.

Donnie Darko (2001)

I don't fully understand and I don't care

[2/10 · 9 January 2008]

Let me see if I can summarise this extremely confusing plot in the simplest possible terms. "Donnie Darko" follows Donnie (Gyllenhaal) a troubled teenager who one night follows a voice in his head who leads him out of his room and house and avoids death when his room is soon after hit by a falling jet engine from the sky, which would have definitely killed him. The voice that lead him out of his room is an illusionary character in a bunny suit named Frank. Frank warns Donnie that in 28 days the world will end.

In fact, what has happened is that Donnie has entered a tangent universe - he was supposed to be killed but wasn't and as such the current reality (universe) is wrong, and in fact will end in 28 days. Thereafter Donnie follows this voice (Frank) who tells him to do things (which ultimately will lead to the tangent universe being closed off and the primary or proper universe becoming reality again)..confused yet? It eventually turns out that Frank is the man that Donnie kills in this alternate or tangent universe - so had Donnie died as he was supposed to, Frank would still be alive. Frank helps ensure that the tangent universe will end so that he can exist again. And so, there's some predestinational paradox???...yada, yada, it goes back to the beginning where Donnie DOESN't get out of bed and is get my the plane part hitting his room and the normal universe becomes reality again.

You see? It's quite impossible to describe this film in simple or even coherent terms. It simply doesn't make sense because it is science fiction. So what is the film about then? Fate? Ummm. Destiny or something? Tangent universes? Since time travel or the event of some guy in a bunny suit telling you to cheat death and creating an alternate universe are impossible, it renders anything this film purports to be about null and void. If you want to watch something about the different paths our lives can take maybe watch Sliding Doors. Sure its cheesy and sappy but at least you know what the hell is going on. Its not pretentious and doesn't require reading on time travel and time paradoxes.

The film has quite an impressive cast: Gyllenhall, Maggie Gyllenhall, Patrick Swayze, Jena Malone, Drew Barrymore. There is nothing really note-worthy about the characters they play. Nothing really needs to be said beyond the attempted analysis of the absurdity of the plot.

There is absolutely no explanation for the ending, really. A plane traveling 28 days after Donnie cheats death, hits turbulence, goes through a wormhole and hits Donnie's house 28 days earlier, killing him? Well, I guess everything's wrapped up in a neat little package, then.

Enough said about the ending, there shouldn't have even been a beginning. Why would Frank lure Donnie out of bed to avoid death, if this alternative universe would result in Frank dying? I don't quite understand that and I don't really care. This isn't calculus, I might try and figure out an equation because it has relevance to life, this doesn't. This has relevance to nothing. Why does this tangent universe exists? No idea. What significance is it? None. How does what happen in this alternate universe relate to themes of destiny, fate? It doesn't. If you're going to do something about time travel stick to the comedy where Michael J Fox has to save his Dad from Biff or something. Let's not get all deep and meaningful about it and pretend like it really could happen.

Well, I certainly wouldn't recommend this film unless you're spaced out of your mind, in which case it would be perfect.

American Gangster (2007)

Boring

[5/10 · 9 January 2008]

There is nothing about this film that would make me watch it again. Firstly, the plot. Frank Lucas (Washington), a black man from Harlem involved in organized crime imports pure Herion from Vietnam and makes a killing selling on the streets of New York City. He is a ruthless gangster which is capable of doing anything to defend his business. Enter Russell Crowe at Det. Richie Roberts, the vehemently honest cop who once handed back $1 million in unmarked bills that he found. Roberts heads up a special task force to find who is smuggling this pure heroin into the streets on the New York.

That brief summation is basically all that is worth noting sans the ending. There's is some insight to Roberts' family, his womanizing, and divorce proceedings with his wife, which seems to have been included to fill time. There is no interesting character development, perhaps other than Lucas' mother, once full of praise for her boy finally faces the harsh truth about his life of crime. The performance's aren't that great either, there is just nothing in this script for them to work with. It seems that the writers had this potentially interesting story to tell but evidently no clue about how to tell it. Subsequently, the plot jumps around all over the place. "Who's this guy Lucas' is beating up now? Pfft. Who cares"..is what was my eventual mind-set. Forgettable, really.

No Country for Old Men (2007)

Disappointing

[6/10 · 9 January 2008]

I went into this film with high expectations. So, that being said I would still consider this a worthwhile film to go and see but I was left surprised at the critical acclaim the film had received. It wasn't that special.

I have never been a huge follower of the Coen brothers work. I love Fargo but that's really it. Their films are usually a little abstract. This story follow a retired welder Llewellyn Moss (Josh Brolin), who whilst deer hunter in the Texas desert stumbles across half a dozen corpses in what seems a drug-deal gone wrong. He also comes across $2 million in cash in a brief case and decides to keep it. The rightful owners of the money (Mexicans) find out the identity of Llewellyn, whose truck was found at the scene and they send a ruthless hit-man Anton Chigarr (Javier Berdum) to recover the money. Sheriff Ed Tom Bell (Tommy Lee Jones) is on a mission to try and protect Moss and in doing so, catch the elusive Chigarr.

The performance of Bardum as the villain Chigarr, is what makes this film worthwhile watching. It is one of the most chilling characters on the big screen for years and any scene he was in makes you sit up and take notice.

Sadly, the same cannot be said for other characters, particularly Tommy Lee Jones' role as the Sheriff who I found progressively more uninteresting throughout. **SPOILERS*** And this is my major criticism of the film (and I know I'm not alone here) because the Sheriff's character deliver a couple of monologues in the film that were crucial in conveying the themes in the film, particularly the last scene. But by the last scene monologue, I had tuned out because the Sheriff's character was so boring. Upon watching the film again, some obscure dream described in a monotone monologue is not the way to conclude a film or make a definitive point. The fact that many were looking around confused when the credits rolled is never a sign of concise film-making. Not having an ending shouldn't always be applauded. Sometimes it is lazy storytelling and I have to think that this was the case here. ***SPOILERS END*****

To be honest, it is hard to see what themes in the film haven't been explored before. There is nothing groundbreaking here. If the film was a good old fashion, lone ranger versus a ruthless Drug-lord - fine. In the sense the film is more than satisfactory. But the film purports to be so much more. And the attempt by the film to get these points across to the viewer was disappointing and lacked imagination. Cinematography was great and some of the action scenes were terrific. But at the end of the day, I'd only class this film as worthwhile, nothing more.

The Chumscrubber (2005)

Pretentious

[4/10 · 7 January 2008]

I'm sure this film was trying to make some commentary on middle-class suburbia, all is not what it seems or what-not. Any profound statements this film makes certainly went over my head. I think that's because there weren't any.

The film follows the life of Dean, a high school boy whose best friend, Troy recently committed suicide. The suicide victim was a drug dealer, and a school bully, Billy (Justin Chatwin) along with his friend Lee (Lou Taylor Pucci) and girlfriend Crystal (Camilla Belle)mistakenly kidnap a boy they thought was Dean's brother as collateral so that Dean would would bring Troy's drugs to Billy. It also follows the lives of some of the other couples in this seemingly normal community.

This is an all-star cast - Glenn Close, Ralph Feinnes, Rita Wilson, Jon Heard to name a few. Perhaps they mistakenly thought that this film had a purpose. Most of the characters in this film are absolutely absurd stereotypes, with Ralph Feinnes character just ridiculous. I did find the kidnapping plot interesting though. I wish the film had focused entirely on this. This was perhaps the only poignant social commentary in the film, the dangers of peer pressure and parental ignorance. The character of Billy was actually quite fascinating as the psychopath on the verge of doing something terrible. None of the other characters were likable or interesting. And none of them were 'real'.

Basically, the film was just plain weird, which was enough to keep you watching. But much of it was just being weird for the sake of it, trying to make some obscure point. But really this film explores nothing that hasn't been explored before. One reviewer put it perfectly when he said this film was "Desperate Housewives meets Donnie Darko." Of course the writing was the on the wall because I hate both of those. I'm still in the dark as to what the hell a "Chumscrubber" is. Yet another attempt by this film to be profound. I wouldn't say this film is a loss completely. As I've said the kidnapping plot line was interesting. The rest is garbage.

Last Train to Freo (2006)

Not worth the trip

[3/10 · 21 December 2007]

Being Australian, I keep a close eye out for Aussie films and am always willing to give them a chance. I must say that the film started off at a crawl and gradually picked up some momentum which kept me watching. The film continued to pick up momentum but fell flat at the ending.

The story follows two men, young Trev, a deadbeat no-hoper teenager from the street and his tall unnamed thug associate recently released from prison as they call the last train from Perth to Freo in the early hours of the morning. Eventually three more people get on the last train to Freo, and some interesting revelations about these characters are revealed.

The acting isn't too bad and the dialogue was quite fresh and uniquely Australian. But at the end of the day, nothing happens. The film continues to build momentum throughout - revelations are made and the main thug becomes more aggressive and we wait in anticipation to see the outcome. But the film does not take the next step. Some may applaud the film for doing this, but not me because it meant the film was completely devoid of anything happening. The concept was interesting, but it seemed the writers didn't know where to take it. Nor did I feel that the film made any relevant commentary on society which it attempts to do.

Its disappointing because this film was quite an interesting concept but the result is forgettable.

Clerks II (2006)

Classic case of "DID NOT NEED A SEQUEL"

[4/10 · 7 December 2007]

Well that says it all really. Clerks the original was original, with some great dialogue. But even so, it wasn't brilliant and secondly, it was only appealing because it dealt with a certain age demographic - 20-something lay-abouts who are rude to the customers. When these people are young, it works, you can even relate to the characters, perhaps. And its funny, because they're young and don't know better.

Fast forward to 12 years later. Still doing the same thing (except working in a fast food joint because the Quick Stop burnt down), same jokes, same ridiculous whining from Dante and its not really funny. Try depressing and annoying. Randal is obviously the ace card in this formula, as the morally-challenged sexual deviant. Some of Randal's dialogue, in fact, let's just say Randal saves the movie from being completely unfunny. And his character is really ruined by the end of this film as the film becomes sentimental at the end. This did not work at all for me nor should it for anyone who enjoyed the original.

Oh and Jay and Silent Bob, without doubt Kevin Smith's worst two creations, thank God they are finally (hopefully) being retired. I was very surprised to hear Smith comment that Clerks 2 was the best film he ever made!?! I must admit I have never found Smith's humour that interesting. A lot of swearing, pushing the envelope with graphic sexual discussion and racy dialogue. Maybe that's it, I found this stuff funny when it was pioneered in Clerks. Ten years on and with several movies of similar nature, this kind of humour now seems a bit contrived.

I would actually recommend against watching this if you've seen the first one.

Little Miss Sunshine (2006)

The girl's a super freak!

[10/10 · 7 December 2007]

Its rare that you come across a film as genuine and outstanding as Little Miss Sunshine. It is so simple, yet so effective. The plot and dialogue are also original and fantastic, but it is the characters that make this film unmissable.

The Hoover's are a slightly dysfunctional middle-class family from Albuquerque. The father Richard (Greg Kinnear) is the wannabe motivational speaker attempting to make it big. Toni Collette is the family 'glue' as always holding it all together as the mother, Sheryl. Steve Carell is Uncle Frank, the failed gay academic who recently attempted suicide. Alan Arkin, brilliant as the foul-mouthed, promiscuous, drug-using Grandfather. Paul Dano also fantastic as the silent and reclusive 15-year old son, Dwayne.

And then there is Olive (Abigail Breslin), whose performance I will speak of in more depth. Olive is chosen as a contestant in the beauty pageant 'Little Miss Sunshine' to be held in California. And so, these six very different character set off on a wacky road-trip, filled with laughter and tragedy.

Abigail Breslin is simply mesmerizing, as the refreshingly innocent, naive and cheerful Olive. Certainly it would have to go down as one of the best performances by a child actress (aged 10) in film history. For that matter, every character is just superb. Good acting unquestionably, but the development of the characters themselves. Whilst initially they all appear (and are) flawed in their own ways. By the end of the film we have seen the best of all of them, and they have seen the best of each-other. And that's what makes this film so uplifting - we have this family, on the rocks and whose resolve is being seriously challenged by constant difficulties occurring on the trip. And yet these challenges bring out the best of them and bring them closer as a family. And Olive, the central character unites them in the climax of the film at the beauty pageant, which is one of the most hilarious and brilliant scenes I've seen in cinema! The dialogue is sharp and delivered impeccably. What is so great about this film is there is so many things to take away from it also - to embrace your suffering being the most memorable theme I took out of this and so many more. You will walk away from this film with a great satisfaction, a smile on your face and with a few issues to think about. What more can you ask for? The near (if not) perfect cinematic experience.

YEEEEAAAAAAAAAAH!! ALRIIIIIGHT!!!!!!!

2:37 (2006)

Exploitative but with one saving grace

[4/10 · 5 December 2007]

I couldn't relate to this film. I'm surprised that people are lauding it for being so 'realistic'. How many people at your school were victim to incest? How many closet homosexual jocks were there? How many quiet people that you never noticed committed suicide? Hmmm. OK you wouldn't know even if their were. But really these are explosive problems which many us never deal with. And yet there are so many teenagers with subtle problems which could have been explored. But hey, where's the 'entertainment' in that?

With regards to the girl who committed suicide - I found this to be exploitative. I actually think MANY people in High School at some stage feel invisible, ignored and unwanted. But what possesses someone to violently commit suicide on just another day of being ignored and unnoticed? The filmmaker decided this girl would suicide to make the film more provocative. And the graphic nature of the suicide to make it even more provocative. I didn't buy it as a real life scenario.

And the problems of the other students I didn't fully relate to. Bullying is explored but that's been done to death, we all know it goes on and it truly is a matter of resolve within that person. Closet homosexuality? Pfft, another cliché gets rolled out. Thats the thing really, too many clichés. I guessed the ending at the start. There was a predictable unpredictability if that makes sense. You've got all these characters with explosive problems, and one with apparently none. And I thought, what is the point of this character unless she's the unsuspecting suicide victim? And surely enough..

One thing I will say, and it is the saving grace of the film, is that it does NOT glamourise suicide. The suicide is very graphic and heart-breaking to watch. It is a powerful scene (regardless of how contrived it is)and one that dismisses suicide as the easy option. But the film is really not very imaginative and used stereotypes.

Not bad but certainly not groundbreaking OR worthy of a 17-minute standing ovation at Cannes???

Mysterious Skin (2004)

Unnecessary

[1/10 · 4 December 2007]

This movie was made purely for shock value. Whilst some seem to feel that the film explored powerful or taboo issues such as pedophilia, homosexuality, child delinquency etc. the primary objective of this film is to push the boundaries of what is acceptable of TV.

***Spoilers*** The positive from the film is the acting of Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Neil, the sociopath teenage hustler who was himself the victim (albiet somewhat willingly!) of pedophilia. However, this central character does not appear to be haunted by the experience, but appears to yearn for this man (his baseball coach) who he loved. Another victim only remembers his encounter with pedophilia when the film ends. So the character's feelings with being abused are not explored. The film simply meanders along following Neil's deviant sexual exploits as a hustler and a move to New York City, providing perhaps the only lesson of the film, that hustling and unprotected sex are dangerous. Wow, thats groundbreaking..

***Spoilers End**** Without exploring the impact of pedophilia hardly at all, this film becomes simply unnecessary. Just a sequence of random sexual encounters aimed to shock and in some cases disgust the viewer.

I strongly urge that you give this film a miss, it is pointless.

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

I've tried to like this film

[5/10 · 4 December 2007]

People often insisted that I watched this film. Now, upon watching it a couple of times and again recently I have tried to appreciate this movie for the alleged genius it is? Perhaps it is genius? I don't know, I'm not a genius.

And after viewing it, discussing it and even reading about the meaning to this film, it still does not change for me that this film is largely uninteresting and labored. The cinematography and soundtrack is outstanding, especially considering this is from 1968. The theory of evolution is also very interesting.

Despite this, the film is an arduous slog for the most part, scenes are played out far longer than necessary. I really had to stop myself from fast-forwarding some parts. Perhaps, this is because I am from a restless generation, who need to be entertained every second. I like to think that I have patience and am willing to absorb different types of film-making but I honestly thought the film was simply too long so little active substance. Essentially, I believe I understand the point the film makes, it is interesting. It is daring. It is unconventional. I appreciate that. BUT...(I can't believe I'm going to quote this character, but I think it is apt) as Peter Griffin in Family Guy says about 'the Godfather' "THIS INSISTS UPON ITSELF!" Haha. What does that mean? It means that this film makes a point and then labors on it. Honestly, my greatest frustration was thinking "I get it, move on!" Maybe I don't have the capacity to understand this genius. But I think I did, the film was just a little pretentious and without regard for its viewers. I think Kubrick got a little carried away.

Good, I guess. But great? Meh

Contact (1997)

Its very Hollywood but raises some interesting questions nonetheless

[7/10 · 4 December 2007]

"Contact" tackles a subject hard to make entertaining whilst retaining much intellectual credibility. I think anyone will admit, for this film to work you may have to temporarily place your cynicism aside and just go along for the ride. The central theme in this film is not to explore the scientific possibilities of time or space travel, but question of faith.

The plot and acting itself is quite strong across the board. (Ellie) Jodie Foster gives a passionate performance, as the minority scientists with an unrelenting dream of making contact with another intelligence. McConaughey gives an adequate support role, as the contrasting personality to Foster, someone who believes in faith and in God. James Woods plays the typically cynical military officer. Finally, upon Ellie and her team receiving a convoluted message from intergalactic entity, a media frenzy ensues and ultimately the question of other life in the universe and other ethical consequences are explored. There is numerous cameo appearances from Hollywood celebrities which add to the authenticity of the film. As such this film does veer off and become cheesy and unrealistic at times, but I don't think the film could have worked if it hadn't.

The film provides more questions than answers, and rightly so. Ultimately, whether you believe in God or science, "Contact" proposes that faith is required to believe in both. As science's criticism of religion has been the lack of empirical evidence, it is posed that empirical or tangible evidence is not the currency that makes something true. Science requires the belief in something which cannot be proved, just as religion does. What I took from this film is that we should tolerate each-other's beliefs, no matter how far-fetched they may be from our own perspective.

Iroically, the film seems to set out proving the importance of making contact with an ET, but we learn that is more important to make contact with each-other.

Worthwhile.