Cinetology

All about the cinema

Mad Max 4 confirmed

Last week The Daily Telegraph broke the news that George Miller’s classic Mad Max franchise will spawn a belated sequel, Mad Max: Fury Road. In a major coup for the NSW film industry – following the sobering recent announcement that Green Hornet will not (as originally planned) be shot in Sydney – Premier Nathan Rees has secured production of the fourth Mad Max outing. Miller and Rees, presumably both as happy as pigs in plop, indulged in a round of back patting:
Rees: “The Mad Max films are iconic. In the hands of director George Miller, we will see one of the largest and most ambitious live action films ever made in Australia.”
Miller: “The production agreements have been a long time in the making and Premier Rees and his team have worked like Trojans to ensure this substantial investment comes into this country.”
Sam Worthington and Charlize Theron have been tipped to snag lead parts but the big question is whether Mel Gibson will return to the role that shot him to stardom three decades ago. Miller is tight-lipped and probably unsure himself. He said to journalists last week: “I’m still in the middle of casting, despite all the stuff we see on the net and so on. I don’t even know who the final cast will be.”
Creating new instalments to old film franchises is always risky business. The Star Wars prequels were widely mocked, as was Harrison Ford’s “not as easy as it used to be” Indy shtick in Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Terminator 3 was a stinker and Terminator: Salvation not much better. However, recent years have heralded some success stories:  ol’ Sly Stallone kept the reputation of not one but two action franchises intact with the respectable Rocky Balboa and John Rambo, while Bruce Willis managed to reaffirm the status of his noggin as the golden egg of action cinema in the enjoyable Die Hard 4.0.
The most recent Mad Max movie – Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome – was made 20 (??) years ago, in 1989 (?) Here’s hoping George Miller’s still got it.

George MillerLast week The Daily Telegraph broke the news that George Miller’s classic Mad Max franchise will spawn a belated sequel, Mad Max: Fury Road. In a major coup for the NSW film industry – following the sobering recent announcement that Green Hornet will not (as originally planned) be shot in Sydney – Premier Nathan Rees has secured production of the fourth Mad Max outing. Miller and Rees, presumably both as happy as pigs in plop, indulged in a round of back patting:

Rees: “The Mad Max films are iconic. In the hands of director George Miller, we will see one of the largest and most ambitious live action films ever made in Australia.”

Miller: “The production agreements have been a long time in the making and Premier Rees and his team have worked like Trojans to ensure this substantial investment comes into this country.”

Sam Worthington and Charlize Theron have been tipped to snag lead parts but the big question is whether Mel Gibson will return to the role that shot him to stardom three decades ago. Miller is tight-lipped and probably unsure himself. He said to journalists last week: “I’m still in the middle of casting, despite all the stuff we see on the net and so on. I don’t even know who the final cast will be.”

Creating new instalments to old film franchises is always risky business. The Star Wars prequels were widely mocked, as was Harrison Ford’s “not as easy as it used to be” Indy shtick in Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Terminator 3 was a stinker and Terminator: Salvation not much better. However, recent years have heralded some success stories:  ol’ Sly Stallone kept the reputation of not one but two action franchises intact with the respectable Rocky Balboa and John Rambo, while Bruce Willis managed to reaffirm the status of his noggin as the golden egg of action cinema in the enjoyable Die Hard 4.0.

The most recent Mad Max movie – Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome – was made in 1985. Here’s hoping George Miller’s still got it. Mad Max: Fury Road will begin production next year.

Interview with Phil Grabsky, director of In Search of Beethoven

Phil Grabsky

Phil Grabsky’s widely acclaimed doco In Search of Mozart (2006) was broadcast in over 25 countries, screened theatrically at cinemas around the world, and, in Australia and New Zealand, made it into the top 50 list of all-time highest grossing documentaries (excluding IMAX). The veteran UK filmmaker’s latest feature, In Search of Beethoven, may well be one of the most extensive and exhaustive biographical films ever made about a classical musician. Clocking in at 139 minutes, the film (now playing at selected cinemas) details Beethoven’s life from birth to death, discussing his musical output in immense detail and analyzing the romantic myth that he was a heroic and tormented figure. Grabsky collaborated with some of the world’s most prestigious orchestras to film a whopping 55 separate performances and over 100 interviews. He also sat down for a chat with Cinetology towards the end of a comprehensive international promotional tour.

The subjects that you’ve dealt with, certainly in the last couple of films, inherently carry a high art cache. So when you go to a funding body – either a television funding organisation or a film funding organisation – how much harder is it in your opinion to get a documentary funded about Mozart or Beethoven than it is, say, to get funding for a reality TV program, or something that sells more easily to a wide audience?
When my wife and I decide to pay off our mortgage I will do a series called Pets Falling Over. Or Pets From Hell. Or Pets and Police Chases. I know how to pay off the mortgage and that’s what I’ll have to do.
Is that a promise? Can you guarantee that?
No, I can’t. I’ll tell you a true story though. About 10 years ago a TV station in the UK wanted to work with me to get into factual program, documentaries. They said “we’d like you to develop ideas for us.” So I wrote up three ideas which were quite sensible, useful, valuable ideas. Maybe it was even more than ten years ago because I remember faxing through the proposals. I got on very well with the commissioning editor and as she was going through I said as a joke “If you don’t like any of these proper ideas I will do Pets From Hell.” This is a true story. The phone rang about five minutes later and she said “thanks for those ideas, can you do me a page on Pets From Hell?” I said “it was a joke!” and she said “oh…”
A couple of months later I told the same story to another commissioning editor to another channel and I was saying “oh god, what’s happening to broadcasting? What’s happening to television?” I went through the whole thing about Pets From Hell and he said “that’s a great idea.” I didn’t do the series but there then was a series called Pets From Hell. To answer your question, I’d like to move away from the idea of high art. At yesterday’s screening we had more under 30s, there were youngsters, there were elderly people, there were all sorts. These are dramatic, humorous, visionary, arresting, clear and accessible films…I guess the common link between my films is that I’m interested in creativity, and there is a disjunct between what I am interested in and what television is interested in. They pay lip service to culture and art but if you look at their schedules – and you don’t even need to look that carefully – there are tonnes of location location shows, cooking shoes, reality shows, shows about teenagers put together in different environments so that they’ll basically kiss each other and all the rest of it. That stuff is what television feels it has to do, and it’s partly because the advertisers force them towards that 16 to 24 audience. But I had 16 to 24 year olds in my audience yesterday. You can create an audience. If parents won’t take their kids to see an opera then these people will miss out on one of the great artistic forms. I don’t have a wealthy background, you know…for me opera is just something else. It’s not elite. I’m the same with classical music.
10 min – bit about poetry, delivery method has changed
You’ve now made two very detailed documentaries about classical musicians: In Search of Mozart and In Search of Beethoven. I’m guessing the next one is going to be In Search of Britney Spears?
(laughing) Again, if I need to pay the mortgage. It would be very interesting to get a commission like that. I was just in Hollywood and by the by talked to a manager and an agent. They both saw Beethoven and I liked it and it would be funny if they came to me and said “you know what, we represent X, could you do an In Search Of and approach it in exactly the same way? I mean frankly, even if you did an In Search of Michael Jackson – I don’t want to offend anybody but he still wouldn’t be a patch on Beethoven. So where that leaves Britney Spears..I mean she’s great for what she does but that’s the thing, that’s the point in the way of Beethoven. Just step back for a second and then re-engaged with exactly what he did, it is extraordinary. The music is unbelievable. Michael Jackson, he could dance, he could sing, but be realist about it – he is not Beethoven. He is not Mozart. In fact he is not a patch on many of these great composers, and that is not me being elitist. That is me having a value judgement about extraordinary art.
I have to say, watching In Search of Beethoven, I was very impressed and surprised by how extensive, exhausted and compressive the documentary is and how quickly it moves. You shot 55 performances for the film, you interviewed 100 people. Was this a nightmare to collaborate in the editing room? I imagine the job of editing it would have been monolithic.
It wasn’t a nightmare but it was very very hard. It was creatively extremely challenging but I enjoyed that. We had 150, 200 hours of material. It’s not so much the bulk of the material, it’s more, well, you filmed an entire symphony – which bit do you use? And what are you trying to say at that point and how much weight do you give it? Why have you chosen that particular sonata out of the many that he wrote? Who do you want talking about it? What are they going to say about it? How are you going to visualise it? Are you going to show them playing it or are you going to cut away to location shots or natural images? Again, a parallel with these great artists is that you just work and work and work. It is false to believe that with Mozart and Beethoven it just came out of them. They did work and rework, Beethoven more than Mozart, but Beethoven’s music in some senses is more cerebral. The great thing is I don’t put a deadline on it. My wife tries to put a deadline on but I just keep working at it and working at it and I have to see the thing developing. Sometimes it’s a bit like building a house and suddenly realising that you’ve got the structure wrong, and it’s hard to go back and rebuild the steel frame. Half the job is the editor…he gets what I want to do and he makes it better. I feel a real responsibility to do it well.
Did you set out to make the mother of all Beethoven movies? Because that’s how it feels.
I set out to make the very best Beethoven film that I could. It’s not that I’m competitive with other things that have gone before. I have tried to get hold of other documentaries and feature films and, you know, I will never in a million years make a film as good as Amadeus. Amadeus is brilliant. It’s a work of art. It’s full of mistakes and myths and legend. There isn’t anything like that in Beethoven…There’s a lot of very average work, generally speaking, in television and I think the Beethoven films I saw kind of fell into that category. Mine’s only one approach, you could look at Beethoven in many different ways. I’m willing to be criticised for the approach I take, which is straight forward: begin at the beginning, end at the end. So it wasn’t that I was trying to outdo anybody else, it was just that I wanted to do a really good job. Getting into cinemas is hard work and it doesn’t drive much revenue in our direction. But enthusiasm with which the audience are receiving the film really is fantastic…The audience are more enthusiastic for Beethoven than they were for Mozart, which is interesting and great. It does mean that when I do question and answer sessions I can’t get out of the cinema until 1am.
In terms of theatrical releases for these films, obviously they are never going to open in your massive multiplexes, they are never going to have hundreds of screens. So when you’re raising finances for these films, where does the financial side of the pitch come from? Do you make most of the money back when you air documentaries like In Search of Beethoven on TV or when they are released on DVD?
First of all there’s been some interesting developments with this film, in that in the United States and in Canada we have had interest from chains and we are having to think about it. I love the independent art houses cinemas. They are the place for these types of films. Digital projection and so forth means the quality is going up enormously in two years. These small cinemas are jumping into many gaps – not only are they taking on from where television should but they also offer a fantastic resource for the community. They are places for people to meet.
For me a good independent cinema should have a good cafe, should have good cake. Maybe they should have little concerts from time to time or photographic exhibitions. So there is always some reason to drop in, even without seeing a film. So I really want to support those by having my film play there. On the other hand, if I get a release – which has been talking about in the States and in Canada – in 100 cinemas, and each cinema plays it for a week and it does reasonably well – then that can be quite significant. My experience with distributors however – Australia excluded, because the distributor here is very good – is you often never see a penny. This film still hasn’t really driven much revenue in our direction. So to answer your question, I am still dependent on television presales but it’s not that lucrative, they don’t pay a great deal anymore. Some foundation assistance – I’ve been doing in 20 years, I have some contacts with foundations who support what I do – and DVD. The DVD is becoming increasingly important and our DVDs have extras, we spend a lot of people on them. Six extra languages, deleted scenes, full movements, interviews. Sometimes the DVD is longer than the theatrical version.
I’m assuming that one of the best parts of making the In Search of documentaries is being exposed to so quality music? For such a big appreciator of classic music, gaining access to so many talented musicians must be a real pleasure.
I feel extremely rich because I am in the middle of the world’s greatest orchestras. Literally I’m in front of the conductor and between the conductor and the cellos and the violins. I’m in the middle revolving around taking shots. I’m next to the world’s best pianists. I am two feet from their hands. Actually, that sounds weird.
(laughing)
I mean I am right next to them and I think “what a privilege” and I genuinely want to share that privilege, because you don’t have the chance to spend three years tracking these people down. In the same way you meet lots of filmmakers and want to share your conversations with your audience, I meet musicians and I want to share that. That’s why the film uses close ups and is very kind energetic and the interviewees are talking to the camera – trying to get the audience completely involved in it, as though they have done what I am doing.
I don’t envy my more affluent colleagues who are doing the reality shows. I’ve got someone who does the celebrity island stuff and I’m not interested.
Not interested in collecting pay checks from Pets From Hell? Not even for the mortgage?
Imagine if that was released. “Grabsky formatted Pets from Hell!” People would just think it was funny. I would think it was funny. I’d actually make up t-shirts. People often say to me “well, what have you done that I know?” I say “In Search of Beethoven” and they say “uh-huh.” I saw “The Boy who plays on the Buddhas of Bamiyan” and they say “er, er, er…” Imagine if I said “Pets From Hell.” They’d say “oh yeah! I watch that every Saturday night with my family! That’s fantastic!” That would be dispiriting.

You’ve recently travelled through the U.S., Canada and New Zealand promoting In Search of Beethoven. How long have you been on the publicity circuit for?

I feel like Noah actually – 40 days. Pure chance, but it’s a 40 day trip, which is the longest I’ve been away from my family ever. Even when I go to Afghanistan to film, which I do more or less once a year, that’s usually only two and a half weeks. It’s not enough to make a film, which is two years work. You’ve got to distribute it. You’ve got to put the hours in and actually get out there. I quite rightly have been very protective of my family time on previous films and that probably does have an impact on how successful the film is. With (In Search of) Mozart I came and did Australia and New Zealand. With Beethoven I felt I wanted to get out there and really push it and do a lot of interviews, a lot of press – talking to distributors, talking to publicists, newspapers, blog sites, people who collate all the information and the charts. Maybe it’s a lesson from studying Beethoven, who is not dissimilar to Mozart in that they were commercial animals. They are absolutely not liking the music for pleasure, or because they have to. It’s not flowing out of them and then someone else takes it away and distributes it, sells it, performs it. Mozart virtually wrote nothing that wasn’t for a commission and Beethoven was a little bit different but not enormously so. You have to understand economics and commerce to understand why they wrote what they wrote, when they wrote what they wrote.

Reaching the point at which you’re able to pick and choose between jobs is a great thing, isn’t it? Especially in your industry.

Yeah, but there comes a point where your pride just takes over. And it may not be the most sensible thing to do financially and commercially but you just say no, I’m not doing it. You’re not insulting me. I think if you understand that the things Beethoven and Mozart most wanted was to be respected, to be treated with respect, then you’re starting to uncover a key into their biography. And again I think that’s true of creative people today. If I go into a broadcaster for example and they offer me 40 percent of what I did the film for last time – and bearing in mind I’m a writer, producer, director, cinematographer, so I’m already coming in cheap if you like, doing four roles – then I feel they are being disrespectful and at that point I walk out. If they are respectful and say ”look we’ve lost our major funder, would you consider doing it for a little bit less?” and they are treating me with respect then I’ll talk to them. If I feel they’re just trying to rip me off, I’m off. And that’s exactly how it was 250 years ago. Read More »

Into the Shadows film review: talkin’ Aussie film blues

Into the ShadowsGreen lightMany of the issues surrounding the ever-beleaguered state of the Australian film industry are encapsulated in Into the Shadows, a dense, compelling and cheaply produced documentary from debut writer/ director Anthony Scarano. Essentially a compilation of talking heads, Scarano collaborates an impressive cross-section of viewpoints from exhibitors, distributors, actors, writers, directors and other industry folk keen to chip in their two bob. The film canvasses a broad array of issues but narrows the debate by focusing particularly on the decline of independent cinemas in Australia, discussing the closure of venues such as the Lumiere in Melbourne, the Valhalla in Sydney and Electric Shadows in Canberra, in the context of the rise of multiplex giants such as Village and Hoyts.

Film aficionados will be alternating between nodding their heads in approval and shaking them in dismay at some of the anecdotes and analyses on offer. Memorable moments include one wag’s description of the session time screens at multiplex cinemas – “the airline indicator board,” as he sardonically puts it – and the weary words of Kenny director Clayton Jacobson, who explains that even though his film was cheaply made and was a huge player at the box office (generating more than $5 million) the experience nonetheless left him $250,000 in debt. That’s as good a summary as any of the perilous playing field local filmmakers inhabit.

Into the Shadows offers no clear-cut solutions, of course, but Scarano provides a good whack of optimism, seeing hope for the future partly by reflecting on stalwarts of the past who fought tooth and nail for venues to screen their films. Crucially, Scarano keeps a brisk pace and if in doubt simply moves on to the next interviewee. Into the Shadows is probably only for film appreciators, but for those interested in the business side of cinema-going in Australia it deserves to be considered required viewing.

Into the Shadows’ Australian theatrical release date: October 22, 2009.

The Box film review: trading it all for what’s in the…

The Box posterOrange lightWatch the trailer for The Box and you’ll swear it’s gonna play like a by-the-numbers thriller dressed up with a careful-what-you-wish-for premise reminiscent of W.W. Jacobs’ classic short story The Monkey’s Paw. But brace yourself for something entirely different: an experience simultaneously compelling, befuddling, audacious and frustratingly disjointed.

The director is Richard Kelly, whose brilliantly conceived debut Donnie Darko slowly set the cult film scene on fire following its release in 2001. The Box revolves around the plight of parents Norma (Cameron Diaz) and Arthur (James Marsden) who live a peaceful-but-that’s-about-to-change lower-middle class suburban existence with their young son. After a bout of bad news – Norma needs an operation on her foot, Arthur gets passed up for promotion and their son’s school fees are set to increase dramatically – the family land ass first in financially troubling waters.

A mysterious package arrives at their front door and yes, it’s a box. Inside this box is a device that looks, one must assume unintentionally, very much like the popular toy ‘the bullshit buzzer.’ Essentially it’s a red button waiting, beckoning, just longing, to be pressed. A mysterious stranger arrives to explain what it is; his name is Arlington Steward (Frank Langella) and he’s dapperly dressed but creepy looking, primarily because he has – but try not to hold it against him, cuz deep down he’s probably a great guy – only half a face (it was burnt off in a fire). Arlington explains that if the bullshit buz – um, button is pressed, two things will happen: “first, someone somewhere in the world who you don’t know will die. Second, you will receive a payment of one million dollars.” And so the madness begins. Read More »

A slither more info about Lars von Trier’s Melancholia

Lars von TrierLast week I blogged aboout the next project from legendary cult director Lars von Trier – a US$7 million “psychological drama-cum-disaster movie” titled Melancholia. I noted that nothing is known about the story other than it “takes its name from ‘Planet Melancholia,’ an enormous planet that supposedly lingers precariously close to earth” and “it won’t be an alien invasion flick.”

Last night I spoke with von Trier about his most recent film AntiChrist (released November 26 in Australia) as well as his notorious reputation in the film industry and his ongoing battle with depression. I can’t publish the interview, because it’s for a story for an upcoming edition of Spook Magazine (which, if you haven’t read yet, you damn well should) but I can tell you that I pressed von Trier for a little more information about Melancholia, and here’s what he said:

“I don’t know very much more about it. It’s a film about two sisters, I can tell you, and a planet called Melancholia. It’s not gonna be a SCI-FI in the sense of a lot of nuclear weapons, you know, being detonated and people in space crashes and such. That’s not how it’s going to be. It’s going to be a small storyline like AntiChrist with a few people in it.”

I asked the hard-hitting director of downers such as Dancer in the Dark and Breaking the Waves about his (taking the piss) comment about the film – “no more happy endings” – and he replied with:

“Yeah…I’ve been too kind on the audience until now.”

Astro Boy film review: new-fangled retro fun

Astro Boy posterGreen lightAll too well conditioned by cinema’s dispiriting habit of transforming old school animated TV shows into retch-a-rific buckets of movie lard enjoyed only by the thoroughly forgiving, the morbidly curious and the criminally tasteless, I must admit to not having very high hopes – along with everybody else in the sane world – for Astro Boy’s new-fangled big screen reboot. The cinematic forays of his retro toon colleagues have, after all, set almost unbelievably low standards (think Garfield, think Inspector Gadget, think Scooby Doo), though this time around the vision comes not from Hollywood but from Hong Kong-based animation studio Imagi which is, as this movie amply demonstrates, a very good thing.

Studded with a particularly impressive voice cast (Nicolas Cage, Donald Sutherland, Samuel L Jackson, Freddie Highmore, Charlize Theron, Bill Nighy, Nathan Lane…) and a gleaming CGI surface that looks like the cinema screen has been hit by an electronic rainbow, the English version of Astro Boy nevertheless arrives in Australian cinemas conspicuously bereft of fanfare, hype or anything vaguely resembling anticipation (the Tupperware party at my place on the weekend generated more of a stir). Where is the excessive marketing budget, the media saturation, the clandestine advertising stooges paid to talk about Astro Boy’s return on street corners? Have I by sheer happenstance missed the TV spots, the bus shelter ads, the happy meal combos, the awful ubiquitousness of a well-funded PR blitz? Or could it be that Hoyts are convinced they have a dud on their hands and just don’t have their hearts into winning public favour again for the little boy with rockets for legs and a shiny blue energy chip instead of a heart?

Pity, because Astro Boy is a shocking movie, in the sense that the one massive shock is it’s actually quite good: fast, funny, tongue in cheek, and unafraid to communicative deep themes to young audiences – grief, bereavement, loss, finding one’s place, what it means to be humane etcetera – without over simplifying or over sentimentalising the material. It also dedicates a surprising amount of time developing Astro Boy’s interpersonal relationships. Read More »

The Final Destination film review: gnarly third dimensional thrills

The Final Destination Green lightThe term ‘3D horror movie’ may not engender great faith among art lovers or film aficionados but for a select breed of laughers and screamers it sure sounds like a helluva way to spend a night out – an invitation to don those new and improved 3D shades and hoot and squeal through a couple of knee-slappin’ hours at the cinema, where good looking (typically American) young bods get slain, torn and mulched, miscellaneous bits of their anatomy hurled out of the screen and into a space perilously close – or so it seems – to your eyeballs.

If the genre can be justified in any way – if there is a point to it, a purpose, a reason for its existence, a raison d’être – 3D horror movies can be justified as carnival-esque entertainment cooked up for people with dark senses of humour, strong stomachs and a sick lust for watching the futility of life depicted via the merciless visual deconstruction (read: slaughtering) of hapless fictional others. In other words, people like me.

Of course, typical American mainstream horror/slasher movies (3D or nay) tend to be aggravatingly by-the-numbers. The actors often linger pathetically on the screen like carcasses waiting to be slain, the scares come on crassly via sudden nerve-pounding cataclysms on the sound track and pace, timing and tempo are words clearly outside the average director’s vocabulary.

The latter criticism is perhaps the most pertinent to the genre, at least in terms of pure entertainment value, and thankfully doesn’t apply to writer/director David R. Ellis’s The Final Destination. This diabolically fun no-brainer is fast, lean and mean trashy entertainment, the kind of guilty pleasure for which the term was coined. It’s currently screening in both 2D and 3D formats, but here’s the inside word: see the latter or don’t bother.

The essential difference between The Final Destination series and other similarly grisly genre pics is simple: the storyline has no tangible villain. There is no salivating yeti, no chainsaw wielding hic, no Krueger-like menace chasing the victims and chopping them into pieces. It is vaguely reminiscent of director Colin Eggleston’s 1978 Aussie thriller The Long Weekend, in which natures turns against the characters, but in this franchise man made inventions wreak the carnage. Read More »

Mixed reactions to Where the Wild Things Are

Where the Wild Things AreReviews are pouring in for director Spike Jonze’s much-anticipated adaptation of Maurice Sendak’s children’s book Where the Wild Things Are, which opens today in the U.S. The film is sitting on 71% at Rotten Tomatoes, a reasonably high score but it’s pretty clear even at this early stage that it’s not going to be a smash hit with critics. Below are snippets from some reviews.

On the positive:

“For all the money spent, the film’s success is best measured by its simplicity and the purity of its innovation. Jonze has filmed a fantasy as if it were absolutely real, allowing us to see the world as Max sees it, full of beauty and terror.”
Peter Travers, Rolling Stone (full review)

The result is an involving experience for all but the most fidgety children and an opportunity for parents to enjoy (rather than endure) a motion picture with their offspring.”
James Berardinelli, ReelViews (full review)

“With Sendak’s blessing, and with the aid of writer Dave Eggers, who teamed on the screenplay, Jonze has transformed the iconic picture book into a satisfyingly moody, melancholy, madcap live-action romp.”
Steven Rea, Philadelphia Inquirer (full review)

“The beasts are recognizable from Sendak’s pages, but Jonze gives them names and distinct personalities that connect to aspects of Max’s psyche and to the people he loves. (Freud would adore this movie.) ”
Mary F. Pols, TIME Magazine (full review)

“I can’t speak for the kids, but I would rate Spike Jonze & Dave Eggers’s adaptation of Maurice Sendak’s 40-page children’s picture book up there with Up and Wall•E as topping the recent renaissance in children’s movies.”
Peter Keough, Boston Phoenix (full review)

On the negative:

“Director Spike Jonze’s sharp instincts and vibrant visual style can’t quite compensate for the lack of narrative eventfulness that increasingly bogs down this bright-minded picture.”
Todd McCarthy, Variety (full review)

“Jonze has produced a gorgeous $80 million Muppet Movie in the shape of an art film that will bore kids as much as it will depress adults.”
Edward Douglas, ComingSoon.net (full review)

“Something doesn’t quite jell, and no matter how gorgeous each set piece is, it doesn’t always entirely add up to a complete and satisfying narrative. I couldn’t help but think, from time to time, how on earth were these guys allowed to make this movie?”
Sara Vilkomerson, New York Observer (full review)

“I have a vision of eight-year-olds leaving the movie in bewilderment. Why are the creatures so unhappy?”
David Denby, New Yorker (full review)

Where the Wild Things Are will hit Australian screens December 10. Read my post discussing the trailer here.

Trailer Watch: A Nightmate on Elm Street

A Nightmare on Elm Street 2010Jackie Earle Haley (aka Rorschach from Watchmen) will fill some very big shoes and a very iconic red and green jumper in music vid-cum-feature director Samuel Bayer’s upcoming remake of Wes Craven’s one-two-you-know-who’s-coming-for-you horror classic A Nightmare on Elm Street. Haley will be the first actor to play gnarly dream invader Freddy Krueger other than vet Robert Englund, who has donned the Krueger garb, scissor hands and grisly makeup in eight Nightmare on Elm Street flicks (from 1984 to 2003) as well as a TV spinoff. I wonder what he thinks of the remake and whether he’s happy to finally hang up his shingle. One assumes he had no choice.

The trailer (watch it below) begins with Haley/Krueger sprinting down darkened industrial-looking streets as carloads of people chase him into a decrepit looking building. “What-do-you-think-I-did-I-didn’t-do-anything!” he hollers as one of his assailers throws a lit petrol can into the building; fires surround him as he takes off his jacket, revealing that iconic stripy jumper. When the trailer cuts away from the fires – this is obviously the scene, for those not in the know, in which Krueger transforms from a man to a ghoul – an even scarier image flashes onto the screen: blood red text reading ‘from producer Michael Bay.’ In other words, there’s gonna be at least a couple of almighty explosions.

A Nightmare on Elm Street will arrive in cinemas sometime next year.

Von Trier’s next project confirmed

Lars von TrierFollowing on from his grisly festival favourite AntiChrist (due to open theatrically in Australia November 26), rabblerousing Danish director Lars von Trier’s next project – announced by Variety last week – will be a disaster movie titled Melancholia. Or, more specifically, a “psychological drama-cum-disaster movie,” which sounds much more in line with von Trier’s oeuvre. Currently nothing is known plot-wise bar two essential details: a) the title takes its name from ‘Planet Melancholia,’ an enormous planet that supposedly lingers precariously close to earth, and b) it won’t be an alien invasion flick.

In a statement about the film von Trier gave a bizarre and succinct description of what to expect – “no more happy endings!” – which, coming from the director of extremes downers such as Breaking the Waves, Dancer in the Dark, Dogville and Manderlay, surely meant he was taking the piss. Melancholia’s budget has been allocated around US$7 million, fairly generous for certain kinds of psychological dramas but pittance for a disaster flick. Who knows what that crazy Dane will deliver. The cynic in me suggests it will be like much of his work: glum, mean spirited and pointlessly provocative.

Julie and Julia film review: under-cooked, lacking flavour, lacklustre ingredients…

Julie and Julia Red lightAny film explicitly about or involving food or cooking inevitably challenges critics to sharpen their analytical knives in the hope of carving up a culinary themed zinger or two: one might say, for example, that No Reservations was “a light snack not a three course meal”; What’s Cooking “a flavourless fable as hard to swallow as a piece of tough turkey”; Chocolat “a candy that’s not entirely fresh but still digestible” and Takeaway “a padded-out patty of greasy comedy crap bludgeoned so hard with the spatula of bad taste that one can’t wait for it to come out the other end so it can be flushed down the annals of cinematic sewerage” (that one’s all mine).

A pretty lame way of “reviewing” films, really, since it’s more about the critic’s wit or lack thereof than any insightful rambles or vaguely analytical discussion of virtues and vices but still, a food themed movie presents the kind of opportunity your average film writer can hardly pass up. It’s a lot easier than, say, lampooning in such a way a movie about computers – i.e. the producers forgot to read their error reports; the cinematography is as visually appealing as an all night session on MS Dos; blah blah blah.

With this in mind, and in the context of a discussion of writer/director Nora Ephron’s Julie and Julia – which centres around two unprepossessing chefs who write about cooking, one for a book and the other for a blog – let’s get the crappy food analogies out of the way first. There was potential here for a tasty dish but the script lacks flavour and the direction lacks bite; the dramatic elements simmer lazily in the pot while the comedy flaps about like a half-dead fish; the film is more airy soufflé than hearty meal; and so on and so forth. Bored yet? Me too. Let’s move on. Read More »

Adrien Brody signs onto Predators

Predators

The upcoming Robert Rodriguez produced Predator prequel – simply titled Predators – has a new (Oscar bona fide) cast member: the talented Adrien Brody, who took home a little gold man in 2003 for his powerful performance in Polanksi’s The Pianist. Brody will star as a mercenary alien hunter in a role said to be similar to Arnold Schwarzenegger’s chunky-armed no-guff one-liner machine Dutch in John McTiernan’s 1987 classic. Other confirmed cast members include Alice Braga, Walt Goggins, Oleg Taktarov, Louiz Ozawa and Rodrigeuz favourite Danny Trejo who, according to IMDB, has been a very busy bee, with 23 films to his name released this year or next. Predators has been ambitiously slated to open in America next July. That’s only 10 months away, so they better get crackin’.

Box office blitz for Mao’s Last Dancer

Mao's Last DancerThe box office receipts for Mao’s Last Dancer, director Bruce Beresford’s tribute to the life and career of Chinese ballet prodigy Li Cunxin, have vastly surpassed even the most optimistic predictions and it’s now clear – only a week into its theatrical release – that the film will be Australian cinema’s smash hit of 2009. Chalking up a whopping $4,336,115 in its opening week, Mao’s Last Dancer is already the highest grossing locally made film of the year and – hello history books – has generated the fourth highest grossing opening week of any Australian film ever made.

Here are Australian cinema’s top ten opening week earners:

1. Happy Feet ($12, 128, 003)
2. Australia ($9,686,400)
3. Moulin Rouge ($5,242,028)
4. Mao’s Last Dancer ($4,336,115)
5. The Dish ($4,136,880)
6. Crocodile Dundee (3,933,763)
7. Ned Kelly ($3,439,557)
8. Babe ($3,417,604)
9. Crocodile Dundee in LA ($3,079,948)
10. The Wog Boy ($2,655,953)

It’s no surprise that none of the top four films feel, well, Australian, with the possible exception of Baz Lurhmann’s spectacular turkey, which mined a seemingly infinite stock of national stereotypes but felt far larger, grander and, for want of a better word, more blockbuster-like than any Australian film before it. Mao’s Last Dancer isn’t even based in Australia; neither for that matter is Moulin Rouge or Happy Feet. But on these matters it’s always a question of where the moolah comes from.

Read my review of Mao’s Last Dancer here.

QT talks Kill Bill 3

Kill BillThe ever loquacious Quentin Tarantino is never short on conversation and loves to chinwag with the best of them so it’s easy (and probably recommended) to dismiss most of what he says as the disjointed rambles of a motor mouth pop culture geek forever riding the crest of some indeterminable high. But when he talks about certain things – say, upcoming projects he plans to direct – people sure as heck take notice, and such was the case when QT’s blabber on an Italian TV talk show last week spilled into discussion of another Kill Bill sequel. On the show Tarantino answered “maybe” to an Inglorious Basterds prequel, “it’ll never happen” to a Pulp Fiction sequel and, on the subject of Kill Bill, “the Bride will fight again!”

Here’s what he said:

“I gotta wait a couple years because I wanted 10 years to pass. There are two reasons why. One, I think Uma and I needed a 10-year break cause the first one was so hard. And second, I really love the character. I think she deserves a 10-year release of no fighting and being with her daughter Bebe, just of peace. I put her through a lot in those first two movies, I want her to have a nice, peaceful life for 10 years. I want her to set up her store, and have some peace. But after ten years we’ll make her fight again.”

So there you have it, straight from the horse’s (motor) mouth: Beatrix Kiddo (aka The Bride) will once again slice and dice her way across the silver screen. Suggestions have been floating around that the storyline may involve the revenge of Nikki Green, the four-year-old who witnessed the death of her assassin mother Copperhead in the first Kill Bill movie.

Tarantino said 2014 is the most likely year of release for Kill Bill 3. Or, as it could alternatively be titled, Killing Someone Other Than Bill Because Bill is Already Dead.

Mao’s Last Dancer film review: pulling the right moves

Mao's Last Dancer

Green lightLike most a-star-is-born biopics Bruce Beresford’s Mao’s Last Dancer affectionately charters the protagonist’s journey from an undiscovered hopeful to a celebrated artist – in this case from Chinese ballet prodigy Li Cunxin’s upbringing in rural China to his acclaimed dance career in America.  And like most films about dancers it accentuates – consciously or not – the sheer physical stagnancy of the movie-going experience, the audience inadvertently made to feel like blogs of lard fixed to a seat. We watch, in between bites of a choc top, swigs of coke and fistfuls of popcorn a lifetime of exercise, hard work and body-flailing condensed into two hours of triumph over adversity, practice makes perfect, dreams becoming reality and all that inspirational stuff that happens, or could happen, or (let’s face it) could happen but probably won’t when you’re somewhere other than a darkened auditorium watching another person’s success story.

Mao’s Last Dancer made me feel so lazy I went to the gym for a workout afterwards. More disconcertingly it also made me want to slip on some tights and shake my caboose, and anyone who sees me getting jiggy with it are likely to realise – after collecting their jaw from the floor and decreeing that there is no god – that my style is, shall we say, not ballet, but then again Li Cunxin probably doesn’t write film reviews so, um, each to their own. One can always fall back on the infallible logic of Douglas Adams’s infinite probability drive: somewhere, right now, someone just like Li Cunxin is watching a movie about a petulant blogger who cracks the big time. Or, if not the big time, at least gets a couple of random comments on his post. But I digress.

With Mao’s Last Dancer Beresford has made an uplifting film told with little bling or flair, a glossy but not over-celebratory treatment that feels believable enough but exists in that shiny alternate cinematic universe where real life tangents either fit neatly into the necessary rhythms required for interesting storytelling or are stuffed in regardless – either way it’s the same for audiences unfamiliar with the true life story and can’t distinguish between what loosely happened and what is pure fantasy and folly, which is just about everyone. The plot (based on Cunxin’s best-selling memoir) plays out like Billy Elliott crossed with Dragon: The Bruce Lee Story: Cunxin (Chi Cao) comes to the U.S. because of his prodigy-like dancing abilities and is seduced by the American way of life, digging his heels in by finding a girlfriend, chowing into greasy food, generating nods of approval from his teachers and standing ovations from his audiences and generally accruing the sort of vaguely self-indulgent lifestyle impermissible in the Chinese motherland. Read More »