Movie Review - Hot Tub Time Machine

Genre: Comedy

Director: Steve Pink
Starring: John Cusack, Craig Robinson, Rob Corddry, Clark Duke, Chevy Chase
Running Time: 100 minutes (plus trailers)

“It’s the eighties…we had like Reagan and AIDS”

Given that I wasn’t welcomed into this world until towards the end of 1991, I was a little worried that some of the humour in Hot Tub Time Machine, a film about four guys who accidentally travel back in time to 1986 would end up going over my head. Sure I can appreciate a joke about Michael Jackson being black even if I don’t actually remember it, but were references to Synthpop and The Karate Kid really going to have much of an impact on an mp3-listening facebook-profile-updating post threat of communism educated individual such as myself? Thankfully, the humour in Hot Tub Time Machine is carried by the chemistry and comedic timing of its four leads, whose schlubby, selfish interactions reflect the kind of people and friendships that exist regardless of passing trends in music and fashion, and who would have made me laugh no matter what the time period.

As the sun dawns on the year 2010, we are introduced to three guys who are down on their luck. Adam (played by former 80s teen sensation John Cusack) has been dumped and robbed by his girlfriend right under the nose of his twenty-three year old video game obsessed nephew Jacob (Clark Duke) who lives in his basement. Nick (Craig Robinson), once a promising musician, is now stuck in a dead end job, too afraid to confront his wife about her ongoing extramarital affair. And finally there’s Lou, still boozing and drugging it up like he was in the prime of his youth, but whose obnoxious personality and incessant substance abuse has alienated him from all of his friends.

After an especially spectacular bender lands Lou in hospital, Nick and Adam decide the best way to protect him from himself is to head up to Kodiak Valley, the ski resort where the three of them once partied like it was 1986. So with Jacob in tow, they cram into a car and heap up the mountain, only to discover that, like them, Kodiak Valley has seen better days; the once raging party town is now a tourist wasteland. In a last ditch effort to keep themselves entertained, the foursome down a copious number of alcoholic beverages and stumble into the resorts mysterious glowing hot-tub. And it is at this point that their attempts to relieve their glory days really take off.

Hot Tub Time Machine hits all the plot-points you would expect a time-travel comedy to hit; Adam is given the chance to take another shot at “the girl who got away”, Lou finds himself up against an old rival, while Jacob is just trying to ensure his own conception. There’s also a scene in which the gang use knowledge of future sporting results to make a quick buck, a recurring gag centered a bellhop that we know is destined to lose him arms, as well as references a plenty to both eighties culture and modern events and technology that have the residents of ’86 scratching their heads. None of these concepts are especially groundbreaking, but the jokes still manage to land more often than not.

But despite the ridiculous premise of Hot Tub Time Machine, a lot of the best comedy comes from the minor, free-flowing interactions between the main characters, whose petty squabbling and bitching feels far more genuine and believable than the large than life antics of the boys from last year’s breakout comedy smash The Hangover. As the central “asshole” character, Rob Corddry as Lou probably gets the most outlandish laugh out loud moments, but Cusack, Robinson and Duke are all equally entertaining in my opinion, and their arguments reminded me of some of my own friendships (which is akin to saying that if you’ve ever had a conversation with a mate that descended into “you’re gay”. “No, you’re gay”, then this movie is probably for you).

The movie also features a great soundtrack of 80s hits, plenty of gross-out gags as well as a healthy dose of self referential humour via Chevy Chases’ appearance as the all-knowing hot-tub repair man and Craig Robinsons utterance of the film’s title directly into the camera (which was hands down my favourite part of the movie). Comedy is probably the most subjective genre and so I always find it the most difficult to critique – this is undoubtedly a very immature film. But like I said; I was born less than nineteen years ago, so I guess I’m pretty immature too. And this movie and its outstanding cast made me laugh more consistently than I have in the theatre for quite some time.



Hot Tub Time Machine is in cinemas now

1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die: "Deliverance" (1972)

The 1001 Movie Club is a conglomerate of film bloggers inspired by the phenomenal book 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die, the title of which is fairly self explanatory. A tome of cinematic information and recommendation, it is a bible for movie buffs, and the 1001 Movie Club is made up of people dedicated to watching and reviewing the acclaimed films that can be found within its pages. Be sure to visit the club’s site where the reviews will be collected and an aggregate score bestowed, and if you are so inclined, feel free to join in on the fun.

DELIVERANCE (1972)
Genre: Drama
Director: John Boorman
Starring: Jon Voight, Burt Reynolds, Ned Beatty, Ronny Cox
Running Time: 109 minutes

"Insurance? I never been insured in my life. There's no risk"

John Boorman’s infamous film Deliverance tells the story of four white collar workers who find themselves fighting for their lives about being attack on a caning trip by a couple of vicious hillbillies. It’s a frightening film, but it’s not a horror movie. It’s a tense film, but it’s not really a thriller either. It even has elements of unpleasant humour, but it is most certainly not a comedy. I've classified it above as a drama, but even that broad term somehow fails to do it justice. A tale of violence, cowardice and compromise, Deliverance is almost impossible to summarize; the best I can do is to call it a brutally human story about evil and mans reaction when faced with it.

I thought Deliverance was a very good film, despite the fact that it often seemed rather dated. The acting isn’t all that great and the sound quality (at least on my copy of the film) was very poor. But it is the actions of the characters in the film that make it so engrossing. We watch as these normal men do things they would never normally do; as they compromise their morals in order to cope with their horrific situation, we find ourselves wondering if we would do the same. One complaint I do have of the film is that it’s not long enough; we see them make these choices, but I would have liked to see the lasting effect their guilt has on them, something that is only hinted at in the movies haunting final scene.

The other terrific thing about the film is a mood it is able to maintain, something that I credit to two major aspects of the production. First we have the setting. The gorgeous yet isolated Georgian woods seem fraught with peril even when there is none; as the unsuspecting travelers made their way down the river, I was reminded of many a Vietnam War films, and could sense the danger lurking in the tree. The other thing that one must mention when discussing the film is the music; the use of banjo, particularly in the iconic main theme, is both farcical and terrifying; sometimes laconic and other times frenzied, a tense and creepy yet incredibly catchy set of chords that can signify violence, fear or any number of other emotions. For such a minimalistic score, it is bizarre how effective it is.

I am always fascinated by Lord of the Flies style story; about the depths that men will sink to when cut off from society. I mentioned how Deliverance reminded me of Vietnam War films; personally, I think it would make an excellent double feature with Michael Cimino’s The Deer Hunter, as both films lay bare a brutal and terrifying side of human behavior. Cimino’s movie definitely benefits from far better performances; the expression of fear on DeNiro’s face is far more palpable that on Voight’s. Even so, Deliverance is a film that should be sought out. I do want to clarify; I’ve talked about the compromising of morals a lot of this review. Just to be clear, the actions of the hillbillies are obviously horrific. But personally, I had far more questions of the victims than I did of the perpetrators by the time the end credits roled.

Score
8/10

So does it deserve to be in the book?
Yes. Honestly, it's not like any film I've ever really seen. From a production standpoint it's far from perfect, but the question it raises for me make me suspect that I will be pondering it for a very long time.

Check out what the rest of the club thinks of Deliverance here.

Movie Review - Sherlock Holmes

Genre: Action, Mystery
Director: Guy Ritchie
Starring: Robert Downey Jr., Jude Law, Rachel McAdams, Mark Strong, Eddie Marsan
Running Time: 128 minutes (plus trailers)

"The game's afoot"

Cementing his position as one of the most reliable and entertaining actors in Hollywood, Robert Downey Jr. headlines Guy Ritchie’s action packed revival of Arthur Conan Doyle’s famous detective Sherlock Holmes. When it comes to reinventing franchises, there seem to be two paths that a director can take. You can either go dark and gritty (think Casino Royale) or action packed and spectacular (last year’s Star Trek). Now don’t get me wrong, I like Daniel Craig’s Bond as much as everyone else, but with a character like Holmes (and more importantly, a leading man like Downey) Ritchie mercifully chose the latter option for his reimagining, providing us with a humourous, action packed adventure film featuring one of the most entertaining rogues to hit the big screen since Tony Stark in Iron Man.

Now remind me…who was it who played Tony Stark in Iron Man?

Months after Holmes and Watson foil his dastardly plots to murder young women with sorcery; the sinister Lord Blackwood is executed. This should be the end of the matter; especially for Watson (Jude Law), who is on the verge of leaving the detective business (and his home at 221B Baker Street) following his engagement. But then three days after he is declared dead, Blackwood’s coffin is shattered and his body disappears. Thus the duo are back on the case, racing against the clock to uncover the truth behind Blackwood’s apparent resurrection before he can do something generically evil. I’m pretty sure it was take over the world…yeah, let’s go with that. Complicating matters is the reappearance of the beautiful Irene Adler, the one woman to ever beat Holmes at his own game, whose mysterious employer has a whole other plan for the famous detective.

The thing that makes Sherlock Holmes so incredibly fun to watch is its cast. Blackwood is played with wonderfully sliminess by Mark Strong, whilst Rachel McAdams is breezy and seductive as Holmes mercenary female foil. But the real chemistry is not between Downey and McAdams, but between Downey and Jude Law; their strained partnership is the backbone of the film. Watson’s more grounded character juxtaposed with Holmes larger than life arrogance is reminiscent of Orland Bloom and Johnny Depp in the Pirates of the Caribbean films, or Jackie Chan and Owen Wilson in Shanghai Noon (and indeed Ritchie’s film shares many a similarity with the sequel, Shanghai Knights). The friendship between Holmes and Watson is both touching and endlessly funny, and Downey and Law are a great on screen team.

Guy Ritchie first film, the 1998 British gangster flick Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels remains one of my favourite movies of all time (I’m one of those people who thinks it’s superior to his follow up Snatch). Either way, following Snatch his career went well and truly into the toilet with the abysmal Swept Away and the even worse Revolver. Many people have attributed his directorial downfall to his marriage with Madonna; his first movie after the divorce was 2008’s mildly entertaining RocknRolla. In my opinion, Holmes is the best movie the director has made since his debut. The film-making isn’t as distinctively “Ritchie” as Lock Stock, but there’s still far more directorial and editing flair than you might see from directors for hire like Stephen Sommers or Brett Ratner, and the studio would do well to keep Ritchie at the helm of this franchise. The other big name to keep attached (other than the cast, obviously) is Hans Zimmer, whose score (which I could best describe as “barnyard”) suits the film perfectly.

Now some Holmes fans might have a problem with some of the liberties Ritchie and the screenwriters have taken with these beloved characters. Gone is the deerstalker cap, replaced by Morpheus style sunglasses and a full length leather coat, sending the very clear message that “this ain’t your Fathers Holmes, er…dude”. This is not Hound of the Baskervilles; it’s an action movie, with gunfights, chase scenes and even some slow motion (some might go so far as to say too much slow motion). Even so, Holmes is still Holmes, and so we still get plenty of entertaining speculation and postulating from Downey, and I was pleasantly surprised by the films conclusion, less an action scene and more of a classic mystery reveal, as Holmes deduces exactly how Blackwood has pulled off his plan. This film might outrage the biggest of Holmes aficionados, but to casual fans or complete newcomers (such as myself), this movie is very entertaining.

For me and probably a lot of other people of my age, this is our first real experience with Sherlock Holmes. I’ve never read any of the books and I’ve seen perhaps one or two BBC versions of the character if I’m lucky. So when I think of Sherlock Holmes I don’t think of Basil Rathbone or Jeremy Brett, just as the name Bruce Wayne doesn’t make me think Adam West. Sherlock Holmes to me is Robert Downey Jr. and his leather coat, and Guy Ritchie and his stylish directorial eye. Just as J.J. Abrams made my Star Trek and Christopher Nolan made my Batman, Ritchie has made my Sherlock Holmes. This is the Sherlock Holmes for the 21st century and it is sleek, sexy and spectacular. Bring on the sequel.



Sherlock Holmes is in cinemas now

Movie Review - Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs

Genre: Children’s Animation, Comedy
Director: Phil Lord & Chris Miller
Starring: Bill Hader, Anna Faris, Bruce Campbell, James Caan, Andy Samberg, Mr. T, Neil Patrick Harris
Running Time: 81 minutes (plus trailers)

“You may have seen a meteor shower, but I bet you've never seen a shower "meatier" than this”

Flint Lockwood always dreamed of becoming a great inventor. Spray on shoes, flying cars, walking televisions and rat/bird hybrids are just a few of the poorly conceived creations he has unleashed on the small island town of Swallow Falls, located under the ‘A’ in Atlantic Ocean. But despite his best efforts Flint has never been able to come up with an invention that can help solve the town’s reliance on sardines or that could win him the affection of his father. But all that is about to change.

The Flint Lockwood Diatonic Super Mutating Dynamic Food Replicator (conveniently abbreviated to FLDSMDFR) can transform water into food, and after Flint accidentally fires the device into the upper atmosphere, food begins to rain down from the sky. The phenomenon initially makes Flint a hero and attracts the attention of a fetching young weather intern from New York. But as the portions begins to grow rapidly in size, the food begins to seem less like mana from heaven and more like a biblical apocalypse and it may be up to Flint shut down the machine before Swallow Falls is completely...devoured (see what I did there?)

Believe it or not, Cloudy with a Chance of Meatball is a very funny movie, with plenty of gags both visual and spoken that kept me grinning the whole time. In fact come to think of it, I don’t think I’ve laughed out loud more times during a movie this year. The humour isn’t exactly sophisticated (and I wouldn’t exactly count myself as having a particularly sophisticated sense of humour anyway), but this movie is certainly a lot cleverer than the advertising material might suggest. In addition to the humour, the second half of the film brings a fair share of genuinely exciting action, with people dodging spaghetti twisters and watermelon asteroids left and right, and Flint’s monkey Steve going mono e mono with some very aggressive gummy bears.

The movie looks terrific. In terms of beauty it doesn’t come close to WALL-E or even Up, but it’s still incredibly detailed animation and the whole concept of food falling from the sky makes for some wonderful and often very funny visuals. And the final showdown in which Flint must navigate a flying car through a giant food storm whilst the citizens of Swallow Falls must flee from an avalanche of leftovers was almost worthy of a Rolland Emmerich film in terms of spectacle. I’m still not convinced that the 3D adds anything significant, but it certainly wasn’t a detractor either.

And again, while it hardly has the profundity of a Pixar film, Cloudy also succeeds in hitting all the right emotional beats, and actually offers a decent messages to kids, particularly young girls, about not having to dumb themselves down to get ahead in life. It’s not anything you haven’t already seen before, and in a lesser film I might have been rolling my eyes at life lessons like these. But the movie was funny enough that I was willing to go with it and I’m not going to say that I didn’t get a little teary when Flint’s father finally tells him how proud he makes his old man. But most importantly, even in moments like this, the film never stops making you laugh.

Finally I want to talk briefly about the cast. Specifically, I’d like to say...holy crap! Bruce Campbell?! And Mr. T?! And NPH...as a monkey?! That is some pretty awesome casting! Now admittedly I didn’t actually recognize any of the voices except for Andy Samberg as Baby Brent (he was hilarious by the way) but I did get a real kick out of reading some of those names in the end credits. This is probably one of the first times I’ve seen an animated movie that had big name actors doing the voices in which I didn’t find their inclusion horribly distracting.

This may seem like an odd comparison, but the other 2009 film that Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs really reminds me of it Star Trek. This isn’t trying to be deep and meaningful; it’s just trying to be fun, and in that it absolutely succeeds. And although it may seem as though there wouldn’t be much of an audience crossover, I’d put good money on anyone who enjoyed Star Trek having a blast with this movie (and for the record, I probably liked Cloudy even more). The other thing to keep in mind is that most kids movies these days are pretty crappy and so while I don’t think this movie is going to teach children a whole lot, it’s still visually engaging, kind of sweet and very very funny. Even to big kids like me.



Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs is now playing in Australia on both conventional and 3D screens

Movie Review - The Brothers Bloom

Genre: Heist, Comedy, Drama

Director: Rian Johnson
Starring: Adrien Brody, Mark Ruffalo, Rachel Weisz, Rinko Kikuchi, Robbie Coltrane
Running Time: 113 minutes (plus trailers)

“The perfect con is one where everyone involved gets just what they wanted”

In the delightful opening scene of The Brothers Bloom, the narrator (who sounds suspiciously similar to the narrator of P.T. Anderson’s Magnolia) introduces us to the titular brothers, the charismatic heroes of director Rian Johnson’s follow up to the critically acclaimed indie noir thriller Brick. Siblings and partners in crime, from a young age there was nothing the Brothers Bloom did better than pull elaborate and highly entertaining cons; Steven (played by Mark Ruffalo) is the master planner, spinning complex webs of deception with incredible ease and exuberant humour. The younger brother, addressed only by his surname (and played by Adrien Brody) is the roper and for all of the thirty five years of his life he has played the parts that Steven has written for him, helping make the Brothers Bloom famous all around the world, from St Petersburg to Prague.

Bloom however has begun to grow weary of the life and decides to leave the game for good, settling down in Montenegro for an extensive sabbatical. But of course Steven will have none of that, and so he draws Bloom back in for (wait for it) one final con. The mark: Penelope Stamp (Rachel Weisz), a wealthy but isolated heiress just waiting (as Steven puts it) for someone to sweep her off her feet. The plan seems to be going smoothly; the trap is set and the bait is caught, there’s only one little hitch: Bloom begins to fall in love (I know, what a shocker). The Brothers Bloom is a piece of pure light entertainment, filled with sweet, quirky and funny dialogue and characters, and a story that, at least until the rather weak third act, is an absolute joy to watch unfold.

The first hour of this film would probably be up there as one of the most enjoyable hours I’ve had at the cinema all year. There is such a fresh, breezy style to everything about this movie, from the dialogue to the direction to incredible costume and production design. There is always something cool to watch on screen, be it yellow Lamborghini or a well placed wall mural, and it’s always matched by stylish editing and direction from behind the camera. On top of that, Johnson has crafted some of the most fun and likeable characters you’ll ever see. From the naïve but enthusiastic Penelope to the charming but crafty Steven to the melancholy but kindhearted Bloom and of course the sardonically silent demolitions expert Bang Bang (played with a wonderful dry wit by Rinko Kikuchi), I defy anyone not to fall in love with at least one of the main protagonists, if not all four.

As the film reaches its conclusion is takes on a more serious tone that doesn’t really fit. Johnson seems to want to make the film into a classic con movie, and so the story gets darker and more complex, and the enjoyment factor suffers as a result. Unfortunately, the actual con the brothers are pulling at the end of the film isn’t all that interesting, Blooms motivations aren’t particularly clear (or logical), and the final climax in which you are unsure what is going on; whether the brothers are really in danger or if the whole thing is just another one of Steven’s elaborate ruses, doesn’t work nearly as well in execution as it probably did on paper.

At the end of the day, as a conman movie, The Brothers Bloom it isn’t particularly strong. Like many far better entries into the genre, there are moments when the audience themselves are being tricked, but here the reveals just aren’t satisfying. But while the film doesn't really work as a drama, where it absolutely succeeds, thanks in combination to Johnson and the actors, is as a breezy, lighthearted caper film. Apart from the last half hour, this movie is just non-stop fun; exotic locales, amazing designs and a wonderfully quirky cast of characters, all of whom are portrayed by actors who are clearly having a blast. This is three quarters of a fantastic movie, and even the weak ending (which to be honest isn’t even that weak) cannot make you forget how much you enjoyed hanging out with Bang Bang, Penelope and The Brothers Bloom.





The Brothers Bloom is now showing in Australia in limited release. It is currently available in the US on DVD

Movie Review - Moon

Genre: Science Fiction, Drama
Director: Duncan Jones
Starring: Sam Rockwell, Kevin Spacey
Running Time: 97 minutes (plus trailers)

“You’ve been up here too long”

In the vein of celebrated space movies from the 1970’s and 80’s, which include Alien, Solaris and Silent Running, Moon, the first feature film from commercial director Duncan Jones (the son of musician David Bowie) is a slowly paced contemplative drama that uses the isolated lunar setting to explore themes of madness, grief and loneliness. Sam Rockwell stars as Sam Bell, an astronaut who for almost three years has been stationed on an otherwise unmanned mining base on the moon, kept company only by a robotic companion named GERTY (voiced by Kevin Spacey). With no live communication to the Earth available, Sam spends his days inspecting machinery, building a model city and talking to his plants, all the while pining for his wife and infant daughter back home on Earth.

But with only two weeks to go before his contract expires and he is due to return home, Sam finds another human in the base; someone who looks and sounds exactly like him. Unsure of whether he can trust GERTY, the other Sam or his shady employers at Lunar Industries, Sam begins to fear that the rescue team being sent to take him home has no intention of letting him leave, while the audience is left to wonder about the exact nature of the other Sam – is he a ghost, a clone or simply a creation of the protagonist’s failing mind? Of course, the film is far less concerned with the answer to that question, prefering to deal with loftier explorations of humanity and reality. Moon is a modest film grounded in ideas rather than in action or spectacle, and it serves as a welcome reminder that the science fiction genre can be both engaging and thought provoking, and can appeal to an audience outside of bespectacled fan-boys and internet bloggers (no disrespect meant...obviously)

But first and foremost, praise must be given to Sam Rockwell, who quite literally carries the entire film on his shoulders. As the only human character in the movie (discounting brief video clips from earth), if the audience was not sympathetic to Bell, the whole story would fall apart. Thankfully, Rockwell gives an astounding performance, capturing Bell’s edgy loneliness with consummate skill. Furthermore, once the two different Bell’s take centre stage, Rockwell manages to imbue the two of them with distinctly different personalities whilst keeping them both identifiable, a feat for which I think he deserves an Oscar nomination (a hope shared by many people, although unlikely to ever come to fruition). Kevin Spacey is also perfect as the cold and emotionless voice of GERTY (it’s sort of hard to believe no one thought of this casting earlier), a character who is a very obvious inspired at least partially by HAL from 2001: A Space Odyssey (although to be fair, there is barely a computer character in modern sci-fi who was not).

With a budget of only $5 million (a pittance by Hollywood standards, especially for a science fiction movie), director Duncan Jones has done a remarkable job combining practical and computer effects to create an strikingly visual film. While the CGI is always very clearly CGI, the way Jones has successfully blended it with model work and actual sets will almost have you believing anyway. The interior of the base looks great, and simply by setting this movie in space Jones allows for many memorable shots of the lunar surface and the far-away earth. Adding to the films ethereal beauty is an appropriately eerie score from Clint Mansell (Requiem for a Dream, The Fountain), who continues to produce some of the most distinctive and haunting film music of the modern era.

I suppose one complaint of Moon could be that it is somewhat slow, and that not a whole lot actually takes place. But truth be told, that’s one of the things I really enjoyed about it. As I said before, it’s not an action movie or even really a thriller. This is a character driven film – a movie centred around people and ideas. So while it might not always be exciting, Moon never fails to be interesting. And quite frankly, the fact that this movie has been made at all, especially on such a small budget and outside the Hollywood system should be an inspiration for anyone who has dreams of becoming a film maker, and of having their own ideas realized on the big screen. Moon is an original film, a great start for a promising young director, and I have no hesitancy in recommending it to anyone who enjoys a good story with good ideas behind it.



Moon is currently playing in Melbourne in limited release, in theatres including The Nova in Carlton and The Rivoli in Camberwell. Seek it out.

Movie Review - District 9

Genre: Science Fiction, Action
Director: Neill Blomkamp
Starring: Sharlto Copley, Jason Cope, Robert Hobbs
Running Time: 112 minutes (plus trailers)

“There’s a lot of secrets in District 9”

In the mid 1980’s, an enormous derelict spacecraft comes to rest above the city of Johannesburg, South Africa, bringing with it over 1 million malnourished, uneducated alien refugees. Segregated from the human population for twenty years in a slum known as District 9, the aliens, with no understanding of human culture or behavior, have been mercilessly exploited by criminal gangs and the greedy Multi-National United, a weapons manufacturing company. With public dissatisfaction at the alien presence in the city at an all time high, the government has charged MNU with the task of relocating the entire alien population to the newly constructed District 10 outside of Johannesburg. Such is the premise of District 9, the first feature length film from 29 year old South African director Neill Blomkamp. Adapted (with financial support from Peter Jackson) from his own short film entitled Alive in Joburg, the movie blends a bizarre form of docudrama with sci-fi action, and whilst it is not without its flaws, it is undoubtedly one of the most visually and conceptually creative science fiction movies I have ever seen.

Stylistically, this film is unique. It opens with a series of documentary style interviews with scholars, diplomats and MNU workers (all played by actors) who outline the unstable situation in Johannesburg. We are also introduced to MNU agent Wikus van der Merwe (played by Sharlto Copley), the man in charge of giving the aliens their eviction orders. Annoying, casually racist and generally incompetent, Wikus is hardly a likeable protagonist, and we watch with exasperation and then outrage as he carries out his orders in the district, sycophantically interacting all the while with the camera crew that is documenting the operation. For at least the first twenty minutes, District 9 is a documentary (although everything it’s documenting is fictional). Blomkamp uses interviews, stock footage, news reports as well as CGI and other special effects to almost flawlessly create a believable world in which aliens interact with humans. The interviews also provide tantalizing clues early in the film – we know something happened to Wikus, but we don’t know what.

Then, the film changes. On a routine inspection of an alien’s home, Wikus accidentally becomes infected with alien biotechnology, and his DNA rapidly begins to mutate. At this point, the film semi-abandons its documentary approach and adopts a more conventional narrative style. Wikus is now the billion dollar key to unlocking the secrets of alien bioweaponry, and with MNU wanting to harvest his genetic material, he hides in the one place that he knows no one would ever look for him: inside District 9. Sadly, the transitional period between “documentary” and “narrative” wasn’t very well handled – we cut between scenes of characters talking to the camera to scenes that were happening outside of what the documentary crew was filming. I would have preferred it if there had been a more obvious and definitive changeover point. What I did like however was that even more than an hour into the movie, Blomkamp would briefly cut to an interview that offered some insight into what was going on; essentially it was exposition, but it never felt like it.

Blomkamp’s direction here really is impressive. Even during the narrative sections, he employs a cinéma vérité hand held style that makes the movie feel very realistic (although it did contribute to my confusion during the transition period I mentioned above.) I have written before about how I am not a big fan of hand-held camerawork in movies like Public Enemies or Rachael Getting Married because I find it distracting. However, it works perfectly in the narrative sections of this movie because of the documentary sections that preceded them. It’s the same reason I liked Cloverfield – the camera work fits the story, as opposed to just being a misguided attempt to provide realism. At the same time, Blomkamp is not without visual flare, and he often places the camera in interesting locations (such as attached to a gun barrel, facing backwards) to provide a cool effect. Before this film went into production, Blomkamp was attached to the adaptation of Halo. That movie ultimately fell through, and so some people see this as Blomkamp’s way of proving he is up to the task of helming a larger project. He’s definitely shown he’s worth his salt, and whether it be Halo or something else, I can’t wait for his next film.

The biggest area where District 9 disappointed me was in the execution of the actual story. I loved the alien refugee and DNA mutation concepts, and I thought the subtext of the film (which I’ll get to later) was fascinating. Unfortunately, the story that takes place after Wikus flees into the alien district was pretty contrived. Given that the movie builds such a realistic universe, it seemed sort of ridiculous how easy it was for people to break in and out of MNU headquarters. There was also an awfully clichéd “I’m not leaving you behind” scene towards the end, as well as a subplot involving Nigerian gang-members and witch doctors that I thought was incredibly stupid. One friend of mine said that he wanted to know more about the aliens – personally I’m in two minds. Like him, I was curious about their origins, but I was also really glad the film didn’t offer us a stupid scene of exposition in the final act (as lesser movies so often do). I think the style of District 9 gives it great potential for tie in media, and I would love to read a novel that offers us the alien back-story (or play a prequel video game – that alien weaponry was bad-ass). Ultimately, I was glad the movie didn’t over-explain things.

Speaking of the alien weaponry, I should mention that I would have liked to see a bit more action. I appreciated how the movie made me think, but at the end of the day it seems like a missed opportunity on Blomkamp’s part not to take advantage of the awesome guns and vehicles the aliens possess. However, I do understand that there were budgetary issues, and that they simply couldn’t afford too much action. It’s not really a huge problem – the action, when it comes, is very good, and given that the movie was made for only US$30 million (as opposed to the $200 million spent Transformers 2), it’s impressive how much they were able to achieve – the CGI and the makeup is mostly excellent. Still, I’d have loved to see Blomkamp’s make this movie with a Michael Bay sized budget. Of course, had he done that, the studio would have probably interfered and the movie would have ended up sucking. C’est la vie.

I do think that District 9 is a very thought provoking film, and I want to talk briefly about some of the underlying themes (although I’m sure far smarter people will write about them to far greater lengths in the coming weeks). Most obvious was the apartheid parallel; racists are portrayed in this film to various degrees; the main villain – the mercenary hunting Wikus – is vicious in his hatred, and he (along with the head of MNU; the ultimate representation of corporate selfishness) makes for an excellent antagonist. But at the same time, the way Wikus himself throws around the offensive term “prawn” so casually is deeply unsettling. The movie also deals with issues of sexuality in a way not dissimilar to the films of David Cronenberg (in fact the whole film feel partially inspired by The Fly). District 9 certainly raises some great moral questions, which is becoming more and more rare in the never ending stream of summer blockbusters (no offense JJ – I liked Star Trek, but it was hardly a smart piece of cinema).

One final thing; I want to tip my hat to the amazing viral marketing campaign for this movie; I’ve been immersed in advertisements for months, but they gave nothing away about the story, and a lot of the stuff in the trailer isn’t even in the film, something I wish studios would do more often (don’t worry, the missile catching scene is in there!) Ultimately, I feel that District 9 has a great premise and some great ideas, and while it’s something of a shame that they were let down by a fairly mediocre story, the movie is never the less worth seeing. In terms of direction, I think Blomkamp’s has constructed something that is unique, and while I don’t want to see this documentary style overused, it is certainly an experiment that warrants some further exploration. And like I said, whatever the man’s next film is, I’ll be first in line.



District 9 is in cinemas now.

You can watch Blomkamp's original short film Alive in Joburg here.

Movie Review - Sunshine Cleaning

Genre: Black Comedy, Drama
Director: Christine Jeffs
Starring: Amy Adams, Emily Blunt, Alan Arkin, Jason Spevack, Clifton Collins Jr.
Running Time: 91 minutes (plus trailers)

“How did she die?” “It was sorta a do-it-yourself thing”

Here’s something I’ve bet you’ve never thought about. When a person dies, there is often mess. I’m talking blood, vomit, urine, faeces and an array of other fun bodily fluids that soon soak into whatever piece of furniture or flooring that the deceased happened to punch out on. If you don’t act quickly that stuff’ll start to stink, and after a few days in the hot Albuquerque sun it becomes murder (ha ha) to get out. But don’t you worry – the job of cleaning up your relatives doesn’t have to be yours. Just turn to the girls at Sunshine Cleaning, a family owned business of dedicated professionals who work around the clock to handle the icky business of wiping the blood off the walls and vacuuming up the stray teeth, so that you can rest easy knowing that Grandma’s remains were handled by the best in the industry. Such is the premise of Sunshine Cleaning, a film about death, sisterhood and a bevy of bodily fluids

Like most people, I had never even considered that this job existed, but when I heard that they were making a film about it I was instantly intrigued. And absolutely, it is this premise that makes the movie work, even in the face of a fairly unoriginal story. The films follows two sisters: Rose (played by Amy Adams), a thirty-something single mother and ex highschool cheerleader who now works as a rent-a-maid for her wealthy former schoolmates, and Norah (played by Emily Blunt), a pot smoking slacker who still lives with her father, with no job and no ambition to find one. When Rose finds out from her lover (the town sheriff who is cheating on his wife with her) that there is money in cleaning up human remains, she decides to get in on the ground floor. With help from her reluctant sister, Rose starts up a business – Sunshine Cleaning – and along the way the two finally learn to accept each other, deal with their family demons, and blah, blah, blah.

Okay, so clearly we’ve heard this before. Single mother hasn’t got enough money to send her gifted child to a private school, and so she has to get a new job. Things work for a while, but then wouldn’t you know it, screw-up sister screws something up and everything goes south. Then along comes Mr Deus Ex Machina, things are righted and they all live happily ever after. Not original. But like I said, it is the premise that makes Sunshine Cleaning worth seeing. It’s hard not be intrigued by such a morbid concept, and from the opening scene the movie fully embraces its potential for black humour. The best moments – like when the sisters are overjoyed at the news of a fatal car accident, or when Norah explains to her ten year old nephew that suicide “is a good thing” – reminded me favourably of Six Feet Under, which is always an excellent thing to be compared to.

The other great thing about the movie is the acting – which when you look at the cast is fairly unsurprising. I now have to go on a little tangent about Amy Adams, who I am quite literally in love with. She radiates this charming, bubbly energy that is undercut by a naïve vulnerability that is just so damn adorable – no wonder she gets cast as a fairytale princess in Enchanted, and a young trusting nun in Doubt. Her performance here, along with the fact that Rose has such a thoroughly depressing life, means that as a member of the audience you can’t help but want her to succeed. I haven’t actually seen Junebug, which is supposed her career defining role, but her work in Sunshine Cleaning is definitely another tick in the plus column. And as an added bonus, she spends at least fifteen minutes of the movie in her underwear!

The rest of the cast is also great. Emily Blunt is utterly believable as the sister who never gets things right, and the chemistry between her and Adams really helps sell the sisters’ bumpy relationship that was a little underdeveloped on paper. Alan Arkin is also excellent as their elderly father, whose eccentric business ventures betray his own failing mind. The movie is rounded out by some strong supporting performances, including Steve Zahn as Rose’s lover, Jason Spevack as Rose’s young son Oscar, and Clifton Collins Jr. as Winston, the one-armed potential love interest from whom the sisters buy industrial cleaning products. I especially enjoyed the relationship between Winston and Rose, because for once we have a film that doesn’t bash you over the head with a sign that reads “they’re going to fall in love”. Some subtlety makes for a nice change.

There are a few annoyingly “indie” moments in Sunshine Cleaning, which I suppose was to be expected given that the poster boasts that it comes from “the producers of Little Miss Sunshine”, and that one critic called it “this years Juno”. The subplot involving the sister’s deceased mother, for instance, felt a bit forced, and the constant strumming of a lone acoustic guitar on the soundtrack got pretty tiring. However I have to admit that given the advertising material (and my own cynicism), I was actively looking out for the quirky bits, and in all honesty none of them really detract from the film. It does have an indie vibe, but not unpleasantly so, and ultimately Sunshine Cleaning feels unique and clever more times than it feels contrived.

Sunshine Cleaning is definitely a movie that is worth seeing. It’s funny, it’s entertaining, it features great performances and, as I’ve said repeatedly, the premise is just so fascinating. The other great thing is that it’s short. At only ninety one minutes, this movie doesn’t outstay its welcome; it milks the concept for as much as it’s worth, and then quits while it’s still ahead, before the indie-ness starts to irritate. It’s a refreshing watch, and I recommend it without reservation.



Sunshine Cleaning is coming to the end of it's theatrical run in Australia.

Movie Review - Observe and Report

Genre: Dark Comedy

Director: Jody Hill
Starring: Seth Rogen, Anna Faris, Ray Liotta, Michael Peña, Celia Weston, Collette Wolfe
Running Time: 86 minutes (plus trailers)

Ronny Barnhart (Seth Rogen) is the big fish in a very small pond. As the head of security at the Forest Ridge Mall, he rules the food-court with an iron fist, harassing both shoppers and store owners and complaining bitterly about not being allowed to carry a fire-arm. At the same time, his heart aches for the sultry make-up counter girl Brandi (Anna Faris). When a flasher begins harassing women in the mall parking lot, Ronny sees it as an opportunity to prove to Brandi that he is worthy of her affection.

The first and most important thing you need to know about Observe and Report is that it is not the latest raunchy comedy to star Seth Rogen. Despite what the posters, trailers and the leader actor might lead you to believe, this movie is nothing like Knocked Up or Zack and Miri Make a Porno. Those films successfully mixed R-rated language and humour with sweet sentimentality's. This movie on the other hand is dark, unpleasant and profoundly disturbing. That’s not to say it isn’t funny, but be warned that you will not like it unless you can laugh at really brutal humour. I’m talking graphic and often completely unexpected violence, explicit drug use & sexual content, and a protagonist who is not only intensely unlikeable, but also deeply psychologically disturbed.

To clarify, I did enjoy this film quite a lot. I laughed out loud pretty consistently, although more often than not it was from a sense of shock or revulsion. It is hard to believe how far this movie goes, and many times I caught myself laughing, only to chastise myself for doing so. For example, a scene in which Michael Peña’s character offers to become Ronny’s mentor is followed immediately by a montage of the two men snorting cocaine, beating up teenagers and finally injecting themselves with heroin in a bathroom cubicle. “There’s nothing good about this” Peña’s character groans as he plunges the syringe into his arm. And it’s hard to disagree with him.

But even though I did enjoy the comedy (if such a term can be applied), I thought that Observe and Report was far more successful as a painful examination of a man who is completely unable to fulfil his dreams. My favourite scene in the entire film comes when Ray Liotta's Detective Harrison invites Ronny to the police station only to inform him that he has been ruled out of police service after failing the psychological exam. Ronny is totally unable to comprehend his rejection and insists that he has been accepted. The excellent performance by Rogen clashes with the simple fact that we really don’t want Ronny to succeed, giving the scene an incredible amount of pathos. It also contains a particularly memorable line of dialogue that I know many reviewers have latched onto as a metaphor for the entire film. Upon watching Ronny’s heartbreak, a minor character remarks “I thought this was going to be funny, but it’s actually kind of sad.” Observe and Report has plenty of funny moments, but it’s also layered with tragedy.

Rogen’s performance in this film is nothing short of incredible. The man is often accused of playing himself, the goofy but lovable slacker, in every one of his films. But this role is something completely new, and indeed it’s barely a comedic performance at all. Ronny is racist, homophobic and violent. To call him an idiot is a major simplification; he is mentally ill. The character is oblivious to normal social behaviour, carries enormous delusions of grandeur and throughout the film proves to be a serious danger to himself and others. It’s refreshing to see that Rogen, the biggest name in comedy, is willing to play such an unlikeable character. Many people have called the performance revelatory; I would go so far as to call it Oscar worthy.

Speaking of Oscar worthy, Celia Weston is sensational in a minor role as Ronny’s alcoholic mother. Her line deliveries range from soul-crushing to side-splitting, and her physical characterization is perfect. Of course, neither Rogen nor Weston will get any love from the academy, given the films mediocre reception and taboo content. The rest of the cast does admirably; Michael Peña and the Yuen Twins are very funny, and Anna Faris and Ray Liotta are perfectly cast in their roles as the shallow Brandi and the frustrated Detective. Aziz Ansari and Danny McBride also have terrific cameos.

Furthermore, director (and writer) Jody Hill does a phenomenal job behind the camera, creating one of the best made films of the year. The camera work is excellent, the soundtrack is amazing, and the editing reflects perfecting the uneasy, unpredictable nature of the story and its primary character. Music cues are interrupted, clips are sped up and slowed down, and we often smash cut straight from scenes of inspiration to despair with no warning whatsoever. I especially loved the opening credit sequence, the aforementioned drug montage and the final pursuit that concludes the film. Hill clearly has a promising career ahead of him as a director; I just suspect his writing will never appeal to as big an audience.

Now before I conclude this review, I want to talk about the films ending, which really irritated me. In one of the last scenes in the movie, what appeared to be the stock-standard romantic payoff is very cleverly subverted by the sudden appearance of full frontal male nudity. This is then followed by an equally hilarious slow motion chase scene through the mall, which then concludes extremely suddenly, in a way that you will not see coming. Now I thought the “shock moment” was absolutely brilliant, and on further contemplation, I also realised that it was in fact the inevitable conclusion that the film (and Ronny) had been building towards the entire time.

What I didn’t like was the continuation of the scene. Literally, in the last 90 seconds before the end credits, this film goes one hundred and eighty degrees on itself, and Ronny’s life completely turns around. He gets his job back, earns the respect of the police who ridiculed him, and finally wins the girl. My problem with this is that Observe and Report was for its entire length a brutally dark film, and as such it doesn’t warrant a happy ending - and Ronny certainly doesn't deserve one. His story should have ended with him standing gun in hand over the body of a man he murdered. Because let’s face it; people like Ronny do exist, and their stories often end in exactly that way. By tacking on this very studio-esque ending (and more troublingly, by suggesting that Ronny’s actions have no consequences) Hill has completely undermined the tone and message of the film.

Aside from this complaint, I really liked Observe and Report as the perverted masterpiece that it is. But, many people will hate it. If none of the comedy I have described sounds funny to you, then stay the hell away from Observe and Report, a film you will no doubt loathe. If it sounded hilarious, then you should do everything you can to see it (wow…I really stated the obvious there). If you are undecided, then I recommend it for a couple of reasons. Firstly, it is very funny. Secondly, it actually works as a drama of sorts. And thirdly, because there is nothing else like it. I suspect it will become a cult hit on DVD, and I plan on buying it as soon as it is released. It is deeply unsettling and sometimes the humour is very cruel. But it is original, and definitely memorable.

Observe and Report will soon be coming to the end of it's theatrical run in Australia. It will be released on DVD both domestically and abroad later in the year.