Fine Photoplay

The Boat that Rocked (Curtis, 2009)

Evan J Martin — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 05:08:38 +0000

It is 1966; the golden age of British pop music. The Who, The Kinks, The Hollies and The Beach Boys are all at the peak of their powers. Incomprehensibly, England’s only FM radio station, BBC, refuses to play any of it. However, ‘Pirate Radio’ is broadcast from dozens of ships on the high seas, playing pop music all day and night, and over half of Britain’s population listen in every single day. This is the information we are given in the boisterous opening credits of the new Richard Curtis vehicle.

With a brilliant cast including Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Bill Nighy, Kenneth Brannah, Rhys Ifans and Nick Frost, The Boat that Rocked, while certainly a whole lot of fun, unfortunately offers no real insight into the lives and motivations of these so called ‘pirates of rock’. Nor does it attempt to delve into the bizarre decisions of the BBC. Or for that matter, present us any unique or original concepts on the power of music. Still, it’s almost impossible not to like this film. Yes, it’s light. Very light. After Curtis’ previous films (He wrote Notting Hill, Bridget Jones’ Diary and Love, Actually, which he also directed), it’s quite surprising to see that he has held back of all sentimentality and opted for humour in even the most tender of scenes. For the majority of the film, the music takes a backseat to scenes of male bonding and shenanigans, with all of the female characters given very little focus and depth.

Instead of focusing on the dj’s (the true heroes of the story), Curtis opts to center the story around Carl, a young, delinquent teen whose father may or may not be on the boat he is sent to work on. Naturally, despite his charisma, brains and good looks, Carl is a virgin (when did ‘coming-of-age’ story transform into ‘virgin boy tries to get layed’ story?), and much of the film’s verbose run-time is devoted to the rest of the crew endeavouringto get Carl a shag. It’s very familiar stuff, and you have to wonder how Curtis possibly thought this would be more interesting than the story at hand. As Carl, Tom Sturridge more than holds his own. In fact, he’s extremely watchable. Still, when he’s getting double the screen time as his seasoned co-stars, you can’t help but feel a little cheated. Phillip Seymour Hoffman plays against type, and his character is infinitely lovable, and every time his character is off-screen, the film suffers for it.

Filled with joyous music based montages, fine performances from all involved and a nostalgic soundtrack chocked full of fantastic 60′s hits, The Boat that Rocked is an entertaining, if rather forgettable movie that has very little to say, other than “boys will be boys”.

Direct to Video: A Love Story and a Shotgun Story

Evan J Martin — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 04:05:10 +0000

The month of April has seen the birth of two films in Australia; Wristcutters: A Love Story and Shotgun Stories. Strangely however, both films didn’t see the light of day on the cinema screen, but were both sent directly to dvd. There was a time when the honour of being relegated to the ‘straight to dvd’ club was reserved for b-grade action movies starring Van-Damme or terrible Martin Short comedies. How times have changed.

Wristcutters: A Love Story, a road movie set in a sort of limbo/afterlife you end up if you commit suicide, enjoyed a healthy festival run over the 2006/2007 circuit. It features a number of popular actors, even if they aren’t your regular Tom Cruise or Johnny Depp. Indie darling Shannyn Sossamon, cult star Will Arnett and singer Tom Waits are all fantastic. Not to mention lead Patrick Fugit of Almost Famous fame. It’s funny, romantic and genuinely entertaining. So why was it given the dreaded DTV treatment? We’ll never know for sure, but I expect it has something to do with it’s ridiculously unwarranted R 18+ rating.

Patrick Fugit plays Zia, a young man who has just “offed himself” due to a girl, Desiree (Leslie Bibb). He soon finds himself in a world where everything is just “a little bit worse than before”, but when he is informed that Desiree too, has committed suicide, he heads off across the land in search of her. It is a great concept; one that is truly original. And for the most part, it’s very well implemented. Director Goran Dukic and cinematographer Vanja Cernjul clearly worked hard on the theatrically bleak aesthetic. With a desaturated palette and minimal camera movements, Dukic perfectly understands how to pull an audience into his world.

The only struggle he has is one common with many young directors, in that he doesn’t completely understand just how far is too far, and for this reason, the film is rather uneven in parts. Where some scenes work beautifully, others just don’t work at all. Why there is a literal black hole under a car seat that sucks everything and anything into oblivion is absolutely beyond me. It doesn’t have any place in the film, and completely takes you out of the story which Dukic has worked so hard to suck you into. And what a pity too, because most everything else works magnificently. Dukic has a great eye for comedy. It’s one element of the film where he does know how to hold back. Nearly every joke is beautifully understated, but I guess when you get such pitch-perfect performances out of your great cast, this really isn’t too big of a challenge.

Shotgun Stories, directed by Jeff Nichols is a rather similar entity. Like Wristcutters, it played the festival circuit in 2007/2008 garnering great reviews from critics and audiences alike. Roger Ebert, the best known critic in the world, included it in his renowned ‘Top 20 of the year’. The heralded David Gordon Green produces, and recent Oscar nominee Michael Shannon stars. To quote AO Scott, it features the ‘neo-neorealist’ style so popular with modern audiences. So where did things go wrong? My only guess is that Australian distributors thought the film too slow and ‘boring’ for general audiences, which is a shame, because it’s near brilliant.

The film, about American rage and set in the South, revolves around the bloodwar between two family’s sons, linked by their now deceased father. The minimalist approach perfectly evokes the themes of anger, violence, loyalty and revenge. This is Nichol’s debut feature, but you would be forgiven for believing that this was the new film from it’s producer, Mr. Gordon Green. It features the latter’s trademark obtuse dialogue, small rural township and a minimal, unassuming camera. Indeed, the two are friends from film-school, and without Gordon Green’s assistance, the film most likely would not have been made.

Shotgun Stories relies heavily on it’s performances from it’s main stars, and every actor is exceptional. However, it is Michael Shannon that takes charge and commands the screen. He’s an odd actor, one that almost seems like he belongs back in the films of 30 or 40 years ago. Clearly a child of the stage, he is slightly histrionic in every role he takes on. But like any great actor, he has a knowledge of his material and of how to curb his performance to suit it’s style and themes. He’s close to perfect here, as Son, the eldest brother of Boy and Kid Hayes (the burden of giving proper names to his children was too much for their drunk and abusive father).

Taking obvious inspiration from his friend Gordon Green and idol Terrance Malick, the land of the South takes on a life of it’s own. Nichols knows very well that a simple shot of a character harvesting a large crop can be just as powerful or poignant as any scene of dialogue or action, given it’s done right. In fact, the slow and silent township of Shotgun Stories is possibly the most compelling character in the film.

WRISTCUTTERS: A LOVE STORY

SHOTGUN STORIES

Wendy and Lucy (Reichardt, 2009)

Evan J Martin — Sun, 29 Mar 2009 06:59:38 +0000

Between Old Joy (2006) and the magnificent Wendy and Lucy, Kelly Reichardt is fast becoming one of the most fascinating directors in all of America. You certainly can’t call her an auteur, for this minimal, cinema vérité style of film-making has been prominent for many, many years, but she seems to be the only one in a typically Hollywood-obsessed country to use this neo-realist style so common and successful in Europe. Taking obvious inspiration from the likes of the Dardenne brothers of Belgium, Reichardt has created a film, that while unquestionably small, is deceptively complex and profound.

On the surface, Wendy and Lucy is a simple film: Wendy is a girl. Lucy is a dog. Girl loses dog. Girl tries to find dog. However, if you delve deeper, the film is about so much more. Like a Bicycle Thieves for the new recession, Wendy and Lucy is a swipe at the US government’s involvement in the crippling economic crisis. Every character is struggling to stay alive here, while the government is busy spending money on war and pretty, but otherwise needless material. In a telling scene, a police officer spends hours attempting to use a new, obviously expensive, electronic fingerprint recorder, when he could have taken a tenth of the time to do it manually with a simple stamp pad and paper.

The film is about the public’s reliance on technology. It is about loneliness and isolation, and how small and insignificant we really are in this big and scary world. It is about the generosity of some, and the selfishness of others. But more than all, it is about how, even though we are in a seemingly rich society full of governing departments and institutions created to aid the common man, the only ones we can truly depend on are each other, and indeed, our loyal dogs.

With a miniscule budget (the producer and even camera assistant have speaking roles), Reichardt and cinematographer Sam Levy have done a wonderful job in producing a visually stunning and poignant film. The small and fragile Michelle Williams is perfect as Wendy. Already one of the most impressive young actors of her generation, this quiet and luminous performance is her best to date. She really is quite phenomenal.

Sure, not all will be able to appreciate Wendy and Lucy’s snail pace and subtlety, but for those that can, it’s a bleak, heartbreaking treat.

Watchmen (Snyder, 2009)

Evan J Martin — Mon, 09 Mar 2009 12:03:32 +0000

Before Zack Snyder’s 2009 release, the film version of Watchmen, originally a graphic novel written by Alan Moore, had been in development for over a decade. Being the most acclaimed and perhaps most popular graphic novel in history, many wondered if any director could do it justice. The film saw many potential directors express their interest, including Terry Gilliam, Paul Greengrass and Darren Aronofsky, before finally setting on 300′s Zack Snyder. Was Snyder the right man for the job? As somebody who has never read the graphic novel, all I can say is…”perhaps.”

The “Watchmen” refers to a group of underground vigilantes, or ‘superheroes’ if you will. Set in an alternate reality of the mid 1980′s, Nixon has been re-elected for a third term, the US has won the Vietnam war and is now on the brink of nuclear war with the USSR, and due to public disapproval, superheroes have been outlawed. When one of their own is murdered, the mostly retired Watchmen entertain the possibility that there is somebody out there hunting them down. It is a deconstruction of the archetypal modern superhero, ala Batman or Spiderman; Just how would vigilante crime fighters fare in a real world?

The first ten minutes of the film are spectacular. Opening with the murder of ‘The Comedian’, a ruthless and nihilist member of the renegade group, ironically set to Nat King Cole’s Unforgettable, things look promising. After what is possibly the best opening credits sequence of the decade (set to Bob Dylan’s The Times They Are A-Changin’), you have to wonder if you are about to witness a masterpiece. While staying entertaining for the majority of the film’s length, it sadly never matches the massive heights it has set for itself. In fact, every act is just a little less interesting than the last. The finale is at least 10 minutes too long, and you still get the feeling some scenes have been cut. Perhaps the novel is just too complex and existential to be confined to a 2 1/2 hour movie.

Surprisingly, it is scenes involving character development and exposition (Mostly told in sepia-toned, montage-based flashbacks) that are the most effective. Be it due to Moore’s writing and imagination or Snyder’s direction, they are the most gripping scenes of the movie. Unfortunately, the film gets bogged down when the characters put their costumes back on. While Snyder’s playful MTV-styled direction is fun at first, the repetitive action scenes soon get bland and tired. Like Snyder’s previous works, it is also inherently violent, often going unnecessarily far with it’s gore and brutality. He loses track of the story he is trying to tell and his movie becomes just the kind of film he is attempting to deconstruct.

Visually, the film is quite stunning, featuring a very colourful and bright palette that matches the silly costumes of our heroes. You can say one thing of Snyder, he knows how to manufacture a pretty film. The effects are less than outstanding, but it is never really a problem, which is a testament to Snyder’s vision. But despite the elegant visuals and lively soundtrack (featuring an array of 70′s and 80′s tunes, some used more successfully than others), Watchmen lacks a heart or soul. Billy Crudup, Patrick Wilson, Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Jackie Earle Haley all give their best efforts, and although being very likable, they just have very little to work with. Matthew Goode and Malin Akerman are two very beautiful young actors who may have a discernible likeness to their characters, but sadly, they are both rather flat and wooden here.

Would I recommend the film? Yeah, I guess. It’s certainly fun, but there’s nothing here that will stick with you for long. Fans of the graphic novel have said that this is the best and most faithful adaptation we’re likely to get of Watchmen. But you have to wonder, when the result is this forgettable, did we really need it?

Oscars!

Evan J Martin — Mon, 16 Feb 2009 10:17:25 +0000

With the Oscars coming up this Sunday, what better time to go through what are (apparently) the best films of the year. I still haven’t seen a few, but alas, here’s what I have:

AUSTRALIA
-Achievement in Costume Design

Australia, a film grossly misunderstood by both critics and audiences alike, was always going to struggle to garner any major nominations, but this is a little ridiculous. It’s obvious fans of the film like myself are rare, but there’s no denying Australia was one of the best looking films of the year. How it didn’t receive nominations for Cinematography and especially Art Direction is beyond me. At least Catherine Martin’s brilliant costume design has been recognized.

THE CLASS (ENTRE LES MURS)
-Best Foreign Language Film

Not too many surprises here. The film won arguably the most prestigious film award around, Cannes’ Palme d’Or, and was always going to get a nomination for Best Foreign Film, and deservedly so. I would’ve liked to have seen Francois Begaudeau get a Best Actor nomination for his beautifully minimal, quiet and touching performance, but he had the distinct disadvantage of speaking in a language other than English.

THE CURIOUS CASE OF BENJAMIN BUTTON
-Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role
-Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role
-Achievement in Art Direction
-Achievement in Cinematography
-Achievement in Costume Design
-Achievement in Directing
-Achievement in Film Editing
-Achievement in Makeup
-Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures (Original Score)
-Best Motion Picture of the Year
-Achievement in Sound Mixing
-Achievement in Visual Effects
-Adapted Screenplay

Well what can I say about Benjamin Button? I liked the film, but it’s mammoth haul of nominations certainly makes it look more impressive than it actually is. If anything, it shows the lack of quality films in 2008. It’s Make-up and Visual Effects nominations are obviously the most deserved, due to the wonderful job of aging Brad Pitt. Roth’s script is somewhat horrible though, and doesn’t deserve to even be considered for such an award. Pitt too, has no business being listed with the other actors in his category.

THE DARK KNIGHT
-Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role
-Achievement in Art Direction
-Achievement in Cinematography
-Achievement in Film Editing
-Achievement in Makeup
-Achievement in Sound Editing
-Achievement in Sound Mixing
-Achievement in Visual Effects

There’s been a lot of talk from the internet community the past week or so about the apparent ‘Dark Knight Best Picture Snub’, but personally, I think it’s one of the few things the Academy got right this year. While the film was good, it’s really no better than Heath Ledger’s marvelous performance, whom has of course been nominated and will also win.

DOUBT
-Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role
-Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role
-Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role
-Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role
-Adapted Screenplay

Nothing to argue about here. Doubt is the definition of an actor’s movie, and almost every actor with a line has been recognized. Meryl Streep has a pretty big shot of winning, but is probably in the most competitive category of them all.

THE DUCHESS
-Achievement in Art Direction
-Achievement in Costume Design

Every year there is a period film that gets nominated for both costume and art direction. This year that film is The Duchess. It has a good chance of winning both, and thoroughly deserves costume.

FROST/NIXON
-Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role
-Achievement in Directing
-Achievement in Film Editing
-Best Motion Picture of the Year
-Adapted Screenplay

Ron Howard, a director I have never liked, has always been an Academy favourite. Almost everything he touches turns to Oscar gold, and for once, it’s actually deserving. So much so, that out of the nominated films, I wouldn’t mind seeing Frost/Nixon actually winning. However, it unfortunately doesn’t stand a chance against the might of Button and Slumdog. The only award I can foresee it winning is for best screenplay, but even that’s a tough ask.

HAPPY-GO-LUCKY
-Original Screenplay

Of all of this year’s snubs, Happy-Go-Lucky’s star, Sally Hawkins probably has the biggest right to feel angry. After being nominated for almost every precursor possible and actually winning a couple, Hawkins not getting a nomination here is a huge shock. She gave one of the best performances of the year. At least the film got it’s screenplay nomination.

IN BRUGES
-Original Screenplay

Sure to quickly become a cult hit, In Bruges is developing a huge fanbase on dvd. I wasn’t as fond of it as others, but it certainly has a great screenplay, and has been recognized for it.

MILK
-Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role
-Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role
-Achievement in Costume Design
-Achievement in Directing
-Achievement in Film Editing
-Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures (Original Score)
-Best Motion Picture of the Year
-Original Screenplay

Almost the opposite of Frost/Nixon, Milk’s director Gus Van Sant has always been a favourite of mine, but ironically, I think Milk (His first real Oscar success) is one of his weakest efforts; it’s just plain dull, and has no right to be considering the subject matter. Sean Penn is great however, and the Oscar will go to either him or Rourke, though I am hoping for the latter. It’s best hope is probably in editing.

RACHEL GETTING MARRIED
-Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role

Anne Hathaway gave the best female performance last year, but sadly probably won’t win. The Oscars are all about politics, and it’s looking more and more likely Winslet is going to be given the gong to make up for previous year’s snubs. Sure, Winslet is a great actress, and should already have an Oscar in her pool room, but it’d be nice to see it actually be given to the best performance of the year this year, despite her career history. If it was up to me, Rachel Getting Married would have got a lot more nominations, mainly for Original Screenplay, Best Director and Best Supporting Actress (Rosemarie DeWitt). But hey, what can you do?

REVOLUTIONARY ROAD
-Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role
-Achievement in Art Direction
-Achievement in Costume Design

Art Direction and Costume were a given; the film looks beautiful. It’s nice to see Michael Shannon recognized too. Hopefully this will help him get some work in some better films. The two big surprises however, are the lack of nominations for Winslet and DiCaprio. Sure Winslet got a nomination for The Reader, but she has a bigger role here, and has won more awards at precursors. Very strange. As for DiCaprio, it’s the most surprising snub of the whole ceremony. He gives his best performance of his career, but lucked out due to a stacked category.

SLUMDOG MILLIONAIRE
-Achievement in Cinematography
-Achievement in Directing
-Achievement in Film Editing
-Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures (Original Score)
-Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures (Original Song)
-Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures (Original Song)
-Best Motion Picture of the Year
-Achievement in Sound Editing
-Achievement in Sound Mixing
-Adapted Screenplay

You watch, Slumdog is going to win almost every one of these awards, but doesn’t deserve any of them. Maybe cinematography.

TROPIC THUNDER
-Performance by an Actor in a Supporting Role

The pleasant surprise of all the nominations. It’s been a long, long time since such a comedic performance has been nominated for an Oscar, and it’s a welcome change; Downey Jr is hilarious in such a brave role. It’s a pity he has no chance of winning though, due to Ledger. As for the film, it was damn good, but was never going to be nominated for anything else, and fairly so.

VICKY CHRISTINA BARCELONA
-Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role

If it were up to me, Woody Allen, the film, the script and every actor would have been nominated for this film. It’s marvelous. At least it got something, and I think Penelope Cruz is probably going to win. Amy Adams is the big threat.

WALL-E
-Best Animated Feature Film of the Year
-Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures (Original Score)
-Achievement in Music Written for Motion Pictures (Original Song)
-Achievement in Sound Editing
-Achievement in Sound Mixing
-Original Screenplay

Wall-E, one of the most impressive films of the decade is one of the biggest locks of Oscar night. It is guarunteed to take home Best Animated Feature and has a good chance at all of the music/sound awards too. There was talk about Andrew Stanton getting a nod here for his directorial work, and it’s sad it didn’t happen. If Stanton didn’t get a nomination here, nobody ever will for an animated film

WALTZ WITH BASHIR
-Best Foreign Language Film

Waltz with Bashir is fantastic and an almost lock to take home the award on the night. I’m incredibly surprised (and somewhat angry) that it didn’t get a nomination for Best Animated Film over Bolt.

THE WRESTLER
-Performance by an Actor in a Leading Role
-Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role

In The Wrestler, Mickey Rourke gave one of the best performances by any actor this decade, and is the favourite to win, and rightly so. Marissa Tomei would also be my pick, but I think she might have a bit of trouble. If it were up to me, like Vicky Christina Barcelona, The Wrestler would have many more nominations, including Best Picture of the year. But nothing compares to Bruce Springsteen not getting a nomination for his beautiful song, The Wrestler. It’s criminal.

Don’s Party (Beresford, 1976)

Evan J Martin — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 02:13:37 +0000

To this day, Don’s Party, a 1976 film based on the play by David Williamson, remains veteran director Bruce Beresford’s finest work. Released during the beginnings of the ‘Australian New Wave’ in 1976, it remains as relevant today as it was 30 years ago. Set during the 1969 election, it stars an array of talented Australian actors, mostly playing supporters of Labour-man, Gough Whitlam. They gather at Don’s House (John Hargreaves) to celebrate the demise of the current conservative party, but when it becomes increasingly clear that their political hero is not going to succeed, more alcohol is consumed and the party spirals into ugly and dangerous territory.

While being hilarious at points, Don’s Party is a bleak film. Like an Australian The Big Chill, every character here is somewhat upset with the course their life has taken. The election is somewhat of a deus ex machina, used to expose the intimate politics of marriage, friendship and failure. However, Don’s Party feels much more real than it’s American counterpart. It may not be glowing, but it’s certainly a relatively honest portrayal of static relationships, boredom and the joy of stepping out of your regular practice.

The film being set almost all in one interior during the course of one night, it is imperative that the performances are good enough to keep the audience involved, and the cast of Don’s Party stand to the challenge. John Hargreaves and Pat Bishop are the standouts, while Ray Barrett, Veronica Lang, Graeme Blundell and Clare Binney are also fantastic. If the cast has one weakness, it’s the late Graham Kennedy, who seems to be a little out of his league next to such accomplished performers. However, his extraordinary screen presence which made him such an Australian legend, more than makes up for his lack of depth.

One of the best Australian films of all time, Don’s Party is also one of the most Australian, and proudly so. The film reveals the immaturity of typical male companionship perhaps more effectively than any other film I have seen, while the final minutes of the film are as poignant and powerful as they come, as both friendships and marriages are put to the ultimate test.

Vicky Christina Barcelona (Allen, 2008)

Evan J Martin — Thu, 08 Jan 2009 07:32:59 +0000

To say that Woody Allen is perhaps the most inconsistent director in the history of film would be a fair statement. On one hand, he is an auteur, a film-maker who at one point revolutionized a genre. With films under his belt such as Annie Hall, Manhattan and Hannah and her Sisters, he will be forever acclaimed by many as one of the greatest of all time. However, after the many, many films over the many, many years, he has made only a handful that will stand the test of time. For proof, you need only look at the last five years; In 2004, he directed Melinda and Melinda, an awful mess of a film that was not quickly enough forgotten. One year later, he directed Match Point, a fabulous piece of tense entertainment and one of the best films of it’s year. Fortunately, Vicky Christina Barcelona can easily be placed among the best work of his illustrious career.

Following two American girls (Rebecca Hall and Scarlett Johansson play Vicky and Christina respectively) on a Summer holiday in Spain, Vicky Christina Barcelona is a gorgeous film about love, loss and realizing what you really desire out of this thing we call ‘life’. In Barcelona, the girls meet Juan Antonio (Javier Bardem). While they have differing first reactions of the uninhibited Spaniard, over time they are ultimately both drawn to him.

Like most Allen films, Vicky Christina Barcelona is a simple film about complex issues, and is maybe the most relatable film in his cataloge. With equal amounts comedy and tragedy, every moment is filled with pathos and poignancy. Like all good comedy, the audience laughs because it is real, familiar. Hall and Johansson are great as the two leads, but it is Bardem and Penelope Cruz, who plays his flamboyant ex-wife artist, who steal the show. They are hilarious alone, and even better together. The chemistry between them reminds of Diane Keaton and Allen himself in Annie Hall. Cruz seems to be getting better with every movie. She’s almost guaranteed an Oscar nomination for her work here.

In only his third film set outside of the USA, Allen has finally mastered shooting Europe. He captures his beloved New York better than any other director in history, but he clearly has a great love for parts of Europe also. Visually, the movie is stunning. Allen’s Spain is a luscious, colourful place that you only see in postcards or hear of from young, traveling artists. It’s also very playful, and that’s something we haven’t seen in one of his films for a long, long time. Woody Allen is definitely back in form.

Top 10 of 2008

Evan J Martin — Sun, 04 Jan 2009 01:40:14 +0000

Although it’s been a pretty lackluster year, we’ve still seen the release of some great, great films. Two of which I wouldn’t mind calling masterpieces. Maybe I just had higher expectations this year after the incredible 2007.

I’ve used Australian release dates, as it will be months before a lot of the higher profile international films are released here.

10.
Paranoid Park
(Gus Van Sant)

9.
Waltz with Bashir
(Ari Folman)

8.
The Curious Case of Benjamin Button
(David Fincher)

7.
Australia
(Baz Luhrmann)

6.
Forgetting Sarah Marshall
(Nicholas Stoller)

5.
Hunger
(Steve McQueen)

4.
Juno
(Jason Reitman)

3.
Wall-E
(Andrew Stanton)

2.
There Will Be Blood
(Paul Thomas Anderson)

1.
You, the Living
(Roy Anderson)

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (Fincher, 2008)

Evan J Martin — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 10:45:06 +0000

Like many have pointed out, cult director David Fincher’s The Curious Case of Benjamin Button about a man who ages backwards, shares a lot of similarities with Forrest Gump. Indeed, both films are written by Eric Roth, but it is quite incredible just how close they both are. Not only are they comparable in their whimsy tone and episodic structure, they feature a lot of the same themes, plot points and even characters. So here we go (Spoilers, obviously):

Both films are close to three hours in length and are based on books by American novelists.
Both feature a male character who we watch grow old from a very young age.
Both characters are innocent good-samaritans who are a little naive about the world. They both experience large world events throughout their lives, and have impact on them.
Both Button and Gump are sent to war.
Gump and Button both fall for girls in their youth and have epic, tormented romances with them throughout their lives.
Where Forrest Gump features a metaphorical feather, Benjamin Button has a hummingbird, used in the exact same way.
As children, both Gump and Button have trouble walking and require either crutches or leg braces.
Both characters go through the death of a mother figure.
Gump and Button both share their first intimate experiences with prostitutes.
Both characters take a job on a small boat; Gump the shrimp boat, Button a tugboat.
Both of the captains of the respective boats are alcoholics who befriend their crewmates.
Both of the captains are wounded in war.

Fortunately, I quite like Forrest Gump and despite the blatant parallelism, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a better film. Before seeing the movie, I had wondered why Fincher of all people had chosen to take it on. A director who has made his name making intense, edgy, violent and quite dry films. But after viewing the film, I realise he’s the perfect choice. He’s like the anti-Eric Roth. Where Roth writes for the masses and tries to elicit the largest emotional response possible from the audience, Fincher attempts to strip everything he does of all sentimentality. On their own, they’re quite jarring, but together, perhaps they are the perfect mix.

It’s such a boring word, but ‘beautiful’ is the best way to describe the movie. While the film is based on a F. Scott Fitzgerald short story of the same name, it reminds more of Dickens or Carroll. There’s a certain fairytale element here that is impossible to resist. The characters seem simple but are deceptively layered. Every picture looks like a drawing, perfectly framed and vividly coloured. It feels like a story your grandpa would tell you; so wonderfully silly but at the same time, you desperately want to believe.

While every performance is superb, particularly from Brad Pitt in the lead role, much of the performance’s credit must go to the visual effects artists for their job of both aging and, well, ‘de-aging’ both Pitt and Cate Blanchett. Turning somebody older is one thing, but the effects to make Pitt look like he was back in Thelma and Louise is nothing short of extraordinary and surely a groundbreaking event in film history.

Sure, the film has it’s flaws, mostly down to the sappy script by Eric Roth, but for one this ambitious, it is a remarkable achievement.

Predicted Top 10 of 2009!

Evan J Martin — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 07:24:34 +0000

Alright, being the beginning of the year, I thought it would be fun to predict what my top 10 movies of 2009 will be before I’ve even watched any of them. Feel free to post your own.

Moon – Duncan Jones
King Shot – Alejandro Jodorowsky
The Tree of Life – Terrence Malick
The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus – Terry Gilliam
The Boat that Rocked – Richard Curtis
Giant Monsters Attack Japan! – Trey Parker
Nine – Rob Marshall
Up – Pete Docter
Micmacs a Tire-Larigot – Jean-Pierre Jeunet
Wasington – Lars von Trier