Everybody's A Critic

It Will Be Mine...

2006-09-22T00:17:00.000-07:00

Oh yes, it will be mine.

http://www.ezydvd.com.au/item.zml/790083

After all the toing and froing and will-they-or-won't-they dramas with this collection's release date, this is pretty much the best news ever. And it's not even that expensive! Woo!

For the record, the 13-disc set, which includes the original theatrical cut of 'Superman: The Movie', the 2001 Special Edition of 'Superman: The Movie', the original theatrical cut of 'Superman II', Richard Donner's brand-new cut of 'Superman II', deluxe editions of 'Superman III' and 'Superman IV', the 2-Disc edition of 'Superman Returns', the feature-length documentaries 'Look Up In The Sky' and 'You Will Believe- The Making of a Saga', as well as the classic George Reeves film 'Superman and the Mole Men' and remastered editions of the 1940s Superman cartoons, and a whole shitload of other special features, retails for $169.83.

Which is awesome.

For The Record

2006-09-13T19:58:00.000-07:00

This really has nothing to do with anything, but I haven't posted here much lately and I'd like to have this list I made for a totally different site recorded somewhere for my posterity. It's my favourite comic book writers and artists! Yay for me, and the zero people who care!

Writers
1. Grant Morrison
2. Alan Moore
3. Stan Lee
4. Frank Miller
5. Warren Ellis
6. Bill Finger
7. John Broome
8. Dan Slott
9. Otto Binder
10. Roger Stern

Artists
1. Jack Kirby
2. John Byrne
3. Steve Ditko
4. Frank Quitely
5. John Romita
6. David Mazzuccelli
7. Frank Miller
8. Dave Gibbons
9. Mark Bagley
10. Walt Simonson

Simonson might move up that list, after I read through his run on Fantastic Four that I picked up the other day. Quite a productive shopping trip, really- 66 comics for 100 Australian dollars! Yay!
Now, so this entry isn't a complete waste, here's a funny video.

The Word 'Fantastic' Has Never Been Used So Loosely

2006-09-09T21:18:00.000-07:00

So, awhile ago I was reading about a Fantastic Four movie that was made in the early 90s, and was so bad it was never released. In fact, rumour has it it was never meant to be released, and was filmed only so that the studio responsible could maintain its hold on the Fantastic Four license. My curiousity was well-and-truly piqued, and luckily, youtube is our friend. Here, for your viewing pleasure and/or chagrin, is a scene from the first Fantastic Four movie:

Here's another:

Another, quite quick but equally terrible, clip:

And here's the- quite frankly, truly incomprehensibly awful- trailer:

I know what you're thinking- 'where can I see the entire movie for myself?' Well, to be honest, I don't know. Apparently bootleg copies of it are fairly common, but to be honest, I'm not sure I could bring myself to watch the whole thing.
For that reason, here's the ending:

The Fantastic Four are awesome, though.

Don't Do Drugs, Kids

2006-08-31T06:04:00.000-07:00

WHAT. THE. FUCK.

I have never uttered that phrase more than I did during the two hours of my life I gave over to watching 'Casshern' on DVD. Honestly, I go into the videostore, I see a movie about a super-powered dude fighting giant robots based on a '70s Japanese cartoon, and what can I say? I'm a sucker for that stuff. But this was... not what I was expecting.

It didn't help matters that Rialto has apparently mass-produced a faulty DVD that unintentionally loops a fight scene so that it plays twice (exactly the same way, shot for shot) in the middle of the movie, totally fucking up any semblance of sense the story had been making up to that point. In fact, I'm not even convinced the loop was unintentional... given how coherent the rest of the story was, it was probably a deliberate nod to the repetitive nature of violence, or something.

This is easily one of the best-looking movies I've ever seen. Shot using the same sort of technology that made 'Sin City' and 'Sky Captain' so gorgeous, with a guy with a rocket pack fighting armies of giant robots thrown in for good measure, it's probably best to just watch this movie with the sound off.

The problem is that there isn't really enough robot-fighting. I mean, once I get a taste for that sort of thing, I must have more; but instead 'Casshern' goes off on incomprehensible philosophical tangents that the Wachowski Brothers would be proud of. I was totally down with all the 'trippy' elements of this one at first, even as I realised it must have fuck all to do with the anime it's based on (a quick perusal of the net just then confirmed this), but eventually, one slightly confusing moment led to another until it reached the point where I had no fucking idea what was going on. Which, in a way, is actually pretty cool, but not when it distracts from the guy with the rocket pack.

Seriously, my head still hurts now. A lot. But my god, did it look cool. A part of me wants to give this the worst recommendation possible, another part of me wants to watch it again right now. Not sure which part wins yet.

Snakes On A Motherfuckin' Aussie

2006-08-30T05:32:00.000-07:00

This interview is pretty old, but now that the movie's out, the copy of Scene it was in is off the street and any media embargo has been well and truly lifted, I feel better about putting it here.

When the Australian star of ‘Snakes on a Plane’ talks, you listen. Nathan Phillips Speaks!

“I was being a bit choosy with my first American film. I wanted to make a doozy, I wanted to come out with all guns blazing, you know? I sat down with the director, and he explained that the script was only a blueprint, that Sam Jackson was doing it, and that it was going to be a fun, fun movie. And I mean, you know, it wasn’t a taxing or terribly challenging role. I just had to bring as much life to it as I could and play a happy-go-lucky American guy on a plane full of snakes. Run for the hills! Run for the hills!

“The snakes weren’t too creepy. ‘Wolf Creek’ was creepy, so this was a walk in the park for me. It was funny, because you walk past a make-up trailer and there’s like 250 snakes in there, and they’re behind these little glass cases. What if there really was a pheromone that was let loose in the building and they got aggressive? Could it happen? So yeah, unfortunately nothing like that happened, but in the film it does. They’re still pretty scary when they open up their fangs, but most of the time it was CGI. And, you know, a lot of the time the actors were quite happy to use CGI!

“The Brazilian Boa was great. I’d never seen such an enormous snake, and I got to hold one. It ate people whole, you know. Just to see this ancient reptile that has older brothers and sisters still out in the rainforest, in all their glory, eating little men and llamas, I don’t know… It’s just an amazing specimen of ancient animal. We couldn’t have done it without the snakes, you know. They’re the heroes.

“I learned a lot from Sam (Jackson). Just about dedication and commitment. He was working on another film at the same time, and learning guitar for that film. I was just watching his dedication, and learning that life’s about learning, you know? You never stop, and as you get older you just realise that you don’t know enough about life, and it can continue to be a very rewarding and rich experience even in old age. But hanging out with Sam, you do start dropping the F-Bomb. I grew up with a very beautiful grandmother who would not allow me to be so bad-mouthed. I still look over my shoulder when I drop the F-Bomb, so I had an awkward time on set. It was originally never rated R, so there were no F-Drops. But we went back and did a week of re-shoots to make it a little more like what the fans wanted, and managed to get some into the final edit.

“They had a free marketing campaign, really. They had no test screenings; people’s imaginations were enough. But I don’t look at the internet, so I haven’t really had to deal with the hype. And I don’t tell people I’m in it, because I don’t tell people I’m an actor. Never do that, mate. There’s better things to talk about. But my dad’s gonna love it. It’s fun and lighthearted, it’s everything you’d want from a film called ‘Snakes on a Plane’. And I’m sure there’s gonna be a lot of people cashing in on it, as you said.

“Obviously everybody’s cashing in but me, you’ve made me fully aware of this, thank you. Maybe I should think about it, because I’m planning on having children one day. Maybe you could start up a site for me, ‘How to Help Nathan Cash in on Snakes on a Plane’. So, any ideas? ‘Snakes on a Nathan’, I don’t know… maybe we can find a blog we can do…

“But, you know, the film’s exactly what the director wanted it to be. It’s just a fun, popcorn in the air, screaming, tell-your-girlfriend-to-shut-up-because-I-wanna-watch-the-film-oh-shit-it’s-a-snake kind of film. I’m happy to say it’s a very tongue in cheek, old school film. Unnecessary tit shots, genre stuff... I got it, you know? I got it.”

Wild About Purple

2006-08-28T04:44:00.000-07:00

It's kind of bizarre that I finally got around to watching 'Purple Rain' (after buying it for five bucks or something on DVD) the night before I first listened to Outkast's 'Idlewild', which I quickly realised is basically a circa 2006 model of the exact same thing.

So, anyway, 'Purple Rain'. It's pretty cool, if you're into that sort of thing. I like a lot of Prince's stuff, but this movie is definitely more an artifact of its time than an actual good movie. It's one of those bizarre '80s flicks that's too 'mature' for kids and not really 'mature' enough for adults, and ended up being an absolute mega-smash regardless.

Incidentally, if you think that straight people could never look gayer than they did in the Glam Rock era, or that metrosexualism is some trend that started within the last decade, you need to see this movie.

Basically, it's a lot of fun (despite its slightly awkward lunges towards social relevance and hard-hitting themes) and if there's anyone else out there like me who has somehow never seen it, definitely check it out.

I intended to write an actual, critic-y review of this, but I have stuff to do, so I'll leave you with this video, just to prove Prince is still alive:

Unforgiven Not Forgotten

2006-08-26T20:43:00.000-07:00

'Unforgiven' is one of those movies that I could talk (or write) about all day. I won't right now, because I like to maintain the illusion that I have a life, but trust me, it's right up there as one of a handful of my all-time favourite movies. Having said that, I only got around to buying it on DVD a couple of days ago, hence this review.

This movie is the ultimate western- the final statement on the genre from the man who knew it better than most, Clint Eastwood. The story goes that Eastwood bought the rights to the script sometime in the early '80s, and then hung onto it until he was old enough to play the lead role. Needless to say, his patience paid off... he commands the screen with a degree of pathos and a sense of mortality that was only hinted at in his earlier performances, and was once again on display in 'Million Dollar Baby'.

Of course, credit for the film's genius must go to screenwriter David Webb Peoples ('Blade Runner') as well. There are so many well-developed characters here, each brought to life by brilliant performances from some of cinema's greatest acting talents. For sheer memorability, it's hard to go past Richard Harris' portrayal of English Bob, if only for the immortal line, "...well, why not shoot the President?"

Aside from Harris, there's Gene Hackman's splendidly complex Little Bill, a brutal sherriff with good intentions who protects his jurisdiction of Big Whiskey, Wyoming with what can only be described as excessively excessive force. Morgan Freeman brings his typical air of down-home grandeur to his wonderful role as Eastwood's old partner, and Saul Rubinek, who is usually forgotten in discussions about this film, provides metatextual fun as a journalist prone to writing overly dramatic biographies.

Like the classic westerns that it derives its inspiration from, 'Unforgiven' is not short on laughs despite its heady subject matter. To be honest, I'd forgotten just how many chuckles you can get out of it. After all, it's easy to forget such things in light of the towering dramatic arc that drives the work.

Reflecting its title in every possible way, 'Unforgiven' is the story of a woman hellbent for revenge, even if it means vastly overstating the wrong that was actually committed against her and refusing non-violent settlement; a man unable to ever forgive himself for his sins; and the inherent, unforgiving violence of the harsh Western frontier's last gasps before settling into domesticity. Truly, "deserve's got nothin' to do with it."

A famously laid-back director, Eastwood infuses 'Unforgiven' with an elegaic rythym that lulls you in rather than sending you to sleep, entrancing you with the beauty of its meditative moments before shocking you with staccato bursts of brutality.

After bidding a fitting farewell here to the genre that made him a star, Eastwood continues to make great films across a variety of genres... but this will always be seen as his true masterpiece.

Today's Shameless Plug

2006-08-24T04:06:00.000-07:00

So, be sure to check out this week's edition of Scene Magazine, featuring my interview with 'Snakes on a Plane' star Nathan Phillips, where he tells all about the production of the instant cult classic (that I still haven't seen) in his own words.

Today's 'movie of the day' is the telemovie that marked the debut of the Flash TV series in the very early '90s. Don't be fooled by the tone of the review, I really am looking forward to some of the other episodes in the set.

And following up on yesterday's Transformers post, the box set of the show's third season that I bought the other day is awesome, even if there's a to-be-expected massive drop in quality from the movie. Seriously, anything Marvel's Sunbow Productions did in the '80s, I'm a total whore for.

Flashdance

2006-08-24T03:12:00.000-07:00

Nostalgia is a cruel mistress. Oh, sure, she always speaks highly of you, and focuses on the positives in every situation, but at the end of the day she's just setting you up for a fall.

It was while under the seductive influence of Nostalgia that I recently found myself in posession of the complete 'Flash' television series on DVD. And, well... funnily enough, it's not quite as good as I remembered it.

Now, keep in mind, I'm only talking about the debut telemovie here. I was impressed by the second episode, and may yet be wowed by the 20 episodes to come. But that first telemovie... boy, has my mind been playing tricks on me.

Consider, too, that I couldn't have been any older than five or six when I last saw it, and back then, the idea of a live-action Flash running around was enough to make me oversee any cinematic or televisual sin. Still is, for the most part. So I'm not entirely surprised I had such fond memories of this movie-length premiere.

And, in fairness, there's some cool stuff going on here. It's hard to fault the first hour or so, wherein the Flash gets his powers and discovers how to use them in fairly comedic ways. Why, there's even some sly, Lois & Clark-style superheroic innuendo to laugh along with. And the story behind the costume makes sense, at least until he personalises it.

But my God, do things get seriously wrong-headed in the second half. Am I the only one who thinks a guy running around in a red suit with a lightning bolt insignia isn't intimidating? Am I the only one who thinks that with a Rogues Gallery consisting of guys like Captain Cold, Captain Boomerang, the Trickster and the Mirror Master, there should be a touch of whimsy and a light-hearted charm present here? Was anyone with any taste whatsoever present during the scripting process, when deep and meaningful exchanges from Burton's 'Batman' were stolen wholesale to be used much less effectively in this story?

For that matter, the whole show kind of has the feel of a cash-in on Batman '89. Central City has never looked more like Gotham than it did here, and Danny Elfman and Shirley Walker's music- which I've loved to death elsewhere- come off as recycled left-overs from the 'Batman' recording sessions. Having said that, Walker was given the musical reins of the Batman Animated Series after this show, so for that, it's hard not to be thankful.

Still, this is the freakin' FLASH. It should be FUN. Instead, co-writers Paul De Meo and Danny Bilson take us down the worst kind of forced, grim'n'gritty path. When I was five or six, I probably thought it was kewl that the Flash fought a goth motorcycle gang, so, you know, mission accomplished there. It just doesn't hold up well, not that it was probably supposed to.

Co-producers De Meo and Bilson (possibly most famous these days as the father of OC starlet Rachel) were recently handed the writing reigns of the Flash comic book, and surprise, surprise, it apparently sucks. I'm generally really supportive of everything Dan DiDio has done since he took over at DC Comics... I may not have liked all of it personally, but I have liked a lot of it, and the rest has appealed to a broad section of other readers. But did anyone ever really think that tying the comic into a TV show that got cancelled fifteen years ago was actually going to be successful? Are there really no better writers to handle one of the company's flagship characters?

Okay. So. Rant Over. Way to kick a television show's pilot fifteen years after it went down!

Anyway, like I said, the second episode was surprisingly good, and with Howard Chaykin on the writing staff and Mark Hammil coming up in a couple of episodes as the Trickster, I might end up looking at this as a good retro purchase.

But I have learnt a lesson here, and it is to be wary of Lady Nostalgia. Next time I'm scanning the DVD racks and I happen to catch her gaze, I will look the other way immediately... unless it's the Defenders of the Earth box set, or the second season of Lois & Clark, or about a trillion other things I'm totally going to buy for pure nostalgia value.

Have a Flash intro:

And an intro to a Flash cartoon, which kinda proves why animation rocks by comparison:

Transformer

2006-08-22T18:29:00.000-07:00

For some folks, the '80s were about enjoying the work of Michael Jackson unironically; extolling the virtues of greed; and wearing clothes that they must have known would look ridiculous in a week's time. For me, and many others born in that glorious decade, the '80s was about giant robots.

Which, of course, led me to extoll the virtues of greed in order to convince my parents to buy the toys, and probably licenced clothing that looked ridiculous. I didn't learn to unironically enjoy the work of Mr Jackson until about five years ago.

There's not much point in taking an overly analytical approach to this movie, made after the first two seasons of the hit TV show. There's no deeper meanings, themes or subtexts that bear drawing out here. Well, that isn't entirely true- you could argue that the movie is about the manifest destiny of good's triumph over evil, a point hammered home by Unicron's last words (he was voiced by Orson Welles, who has a way with that sort of thing)- but it isn't really worth the effort, and considering that the theme song famously tells us of the Autobot's imminent victory over the evil Decepticons, it's hardly a subtext.

The Transformers was a great introduction to sci-fi for a kid. It's not the show's fault that the geekier among us never truly let go and moved onto more sophisticated fare. Surely, most of the concepts had been done before, but it was the first time that I encountered planets entirely populated by robots, and, for that matter, a robot capable of transforming into and devouring planets. Among many, many other cool things. God, the Transformers rocked.

And rock, the movie did indeed. There's barely a frame that isn't backed by garish arena rock or overblown synths, as if the film makers were keenly aware that they were making a time capsule for their decade. Vince DiCola's score is firmly imprinted on my brain, to the point where virtually all of his music cues in this film have some sort of meaning for me. Stan Bush (whoever that is) contributed two hilariously bad tracks- Dare and Touch- and I have it on good authority that he still performs them regularly to packed crowds of Transformers Convention-goers. And if I don't have Lion's "rock" version of the Transformers theme on my iPod by the end of the week, I won't be a happy man.

Watching the film 20 years on from its release, it's clear that it was basically just a cynical marketing ploy to sell a bunch of new toys. Hell, a part of me remembers thinking that when I first saw it. But I'll be damned if they didn't do a great job of wringing every last ounce of action and drama out of the changeover to a new generation of Transformers. I suspect that for many people my age or slightly older, the blackened body of Optimus Prime (or, for that matter, all the other Autobots who died before him less famously) served as their version of Bambi's mother, and the transition from Megatron to Galvatron was quite stylish.

Honestly, has there ever been a cooler fight scene than Optimus Prime versus Megatron in 'Transformers: The Movie'? I mean, come on! The two main characters from the TV show get irrepairably fucked up within the opening half hour of the movie! "One Shall Stand, One Shall Fall!" I love it! I swear to God, I had the entire dialogue and choreography of that sequence at my instant mental disposal by the time I was four, tops.

Don't take my word (or your memory) for it, watch it for yourself:

And the fact that, upon taking control of the Matrix of Leadership, Hot Rod's name actually changed from Hot Rod to Roddimus Prime, is AWESOME. It sounds like a jokey nickname (like Azbats) that people on an internet message board might have given him 10 years after the fact, not something that the actual writers of the film would come up with.

I'd love to get nostalgic and say that they don't make films like this anymore, but that's probably not true. The 'kids these days' will probably look back on Spongebob Squarepants and Harry Potter and whatever with the exact same fondness with which I recall the one, the only, 'Transformers: The Movie'... but with the new, live-action movie (which is going to suck: there, I said it) due to hit our screens next year, I get the feeling I won't be the only one getting nostalgic.

And now, as a reward for reading down this far, a treasure trove of YouTube Transformers goodies.

First up, the announcement trailer for the new movie:

The classic intro to the first season of the TV show:

The intro to the second season of the show:

The intro to the third season of the show (the first post-movie, and by far my personal favourite intro):

The intro to the short-lived fourth season:

The intro to 'Transformers 2010', the Japanese version of Transformers Series 3.

A Japanese live-action trailer for 'Transformers 2010':

The intro to 'Transformers: Beast Wars':

I'm not really sure which order the latest series' go in, having never actually watched them, but here's the intro for 'Transformers: Armada':

'Transformers: Energon':

And, finally, what I believe to be the newest series- not too sure about that, but the intro's a lot better than the last two- 'Transformers: Cybertron':

Today's Ramblings

2006-08-21T23:53:00.000-07:00

So, the film under the spotlight today is 'Fingers'. What will it be tomorrow? Let's just say that if I can be bothered watching it before then, that it's beyond good, beyond evil, beyond your wildest imagination...

In unrelated news, I bought the 'Transformers' Volume 4 Box Set today. I don't have any of the others, I just skipped ahead to that one because it was cheap and has my favourite intro from the various seasons. Yes, I know which season had my favourite intro. Yes, that is sad. No, I haven't actually watched an episode since I was in primary school. But it will rock, I tell you!

I also got the box set of 'The Flash' TV show, and will be eagerly devouring it. No, I haven't actually watched an episode of that since primary school either. But it, too, will rock!

Speaking of 'The Flash' TV show, how good is it that 'Lois & Clark' is on DVD now? I finally finished Season 1 last night, and the last couple episodes were good enough to convince me I needed to get the other Seasons eventually. Not that it was ever really in question. The best episodes? 'The Foundling' and 'Barbarians at the Planet', no question.

If anyone on earth has actually read this far down, I salute you. And remember, be here tomorrow... One Shall Stand, One Shall Fall.

Sticky Fingers

2006-08-21T23:19:00.000-07:00

Harvey Keitel divides me. He's one of those performers that exudes an aura of preternatural cool, he's worked with a bunch of great independant directors over a bunch of years to make a bunch of great independant films, and, of course, he's a terrific actor.

And yet... in the quest for that independant cred, he seems to film a lot of pretty bad scenes, and these scenes always end up getting into the finished movies. So, a litmus test example: Keitel's scenes in 'Pulp Fiction' are usually my least favourite parts of the film. If you totally love those scenes, you're probably a bigger Keitel fan than me, so you'll probably like 'Fingers' more than me.

Having said that, 'Fingers' is a pretty great film. Essentially a 90-minute character piece with an interesting gimmick (which was stolen by those cowardly French for last year's 'The Beat My Heart Skipped'), it's the story of Jimmy 'Fingers', an amazingly talented pianist who aims to play at Carnegie Hall, and just happens to moonlight as a vicious debt collector in the meantime. So, kind of like 'Five Easy Pieces', but with more mobsters and more Kietel-isms.

You know what I'm talking about: gratutious dudity; random women unable to resist the man despite the fact that his character is kind of a loser; generally just moments that make for awkward viewing.

Which is the idea, of course. Keitel works with directors who set out to be confronting, and he gives them their money's worth. The overt sexuality isn't really gratuitous either, in the sense that in a film like 'Fingers'- or Scorsese's 'Who's That Knocking At My Door'- Keitel has to convey a barely repressed, primal and violent masculinity with a sensitive side.

In this case, he's doing so under the direction of James Toback, who would go on to make a bigger name for himself as the screenwriter of 'Bugsy'. Unfortunately, Toback is no Scorsese, and so in the sense that 'Fingers' and 'Who's That Knocking At My Door' are comparable- given their similar themes, and their relative chronological proximity in Keitel's career- 'Fingers' is poorer for it.

But there are definitely enough interesting things going on here to justify its viewing. Jimmy's conflict between his job as an enforcer (working for his loan shark dad) and his talent as a musician (seeking the approval of his insane mother) externalises the conflict between the 'masculine' and 'feminine' sides of our personalities, and it is truly sad (in the best tradition of tragedy) to see Jimmy using his fingers to clasp a trigger rather than tinkle the ivories. The music's pretty great, too: Jimmy insists on carrying around a blaring tape player everywhere he goes, which helps to develop his character and provide a pretty sweet diagetic soundtrack at the same time.

'Fingers' is more curio than masterpiece, but it's certainly worth a look if you get your hands on it.

Content Explosion! Woo!

2006-08-20T21:00:00.000-07:00

So, this blog has been fairly bare lately; and aside from that, my writing 'muscles' in general are atrophying a lot with all the 'slacking' I've been doing. So, here now is a promise from me to me: this blog will now have one new film review, in some form or another, posted by me everyday. They don't have to be new films, in fact, they probably won't be, but basically I'll be watching and reviewing one random film everyday. For a little while. Until I get distracted. Which will probably be tomorrow.

The first random film review is posted below- Shaft!- and others will continue. Freakily, I had no idea until I was watching the film that it was written by Ernest Tidyman, who also wrote 'High Plains Drifter', which I fell so completely in love with a few days ago.

I'll also be endeavouring to post weekly comics reviews, semi-regular installments of "Reasons To Buy 'Showcase Presents Superman Family' Vol. 1" and, of course, videos lazily stolen from youtube. Or I could, you know, attend to my university studies. Whichever comes first, really.

Shafted

2006-08-20T20:10:00.000-07:00

'Shaft' is one of those rare films that has both been given a raw deal and been grossly overcelebrated in terms of critical acclaim and pop culture infiltration.

Y'see, 'Shaft' really isn't a fun blaxploitation film. Don't get me wrong: it does have many of the hallmarks of such an enterprise, but in the end Isaac Hayes' classic 'Shaft' theme is a hell of a lot more fun than the film Gordon Parks actually made.

Which isn't to say that 'Shaft' is a bad film. When you think of 'exploitation' films, you normally think of crudely shot efforts by hacks appealing to a certain outrageous genre sensibility. And that's just not what Gordon Parks was about.

From all reports, Parks was a true Renaissance man. Widely considered one of the finest photographers in the world during his time at Life magazine, with his work demonstrating a masterful affinity for gritty urban cityscapes, Parks proved he was equally adept in the art of cinema with his first film, 'The Learning Tree'. The first major studio film directed by an African-American, the film is now preserved for all time in the U.S. National Film Registry.

So it's no surprise that rather than a wham-bam-thank-you-Foxy blaxploitation flick, Parks actually made a stark document of life in early '70s New York. Sure, it has its whimsical elements, but for all the bravado of super-fly Shaft teaming up with a ghetto gangster (played by Moses Gunn, who blatantly steals the film) to take on the mob, there's an almost depressing degree of reality to be seen here.

In fact, Richard Roundtree's John Shaft seems to spend as much time bitching about being black as he does embracing it. Which is obviously understandable, given the era, but probably not what you'd expect from the film given the legend that is 'Shaft'. The more ostentatious elements of what would quickly become a genre seem somewhat dulled here- the women that allegedly flock to Shaft seem fairly plain and are hardly in abundance, and for a hero advertised as being 'Hotter Than Bond and Cooler Than Bullit', there's barely an action sequence to be found until the film's rushed denouement.

This is a worthwhile film to track down for those who haven't seen it; both for what it is and what it isn't: It is a primal yet somewhat fantastical document of its times, but it isn't quite the hilarious period piece that many presume it to be.

'High Plains Drifter' Rules My World

2006-08-18T18:28:00.000-07:00

Seriously. I only saw 'High Plains Drifter' for the first time ever last night, and holy fucking shit. Why was I not made aware of this earlier? Why wasn't I told?

Every single person I have ever met who did not say to me, "Rohan, you should really watch High Plains Drifter," is now officially on notice.

This movie has rocked my world with its radness. Apparently, John Wayne wrote a letter to Clint Eastwood condemning him for making this film, which is awesome. It's a cruel, dark, downright rocksome motherfucker that proves Eastwood peaked as a director about 30 years before conventional wisdom says he did. And it was only the second film he directed!

I am so glad Eastwood's come back into critical acclaim in the last few years, because 'High Plains Drifter' proves how underrated he was for most of his career.

Incidentally, for those who have seen the film: Eastwood says the brother. I'm not buying it.

For those who haven't seen the film: Watch 'High Plains Drifter'. Right now. Drop everything. Are you still here?

That's What I Do. I Carry Things In My Belt.

2006-08-14T20:30:00.000-07:00

I've been kinda sick/busy lately, so my posting here has gotten pretty sporadic. Still, I thought these needed to be seen here:

You can find a stack more of the 'How It Should Have Ended' videos (including an awesome Wonka riff) here.
That is all.

Reasons to Buy 'Showcase Presents Superman Family' #1, or The Rainbow Ice Cube Machine

2006-08-08T19:20:00.001-07:00

Over at Scipio's blog- which is much better than this one, and I swear to God I will get around to adding a bunch more cool blogs such as his to my sidebar eventually- he has an ongoing feature called 'Reasons to Buy Manhunter'.

Well, I'm going to blatantly steal that schtick, except where Scipio provides thoughtful, measured reasons to buy a critically acclaimed book that examines the nature of vigilanteism and pays tribute to the rich heritage of its publishing company, I will be persuading you to buy a black-and-white book about a semi-retarded redhead cub reporter.

Come on... you know you want to. Actually, most people on the blogosphere already have, so this is really directed at an imaginary audience, and possibly Grace.

In 'Superman's Pal, Jimmy Olsen' #9, reprinted in this volume, perpetual cub reporter Jimmy Olsen tries his hand at becoming a cub inventor, with decidedly Jimmy-esque results. After failed attempts at building a robotic cat (which results in atomic fuel being spilled, which results in a magical hair-growth formula, which... anyway, it's important later on, trust me) Olsen finally strikes it lucky and creates a time radio, capable of picking up great speeches of the past. Seriously. The collected works of Winston Churchill, Mohammed, Jesus, MLK (ok, well, not MLK, it was the '50s), hell, the sounds of dinosaurs and the Big Bang, are all there for Jimmy to listen to.

Of course, he uses it to listen to a jewel heist that happened three days ago. His pal Superman needs clues, y'see. Word gets out that Olsen is using the time radio for this purpose, and the gangsters who commited the crime come to take care of our red-headed hero, just as Supes hoped they would...

You see, Jimmy's time radio didn't actually work. Superman just made him think it did, using Super ventriloquism, for the express purpose of luring three bandits out of hiding.
"Hope my "Lincoln" voice works..."

Oh, and what does Jimmy do when the 'diamond bandits' enter his apartment? Well, there's a pretty sweet single panel in which Superman turns their guns into handcuffs (Curt Swan's artwork is stellar throughout the volume), but more importantly, Jimmy uses the atomic fuel-powered hair growth serum from the start of the story to grow a lustrous red beard and convince them that "he can't be young Jimmy Olsen!"

Genius.

Keep in mind, an earlier story in this very same volume points out that "there is hardly a more ordinary crime than the theft of jewels". Wait'll you see the shit Supes and Jimmy get up to to solve the unusual cases.

Buy 'Showcase Presents Superman Family'.

My faith in humanity is restored

2006-08-08T19:09:00.000-07:00

Sometimes, it's easy to be down about the general state of the world. I mean, let's face it: most people, most of the time, think that most other people are stupid, and they're probably right. Occasionally though, something will happen that will make you rethink your position on the state of modern civilization.

For me, it was the news that 'Yasmin's Getting Married' has been cancelled after one week, and replaced by 'Futurama'.

Quality animation 1, Mind-numbingly bad reality television 0.

You Know What's Awesome?

2006-07-29T04:43:00.000-07:00

The fact that The Globe Cinema showed Tim Burton's 'Batman' today. Fuck yeah!

The bill actually advertised a double feature of 'Batman Begins' and 'Batman', but for some reason 'Begins' could not be shown, and so it was straight into 'Batman'! Considering I'd watched 'Begins' on DVD literally the day before, and it's absence made for cheaper tickets, I would consider that a comprehensive victory.

Let's get this straight at the outset: chalk it up to nostalgia or bizarre personal preference or whatever, but I realised as I was watching this classic on the big screen that, honest to God, this is my favourite film of all time. You know how when something's always been around, you forget to appreciate it? That must have been what I was doing when I gave 'favourite of all time' status to 'Superman Returns' and 'Spiderman 2', because 'Batman' would win a brawl in a cinematic dark alley with either of them.

From the time the opening credits start rolling, you know you're in for something special. Danny Eflman's opening theme rivals any of John Williams' best efforts, and sets the tone beautifully for the pop dark deco that Burton unleashes onto the screen. Seeing it again in a darkened cinema, I wondered what it must have felt like to have been an audience member in 1989 who only knew Batman from the Adam West TV show or the Superfriends cartoons. It must have been an eye-opening experience, to say the least.

This truly is a dark film, particularly for a Hollywood blockbuster. There seems to have been a time in the 1980s, a time certainly not as well documented as the iconoclastic early-to-mid 1970s, where 'family' films were really allowed to get their hands dirty in a decidely Grimm Brothers sort of way. I'm not sure you could make a 'Batman', a 'Gremlins' or even a 'Robocop' now... studio films have become entirely too sanitised, as sweeping a statement as that is. Of course, the entire premise of Batman and the Joker's rivalry can be seen as a sort of metacommentary on this very topic: the bright and cheery Joker is actually a dangerous maniac, and the dark and brooding Batman is actually a courageous hero. Be careful what you wish for...

The dark world that the characters of 'Batman' inhabit is perfectly realised by Anton Furst, of course. Undeniably, this film is a masterpiece of set design, and the fact that the Gotham of 'Batman Begins' looks so pedestrian by comparison says a lot about the homogenity of modern Hollywood. Certainly, 'Begins' takes place in a more 'realistic' world, but seriously, where's the fun in that?

Speaking of 'Begins' vs Burton... I'm not going to reignite the great Keaton/Bale debate. Keaton is damn impressive here, and we'll leave it at that!

Ultimately, Burton's film works better for me than Nolan's because it is a complete filmic experience. Burton took the basic elements of Kane and Finger's early work on the character and adapted them fairly accurately, but ultimately (probably because he doesn't read comics himself) Burton came at the material with a fresh enough perspective to create an immersive, stand-alone world with a complete operatic story as its centrepiece. In Burton's film, of course the Joker killed Batman's parents, because that's how it would work in an opera. This isn't a film with an eye towards sequels, or mundane believability, this is a film that aims to tell a tragic fairytale with a beginning, a middle and an ending, and it works on every level.

Likewise, unlike Nolan's film, Burton's 'Batman' opeates on these levels without beating you over the head with its themes. 'Begins' is often praised for being a more 'intelligent' film, but you know what? That's just because people are lazy. 'Begins' practically screams at you, "THIS IS A FILM ABOUT FEAR AND JUSTICE AND THE POWER OF MYTHS!", and while it is impressive in the way that all the elements of its larger story feed back into those themes, they are painfully well-telegraphed. 'Batman', on the other hand, deals subtextually with duality in a masterful fashion that informs every aspect of the film without drawing too much attention to itself. Chalk up another victory for Burton.

Anyway, none of this means anything, because growing up with Burton's film kinda willfully blinds me to its flaws, and I actually like 'Begins' a lot. It was just very cool of the Globe to show Burton's film on the big screen, so I'm on a total Burton high right now. I just wish so many goddamn emo kids didn't feel the same way... this must be what it was like to be a Bowie fan who had no interest in glam, or something. Regardless, I've had a pretty perfect day, and what better way to top it off than rambling about an old favourite?

New Hotness

2006-07-20T03:13:00.000-07:00

So, yes. A buncha reviews yesterday, since I haven't posted anything for awhile. A couple of latecomers in there- '16 Blocks' and 'Half Light' came out in America ages ago, we're only just getting them in Australia this week.

The big news in movies today, I suppose, is the alleged casting of Heath Ledger as the Joker. Seriously. Yes, I realise a thousand people have been 'cast' as the Joker in the 'Batman Begins' sequel by now, but this one is (supposedly) for real, and I can really see it working. It's a ballsy choice that fanboys are already objecting to, but I think they're going to be pleasantly surprised. Shades of Keaton, really.

Aside from movies, I've read a couple of really good comics in the last few weeks.

First off, Detective Comics #821, from the new writer/artist team of Paul Dini and J.H. Williams III... yes. THIS is what Batman comics are all about. A complete story, with genuine detective work, solid action and perfect characterisation. A fucking horrible trend in comics since at least the 90's is to introduce a new villain, build them up to be the greatest thing ever, and then spend months if not years teasing out the mystery of their identity and motivations, as our hero strives incompetently to stop them and readers just stop caring.
Dini says: no. In one issue, you see the brand new villain introduced and defeated, with his identity and motivations laid bare. And, because it only took one issue, I'm not sick of him yet, either.

Really, Dini nails it on the first page... it doesn't work so well without Williams' brilliant panel layout, but just this one piece of narration had me freaking out and putting Danny Elfman's 'Batman' theme on repeat on my ipod:
"I hear the soft gurgle of pleasure in the mugger's throat.

I'll turn it into a scream."

Please, Mr. Dini, please, stay on 'Detective Comics' forever.

I enjoyed Kurt Busiek's work on Superman #654 very much, as well. Busiek remembers that Clark is a journalist, damn it, and actually works that into the story. As a journalism student, I was thrilled that Superman has to go to press conferences about city planning, education and retiring judges, even if he was 'multi-tasking' at the time. Kurt makes the Clark/Lois marriage work as well. Not as good as Dini on 'Tec, and not even close to Morrison on All-Star, but I can tell Busiek's run is going to be something I look forward to on a monthly basis.

Finally, Justice League Unlimited #23 was great as well. Yes, it's based on a cartoon. Honestly, that just adds to the charm of it. JLU basically takes every DC character ever, and tells fun, done-in-one stories about them. This issue uses a typical heist by the Royal Flush Gang to tell a story about the common-place nature of heroism, and it hits all the right notes.

I couldn't recommend it any higher, even if it willfully doesn't fall into the "comics aren't for kids anymore! We're sophisticated, and tell grim and gritty stories about men in capes who can fly and see through walls!" line of thinking. Actually, I love it because it doesn't fall into that line of thinking.

Coming up here soon, or at least, you know, within the next two weeks-- a review of the fantastic new Aussie movie 'Footy Legends' and an interview with its director, 2005's Young Australian of the Year and all-around top bloke Khoa Do. Just got off the phone with him an hour or so ago, he's a talented guy with loads of enthusiasm; just an absolute inspiration.

Off to revel in the Brisbane Festival and see the Boat People tonight... then Kate Miller-Heidke on Annabel's birthday on Wednesday! Yay for birthdays!

'My Super Ex-Girlfriend' Review

2006-07-20T02:54:00.000-07:00

This is fun.

That may seem like a no-brainer. Movies are supposed to be fun, aren’t they? It should be a given that a movie will entertain you, but it really isn’t. Occasionally, a movie like ‘My Super Ex-Girlfriend’ should be praised for being exactly what it sets out to be: fun.

There is a simple premise here: boy (Luke Wilson) meets girl (Uma Thurman), girl turns out to be a slightly insane super-heroine, and all hell breaks loose as said insane girl proceeds to make ‘The Break-Up’ look like ‘An Affair to Remember.’ The necessary wallpaper is thrown in too, of course- Anna Farris plays the girl of Wilson’s dreams, Rainn Wilson plays his sleazy best friend and Eddie Izzard is criminally underused as Uma’s arch-nemesis- but basically, this film takes one fun concept and runs with it, making the most of comedic set pieces that lesser directors would kill for.

‘My Super Ex-Girlfriend’ isn’t trying to set you up for a sequel, it’s not trying to cast its lead character as the messiah, it’s not mining any obscure subtext and it’s damn sure not going to win any Oscars. This isn’t ‘that kind’ of movie. This is the director of ‘Stripes’, ‘Ghostbusters’ and ‘Kindergarten Cop’ having fun with Luke Wilson, Uma Thurman and a projectile shark, and as far as throwaway entertainment goes, it goes a long way.

'My Super Ex-Girlfriend' is now showing.

'Half Light' Review

2006-07-20T02:45:00.000-07:00

This film reviews itself. Literally.

Early on in this ‘film’, and I use that word tentatively, a failed novelist receives a rejection letter informing him that his book is “insufficiently mysterious for a mystery, and insufficiently thrilling for a thriller.”

I couldn’t have said it better myself, so I won’t. In a nutshell: Demi Moore’s career continues its sad decline, she sees dead people, good guys win, audiences lose.
And we’re done here.

'Half Light' is now showing.

'16 Blocks' Review

2006-07-20T02:33:00.000-07:00

Yippee-ki-yay, motherfuckers, Bruce Willis is back to something approaching his badass best in Richard Donner’s ‘16 Blocks’.

Willis is Detective Jack Mosley, a boozing, balding member of New York’s Finest. Not exactly a glamorous role, but certainly a perfect platform for badassery, as he escorts semi-retarded prisoner Eddie Bunker (Mos Def) from jail to court. It’s only 16 blocks away, but some bad folks don’t want them to make it, and… oh, you can tell for yourself what’s going to happen here.

The inevitable urban warzone our heroes find themselves in gives director Richard Donner (‘Lethal Weapon’) a chance to shine, as he squeezes every possible drop of tension from the proceedings. This comeback to the director’s chair adds to a big year for the Donner family- his ‘70s flicks ‘The Omen’ and ‘Superman’ were given the remake/sequel treatment, his wife produced ‘X3’, and Colin Farrell and Jamie Foxx wish they were as cool as Riggs and Murtaugh. Or something.

Funnily enough, this film is at its best when it sticks to what it does best: Bruce Willis shooting and getting shot at. Attempts to tackle heavier topics- police corruption, alcoholism, the question of humanity’s potential for redemption- are admirable, but ill-advised. Nobody is going to see this to gain a better understanding of the human condition, after all. Donner also can’t help but work in a bit of his trademark schmaltz, but not enough to ruin the film, luckily.

If you enjoy the collective works of Mr. Willis, then you’ll enjoy this latest addition to his oeuvre. If you’re not a fan… well, this is awkward.

'16 Blocks' is now showing.

'Solo' Act

2006-07-20T02:31:00.000-07:00

Actor. Musician. Writer. Director. Raconteur. There’s a number of strings in the bow of Morgan O’Neill, Australia’s first winner of Foxtel’s ‘Project Greenlight’, but it was going to take more than archery to make a good flick with his $1 million prize money. For starters, he’d need actors willing to work for award wages…

“Colin Friels invited me round to his place, and the script was sitting on his desk. And it was so well-thumbed, the notes were highlighted in red pen and black pen, and I thought, ‘this is going very well.’ And he said, ‘mate, I love the script, but I can’t do it.’ And I said, ‘mate, to be perfectly honest, I never really thought that you would. Its award wages, and I’m a complete unknown…’, and he said ‘oh, it’s nothing to do with that. I just don’t want to play a crooked cop, I’ve played a crooked cop too many times.’ And I said, ‘oh, oh, we might have our wires crossed, that’s Vince Colosimo, I wanted you to play (main character) Barrett!’ So he said, ‘well, fuck, I’ll do it!’”

With Friels and Colosimo onboard, talented NIDA graduate O’Neill- who has an enthusiastic zeal both for his film and the medium in general, and lists his influences as Scorsese, Tarantino, Ritchie and Eastwood- had only 21 days to shoot his ocker noir, and came across his fair share of obstacles along the way.

“We were constantly coming up against the fact that we didn’t have enough money to do what we needed to do. But I think that actually translated positively to the screen… we had to take a step back and say, ‘is it crucial to the story that we blow up a house? Yes, I think it is.’ So how do we go about doing that without blowing up a house, which would cost a quarter of a million dollars, which is a quarter of our budget? We used something called a Non-Invasive Organic Dust Fireball. When the special effects guy told me about that, I said, I don’t care what that is, let’s use it, it sounds cool!”

Project Greenlight’s investors have nothing to worry about. Rarely have one million cinematic dollars been so well spent.

'Solo' is now showing.

'Solo' Review

2006-07-20T02:29:00.000-07:00

Occasionally a movie comes along that you know, as a ‘critic’, is not a great film, and yet you can’t help but recommend it. ‘Solo’, from first-time director Morgan O’Neill, is one of those films.

The winner of Project Greenlight, a Foxtel show which gives $1 million to a budding filmmaker to make a movie from their winning script (the show originated in the US as an invention of Matt Damon and Ben Affleck), ‘Solo’ is the definition of a crowd pleaser. It’s got everything you’d want from a cops-and-gangsters flick: guns, broads, bullets and booze, a generous dash of jazz and as an added bonus, a decent helping of Colin Friels. Friels plays Barrett, a standover man, who- of course- wants out, and- you guessed it- has to finish off that elusive one last job.

Now, I don’t know about you, but that sounds like a pretty decent way to spend two hours to me. Surprisingly, Friels isn’t totally convincing as the hard mob enforcer: his attempts to seem menacing occasionally produce an unintentional laugh, especially during seemingly solemn flashbacks to his long haired days as a rookie enforcer, but his performance does suggest the depth essential to his character. Vince Colosimo has a swaggering brilliance as a corrupt cop, and Bojana Novakovic straddles the required line between annoyance and believability as a meddling uni student. Perhaps most importantly, the film looks great, and you’d swear it had cost more than $1 million to produce.

So, yes. A thoroughly decent way to spend two hours. It also feels like a way that you’ve spent two hours many, many times before. But hell, it’s all about that one last time, isn’t it?

'Solo' is now showing.