Adolescence in 'Beginners'

I recently revisited Mike Mills' second feature film Beginners (2010) after giving in to my quite embarrassing reignited love of Ewan McGregor (I saw Perfect Sense (2011) over the weekend, more on that next time) and thinking about Mike Mills' interesting graphic design and slightly quirky, dislocated style. (That is not to say his films are not cohesive in any way!)

A film seen twice is an entirely different film all together. I love Mike's playful and awkward take on the innocence within every one of us, older, old or young. We lose and we have lost - still it makes us no less of the adolescent we were in our past, and we are still beginners this way. We love and find happiness, yet it makes us fearful. We fear our future, yet it makes us more of who we are.

It's interesting to see that even in Mike's first feature film Thumbsucker (2007) he explores this idea of adolescence and a sense of 'coming of age'. I love this idea of everyone no matter how old is still 'coming of age' - whether they are falling in love again at 38, or dying of cancer. Beginners has a sort of honesty that says 'Y'know what? It's okay to grow up and still be scared'. These ideas are something I'd really like to explore somewhere. I'm always reminded to look back on my childhood for inspiration, and seeing this again has brought me back to this idea.

'What is the film that made you want to continue exploring Korean cinema?' (Part 2)

To continue on from my entry on how I discovered Korean cinema, I've decided to talk about another film that really changed the way I looked at Korean film and the different ideas in cinema. My previous entry highlighted my first Kim Ki-duk experience, and it was the beginning of what I am today.

I raved about 3-Iron (2004) and how much I loved it to Kieran not long after that. I had already, by then, heard about a few big names in the Korean film world. Bong Joon-ho, Kim something or rather, another Kim this and that, and then - Park Chan-wook. I heard much about Old Boy (2003) throughout film school, here and there in pockets throughout the interwebs and still did not rush to see it. It was kind of like the hype around Kill Bill (2003). It's awesome, It's epic, It's amazing. Or so I had heard. Kieran had a couple of Park's films in his gargantuam of a DVD collection, one of which was J.S.A.: Joing Security Area (2000), a film I had not heard about and had little interest to see at the time. The title alone was uninteresting - that and I had little concrete knowledge of the DMZ and the current situation between the North and South. I looked past all of this and decided to give it a go.

I'll be absolutely honest with you: I could not and did not get through the first 20 minutes of the film in my first viewing. It was all talk, no substance to me. I wasn't paying attention to the lengthy discussions between Lee Young-ae's character and Mr Tall Swiss man, who to me seemed like an excuse of a 'white' man in an Asian film. I fell asleep, and looked no further past the beginning. Kieran had told me what a great film it was, and I simply could not see it. And that was that.

Continue reading the rest of this article at the official KOFFIA blog here.

'What is the film that made you want to continue exploring Korean cinema?' (Part 1)

After writing a piece on genres in Korean Cinema for last year's Korean Film Blogathon, I decided to take part in the challenge again. This year I am writing a short series based around the question 'What is the film that made you want to continue exploring Korean cinema?' I felt it would be a good way to reflect on the last few years and where I am today, an assistant film programmer at Cinema On The Park and being heavily involved in the coordination of the first Korean Film Festival in Australia over the past 2 years.

This entry is also available on the KOFFIA Blog. I highly recommend that you have a read of some of the other great entries taking part in this year's blogathon.

Hope you enjoy the next few entries. Do come back in the next few days for my next entry.

"Accidents Happen": Yet Another Accident In The Australian Film Industry

I managed to catch an advanced screening of Accidents Happen starring Geena Davis yesterday morning, and felt that I needed to talk about the film as a clear indication of where this ignorant film industry is heading. Oh. Did I say too much for an opening sentence already?

I'll be curt here, so watch out.

Accidents Happen is the result of a very poorly opinionated, dumb film industry in this country. The film, short and pointless story short, is about a dysfunctional family with the Midas touch of bad luck. Geena Davis is probably the only big name among the cast, including some fairly 'big' Australian television names (ones I am not going to bother looking up, anyway). I believe the crew is mostly if not completely made up of Australians, including Elizabeth Mary Moore who gave a talk at our school about production design.

The only thing I liked about this film was the production design. The look of the sets had a glowing, warm 80s feel, which I found very appealing. I liked the way Moore decorated the rooms and managed to fill every space while being both expressive and 'natural'.

Now apart from that, the film just didn't work for me. Bluntly speaking, Accidents Happen was complete and utter shit. How the Australian film industry has allowed for this to first of all, be funded by Screen Australia and secondly, get Hopscotch onboard as their sales agents (possibly distribution?) - well, I don't know. Looking back on all the films that have come out from the Australian film industry in the last year, I think this has to be one of the worst Australia has produced. It's clear that they've tried hard to make it something more than your average My Year Without Sex and Charlie and Boots. Heck, they even casted Geena Davis as the foul-mouthed mother of the unfortunate family. If that isn't desperate enough.

The writing was a fucking disaster, I'll be perfectly honest with you. All of Davis' lines were one line jokes, and when she wasn't telling one, she was either cussing or grunting through her plasticised lips. The supporting actors failed with their American accents, which made their already unnatural dialogue look completely awkward between the actors who were meant to be acting out a 'drama'.

Right, now here is where I began to question the state of this film industry - how could our industry's professionals let a film like Accidents Happen, well, happen? To be funded by Screen Australia, they would have had to sell the story or make use of some form of bias made through relationships (just someone I know who knows someone who is married to someone with a sister in Screen Australia). That being said, all films that go through Screen Australia go through a process of some kind. Okay, straight to the point: these films that come in the form of treatments would be analysed by a group of professionals, who decide whether they'd like to fund the project or not. Now, with a film like Accidents Happen, I wondered: who in their right, dumb mind said yes to allowing this terrible film to be produced?

Kieran has so rightly said time and again: the Australian film industry is made up of two factors: women, and business-minded people. I can see the latter being logical, but if you haven't noticed already, this industry is full of women who don't know anything about film (apart from Jennifer Anniston's latest film, and Gerard Butler's body awesome new rom-com), and don't have the balls to properly critique a film made by the industry they work in.

It's true. I saw Bright Star, directed by Jane Campion (who also did The Piano). The amount of women the film appealed to was astounding, yet the film lacked any substance. There was no plot, no storyline and no character development in my eyes. I had seen better period pieces from the roots of Jane Austen and the likes of the British film industry.

The general audience are totally soaking up all of this shit coming out of the Australian film industry, and it's working in a cycle. People pay to see these movies, while later on their damned, filthy mouths speak words of ignorant delight, which in effect sells these craptastic films throughout the community. It happens in a chain reaction, and once it starts, it never stops. It's just really sad that nothing can be done about it. You see lots of independent filmmakers trying to make it in this industry, only to be shot down by big funding bodies like Screen Australia and distributors like Hopscotch based on the fact that "it's just not appealing", yet you see films like Beautiful Kate and Lucky Country that make absolutely nothing in the box office. There is no wonder everyone is moving overseas, making it around the international festival circuits in hope for some attention and money. And there is no wonder everyone is flocking to the internet for the same reasons too.

Perhaps, I am simply living in a film-based apocalyptic era, where only a precious few of us quietly build our secret, independent society of film-makers and industry professionals who actually know what they're doing - and more importantly, an age who knows exactly what they're saying. It truly angers me to know that there are films like Accidents Happen out there in cinemas with wide theatrical releases, and big name funders and distributors attached. It frustrates me more when fellow industry professionals lie through their teeth about these films based on facts like "it's not patriotic to say it sucked" and "I know someone who worked on the film, isn't it amazing".

But till that day we finally break out of this spell, I'm going to do my very best to start this revolution. The Australian film industry doesn't need REVIVAL. It needs to be left behind, and started anew.

Rant aside, I rated Accidents Happen 3/10.

(I was extremely generous, only for the production design, and nothing more)

Francois Truffaut's Fahrenheit 451

Kieran and I managed to catch Francois Truffaut's 1966 Fahrenheit 451 at the Chauvel Cinematheque on Monday, and I thought I'd quickly share an insight of the film with you.

"Fahrenheit four-five-one is the temperature at which book paper catches fire and starts to burn."

Based on the novel of the same title by Ray Bradbury, the film is set in a dystopian future where books are deemed as the oppressors of society (staying home to read your book makes you anti-social!). The firemen of this society don't put out fires. Instead, their job is to destroy all the remaining books by making fires out of them. The story follows a fireman at the verge of a promotion to a higher ranking officer, who begins to question the entire system.

As one of the pioneers of French New Wave cinema, only Truffaut can make a jump-cut/zoom shot so damn deliciously appropriate. This was Truffaut's first film in colour, and I admire this. Having only seen The 400 Blows and half of Jules et Jim prior to this, I think his style is consistent here. Also, given the fact that this is his first (and only) English film, and that it was an American large-scale, bigger budget production compared to his previous films of small crews and smaller budgets. I really liked the style of this film, and loved the crazy French Nouveau techniques such as the weird zoom shots and how Truffaut continuously crosses the line of perception with the camera, playing on our understanding of character relationships.

I think for a sci-fi film, the story doesn't resonate as strongly as I would have liked. The concept was great, and I like the fact that Truffaut took on the project with his New Wave ideas. I love dystopian type society films with anti-heroes such as Montag, our story's lead.

I do recommend this film to all fans of French New Wave, or simply experimental techniques used in large-scale films such as this.

I rated this 7/10.

Spike Jonze's latest short film, "I'm Here"

Just yesterday, Spike Jonze in collaboration with Absolut released a short film of a love story between two robots, I'm Here. There short can be found at its official site here, which only allowed a certain number of viewers access to the film every few hours. Disgruntled by this, I waited a whole day for Youtube to pick it up and found the entire film in three parts, as I've shared below. It won't be long before they remove it due to copyright, I'm sure. Catch it while you can. Otherwise, queue up at the film's official site.

My comments about the film are below the three Youtube links.

I hadn't heard about this film until I signed myself up for an account on The Auteurs and stumbled across this film's info page by accident. The website for which the film can be officially viewed at only seemed to give viewers access to the film on a first come first serve basis, and I was just unlucky enough to keep missing out every 2-3 hours. Soon enough, I managed to find the entire film on Youtube and happily watched the film in full quality.

I really, really loved it. To me, this film further defines Spike Jonze as a filmmaker and auteur. The film's style is distinctly his with the urban landscape and setting of the story, and simply just the overall visual look of the film reeks of Jonze. I felt that it was very close to his recent film Where The Wild Things Are, and I really like that about his style. It seems like he is getting more and more creative with his visual style, and I am loving it.

I rated this 9/10.

A Semi-Retrospective: Spike Jonze

For my birthday, Kieran bought me Spike Jonze themed presents, including Volume 1 of the Directors Label series - the Spike Jonze collection. It includes a selection of his music videos, interviews, audio commentaries, rarities, documentaries and shorts. I was going through it yesterday and decided to also put on Being John Malkovich as a way to start my Spike Jonze retrospective. Having already seen Where The Wild Things Are, I thought I'd start some sort of a marathon of his work to see what he has to offer.

I think as a music video director, Jonze is highly versatile in his style. I felt that there was no definitive style I could put his name to. On one hand, you have the very elaborately choreographed video of Fatboy Slim's Weapon Of Choice (an old favourite of mine, too), featuring Christopher Walken; and on the other hand, you have the very simple, long shot music video of Weezer's Undone (The Sweater Song). However, I do believe that there is a distinct 'urban' feeling behind his videos. It could just be the type of music he creates videos for, or perhaps something deeper than that.

In terms of film, I do believe the partnership he has with Charlie Kaufman is one to be reckoned with. Being John Malkovich, to me, was similar to that of Michel Gondry's work - just brought down to a lower level of intensity compared to Eternal Sunshine of a Spotless Mind or The Science of Sleep. Kaufman comes back to work with Jonze in Adaptation, a film I haven't seen yet, but will do in due time when I get my hands on the DVD.

Ten years later, we see Jonze taking on Maurice Sendak's Where The Wild Things Are. The film bore some similarities to Jonze's unidentifiable style through his music videos, yet it's so different to Being John Malkovich or anything else that he's ever done (not including Adaptation since I haven't see it yet). And I guess that's what I'm beginning to love about Spike Jonze. I love his ability to change his styles and experiment with different ways of telling a story, while keeping the 'urban' aspect throughout - some more subtle than others.

I will keep following and watching Jonze's films till I find that definitive style, and until then, I'm going to explore the Jonze-Kaufman/Gondry-Kaufman partnerships, and snuff out the greatness behind Charlie Kaufman.

Till next time.

Cloverfield, From Paris With Love, and Other Film Things

My apologies for not getting around to updating. Kieran and I had started working on building our production company Fan Chan Pictures up post-social networking sites over the weekend, and now we have a great website, domain name, official logo and proper emails set up. It's unbelievable what you can achieve from one full day of sitting in front of a computer!

I recently started school again this week, although I haven't been to any classes yet! I was back at school last week to get my school ID taken, and to sit in an orientation day lecture. It was also nice to see everyone back from the holidays, and to finally set my mind back into the 'film-making' mode. Between then and now, I managed to come up with some rough ideas and concepts for my final project, which the school so professionally calls your 'thesis' film. I've been looking at Wong Kar-Wai's 2046 and Neill Blomkamp's District 9. Both are two very different films, with very interesting concepts which I would like to explore in a film of my own. After seeing many of the films produced from last semester, I have this urge to stand out from every other student film by doing something impossible to produce. I guess this is my goal for the next six months.

I got around to seeing Cloverfield and From Paris With Love yesterday. Kieran and I faced another big fail by firstly, going to redeem our free double pass tickets to see Jacques Audiard's Un Prophet at Verona, only to find out that Monday was their discount day. And secondly, walking down Oxford St ticking off all the movies we could have seen for free but unfortunately couldn't because we had no free tickets at hand, only to realise back home that we actually had a chance to see Andrej Wajda's 1957 film Kanal at Chauvel Cinema's Cinematheque Night - for free. What a fail of an evening.

Cloverfield

It was unfortunate that I didn't have the opportunity to experience the film in a cinema, as I thought it would have been more effective. Nevertheless, I absolutely enjoyed it. Produced by the very interesting J. J. Abrams and directed by Matt Reeves, Cloverfield is another one of those derivatives of The Blair Witch Project, Paranormal Activity and REC - only different. While the latter three explore the paranormal and have themes of ghosts (not including REC, as it takes on a different form of 'paranormal'), Cloverfield explores the very human experience of an attack on a small but seemingly large city by an abnormal, parasitic creature. A monster, if you will.

The film had all the concepts of a 'threalist' film (threalism, which I coined to describe films that Thrill with Realism) - the 'Queasy-Cam' effect giving the viewer a first-person perspective of the situation, and the cinema verite documentary style to push the "real" factor out for the ultimate viewer experience. Oh, and throw in a viral marketing campaign to get those viewers really riled up for the film, pre-release. Cloverfield's first trailer was debuted at the opening of Transformers in 2007, which showed a scene of a large explosion in the heart of New York City and the decapitated head of the Statue of Liberty being thrown down the street, shot on a camcorder. The trailer was given no title. Only J. J. Abrams could have thought of that.

I wasn't as frightened throughout this film as much as I was in REC for example, but the whole concept of the film centering around these few characters trying to make it through the entire ordeal - oh, and throw in a giant unknown, alien-like parasite of a monster wreaking chaos throughout the city - well, it really excites me. I am falling in love with this sort of film-making. Putting the viewer in a fictional environment and situation, with the sense of realism all over it.

I do recommend this film to anyone who firstly, is into J. J. Abrams, and secondly, anyone who doesn't quite like to be scared out of their wits like they were in a film like REC.

I gave this film 8/10, and will most definitely watch it again.

From Paris With Love

Directed by Pierre Morel who brought us the action thriller Taken in 2008, and co-written by Luc Besson (The Transporter, Taken, Leon The Professional), From Paris With Love stars John Travolta and Jonathan Rhys Meyers. The film seemed like just another Taken, only minus a very angry, over-protective and direct Liam Neeson, with lots of terrorists and lots of gangsters. I appreciated Taken, and do like these sorts of action thriller films, but From Paris With Love just didn't work for me.

The directing was pretty awful. Liam Neeson in Taken was plain frightening. John Travolta here, on the other hand, did nothing for me. His character's intensity seemed to vary in the extremes throughout the film, and this didn't help the character. In all fairness, it may have been on purpose to give Jonathan Rhys Meyers' character room to develop, especially when Travolta's character's unstoppable bravado was the star in the first half of the film.

I'll admit though, the story is interesting - about an unlikely duo of agents who discover a link to a group of terrorists planning an attack on the US Embassy in France. However, it's a pity the execution and direction of the film couldn't do it any justice.

I rated this film a very generous 5/10. Generous, mainly for the Vince Vega and "Royale with cheese" reference.

Character Equals Nothing

I managed to catch the Australian musical brought to screen Bran Nue Dae, yet another disappointing product of the Australian film industry for me. Directed by AFTRS graduate Rachel Perkins, the film was just another one of those Australian films with absolutely no characterisation to drive the plot. The film was clearly written for the stage (and true enough, it was written by the writers who wrote the stage production) with lame dialogue that trails off into the film's atmosphere of 'nothing'. The film didn't allow the characters to develop, and therefore the whole experience felt like a series of events flashing before my eyes in strict succession without any explanation of how and why.



And this is the very problem. Why are Australian films continuously lacking in character development?

I was taught at school last semester that character equals story, yet it doesn't seem to be practised very much in the industry. Another film I saw last year that I was highly disappointed by was Prime Mover. The film had little to zero character development, and every 'dramatic' scene simply failed because of this. How am I, as a member of the audience, supposed to feel for the characters when I know nothing about them?

This frustrates me. This industry is my future, and it frustrates me to think that it is run by people with more or less the same sense as an emu. I patiently await the next 'impressive' film this dumb industry coughs up.

Battle For Terrable

So, the story of Avatar sounds just like Pocahontas, you say? Let me introduce you to a film that will make you Avatar haters out there appreciate it a bit more for what it's worth.

The film, Battle For Terra, directed and co-written by unknown Aristomenis Tsirbaris is a cheaper take on the box office king Avatar. Ripped from the same treatment written over 10 years ago, the one obvious thing that separates the two films is the visual aspect.

Battle For Terra was made for next to nothing - or in other words, $230 million short of what James Cameron spent to make Avatar. Without trying to compare the two films, visually, Terra looks absolutely awful. The film looked like it was created in 3DS Max. Plus, there's no excuse for the film to look like it was made in 1990, when it took a year and a half from 2007 to 2009 to re-render the film in 3D (the original film was in 2D and had been received well at the Toronto International Film Festival, so they decided to give it a 3D look).

However, I must give the film credit for production under such a minimal budget, especially with such an impressive cast - the film featured Luke Wilson, Brian Cox, Justin Long, Danny Glover, James Garner and Mark Hamill, to name a few. I wouldn't be surprised if all the money was spent on them, while the rest was used on lunch money for those responsible for the visual graphics and animation of the film, who were possibly friends, family or those doing (or returning, perhaps) a favour for the filmmakers. Another good point I liked about the film was the obvious mature aspect to the storyline. I was surprised that for a film that looked like it was made for 12-year-old kids, the film had some rather serious themes and portrayed in a mature way. I feel that it was just a pity the animation failed to reflect it.

Still, I am disappointed that even without James Cameron's latest groundbreaking 3D technology (that is meant to change the way films are made and screened), Battle For Terra has nothing to show. The script didn't impress me, and so did the directing.

I rated this 4/10.

The Govinda's Experience, and A Serious Man

Kieran took me out for a pre-birthday treat to Govinda's Restaurant and Movie Room in Darlinghurst yesterday, where we dived into an international vegetarian buffet before spreading our legs across an extremely comfortable lounge in their boutique cinema and watched the Coen Brothers' A Serious Man. The night was meant to be a surprise, but let's say curiosity caught the best of me.

The whole cinema experience at Govinda's was great. Enlightening, even. Apart from almost dying of a heat stroke in the cinema (there were no A/C units. Just a fan), the lounge bed-like things spiked my comfort levels through the roof and worked as the perfect complement to the filling vegetarian buffet dinner that Govinda's provided in the costs. I recommend anyone to check this place out. Govinda's is located at 112 Darlinghurst Road, just a 10 minute walk from Taylor Square.

Now, the movie. The Coen Brothers' latest film, A Serious Man is a dark, funny and clever take on life. The story revolves around Jewish professor Larry Gopnik, who watches his life unravel into a mess of unexplained misfortune - his wife leaves him for a widowed man more able than himself; his inept wife's brother won't move out of their living room; a college student of his is bribing and blackmailing him over a failing grade; and his son, preparing for his bar mitzvah, smokes more weed than he is seen studying the Torah.

We learn, as does Larry Gopnik, that every action has a consequence. This film is about just that, and tends to question our beliefs in religion - although, not quite so seriously. That's what I love about this film. This film made me laugh at the misfortune of the characters, while letting me feel fine about it afterward.

The Coen Brothers are fantastic. I loved the directing. Even the cinematography by Roger Deakins (Revoluntionary Road, No Country For Old Men, Shawshank Redemption) was something special. Michael Stuhlbarg should be highly commended for his portrayal of Larry Gopnik. In a dark comedy setting, Stuhlbarg remained consistent in convincing me that his life was most definitely falling apart. The other stand out performance for me was by Fred Melamed who plays the uncomfortably calm and able Sy Ableman, who Larry's wife leaves him for.

The film just worked for me. Having never seen any of the Coen Brothers' previous films, my judgment could have holes in it. I was told, and I have heard, that the Brothers are famous for their black comedies, and for breaking the rules of conventional storytelling. At the end of A Serious Man, a lot of the audience that I shared this film experience with were surprised by how the film almost lacked a conclusion, signaled by the flood of what's and is that it?'s. The film does end with a lot of unanswered questions, yet for me, the film's message (and lesson, even) was clear.

This is another film I highly recommend seeing. If you're after a clever, dark comedy that questions you about the seriousness of life while you laugh - this is for you.

I rate this 9/10.

(That being said, all my film reviews seem to be of films I enjoyed. I'll write about the next awful one I see, I promise)

Threalism (Thrilling Realism)

After finally getting around to seeing The Blair Witch Project today, I asked myself, "what makes this kind of horror/thriller/mystery movie so effective?" The first key point that sprung to mind was the sense of realism, portrayed by a number of factors:

• The use of a hand-held camera as opposed to relying on tripods, tracks, jibs etc, which creates the sense of experiencing the film ourselves as an audience.
  
• The rawness of the documentary film style. Heather, a character from the BWP even states that she wanted to keep her film raw and real, with nothing cut out. So unlike genre film, with these films it feels like you're watching unedited footage. Like a family video, only sprinkled with the elements of horror.
  
• The limitations of the 4:3 aspect ratio as used in The BWP, which means we see less. I found this highly effective in this film because there were many scenes shot at night when it was pitch black in the woods, and all the characters had were a torchlight each - which makes the fear of not being able to see everything or more even frightening. I guess it also affected me more because I'm living in a wide-screen world. This could be a plus for effect.
• Direction is highly important, I've found. I'd read some IMDB trivia of BWP about what the directors did to the actors in order to further create that sense of realism:
  
  
  • "The actors were given no more than a 35-page outline of the mythology behind the plot before shooting began. All lines were improvised and nearly all the events in the film were unknown to the three actors beforehand, and were often on-camera surprises to them all."
  • "To promote discord between actors, the directors deliberately gave them less food each day of shooting."
  • "In a scene where the main actors are sleeping in a tent at night, the tent suddenly shakes violently and they all get scared. This was unscripted and the director shook the tent."
  • "The three leads believed the Blair Witch was a real legend during filming, though of course they knew the film was going to be fake. Only after the film's release did they discover that the entire mythology was made up by the film's creators.
    (Now, I don't know if these pieces of trivia are true, or perhaps slithers of rumours spread around the internet, but I believe them and it shows the kinds of techniques these directors use in order to bring the best out of their actors. I love that kind of directing.)
    
    
    
• The way the film is marketed (especially pre-release in order to gain audiences) proves to be a vital factor in the overall effect of the film on the audience. Take Paranormal Activity for example. The film was completed in 2007, yet didn't get properly released till 2009. It made its success over the internet, where it gathered so much attention and interest that it was eventually picked up by Paramount Pictures for its own nationwide theatrical release. The BWP had used an alternative, slightly 'interactive' strategy to bring attention to the film by using "missing" posters of the three characters in the film, which they first used at Sundance. Again, I love hearing about these sorts of alternative marketing strategies for a film.
  

It really excites me when I hear about alternative ways of film-making on small budgets, like Paranormal Activity's USD$15,000 budget, which eventually profited in the millions. And marketing strategies like what the BWP did with posters and the use of the internet's ability to spread information (before the film was released, the actors' pages had stated their deaths that corresponded with the film's story). It's clever film-making, and I love it.

That aside, it seems the use of realism in film-making to thrill tends to be more effective on an audience. In 1999, The Blair Witch Project made it either frightening to enter the woods, or ecstatically thrilling to enter the woods in search of myths; while in 2009, Paranormal Activity brought a similar investigative horror/thriller/mystery documentary film into our homes, and into our very own bedrooms. Just typing that gave me the creeps.

With that being said, I may just put on some light comedy tonight before going to bed. Heh.

(If and when you have the chance to see Paranormal Activity, please do so! I highly recommend it.)

Spill

I've been following these awesome film podcasts by the guys at Spill, who not only upload 2-3 hour long podcasts of the funniest, comedic film and nonsense talk I have ever heard, but do these great movie reviews. Unlike any other review, it's an animated video of them chatting and doing all kinds of crazy things. It's all extremely entertaining.

Find their podcasts here, and video movie reviews here.

Do check them out. Here's one of my favourite movie reviews they uploaded to youtube.

Once Upon A Time In The West

A couple of days ago, I went to Chauvel Cinema in Paddington to watch one of Sergio Leone's classic spaghetti western films, Once Upon A Time In The West with Kieran. Fortunately for me, my first ever screening of a Leone film was in a large theatre, of a restored 35mm film print. The experience was out of this world.

Initially I was prepared for another one of those boring old films, which go on for at least one hour too long for my fragile attention span. Kieran had been telling me about how Leone films were known to be "long and draggy" to the average viewer. Afterwards, I hoped so much for the night's screening to prove my doubtful self wrong.

And so it did. Leone's meticulous filmmaking created this stunning, epic western film. One that I really, really enjoyed. After the film's 15-minute opening of the most beautifully composed sound design, I knew I was going to enjoy this. It said everything about Leone's filmmaking style - methodical, European. The excellent sound design continues throughout the film, layered with Ennio Morricone's amazing music composition. I was sold when Charles Bronson's character began to play that hauntingly beautiful track - titled "Man With A Harmonica".

I think what makes Leone's characterisations so fantastic is his clever use of Morricone's music throughout the film, played as theme songs for his characters in different situations, and at times, in different tempos. Also, combined with features of meta, such tracks become so memorable, it simply works for the film.

Leone's vision is captivating in this film. I absolutely loved the dueling eyes of Henry Fonda and Charles Bronson captured in the power of the extreme close-up shots that filled the camera's wide frame - what tension! I just loved the confrontation's impact on me in the theatre. The cinematography of the film came across as formalist, which I understand - prior to the screening, Kieran had told me a story about how Leone was so precise with his direction that he was literally mathematical about everything.

Otherwise, there was nothing about this film that I didn't disagree with. The dialogue was a bit weird, and at times Claudia Cardinale seemed dubbed, but everything else about the film worked for me.

A great western film overall. The next on my 'Sergio Leone must watch list' will be the three films prior to this - A Fistful of Dollars, For A Few More Dollars and The Good, The Bad and The Ugly.

I just can't rate this any less than 10/10.

Where The Wild Things Are

The story. Max is a disobedient, rebellious boy who is clearly unhappy with being a kid. He yearns for the attention of his older sister, and mother, but it seems as if no one understands him. After throwing a tantrum in front of his mother, he runs away into the night and finds himself sailing away into the unknown abyss of the wild - into the wild of his own imagination, where he meets these strange creatures, the Wild Things. He soon learns that life where the wild things are is not as easy as it seems.

What worked for me was Spike Jonze's ability to create this other world outside of Max's reality where his home and family live, and one so believable that I had completely forgotten the circumstances of how Max ended up where the Wild Things are, and felt like I was right there with him. However, what didn't work for me was the film lacked the ability to absorb me into the experience of it all. Yes, I remember building forts and bedsheet tents; I remember having rubberband fights (my equivalent of snowballs) with my friends - but for some reason, I just couldn't fully experience Max's journey.

Spike Jonze's Where The Wild Things Are is clearly not a film for children. The themes expressed in this film are adult. I feel like one of this film's inner themes is the exploration into a child's self-reflection. With the excellent cinematography direction of Lance Acord (who was also Director of Photography on Sofia Coppola's Marie Antoinette and Lost In Translation, both of which I really love), the barren landscapes and wide expanses of this world in Max's imagination works as the inner depths of Max's mind, with the Wild Things being embodiments of his emotions. There is a sense of loneliness in the environment, lived in by creatures that are not only emotionally unpredictable like how Max is presented to us at the beginning, but physically, they look unhappy. In this world, Max promises to bring happiness to all, but soon realises that his relationships with these wild things are more complicated than it seems. It is in these relationships with the embodiments of himself that he learns.

As a whole, the film does really well as one about what it's like to be a child (so excellently performed by Max Records), and a journey of self-reflection for a boy who clearly has issues with being a kid. I was really taken away by Max Records performance and felt that he did a really ace job at making the part of Max 110% believable, although I didn't feel as connected to his experiences while he was with the Wild Things (this may be my only disappointment with the film). I have to give props to the voices of the Wild Things - James Gandolfini, Chris Cooper, Catherine O'Hara, Forest Whitaker, Lauren Ambrose and Paul Dano. Also, the music written and performed by Karen Orzolek (known on the credits as Karen O and the Kids), lead singer of Yeah Yeah Yeahs was fantastic in capturing what it's like to be a child, and what it's like to be 'a wild thing'.

After seeing this, I plan to see more of Spike Jonze's films as I don't think I've seen any in full. Throughout the screening I felt a resemblance with Michel Gondry's dream-like style, so hopefully there is more to like about Jonze's work.

I rate this 8/10.

Up In The Air

I initially thought this film would be nothing more than your average rated summer film that has managed to squeeze it's way into the Golden Globes nominated Best Motion Picture Drama category (where heavyweights Avatar and Inglourious Basterds reign). But when I am forced obliged to spend the afternoon out (while I wait for my boyfriend to finish his volunteer shift nearby) and am faced with the choice to see either Up In The Air or Lovely Bones, I had to go with the former.

Jason Reitman's Up In The Air surprised me. After having listened to Adam and Matty's podcast featuring their review of the film, I was skeptical. Was I sitting in a theatre waiting to see another one of Clooney's typical suave, handsome good-guy character films? Yes, and no. But putting that aside, this was a great film.

What worked for me was the interesting storyline behind this film. Clooney plays Ryan Bingham, a man whose job it is to fire people all across the country. Bingham's life revolves around the many hours spent up in the air. In fact, he lives on frequent/loyalty memberships which he benefits from all the miles he travels and all the hotel rooms he calls 'home' in a year. This world he knows so well comes crumbling down when the company decides to ground him.

As the film progresses, Ryan learns about life - a more grounded life - the life he has missed out on in his travels. As Ryan learns, we as the audience learn too. There was much about life and relationships, and I felt that it was well reflected in the relationships between the characters, cleverly directed by Reitman. When I remember Juno, the characters and how they interacted was what made that film a winner. Reitman, in his latest film, has managed to sustain that excellent directing.

I wasn't so keen on the editing of the film. There were times when it seemed too choppy and I felt there were shots that were completely unnecessary to the story's progression. Otherwise, there were some clever stylised edits like the jump-cuts at the beginning when we are introduced to Ryan's job.

Props to Anna Kendrick who played the tightly wound, but fantastic Natalie Keener, and J.K. Simmons, who had a small role, yet I thought it was played well.

Overall, Up In The Air was a good choice, and I'm glad I picked it over Peter Jackson's Lovely Bones. Reitman has done well this time, especially after the success of Juno. I highly recommend this film.

I rate this 7/10.

PS.: I beg forgiveness for the seemingly sloppy and incoherent write-up. I would give you some form of an explanation, but truthfully, no one wants to know anyway.