The Left Handed Gun

Director: Arthur Penn
Writer: Leslie Stevens
Released: 1958
Cast: Paul Newman, Lita Milan, John Dehner, James Best

The Deliberate Stranger, dir. Marvin J. Chomsky (1986)

NIKKI says:

You know, I really didn't think Mark Harmon could pull it off. But, even without really showing him being abusive and violent until the end, he was, in this movie, downright freaky. He didn't play it freakily, he didn't channel Ted Bundy in any noticeable way. He just had that look about him, that perfect balance of normal guy and sociopath. He did exactly what he needed to do here -- play it straight, with that edge of terror. Mad props, as the kids say, to Mark Harmon.

Incidentally, my co-worker Steph told me the day we watched this that she planned to go to America and marry Mark Harmon so she could become famous. Yeah, I don't get it either. And, incidentally again, Mark Harmon is married to Pam Dawber and is about to turn 57. What?!

For a three-hour telemovie, this moved surprisingly fast. It steadily crafted the story of this up and coming young politician with a secret life as a mad killer. It resisted exploitation, and genuinely tried to tell the story smartly and interestingly. Granted, there were too many times characters longing wished for Ted's "kind of future" that made us cringe a bit, but for the most part, this was very good. And it was filled with a million and one faces from the '80s that we could sit and point out. That was fun.

Oh, Ted Bundy. Has there ever been a stranger incident of sociopathy? There've been more depraved and weird killers, but did any lead the sort of life Ted did? He's a case unto himself, I reckon. And while Dahmer and Gacy did some horrific things, Ted's the guy who gives me nightmares. I've gone home with cute, smart strangers myself. I've helped them out of jams. Who hasn't? It's because of Ted, too, I think, that I'm convinced everyone has a secret life of crime.

Anyway... good movie. Great work from Mark Harmon, but no awards. I may need to go start a Facebook petition to get Mark a retrospective Emmy nomination for this. Now, there's a crime.

3.5/5

Lipstick (aka. Why I Wore Lipstick to My Mastectomy), dir. Peter Werner (2006)

NIKKI says:
If Australian DVD makers had not altered this film's titles from the provocative and interesting Why I Wore Lipstick to My Mastectomy to the boring Lipstick, I wouldn't have waited so long to watch it. As it is, it looks like chick-lit on film -- I look at that picture of Sarah Chalke, view the title with the cityscape background and I think, "She's out to find a man. Oh yay."

But this is about a far from standard girlie fare as you can get. With its original title, everything is pretty much laid out -- someone's getting their breasts removed and they're not taking it lightly.

I cried a lot. Sarah Chalke plays real-life Geralyn Lucas, a writer for 20/20, who, at 27, finds out she has breast cancer. Her best chance of survival means a double mastectomy. The film opens with Lucas on her way to a strip club to perhaps ascertain some understanding of the lure of women's breasts and what it might mean for her to lose hers. The film carries on in a similar vain -- Lucas is looking for answers. Should she go ahead with the radical surgery or simply have a lumpectomy, which would mean keeping her breasts but risking a return of the cancer? Will she be altered by breast removal? Will her husband love her? Will her friend know her? Will she know herself?

The movie sends her through all kinds of emotions -- anger, bitterness, jealousy, as well as humour, loneliness, sadness, and eventual empowerment. This is not a sob-story, by any means. It's not a film that wants you to feel sorry for its protagonist. It's point is to realistically show what this woman went through, and how she came out the other side.

3.5/5

Steve did not view.

Céline, dir. Jeff Woolnough (2008)

NIKKI says:
Another one of those Canadian TV movies about prominent women that is smarter than your average TV biopic but still very much a glossing over of events. This one spans Celine's life from the time her family discovered her talent as a pre-teen, right on through to her performance of the Titanic song at the Oscars. That's about 25 years crunched into 90 minutes. With the kind of life Celine has had, including the controversial relationship with her much older manager, Rene Angelil, it's difficult to really get to know the woman in this short time, to understand her decisions, motives, and reactions to everything from the tabloids to her success.

The movie tries its best, though. It is written reasonably well, and the actors are well-meaning and easy to like. I really enjoyed hearing all the old songs again, too. Some of them I haven't heard in ages. I did miss, though, the reaction after "The Power of Love" hit -- I was waiting for that to be the moment Celine finally cracked the business worldwide, but they went straight from "If You Asked Me To" to "Because You Loved Me". So, yeah, a lot was skipped. I did, though, get a real sense of a connection between Rene and Celine, and it was tragic to see just how the two struggled with things.

Not a bad movie, by any means, but really just the quality TV-movie equivalent of a greatest hits package.

2.5/5

Steve did not view.

Shania: A Life in Eight Albums, dir. Jerry Ciccoritti (2005)

NIKKI says:
This kept me interested pretty much because I knew absolutely nothing about Shania Twain's life before watching. I've never thought she had the greatest singing voice, and I haven't connected with her the same way I have with Reba and Trisha Yearwood and Martina McBride, and others. I think I turned away from Shania, too, because I'd been listening to country music forever and then suddenly Shania hit and everyone was into her, and I just resented the fact that this flash in the pan had come along and erupted while the GOOD singers, Trisha and Reba et al were overlooked (in Australia, at least.)

So, I cared not for this woman. I could dance to her songs at parties and clubs, but to this day I do not own any of her records. I may reconsider now, thanks to Canadian TV and their insistence on bringing to the world stories of their successes. Shania, I have to admit, deserves her fame and fortune. If this movie is anything to go by, she certainly put in the hard yards as far as her development and persistence. I had no idea she was in a rock band, I had no idea of her Native American heritage, I had no idea she lost both her parents in a car accident, and I especially did not know songwriting was her major focus. I really shouldn't rush to judge pretty faces in tiger-print pantsuits.

I do think the movie glossed slightly over the fact that any man who showed interest in her and looked able to help her with her career ended up in bed with her. What was that about? And then when she'd had enough, off she went. Hasn't she now split with her starmaker, Mutt Lange? See?! No, wait -- I'm judging again.

This was a thorough look at Shania's life up until that first phone call from Lange, and it was certainly interesting.

2.5/5

Steve did not view.

An American Crime, dir. Tommy O'Haver (2007)

NIKKI says:
This one sparked my interest because of its subject matter, and it was about a case I'd not previously heard of. The little bit I read about it, I wanted more and more to see it. Gertrude Baniszewski sounded, to me like particularly fascinating character. The case itself is horrifying, and yet Gertrude appeared to be unaware she was doing something so depraved. So, too, did the local kids (including her own kids) who assisted in torturing Sylvia Likens -- the girl Gertrude held captive in her basement for the purposes of "teaching her a lesson". That Catherine Keener and Ellen Page were the leads, I expected something really good -- introspective, scary, educational.

Instead, I got a brutal TV-ish movie, which takes the viewer through the atrocities of the crime, step by ghastly step, without ever offering any real insight into just why Gertrude acted the way she did. The film offers standard answers to the question -- it was the time, the situation (Sylvia's carny parents left Sylvia and her sister with Gertrude while they worked the carnival scene), she was wrapped up in God, she was without money, she was desperate to ensure her daughters remained pure. But how did she come to beat and abuse poor Sylvia? Why Sylvia and not her sister? Why not both? How did it come to be that Gertrude's kids abused Sylvia, too? And the neighbour kids? Who are these kids that they find nothing so bad about burning a teenager with cigarettes and whipping her? How did this go undetected for so long?

The film exists not to instruct about these things, but to show us what happened according to court transcripts. The horror of the thing is this film's main point. Or it seems to be, at least. Nothing is offered beyond a fact by fact re-enactment. And what, really, is the point of that? It could have been a 20/20 episode, for all that. The answers required here are tragically beyond this filmmaker.

I was happy to finally see Ellen Page in a different sort of role from her smarmy-teen norm. I thought she was very good here, reserved, and true to her character. It's just a pity she wasn't able to do more than scream and cry, which is all I wanted to do after watching this. If a movie is going to be this harsh, it needs some sort of balance. it needs release. This just hit us over the head with the crime and then punished the criminals. I'm not sure the real story of these two women is just so black and white.

2/5

Charlie Wilson's War, dir. Mike Nichols (2007)

NIKKI says:
Perhaps it's Aaron Sorkin's position in life to make complicated political language accessible to everyone? I thought this movie, based around Charlie Wilson's winning financial aid to assist Afghanistan in beating the invading Russians would go right over my head.

Instead, thanks to Sorkin's excellent technique of having characters talk politics as though they were discussing what's for lunch meant that few beats were missed on my side of the couch, and I managed to stay on top of events right the way through.

I'm glad, too, because this was a genuinely engaging piece of history. This and Under Fire have taught me more about politics in the early 1980s than any class at school. We see so many films and shows on the big wars -- Korean, Vietnam, even the Gulf. But we see so little about these other countries that struggle or have struggled to live freely.

Charlie Wilson's part in the Afghanistan/Russia issue was primarily to raise large amounts of cash to arm the Afghanis against the Russian attacks. He was inspired after seeing the poor manner in which the Afghanis were living in refugee camps and makeshift desert hospitals. It was something to see, this man used to strippers and wine and the best suites and cars suddenly in the middle of this poor country, talking to children without limbs, and families battling to stay alive.

Wilson remains stoic throughout his money-raising campaign, and uses his personality and gift of the gab to talk his way into getting what he wants -- something he never questions he'll be able to do. Tom Hanks is just excellent here. I'm going to have no trouble recommending this when it comes out on DVD here in a few months. Just a great drama, that sits, for me, alongside Lions for Lambs as the year's must-watch political films.

4/5

STEVE says:
The poster for this one did nothing for me. Not the biggest Hanks fan, ditto Julia Roberts. Philip Seymour Hoffman was interesting when only myself and four of my friends knew who he was, ("This is our concern, Dude") but now that he's Oscar-Winner Philip Seymour Hoffman, the shine is off. Bringing all three of them together for a movie called "Charlie Wilson's War" did nothing to raise my interest.

The I saw that it was a Mike Nichols film.

Hello...?

Written by Aaron Sorkin.

Hmm.

Okay, now you've got me interested.

I'm not one to pass up a Nichols film. He's right up there with Coppola, Scorsese and Woody Allen as one of the all-time American greats. And Sorkin... It took me a while to reconcile my mixed feelings for A Few Good Men (Brilliant Movie vs. Tom Cruise Sucks), but I eventually came to appreciate it based on the Whole instead of the Parts, and I believe that The West Wing will go down in history as one of the greatest shows ever to grace the airwaves.

Suddenly Charlie Wilson's War had a lot to live up to.

And it did. I enjoyed seeing Hanks play someone counter to his normal "nice guy" image, and was silently pleased when he used the word "fuck". Hoffman was typically Hoffman, but that's not a bad thing. And Sorkin's script and Nichols' direction kept me interested and wanting more all the way through.

And Julia Roberts... well, anyone could have played that part, to be honest, but I didn't roll my eyes every time she showed up, so that's gotta count for something.

3.5/5

Pierrepoint (aka. The Last Hangman), dir. Adrian Shergold (2005)

STEVE says:
Pierrepoint is a harsh movie. A biopic of Britain's most celebrated and prolific hangman (between 1933 and 1955, Albert Pierrepoint was responsible for the hangings of 608 people), it wasn't going to be a laff-riot.

Although it's pretty free and loose with the facts - not the least of which, that Pierrepoint was not Britain's last hangman, despite the movie's US title - I can't hold that against it because I wasn't exactly conversant with the facts in the first place. But facts, to paraphrase Mark Brandon "Chopper" Read, should never get in the way of a good story.

And it was a good story: Pierrepoint tried to keep his job as Executioner completely separate from his daily life as a grocer, and later a publican, but it would eat away at him over his 22 years of service, as he first tried to live up to his father's reputation as Executioner, then avoid the same pitfalls that destroyed his father later in life. It's a tragedy of Shakespearean proportions, really - I can only wish it had been told with more care.

As I said, it wasn't so much the shuffling of the facts that bothered me about Pierrepoint; it 's that it felt rushed. I know it's difficult to go through 22 years of a man's life in under 90 minutes, but this was a bit much. Early in the movie, Pierrepoint is shyly trying to ask Juliet Stevenson's Annie to a movie. Then they're dancing, then they're married and she's serving him dinner, then they're at the cinema watching newsreel about Nazi War Crimes. Hang on - that's something like 13 years in the space of only ten minutes. Then it's 1950, and then the movie's over. While I didn't feel as though I missed anything, I also didn't feel like any time had actually passed. Simply superimposing the year in the corner of the screen every now and again would have gone a long way in keeping me temporally grounded.

And it has to be said, I've a newfound respect for Timothy Spall (who I'm now coming to think of as The Great Timothy Spall). To this day, I've always found it difficult to separate him from his role as the pitiful-yet-creepy Dr. Polidori in Ken Russell's Gothic, but he was moving and utterly convincing as this man who basically led a dual life, and was almost destroyed by it.

3/5

NIKKI says:
Steve is right: This movie needed more time to tell its complex story. So much went on in Pierrepoint's 20 years at the gallows, and though the film did very well in eliciting concern for the man, respect, and pity, I felt there was more to his life that could have been explored.

This was very much the snapshot version of a life, so instead of viewing it as a biopic about Pierrepoint, I think I appreciated it more as a lesson in history. Just how Britain selects its hangmen, what they have to do, how they cope -- all intriguing elements of this story. I was enthralled by Pierrepoint's handling of his position. The manner in which he dropped the floor on 13 Nazi war criminals (men and women) without batting an eye was just fascinating. What it does to him in the end is even more so.

The routine-ness with which Pierrepoint carries out his duties speaks to this sad time in world history. This is not the place to get into issues of capital punishment, but I would have liked to know a bit more about Pierrepoint's eventual change of heart, speaking out against the death penalty as a means for revenge. What does Pierrepoint think of the fact that he put innocent men to death? I realise he's carrying out orders, and who gets to the gallows is not his decision, but that has to do something to a person?

His downfall began when he became famous for his work, and when he put a friend to death. But what of these other things? Again, reason this was too short. There's so much to explore here. Still, a good film about a horrible thing.

Abolish the Death Penalty.

3/5

Murder in the Outback: The Joanne Lees Story, dir. Tony Tilse (2007)

STEVE says:
At best Murder in the Outback is a scrapbook, taking the major facts of the case and arranging them in an order that approximates the actual events. At worst, it's an under-written Movie of the Week with top-notch actors playing one-dimensional characters in a 95-minute story that deserved at least that again in order to tell it properly.

Like a scrapbook, all we get here are blurry snapshots that bare further scrutiny or beg explanation. The hair-tie: when he was apprehended, Bradley John Murdoch had Joanne Lees hair-tie on his person. Much is made of this at first; it seems like solid evidence - if not of Peter Falconio's murder, then at least of Joanne's abduction by Murdoch - but we find later, in a throw-away statement by Bryan Brown's Rex Wild (who really needs his own show, by the way) - that it was ruled inadmissible by the court. Why? We never find out. It's never mentioned again. And while it all makes sense when presented in context, much of the detail seems like it's from some kind of checklist - Hair-tie, got it. Secret emails to an ex-lover, that's in there. Joanne's 'Cheeky Monkey' t-shirt, ditto.

I think the movie's biggest flaw, though, is in showing the actual abduction because it gives us the advantage of knowing what's true and what's not when Joanne's story is eventually called into question. While this is handy as far as making us feel Joanne's frustration as the trial descends into a media circus - literally, as Joanne has to "escape" from a pair of handcuffs in court to show how she did it on the night - it's also preposterous because it's a truth drawn from details that are sketchy at best.

2.5/5

NIKKI says:
The opening here was exceptional. It was well-directed, incredibly suspenseful, and really took us deep into the soul of this case. It happened quickly, it was punishingly tense, and if you blinked for a split second, you lost all sense of where you were and how you got there.

In minutes, Joanne Lees' central predicament is highlighted. She experienced these torturesome moments, and how could she possibly know every detail of every quick second that passed? It's no wonder her statements were confused. And it's no wonder she acted as coldly as she did to the Australian media, and to an extent, the population at large, who chose to forget the sorry way they treated Lindy Chamberlain so many years ago. Here's this woman going trhoguh this horrible thing, and all we can do is cast suspicion without knowing the facts.

Joanne Lees was similarly tried by the people before she ever went to court, and that is just one element of the story this film tries to portray. How Lees was fooled by the media and betrayed by the Australian public who denigrated the stupid no-nothing backpackers who apparently deserve what they get for their lack of knowledge about the treacherous Aussie terrain. Or something close to that.

But the problem with this film was that it tried to outline this and so much more about the Falconio case in 90 minutes. It was never going to work. There are great moments -- Joanne Froggatt is really quite something as Lees, for instance, and there was that opening -- but much of it descends into TV-movie stuff and we become bored with the same old points being raised, and so much left out that was pertinent to the case.

It was certainly watchable, and is a good introduction to this case. That's really about it, though.

2.5/5

Ed Gein: The Butcher of Plainfield, dir. Michael Feifer (2007)

NIKKI says:
It's difficult to know where to begin. I think I'm most appalled that this film calls itself Ed Gein, opens with shots of the real Ed Gein and his home, takes itself extremely seriously, and yet it features very few facts.

The filmmakers here ignored documented history, and have taken it upon themselves to alter Gein's story to create a gross-out horror film. Somehow the already gruesome facts of the case weren't enough for writer/director Michael Feifer. Why, Feifer asks, hang a corpse from a butcher's hook when you can spice things up and hang a girl while still alive?

And even better, let's remove Gein's penchant for stout mother-figures and have him wiping off mostly hot babes in white cotton panties.

I cannot understand for the life of me what Feifer hoped for with this film. Then again, when you look at his priors, it's not so surprising that this was shit: The Graveyard, The Seductress, Witchcraft IX: Bitter Flesh and about a hundred other classics. Lord. He's obviously not serious. He's a dude with money and a typewriter. That's about all I can ascertain. Still, I don't know why he hasn't been stopped. I'm offended by his rewriting of criminal history, but maybe other people realise what a stupid hack he is and simply ignore him?

Soon, we'll be treated to his Boston Strangler: The Untold Story. I'm guessing that's a film featuring Albert DeSalvo with Feifer just making up stuff to fill out the running time. And get this -- it's going to star David Faustino as DeSalvo. Normally, I wouldn't outright bag Bud Bundy, but BUD BUNDY? As DeSalvo? Why do I get the feeling Feifer's taken his money to LA's underground clubs and enticed has-beens with promises of paychecks and renewed fame.

A bit like Jeffrey Dahmer luring men back to his flat to take "modelling shots", perhaps? "Come on, Bud Bundy, wanna make a movie? I'll pay you. And you can being a friend. What about Corky Nemec over there? He looks lonely. And cheap."

Oh god.

Ed Gein was stupid and pointless and disgusting. I think Feifer needs help -- anyone else get the feeling he's living vicariously through America's famous killers in a creepy, "this is how I would have done it"-type way?

.5/5

STEVE says:
Michael Feifer has somehow managed, with the direct-to-video abortion that is Ed Gein: The Butcher of Plainfield, to slander the name of a grave-robber and murderer, best known for his creative cannibalization of corpses. How do you pull that off? And more importantly, why bother?

It's not like Gein's story isn't compelling enough. He has inspired some of the most famous movie madmen of our day in several heavily fictionalized accounts, and their endless sequels and remakes - 12 titles, off the top of my head. And his "true" story has been filmed more than once. Deranged from 1974 tells the story of Ezra Cobb (Roberts Blossom) and his Oedipus-fueled shenanigans. While the names have been changed, this was the most accurate portrayal of Gein and his story until Chuck Parello's Ed Gein in 2000. While not a great film, Ed Gein (also known as In the Light of the Moon) takes an unflinching look at Gein's exploits, while sticking fairly close to the facts, and Steve Railsback simply channels Gein, down to the little smirk constantly playing about his lips, making you think that there’s always something just slightly amusing going on in there… something maybe having to do with meat-hooks.

Feifer decided to take the Homer Simpson approach to the facts in this instance ("Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything that's even remotely true."), and pulling something of a Lawnmower Man on us. Yes, there's a guy named Ed Gein in the movie; yes, he kills a tavern owner and a shopkeeper; and, yes, he wears women's skin. Other than that, Ed Gein: The Butcher of Plainfield tells the story of Ed Gein the way Sleepway Camp tells the story of Christine Jorgenson: Not At All.

Ed Gein was convicted of killing two women, but suspected of killing at least six. Butcher decides to take that number and run with it, throwing accuracy to the wind, and having Gein kill - in the first half hour - a high school girl, his friend Jack, and a caretaker at the cemetery. By the time the movie gets around to the Mary Hogan character, it feels like she's been shoehorned in from another story. Which, in a very real sense, she has.

It continues in this vein, dwelling on speculation rather than known facts, and twisting known facts to fit what can loosely be called a story. The Bernice Worden character - here called Vera Mason, played by Priscilla Barnes - is the mother of the films protagonist, Deputy Bobby Mason. No link to reality there, but it's the story's one interesting facet - the cop is as reliant on his mother as Gein was on his own - so I can't necessarily fault it there. But Mrs. Worden was found in Gein's barn "dressed out" like a deer. In Butcher, Mrs. Mason is found in the barn, lying fully clothed on a work table, and the high school girl is the one hanging from the hooks. Am I nit-picking? Maybe. But I'm thinking, "Why?" Did it help the story to not butcher Mrs. Mason? No. So why change it?

And then there's this Jack fella. He may be based on "Gus", who sometimes pops up in Gein mythology. However, research of the facts tend to show that Gus did not exist, which makes sense: when your house is decked out in human remains, you don't want company dropping by. Feifer says "NUTS" to logic and research, and gives us Jack. The only reason I can see for this character's existence is to give Michael Berryman something to do. Jack's there for about three minutes before he and Gein have a fight and Gein beats him to death with a shovel, showcasing Feifer's incompetence as a screenwriter, as the scene does NOTHING to advance the movie or develop the story. It served as a quick paycheck for Berryman, who, frankly, deserves better.

I will have to give props to Kane Hodder as an actor. As bad a match as he is to Gein, he did manage to portray him with a sense of sadness and pain, instead of as a relentless, drooling maniac. It also has to be said that he acted the pants off of everyone else involved here - which is not exactly a high bar. I'm just saying, for a glorified stunt man, he's not a bad actor.

The worst thing about Butcher - apart from its blatant disregard for facts, intro-to-film screenwriting and inspired miscasting of Kane Hodder - is that there are people out there who are going to watch it and take it as gospel. And that's just sad. Eddie Gein dressed in the skins of dead women and danced around in the moonlight; clearly he was a very, very sick man. His story, as horrific as it is, is also a tragic one. But even if history finds no sympathy for Eddie, himself, surely Mary Hogan and Bernice Worden deserve better than this.

.5/5

A Mighty Heart, dir. Michael Winterbottom (2007)

NIKKI says:
I knew little about Daniel Pearl and his wife before this film. Their story is tragic, and the events leading to the eventual revelation that Daniel had been murdered by a Pakistani terrorist group are truly harrowing.

I have a measure of understanding as far as Mariane Pearl's desire not to feel "terrorized" following the event, but I don't know if I'd have that kind of strength.

The film is really a recreation of FBI and Pakistani police pursuits, looking for Pearl's kidnappers, and looking to free him. This is suspenseful even though the outcome is well-known. It's horrifying to watch these men as their hopes build and fall at various moments throughout their search. And when Pearl's fate is revealed, it's testament to this film's storytelling that we are shocked, and that we do relive the insurmountable pain with Mariane.

So, it is harrowing, but it's a fascinating story of Westerners caught in this strange, "other" world of extremist violence.

3/5

STEVE says:
I'd like to take a moment and speak to everyone who ever employed the hand held camera technique: Stop It, Please.

I know the idea is to make it fell gritty and real, like You Are There, but unless you're making a documentary, most of the time your editing lets you down because, hey, real life does not cut to a close-up. It's distracting. Granted, it's worse in mockumentaries - like in The Office, when the scene continuously cuts back and forth over the shoulders of two people without ever revealing either cameraman. And how many cameras do you need to shoot a scene in a 6x8 office, anyway?

A Mighty Heart was an excellent movie, and I was glad it focused more on the investigation into Daniel Pearl's disappearance than the aftermath. But there were times that the hand held "documentary" feel would pull me out of the movie and back to reality. And that's not something you want to happen with such an engrossing story.

3.5/5

Le Scaphandre et le Papillon, dir Julian Schnabel (2007)

NIKKI says:
I took my mum to see this at the Kino cinema in Melbourne. We haven't been to the movies together for a long time, since before I left for America in 2000. Mum reminded me that the last movie was saw together was Legally Blonde, and I was highly embarrassed that I'd paid money and likely bought M&Ms for something so ridiculously banal.

But then I realised I've come an awfully long way from the days when I'd pay cinema prices for just about anything. Nearly a decade on and we're in an independent cinema, at a film we both deliberately selected, as far from cinema puff as one gets. I felt proud, and I think mum did, too. I still had the M&Ms though, so not everything has changed.

We both enjoyed the film, as much as one can enjoy something so deeply painful. I was conflicted at the end, because I think I'm accustomed to feeling some sense of uplift with such stories. You know -- he was paralysed from head-to-toe and died, but he changed the world! Well, I didn't get that with this one. It was a depressing tale, and the filmmakers allowed it to be such without wallowing in that depression. The story was told quite matter-of-factly, and I think that's what has remained so fascinating for me. The film stripped away any potential sugar, anything that might make dwel on how sorry we felt for Jean-Do, and simply let us listen as he told us exactly what life was like inside his diving bell.

The story itself, and the incredible compassion of his speech pathologist, Celine, were just amazing. And I don't think I've even seen a film quite like this in terms of it's visual aspects, like director Julian Schnabel's ingenious method of making Jean-Do's remaining good eye the camera throughout much of the film. It was disconcerting, off-putting, and difficult -- probably the perfect way to really let us into Jean-Do's experience.

Everything about this film really stunned me. The story, the vision, the character development. My heart broke a few times, like when Jean-Do's wife must translate his responses during a telephone call to his mistress who has not been to see him since his accident. Also when Jean-Do says "death" during a conversation with Celine. Therea re so many key moments in this film. It's just superb.

4.5/5

Steve did not view.

Apollo 13, dir. Ron Howard (1995)

Find Me Guilty, dir. Sidney Lumet (2006)

STEVE says:
Something about Find Me Guilty felt less than cinematic to me. I couldn't shake the feeling that we were watching an HBO movie. Not that that's a bad thing, but I was surprised in the end to find that it had a cinematic release.

It was interesting to see Vin Diesel in something that didn't have explosions in it every ten minutes, but I still don't see any acting awards in his future. He was likable enough as Jackie DiNorscio, the gangster with a heart, defending himself on a conspiracy charge in what would become the longest mafia trial in US history, and of course you want to see him beat the wrap.

But whether he's guilty of this charge or not, he is - by his own admission - guilty of many others. He's not a good guy, and we shouldn't be in his corner. As prosecuting attorney Sean Kierney says upon hearing one of the female jurors thinks Jakie is cute:

"Does she have any idea how much money these bastards cost her? If a hammer and a nail are used - her house, her daughter's apartment - every fucking thing is costing her more because of these 'cute' guys. She sees a truck carrying concrete? She's paying for it. Garbage being picked up at a restaurant? She's paying for it. She buys perfume from France, gloves from Italy? She's paying more because it came off a fucking boat! Not to mention that they fucking kill people from time to time!"

A compelling argument. But wait, Kierney wants to put our guy in prison. So what do we do? Well, let's make him a weasely schmuck. I hate when movies do this. It's a short cut that bypasses character development altogether. And casting Linus Roache just seals the deal. It's less than I would have expected from Sidney Lumet.

Worth noting, though, is Peter Dinklage as Ben Klandis, one of the defense attorneys. Apart from his standing on a riser to speak to the jury - and even this is done without making a joke out of it - nothing is made of his stature. He plays the role as a guy who's a lawyer, not a dwarf who's a lawyer. I'd love to see him get more work of this kind.

2.5/5

NIKKI says:
I enjoyed this movie really for the history lesson more than anything else. I was definitely intrigued by how the whole thing played out, knowing nothing at all about the story. The biggest mob trial in history is won seemingly because one mob man chose to act as his own attorney, revealing a blue-collar character with skewed moral decency to the jury who just ate it up.

Vin Diesel was convincing as Jackie DiNoscio, and kept the entertainment level high. Steve was on to something, though, when he said the thing felt like a TV movie. It did, and, as we discussed after the movie, it balanced poorly it's comedy and it's drama. Linus Roach as the prosecuting attorney pointed out so many reasons why this mob group deserved to go to jail, and yet we were rooting for Jackie, so suave and funny and likable.

So, yeah, not a hit, not nearly a miss. Just somewhere in between.

2.5/5

American Gangster, dir. Ridley Scott (2007)

NIKKI says:
Didn't really care to see this movie, but we got free tickets at work and thought a jaunt to the pictures might be good for staff morale. Not really, but something like that. My only regret is that Steve didn't join us, but I think Steve was expecting a big, dumb, acion blow-out complete with Russell and Denzel "King Kong ain't got nuthin' on me" hero lines spouted throughout. Because, that's exactly what we were expecting. Basically, we were going to movies as a bit of a fun gag. I won't be doing that again, and rightly, shouldn't have considered doing it to begin with.

The unexpected ...

I loved this film. It rivals No Country for my favourite film of the year (two weeks in, though we are). Everything about this was, for me, what movies should be. Superb storytelling, compelling characters, excellent pacing, suspense, drama. It was all there. I was utterly enthralled. And Denzel and Russell held back their overacting giving the subtle, intrictae performances demanded of their characters. I haven't enjoyed Denzel so much since Mo' Better Blues.

This film is based on the story of heroin smuggler and dealer, Frank Lucas, who, it would seem, ruled trade between 1968 and 1973. It's about Frank's rise and the investigation that eventually took him (and 30-odd narcotics officers) down. The stories paralleled really well, with the eventual showdown between Russell and Denzel proving ultra-effective. Denzel was just riveting in that interrogation scene. A great history lessons, an excellent character-driven work. I loved it. I can't wait for Steve to see it.

4.5/5

Steve did not view.

Ed Wood, dir. Tim Burton (1994)

NIKKI says:
We watched this to honour Vampira, who passed away today. I'm glad we did, too, because I haven't seen the film in a long time, and though I remember key scenes, I had really forgotten just how wonderful the whole thing really is. It's just a beautifully told story, and it hits home when it needs to about passion in art, believing in oneself, and never forgetting what dreams are and what they mean. Ed Wood might not have been the greatest filmmaker of all time, but he was certainly among the most passionate -- or, at least, that's how he is portrayed here. I wondered during the film if he does't exploit Bela Lugosi to get his foot in the door at the studios, and Steve informed me that his use of Bela is more of a celebration, and whether or not there was an element of exploitation there, it worked out to serve Bela, to give him celebratory final years. I see that, and it only adds to the joy of the film for me.

Everything here works, from the BW photography, to the cast, to the tight structure.

4/5

STEVE says:
Bela, Tor, Criswell, Eddie, and now Vampira. It would have made sense to watch Plan 9 from Outer Space as a tribute to her passing, but I didn't think I could do that again. I disagree that it's the worst movie ever made - I've seen The Pelican Brief, remember - but that doesn't make it any easier to watch.

Ed Wood, by all accounts, is heavily fictionalized, but that, I argue, doesn't detract from the story. Less about Ed Wood himself, it focuses mainly on the friendship between Eddie and Bela Lugosi in the last years of Lugosi's life, ending soon after with the premiere of Plan 9. Instead of being a simple bio-pic, it tells the story of Eddie and Bela against the background of Eddie's struggles to be taken seriously as a filmmaker.

It's an inspiring film, and I'm shocked and awed that it didn't make the AFI's Top 100 Inspirational Movies list. But then, Eddie shot for the moon and kept hitting the roof, so maybe it's not as inspirational as, say, It's a Wonderful Life, but it's got to beat Rudy, right?

5/5

Romulus, My Father, dir. Richard Roxburgh (2007)

NIKKI says:
Sometimes, I would love to know what goes on at the meetings and during the discussions that lead to books becoming films. It stuns me, at times, the way screenwriters and filmmakers interpret books, change and mould them, to become new stories. I can't remember, honestly, the last time I was overwhelmed by a good adaptation. But I can reel off a large list of adaptations that screwed up, one way or another, key emotional scenes.

No Country was one -- a scene leading to a character's death in that story, that clearly outlined his motivation, was chopped from the film, and in my opinion dragged it way down. Mystic River was another one -- a character's death that was so powerful in the book it had me sweating while reading it was edited to death in the film, with other scenes intercutting what should have been a focused, singular moment. Romulus, My Father, based on the memoirs of Raimond Gaita, suffered similar treatment. Not only is a character's death left unexplored and underexplained, the very essence of Romulus from the book is completely removed from the film.

I understand storytelling on screen is different, but I can't think of any reason why various parts of Gaita's story were removed, or otherwise altered. I just wanted to yell during the movie, "it didn't happen that way" or "that's not how he said it!". Romulus in the book is giving, caring, always desiring to see his fellow man free of hardship, sometimes to his own detriment. He takes in stray animals, nurses them to health, makes them a part of his growing menagerie. He builds and works with his hands. He reads, and implores his son to read, too. He stands for honesty, morality, truthfulness under any circumstances. But he knows how to have fun, and he gives his son a wonderful life.

Romulus in the film is damaged, seemingly from the outset. Eric Bana as Romulus, always appears sad and broken. We don't see him taking in his animals, or striving to make sure his son is educated. He's certainly a caring father, but it's just... different. I didn't get a sense of the same man in the film that I did in the book. I just saw a desperate man, in love with a woman who did not want him. Then again, Romulus is hardly in the film, with much of it concentrating on Raimond's time with his depressed mother.

One example of the basic problem with the film, for me: in the book, we learn that Romulus treats every living creature with the same respect. He feeds his pets from the table, giving them treats and cakes, simply because they are living creatures deserving of the same pleasures as humans. In the movie, it's Raimond that feeds the dogs from the table. How does that set up Romulus? In the movie, Hora reads to Raimond, and there's no sense that Romulus wants his son to read and learn. In the movie, Raimond's dancing to rock music is used as a way for the kid to expel aggression, in the book, Raimond writes a treatise on Elvis Presley that Romulus finds and it's about a father's fear his son is susceptible to immoral influences.

These alterations, for me, changed the characters, and ultimately, their stories and how I related to them. Again, I'd love to know why the writer and director chose to tell the story this way. Good thing there are commentaries on the DVD -- though I don't think I can come up with reasonable explanations for their choices.

I was ultimately disappointed in the adaptation.

2/5

STEVE says:

This is another case like No Country for Old Men where Nikki's read the book, I have not, and I can still tell there's been a shiteload of stuff that got lost in the translation.

The movie felt like random scenes from a childhood as opposed to the story of a child's memory of his father. Roxburgh is impressive his first time out as a director, and Bana (Hulk aside) is always interesting, but Romulus just didn't gel for me.

Not a bad movie, but not really anything special.

2/5

Amazing Grace, dir. Michael Apted (2006)

NIKKI says:
An historical drama about changing the world -- it's made for me, quite frankly. I don't know if I was tired, or had just eaten way too much over dinner with my parents, but I thought the film lacked the emotional resonance of others it brings to mind. I'm thinking of Iron-Jawed Angels, Glory, The Mission, movies about big events in history that present us with real heroes and remind us what others went through to make life better for us.

William Wilburforce is absolutely one of those people, and his struggle was honorable and compelling, but I wonder if this film's structure didn't let it down some? We jumped back and forth in time quite often, and I found some of the conversations about the issue at hand slightly repetitive. It's not hard to convince us that Wilburforce's mission is a good one, and yet much time was spent doing just that. Or perhaps he was convincing himself?

There was a lot of talking, a lot of reiteration of the key points -- costs of the slave trade, Parliament's reticence to end the trade, experiences of the slaves. There was little imagination here to make this film less lecture-like.

This was an interesting history lesson, but it lacked vigor. I didn't jump on my seat, fists pumping in the air, when it was all said and done. And I should have.

3/5

STEVE says:
It says much about the American education system that I hadn't heard the name William Wilburforce until watching Amazing Grace. We're taught that Abraham Lincoln was the great emancipator, but Wilburforce did his work during the American Revolution - nearly 100 years before Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation in 1862.

What I found interesting about the movie, apart from the history lesson, were the parallels drawn between the way Wilburforce and his crew were looked upon for trying to abolish the slave trade, and the way anyone who speaks out against the war in Iraq is looked upon today. Lines like “One can’t be seen opposing the king when the streets of Paris are running with blood,” and “When war comes, opposition will soon be called sedition" inarguably reflect Bush's America.

It was a good movie, but not a great one. You're with Wilburforce all the way, and want to see him come out on top, but how can you not? The moral deck is stacked in his favor.

3/5