Interview, dir. Steve Buscemi (2007)

NIKKI says:
So, it seems we've moved away from every one of this month's planned "themes", and have gone back to "let's watch this!" -- be it preview tape, new release, or what.

Our plan for this month was to watch movies from our ever-expanding To-Watch pile. It has something like 200 movies in it, and our Hitchcock event was a way of culling that number. Then we were going to do docos, and pulled out H.H. Holmes. Then we were going to do westerns ... Ugh. Now, we're kinda doing whatever. And it's okay -- I like the randomness, I think. Plans are hard.

Continuing at random: Interview. I got it as a preview screener at work today, and we've both wanted to see it for some time, so we went with it. I did enjoy it, but I don't know if I liked it, if that even makes sense. I was with the story and the characters throughout, but the end threw me for a mad loop. So much so that I'm not entirely sure if anything I thought about these characters or their motives was in any way close to fact.

Ultimately, though, I think that's the point. What do we see when we view people through a lens, or a tape recorder, as the case may be? And what does an interview say about the interviewer? What is truth? How much of the world we inhabit is made up of semi-truths, so-called truths given to us by journalists and based on their moods, their particular ideals? When it was revealed that these characters were feeding on the desperation and barbarity of each other's hidden lives, I discovered I was as culpable as they were. I believed in the lies as much as they did, and for similar reasons.

How easy it was to explain away and excuse the actress's behaviour based on her revelations. How easy it was, as well, to pity the interviewer based on his... But then they run away into the night, and I'm left stunned.

Challenging film, great performances, more great directorial work from Buscemi.

3/5

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

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, dir. Andrew Dominik (2007)

NIKKI says:
I'd been anticipating this film for some time, and worried that I'd perhaps built it up so far in my mind that it couldn't live up to my expectations.

I expected epic filmmaking, grand scenery, a leisurely paced story that might remind me of Tombstone or Unforgiven. I wanted suspense, history, scarred characters, and a harsh American landscape.

And, you know what? It was all there. It was pretty much exactly as I'd pictured it. The photography was probably more than I anticipated, which worked in my favour, too.

So, basically, it's a story of obsession. Obsession with people and legend, but also with affirmation and heroism, and the need to feel worth something. The film did well to really develop these conflicts within Robert Ford. The early stages of the film show us the lively fanboy who lapdogs around Jesse James. But once in Jesse's camp, Bob finds things aren't like they are in the nickelbooks. Jesse, the man, is conflicted himself, not always personable, not particularly heroic. Bob's view of Jesse alters so much that he discovers a way to use Jesse's legend to secure his own.

That Robert Ford goes down in history as a coward is rather unfortunate considering Jesse's means of taking care of business -- beating kids, pistol-whipping lowly train conductors, and, what do you know, shooting his friends in the back.

It's a complex story, always compelling, with some genuinely amazing moments, such as the dinner table argument midway through when Bob is teased for his James Gang fandom. Also, Nick Cave's bar scene, and Jesse's visit to Ed Miller who he learns is conspiring against him.

The performances were great, too. Casey Affleck just proves himself so much in this film. His performance is majestic. Brad was a bit Usual Brad -- doing that laugh and stuff. But still, in the tense moments, he was great, too. Sam Rockwell was a stand out for me. Watching him trying so hard not to look guilty in every scene from the dinner table argument to Jesse's eventual death is just wrenching, and horribly suspenseful.

I just really enjoyed it, and I think it deserved greater representation at the Oscars this year.

4.5/5

STEVE says:
I have to admit, I agree with pretty much everything Nikki said. Yet The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford was something of a disappointment for me.

There were times when I started looking at my watch, thinking, "Do we need this?" There were long stretches where the film strayed away from either Jesse James or Robert Ford, such as the bit where Dick Liddel and Wood Hite visit Hite's family home and Liddel ends up bedding his stepmother. Granted, this comes back around, so it was a plot point upon which other things hinged, but it could have been cut back some.

And then there's the ending. Act Three starts on Palm Sunday, the day before Jesse is killed. It does exactly what it's supposed to do, there's a little wrap up, and then... It's one year later. Bob and his brother Charlie are now re-enacting the killing on stage, night after night, to a crowded theatre. And Charlie kills himself, and Bob gets drunk, and Bob gets in a bar fight, and Bob meets a woman, and on and on and on until Bob is killed by someone who - like himself - was just seeking fame and glory.

If the aftermath of the assassination was so important, maybe shooting Jesse should have been the midpoint, rather than stuffing up the last ten minutes of what was otherwise a pretty good film.

3/5

H. H. Holmes - America's First Serial Killer, dir. John Borowski (2004)

NIKKI says:
So, I just found out The Devil in the White City is to be a film. Great news -- it's a magnificent book, contrasting H.H. Holmes' murders with Daniel Burnham's building of the Chicago Worlds Fair. I don't think I've ever read a book that's beguiled me quite so much.

If you've read that book, though, America's First Serial Killer will reveal very little about Holmes and his exploits. It's rather short, and really just a rundown of events with brief talking heads from a criminal profiler, an investigations expert, and Harold Schechter, author of a book on Holmes.

What's kinda cool and perhaps slightly revelatory is the film's soundtrack, which overlays the sounds of Gilded Age Chicago with old-timey shots of the city at the time Holmes built his horror castle.

Otherwise, it's really all just photographs of people involved in the case pasted different ways against different backdrops to give the impression of movement. So, it wasn't the most gripping of films. Still, there's much to be learned about the chronology of the case, and bits and pieces after the event, such as the transcriptions of Holmes' letters and journals written throughout his incarceration.

As stated, not too revealing if you know about Holmes, but not a bad way to revisit those events. Even if they are so horribly shocking.

2.5/5

Detour, dir. Edgar G. Ulmer (1945)

NIKKI says:
We decided to end Hitchcock week, and head into Noir Night, with Detour. We picked it because the plot sounded too good to resist -- a hitchhiker takes a ride from a guy who dies during their ride. To avoid suspicion of murder, the hitchhiker takes on the driver's identity. He then picks up a hitchhiker who knows his dastardly secret!

Come on, right? Perfect noir set-up. I enjoyed it, though it had its faults. I wondered why he didn't just go to the cops. If the guy died of natural causes or whatever, surely that would be revealed. But then, I'm forced to think back to The Wrong Man, and I'm with Al in this movie -- if ever I ride with a dead man, I might just cover it up, too.

Particularly brilliant in this movie, and something I'd love to see redone in a modern film, is the death scene involving the telephone wire. How great was that? Ulger is definitely a Hitchcock rival as far as tension and horror goes. I enjoyed it, and will watch more like it, for sure. I do think this is ready for a remake, too.

3/5

Family Plot, dir. Alfred Hitchcock (1976)

NIKKI says:
I'm thinking we might end Hitchcock Week now before our opinion of him as the "master of suspense" alters any further. In just a handful of films, Hitchcock's catalogue is beginning to resemble a Backstreet Boys album -- some really fine work scattered amid a hell of a lot of filler.

Family Plot is the worst of that filler. An attempt a suspense-comedy (if that is a real sub-sub-genre), this one gives us a relatively complex plot that pieces together in novel ways, but instead of suspense, we're treated to meandering scenes, boring chases, and so-called comedic moments which are really just Barbara Harris being way annoying. I wished Humphrey Bogart would wander along and just slap her.

This was not Hitchcock's finest hour. In fact, apart from the sagging second half (as in Torn Curtain and The Man Who Knew Too Much), I could barely find Hitch here at all. Where was the suspense, the horror, the dark shadows, and even darker human thoughts? This was all just surface sheen, so little depth, and I don't want shallow in a Hitchcock movie.

Perhaps it was his old age turning on him? What a tragic pity this was his last movie. It's just woeful. So, I think Hitch Week is done, unless we just go back and watch the known classics -- Vertigo, The Birds, Psycho, Strangers on a Train, and the hit tracks. But even then I'm a bit scared. I think, even in those, I might spot more clearly Hitch's failings. I don't want that!

If we do finish Hitch Week on this one, it's definitely been an education.

2/5

STEVE says:
Wow. Up until Family Plot, I would have said that a Hitchcock movie is like pizza - even when it's bad, it's still pretty good. But that's not taking into consideration squid pizza, or potato pizza (no kidding), or Aussie pizza, where they put egg on it. Egg! What are you doing? You've ruined an otherwise perfectly good pizza with egg!

And that's where I stand with Family Plot.

It didn't start off too bad. A little wacky with Barbara Harris' pseudo-psychic and Bruce Dern's cantankerous cabbie, but that's alright. Hitch likes to have fun and can quite often play up the comedy in an otherwise straight scene - as we saw in The Man Who Knew Too Much. Here we learn that Harris is helping a wealthy octogenarian find her last living relative - a bastard nephew who has no idea of his heritage - so that he can be named a beneficiary in her will.

Once that's set up, we move away from them and on to the mysterious blond with the gun, the whole kidnapping/diamond heist plot with Karen Black and William Devane. Switching gears, I like this. So it's back and forth between these two stories until they come together at midpoint - Devane is the missing-and-presumed-dead bastard nephew. That's at 45 minutes; great midpoint for a 90 minute flick, but for 2hrs it comes up a bit short, leaving the second half an extra 15 minutes to meander and lag.

Family Plot reminded me of the worst of the Coen Brothers' work - in my opinion, the Oscar-winner Fargo. The comedy and the drama weren't balanced, the comedy often sapping the drama out of otherwise fairly tense scenes. When the brakes on Harris' car are cut, for example, all Babs can do is grab on to Dern's tie and swing her legs up around his neck - forget that he's doing all he can to keep them on the road and in one piece. It's meant to be funny, but in all actuality it's just irritating as fuck.

Don't get me wrong, there were some great twists and turns, but more often than not I was sitting there, rolling my eyes. No less so than in the final moments when Hitch pulls out the old chestnut of having Babs' "fake" psychic powers turn out to be real. So what, she was faking being a fake psychic the whole time? Are ya fuckin'... what? WHAT?

We had wanted to do a whole week of "unseen" Hitchcock, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to agree with Nikki on this one: Maybe it's best if some of the Hitchcock titles we have here remain unseen.

2/5

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.

The Man Who Knew Too Much, dir. Alfred Hitchcock (1934)

NIKKI says:
Talk about out of my comfort zone. As soon as this one started, I was forced to dig right down deep in my movie-lovers heart of hearts and repeat: This is the history of cinema. Without this, we would have no Breakfast Club. So, clear your mind of old-age prejudice, and revel in history in the making.

Turns out, I needn't have been quite so dramatic. After the clay shooting and skiing ended (both scenes required the most rudimentary of "special" effects), the film felt like any other black and white piece, and so I could sit back and enjoy.

Unreal, really, that movies were this edgy way back in the 1930s. That's a lessons I'm still learning, that innuendo and sharp wit are nothing new in film. Filmmakers and screenwriters, I should know by now, have always been slightly ahead of the times (artists often are, right?). It's something that makes films of this vintage so much more enjoyable for me, that I can sit back and witness the development of modern screenwriting and character creation. I should be less shocked, too, from now on, when I see a film like this one and think how far the medium came in such a short time.

Though the film has its faults -- Peter Lorre's character is revealed, in my opinion, slightly late, and the gun battle at the end is tedious to say the least -- it still manages to compel. Just what is going to happen to the daughter, and to what lengths will Leslie Mann go to get her back? The everyman protagonist trapped in a big intrigue-ridden chase is common in Hitchcock's films now that I think about it, and Mann's struggle is among the more interestingly played out. There's a particularly fascinating exchange at an opera show that will remain with me as something quite ingenious.

There are no real surprises here as far as the plot. but it's nonetheless an interesting film, as much for it's place in film history as much as anything else. Watching Peter Lorre skulk around, smoke-in-mouth reminds, too, that movie stars are just made differently these days. More's the pity.

2.5/5

Dial M for Murder, dir. Alfred Hitchcock (1954)

NIKKI says:
Of all the film's we've watched so far for our mini-Hitchcock marathon, this is by far my favourite. It's tightly plotted, tense, well-written and acted, and expertly directed.

I loved everything about this one. I enjoyed the supreme malice with which the husband plots to kills his wife, and the way none of that malice ever really shows on his face because it's just something he's going to do. I love how he uses every twist in his own tale to his advantage, such as when his plan goes wrong and he has to think on his feet to come up with another plan to escape suspicion, and thus turns his victim wife into a vicious murderess. It's all so wicked.

I enjoyed the staging of the piece, with it all feeling very much like a play, only with three-dimensional aspects, such as furniture in the foreground, adding a strange depth even in standard 2-D. It was filmed this way to capitalise on the 3-D phenomenon movie going on in the mid-1950s, and still works today because it's not so in-your-face, so to speak.

I relished every twist in this story. I was consistently shocked at just how intricately the plot revealed itself, and when it didn't work one way, off it went in another direction and worked even more majestically than before. This is plotting and structure used to classic effect.

4/5

STEVE says:
At the risk of stating the obvious, Dial M for Murder is a brilliant film. Can't fault the story or the performances, and I've found a new respect for Ray Milland, who up until now, had been familiar to me only from sci-fi movies like X - The Man with the X-Ray Eyes and The Thing with Two Heads. (Sad, innit?)

If only I'd been able to see it in its original 3D presentation.

There's a featurette on the DVD about the 3D process and how it was used here by Hitch. Unlike many other films of the time, where 3D was used aggressively and almost always unnecessarily (I'm reminded of the paddle-ball guy from House of Wax), Hitch used it here to replicate the experience of seeing the original stage production of "Dial M". He didn't throw things in your face - apart from the scene where Grace Kelly is getting strangled and her hand shoots out at the camera - and instead used the 3D process to literally create a third dimension for the audience. Plants, lamps, chairs - all these things sometimes get "in the way" of the action, never obstructing the audience's view, but instead enhancing it, making it feel as though you're watching it live on stage.

It's to Hitch's credit, though, that the movie doesn't suffer from a 2D viewing. Since the 3D effects were so subtle in the first place, the absence of the 3^rd dimension isn't felt, as it so often is when movies make the dimensionally retrograde adjustment for home video release.

Dial M is what a Hitchcock movie should be. Every single thing about it was - if not perfect - perfect Hitchcock, and it's yet another black mark on my record that I'm seeing it for the first time at 37 years of age.

4/5

The Wrong Man, dir. Alfred Hitchcock (1956)

STEVE says:
This movie annoyed the hell out of me.

Hang on, let me back up. The Wrong Man was a pretty good movie. Based on a true story, Henry Fonda's Manny Balestrero is arrested after being misidentified as the man who held up several businesses in his neighbourhood. While trying to find people who will corroborate his story (that he was away on vacation with his wife during the time of the first robbery) Manny's wife goes insane and must be committed, leaving him to face the trial by himself. Fonda was great, Vera Miles as Mrs. Balestrero was great, and Hitch was top-of-his-game, even shooting outside the box on this one, using real New York locations instead of going his usual studio/back projection route.

What annoyed me here was the way the case was handled - whether by screenwriter Angus McPhail or by the actual persons involved, I cannot say. Either way, it was a mess. The women from the insurance office who identify Balestrero in the first place are simply paranoid. This man looks vaguely like the robber - in that he's tall and thin - and therefore he must be the robber. Nevermind asking why the robber - who never covered his face or tried to hide his identity in any way - would simply waltz into the office a few weeks later and transact business as usual. They jump immediately to the conclusion that Balestrero is their man. More unbelievable is the fact that they'd been robbed by this guy twice before. I'll allow that you might misidentify someone you've seen only once - but when he comes back a second time, you'd be able to tell him apart from Henry Fonda, I don't care how similar their features.

Then there's the police: Considering that The Wrong Man was filmed ten years before the Miranda v. Arizona case, I didn't exactly expect them to read Manny his rights. But all through the questioning he was flat-out denied a phone call, and no one - not even Manny himself - suggested that having a lawyer present might be a good idea. Manny was pretty much railroaded. You could argue that this is what really happened, but that only makes it all the more infuriating.

When Manny finally does hire Frank D. O'Connor to defend him, O'Connor puts the onus of finding witnesses and alibis on Manny! I ask you: What the hell kind of lawyer doesn't have an investigator working for him? If, gods forbid, I'm ever involved in any kind of legal complications, and my lawyer wants me to do the footwork, you'd better believe I'm going to ask for a kick-back.

And I would be remiss in talking about a movie that deals with a wrongfully accused man, were I not to mention the West Memphis Three. Manny Balestrero - at least this movie's representation of Manny Balestrero - spent one night in a holding cell, and about 45 seconds in prison after his arraignment. Damien Echols, Jessie Misskelley and Jason Baldwin have been in jail since 1993 - Damien, on death row - convicted of murdering three little boys in the Robin Hood Hills area of West Memphis, Arkansas, with no actual physical evidence to prove that they committed the crimes, and despite the fact that - wait for it - Jessie was at a wrestling match several towns over at the time the crimes would have been committed. Nearly fifty years since the Balestrero case and it's only gotten worse.

I want to say "Regardless of all this, it was a good movie," but I'm not sure that makes sense. Yes, it was well-made, the acting and direction were superb, and the location shoots added a layer of reality that I find missing from so many Hitchcock films, due to his reliance on the "controlled environment" of shooting in a studio - but... can it really be a good movie when the true events were so ridiculously unbelievable?

I'm afraid the jury's still out on that one.

3/5

NIKKI says:
So many things made The Wrong Man enjoyable. Henry Fonda's performance, for one, as the workaday husband and father, the family man with his heart in the right place. Fonda does here what he does best, mixing stoicism and vulnerability, to create a complex character whose success you can't help but root for.

The story, too, was interesting, based on a true account. To witness Hitchcock's recreation of that account and watch how it all played out was genuinely compelling, if entirely frustrating that such ridiculousness could happen to anybody.

And Hitchcock's dark shadows and visionary direction made the thing even more watchable.

What was difficult to enjoy about this one was just how mad the whole situation was. How Manny was persecuted simply because he might, sort-of, perhaps looked like another robber working his neighbourhood. The women at the insurance office coulda sworn he was the robber, and so without physical, or even remotely logical, evidence, Manny is charged and spends time in jail. Then he is forced to spearhead his own investigation, with Manny and his wife travelling the countryside looking for that much-needed evidence to clear him.

I suppose this all happened, but can you believe it? Well, I guess we can, because it's not a stand alone incident, and it's not something that stopped occurring as investigative techniques and technologies improved.

In all, the history lesson, coupled with Hitchcock at his swift directorial best, made this one a good, if hellishly frustrating, piece.

3.5/5

Torn Curtain, dir, Alfred Hitchcock (1966)

NIKKI says:
Steve was in the mood for Hitchcock, I was well-rested and happy to choose something a bit meatier than those just-keep-me-awake horror screeners. So, we went with Torn Curtain. Neither of us had seen it, and it's been too long, for me, between Newman films.

I'm a bit torn with this one. I very much enjoyed the film, and especially its performances. But the final half of the film was very weighty, not nearly as fast-paced and exciting as the first half. Once we knew what Michael was up to, we just had to wait until the wrong people found out and chased him around a bit.

When the suspense began to involve so many people, the film really lost its tenseness. Early on, when Michael is followed first to Berlin, then to the farmhouse, everything was taut -- it was Newman in peril. But suddenly when Michael and his wife are fleeing the bad guys in a bus full of people, and then when they're in the post office with a weird woman, then we're in the ballet theatre with a big audience, suddenly the focus is removed from them, and I felt far too separated from them at a point when I should have been right with them. If that makes sense.

Still, bits here rank up there with my favourite Hitchcock moments, like the scene in the farmhouse when the young woman comes to Newman's aid. That was horrific. I also enjoyed the ballet sequence, just because it was so freakin' weird. Paul was great, as always, and even had a chance to the romantic lead in the early parts of this film, which is something he doesn't do a lot. I think I may request a Newman Week for our project. This was okay -- makes me want to watch more Hitchcocks I've missed.

3/5

STEVE says:
Torn Curtain kicks off a week, not only of movies neither of us hasn't seen before, but also a celebration of Alfred Hitchcock. We've decided that the horror screeners we've been watching were just too painful to continue, at least right away, and how can you go wrong with Hitch?

Unfortunately, the answer to that is "By starting your week with Torn Curtain".

For the first hour, as Nikki mentioned, it was classic Hitch. Intrigue, spy stuff, murder - the self-defense killing of Gromek will stay with me forever. But after we reached mid-point, the movie became plodding and tedious. The scene on the bus was awkward - everyone speaking in German was a brilliant move, as it kept most of us as in the dark as Newman and Andrews. But the belligerent woman on the bus served no purpose but to have someone repeat everything in English, even though the woman was German and would have understood the exchange in the first place.

Much of the 2nd half could have been lifted out and never missed. The Countess Kuchinska bit, for example. Sad as this woman was, she did nothing but stretch the running time of the movie. All she had to do was take Newman and Andrews to a post office. Why the layover at the coffee house? So she could get them to agree to sponsor her move to America - which never happens, anyway, because she's caught after the ultra-tedious post office scene.

Hitch's MacGuffin this time around was a defensive weapon against offensive nuclear attacks. That's all we need to know - usually. But this time out, Hitch had Newman and Professor Lindt battling equations from this weapon on a blackboard - none of which meant anything to anyone at home. The purpose of the scene was for Newman to get information from Lindt without really giving him any in return, and indeed it worked. But it went on and on, with each of them writing equations, the other arguing against, and yadda yadda yadda. By Hitch's own admission, the MacGuffin is an object around which the plot revolves, and as to what that object specifically is, "The audience don't care!" But when you present us with a scene like this, we have to care, or we become bored.

No, this one didn't do very much for me, although Newman's performance was top notch - even if Hitch himself was not.

2.5/5

The Bet, dir. Mark Lee (2006)

NIKKI says:
I was in he mood for something different -- no horror, no comedy, no serious documentaries. So, I chose The Bet, an Aussie film set in the world of high-flying bankers and stockbrokers. It stars Matthew Newton and is directed by Mark Lee -- two definite selling points. And it wasn't too bad.

It was awesome, though. A few things bothered me -- I felt like I didn't know the true reasons behind both the bet and Aden Young's character's Machiavellian shenanigans. I felt like I should have been let in a little bit more to just what Young's character wanted and why he went to these specific lengths to get it. At the end, when Young's deception is revealed, it felt like a let down because of the major event preceding it. A major event I didn't think needed to happen.

It was an interesting watch. I enjoyed Mark Lee's direction -- the solitude and steeliness of the broker offices contrasted with the colour and magnificence of the Sydney skyline. I thought Matt Newton was really good, and the twists and turns in the story kept me watching. I don't think it came together in the end, though.

2.5/5

Dan in Real Life, dir. Peter Hedges (2007)

NIKKI says:
Damn, I wanted so much more from this. I thought, from the trailer, that I was getting a clever, possibly subversive, romantic movie, perhaps something like Eternal Sunshine or even Once. I thought more focus would be placed on the main character and his tribulations. Instead, this came dangerously close to becoming a male version of The Family Stone.

While Steve Carell was genius as always, and rather heartbreaking in scenes, I was still forced to watch the big, happy, quirky family, who just never listened until it was vital to the story. In fact, many annoying things just suddenly happen when they absolutely must to keep us on Dan's side. For instance, Dan's in love with his brother's girl -- never a good thing, but worse when the movie does that thing where it has us love the brother in the beginning, then slightly loathe him in the end when it's time for the true lovers to come together.

That was this movie's failure -- too many irons in the fire. Dan was getting over the death of his wife, he was in love with Marie, his brother had Marie, All well and good. But there was that huge family that did very little to propel the story. Brothers and sisters popped in only to make Dan uncomfortable, or to show how little he was understood by those closest to him. I don't know if we needed 17 family members, seemingly without problems of their own, to do that.

The juice of the story, between Dan, his brother, Marie, and Dan's three kids, was good, for the most part. Dan and Marie felt like they should be together, although I wasn't convinced when suddenly she got all jealous when Dan met another woman for drinks. Marie had made really no attempt to let us or Dan know she liked him, so her outward jealousy didn't fit with the film's other subtleties. She climbs all over the brother one minute and then wants to be jealous when Dan has a date? Sorry, but that just did not make sense to me.

I don't know, stuff like that just bugged me in this. It was romantic and well-written only in parts. Otherwise, it was stock-standard and a bit dumb. When the parents were standing there at the end telling Dan to "go for it" with Marie, I'm thinking -- where did that come from? Weren't we all just horrified that Dan would betray his brother so harshly?

Anyway... Steve Carell made the movie. I enjoy him a lot. But I'm going to have to drop this a point for some terrible situations here. Including an horrendously misguided wedding sequence at the end (sugar attack and ... blurgh).

2.5/5

STEVE says:
Dan in Real Life was light, unoffensive, dysfunctional family fare - pretty much everything I hate in movies today.

Why do movie families have to be so fake? Who actually has a crossword puzzle competition on a family holiday? And a family talent show? It reeks of The Brady Bunch in the worst possibly way. I half-expected Steve Carell and Dane Cook to build a house of cards in the end to see who goes home with the girl.

And then there's the shower scene. Can someone explain to me how this was anything other that just plain fucking creepy? I know it was supposed to be cute and uncomfortable, but Jeez-Louise!

Steve Carell was good as the widowed Dan, but we've seen him play this sort of introverted nice-guy before in The 40 Year Old Virgin, so he wasn't exactly exploring new territory here. And neither, it seems, were the writers, Pierce Gardner and Peter Hedges. (Gardner and Hedges, heh-heh.) Dan in Real Life was as predictable as light, unoffensive, dysfunctional family fare can be - down to the happy, everybody wins ending.

2/5

Groundhog Day, dir. Harold Ramis (1993)

STEVE says:
So I run this film class in Echuca on Wednesday nights, where a group of us get together once every two weeks, watch a film and discuss it afterwards. I set this up largely because, apart from Nikki, I can't find anyone around here who actually likes to think about a movie as they're watching it. The first movie we watched was Blade Runner: The Final Cut (which I didn't blog about because Nikki and I had watched it only a few weeks previous), and that went over pretty well, so I thought I'd do a complete 180 and give them a comedy - albeit a deeper comedy than they were probably expecting.

This movie works on two levels: You can enjoy it just as a silly Bill Murray comedy, or you can look at it philosophically and see that it holds a deeper spiritual meaning than, for example, The Passion of the Christ. Either way, you know.

Groundhog Day uses the Kübler-Ross model as a template, taking Bill Murray's Phil Connors through the five stages of grief and tragedy - Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, Acceptance - as he relives the same day over and over again for what director Harold Ramis tells us on the commentary is ten years (but what screenwriter Danny Rubin, a Zen-Buddhist, originally conceived as 10,000 years). During the discussion afterwards, we found that Phil was indeed in denial at first, questioning whether someone was playing a large-scale practical joke on him, or whether he was, in fact, insane; then he became angry, which manifest itself in more of a playful, devilish Phil than a truly angry Phil, where we figured he'd be lashing out at people; when depression set in, he began killing himself over and over and over again - and this is when he started to get really mean to people, displaying some of the anger we'd expected before; and finally into acceptance of his fate, which is what broke the spell - he started doing good things for others, solely because it was the right thing to do, rather than thinking about how it might benefit him.

The one stage we couldn't identify in the movie, thought, was Bargaining. Arguments were made that each time he attempted to change something from a previous "day", it could be construed as bargaining, but I felt that it was more of a gamble, as Phil wasn't giving anything up in order to make things right. But even so, what a fascinating model for a film that, on the surface, seems to be a light romantic comedy!

I was struck by the fact Phil is pretty much the same guy Murray played in Scrooged - the jerk who's reformed in the end by realizing that humanity on the whole is greater than himself. It's part of the "Cinderella" archetype (goodness triumphant after being initially despised). Makes me wonder if Murray isn't drawn to this sort of story.

3.5/5

Nikki did not view.

Catacombs, dir. Tomm Coker and David Elliot (2007)

NIKKI says:
What was I just saying about terrible films? I'm so over this shit. I hope.

So, Pink invites her sister to Paris to party, really. The sister is there for other, deeper reasons, but never really gets a chance to explore them, because Pin takes her to an underground party onto of a huge grave and she ends up getting the freak scared out of her, poor thing.

That was the one interesting element of this movie -- Shannyn Sossamon's character and her fear. But it really ended up meaning very little. I felt like I watched an 80 minute build up to a trick ending. Not good enough.

Was nice to see Pink acting. I could stand to watch that again. And I think Shannyn Sossamon is good, too. So, there was eye-candy.

Some scary moments (I was frightened most by what turned out to be a fuse box with a red light on it, oops), but basically ultra-standard and kind of annoying.

1.5/5

STEVE says:
This is a classic example of Predictable vs. Inevitable.

After setting up the urban legend of a goat-head-wearing fella who lives in the catacombs beneath Paris, Pink is killed by said goat-head guy at the 30 minute mark. Then it's another 80 minutes or so of run, run, run, chase, chase, chase, only to find out that Pink wasn't killed, and the goat-head guy was one of her friends in a mask.

We called this pretty early on, based solely on the goat-head guy. He was just too ridiculous to be real. A killer skulking around the catacombs, that's fine. Even a masked killer skulking around the catacombs, I'll buy. But is the skinned goat head really necessary? Not unless you're just looking to freak someone out.

If it was inevitable that it was a joke (and it could have been, as Pink's friends were set up as pranksters), we wouldn't have been able to call it. But the movie overplayed its hand and fell over the line into predictable. It still would have been boring, mind you, but at least we wouldn't have been sitting there waiting for the movie to catch up to us.

So it was pretty much April Fool's Day all over again. And we didn't enjoy that one the first time.

1.5/5

Numb, dir. Harris Goldberg (2007)

NIKKI says:
I was interested in this because the blurb had me thinking it was about a writer experiencing a blurred reality. Instead, it was about a man (who, quite incidentally, was a writer) experiencing "depersonalisation", a condition that sees the sufferer feeling separated from everything around him, as though he is viewing his life from outside it. This film chronicles the man's attempt to overcome the condition, and while much of it was interesting, a deal of it was not.

The problems started when the man, Hudson, falls in love with Quirky Girl. She's just so impossibly cute and strange and even though she's not quite as understanding of his quirks as he os of hers, he falls head over heels, and we're meant to, too. I didn't buy it. I wanted the film to focus on Hudson dealing with his problem, rather than trying to fit romance into his attempts to deal with his problem. If that makes sense.

The film began to fill up with subplots and sideviews and I lost interest in Hudson. I was especially disappointed in the Mary Steenburgen subplot that really went nowhere, and was kinda creepy.

Anyway... Matthew Perry is always great to watch. And I wondered throughout much of this just how many drugs I might be prescribed should I reveal my weirdnesses to a shrink. I think I checked off at least half Hudson's issues as my own. Oops.

2.5/5

Skinwalkers, dir. James Issac (2006)

NIKKI says:
If there are worse movies out there, I'd like to see 'em.

Wait ... you know what I mean.

I've discovered a pattern: Nikki is tired, so wants to pick a short movie so she doesn't fall asleep. Steve is almost always open for anything, so Nikki picks the shortest movies available, which are usually crappy horror films. Nikki goes to bed annoyed that she can't just take speed, stay awake, and not watch crap.

Ugh. So, there's this gang of werewolves who need this kid to keep them alive or something. And so they go looking for the kid, who has a pretty mum who, of course, wants him to live. And there's another gang of werewolves that want the boy, too. So, werewolves fight with people and other werewolves, and lots of blood is shed, and there is a creepy red moon, and everything is sort of pointless and lame.

There was no skin walking. The make-up was awful. But I liked Jason Behr's tattoos.

1/5

STEVE says:
I don't even know what to say about this one.

Okay, so you've got your good werewolves and your bad werewolves. The bad werewolves want to kill some kid so they can remain werewolves, or something. The good werewolves are protecting the kid. Fine. We learn that one of the bad werewolves is the kid's dad and we're meant to be as shocked as the rest of the bad werewolves. We're not. We've come to expect this kind of thing.

But in the end, when the blood moon passes, and the time for killing the kid has passed, the dad werewolf just hooks up with the kid's mom as if he hasn't been trying to kill them for the past three days! 'Cos that makes sense, right?

About the only thing interesting about this movie was the fact that the werewolves were a throwback to the Lon Chaney, Jr. kind of werewolf from The Wolf Man - bipedal, vaguely wolfy, still clothed. Bad make-up, indeed, but interesting choice. Still, if I wanted to see that sort of thing, I'd just watch The Wolf Man.

1/5

You Kill Me, dir. John Dahl (2007)

NIKKI says:
If this movie finally solidified something for me, it's that I really don't enjoy Ben Kingsley's acting. I remember when Sexy Beast was all the rage. I didn't really care, and I didn't go out of my way to see it, because something, somewhere along the line, has turned me off Ben Kingsley. I can't put my finger on what, exactly.

I can hazard a guess, however. Watching this movie, I felt an overwhelming arrogance from the main character that I don't believe I was supposed to feel. This is what happens when I watch this actor. I'm sure it's just me... I can't shake this feeling -- maybe I saw him in an interview or something and some sort of arrogant comment has stayed with me. I don't know, but this wasn't the best film anyway, so no big loss.

I enjoyed it's quirkiness, but I didn't find it all that memorable. I didn't really care about Frank's plight, I didn't care about the mob loyalties, and I didn't really care that he and the girl ended up perfect for each other. I only really liked Tom, Luke Wilson's character, and only because how can you not like Luke Wilson.

So ... meh.

2/5

STEVE says:
I'm not sure what I think of John Dahl. His films run from "just okay" (Red Rock West, The Last Seduction) to "not that good" (Rounders, Unforgettable), so when he brings out something that rises above the norm, it tends to stand out and make me think he's someone to watch.

You Kill Me is one of those movies. It had its quirks - the good kind, not the Juno kind - and kept my interest to the end. I came away thinking it was quite good... but nothing special. And maybe that's my problem with Dahl: he's a competent filmmaker and nothing more. I just have to remember that next time we pick up one of his movies.

2.5/5

Footloose, dir. Herbert Ross (1984)

Hot Rod, dir. Akiva Schaffer (2007)

NIKKI says:
In this age of 120-minutes of sketch comedy disguised as film and improbable occurrences concerning menstrual blood passing for comedy (see: Superbad and Knocked Up), how refreshing it was to see Hot Rod. It might be from many of the same people involved in those other abominations, but this time they tone down the tastelessness in order to pull together a genuinely funny story. There's a lot of random humour, but somehow it works here. I'm guessing we cared more about Rod and his stunt-making because his dopiness came out of real naivete rather than utter stupidity or grossness. He wasn't a Solomon brother, let's say. He was more a Derek Zoolander, a model idiot with his heart in the right place. At any rate, he was someone worth cheering for.

I was concerned, though, that I wouldn't like Andy Samberg. He's one of those comedians you hear about, but unless you've got SNL, never actually see. His rubber face and screaming line delivery made me think he was being groomed as the next Will Ferrell or Adam Sandler, and though there is much of that in his performance here, it's not so bad that it overwhelms his other talents, such as his earnestness, on display, for instance, when he explains to Denise about his lack of Hammer-style legitimacy. I liked him here, and would watch him again.

As much as I liked Samberg, I also liked all the other SNL alums here that I've hated in so many other films -- Bill Hader, Chris Parnell, etc. This movie proved that these people can use their particular style of humour for good and not evil. I even liked the ridiculous '80s movie riffing which has just become so boring and obvious lately.

My Top Five Moments in Hot Rod

5. Rod chooses a "safety word" to help him if he gets in trouble while performing a downhill slalom.
4. The grilled cheese / taco fight.
3. The "You're the Voice" moment that becomes a riot -- "what the hell!?"
2. "Don't let you dads eat pie!"
1. Punch-dance.

The punch-dance beefs it up a whole extra point for me.

3.5/5

STEVE says:
Oh, Hot Rod.

You were indeed better and funnier than I was expecting. But that's not saying a hell of a lot. I'm comparing you to Will Ferrell comedies, and most anything from the Judd Apatow camp. Not fair, perhaps, but I've become jaded after years of stupid sketch comedy masquerading as feature films.

And in the end, you were really nothing more than that. But you were not as bad as most. And for that, you have my respect.

3/5

In the Valley of Elah, dir. Paul Haggis (2007)

NIKKI says:
Thanks God for Paul Haggis. Without him, we might not know racism is bad, or that war severely fucks with people. In his latest opus, Haggis blinds the viewer with stellar photography, rich performances, and the odd prophetic statement so that you just might not see that what he says with In the Valley of Elah is not as elegant and grand as you might first think.

It's the day after our viewing, and I'm finding myself offended by this film more than simply disappointed in it. It makes me think of Courage Under Fire and Platoon and other films that try hard to genuinely let us see the destruction of the psyche caused by wartime experiences. Instead, Haggis gives us posturing. Tommy Lee Jones has experienced war, you see, and so he's an authority, and a super detective. Everyone else is just lame or corrupt. But it takes the horrible death of his horrible son to make Tommy Lee see that perhaps America is in a time of crisis and so he turns that flag upside down, but, man, if he's served his country enough to chastise others in a "what do you know, you've never been to war"-type fashion, then surely atrocity has stared him in the face before? Why only now is he worried for his country?

This same stuff ruined Crash. Sandra Bullock has a go about the Hispanic man changing her locks, she freaks out when she passes a couple of black guys in the street, like people of different races are aliens or something. And boy will they get their comeuppance and be forced to see the light. Would you save a black girl from a burning car? What?!

Haggis just overstates his points so much. War is bad, war is deadly, was is evil, mistakes happen in war, kids get corrupted by war, people die in war, people are mean when put in evil situations. Shut up already and tell me something I don't know.

I think this movie went down hill for me when Charlize was getting taunted mid-interview by her fellow officers. That just wouldn't happen, and you just knew it was there to set up the horrors that happen later on to the interviewee at the hands of a war vet. Ready? Write this down: War fucks with people. I already saw Lawrence blow himself away in Full Metal Jacket -- again, tell me something new.

What's next for Paul Haggis? One for the ladies? Let me guess? It'll be called Rape, or In the Garden with a Naked Eve, and it'll be about slutty chicks with high IQs, that get raped and tortured just to show us that women can be sexual creatures without being called sluts. One will work at McDonalds, the other at Price Waterhouse, and the McDonalds chick will be raped by a minister or something equally ham-fisted.

Anyway...

2/5

We Own the Night, dir. James Gray (2007)

NIKKI says:
What the hell happened? It was like I started out watching a movie about brothers and loyalties and drugs in 1980s New York and then suddenly I found myself in the middle of some strange testimonial to the goodness of cops.

I just don't know what to think of this. The first third of the film was interesting and reasonably engrossing, and then suddenly Joaquin becomes a cop, and it's all -- yes, you can help us with this case and just join the academy later. What? Is that really how it happens, that the son of a decorated officer can simply take and exam and join the force in the middle of a case he is peripherally related to? Far-fetched? Then again, it was the '80s.

In the end, I really felt very little for these characters. I understand what I was supposed to feel -- brothers trapped by family loyalty and their chosen directions in life. Still, I find it very hard to believe that the Russian mafia men hadn't researched Joaquin's character enough to find out who his family was -- he didn't appear to be outwardly hiding anything. Convoluted, maybe? That might be the pervading feeling here.

I did enjoy, however, the relationship between Joaquin and Eva Mendes -- I thought they were developed well, and were quite believable. Still, that wasn't enough to keep me interested. Cardboard characters, typical plot turns (the mafioso father figure turns on Joaquin just as his actual father takes a hit), a horribly flawed ending. It's been compared to The Departed, but it comes nowhere close.

2/5

There Will Be Blood, dir. Paul Thomas Anderson (2007)

NIKKI says:
I know there was a good movie in there somewhere, something stunning and grand, but -- similar to my first viewing of Magnoila -- I didn'y wholly see it.

What I did see, though, was an engrossing story of a man driven by his deepest personal flaws -- the need to be the best, the richest, to outdo everyone and everything. The challenges that wear down his bravado are interesting, compelling, and sometimes devastating to witness (the revelation that Henry is not who he says he is, for instance). The conflict between Plainview and the young preacher, Eli Sunday, is equally compelling. The scenes here that features just the two of them are great. There are so many great moments here, but I don't know that they piece together as well as I wanted them to.

I thought the time shifts were often too abrupt, and much, as far as character motivations and repercussions of certain events, were overlooked or sidestepped. Still, it was a fascinating watch, especially Daniel Day-Lewis, psychotically brilliant as always. It was interesting, too, to see the continued evolution of Paul Thomas Anderson. The direction and cinematography here were both good.

I might need to watch this a few more times, headphones on, face to the TV screen -- I might come to idolize it as with Magnolia.

3/5

Rambo, dir. Sylvester Stallone (2008)

NIKKI says:
"I didn't kill for my country. I killed for myself. And for that, I don't believe God can forgive me."

That Rocky Balboa worked so well, left me with few doubts Stallone would make something effective out of the John Rambo character 20 years on.

The new film is harsh and uncompromising. It's also filled with strong political views aimed at Christian missionaries, gung-ho mercenaries, devastated Myanmar, and, of course, the US government.

It works because it's so uncompromising, because it refuses to be an air-headed action movie. There's no room for popcorn here, and finally Rambo can be viewed as more than just a mulleted '80s action hero. It's clear how much respect Stallone has for the character and his predicament. He knows Rambo, or his version of Rambo, well, and it shows. Rambo is smart and dedicated and he tells it like it is, but Stallone lets him be damaged and bull-headed and not always right. The effects of his training have lasted in terms of his physical capabilities, but also his emotional stress.

Stallone lets all of this out in what is really a simple story. The missionaries wish to get food and medical help to the terrorized Burmese. Rambo warns them against entering such a hostile area, but they feel they know best. Rambo takes them where they wish to go, and the missionaries wind up killed or kidnapped. Now, Rambo must go in and find them. He guides the mercenaries in and becomes a part of their group, intent on saving the missionaries, not because he feels he has to but because Sarah, the wife of one of the missionaries, challenges him early on that he talks a big game, but what does he have to live for? And that while he might know the ravages of Burma enough to warn her away, she knows something about the good in the world, and that true good does exist -- you just can't see it hidden in the jungle beside a war-torn country.

So Rambo has something to prove, in the end. That he's not emotionally dead. And where he ends up at the end of the film is absolutely spot-on where he needed to go. It's a great ending.

If I had one gripe, it would be the lack of detail about the Burmese soldiers and the reasons behind their destruction.

After two new films, I'm wanting Stallone to keep writing. He clearly has something to say. He's a smart, competent writer, and a fearless filmmaker (stories on the set of Rambo with the elephants moving equipment and the bugs and the snakes are reminiscent of Werner Herzog or Coppola on Apocalypse Now). I want him to leave the old characters alone and come up with some new ones.

4/5

STEVE says:
Never been a huge Rambo fan. In fact, 80s Stallone turned me off completely - Over the Top, Cobra, Lock-Up - all that testosterone flying around, someone could get hurt. Not to mention what he did to Rocky, taking a street-tough-made-good and (quite literally) wrapping him in the American flag, turning him into a political icon instead of a symbol of the common man. The Rambo movies just seemed an extension of that philosophy. Where First Blood had a point to make, Rambo II and III were just more of the same flag-waving, might-is-right bullshit that came out of the Reagan era.

Last year's Rocky Balboa marked a comeback for Stallone, as an actor, writer, and director. It brought Rocky full-circle, making it a fitting end to the series. With Rambo, Stallone does the same for his haunted Viet Nam vet, bringing him back to the country that rejected him and - if not outright giving it to him - at least implying a sense of peace. It was really much better than I'd expected.

Although he could have left that red headband at home.

3.5/5

Underdog, dir. Frederick Du Chau (2007)

NIKKI says:
How could it not be cute? I went into this wit a vague recollection of the cartoon, so I wasn't concerned about it living up to anything. It turned out to be one of those movies you can just relax and enjoy because it's sole purpose is to entertain and be way cute.

I found out during the film that it represented the cartoon very well. Underdog's real name was Shoeshine in the movie, and he was a shoeshine boy in the cartoon, that kind of thing. Tossing real humans into the mix only made it better I reckon, as the dogs had people to play off and react to which added to their cuteness and helped shape their humanoid personalities.

The best thing, I reckon, was Jason Lee as the voice of Underdog. He's so funny anyway that throwing his voice into a super cute dog can only work. Underdog, then, had this cheeky charm and a bone-dry humour that really suited him.

I loved it. It's definitely a keeper.

3/5

STEVE says:
I'll admit it, I was not thrilled about watching this one. It seemed to me just another example of something I thoroughly enjoyed in my youth being pillaged for profit. And from Disney, no less. But Underdog surprised me. Sure, the anthropomorphic animals from the cartoon were nixed and replaced by talking dogs with human familiars. But what did it matter that Polly Purebred wasn't a reporter, when her master was? Okay, so it wasn't the original, but the filmmakers definitely took care to preserve the spirit of the original - unlike some other films I could mention.

Lee definitely didn't hurt. His amiable personality shone through and helped make the live action premise easier to swallow. But worth mentioning also - indeed, probably worth the price of the rental - are Peter Dinklage as Simon Barsinister and Patrick Warburton as his sidekick, Cad. Dinklage once again shows that he's one of the best actors around today, even in a silly mad scientist role, and Warburton... well, he's Puddy all over again. And how bad can that be?

3/5