Change Your Image
TomasMErnst
Reviews
Australia (2008)
Beautiful country; terrible film
This film was over-hyped right from the start; I get suspicious when I hear actors (Read Hugh Jackman) expressing concern over what would happen to the tourism industry in Australia if his film should fail. I know cinema is a commercial venture but to hear the film's protagonist concern himself about global tourism's response to his artistic performance is ridiculous.
I disagree with many of the critics who harshly picked on Nicole Kidman; she wasn't a stand-out but I couldn't give that performance a rotten tomato. Jackman was solid, but again there was nothing outstanding about his performance; I'm sure it was played as it was written. Brandon Walters gave an excellent performance, but the real star was the Actor who played sidekick to the Drover. He stole scenes from Jackman, and likely due to oversight from Luhrman, he could step into a role and apply himself as opposed to the big stars who were forced to rely on over-written, banal characterization! The scene where there is a break through in White-Aboriginal relations in the bar at the end of the film; I couldn't help wondering about the sad irony of this scene could not the creatives have chosen a different visual for Whiteman-Aboriginal reconciliation??? I am a big fan of films with contrasting images; Baz Luhrman is a champion of this. Some of my favorite scenes in the film involved Nullah's Aboriginal grandfather taken out of his comfort zone of the natural Outback environment; to trapped in the concrete jungle of Darwin as Japanese fighter planes torch the city.
Over and above the commercialization of putting out such a corporate film with such an ostentatious title, I'd like to convey what really turned me off about Australia: 1) Liberty with historical facts. No doubt one must exercise caution when being creative with historical facts; of course it is difficult to tell tales about events that occurred many decades ago, but this just means you have to be all the more vigilante in the research process and broad consultations. There were numerous examples of how Luhramn breached this; but suffice it to say I would be surprised if the Japanese actually landed (how could they land if fighter jets flew into Darwin on special mission) on Mission Island and opened fire on children however, I stand corrected if someone can prove otherwise.
2) The Villains. The most stock, one-dimensional villains of contemporary cinema that I have ever seen!!! If you were bad guy, then of course you must be a racist. I think this was lazy intellectual work; obviously very little effort and time went into considering the PoV of the villains. The final scene where the central villain pursues Nullah; c'mon!!! No way had the narrative "paid this off." It was an awkward, out of place scene and was not true to character.
3) Shameless sentimentality Every filmmaker should be cautious of this. I consider it a lazy means of telling a story. Of course you will tug relentlessly at my heart strings if you continue to show me blatant white racism which of course existed in those times, and still does today in Australia. However, I think a superior Director could have chosen subtle approaches to portraying the racism and exclusion that was rampant in that day. I think subtly achieves a far more powerful message. It also requires a lot more thought! This film was missing that.
Traitor (2008)
Not bad considering....
This was a different spin on your typical contemporary film dealing with terrorism. Don Cheadle plays a character dealing with internal conflict after the death of his father from a terrorist blast.
Throughout the movie the audience is left guessing which side he is truly on. Of course, it doesn't take a genius to figure this out but the creative idea driving the film and the protagonist's motivation to act puts a new spin on contemporary films dealing with the same subject matter.
For example, Body of Lies was boring because it offered nothing new to audiences. I credit traitor for offering me at least this much. I won't spoil the ending for viewers, but I think most people will "spot it a mile away." The climatic ending works for this type of film, but not sure it succeeded in allowing me to "willingly suspend my disbelief.'
In Bruges (2008)
Enjoyed this film!
This was an enjoyable film; funny, well acted and entertaining. I thought Colin Farrel delivered his best performance in a long time, but perhaps this is because he was playing himself in real life! Fiennes was solid but not spectacular, though the cold, menacing look from his eyes is fantastically creepy. It is prob. for this reason he makes such a great villain in the Harry Potter series. For me though, Brendan Gleeson stole the show - very convincing and believable performance as the Gangster with a heart of Gold. Great juxtaposition for a Character and Gleeson excellently pulls it off.
Great writing/funny lines from Writer/Director Martin M. I think there are many of us who could identify with the bored tourist in Europe who is dragged kicking and screaming to yet another cultural exhibit. I worried the film may have suffered somewhat of an identity crisis, trying to be a comedy and drama at the same time. I think the film ultimately succeeds, but there were times where I felt the narrative and energy waned.
This was particularly the case with Midget/Dwarf scenes; sure a few wise cracks about Midgets (Done many times before, and I must admit this falls into the category of bottom barrel comedy) and the pace of the film would not have suffered. What distracted me and I felt entirely irrelevant to the film was listening to the racist, drunken banter spoken by the Dwarf. This scene was awkward and seemed thrown in.
I recognize one intent of the scene was to show how Farrel, tormented by past actions, turns down what would typically be a great hedonistic evening for his character. However, I critique the dialog and creative choices made for the Dwarf. Why attempt to be esoteric for the sake of being esoteric? It failed. This was a very weak point of the film; it distracted the audience. Strange given that MM was formerly a playwright.
Nonetheless, this film gets a 7/10 for me. No doubt there could have been more thought in making the supporting characters dynamic and interesting.
Die Fälscher (2007)
A solid film
This film is quality and educational too, given that it is based on a true story. Amazing tale of endurance, intelligence and sacrifice during one of the darkest periods in recent history. I am also a big fan of films that take the 'bookend' approach; in this film it works well. A lot of power in the subtle silences of this film; the look between the Protagonist and the French woman in the beginning and when the two different groups of Jewish holocaust survivors meet each other; the suspicion that follows.
A few small critiques of the film. I am not sure that we had enough information in order for the audience to identify with the Protagonist; he starts out as a cocky criminal driven by the acquisition of more and more money. He is obviously gifted and these gifts are put towards criminal activities until capture. Fully understand the film follows his slow and steady transformation from a person motivated by money and self-indulgences. Perhaps to expand on his amazing ability to adapt to such a horrific environment and thus to further reveal his character; I would have liked to see more scenes/action showing him winning favour with the German guards. The early, inter-war year sequences were rushed.
Secondly, there was a scene where the protagonist was assigned to clean the Latrines. As he is scrubbing away, the German guard with an Axe to grind walks in and proceeds to urinate on him. Awful and revolting, and it provokes a controlled but nonetheless angry reaction. My issue with this scene is that it was too obvious; we could see it coming for miles. For a film that chose to take a more subtle approach than say other films about the horrors of WW II German concentration camps, this scene is too 'over the top' when looking at the overall style of the film.
Finally, I wasn't sure what to make of the scene where our Protagonist confronts the Head of the Concentration camp for gifted Jewish workers; the man who originally captured our Protagonist. If memory serves the Protagonist confronts the Warden and confirms the Warden is a desperate crook, stealing to prepare a tidy life post WWII. The confrontation here is a battle between a gun and a sharp object. Is this part of the film true to history; did this confrontation occur? If so, did the prisoner overpower his captor with raw emotion and anger, despite coming up against a revolver? I would be interested in other's thoughts on this. For me, it was difficult to believe that such an incident could occur.
On the other hand, I can see how it could be perceived the Warden was a man driven only by advancement, at whatever the cost of life. Thus he is unable to do his own dirty work, preferring to delegate the delivery of punishment and executions. Therefore, when he is confronted by a powerful personality acting on raw emotion, he succumbs even with a superior weapon in hand...
Very good film; glad it took the Oscar.
Hancock (2008)
Sub-Par
I like Will Smith and he is the only reason this film will break USD $100 million. The premise of Hancock is unique and in fact, welcome in this age where formulaic superhero films are far too readily produced by Hollywood. Let me try and find some positives: Smith's acting, Bateman was solid and some good humour scattered throughout, such as man's head rammed where the sun don't shine! Okay enough of that...
The film contains probably the most unorthodox twist I have witnessed for quite some time: C. Theron as Smith's star crossed lover super-hero equal? Geez, talk about placing an overbearing demand on audiences to suspend their disbelief. Director Berg really goes out on a limb with the audiences here. So if you can get past the silly, too convenient twist then you have to make it through the maze of how the star crossed lovers found each other, why they separated and how their unity leads directly to one another's demise. Tantamount to romantic Kryptonite for the soul. I won't call it stupid, perhaps poorly thought out? I think there were plenty of other avenues, much more interesting, the film's producer's could have taken.
As someone who works in development; I half perked up when Bateman tries to entice corporations with his do-gooder charity drive to hook LA execs. But his approach to corporate PR is purposefully over the top, and the pitch fails. Fast forward to the last sequence of the film where Smith calls Bateman on his mobile and tells him "Look up." Thank god the film was over otherwise I would have left early! What a lame rip-off of Batman! This film is really lame, period.
The Dark Knight (2008)
Strong film; enjoyed it! But some flaws
I was impressed with this new Batman film...I found the first installment, Batman Begins, to be quite average but this film blew that one out of the water. The storyline was well crafted, some great work by the DoP and jaw dropping action scenes. I tip my hat to the Nolan brothers for creating the sequence that plays out on the two boats - spectacularly creative.
Everybody is talking about Ledger's brilliant performance as the Joker and these accolades are well deserved; he delivers here. Comparisons are not always the best tool for analysis, but I didn't believe it possible that someone could pull off a better Batman villain than Jack Nicholson. Congrats Mr. Ledger.
I am surprised to see the film listed as #1 on IMDb however, and I think this rating will drop over time. The film is much too long and this is reflective, with respect, of several creative choices by the Nolans. The Harvey Dent character was poorly developed and his transformation threw the pace and rhythm of the film into a deep chasm.
This cut-off the film's otherwise energetic flow as the Director ends up cutting away from the film's true gem (Ledger's Joker) far too often; dulling the suspense. I felt like I was watching an entirely new film/story! Different creative choices, should have allowed for more focus on the film's primary villain, the Joker, while setting up the third installment of the new Batman films (to appease the film's financiers now rolling in cash!) No doubt the scriptwriter was quite in love with the Joker; hence he has the best lines and scenes in the film. Bale/Batman seems to be taken over completely; not because he is a weak actor but because the Protagonist of this film is the Joker not Batman. I recognize the film deals with the Joker out-witting and psychologically torturing Batman, but did Batman have to sound so cheesy!? Batman's dialogue, particularly in response to Joker's antics, was clichéd and painful to the ear. I won't comment on how lame Batman's 'voice' came across! I know I am typically critical of most film's but I still found this well worth the watch. The CGI and action are spectacular, but battle/chase sequences are too difficult to adequately follow for average viewers.
Unfinished Sky (2007)
An above average film, with some issues
I really wanted to like this film because of the fascinating story line of an Afghani woman and a rural Australian farmer. These really are two worlds that should not collide, and so the premise based on a collision of these two characters should make for a compelling narrative. However, when I walked out of the cinema I left with the feeling the film was satisfactory but nonetheless failed to deliver.
The chemistry between the two main actors was evident, and the powerful feature of the film was the beautiful silences between them. For aspiring screenwriters Peter Duncan and Mr. der Hulst prove that films light on dialogue make for fascinating stories, because we can evaluate the characters based on what they do, not on what they say. This is not an easy accomplishment in screen writing, as the tendency is to write cheesy dialogue that suffocates story. Moreover, most actors seem to choose scripts heavy on dialogue with the hope it contains that one memorable line. Unfinished Sky is truly a story told in pictures.
The veracity of the story is believable, and no Australian should doubt the possibility that an almost an entire rural community could be complicit in the knowledge that certain "businesses" employ and exploit illegal immigrants, particularly females. Now, I think the most unbelievable aspect of the story was the community police officer and his relationship with the town and the main character John. He suddenly just seemed to show-up throughout the film, and I couldn't help feel the Director was throwing him into the scenes for the purpose of maximizing dramatic value. It didn't work, and Roy Billing is forced into overacting.
Flashbacks another screen writing vehicle that either works or doesn't. I think there were other ways they could have structured the narrative, perhaps in a more chronological order, as opposed to inserting flashbacks throughout. Sadly, Unfinished Sky is a film that incorporates flashbacks to the detriment of my viewing experience. It slowed the action down; there were other ways to reveal insights about these characters.
My last critique was the blue sky as the chosen motif for the film. Personally, if the title of the film is Unfinished Sky then the film's key motif should NOT be the same! Surely! The Director frequently portrayed John working on an "unfinished puzzle" depicting a blue sky. Then John and T. working together on the puzzle. I felt at times choking on metaphors; not an ideal cinematic experience. More subtlety is required.
Finally, one reviewer made this comment about the film "When we are steamed up about injustice, we cannot access the very fine-tuned emotions associated with love." I whole-heartedly disagree with that. This line says a lot more about the individual viewer than it does the quality of the film.