Post Oscars Film Blitz March 6, 2011
Posted by pacejmiller in Movie Reviews, Reviews.Tags: Aaron Eckhart, Academy Award, Ashton Kutcher, Burlesque, Christina Aguilera, documentary, Inside Job, Love & Other Drugs, Love and Other Drugs, Natalie Portman, Nicole Kidman, No Strings Attached, Oscars, Rabbit Hole
add a comment
I was supposed to review these films one by one, but I really couldn’t be bothered. So I decided to lump them into a ‘post Oscars’ film blitz, as all of these films were a part of the Oscars. Kind of.
Here we go…
Rabbit Hole (2010)
I’m not usually into depressing films, but I was in a good mood and thought, why the heck not? And seriously, they don’t get much more depressing than Rabbit Hole (I haven’t seen Blue Valentine yet, might add it to the list later).
For those who don’t know what it’s about, let’s just say it’s about profound grief and loss, and how to deal with it and move on. It stars Nicole Kidman in her Oscar-nominated performance, Aaron Eckhart, Diane Wiest and Sandra Oh.
It’s an extremely powerful film, I’ll admit that, and it has some surprisingly amusing sequences, but on the whole, Rabbit Hole is a pretty rough 91 minutes to sit through. I don’t know what else to say without giving away too much.
As for the performances, I know Kidman got all the kudos, but it beats me how after so many years she still can’t pin down that American accent! In all honesty, I preferred Eckhart. I found his scenes more engaging and wondered how Kidman got the nomination and he didn’t.
3.5 stars out of 5
Inside Job (2010)
I rushed out to see Inside Job after it won the Oscar for Best Documentary. It’s essentially a film that attempts to explain how the Global Financial Crisis (ie the one we’re still recovering from) happened, and tries to apportion the blame to the various parties involved.
Ultimately, despite learning a great deal about the history of the financial markets, the financial instruments, and the GFC itself, I was a little disappointed. Props for making this film because I know a lot of people (myself included) would like to know just what the heck happened, and how it happened. However, I did find it somewhat dry in parts and a little too preachy, especially towards the end. Just listen to director Charles Ferguson’s acceptance speech at the Oscars and you’ll get what I mean.
I am by no means trying to defend the greed and the corruption that plagued the system and led to the collapse, but I think it would have been good to see more of the human side of the crisis. Rather than simply painting them as the ‘bad guys’ in all of this, I wanted to see what was going through the minds of these bankers and executives as they raked in the money without regard for the consequences — and I wanted to see how the crisis affected the lives of people on all levels of income and wealth.
It was an interesting film and an important one, but apart from a lot of anger and frustration, I didn’t get the deeper emotional connection and understanding I was expecting.
3.5 stars out of 5
No Strings Attached (2011)
This film was obviously not nominated for an Oscar, but the star, Natalie Portman, did win a Best Actress Oscar for another film (Black Swan), so I guess that’s my Oscar connection to justify this film being in the post.
I remember before the Oscars there were people saying that No Strings Attached is potentially so bad that it might derail Natalie’s Oscar chances. Well, it turned out to be much ado about nothing. And besides, No Strings Attached was not that bad anyway. It was just average, which is not horrible considering that most rom-coms these days are.
Portman’s Emma and Ashton Kutcher’s Adam met when they were teenagers at some camp, and kept bumping into each other over the years. Then Adam’s dad, played by Kevin Kline, does something despicable and sends Adam into a bender and eventually Emma’s house. Yada, yada, yada, you know what happens, but they decide to have a ‘no strings attached’ relationship. And yada, yada, yada, you know what happens in the end.
The film started off promisingly enough. Director Ivan Reitman (pretty mixed bag as a director) infuses the story with quirky humour and likable characters (essential for a good rom-com). There are some genuinely amusing moments and one-liners littered throughout, though mostly at the beginning. Kutcher is kind of always the same — with that cheery, but mopey/dopey looking dude-face, while Portman gets to show her less serious side (with shades of her Saturday Night Live performances?). The chemistry is there, which I must admit surprised me.
As usual, the rom-com shifts from comedy to romance as it strolls along to the predictable finale, and that’s where No Strings Attached fails to bring something fresh to the table. And for what is really a sweet film at heart, it is inexplicably and unnecessarily dirty — I blame that on all the Judd Apatow films in recent years.
3 stars out of 5
Love and Other Drugs (2010)
The Oscar connections are getting more tenuous. Love and Other Drugs features Jake Gyllenhaal and Anne Hathaway, the latter of which…hosted the Oscars this year!
Anyway, this is one of those films that I liked more than I should have. It was marketed as a laugh-out-loud, silly rom-com about two promiscuous people, but that’s really only half true — because the second half, which is completely different to the first, is kind of a depressing ‘disease romance’ (I just made that up). To me, both halves were pretty good, even though that does make for a fairly uneven film.
What I liked about the first half was the insight into the pharmaceutical industry and in particular medical reps who try and sell drugs to doctors. And the start of the Viagra craze is always a fascinating thing to relive. I think the film handled that part very well. As for the second half, while the laughs died out quickly, I did find myself unexpectedly moved by the story and the emotions of the characters.
So yeah, I enjoyed it.
3.75 stars out of 5
Burlesque (2010)
Mmm…Cher once won an Oscar, and let’s face it, Christina Aguilera never will. And it won a Golden Globe (a pre-cursor to the Oscars) for Best Original Song. Oh, and Cher got a Razzie (the opposite of the Oscars) nomination for it this year!
Using the typical ‘small town girl in big city’ template, Burlesque follows Christina as she finds herself working in a burlesque bar (called ‘Burlesque’) where she’s just waiting to be discovered. Cher is the owner, Kristen Bell is the rival, Eric Dane is the tempter, and Cam Gigandet is the potential love interest. Fill in the blanks yourself and toss in a bunch of musical song and dance numbers from Christina and Cher, and that’s the movie in a nutshell.
Is it horrible? No. I actually expected a lot less, though I would have preferred it if they just went along for the ride and not taken themselves so seriously (because the unintended effect is quite comical). At the end of the day, Burlesque is a Christina vehicle, and it certainly shows off her spectacular voice and not-too-shabby acting abilities. It’s campy, musical and melodramatic, just as you would expect it to be. And while it’s certainly nothing special, it is better than the Britney equivalent (Crossroads).
2.5 stars out of 5
Movie Review: Forbidden Lie$ (2007) September 10, 2010
Posted by pacejmiller in Movie Reviews.Tags: Anna Broinowski, bestseller, David Leser, documentary, Forbidden Lie$, Forbidden Lies, Forbidden Love, Honor Lost, Norma Khouri, YouTube
add a comment
I came across Forbidden Lie$, the phenomenal 2007 Australian documentary (directed by Anna Broinowski), while researching for an interview. While perhaps not one of the best made documentaries from a technical standpoint, Forbidden Lie$ is definitely one of the most intriguing and exciting films I’ve seen this year.
Some may recall the worldwide bestselling book Forbidden Love (also known as Honor Lost in the United States), written by Norma Khouri. Released in the aftermath of September 11, Forbidden Love tells the purportedly true story of a Jordanian woman (Khouri’s best friend) who was stabbed to death by her family in an “honour killing” simply because she was in a chaste relationship with a non-Muslim man.
The book brought the insanity of these honour killings to the Western world, and for a while, Khouri was a huge star, appearing at book festivals and on TV shows all around the world, discussing the subject like an advocate and expert. She was pretty, charismatic, passionate, and yet completely inexperienced in love. People lined up for hours just to shake her hand and book signings and people even wrote songs about her. Forbidden Lie$ was ranked by Australians as one of their 100 favourite books of all time, and it was said to have sold over 500,000 copies around the world.
That’s certainly the way Forbidden Lie$ starts out, painting Khouri as a remarkable woman who fled from oppression to tell her amazing true story to the world. But for those who know the story, things suddenly take a crazy turn. I won’t go into it much more than that, but the title of the film says it all.
Proving that truth is stranger than fiction, the film unravels like a well-written mystery — is she telling the truth, just part of the truth, or is everything that comes out of her mouth a bold-faced lie (like George Costanza trying to lie his way out of more lies at all costs)?
Part of the reason the film progresses like this is because director Anna Broinowski approached Khouri with the intention of making a film that would tell her side of the story and exonerate her from all the allegations. So in many ways, the film is really Broinowski’s journey as she goes from stern believer to unconvinced sceptic. Just how far will Khouri go to prove her innocence?
There are plenty of unexpected twists and turns, as more and more secrets start coming out of the woodwork, and yet, as Khouri is often the voice we hear, we feel almost compelled to believe everything she says.
The final half-hour or so may be too long-winded and repetitive, and some of the tactics were a little cheesy, but on the whole Forbidden Lie$ is simply riveting. I can’t believe I hadn’t heard about the documentary until only a couple of days ago.
4 stars out of 5
Good news for those who now want to see it: the entire film is available on YouTube in 10 parts. Check it out yourself. Here is the trailer.
And if you want to read more about the story (warning: contains spoilers), I would recommend this article from journalist David Leser, who also appears in the film — Norma Khouri: The Inside Story of a Disgraced Author
YouTube Movie Review: Hooked: The Legend of Demetrius “Hook” Mitchell July 28, 2010
Posted by pacejmiller in Basketball, Movie Reviews, NBA, Sport.Tags: Antonio Davis, Brian Shaw, Demetrius Hook Mitchell, Demetrius Mitchell, documentary, Drew Gooden, Gary Payton, Hook Mitchell, Hoop Dreams, Jason Kidd, playground legend
add a comment
Move over Winning Time: Reggie Miller vs The New York Knicks. Move over More Than A Game. Move over Hoop Dreams (okay, maybe not Hoop Dreams, but definitely the other two). Hooked: The Legend of Demetrius “Hook” Mitchell is now my favourite basketball documentary.
I first heard about the legendary Hook Mitchell several years ago when the film was released (around 2004), but I had totally forgotten about it. Last night, I somehow re-stumbled across this sad but redemptive documentary on YouTube (the entire film is there in 7 parts) and ended up watching the whole thing. If you ‘ve ever watched an entire movie on YouTube, you’ll know that the movie has to be really good to sustain your attention.
Hook Mitchell is widely regarded as the greatest basketball player never to make the NBA. His talent and ability on the basketball court is considered unparalleled by some of the all-time greats of the game. When guys like future Hall of Famers Gary Payton and Jason Kidd and multiple NBA champion Brian Shaw all say that there was no question that Hook was better than them, that’s saying something. Hook has won countless dunk contests. He’s dunked over cars and groups of kids. He’s done 360 dunks over motorcycles. And he’s only 5’9″. (Hook started dunking at 5’3″ and was dunking in games at 5’5″!)
So why isn’t Hook Mitchell, the playground legend from Oakland, dominating the NBA right now?
Well, for starters, when the documentary was filmed (around 2003), Hook was serving time in prison for armed robbery. This is a guy who had all the talent in the world but threw it all away because of a bad environment, bad influences and bad decisions.
For every Gary Payton and Jason Kidd, there’s a Hook Mitchell out there. Hook could have played for millions in the NBA but didn’t have the self-control and discipline to stay away from all the negative things in his life. Watching the documentary, you really do feel for him. Hook’s mother was shooting up in front of him when he was just a toddler, and she was out of his life before he could remember. His brother was a drug kingpin in his neighbourhood. He grew up surrounded by crime, gangs, pimps and drugs. He hardly went to class but his teachers falsified his records so he could play basketball. Drug dealers gave him a gram of coke for every dunk he performed in a game. It was as though he never had a chance.
Having said that, Hook had no one to blame but himself. He had plenty of opportunities to turn his life around. Others in similar situations (such as Payton and Kidd) have managed to do it. People that cared about him all tried to straighten his path, but Hook pushed them away.
This documentary by William O’Neill and Michael Skolnik is very impressive. It’s pieced together by extended interviews with Hook himself (in prison) and those who have shaped his life — including NBA stars Payton, Kidd and Shaw, as well as Drew Gooden and Antonio Davis (one of my favourite players growing up). There are plenty of highlights of Hook tearing up the courts and throwing down one insane dunk after another. The footage from Hook dominating the prison leagues is particularly riveting because even at 35 he was doing some amazing things on the court, not just throwing down ridiculous jams but also making even the most difficult moves seem natural and easy. It makes you wonder the type of beast he could have been had he not been perpetually stoned and instead continued to work on his game.
The film is only 65 minutes and has very little repetition (unlike most other sport documentaries out there). The interviews are candid and the basketball footage is exciting. Watching Hook reflect on his life with that deep regret and sorrow in his eyes was particularly moving. The documentary has a strong message and is ultimately a story of redemption. Do yourself a favour and watch it now!
4.25 stars out of 5
Here’s the trailer:
PS: For those wanting to find out more, here are a couple of interviews with Hook following the release of the film (IGN and TLChicken) and a SI article.
Movie Review: Paranormal Activity (2009) November 17, 2009
Posted by pacejmiller in Movie Reviews.Tags: alternate endings, Blair Witch, Blair Witch Project, documentary, horror, Paranormal Activity, Paranormal Activity review, sequel
1 comment so far
Paranormal Activity is the latest ‘is it real or not?’, low-budget horror movie pieced together with supposed amateur home video footage. Think The Blair Witch Project for haunted houses.
While I liked the overall idea and it’s by no means a terrible film, Paranormal Activity didn’t really do it for me. Maybe I just wasn’t in the mood to be scared. It did have its moments, but certainly isn’t the ‘scariest’ or ‘most terrifying’ movie of all time (or even the year) as it has been hyped up to be.
The footage begins when young couple Micah and Katie, living together in a fairly nice suburban house, decide to get a video camera to capture the paranormal activity they have been experiencing. There is a bit of a back story and you get to know the characters are little through footage of their daily lives, but I found these to be time fillers than any real effort to allow the audience to get to know, and perhaps even care about, these people.
Like The Blair Witch Project, the tension in Paranormal Activity is built up slowly and gradually, with the intent of blowing the audience away with a ripper of an ending. However, even at only 86 minutes, it felt like nothing was happening for a really long time. A few bumps in the night, a few eerie things here and there, but for the most part they seemed like relatively minor incidents that were met with overreaction. I understand director and writer Oren Peli’s intention to build an atmospheric film that utilises dread rather than cheap scares, but I spent much of the movie wishing something would actually happen. I will say, though, that there were a couple of pretty cool things that happened towards the end, but unfortunately the final sequences weren’t as chilling as I had hoped.**
The film’s biggest problem, from which most of its other problems stemmed, was the restrictive nature of its format. Of course, as the audience, you only get to see what has recorded by the inhabitants of the house. But that raises some very difficult obstacles. How much can you reasonably expect someone who is being terrified by demons to tape everything that happens to them? Do you go the realistic route and miss out on some of the action? Or do you come up with forced excuses to make them take the video camera everywhere and record everything? Either way, the film suffers.
To its credit, Paranormal Activity tries to reach some sort of balance between the two extremes. As the inhabitants actually set out to capture and document the haunting, a camera is set up in the bedroom and runs throughout the night, and that is when most of the creepy stuff happens. In my opinion, that was by far the cleverest idea in the film. Every time the bedroom cam is set up and the residents to go bed, I start to swell up with anticipation as the clock fast forwards to when ‘stuff’ happens. Occasionally, they venture out of the bedroom in hand-held mode, but thankfully the footage is not as shaky or nauseating as it could have been.
However, what this system also means is that some scenes are left to your imagination because you can’t see what is going on – sometimes that may be more frightening, but that’s not always the case in this movie. It also means that at least one of the characters has to be a totally unreasonable prick so the camera can be kept running, but it gets to the point where it becomes a stretch. With this type of film format, you just have to take the good with the bad.
Paranormal Activity also suffers from a few other issues. This kind of film thrives on the gullibility of the audience. The more you believe it is real, the scarier it becomes. The problem is, while both leads were adequate, there were a couple of occasions where they felt unnatural. Could be the dialogue or the acting, but I wasn’t convinced I was watching authentic footage. One of the reasons why The Blair Witch Project was so successful was because it misled people into believing that the footage was real. The film was presented and marketed as authentic. 10 years later, this has become a lot more difficult to accomplish, and as a result Paranormal Activity doesn’t have quite the same impact as its predecessor.
In the end, Paranormal Activity is a film worth watching simply because it is fresh and not done very often. And to be fair, it also has some solid, atmospheric moments. That said, lower your expectations if you want to be genuinely frightened.
3 stars out of 5!
** Apparently there are at least 3 alternative endings for this film, and I don’t quite think the one released in the cinemas is the best one. See here for more details.
PS: a sequel is already in the works thanks to the success of the film, which is already the most successful independent film ever in terms of return on investment. Let’s just hope the sequel is at least watchable, unlike that dreadful sequel to Blair Witch which I still rank up there as one of the worst sequels of all time.
Movie Review: Tyson (2009) June 9, 2009
Posted by pacejmiller in Boxing, Movie Reviews.Tags: Cus D'Amato, documentary, Evander Holyfield, Fight Night Round 4, James Toback, Mike Tyson, movie review, Punch Out, Tyson documentary, Tyson movie
3 comments
Love him or hate him, Mike Tyson is a magnet for publicity and controversy.
In his prime, Tyson captured the imagination of boxing fans all around the world with his ferocious, brutal knockouts. To this day, many still believe that at his best, Tyson would have beaten anyone in the history of the sport. Watching some of the highlight footage in the opening of the new documentary Tyson, it’s hard to disagree.
In his early 20s, Tyson was an absolute beast of a man, built like a brick and possessing a perfect combination of power, speed and explosiveness beyond belief. Today, apart from the tribal facial tattoo on the left side of his face, you would have never have thought that this high-pitched, softly spoken, mellow man with a noticeable lisp was once considered the ‘baddest man on the planet’. An unbeatable force of nature. The contrast is both shocking and saddening.
I suppose that is what director James Toback wanted to achieve with this film, to show a side of Mike Tyson that the public never saw. To tell the tragic story of a deeply flawed man who had the potential to be the greatest heavyweight of all time but was consumed by his fear of the world and his hatred of himself, leading to one of the most publicised and devastating downfalls in sports. In my opinion, Toback only half-succeeded with Tyson.
Tyson is a relatively straightforward sports documentary that chronicles Mike Tyson’s life from birth to present day. The film comprises a series of interviews with the man himself, some old archive footage of Tyson out of the ring, news footage and clips of Tyson’s most famous fights. As a compilation of Tyson highlights inside the ring, there’s no complaints – it’s pretty darn exciting. However, as a documentary, it suffers from one fatal problem – we only get to hear Tyson’s side of the story. His voice is the only voice.
Yes, Tyson appears to be honest in the interviews, and he seems genuine. He even chokes up and sheds a few tears over the life he managed to mangle up, the relationships he destroyed and the hundreds of millions he wasted away or allowed to be stolen from him. There’s a fair bit of insight into his psyche, and in particular, what went through his mind at the times that everyone thought he had lost it. But honestly, it all feels incredibly sanitised.
Part of that stems from the fact that Tyson narrates the entire film. You don’t know whether some of the things he said are scripted, or if he had many takes to ‘get it right’. Was the film made independently or did Tyson have the last say into what went in and what was kept out? Was he only saying what he wanted us to hear so we would feel sorry for him?
Moreover, while the film doesn’t ignore them completely, it does feel like it glossed over some of the toughest topics in Tyson’s life, such as his documented tendency to resort to domestic violence, his rape conviction, his drug addiction, his time in prison and his infamous ear-biting fight against Evander Holyfield. Although Tyson ultimately claims responsibility for everything that has happened in his life, when it came to these issues, he showed plenty of regret, but little remorse. You want to believe him, but it was hard to because all you could see was a unrepentant man coming up with excuses and throwing around blame at those that he thought wronged him (in particular Don King, but every fighter thinks Don King wronged them!). These were times when another perspective would have been perfect. An interview with someone else that told a different side of the story. But we didn’t get any of that in Tyson. Consequently, even though it was easy to pity Tyson, it was difficult to feel any compassion towards him.
That said, there were some good moments littered throughout, and the film itself (at around 85 minutes) was never boring. In particular, Tyson’s relationship with his mentor Cus D’Amato (who passed away in 1985) and his love for his children were the most touching aspects of the film. At the same time, however, it hard to forget all the terrible things he had done and the multiple chances in life that he managed to screw up time and time again.
In some ways, Tyson was the ultimate bully inside the ring, and the ultimate coward outside of it. His life is a true tragedy – a man who overcame impossible odds and disadvantages to stand on top of the world, only to self-destruct and fall into the lowest depths because of his cowardice and refusal to learn from his mistakes. The recent death of Tyson’s youngest daughter Exodus in a freak treadmill accident (which happened after the release of the film) is just another sad chapter in his life. While Tyson will never be the great boxer he once was inside the ring, one can only hope that he can continue to be a better person outside of it.
3 stars out of 5.
[PS: Here’s an interesting article I found on Tyson that paints a particularly unflattering view of the boxer. I was a little too young when Tyson ruled the world, but I did know of him through Mike Tyson’s ‘Punch Out!’, which has been rereleased on the Nintendo Wii but without Iron Mike. I am, however, very much looking forward to Fight Night Round 4 which will finally have Tyson as one of the licensed boxers.]
[PPS: I just found out that Tyson recently got married for the third time, 2 weeks after his daughter’s death. Not judging, just a piece of fact.]
Stumble It!
About Writing - The Personal Blog of Pace J Miller 