Review Special: Oscar Predictions 2013

The show is only a day away! – though when I post this, it will date Sunday, which means it will be on Monday, Australia time – I have divided my predictions into two categories: Most likely to win and Personal choice.

My predictions are based on three points: Those who have won favourably in previous award shows, the Academy’s tendency to be sentimental – a good example of this is when Scorsese won Best Director for The Departed, when arguably, he really deserved to win it for Good Fellas (there are so many examples of this, which I won’t go into right now), and I felt Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu deserved to win that year for Babel – and, lastly, my own gut-feeling.

I’ve only seen six of the nine films nominated for Best Picture – I’m a big believer in Argo and Amour – but I thought, I may as well log in my predictions. It’s all in good fun.

Best Picture

Most likely to win: Argo

Personal choice: Argo

Best Director

Most likely to win: Steven Spielberg, Lincoln (with Ben Affleck out of this race, Spielberg feels like the most likely contender for the Academy).

Personal choice: Michael Haneke, Amour.

Best Actor

Most likely to win: Daniel Day-Lewis, Lincoln.

Personal choice: Joaquin Phoenix, The Master.

Best Actress

Most likely to win: Emmanuelle Riva, Amour.

Personal choice: Jennifer Lawrence, Silver Linings Playbook (but only just ahead of Jessica Chastain, Zero Dark Thirty).

Best Supporting Actor

Most likely to win: Tommy Lee Jones, Lincoln.

Personal choice: Christoph Waltz, Django Unchained (Waltz has been a favourite in previous award shows, but if Lincoln isn’t favourite for Best Picture, there’s a chance the Academy are going to favour the film in other categories, much like the Best Director category, and award a great old-timer, like Jones, for his patriotic role).

Best Supporting Actress

Most likely to win: Anne Hathaway, Les Miserables.

Personal choice: Jacki Weaver, Silver Linings Playbook (I’m pitching for the dark horse here).

Best Original Screenplay

Most likely to win: Quentin Tarantino, Django Unchained.

Personal choice: Michael Hanake, Amour.

Best Adapted Screenplay

Most likely to win: Chris Terrio, Argo.

Personal choice: Chris Terrio, Argo.

Lincoln

Oscars watch: I'm very certain that I won't be able to watch all nine films nominated for Best Picture before the ceremony (oh well, I'll be trying, and there's always next year). But here's is my review on the sixth nominee.

There has been some negative talk about this film due to few historical inaccuracies. As a foreigner, I am not very familiar with American history (which is, without a doubt, much older and complicated than Australian history), therefore I don’t know a great deal about America’s sixteenth president, Abraham Lincoln. All I knew about him was that he was a Republican, he was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth, and he’s the face on the American five-dollar note. But there is one thing that I’m certain of, and that is, Daniel Day-Lewis gives a damn-good performance as Lincoln – his voice, his body language, I’m not sure what Lincoln’s mannerisms were, but Day-Lewis truly shows the determination and charisma of an old and tired, yet inspirational president.

I haven’t looked into what’s been claimed as historically inaccurate, but, I’m assuming that what has made Lincoln such a popular figure – who’s been dead for 148 years – was his great legacy to America, and maybe, for this film, that’s all that matters.

Steven Spielberg’s, Lincoln, is set during the closing of the American Civil War and the passing of the Thirteenth Amendment, which outlaws slavery. This story also explores Lincoln’s personal hardships during this compelling time: the straining relationship with his eldest son, Robert (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), who’s longing to serve in the war is forbidden by his father and his resilient mother, Mary (Sally Field), whose ongoing grief for the death of their middle child Willie, who died three years earlier, has deeply wounded their marriage.

Spielberg has spent as long as a decade researching on this influential individual and you can certainly feel the passion and curiosity he has for his subject. This superbly aesthetic film (thanks to Spielberg’s entrusted cinematographer, Janusz Kaminski), which is written by Tony Kushner (who also wrote Spielberg’s, Munich), is a courageous attempt on reaching the very soul of Lincoln. This two and a half hour spectacle, is, at first, slow, but once you get a grasp of the characters and the politics, it surely lures you in – and I think part of it has to do with Day-Lewis’s incredible performance, as well as Tommy Lee Jones and a swarm of incredible actors who make up a strong supporting cast – much like reading a great novel, where its dense prose disconcerts you at first, but once you power through the first chapter, you've grown comfortable with its unique style of writing.

This is a film purely made for American audiences, which I think is one of the reasons why it’s a favourite at this year’s Oscars – its main rival is Ben Affleck’s, Argo. But I don’t think it has a greater universal appeal which Argo certainly possesses. Lincoln, does primarily focus on the politics more so than on the human spirit, but this is not to say that what President Lincoln did for America doesn't reflect his human spirit, rather, the politics is so vast and overwhelming – and for those who aren't American, the politics is very foreign – in this film, that it loses some of that universal appeal. 2010’s Best Picture winner, The King’s Speech, is a good example of this notion, where the film encompasses English politics and culture, but the human spirit is very much there, with the main character, a royal who has a great personal flaw which happens to disrupt his leadership, though he develops a great friendship with the man who helps him deal with his defect.

This is quite a momentous film to power through, but if you’re game, why not give it a go… nothing stopped President Lincoln from trying.

Zero Dark Thirty

Oscars watch:  This is the fifth film nominated for Best Picture (correcting the fact that there are nine nominees this year, not ten, as I stated earlier). And the ceremony is only around the corner - four more films to go.

I was in Los Angeles, during my joyous U.S. holiday, when Osama Bin Laden had been found and killed. A week later, I was in New York, visiting the site where it all began. I’m not a New Yorker, I’m not an American, and I don’t know anyone who lives in New York, but when I saw the photographs of the people who died on that day, and some of the wreckage that had been preserved at the Visitors Centre on Ground Zero, my heart just sunk, as the rooms were eerily, dead silent.

I was almost fifteen when the two planes crashed into the Twin Towers – I had learnt of the news on the morning of the 12^th, as it occurred in the middle of the night, Australia time – I was having breakfast, getting ready for school, and I was confused as to what was being shown on TV. At first, I thought it was just the one plane that accidently crashed into the World Trade Centre being shown over and over again. But then my mother pointed out: “it was deliberate”. Deliberate? It was then, I realised, that there were two planes, two buildings, two blazing clouds of smoke. Why did these people hijack these planes, and crash them? Who would be that crazy to do that? That day, I learnt a new word: terrorist. I’d heard this word before, from movies and shows, but I had never really seen such real, evil acts of terrorism being played over and over again. It was also the first I had heard about Osama Bin Laden, the mastermind behind the attacks, a man who became the most recognisable criminal in the world, but no one could find him.

Nevertheless, that day came. Travelling through the U.S. during this triumphant time was bizarre, but only for a moment. The night before, I was watching highlights of the White House Correspondents dinner in our hotel room, laughing at Seth Meyers’ jokes on Donald Trump. Then, the next day, Osama Bin Laden is dead. Being at Ground Zero in New York was surreal. I stood there, looking at posters stating congratulatory praise for the Obama administration, and remembering what I had seen on the news ten years earlier. I couldn’t believe that this place was a ghost town covered in mountains of ash. But New York has recovered, perhaps not fully, but it has certainly rebuilt itself.

It took nearly ten years to find Bin Laden. And in those ten years, many of us had carried on with our lives. I was busy growing up, getting educated, doing a little bit of travelling, while, an undisclosed unit was trying to track down Bin Laden.

As you may know, Kathryn Bigelow’s, Zero Dark Thirty, is about the search for Bin Laden. It’s a three hour film that takes us from 9/11, to the London bombings, to the discovery of Bin Laden’s secret compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan, and then, the raid and killing of the most wanted man in the world. Jessica Chastain plays Maya, a C.I.A. agent who spends most of her waking hours looking for Bin Laden. Throughout her ten year journey, she finds potential leads that get turned down by her superiors, she loses friends, she witnesses the tortures of suspected Bin Laden couriers, and through all this time we are never given much insight into who she really is: Family? Friends? Love life? Home? Her adult life is consumed by Bin Laden. An obsession for revenge. And we can really feel her obsession and determination.

One of my favourite films in the last few years is The Hurt Locker, in which Bigelow made her historic win (first female to win) as Best Director at the Oscars in 2010, as well as winning for Best Picture. What I loved about The Hurt Locker was that it’s a great character-driven story, a psychological look into these three different soldiers (played by Jeremy Renner, Anthony Makie and Brian Geraghty). Zero Dark Thirty is also a war film, but Bigelow steers it into a different route. She focuses heavily on the events, rather than the characters. But this doesn’t feel like a setback for the film because the performances are excellent. I wouldn’t be surprised if Chastain wins Best Actress at this year’s Oscar – although she is up against some tough competition. Jennifer Ehle, who plays Maya’s friend and diligent colleague, is always charming. Aussies, Jason Clarke and Joel Edgerton are exceptional – although, the latter had a minor, but significant role. And Kyle Chandler (who also stars in another Best Picture nominee, Argo) is excellent as Maya’s superior.

Zero Dark Thirty is not a simple film. It’s a very suspenseful voyage with convoluting information which, initially, is unsettling to take in. The first half of the film is indeed convoluting – it assumes that we have followed this story thoroughly from news outlets, and have prior knowledge of the notable figures involved. Understandably, there is ten years’ worth of information to scurry through, which, most of it is manageable to watch, but, there are so many characters involved, that at times, it’s hard to follow who’s who. But the real suspense of the film is the last third, when Maya pushes her superiors to look into the compound at Abbottabad, which she, on a hunch, suspects Bin Laden is hiding in. The raid sequence is undoubtedly intense. It’s a lengthy scene that is skilfully shot with tasteful handheld camera movement and low lighting, which is also aided by night-vision shots. The set of the three-story compound is a replica of the original and was built as is – which means, without the use of a studio, where traditionally, each floor would have been constructed separately – creating a claustrophobic atmosphere, as well as a good visual aide of the maze-like home which is well-guided by quality camera movements and shots.

I had read, prior to viewing Zero Dark Thirty, Mark Bowden’s Vanity Fair article, ‘The Hunt for “Geronimo”’, which is an in-depth account of the infiltration of the Abbottabad compound. The article also goes into the choices and the possible outcomes – discussed by Obama and his administration, the C.I.A and the Navy Seals – about how to go about the raid if the compound is to be Bin Laden’s hiding place. This article gave me a clear view of the operation, and in some way, helped me grasp the story of Zero Dark Thirty (which was written by Mark Boal, who also wrote The Hurt Locker).

There’s no surprise that there has been controversy about this film, particularly the tactics of torture and the supposed misuse of classified information, which Bigelow and Boal had access to. This is certainly an emotional story, and the very last shot of the film gives us a vague insight into what Maya has accomplished personally. And whether you believe the conspiracies surrounding the death of Bin Laden or disagree with the methods of torture, you have to remember that this is a film. A film that does its best to give a fairly accurate portrayal of real events. A film about dutiful characters who are trying to track down a powerful, murderous criminal. So when you see Zero Dark Thirty, leave the propaganda bullshit behind, and just watch the film (or not).

Django Unchained

Oscars watch: Tarantino's masters it again with a re-creation of a classic western, which also happens to be the fourth film nominated for Best Picture.

Quentin Tarantino is a fascinating filmmaker. But my film history lecturer didn’t seem to think so – he briefly mentioned his dislike for him in one of his lectures during my undergrad studies – and I never knew why. He never went into it. My film history lecturer was one of those guys who really admired the earlier pioneers in filmmaking, like Truffaut, Goddard and Welles – much like Tarantino does. Oddly enough, one of the films we had to watch for the subject was 1966’s Django (I wonder what my old lecturer thinks of Django Unchained). I quite enjoyed Django. And I was really drawn to its star, Franco Nero, a rugged Italian with a wide, handsome face and charming blue eyes. And, of course, he makes a brief, “friendly appearance”, as it states in the opening credits, in Tarantino’s spin on the western classic. Nero shares a scene with Jamie Foxx’s Django, where he asks him how to spell his name: “The ‘D’ is silent” Foxx delivers. “I know,” responds Nero. And I must say, at his old age, Franco Nero is still ruggedly handsome.

However, Tarantino’s film is not a remake of the original spaghetti western, which was about a drifter, dragging a coffin, who comes across a feuding town. Rather, this 2012 version is a “borrowing” of sorts – borrowing the name, the filmic style, and the theme song of the 1966 film – where Tarantino has respectfully re-created an old tale for a new generation.

In the American south, a couple of years before the civil war, Dr. Schultz (Christoph Waltz), a German dentist turned bounty hunter, buys the freedom of an African-American slave named Django (Foxx), who can help him identify three brothers who are wanted for murder. After completing their mission, Schultz offers to help Django rebuild his life as a free man, and asks him to be his partner in a bounty hunting spree. They travel across America, killing the most wanted criminals, and hoping, that by the end of their journey, they will reach Mississippi, where Django believes his wife, Broomhilda (Kerry Washington), has been sent to, as they were separated as punishment for attempting to escape from their former owners. They learn that Broomhilda is working for a charismatic plantation owner named Calvin Candie (Leonardo Di Caprio), who proudly calls his estate, Candieland. Thus, Schultz and Django pose as potential business buyers to try and win Candie’s attention and save Broomhilda.

This is certainly an enjoyable film. I’ve enjoyed all of Tarantino’s films, but this film is not one of his best. Simply, this is an overly lengthy film with mesmerizing characters and plenty of violence – a signature Tarantino film. Tarantino mentioned in an interview with Craig Ferguson that he intended to make this film into a mini-series made for television (the decision to make it into a feature film instead was influenced by fellow filmmaker, Luc Besson), and I must say, it felt that way. Tarantino is great storyteller – he knows how to make a story flow really well, even with the abundance of characters, which can be tricky – he’s one of those gifted filmmakers who can hold your attention for two hours or so. But there are some moments in Django Unchained where it felt cluttered and disjointed, particularly towards the end, where I felt that the ultimate climax of the story wasn’t as clever as I expected it to be. And Tarantino is very good at constructing a clever ending. Perhaps a mini-series or two-parter films (like what he did with Kill Bill) would have been a rather interesting approach.  

I consider Tarantino’s previous film, Inglorious Basterds, a film which also dabbles with history, as one of his better films – I’d argue that Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction are his best. With Basterds, I felt Tarantino upped his game again, as I wasn’t too crazy about the Kill Bill films, but Django Unchained doesn’t amount to the ingenuity of Basterds, nonetheless it is equally entertaining. Re-casting Academy Award winner, Christoph Waltz, who, again, gives a brilliant performance, is a great element in this film, as he plays such an admirable figure to the helpless Django, a stark contrast from his role as the evil Col. Hans Landa in Basterds. The casting of Leonardo DiCaprio as the villain is another positive for this film, as well as for DiCaprio, who has yet to play a villain in his prosperous career, and, he indeed, fits the wicked and beguiling mould of Calvin Candie. As well as Tarantino regular, Samuel L. Jackson, who plays Candie’s entrusted slave, Stephen, who, in a way, is like a member of the Candie family, as he has also tended to Calvin’s father and grandfather. Jackson sports bolding, rimmed white hair and aging make-up to play the old and ailing Stephen, a strangely conniving character who knows his place as a black man in Mississippi. Furthermore, I thought Don Johnson was impressive, who has a brief and humorous role as Big Daddy, a wealthy southerner and leader of the KKK.

Tarantino is certainly a very intelligent and passionate filmmaker, and it’s always exciting when he has a new film, whether it’s really good or moderately good, his films are innovative and they always have audiences talking. Tarantino has had ongoing criticism for the excessive violent content in his films, as well as his repetitive use of the N word, not only in Django Unchained, which is arguably appropriate due to the film’s subject matter, but in his other films. The media have plagued it as Tarantino’s “obsession” or “love affair” with violence. Indeed, this classy filmmaker has a knack for violent content, but many filmmakers have a niche – eg. Wes Craven and horror films, George A. Romero and zombie films, or, to go the other way, the Farrelly brothers and toilet humour – and it’s quite irritating when an artist like Tarantino is blamed for the world’s problems, like violent behaviour (most notably the shooting massacres that occurred in America in the past year).

It’s always bothered me that my old film history lecturer wasn’t a Tarantino fan. And, yes, we all have our own opinions, but I never asked him why, and I’m sure he has a valid reason for it. My guess is that Tarantino does have the tendency to borrow material from other films, which can be seen as un-pioneering, but I see it as paying homage from one filmmaker to another.  I admire Tarantino, not only for his innovativeness, but also for his energy. It’s not cockiness. It’s passion. A passion for such a wonderful art form that is filmmaking.

Amour

Oscars watch: Valentine's day is coming this week, and I've now seen three of the ten films nominated for Best Picture (seven more to go!). And this third film happens to be a love story (as you can tell from the title).

I used to work in one of those island café’s in a shopping centre, where most of the customers were of the elderly. In the two years I worked there, I served some of the most delightful people. They were happy, wise and peaceful. Though, some of them relied on walking sticks, walking frames and scooters. Some of them needed me to pour water into their glasses for them, and unscrew the bottle tops of their soft drinks. Most of them ate with their husbands and wives. And then, one day, after weeks without seeing them, they solemnly ate alone. You can feel the heartbreak of their loss, as they sat alone, across from an empty chair. Micheal Haneke’s film, Amour, brought me back to these elderly people that I used to serve, who, from many of them, I felt, were content with the life they had built, much like the two main characters, Georges and Anne, a married couple in their eighties, who are played by Jean-Louis Trintignant and Emmanuelle Riva.

In the film’s opening scene, firemen break into an elegant French apartment. The men cover their noses and open the windows, and find the dead body of Anne in the master bedroom, lying peacefully on her side of the bed, surrounded by flower petals. Then, in the next scene, a shot of a theatre audience, which is shot from the stage, as audience members seat themselves and wait for the concert pianist to take the stage. Georges and Anne are seated in the audience – this is how their journey to the end begins. The next day, Georges and Anne are having breakfast. Suddenly, Anne appears frozen, like she’s staring into space, and unfazed by her husband, who places a wet towel to her face and is trying to communicate with her, with no response. But once Georges leaves the room, Anne breaks out of her trance and resumes her breakfast. Georges is baffled, as his wife doesn’t recall being unresponsive. They learn that Anne had a stroke, which has left one side of her body paralysed. George is now Anne’s carer, who is confined to a wheelchair and incapable of clothing, bathing and cooking for herself. Whilst Georges is patiently tending to his wife, Anne is struggling to cope with her condition, and fears of completely losing her independence.

As I watch this film, I get the same feeling I get every time I see an elderly couple going for a walk in the park, holding hands and looking relaxed. Although, Amour isn’t a feel-good film, it is certainly a romantic one. The way Georges selflessly nurtures his wife, as Anne stubbornly reassures him that she doesn’t need constant care, is beautiful. Anne is indeed stubborn, but you can understand her. You can imagine that losing the ability to care for yourself and others would be frustrating and humiliating.

For most of the film, we are stuck in the apartment, the world that Georges and Anne are alone in, with the exemption of a few visitors, which include their daughter, Eva (Isabelle Huppert), and Anne’s former student, Alexandre (Alexandre Tharaud), whose concert they attended earlier in the film, and whose visit seems melancholic – there’s a scene where Georges plays Alexandre’s CD, and Anne instructs him to turn it off, like it’s painful to listen to, a passion she can no longer re-ignite. Georges and Anne’s home, an well-designed apartment with a classic Parisian feel, is itself like a third main character, and it gives us so much insight into the lives of Georges and Anne, particularly the beautiful grand piano and the endless shelves of books in the large study room. Though spacious, clean and open, the home is an enclosure for the elderly couple, as the closed doors keeps their secrets hidden. Even their daughter Eva is occasionally locked out of their world.

What I really like about this film, like any genuinely good film, are the fine visual details. I mentioned closed doors, the doors are certainly thematic throughout the film, as the film opens with the locked doors being busted open, and the film ending with all the doors in the apartment open, allowing the home to breathe in new life. The doors surely represent the secrets and opportunities, the entrances and exits, which this old couple faces in the closing chapter of their long journey. Indeed, this is what this film is, the final chapter, we are witnessing the final chapter of Georges and Anne. But director, Michael Haneke, gives us the ending before giving us that last journey. The film beginning with the discovery of Anne’s body suppresses the inevitability of the story, and rather creates a curiosity of how this woman died and why was she left like that.

I’ll admit, I don’t know much about Michael Haneke, but I do know that he knows how to move the camera. Haneke uses a lot of long shots and medium shots, which gives us the feeling that we’re observing, looking into the lives of these people. And Haneke establishes that with that shot of the audience at the concert, ensuring us that we are the watching audience.

This is certainly a good, bitter-sweet film, which won the Palme d’Or at last year’s Cannes Film Festival. Both Trintignant and Riva are fantastic and endearing in this film, with Riva earning a Best Actress nomination at this year’s Academy Awards. Riva starred in one of the most influential films, Hiroshima, mon amour, back in 1959, which I haven’t seen, but I’m certainly going to have a look at it.

Breaking Bad - a season five recap

Haven't seen this show? A talented high school chemistry teacher is diagnosed with lung cancer. With a pregnant wife and a teenage son with cerebral palsy, there is little money for treatment. Desperate to make some fast money and to make use of his qualifications, he imagines himself going into the underworld of drugs, only to make it a reality when he bumps into an old student of his, an under-achiever who has become a drug dealer himself. Despite conflicting personalities, teacher and former student team up. And the glitch in their guaranteed plan: The teacher's brother-in-law is a D.E.A. agent.

D.E.A. agent, Hank Schrader (Dean Norris), finds a book of poetry by Walt Whitman in his brother-in-law’s bathroom. He flicks through the pages and reads the idolising note on the title page that is neatly written by “G.B.”, for his colleague, “W.W.”. Chillingly, Hank realises that his wholesome brother-in-law is possibly a ruthless drug-dealer. And it’s a good thing that he was sitting on the crapper.

The square-like framed glasses, the zipped-up dark jacket with a pastel shirt peeking through the collar, the neatly trimmed beard and the closely shaven bald head being covered by a black porkpie hat – this is the insignia of a high school chemistry teacher, a father of two, a husband, a cancer victim, who, is also a meth cook and a murderer. This is Walter White (“W.W”), but he’s better known as Heisenberg in the drug world, and he’s played brilliantly by Bryan Cranston (who has won three consecutive Emmy Awards for this role).

In the first scene of season five, Walter appears exhausted. He has a full head of hair and is using a different name (I wonder, how much time has passed?). He sits alone in a remote diner, celebrating his birthday with the friendly waitress who offers him free pancakes. Is he on the run? Was his secret life discovered? That’s what’s being implied here. But, we are then taken back to Skyler’s (Anna Gunn) phone call conversation with Walter after Gustavo Fring’s (Giancarlo Esposito) death (continuing on from the end of season four), as the relieved Walter simply tells his wife: “I won”. This subsequently leaves Skyler in a downward spiral of fear and bewilderment as she struggles to launder Walter’s drug money through the car washing business. “I’m waiting for the cancer to come back,” Skyler candidly tells Walter, who is dumbfounded, as she expresses the disappointment she has for her estranged husband moving back into the family home.

Walter and Jesse (Aaron Paul) then plan to rectify their meth business with the help of Fring’s right-hand man, Mike (Jonathan Banks) – due to his strong dislike for Walter, was, at first, reluctant to join – who is motivated to re-enter the business when Hank and his D.E.A. team investigate Fring’s payroll, and eventually taking all of Mike’s earnings which he had saved under his granddaughter’s name. One of Fring’s undisclosed distributers, Lydia (Laura Fraser), also enters the scene, and offers Walter and his team methylamine, a key ingredient to their signature blue meth, in exchange for staying alive – she tried to have Mike killed, fearing that he and his other hit men (who are all imprisoned) are going to flip.

            The search for the methylamine is essentially the trigger for the trail of the unspeakable events that occurs. The seemingly impossible train heist which results in the death of an innocent bystander which was a young boy venturing through the desert on his dirt bike, collecting spiders – which is indeed the most shocking episode of the series. The D.E.A. closes in on Mike who considerately pulls out of the business. Walter then foolishly kills Mike and organises a prison killing spree on the other nine hit men who worked for Fring – in a very disturbing montage of stabbing, strangling, bludgeoning, torching and more stabbing. And despite leaving the business after the death of the kid on the dirt bike, Jesse is terrified of the monster he helped create, a monster he still respectfully calls, Mr. White.

            Mike sums up Walter’s behaviour perfectly when he tells him that his pride got in the way of a good business that Fring successfully and meticulously managed. Walter was a gentle, unlucky, family man, who was laughed at by his students who watched him labour away at his second job at the car wash. But, now, he’s a conniving, malevolent meth cook, whose shame as an overqualified high school chemistry teacher made him into a methamphetamines genius with a God complex. Walter doesn’t seem to fit in either world – whether good or bad, he’s not getting the respect he feels he deserves. He’s a tragic Shakespearean character, like Macbeth, whose vanity grew and whose choices were poor. With Skylar as the Lady Macbeth character, the dutiful wife who is attentively covering her husband’s evil tracks, and declines into a depression. Hank correlates with the detecting and valiant Macduff. And Jesse as a fused character of Macbeth’s comrade, Banquo, and his son, Fleance, who are the rightful, and predicted, rulers of the kingdom – just as Jesse belongs to the world of drugs, but is hindered by Walter who constantly belittles him.

            It’s hard to believe that series creator, Vince Gilligan, had intended to kill off Jesse after season one. Jesse is both protagonist and antagonist, and, unlike the pretentious Mr. White, has respect for the drug business. Respectively, Jesse is a very promising character. He’s the sweet young man who got caught up in the wrong world, and is unfortunately, likely to be stuck there. And despite having been through a rather traumatic journey because of Walter, he manages to hang onto his genuine sweetness. The most charming quality of Jesse is how well he gets along with children – his younger brother, Jake, Andrea’s son, Brock, and the poor little red-headed boy in season two, whose drug addicted parents mugged Skinny Pete (Charles Baker), one of Jesse’s trusted distributors – that nurturing, fatherly figure he could potentially be. But Jesse is still a child himself, unsure and misguided, it is possible he can find redemption. And I would predict that redeeming himself would have to mean breaking his loyalty, by getting even with Walter, who has mistreated him more than Jesse has remained loyal to him – and the unknowing circumstances of Jane’s untimely death (in season two) brought on by Walter’s passiveness, which lead to Jesse’s immense guilt as it was he who re-introduced her to drugs.

            As Walter progressively becomes less worthy, the more that I concede in Skylar’s wish – waiting for the cancer to kill him and put an end to his incompetent reign. His drug empire is crumbling as Hank continues to pursue Fring’s case after the resurgence of the blue meth, which obviously leads to the mid-season cliff-hanger. “G.B.” is of course, Gale Boetticher (David Costabile), Fring’s scholar employee and Walter’s former cooking partner – the man Hank believed was Heisenberg, and was ultimately killed by Jesse, a point blank shot to the head, in the gripping season three finale.

Accordingly, season five will be the last one of this exceptional series, and so, how is it all going to end? Maybe it will follow the Shakespearean mould? Will Skylar commit suicide, leaving the kids with Marie? Will Hank overcome his humiliation, find Walter, and kill him in a bloody showdown? And will Jesse continue to cook the blue meth? Well, we’re just going to have to wait a bit longer to see Walter White’s fate.

Silver Linings Playbook

Oscars watch: I'm going to do something that I don't think I've ever done (despite that I love the Oscars), which is attempting to watch all ten nominated films for Best Picture. I was never able to watch them all, even when there were five nominees. And so, as you can see, when the Academy changed the rules in 2009, it has become rather challenging. This screw-ball comedy-drama is the second of the nominees that I've seen (I previously reviewed Argo).

“Excelsior” is Pat’s (Bradley Cooper) motto for getting his life back together. After eight months in a mental institution, Pat’s mother Dolores (Jacki Weaver) has obtained an approved court order for his release, despite the hospital’s request to keep him for further treatment. Pat arrives home and reunites with his father, Pat Sr. (Robert DeNiro). Uninformed of his release, Pat Sr. is surprised by his son’s return – Pat enters the family home, noticing that his framed portrait is set aside on the floor, while his brother’s portrait is still hanging proudly on the wall. Prior to his treatment for bi-polar, Pat was a high school teacher, and his life fell apart when he found his wife in the shower with another colleague of theirs. But Pat is ready to take control of his life. He’s physically fit, positive, and determined to win his estrange wife back by reading the recommended novels in her high school syllabus (which includes Hemingway’s A Farewell to Arms) – “Excelsior!”. But since his return home, Pat has a slight mishap at his therapist’s office when Stevie Wonder’s “My Cherie Amour” is playing in the waiting room – which was their wedding song, and the trigger to Pat’s mental breakdowns. Despite Pat’s eagerness to resume a normal life, his new therapist, Dr. Cliff Patel (Anupam Kher), thinks there’s still a lot of recovering to be done. Pat keeps fit by jogging around the neighbourhood. He runs as if he’s sheading his problems away, and he wears a garbage bag over his work-out clothes to keep the sweat off, but he wears it like a badge that signifies how messed-up his life is. On one of his runs, he bumps into an old friend, Ronnie (John Ortiz), and his pecking wife ,Veronica (Julia Stiles), who invites him over for dinner. At this dinner, it is obvious that Ronnie is setting him up with his sister-in-law, Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence), a young widow who recently lost her job. Tiffany epitomises a lost soul – wearing a black dress, black eye make-up, black nail-polish, as well as a solemn expression on her pretty face. But this lonely, angelic lady has got quite a mouth on her, and this intimidates Pat, but he is intrigued by her.

There have been many romantic-comedies and melodramas that have followed this mould: Boy meets girl, they don’t get along but they must because something keeps tying them together, they constantly challenge each other through their nuanced sexual chemistry, and then somewhere along the way they realise they’re attracted to each other. Many rom-coms have failed to reinvigorate this classic storyline, but few have achieved it (e.g. As Good As It Gets and Jerry Maguire), and Silver Linings Playbook (based on a novel by Matthew Quick) is one of those hopeful, character driven rom-coms. This is an odd little film about two broken people who find each other and mend each other. It sounds corny, but it’s a lovely story with crazy, lovable characters.

Jennifer Lawrence is charismatic as the tough but vulnerable Tiffany, who helps Pat find structure in his life through her passion for dance. Bradley Cooper is exhilarating as the heart-broken Pat. Robert DeNiro is terrific as the sports-crazed, overly-superstitious father. And Jacki Weaver is wonderful as the adoring matriarch who diligently maintains the family’s sanity.

The chemistry between Lawrence and Cooper is charming, but it’s the bond between Cooper and DeNiro that’s delightful. When Pat arrives home to his father, there is an awkward moment between them that’s so bitter-sweet that you can sense the distance between. But as we get to know them, it turns out father and son are very much alike, and are writhing to be within reach of each other. It seems as though Pat Jr. got the angry gene from Pat Sr. who is a crazed Philadelphia Eagles fan (and was banished from the Eagles stadium for beating up patrons), and believes that Pat is the saviour of the Eagles “juju” – Senior thinks Junior is a good luck charm as well as his Eagles cloth which he holds onto whilst watching the games on TV. But, of course, this doesn’t sit well with Tiffany, who needs Pat’s time and partnership to fulfil her ambition to compete in a dancing competition, which was a done deal in exchange for helping Pat communicate with his wife (who has a restraining order against him).

This is certainly a zany film with an unusual blend of themes: Mental illness, grief, sports and dancing. However, director David O. Russell blends these themes well. His previous film, 2010’s The Fighter, was a fascinating drama which also had the theme of a crazy family possessed by sport. And what is successful about the outlandish characters in The Fighter and Silver Linings Playbook is how well-controlled they are. Russell does dysfunctional family aptly. There is a good balance for these zany characters who encompass humour and sombreness that Russell manages to measure well. A great scene that establishes this is when Pat and Tiffany have their dinner date at the local diner. He orders cereal and she orders tea. She opens up to him and he screws it up – it’s an electrifying scene. Furthermore, the camera movements throughout this film work beautifully around the actors, particularly the handheld camera shots and the fast-paced editing which progresses well with Pat’s manic behaviour.

I would also like to mention that it’s refreshing to see Chris Tucker in something other than the Rush Hour films (he hasn’t done any other films since 1997 with The Fifth Element). Tucker plays Danny, Pat’s best friend at the institution, who tends to unlawfully dismiss himself from the hospital to visit Pat. Tucker’s presence is endearing and surprising as Danny, an equally lost soul who left a murky life of drug abuse, and wants to fit into Pat’s nurturing world.

You’d be living under rock if you didn’t know that romantic-comedies generally veer to female audiences. It’s a genre that tends to make men reluctant. A genre that men are forced to watch with their wives and girlfriends. But Silver Linings Playbook is no sappy, unwitty melodrama that usually stars rom-com victims Kate Hudson and a shirtless Matthew McConaughey, Jennifer Aniston and her male co-stars who have all been rumoured to be dating her off-screen, or Katherine Heigl and some poor chap. 

All men who quiver at the words, “romantic comedy”, should give this hopeful one a shot. Come on, guys. Excelsior!

Girls "It's About Time"

Last season, after Jessa’s (Jemima Kirke) surprise wedding, Hannah (Lena Dunham) was ditched by her boyfriend Adam (Adam Driver). On her own, she caught a late train home and fell asleep during the trip. She was awoken by the early morning sunrise, still curled up in her seat, she realised that her purse was missing. Hannah had reached the end of the line in an unfamiliar stop, and with no money, she wanders off to the nearby beach and relaxes. After being financially cut-off by her parents and being laid off from her job as an unpaid intern for a small publication (which she amazingly stuck with for two years), Hannah is an unemployed writer living in New York, and the final scene of her laying on the beach, alone and broke, watching the sunrise was lovely yet dismal. And as season one closed I was eager for more of Girls (created by Dunham and produced by Judd Apatow). However, the highly-anticipated series return of this invigorating series was somewhat ho-hum.

What drew me to this series was my guilty pleasure for Sex and the City, but only to find that Dunham’s Hannah Horvath is nothing like Sarah Jessica Parker’s Carrie Bradshaw. Girls doesn’t possess the glamour Sex and the City had, arguably because the women in this show are girls – well, they’re young women just out of college – who are trying to settle into the realities of adulthood. So, Girls is essentially an unglamorous Sex and the City for Generation Y. This little show has made its mark for its structured spontaneity and gloomy eccentricity – the hardships of starting a life after college in a troubled economy, the sometimes-disturbing and unusual characters, the seemingly unrehearsed sex scenes, and Lena Dunham brazenly flaunting her flawed body. I say flawed only because the media depicts beauty through Victoria Secret models, when in reality most women look like the frumpy Miss Dunham. Girls maybe getting attention for its shock value, but the characters are weird, wonderful and complex, and the rapid dialogue is expressive and lively. Each of these girls has a unique sense of self: Hannah is the sometimes-selfish writer who constantly eats when she’s depressed, Marnie (Allison Williams) is the beautiful one who thinks she has her life sorted, until she breaks up with her with her long-term boyfriend, Shoshanna (Zosia Mamet) is a student who’s pressuring herself to lose her virginity, and Jessa is a wild Brit who doesn’t seem to have an idea of what to do in life. They’re quality characters with likeable and annoying traits. A group of women who are young and lost, and they’re trying to balance fun, independence, relationships, sex and purpose.

Season two begins with Hannah in bed, amicably snuggling with her gay college ex-boyfriend, Elijah (Andrew Rannells from The New Normal) – much like the same way Hannah and Marnie opened season one in bed together – thus depicting that Hannah and Elijah officially agreed to be roommates. Then, in the next scene Hannah is banging her new lover (played by Donald Glover from Community), despite still being affiliated with Adam due to the accident which she caused on the night of Jessa’s wedding. Whilst Hannah is guiltily nursing Adam (as well as trying to figure out a way to break up with him) Marnie loses her job at the gallery due to downsizing, and catches up with her voluptuous mother (Rita Wilson). Shoshanna deals with her de-flowering/one-night-stand with Ray (Alex Karpovsky). And Jessa makes a brief appearance at the end of the episode as she arrives home with her new husband (Chris O’Dowd) from their honeymoon. The episode centres on a party being thrown by Hannah and Elijah with some very uneasy moments: Shoshanna is trying to avoid Ray, Marnie continues hating being single as her ex-boyfriend Charlie (Christopher Abbott) and his new girlfriend make an appearance, Elijah is embarrassed for his rich, drunk boyfriend, George (Billy Morrissette), who makes a scene whilst doing karaoke, and Hannah is called in by Adam who needs to be tended to back at his apartment.

The only pivotal moment in this episode is when Marnie and Elijah had an intimate conversation about sexuality – she admits that she was lonely and he considers being bi-sexual: “People are so prejudice against bi-sexuals though, they’re like the only people you can still make fun of” says Elijah – and subsequently they almost had sex (well, he was inside her for a second and went limp).

Another interesting feat in this episode is Rita Wilson’s appearance as Marnie’s mother who simply just wants to be Marnie’s friend. She’s very single and very open about her sex-life which is screechy to Marnie’s delicate ears. Marnie herself is suffering in her love-life as she continues maintaining a friendship with the ever-so-sweet Charlie, who she regrettably kept pushing and pulling during the prime of their separation.

Season one ended so well that I had high hopes for the season two premiere. However, I simply felt that the events in this episode are all too familiar or perhaps we need to see what else is to come in the new season, and hoping that Lena Dunham hasn’t lost her momentum (or maybe the gag of showing off her unusually small breasts is wearing off). I highly consider Dunham to be in the same realm of what Ricky Gervais did with The Office and what Tina Fey did with 30 Rock, and like them, Dunham has won Golden Globes for her performance and for best comedy series.

As I’ve scrolled through the IMDB discussion board, it appears that some viewers have a problem with the unruliness of this show and deem it to be tasteless, winey and depressing. However, I think many middle-class westerners can relate to these girls. For some of us, post-university life isn’t as “dazzling” as we hoped it would be – you know the ideal plan: Study, socialise, meet your future wife or husband, graduate, party, start your career and settle. Maybe we’re just too selfish. Maybe we expect too much. Maybe we feel the need to be perfect. Maybe we fear too much about failing, or if we fail at a young age we’ve failed for life. I think Lena Dunham illustrates a fairly accurate picture of us Gen Y-ers.

Gangster Squad

I’m not going to beat around the bush on this one: this film is a much poorer version of The Untouchables, and is as less sophisticated than L.A. Confidential. With that said, this isn't a terrible movie. Indeed, it has plenty of action to grasp your attention, but there is so much wrong with it. Firstly, there are some good action moments, but there aren’t any memorable scenes. And secondly, for a first-rate cast like this, the story and the characters are very disappointing.

Gangster Squad stars Josh Brolin, Ryan Gosling, Sean Penn, Nick Nolte, Emma Stone, Giovanni Ribisi, Robert Patrick, as well as quality supporting actors like Michael Pena, Anthony Mackie and Mireille Enos. As I type up these actors names, I really want to like this movie so badly, but the only major positive thing about this film, is the cast.

It’s 1950’s Los Angeles, Mickey Cohen (Penn), a former boxer, is ruling the underworld with drugs and gambling – an underworld he has brought all the way from Chicago. And Mickey is determined to make Los Angeles his own by scaring, bribing and charming the cops, the judges, the journalists and the ladies. Police Chief Baker (Nolte) recruits a resilient cop, Sergeant John O’Mara (Brolin) to covertly take down Mickey Cohen’s operations, thus to assemble a team of honest cops (Gosling, Ribisi, Patrick, Pena and Mackie) to do the dirty work. Along with the support of his pregnant wife, Connie (Enos), despite having concerns for John’s safety: “Mickey Cohen can have whatever he wants, but he can’t have you,” she tells her husband upon hearing his plans to go head-to-head with the powerful gangster.

This is a mediocre gangster film with a traditional western narrative – a group of good-hearted misfits set out to defeat the bad guy to give the town its freedom back. And there is little material for these quality actors to shine. Brolin does his best to play a tough-cop who served in the war. Nolte’s presence is laughable due to a poorly-written character. Gosling and Stone fail to re-ignite their chemistry after their success in Crazy Stupid Love. Penn gives a rather bland performance as Cohen (but you can see that he’s trying). Ribisi is pretty much replaying the same role he did in Saving Private Ryan (only that he’s a tech-specialist). And Patrick, Pena and Mackie are the token old guy, Mexican guy and black guy.

Also, this film is far too busy with fist fights, shoot outs and lame dialogue that there’s no room for character development. The weak narrative is merely disguised by a great cast and some enjoyable action scenes. There are some very stylish slow-motion shots of tommy guns being fired, and a well-constructed car chase scene where the squad try to obstruct a shipment of heroin. However, the overall look of the film is more cartoonish that noir-ish (think Dick Tracy and Who Framed Roger Rabbit?) if this film is meant to be taken seriously – the costumes and sets appear too clean that it all just felt like looking at an actual film set, and not the world these characters are supposed to be living and breathing in.

Roger Ebert mentions in his review that director Ruben Fleischer’s (Zombieland and 30 Minutes or Less) experience with comedy seems like he wanted to mock the crime genre, which may explain the very laid-back tone of the film – and I would have to agree. I really enjoyed Fleischer’s previous films, and I think for now, he should stick with comedies – he seems too mild and casual to amount to gritty filmmakers like Brian De Palmer, Curtis Hanson, as well as Michael Mann (Heat and Public Enemies), Martin Scorsese (Goodfellas and Casino) or Ridley Scott (American Gangster). Perhaps a different director could have saved this film, as well as a better writer – but who knows. I would argue that this story may have been better off as a TV series (or mini-series) which would allow far more room for plot development for these potentially great characters.

It’s a fun ride with too much dazzle and not enough unexpected turns that it just felt like watching a Michael Bay film (if you haven’t noticed, I’m not a fan). 

Episode Flashback: 30 Rock - "Black Tie" (Season 1, episode 12)

What’s this one about again? Jack asks Liz to be his date to a fancy birthday bash for a deformed royal Austrian. Jenna tags along and tries to be the next Grace Kelly. Whilst back at the office, Tracy tries to help Pete relax, and Kenneth is not impressed.

30 Rock is one of my favourite sitcoms of recent time (along with It’s Always Sunny In Philadelphia and Happy Endings), and I’m embarrassed to admit that I’ve fallen way behind (much like my abandonment on How I Met Your Mother). It happened somewhere along season five – I blame the inconsistencies of Channel 7’s (Australian TV) late night programming – and now this weird and beloved sitcom is soon coming to an end.

Instead of trying to catch up on this series, I went back to have a look at an old favourite episode of mine. A while back I recommended this show to my sister, and happily handed her my season one DVD. A couple of weeks later, we found ourselves laughing about this particular episode, thanks to Paul Reubens’ hilarious performance as Prince Gerhardt Hapsburg of Austria (“Thank you, all dear friends… FOR COMING TO MY BIRTHDAY!”). Dressed up in pale make-up, mangled teeth and tiny legs, this inbreeded royal is supported by a wheelchair, aided by his loyal assistant (played by Will Forte), and he’s meant to be 25-years-old. “It’s 7.45 and I’m still awake,” Gerhardt says to Jack (Alec Baldwin), as he crosses his tiny legs manually with his even tinier hands. This scene still makes my tummy hurt from laughter and this episode if filled with golden moments like this. Like when Gerhardt blows out his birthday candles – he blows (sputters) like an over-excited toddler.

And Reubens isn’t the only celebrity guest star in this episode. Isabella Rossellini plays Jack’s graceful, but crazy ex-wife Bianca. Jack is still smitten by Bianca, and poses Liz (Tina Fey) as his pretend live-in girlfriend. Liz plays along and proves to Jack that Bianca is still in love with him by faking an engagement. Bianca humorously attacks Liz out of jealousy by ripping out her hair out and going after her with a broken glass bottle. An actress like Rossellini, – so elegant, cultural and diligent – it’s refreshing to see the comical side to her in such a silly sitcom.

At this point in time, Tina Fey and her crew were lead to believe that the series was pre-maturely coming to an end due to average ratings. In her memoir, Fey even notes that Gerhardt was a metaphor of the show – a young and ill-fated subject – as the episode ends in Gerhardt’s death (by drinking wine because his body “cannot metabolise grapes”). But unlike Gerhardt’s end, the series continued for another six seasons, thanks to this strangely, funny episode.

There are many people (on the internet) who argue that Tina Fey is overrated, but I just adore her, and I’m eager to see what she plans to do post-30 Rock. She’s sharp, grounded and dorky (in a good way), much like her sympathetic character. Liz Lemon is certainly a character most people can relate to – overworked, self-critical and unattached, and staying up late watching hours of TV whilst eating junk food (and singing “night cheese”). But I also think that many people, in some way, can relate to the obnoxious Jenna (played perfectly by Jane Krakowski and is arguably the funniest character) – an overachiever who thinks too highly of herself – as she tries to make her Grace Kelly fantasy come true by marrying a prince who can take care of her: “I don’t think Gerhardt can take care of you” says Liz, as Jenna contemplates getting passed Gerhardt’s deformed looks after he attempted to woo her. Subsequently, as Jenna tries to flirt with the prince, he asks her to dance for him (and she does) in this very memorable moment in the series. Gerhardt exclaims as Jenna dances: “Jazz! Tap! Jitterbug! Charleston! Interpretive! Twirl! Twirl again! KEEP TWIRLING!” – Hilarious!

Wreck-it Ralph

I took my seven-year-old nephew to see this film, and like most boys and young men I know, he loves video games. He has a Nintendo DS that he carries around and a Wii at home – and he plays them constantly. At the moment he’s obsessed with Batman video games, but unlike most boys he’s fascinated by villains, not heroes. Although he admires the heroism in Batman, he seems more fascinated with characters like the Joker, Clayface and Harley Quinn. This new Disney film’s titular character is the “bad guy” of a game called Fix-it Felix Jr. – it’s a charming film that pays homage to game arcades for nostalgic gamers. I’m not a gamer myself – though I grew up addicted to playing Donkey Kong, a phase I quickly grew out of – therefore I wasn’t as reminiscent whilst watching this film, but I surely found it quite entertaining. And so did my nephew.

In this Toy Story-type story, the games’ characters are like people – but they only come to life when the arcade closes and are free to roam about in their own games, or in other arcade games (they travel through the electrical cords like trains, and the main electrical board is known as Game Central Station – and, yes, it’s designed to replicate the famous New York train station). This sort of set up is what Disney films have succeeded (including A Bug’s Life and Monster’s Inc.), and it is often very clever, humorous and endearing.

John C. Reilly lends his voice to Wreck-it Ralph, the bad guy to the game’s hero, Fix-it Felix Jr. (Jack McBreyer). Ralph’s programed to destroy a building occupied by the humble people of Nicelander, and it’s Felix’s mission to fix up whatever Ralph destructs, therefore ultimately winning the hero’s medal and the luxury penthouse. Upon the 30^th anniversary of the game, Felix is overwhelmed by the congratulatory attention he’s been getting, and this results in Ralph being left out – even in closing hours, villains must keep their distance from the heroes and civilians. Ralph feels that he’s been misunderstood, and would very much like some positive attention, as well as a medal and a penthouse. After attending group counselling, and being constantly badgered by the people of Nicelander, Ralph ventures to change his path by being a hero for once. Ralph goes “turbo” as he is lead into a first-person game called Hero’s Duty, where soldiers fight against vile bugs. Ralph finds, rather than wins, the hero’s medal, only to stumble, and then ultimately losing it in another game called Sugar Rush, a candy coloured racer game for young children. It is there he meets a fellow outcast, an adorable little girl with bits of accessorised candy in her black hair named Venelope von Schweets (Sarah Silverman). Venelope is known as a glitch in their world - a glitch is a faulty character in a game, much like an injury prone athlete who can no longer compete – and her presence on the race track could risk the game of being shut down. However, being a glitch hasn’t stopped Venelope’s ambition to race. It is she who finds and uses Ralph’s hero’s medal to enter the race. Venelope intends to win the medal back for Ralph, but only if he’s there to help her to prove to the other standoffish racers, including the very successful, yet unruly, King Candy (Alan Tudyk), that she’s “coded” to be a winning racer.

Venelope’s glitches certainly represent the flaws and insecurities we all have (Sarah Silverman duly notes this during her appearance on Conan O’Brien, as she mentions that director Rich Moore based Venelope on Silverman’s memoir). Some of us have trouble dealing with them, and some of us use them to enrich our talents. And that is what’s so profound about John Lasseter’s Disney films. There are always these subtexts that often refer to the hurdles in life, the highs and lows of a rollercoaster ride, glitches in life that we try to fix – healthy messages that are also intended for adults, as well as children. Like Marlon the clown fish (of Finding Nemo), an over protective father who must earn Nemo’s trust, so he can learn to let go and allow his son to have an adventurous life. And Lightning McQueen (of Cars) realises that winning the Piston cup isn’t just about getting sponsorships and media attention, and that taking short cuts doesn’t necessarily make you a worthy winner, nor does it make you a decent person. These messages are subtle and honest, and are thoughtfully expressed through real and engaging characters.

Venelope is the real charm of this film. She is a well written character and voiced by a very talented and lively actress. There is a great, bitter-sweet scene where Venelope gives Ralph a cookie in the shape of a medal that says “You’re my hero.” And then subsequently to be betrayed by Ralph (I won’t explain why) as he destroys her racing vehicle that she was so proud to have made with him. “You really are a bad guy!” she cries. This heartbreaking scene reminds me of Monsters Inc. when Sully accidently terrifies Boo in a training exercise, and then seeing her horrified face being played back on the monitors.

This film draws many parallels to previous Disney films. It may not seem as original, however a Disney film about video game characters was destined to happen. The colour palettes in this film are vibrant and enchanting, particularly the pretty brights and pastels of Sugar Rush. The array of bubble gum pinks and frosty cupcakes certainly triggered my sweet tooth. But the one flaw that stood out to me about this film was that I didn’t think it had enough humour – with the exception of Sarah Silverman who’s often surprising, and Jack McBreyer being all goody-two shoes, much like his Kenneth Parcell character on 30 Rock – but my brother and my boyfriend told me: “It’s because you didn’t get the video games references!”

The Master

There is a brilliant scene in this film where Philip Seymour Hoffman’s character (the head of a spiritual group called The Cause) is grilling Joaquin Phoenix’s character with very personal questions, whilst being hooked to what appears to be a heart monitoring machine, and in return he must answer honestly and promptly (this is a significant practice known as “processing”). The close-up shots are powerful, and the performances between these two great actors are admirable. And it’s brilliant scenes like these that make Paul Thomas Anderson an incredibly unique filmmaker.

Ever since I read that P.T. Anderson was making a film about a cult leader, I simply couldn’t wait to see it – it’s fascinating to learn about how and why such vulnerable people are in need of guidance, like they need to be spoon fed and robbed of their free will. And then when word had gotten around that this film implies that it’s based on L. Ron Hubbard’s creation of Scientology, I was intrigued – indeed, Scientology is heavily targeted in the media as it's been criticised for its supposed cult-like practices and Tom Cruise. But this film doesn’t meet the brilliance of Anderson’s previous films, such as Boogie Nights, Magnolia and There Will Be Blood. This is a good film, but nor is it ground-breaking. It simply didn’t exceed my expectations (or did I expect too highly of it?). The cinematography is beautiful (with some great lengthy all-in-one shot camera movements), the acting and directing are masterful, and the characters are fascinating. However, it’s one of those good films where something essential, perhaps soulful, is absent. Therefore this film just misses the potential of being as a great thought-provoking film.

Phoenix plays Freddy Quell. Freddy is a damaged man. A former seaman. A man who drifts from one job to another. And he makes his own alcohol (one of the ingredients he uses is paint thinner). Then one night, whilst walking along the river dock, jobless and homeless, he impulsively boards onto a small cruise ship. It is there he meets “the master”, Lancaster Dodd – a self-proclaimed writer, scientist and commander of the ship. He welcomes Freddy, and invites him to his daughter’s wedding (which is what the cruise is intended for). Dodd is fond of Freddy. We don’t know for what reasons, but we assume he sees him as an experiment. A helpless human being – participant in his research for “book 2”. Dodd is accompanied by his devoted wife, Peggy (Amy Adams), his newly wedded daughter, Elizabeth (Ambyr Childers), and her husband Clark (Rami Malek). There’s also Dodd’s son, Val (Jesse Plemons), who appears and reappears throughout the film – arguably because he doubts his father’s teachings. On the quest to cure Freddy of his unhealthy ways, Dodd, his entourage, and the growing number of followers of The Cause, watch this hopeless man go through a number of unusual obstacles to overcome his demons. Though uncertain as to whether Freddy is healing in the process, he grows to love Dodd – almost like they’re kindred spirits. But like any other father-son or brotherly-like relationship, they have their doubtful moments.

So, is Freddy cured in the end? What I understood from this film is that Dodd seems more lost than Freddy, despite his assertiveness and charisma. “He’s making all of this up as he goes along! Don’t you see that?” the young Val Dodd exclaims to Freddy, who subsequently pounces on him for disrespecting his father. Dodd is a very intelligent man and passionate about The Cause, but despite being a supporting character we are given little insight into his background (this is possibly the missing element that could have put a bit of spark into this film). Hoffman’s performance of Dodd reminds me of his performance in 2008’s Doubt, where he finesses an undisclosed dichotomy: is he a good-hearted priest or a paedophile?  We were left to make up our own minds. As Lancaster Dodd: is he making all of this up or does he really believe he has the answer to humanity? Again, we don’t know, but Hoffman has mastered this skill of playing a charismatic mentor who’s perhaps toying with vulnerable characters.

Joaquin Phoenix’s performance as Freddy certainly embodies a man full of regret and disturbing memories. His credible body language is awkward, primarily through bad posture, and his character’s emotions are somewhat immature – it looks as though his homemade, paint-thinner potion is eating away at him, both physically and mentally. A man having difficulty in re-building himself and searching for purpose by looking up to Dodd, just like how wannabe pop stars emulate their pop idols. This role is a good choice for Phoenix since he took some time off from acting to be loony for Casey Affleck (2010 doco, I’m Still Here).

Aside from P.T. Anderson’s incredible talent, there is something missing in this film. It maybe the lack of insight into the character of Lancaster Dodd. Primarily, for me it felt like there was the lack of certainty of what The Cause is trying to accomplish or bring forth for its believers. And without a doubt, there are common traits between The Cause and Scientology. For example, “processing” sounds a lot like Scientology’s practice of auditing. Another interesting fact is that Anderson has worked with Tom Cruise – I wonder what Mr. Cruise and his Scientology pals thought of the reception of this film? Have they actually even seen it? (They did try to ban re-runs of that South Park episode).

The first half of this film is entrancing, but somewhere along the way it stretches to a point where the fascination wears too thin – it may be at the lengthy montage-like sequence where Dodd is trying to cure Freddy – and it is from then that the beliefs of The Cause become unclear (maybe I need to re-watch this film to see if I missed anything). However, the one thing that amazed me about this film was that impelling “processing” scene between Dodd, the master, and Freddy, the follower.

Argo

My first review is a film that I saw a couple of months ago, and it's made a splash on the upcoming   award season.

Gone Baby Gone was powerful and heart-breaking. The Town was exceptional and cunning. Argo? Well, let’s just say, Ben Affleck is on a roll.

In the years after Good Will Hunting, I was not fond of Ben Affleck. As an actor, he was dull and frustrating to watch (e.g. Armageddon, Pearl Harbour, Forces of Nature and Gigli). There has always been a good side and bad side to Ben Affleck – and unfortunately, he wasn’t showing his good side enough. His Oscar-winning screenplay for Good Will Hunting (co-written with Matt Damon), his noted sense of humour in Kevin Smith’s films and  Saturday Night Live appearances, and his poignant performance as George Reeve in Hollywoodland. All of which made Affleck seem like a cool, smart guy – a sometimes-talented guy. My strong dislike towards him as a congenial actor starring in weak movies, made me believe that perhaps his talents laid elsewhere. His Good Will Hunting status certainly evoked that he is a storyteller.

Then in 2007, his directorial debut, Gone Baby Gone was released, and Ben Affleck proved what his talent is. Like The Town, Affleck is doing triple roles for Argo: director, co-writer and leading man.

In 1979, hundreds of angry political activists had overtaken the U.S. embassy – holding the Americans as hostages. Fortunately, six of the Americans escape undetected and find refuge in the home of a Canadian ambassador (played by Victor Garber). Upon hearing about the six escapees, the C.I.A. hastily conjures up plans to help them flee Iran before the Iranian activists discover about the missing Americans. An elite C.I.A. officer, Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck), brings forth a ludicrous-sounding plan: a fake Canadian film crew who are on a location scouting trip. But firstly, they need some Hollywood players to help them on this secret operation. Make-up artist and C.I.A. co-operative John Chambers (John Goodman), and successful film producer Lester Siegel (Alan Arkin) guide Mendez through the process of making a (fake) film, and set up a (fake) production office in Hollywood. Secondly, there needs to be a script – one that’s set in an exotic location. The script they chose under piles of unmade screenplays is called Argo, a scie-fi action film set in the desert. Thirdly, publicity – selling the film will help sell the lie. And lastly, the escape plan. Mendez formulates new Canadian identities and job roles for each of the six American escapees – one’s an associate producer, a writer, a camera man, and so forth. Then once the lie is sold, Mendez and the six escapees simply have to board the plane out of Iran, and hope that they will not be detected before taking off.

This is simply a great story. Prior to watching this film, I was not aware of this true story, and as I watched it, I too, like some of the characters in the film, was not convinced that Mendez’s plan will work. The film encapsulates the hardships, the intensity and the psychology of such dire events. This is indeed an intense film, and it’s quite invigorating when good storytelling can truly get your heart pumping. This said, I was glad that I didn’t read up on this true story prior to watching the film – it made the film more enjoyable to watch. And in the strongest moments of the film, there were so many questions running through my mind: Who would be convinced that they’re a film crew doing location scouting in Iran in such turmoil times? Will one of them get left behind and die? Will the Canadian ambassador and his wife get killed, or will Mendez get caught by Iranian soldiers whilst the six escapees successfully flee Iran?

Earlier, I criticized Affleck’s acting abilities, but he plays the unsung hero quite convincingly. Mendez’s taste for alcohol, his attempt at maintaining a steady relationship with his young son (despite his crippling marriage), and his career as a diligent C.I.A. officer asserts him as a great intricate character with an innate ability to stay focused. Though the most impressive performance was by Scoot McNairy who plays Joe Stafford, one of the six American escapees. In the film’s final climax, McNairy’s performance illustrates such daring determination, when Joe explains the plot of their screenplay to the Iranian soldiers in such a passionate tone, as Mendez cleverly brings out the storyboards to establish their authenticity as a film crew. When Mendez explained the film crew plan to the escapees, Joe was the most reluctant one and the least reliable one when they were rehearsing their fake Canadian identities. Yet he is the one who ultimately sells the lie in the end.

Much of the film focuses on the rescue mission, thus steering away from any strong political views, which is a positive in this film, as it allows the narrative to flow  – any radical speeches would have stammered the heart of the story.

Ben Affleck - the filmmaker, has redeemed himself from Ben Affleck - the dull movie star. Watching his three reasonably worthy films erases the embarrassing memories of such poor films, like Armageddon and Pearl Harbour. Maybe Affleck should teach his old pal, Michael Bay, a thing or two on how to make a genuinely good film.