Reviews

Although he's one of my favourite directors, I've noticed that whenever I watch one of Paul Thomas Andersons films I don't particularly like it as much as I could till the second viewing. I remember seeing "Boogie Nights", and apart from the fantastic soundtrack, those amazingly complex steadicam shots and of course, the gratuitous Heather Graham nudity, I was not particularly fussed by the way the film went. An even greater tragedy took place during my first viewing of "Magnolia", where besides being a little sleepy watching its three hours at a late-night screening, it was also raining heavily outside and for 2 of the 3 hours, a steady drip on the carpet pretty much kept pulling me back out into reality.

Though I'm still not "Boogie Nights" biggest fan, "Magnolia" has since become one of my alltime favourite films with its emmense layering, amazing performances from all of the huge star-studded cast ( including the normally bland Tom Cruise in THE role which he was robbed of an oscar for - it was Jack Nicholsons year - whatcha gonna do? ), and meticulous attention to detail. I still don't feel I've gotten to the bottom of the film yet, and upon hearing a new P.T. Anderson flick was on its way out, started counting the days.

Of course, in my long and troubled history of bad first-time viewings of his films, I was struck down by "the curse of the MEGA-SIZE Pepsi". That horrible crossroads every cinema-goer inevitably reaches at many points in their life : having to choose between missing a few minutes of the film to disappear to the glary confines of the lavatory, or to simply "hang on - surely theres only 30 mins left at this point" (and estimation almost always completely undershot). Though having decided to stick the rest of the film out in pain, I did end up walking (running) out not feeling quite right about my first viewing of a new P.T.Anderson.

Let me start with the initial mental question marks :

• On the surface, its a much smaller scale of film. After the last two epics, you're definitely expecting at least 40 characters all interwoven in some twisted plot. Definitely not that kind of film

• Adam Sandler - its hard to not go into the experience without thinking of at least "Waterboy" or even "Little Nicky". Besides a couple of fairly decent comedies, the man does have quite a few horrible films in his swag, and for most he represents the single-gag-humor usually involving either boobs, farts, bodily excretions and more than likely explosive rage. Its hard to walk into a P.T.Anderson film starring Adam Sandler without preconceptions.

• There are a few things in it which seem completely unexplained at first. Strange car accidents, odd audio tricks, bursts of color. Hardened Hollywood fans could watch the first 10 minutes and walk out muttering "sheesh... arthouse crap" and possibly be forgiven, if indeed they were expecting Adams usual jokes.

However, I went back. How could I not. An lo, "Punch Drunk Love" is an amazing film, up there in the same league as his prior efforts. In a lot of ways even more impressive that it still works without the grandeur, bells and whistles we came to expect of his last two films.

The story is quite simple - Barry (Sandler) is a messed up loner living in the bowels of urban Los Angeles. Troubled by his intensely intrusive and taunting seven sisters, he also owns and runs his own toilet plunger wholesale business, deeply depressed and lonely, prone to sudden violent outbursts. As well as getting caught up in a violent scam run by the operators of a phone-sex company in Utah, he is set up with one of his sisters friends - pursued by even - played by Emily Watts. They fall in love, the scammers get nasty, and all the while Barry himself pursues his obsession of collecting tokens off these particular pudding tins he can turn into Frequent Flyer Miles via a loophole in the pudding-companies terms and conditions.

Simple... right. But thats essentially it. Boy meets girl, boy gets into trouble with phone-sex-scammers, boy collects pudding tokens, boy occasionally punches things. Boy ends up with girl in the end.

Its a great film. From the start you're trapped inside a unique parallel universe - Barry constantly wearing a bright, almost cartoonishly blue suit, Watts always dressed in reds or other basic colors, and both become the instant focus once they're placed in the bland whites and greys of L.A.. The cartoon feel is even further rammed home with not only Sandlers reputation or his impossibly messed-up character or habits, but in the wonderful choice of music; inparticular the repeated use of "He Needs Me" from the 80's live-action Disney version of "Popeye" (the Robin Williams one).

As we've come to expect in Andersons work, there is a lot of wonderful camera work - plenty of steadicam, and lots of beautiful angles and lines that immediately let you know who's picture you're watching. My favourite shots were usually the simplest - following Emily Watts down the driveway for a few seconds in her red outfit said more in its simplicity than any complex angles and cutting ever could.

But on the second viewing, I was on the look out for detail - that kind of detail thats given my pause-button a real workout when playing the Magnolia disc - and I was not disappointed. As simple as the film looks and feels, its packed full of subtle humor and wonderful audio tricks, as well as being a very good representation of someone like Barrys mental-state. For instance, though Emily Watts' character comes across as completely innocent a love interest despite her slightly deceptive introduction, just who is that we see out of focus stalking Barry at the end of the aisle at the supermarket, wearing all red? That one fairly throwaway detail completely changed the way I viewed her character for the rest of the film - they're both psychos, and I liked that! Also notice things like Barrys knuckles after having punched the map on the wall of his office - the cuts clearly spelling the word "love", even though there is nothing else in the scene that makes a deal of it at all.

The thing that mystified me the first time round were the occasional blurs of colour splashed throughout - listening to it this time, they're pretty much the sorbet of the film, clearing out all the prior action, and when you listen carefully, giving you a teasy taste of whats to come in the next scene. Brilliant. Cryptic for the single-viewing experience, but brilliant. The one thing I'm still a little stumped on is the car-crash in the beginning. I'm still uncertain as to whether it was even real - if we're assuming that Barry is in fact a few sandwiches short of a picnic, then either he's imagined it, or my preference being its simply to show that Barry thinks in terms of the 'smaller picture' not the large. The fact he'd just seen a car crash wasn't as interesting to him as the harmonica that appeared in the driveway just after. Carcrash = hardwork, dealing with people. Harmonica = fun, interesting. I can relate totally.

Details aside, the film does work - its got a happy ending for all the mushy types, a bit of random violence for fans of the hard stuff, and plenty of small entertaining roles from actors the likes of Philip Seymour Hoffman and Luis Guzman for people who just like decent actors. (It is hard to avoid feeling like you wanted to see more of both of them in the film, but still very nice to have such quality in the supporting roles.) For fans of P.T., give this one a second viewing at least if you in anyway felt it a "step back" for him. "Punch Drunk Love" is definitely up there, even if Magnolia is going to be a hard one for Anderson to ever equal.

I have just finished watching this film, and have read through many of the comments for it - quite a lot of people seem to feel that this film paints a fairly neutral picture of the development and testing of nuclear weapons.

However, as a few have mentioned, several important chapters were either missed, or glossed over. Sure, the film shows some spectacular footage, but it should not be taken as 'real history' any more than you would try to learn your history from a local fireworks display. Its full of "oohs and ahhs" but do let it stop there.

What really got me was the last 5 minutes - painting china as an unstoppable force, launching an invasion in the midst of bombs exploding all around. Sure, in 1995, China may not have been on the friendliest terms with the US public, but surely I'm not the only person who finds this particular piece of editing not only a very cheap propaganda attempt, but is simply a terrible way to end the film.

What was left out were many chapters of testing where US tests involved humans being affected - they did touch on it briefly, but in particular, incidents like the Maralinga tests in central Australia are definitely an important part of history and should not have been left out.

Also, though it was obvious this film was ATTEMPTING to be impartial, it was often hard to tell what was tongue-in-cheek or genuine sentiment, as there were many places where I was hoping for a punchline, but instead had to realise "Oh, they weren't joking"...

It does concern me in the current climate that people can actually be taking this film seriously as an impartial source - it does not mention any other Nuclear-capable nations beyond the US, "the enemies", and briefly, Britain - and is though a great source for pretty pictures of the bombs exploding, the music, the intercut footage and the dreadful ending to tend to shape this into a very one-sided piece of war-mongering propaganda.

I would recommend "Dr Strangelove" for anyone wanting the "pretty pictures" WITH a fairly good message attached, as though its a work of satire and fiction, I do think it paints a far more accurate picture of events and possibilities than this film ever could.

What struck me the most about Lantana was not the well-laid plot, more the thoroughly realistic characters and performances. The classic 'mystery' thread was really only the setting for the several different relationships and couples featured in the film.

But having said that, the story itself was gutsy and twisting to keep you guessing till the end, all without the need for non-essential narrative or the need to keep spelling things out. The questions were all answered so far as the story was concerned, but because of the complexity and realism in all the principle characters, i still left the cinema rolling plenty of the emotional issues through my mind for hours after.

La Paglia was fantastic. His character, though shown as an adulterer from the very beginning, captured so many of the current male 'indentities' with great subtlety instead of a stereotyped 'hug session' which most recent films dealing with the subject matter inevitably lead to. He so easily showed the internal conflicts which most normal Australian men deal with day-to-day while still keeping up the brave face we all do.

I also enjoyed the quirky way the relatively small number of characters were all drawn together by fairly consequential links, and without a huge big statement of it in the end - no matter how many people there are on the planet, it still amazes me how small and incestual problem-circles end up becoming :)

This film has the potential to appeal to so many different audiences - works as a mystery, cop-drama, "chick flick", and to anyone who could ever relate to the 'feel' of Australia, which the film captures perfectly through great ambient audio and natural-looking lighting.

Well written, directed, photographed and cast give this one an easy full marks.

For anyone who has ever pondered the question "is there life on mars?", this documentary seems to have the answers.

Charlie Sheen does a fantastic job keeping the intrique level up througout, with several of the NASA employees (past and present) also shining in their interviews.

Great work.

'Chopper' would have to be one of the finer film offerings to come out of Australia this year. Superbly cast and directed with the utmost sense of believability close at hand, it is a fast-paced, often humourous, often violent, often jaw-dropping look at one of Australias most notorious criminals.

Eric Bana plays the role of Mark 'Chopper' Reid to perfection, after reportedly working very closely with the man himself in the weeks leading up to the shoot. The film focusses solely on his character, and Bana is able to give a flawless and realistic portrayal of a fairly extreme man.

There are several scenes of strong graphic violence which may not be suitable for some peoples tastes, earning the film a local 'R-rating'. But so long as you go into the film understanding that you are about to see a film based on actual crimes, people and events, then the extremity doesn't seem to exaggerate nor detract from the story at all.

A fantastic film, full of quirk, wit, action, and a whole lot of tattoes... 10/10!

I must admit, I was expecting something quite different from my first viewing of 'Cut' last night, though was delighted with the unexpected Australian horror gem. I am a true horror fan as true as they come, and found 'Cut' to not only be the best of the genre Australia has ever produced, but one of the great parody/comedy films of late.

My only concern is that mainstream audiences may not pick up on a lot of the comedic elements - the film was not overly clever in it's application but made me laugh at every turn trying to fit in EVERY possible cliche of the horror genre they could. I am certain this was intended as humour....hoping this was intended as humour.

And of course, there was the gore.

The use of the 'customised' garden shears was brilliance - besides the expected stabs and slashes. In short, there was a huge amount of variety and creativity in the many violent deaths, enough to please even the skeptics of this films worth.

The appearance of both Kylie Minogue (short that her appearance was) and Molly Ringwald was just another reason to see the film - both performances were fantastic, as well as Simon Bossell ('The Castle') in a brilliant role as the jokey technician.

All in all, I think this movie is one of the best horror products of the last couple or years, as well as a beautiful satire/parody - toungue-in-cheek till the very end.

Loved it. Go see it!

I like horror movies. I've seen a lot of them in my time, and House II has to be one of the worst attempts at the genre I have ever seen. The first film was weak enough, but to top it with this splattering of childish and irrelevent plot, characters and emotions, not to mention the rather stupid special effects, I found myself wondering why I had even bothered.

I remember when it first came out how the kids in my class at school were so excited by it. I never saw it then, but I can see how the average 11 year old of the time would find it funny. But for me, a seasoned horror buff, there was nothing even vaguely amusing, gorey, or even mildly violent about the film as a merit.

They call it Horror/comedy...is this just a way of excusing its lack of merit in the horror or comedy genres?

The only saving grace in the film was that the stunts were performed by Kane Hodder, who played 'Jason' in several of the "Friday the 13th" films, but even that is just a point of interest rather than an extra star to the film.

Boring, Bloodless, Unfunny. Don't even remotely consider it, even if you have a "get one free" voucher at your video store.