Change Your Image
TheBrownBunny66
Reviews
Fred: The Movie (2010)
Unexpectedly Brilliant
A filmmaker who wants to engage the minds of an audience must perform a balancing act. The movie needs to give viewers enough leeway to apply their own thoughts and enough guidance to generate some thoughts in the first place. Clay Weiner's brilliantly named Fred: The Movie (Fred: le film) is that kind of movie—a multi-layered comedy, an open-ended thriller, an onion sliced by taut piano wire.
Fred (Lucas Cruikshank), Judy (Pixie Lott) are adults trapped in childlike personalities, existing as temporal beings in a world of fantastical frustration and endless adrenaline. What at first begins as an odd keatonesque situational comedy, soon sheds its charm and begins to investigate more complex notions of the psychiatry of repressed sexuality, violence, domination and drug abuse, and Weiner conveys this with more trickery than a Dutch Dogma film. Early in the film, he lets an exterior shot of the family's suburban house continue to hold for perhaps longer than one have thought. In another scene Fred hops on a bus, filled with large parade of underworld and vicious personalities and caricatures. On the bus he meets another version of himself, a Jungian archetype of 'the doppleganger' mixed with Lacan's mirror stage. This is a staple of Weiner's genius, his desire to play with the restrictions of the genre, Derf, Fred's opposition, is an intrinsic diegetic technique to impulsively push competition and the sexual repression of the industrial revolution into the narrative.
Derf is more than Fred spelt backwards, its his dying internal monologue. In fact more than this, the constant use of soliloquy's cries of the desperation of a youth dying to inject some life into a world filled with abstract fears.
Throughout Fred, Weiner slips easily between the two poles—live and Memorex—without immediately clarifying which one he's leaning against. In a particular flashback scene Fred is playing ball with his childhood friend when the ball disappears behind a bush, one child walks off and does not return. This is a deliberately static shot, a memory where the staunch physicality of the camera regards the physical space Freds mind. Its a horrifying illusion, the child wondering off into the woods and not returning. The sense of loss echoes through much of Cruikshanks brilliant performance in the titular character of Fred. Externally he blows up with the fire and comedy of a young DeNiro, but internally he sits on pain and suppression. Perhaps his performance hints that maybe this film is nothing but memory shaped by a guilty conscience and set forever in the head.
Watching Fred feels like an exercise in seeing, like Michelangelo Antonioni's movies of the '60s and '70s, especially Blow Up and the amazing climax of The Passenger, where important details seem hidden in the picture if only we knew where to look. The difference is that Fred would rather not look at all, but someone forces them to. Watching this film opens the door to elements not engaged with in the online medium of Fred's series, including an episode buried in his past, keeping secrets is part of this family's daily routine. In the short time the movie spans, we see them cover up so many things, big and small, like a reflex, that we wonder how tall the pile of lies, half-truths and omissions already stood before the cameras began rolling.
The film can be viewed from many different perspectives, not as a frustrating collage of underdeveloped threads like Traffic or Syriana but as one versatile metaphor. It's the story of a family with blocked communication channels. It's a look at the way buried trauma seeps into daily life. And it's an examination of fear and vulnerability so palpable that Fred's voice will echo through the chambers of your soul for many months on end. A friend who attended the same screening I did saw a theme of national guilt in the story about a American who has a damaged relationship with his military raised and bred father (John Cena in a break out role); after all, the Iraq war hangs over America the way the Algerian war hangs over France. Expand the analogy further and you have a Western man's fear of homosexuality, feminism, animal cruelty, and reformations of masculinity.
Despite these provocative layers, Fred develops the themes in concrete terms so Fred also works as good-old-fashioned suspense. He works against the genre in one way; he's more interested in the mystery's existence than in solving it, leaving plenty of room in his fertile construction to accommodate the intelligence of his audience. Fred is a breath of fresh air in a genre over-stuffed with typical comedy and predictable fare.
The Twilight Saga: New Moon (2009)
Unexpectedly enjoyable
I only recently read the books because my girlfriend wanted to chat to me about it. I had actually seen the first movie before reading the book and thought it was mildly diverting. Personally i had loved Catherine Hardwick's work on 'Thirteen' and 'Lords of Dogtown', finding them grassroots and stylistic. However this didn't seem to translate particularly well to Twilight for me as the casting was wrong, story unimaginative, sfx appalling, and acting mostly awful.
After reading twilight and new moon i went to see New Moon with great trepidation, aware that the book was pretty unfilmable in its singular incarnation. The plot was very lopsided, believability was at an all time low with the introduction of the lycans, and it was very unresolved.
However to my great surprise a minor miracle occurred, Chris Weitz, despite everything working against him, had created a thoroughly enjoyable film. Gone was the pretentious unrelenting introspection of the first film. Gone was the drab blue desaturated palette and one level emotions. Instead Chris Weitz had finally realised the narrative world in which these characters inhabit. With some clever timeline changing, pushing Bella's cliff-dive until after the discovery of Jacob as a lycan and then creating an action-scene of the wolf-pack chasing Victoria (not in the book) to mix with this to the sounds of Thom Yorkes 'Hearing Damage', i was incredibly impressed with the choices that were made.
Other clever devices were visualising Edward in the scene's with Bella doing dare devil activities, therefore clarifying a point that was somewhat fumbled in the book. Also finally the vampires actually looked somewhat threatening, appearing more gaunt with stranger eyes; Chris Weitz nails the balance between beauty and beast that was very superficially handled in the original film.
Overall the SFX are a marketable improvement over the original film, the sense of speed when the wolves and vampires run is SOO much more impressive. Rather than the lame glide effect employed in Twilight, these species smash into things with both elegance and brutality.
Another reason i liked New Moon was the development of Jacob and his affect on Bella. It was always something i liked a lot in the book, finally seeing Bella acting like a teenager rather than some boring introverted self-pitying bore. Seeing there relationship bloom was interesting, fun and believable - something i find particularly remiss in the Edward/Bella relationship (does that mean i'm Team Jacob? - haha gag). This movie dared to treat Bella as a human being who does stupid things for the sake of rebellion. Under the hands of another director it could have seemed pretty lame, but Chris Weitz has a particularly elegant eye, unwilling to jump to quickly from one plot point to another without setting up his themes and characters before hand.
I think thats the thing that i found so beguiling about this film, the seamlessness of the narrative arc. From such poorly written and realised book, Chris has made a fully fledged film that excites and emotes.
I really liked the realisation of the Volturri, finding them actually far more threatening in the movie than the novelisation. The introduced action piece that was absent from the book between Edward and one of the Voluturri brutes doesn't feel tacked on, instead its exciting and shows him as vulnerable, again something the book seems absolutely unable to allow.
I think thats what i loved most about this film. It allowed its characters to become imperfect. Edward is not the strongest, Jacob's adolescent rage and fleeting love sets himself up for bad situations, Alice has trouble controlling her bloodlust, as with Jacob, and Bella lets her impulses override her internal danger mechanisms. There is something romantically dangerous about the characters struggles in this new film, and Chris Weitz has translated them beautifully for his adaptation.
The only major criticism would have to be the ending of the film. Very daytime soap, and endlessly frustrating in terms of 'sequalitus'.
Nevertheless, a really wonderful film, great cinematography, flawless soundtrack, improved acting (particularly good performances from Jasper, Alice, Jacob and Bella's father), really enviable screen writing (i would have hated to adapt the book), and close to flawless directing.
I hope you enjoy.
Tenderness (2009)
typical polsen. nothing to say.
i went into this film with pretty low expectations and was pleasantly surprised.... to learn that my intuition is not faltering. This film was abhorrent.
Russel Crowe is simply too good for a John Polsen film. From the man who brought us the dastardly simplistic and stupefying swimfan, and similarly unthrilling and dumbly plotted hide and seek, comes a film that is desperately crying for attention as a 'serious film'. it is as a result unfortunate that i laughed harder through this film that 'the brothers bloom'...
The conceit is a retardation of most bonnie a Clyde rip offs, with a serial killer, and an obsessed feline catering to the every whim of said murderer.
Russel Crowe plays the semi retired cop (how many obsessed semi retired cops are there in films!!!) following a man who is sure to re-commit.
While the narrative has some really thought provoking themes; a man who can only feel tenderness by releasing life from victims, a girl vacant as the apathetic family she fled who craves tenderness, and a road trip of discovery it is only in the hands of a hack such as john polsen that such a film could simultaneously feel both so derivative and boring.
The cinematography is appalling, underlit and unmoving; but not in terms of changeling where this stalling aesthetic added to the emotional weight of the proceedings... no rather to infuriate and illustrate a director who thinks 'stillness' equates to drama.! The poster, and stills i saw showed russel crowe in all his glory, but this is in no way a film about him... in actuality he shares barely twenty minutes of wasted screen time where he appears to coast through the proceedings... Gone are the days of Romper Stomper, The Insider, Gladiator and Master and Commander.. This film felt like a favour to the director from 'sum of us' days, and as a result lacks direction, presence, logic and cohesion.
The moment of a laugh out loud comes when said femme fatale, who can't swim, stands up on a boat with the murderer, and starts rocking the boat (yes literally and metaphorically... who writes this crap) and starts exotically dancing while doing it... i won't tell you what comes of this but trust me... it ain't rocket science. This moment nailed it for me. This is just a stupid horrible film and a waste of time.
The film is a roadtrip where nothing happens except stupidly plotted, badly acted, terribly directed narrative exposition.
The film eventually has the nerve to bookend itself with a quote that was both at the beginning and the end of the film... but again like most of the film it is contrived and comes from a completely abstract and unnecessary direction..
Dull. TV Movie at best. Somebody stop this hack John Polsen from ruining any more scripts.
If there's one thing that could sum up the career of john polsen its 'hack'. he is non auteur and he has no idea how to tell a story.
However it must be said that at the premier despite all my friends spitting similar vitriol, there was a semi applause at the end... now whether this was because John Polsen was in the audience i do not know... but hey... what do i know... maybe some people enjoyed it? Just not me.
The Brothers Bloom (2008)
Fails at every conceit
I recently saw the preview at the St George Open Air cinema and was greatly disappointed with this first outing for rian since the marvelous 'brick'. There was an eerie quiet in the audience as the film pushed and pulled and jumped about trying every conceivable way to make the spectacle quirky and funny. Not once did the audience laugh and thrill as every single joke fell flat and the story which started with such promise ran out of steam far too early.
Adrien Brody is a bore, pulling a slightly saddened, somewhat mysterious face for the majority of the picture, an emotion i call 'vacant', and Rachel Weisz while delightful and gorgeous is simply underused in a very poorly sketched role. The only light in the film is courtesy of the infallible Mark Ruffallo whose eccentric brother bloom wears cheekiness like a new suit.
The problem with this film is that it doesn't know what it is. Is it a comedy? Can't be, its not funny. Is it a thriller? Nope, not thrilling. Is it a romance? It feels like it is trying occasionally, but it would appear to rather concentrate on absurdities such as a crazy Asian sidekick who likes to blow the crap out of things.
The final nail is the absolute confoundingness of the story. There is absolutely no logic in this film and for such a light pamper it is infuriatingly confusing. In Brick this was admirable because it was so well paced, and the acting and dialogue was awesome that it had direction and thus a reason to focus. With so many hijinks occurring in Brothers Bloom one can barely focus on the story at the fatality of another ill thought out joke.
An absolute constructed mess. Avoid