If you have already watched the trailer, congratulations, you have seen the best part.
Despite many people continually announcing how fantastic this film is, I found it confusing, pretentious and in some places downright ridiculous.
The basic premise is that six seemingly unrelated stories are told to us in parallel, slowly revealing how they are connected. AND I MEAN SLOWLY!!
Oh my god, this is three hours of my life I am never getting back! Tom Hanks wears a stupid nose, then a bald wig, then dresses in a potato shack, Halle Berry drives a VW beetle with a stupid 70s hairdo, then suddenly is in a white jumpsuit as an alien talking to Tom Hanks in the hessian sack. Then suddenly Halle Berry appears as the Caucasian wife of...................
I DON'T CARE!! I found few, if any characters to connect with, the make up in places is just shabby (seriously how obvious do fake noses and fake teeth have to be!) and one or two of the stories peaked my interest, but then you had to wait 30-40 minutes before going back to that part of the story.
Life is way too short to have to sit through pretentious crap like this. Maybe if I had read the book? No, then I would probably be complaining it wasn't as good as the book.
I so wish I had watched the re-runs of the Block All-Stars at home instead....................... at least then I would already know it was crap.
Don't waste your time or money.
1/2 an Orson, just because Hugo Weaving was in it, and I really liked the Asian girl's haircut.
Anna Karenina is something quite different. From the opening scene, we are placed in a theatre setting. This gives us the feeling of the whole story being a work of pretense, of show. And this works well with the story of Anna Karenina.
It is unfortunate that this style does not always work in the favour of the film. It is hard to know when the characters are at the theatre (as happens several times) or if it is simply an effect. At times it is slightly confusing and doesn't allow the film to fully tell the story that Tolstoy intended.
Keira Knightley plays Anna Karenina, the wife of an important Russian diplomat, who falls in love with a young soldier. She resists, but eventually falls to temptation. This at first is overlooked by Russian society, but when Anna continues to insist that there is nothing wrong with her relationship, things become more and more public.
Her husband, Karenin (Jude Law), is at first patient but mildly embarrassed, but then devastated. He throws her out to live with her lover Vronsky (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) and she is shunned by the society that once held her up as the ultimate woman of St Petersburg.
Aaron Taylor-Johnson is somewhat bland as Vronsky. I cannot see why Anna would give up anything for this insipid little man, so that aspect of the story makes no sense. Although one must wonder how Jude Law feels when he was for so many years the gorgeous young lover.
If you are a fan of mise-en-scene, this is, I must say, glorious. The costumes, the art direction, the use of hair and make-up to show Anna's slow decline into madness are all beautifully done. The dialogue also has a wonderful pace to it (the screenplay being written by Tom Stoppard, responsible for so many beautiful screenplays, but I think he excels at comedy more).
But despite the fascinating techniques, the film is frustrating in parts, where you get a little lost as to what is real and what is being dreamed. And some of the performances are insipid and not very memorable.
Well worth seeing, but definitely not destined to become a classic.
First of all a warning. I had been told that several people were having trouble with the early scenes of this film, making them physically ill. The scenes that feature the natural disaster are quite shockingly realistic that it does make you feel ill. The camera work is fast, all over the place, the sound moves in and out as if you were being carried along by the water, and the screams of people make you feel like you are amongst them.
If you are in any way squeamish, or if you are unable to cope with truly distressing scenes, I would suggest that you watch this on video, as the big screen impact is quite full on. But don't let it put you off the film. This film is worth your time.
The Impossible is based on the true story of Spanish family, the Belons, who took a holiday in Thailand in Christmas 2006. This is of course was when the horrendous tsunami hit Asia on December 26th. The film has created a semi-fictional family that we meet on the plane to their holiday.
Naomi Watts is Brilliant as Maria Bennett, the mother of the family, who saves her eldest son but is seriously injured and falls into extreme illness. The rest of the film is about how the family search for each other, the fact that they never give up hope, even in the most dire of circumstances.
Ewan McGregor is also strong as Henry, the husband who looks for his wife and children.
But the real impact of this film is made by young English actor Tom Holland, as eldest son Lucas, who begins as a typical, surly teenage boy, and has to find the strength and maturity to care for his mother and find his family.
Whilst the second section of this film is fantastic, the stress and distress caused by the first half depicting the tsunami will lose a lot of viewers. I know of several who left the cinema to be ill. But if you can cope, please stick with it. As a very squeamish woman, I coped. and the result was worth it.
This is the tenth year that Frankston has hosted this marvellous artistic display and the third year straight (fourth for my husband) that the trip to the 'other' peninsula has been more than worthwhile.
Put simply, this is sandcastles on steroids! Sand artists from various parts of the world come and create giant sculptures with the most fascinating intricacy using sand.
Now don't get me wrong. This is not kids stuff. These are full scale sculptures, extremely detailed and amazing to think that they are made of sand. But this is definitely something for kids as well as adults to enjoy. The sand that is used is not beach sand, but specialist builders sand, and this means that there is a beautiful finish as it is so even.
This year's theme is "Under the Sea", and the sculptures display the diversity of ideas that the theme offers. From the recreation of the entire city of Atlantis on the back of a giant turtle, to a representation of Graeme Base's brilliant children's book Sign of the Seahorse. The Burgs is a collection of animals from the two polar region, both real and cartoon (lots of penguins and walruses), mermaids depicted as sirens, with the remnants of dead sailors. Evil monsters, cute characters, each turn presents something new.
A couple of standouts include 'Octopus' Garden' which has recreated the wonderful world created by The Beatles in their songs Octopus' Garden and Yellow Submarine,
a war scene that was entitled Battlefish, that included puffer fish as the sea mines,
and the turtle that is carrying the city of Atlantis.
I won't add any more photos, because I will fill it all up, haha. But if you are looking for a great family experience, or if you are interested in sculpture it's wonderful. It doesn't take too long to walk around, but there are other activities, such as sand sculpting workshops, other sand crafts, a cafe and a huge sandpit, and depending on how early in the exhibition you go, often there are still sculptors working on extending the sculptures, adding new ones or performing maintenance on them. And every time you look at one of the sculptures you see something new.
btw, all these photos were taken by myself and my husband.
I have seen the trailer for this film at several of the recent film screenings I have been at, at the idea intrigued me. Pretty boy rom-com star Bradley Cooper (The Hangover) playing a man with a mental illness, with his parents played by Robert De Niro and Australian acting Royalty Jackie Weaver.
At the time, I did not know that Jackie Weaver would receive an Academy Awards nomination, or that Jennifer Lawrence (The Hunger Games). All the more intriguing.
Cooper plays Pat Solitano Jr, who has just been released from a psychiatric hospital against the wishes of the doctors but at the insistence of his mother (Weaver). We are lead slowly through the information about how he ended up there, but we do know that he had been diagnosed with bi-polar after a serious incident that involved his wife.
Bradley Cooper plays the character with heart and depth, and often we can feel the pain and confusion that he is faced with. He wants to fit back in, he wants to return to work as a teacher, he wants his wife back, and he is prepared to work hard to get all this. However, there are too many people who have experienced him at his worst to trust that he is on the road to stability and his desperate wish to achieve his old life without medication means that there are several incidents that cause concern for those he comes in contact with.
His best friend Ronnie (John Ortiz) invites him for dinner, and he meets Ronnie's sister-in-law, the young widow Tiffany (Lawrence). At first they are confronted by each other's behaviour, and then they start to realise the need for them to accept help from each other. In order for each to move on, they need to both control impulsive behaviours that are dangerous, his being anger and violent outburst, hers outlandish sexual behaviour.
The film is directed with warmth and compassion by David O. Russell who really has only a handful of films to his name, particularly I Heart Huckabees and Three Kings. Mental illness (both bi-polar and depression) are not used as excuses, not seen as quickly curable but also not presented as humourous. He has stayed away from many of the cliches, which is a real difference for a Hollywood film.
Whilst this is an excellent film, and the performances of both Cooper and Lawrence are fabulous and right on the mark, the advertising that includes large numbers of shots of De Niro and Weaver are misleading. Actually, neither of their performances would particularly warrant a mention in a review. So why am I talking about them? Because if you are expecting either of them to deliver a memorable performance, you have been mislead.
The supporting cast are not particularly memorable, although some of them really should be based on their credentials. I kept waiting for De Niro to move into his 'Fockers' alter-ego, as some of his lines were delivered with a 'silly' over-played style that I found annoying rather than endearing.
Jackie Weaver's nomination simply makes me continue to wonder what the Academy panel are on, and who pays them. Obviously they either like the film and had to find something for it, or like her. She has delivered a multitude of better performances in her career, and I don't really think that her ability to sustain and American accent well is really enough to warrant a gong.
Other supporting players include Julia Styles (barely seen), Chris Tucker (why?) and Shea Whiggam (again playing the less interesting brother).
Often a film is lifted by the supporting players and the depth to the other stories and people we are meeting. But although the main story is a good one, this could be presented as a two-actor play on stage because there is really no-one else of importance to the film. It is a shame, because I think the performances of Cooper and Lawrence would only be buoyed by depth around them.
This is the third Cirque du Soleil performance I have seen live. One previous one in their own tent and another at the Rod Laver Arena. This one is in the blue and yellow big top, bringing it back into that traditional circus feel that works best for this brilliant French Canadian troupe.
Ovo has a loose theme of insects. I actually found that it made the performances seem more in context and relatable within the theme than previous shows I have seen. The concept of ants spinning small pieces of fruit and vegetables makes so much sense, rather than just the simple act of 6 Chinese acrobats spinning things on their feet. Aerial acts being moths and scarab beetles flying above your heads, spiders climbing and gyrating across a giant spiderweb make it more engaging and intriguing.
The sounds of a crowd seemingly evenly distributed between those who had seen many cirque performances and those there for the first time was just delightful. Children and adults alike in awe of what was going on.
I have seen many cirque videos as well as the live shows, but this performance was particularly breathtaking. As with all of their shows, there is a nice smattering of comedy, and a little audience participation, so if you are sitting in the front row or on the aisle, be warned........
I just want to mention two performances in particular. I have always been a fan of the aerial art of the silks. So to see this performed as the metamorphosis of the silk moth is pure genius. The applause was very sparce after this, because most of us were still sitting with our mouths open.
The other high point is combination of crickets, trampolines and a very high climbing wall. I would like to apologise to the man in front of me for some of the 'fruitier' terms coming out of my mouth as I watched these guys. Absolutely brilliant, breath-taking, spectacular.......... I don't know what else to say. I have never seen anything like it, and would love to see it again.
On at Docklands until March 31st.
I am not understating things when I give this the full 5 Orsons!
I will add the Orsons as soon AS BLOGGER LETS ME!!!!!!!!
Alfred Hitchcock is, quite rightly, considered by many to be one of the greatest directors in film history. His invention of so many of what we now consider to be run of the mill suspense techniques kept Hollywood guessing as to his next move on a regular basis.
This biopic opens with a clever reference to Hitchcock's long running television series Alfred Hitchcock Presents, using the theme music and style of speaking to camera to set up what the story is going to be about. I hope this element of the film is not lost on those who do not remember, or at least have encountered the television show.
This film covers the time of Hitchcock creating one of his greatest pieces of cinema Psycho. He was at what many thought was at the peak of his career, and was the 'go-to' director for suspense thrillers. But he wanted to be a maverick again and create something new.
Thus he is lead to the shlock-horror book Psycho, and his battle to make the film begins.
Hitchcock gives a nice insight into the Hollywood studio system at it's tail end. The desperation for the heads of the studio to have complete control over the creative as well as the financial concerns of a film. Everything from the script, to casting to when and where a film will be released was controlled. Alfred Hitchcock was big enough to push these boundaries, and financed the filming of Psycho himself, with his wife Alma Reville. He would have it made at any cost.
However the film is far more about the relationship between Hitchcock (Anthony Hopkins) and Reville (Helen Mirren) than it is about Hitchcock's creative process. He is enamored by his leading ladies, but filled with jealous rage at the thought his wife may have feelings for another. He works himself into the ground, eats and drinks far too much and poorly, and expects everyone around him to work as hard as he does.
Hitchcock is a wonderful representation of a larger than life character who many people have read so much about, and whose body of work is there for all to see. Mirren is magnificent as always, giving the right amount of English stiff upper lip and 1950s take charge attitude. Hopkins has been criticised for working too hard on his physical likeness to the great man, and not enough on the emotional performance, which I agree with. But this must be extremely difficult to do with a real person who is so well remembered. You can't reinvent such an iconic image and expect it to work.
