2006 Screening Log

[Prince Eric]

June 14, 2006

Cars
Cars is definately different from Pixar's previous canonized works, and I think it's because it does not even remotely adhere to the supposed "formula" that the CG giant has been producinging the past ten years, or at the very least, it certainly doesn't feel like it, which is really what counts. I did not feel very connected with the characters. One review said that the Lightning McQueen and Co. didn't quite feel like flesh and blood organisms. Um...duh. They're machines, and in their imaginative mecha world, they work. The fast pace of the movie was refreshing and their were plenty of visual diversions that kept my eyes happy including the expansive canyons, the retro-funk towns, and the accurate character designs. Visuals, visuals, visuals. A pretty picture doesn't make a good movie, is pretty much what the majority of the criticisims amount to. Let's see, this is an animated movie. I think that means visuals are important, which I can't stress enough. The animation has moral fiber to back it up, so I'm lost by all the "over-glossed-but-emotionally-empty" complaints. In regards to aspects of the movie, I'm thrilled that there was no clear-cut villain. In fact, McQueen starts off as a pretty likeable character, but then progresses into a really affable one. That's something Pixar hasn't really tried in full, and they were successful at it here. The colorful (literally) supporting case was equally interesting and I enjoyed their many little quirks. I think the only problem, which is small, really, is the screenplay. Unlike it's most successful predecessors, Cars will not get an Original Screenplay Oscar nomination. The writing wasn't the movie's strongpoint, but it wasn't meant to be (as the many action sequences show). Too many cooks spoiled the broth, I think. Instead of the usual two or three writers, there were six here, including Lassester himself. The result was a screenplay that was interesting, but lacked the personal pinache that made the Toy Story films and Finding Nemo instant classics. As for fart jokes, I think people are misinterpreting the mechanical functions of the cars as farts. I didn't think any one joke in the movie qualified as a gas of flatulence. Even if there was, any reviewer who focuses on THAT of all things to assess the merits of a movie comes of as fussy, trite, and clueless, in my opinion. Anyway, now for the part that really matters: Will Cars win the Best Animated Feature Oscar. As of June 2006, the answer is yes. Actually, I'd have a hard time choosing between Pixar and Over the Hedge, but assuming my initial feelings for both films hold true, I could see myself voting for John Lassester, seeing as this would be his first feature win. However, looking at cartoonresearch.com, there's about a dozen CG films opening up before December, bringing the total number of animated films up to 15, which means we could finally get five nominations again. Cars is not perfect and has left room open for an even more solid film, which I'm guessing could very well be Flushed Away. This looks to be an interesting year for the animated genre. Grade: B+

June 8

Over the Hedge
Still holds up. Grade: B+

[memnv]

Well I gave Cars an A+ and think it is one of their best films yet. And I felt very connected to the characters.

[Loomis]

<center><img src=http://www.sydneyfilmfestival.org/persi ... f></center>

God on My Side (2006 - Australia): Back at the Festival, and last night I was treated to the WORLD PREMIERE of comedian/interviewer Andrew Denton's documentary about his visit to the National Religious Broadcasters Convention in Texas. What is striking about this documentary is that he goes for a very balanced view of the convention. Rather than seeking out the 'nutbags and fanatics', he just finds personalities - and in many cases, they find him - and lets them tell their stories. Like his interview show, Enough Rope on our ABC, he doesn't need to judge these people: they all have their belief systems, and he was just there to find out what they are about. Interesting connections made between the NRB, Bush voters and other "hot topics" all without pushing an agenda. A big A+ from me!

[Luke]

Even if there was, any reviewer who focuses on THAT of all things to assess the merits of a movie comes of (sic) as fussy, trite, and clueless, in my opinion.

Not unlike someone who fancies himself as a reviewer and takes trivial potshots at other reviewers in the process of critiquing a movie, eh? Ka-chow!

[Loomis]

Even if there was, any reviewer who focuses on THAT of all things to assess the merits of a movie comes of (sic) as fussy, trite, and clueless, in my opinion.

Not unlike someone who fancies himself as a reviewer and takes trivial potshots at other reviewers in the process of critiquing a movie, eh? Ka-chow!

Oh, and until you pointed that out, I wouldn't have realised that was probably partly aimed at moi.

Fussy? Trite? Clueless? Apart from sounding like the three forgotten Dwarfs (making an even 10 for Snow White), that pretty much sums me up in a nutshell.

This is kind of wandering off topic a bit, but I was wondering if you get any negative feedback Luke? I occasionally got somebody writing in correcting a fact or agreeing to disagree, but some people were just vicious in their attacks, thanks to the anonymity of the InterWeb. Do you ever see anything like this? I can imagine that Disney fans would be fairly protective of their favourite movies. One of the most vicious I got was for a positive review I gave Police Academy...I guess I deserved that one.

Anyhoo, seeing a film tonight and THREE tomorrow, so the next update will be a biggun.

[Prince Eric]

Even if there was, any reviewer who focuses on THAT of all things to assess the merits of a movie comes of (sic) as fussy, trite, and clueless, in my opinion.

Not unlike someone who fancies himself as a reviewer and takes trivial potshots at other reviewers in the process of critiquing a movie, eh? Ka-chow!

I wasn't refering to Loomis. I was referring to a negative review on salon.com!

That's a perfectly acceptable form of criticism - refering to others to make a point. If a faction of people are promoting an idea that seems trivial to the reviewer, it's only the smart thing to do to address that issue, show why it's not to be taken seriously, and sum up their point-of-view.

Is Ka-Chow some type of code word for "foot in mouth."

[Loomis]

I wasn't refering to Loomis. I was referring to a negative review on salon.com!

Well, I'm just used to being on the defensive now. People seem to be taking criticism of this film very personally, much in the same way people reacted against my criticisms of King Kong.

Anyhoo, many many reports to add to the log today.

First up, more words from the Sydney Film Festival:

<center><img src="http://www.sydneyfilmfestival.org/persi ... "></center>

Metal: A Headbanger's Journey (2005 - Canada) (Viewed 16 June 2006): 30-year-old Canadian anthropologist Sam Dunn, who had previously written a thesis on on the plight of Guatemalan refugees, turns his attention to something he has loved his whole life: heavy metal music. While the documentary is primarily about the fans and the culture surrounding it, there are some great interviews with Alice Cooper, Rob Zombie, Bruce Dickinson (Iron Maiden), Ronnie James Dio, Lemmy (Motörhead), Dee Snider (Twisted Sister) and a host of other people, including some scary Norwegian rockers. Like Michael Moore's documentaries, Dunn picks up a camera and travels the world, simply showing up to places. Unlike Moore, his agenda - beyond being a HUGE fan - doesn't obscure the film, as the subjects are entertaining in their own right. The Norwegians take themselves so seriously you can't help but laugh. The other interviewees are all articulate and interesting, as are the fans, putting to bed many of the common misconceptions about the 'dumb rock' aspects of metal and its fans. Primarily, it is just a lot of fun to watch whether you are into the music or not. (For the record, I find most metal laughable, but appreciate it nonetheless). Rating: A

Also, as part of the Festival this year, the team have put together a Jean-Pierre Melville retrospective. For those of you notfamiliar with his work, and I certainly wasn't before the Festival, he is largely considered to be a forerunner to the French New Wave, making films independently and serving as an influence on many of the American films of the 1970s, especially Martin Scorsese, as well as people like Luc Besson and John Woo.

Bob la Flambeur (Bob the Gambler) (1955 - France) (Viewed 17 June 2006): Who doesn't like a casino heist film? Ok, put your hands down at the back, film snobs. Remade recently as The Good Thief, this is very much a film noir about a gambler (Bob) who plans to rob a casino. Very clever, the ending is a great pay-off. Nice way to start a Saturday morning. Rating: A

Le Samouraï (1967 - France) (Viewed 17 June 2006): A hitman who follows a strict code is pursued by police detectives who is convinced he is a killer, despite not having anything concrete to go by. A great chase through the Paris Metro, and a gripping finale make this a bona fide classic. The dreamlike sequences, the striking features of Alain Delon, it's all there. It is easy to see the influence on other filmmakers here, especially Woo and Scorsese, but also Michael Mann, Quentin Tarantino, and to a lesser extent, David Fincher. Rating: A+

<center>----------------------------------------------------------</center>

The Omen (2006 - USA) (Viewed 17 June 2006): To break up the day between Melvilles - we had a 6 hour break between movies - we ran away from the Festival, and watched a Big Budget Movie. Although it has been a few years since I've seen the original version, I was struck by how faithful the movie was to the original. While I really can't honestly say that I have a blanket dislike to all remakes - because let's face it, some of the great films are remakes, and even Disney's 'classics' are new spins on old tales - I very rarely see the point in making a scene-for-scene remake of the original. Some recent remakes - and don't hit me for this - have even improved on some aspects of the original. Dawn of the Dead (2004) and The Hills Have Eyes (2006) connect more with modern audiences, and are entertaining in their own rights. They take nothing away from the original, but add a little bit extra. The Omen does something similar: bringing in 9/11, the Tsunami and other recent disasters gives modern audiences a dose of 'reality' to their horror. The casting was actually quite good, despite my fears of Julia Stiles being 'too young' for the role. Mia Farrow was spot-on, as she instantly recalls Rosemary's Baby. However, the young boy playing Damien (Seamus Davey-Fitzpatrick) often looks more like a pouty kid with his lollypop taken away than the son of Satan. Other than a few minor quibbles - scenes that defied logic, but completely forgiveable in the context - this is a very faithful rendering that still manages to provide a few shocks. Who would have thought you could top David Warner's beheading from the 1976 original? Rating: B-

[Loomis]

<center><img src="http://www.sydneyfilmfestival.org/persi ... "></center>

Gnome (2005 - USA): Barely worth mentioning, but this was a short film playing just before the main feature (Edmond, below). Starring Lauren Graham (Gilmore Girls), it is about a woman who gets into a car prang and has to share a car home with some large, African-American drag-queens. Harmless enough, even if a bit predictable. Fun, but like the Glamour magazine that presented it, largely gloss. Click here to view on YouTube.

Edmond (2005 - USA) (Viewed 18 June 2006): William H. Macy stars in a film adapted from a David Mamet play. I was expecting good things, and I got them, although for the most part I was completely uninformed about this film. The theme of frustration in your life is almost universal, and there is always something about the seemingly perpetually-downtrodden Macy that instantly moves you to want to hug him. Even in this film, where the character does some unpleasant things, you feel an immense empathy with him. The film swings from being a very black-comedy to just black, but for the most part, it works quite well. I did feel as though it lost a bit of its pace at the end, and waffled a bit, and a few things were left unexplained. However, this isn't an entirely bad thing, as we were left chatting about it for a while afterwards. Rating: B+

[Prince Eric]

June 17, 2006

Nacho Libre
Jared Hess accomplished a major feat with his debut feature Napoleon Dynamite in creating a doped up piece of philosophy that pandered to the higher sensibilities of the doofus crowd. Psuedo-art house efforts like Dynamite are almost always dumb and inconsequential, but they masquerade around the distribution circuit with a few festival laureates and suddenly people who have never seen a movie spawned from a film festival are feeling self-important for watching this one. Um, no. For good reason, Hess has dropped all his pretentions for his sophomore feature, and the result is a positive one. Still very dumb, Nacho Libre is laughable without being overbearing. Jack Black makes good of his comedian-of-the-moment status and does his best to wring every bit of humor out of the material he's given. The periphery cast is nicely supportive, as they should be. Esqueleto (sp?) holds his own and provides a nice contrast with his deadpan humor with Black's over-the-top character. There are major problems apparant, though. One, the people behind the film obviously don't respect the Lucha Libre Mexican-subculture. To them, it's just here to make fun of. Second, the title character's motivation is never clearly identified. Does he identify with wrestling because of his childhood past? Does he want to be Luchadore for the kids, or his own glory? Answers to these questions are obviously not important to the filmmakers, either. Perfectly harmless and thankfully benign, Nacho Libre is a mild and satisfying entertainment. Grade: B- (Final grade will most likely drop.)

June 16, 2006

The Break Up
Unintelligible from start to finish, The Break Up is a vile morality tale in of the it's-OK-to-lower-your-standards-in-finding-love-as-long-as-the-person-makes-you-laugh school of thought. Whearas Vince Vahgn proved his comedic prowess as a sideline character in Be Cool, he proves that the same smarminess doesn't qualify as leading man material. Nothing in this situation is particularly funny - an established jerk wants to keep the apartment his intelligent and cultured ex share together. The wonderful and underused Jennifer Tilly finds herself in a bizarre return to the screen, but her short scenes were worth sitting through this eye rolling inducing "comedy." The Break Up takes everything that's wrong about Jane Austen's opposites attract philosophy and magnifies them by one hundred. Grade: D

[Timon/Pumbaa fan]

Is Ka-Chow some type of code word for "foot in mouth."

Something is telling me you didn't see Cars and that you just say you did cause you were trying to fit in. I mean seems suspicious you didn't understand the most obvious catch-phrase from that film.

[Loomis]

<center><img src="http://www.sydneyfilmfestival.org/persi ... "></center>

Le Cercle Rouge (1970 - France) (Viewed 19 June 2006): We have been enjoying the Festival so much that we wound up buying tickets to an extra movie last night (in addition to the 10-film pass we already had) so we could see the screening of the last of the Melville films being shown at the Festival. The yummy Alain Delon plays Corey, an ex-con who teams up with a guy on the lam to stage a heist. The film is largely without dialogue, which pays off in the 30-minute almost-silent heist sequence. A masterpiece in style and understatement, the film is content to quitely go at its own pace - yet remain thrilling to the last. Apparently John Woo wants to remake this film, as he was already inspired by Le Samouraï to make The Killer. I guess all ideas come from somewhere - Melville himself was inspired by The Asphalt Jungle when making this film. Rating: A

Cinéma de notre temps: Jean-Pierre Melville: portrait en neuf poses (1971) (TV - France) This short documentary - originally shown in two parts on French TV - screened at the Festival after the feature. Largely featuring interviews with Melville, it offers a little insight, but ultimately falls a little flat.

One film to go in the Festival for me, then its back to the Googleplexes of the world!

[JiminyCrick91]

On Saturday I had to catch up on my movies since I was in Sweden for that week and they did not have Cars playing yet. So I did end up seeing Cars and Garfield: A Tail of Two Kitties in a row. I loved both.

Cars was much sillier than most PIXAR flicks and I was SO glad that Ratz got the biggest role since being P.T. . I mean in Nemo and The Incredibles he basically had a glorified cameo. I did not like the fart jokes (but some how if I played no attention to the sound FX the tractor tipping was very funny) and that Larry HAD to add a Git'r'done.One Man Band was pretty good but I don’t think it was there best work. Although it may have been that I could not have enjoyed the short more because of the kids yelling "IT'S NOT IT!!!!!" until they saw the Hopping Lamp for the seconded time. Other than the things that I just noted I LOVED Cars. Ka-Chow.


Garfield: A Tail of Two Kitties was MUCH better than the first film. The CGI seemed better this time. Billy Connolly was a perfect villain for Lord Dargis (even if he does remind me of John Cleese) and the addition of Ian Abercrombie as Smithee, Bob Hoskins, AND of course the one and only Tim Curry were all incredibly amazing. They seemed to have a nice hand on The Prince and the Pauper-ish plot. The film does have one thing carried over from the first flick that bugs me and its not the Liz liked Jon thing (anymore) but that Garfield's mouth moves. So I can't wait for the DVD. It’s a shame the ad campaign was not better so it opened in 6th and Nacho Libre opened in 2nd.

So it was a pretty good night.

Oh! And I hate Mondays.

[Prince Eric]

Is Ka-Chow some type of code word for "foot in mouth."

Something is telling me you didn't see Cars and that you just say you did cause you were trying to fit in. I mean seems suspicious you didn't understand the most obvious catch-phrase from that film.

Yeah, and it was used in a totally wrong context here. Mind your business.

[JiminyCrick91]

Mind your business.

By putting that on a PUBLIC forum it was T/P's or anyone who wishes business.

[memnv]

Mind your business.

By putting that on a PUBLIC forum it was T/P's or anyone who wishes business.

good point. It is anyone's business who visits this site

[Prince Eric]

Not if it's to make ugly and sarcastic remarks about comments made DAYS ago. However, "saying something against Prince Eric" seems to be in vogue these days, so his comments and the two supporting posts are not at all surprising.

[DisneyChris]

My ratings for 2006 films so far...

1. X-Men: The Last Stand (8/10)
2. The Da Vinci Code (7/10)
3. Mission: Impossible III (7/10)
4. Fearless (6.5/10)
5. Poseidon (6/10)

[Loomis]

<center><img src="http://www.sydneyfilmfestival.org/persi ... "></center>

The Descent (2005 - UK) (Viewed 22 June 2006): While I didn't really enjoy Neil Marshall's previous film, Dog Soldiers, all that much, I was looking forward to this one. After all, a bunch of chicks getting sweaty and fighty in the dark: who wouldn't get all giddy? Although the film takes a little while to get going, and doesn't really make enough use of the pitch blackness of the caves (in fact, there aren't any pitch black scenes), there are still quite a few genuine 'jumps' and the film keeps you engaged. Although I thought some of the characterisations were a little weak, the ambiguity of the ending makes you question much of what you've just seen. I like this sort of horror film. That said this gets a B+ Rating from me.

[2099net]

I don't think that there is much ambiguity, unless you mean the whole thing was a dying hallucination brought on by grief or being in a coma, due to the opening accident (which I give no weight to). Otherwise, it's pretty clear she fantasises about escaping but she doesn't - just like she fantasises about her daughter occasionally (no, not in THAT way).

I'm surprised you didn't like Dog Soldiers that much. I thought that was a much better film than The Descent. The Descent is a catalogue of wasted ideas and concepts - even if some of these are strong and unique. In fact, the opening accident is the biggest shock, being totally unexpected. After that the film just... well, in my opinion, it just doesn't know what to do, or how to do it. There should have been more environmental dangers and tension, and the creatures, to me, were a bit weak.

And, the film seems a little emotionally frigid to me. For all of Dog Soldiers faults (and it had some - I wasn't particularly taken by its 'twist' for example) it had a campy, over-the-top style humour to it, which The Descent is missing.

I hate to say this, because it too wasn't a brilliant movie, but I enjoyed The Cave more, but that too had some of the same problems.

[Prince Eric]

Loomis, what's the general atmosphere of the film festival? I've always wanted to go to one and have always wondered what it actually feels like to be surrounded by fellow film lovers. Also, do you find it hard to digest all these films in rapid succession? I've heard from some that it's hard to make solid assessments of a particular film because eventually, they all start to blend together, especially when you're watching three to four everyday. Do you think any of your opininons on these films will change with a second, more isolated viewing?