Category: the daily column

Last year I did a preview of the 2008 movies, and ended up misreading half of them (21 is not a heist movie, Cloverfield was the most bleh since the second Matrix, and let’s not even talk about The Forbidden Kingdom – not to mention the fact that I missed entirely the second half of the year), but let’s charge ahead for what 2009 promises!

• Akira – A live action remake of Akira set in ‘New Manhattan’. I fear it, and yet… (part 1 is scheduled for mid-year)
• Fast & Furious – look, I’m a sucker for this kind of stuff. It will probably be awful, but a car chase is a car chase, and F&F is one long car chase. (trailer)
• Them – new movie by Edgar Wright, director of Sean of the Dead and Hot Fuzz. Just going on form here.
• Rachel Getting Married – Anne Hathaway is the slightly messed up sister of the bride, in a movie widely tipped for Oscars. One for the serious column.
• Duplicity – hang about, is this a remake of Mr & Mrs Smith? Or a Julia Roberts movie I could actually like? Clive Owen and Julia Roberts are ex-spies moving to the corporate world, and… just watch the trailer.
• The Brothers Bloom – Adrien Brody and Rachel Weisz in a fun looking flick about a pair of conmen (Mark Ruffalo – Just Like Heaven – and Brody) trying to run a scam on an heiress (Weisz). Also stars Rinko Kikuchi (of Babel fame) as a slightly crazy explosives expert. (trailer)
• Underworld 3: Rise of the Lycans – this is a un-recommendation. There is no Kate Beckinsale.
• The International – Clive Owen and Naomi Watts in this rather timely action-thriller set in an international bank. Practically mandatory viewing for me (trailer).
• The Spirit – Samuel L Jackson headlines in this film directed by 300‘s Frank Miller, in a visual style reminiscient of Sin City. Broad appeal is questionable, but does look damn good – although reviews are panning it. (trailer, and un-trailer – read the text!)
• Sherlock Holmes – Guy Ritchie directs Robert Downey Jr (Iron Man) and Jude Law (er… Alfie? Talented Mr Ripley?) in what one can only hope is the Batman Begins-isation of the classic detective stories.
• Coraline – weird little animation based on a story by Neil Gaiman, meaning it’s going to be dark, quietly funny and something you never quite know where it goes next. (site, trailer)
• Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen – yes, I didn’t like Transformers all that much in 2007, but you’ve got to give them another chance, right? And who can say no to Megan Fox, right? (due in June)
• Inglorious Basterds – Taratino’s long-awaited misspelt WWII flick with Brad Pitt and Mike Myers, which is definitely in the not-to-be-missed column. (due August)
• Monsters vs Aliens – new Dreamworks animation that looks like it might in fact be targeted at older folk. Aliens invade Earth, and we have monsters to fight back. (trailer)
• Avatar – I’m just intrigued by James Cameron’s return to sci-fi, teaming with Sigourney Weaver (both from Aliens). (teaser trailer)
• The Class – French movie about a bunch of disadvantaged kids in a class. Rave reviews and genuine looking acting looks intriguing. (trailer)
• Wolverine – Let’s see what Hugh Jackman can do by himself. I’m hoping this salvages the X-Men series somewhat, as the co-ordinated jumpsuits of the third were just a bit… camp. (due May – trailer)
• Watchmen – I know nothing of the comics, but this certainly looks promising. (trailer)
• Star Trek – J J Abrams takes on the ultimate geek series. Now, I’m no trekkie, and Abrams hasn’t exactly got a movie track record, but he could salvage the appeal for this just based on the trailer. Now if only Spock didn’t look so much like Sylar… (trailer)
• Public Enemies – I’m just going on names here – Johnny Depp, Christian Bale and Michael Mann (director of Miami Vice) in a crime story set in the (first) Great Depression sounds fairly intriguing to me.
• Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince – a necessary mention, though this was supposed to be a 2008 film. The second last in the series, and probably the one with the best title and harshest conclusion. (trailer)
• Revolutionary Road – Kate Winslet and Leo Di Caprio reunited, with Kate looking gorgeous, and Leo having learnt how to act. Will be a quiet one but should be a good movie. (trailer)
• Nottingham – Russell Crowe v Russell Crowe, directed by Ridley Scott. Yes, Russell Crowe in a double role, as both Robin Hood and the Sherrif. How this is going to work is beyond me.
• Up – Pixar’s next release is the story of a 78 year old balloon salesman who lifts his house up with balloons. What this ultimately leads to is unrevealed, but since it’s Pixar it’s got to be worth a look, right? (trailer)
• Notorious – Biggie Smalls, B.I.G., the biggest name in rap in the 90s bar Tupac Shakur, gets a biopic. Let’s say it’ll be a very specific film and the target audience is pretty clearly identified, but it’s certainly one for me. (trailer)
• Astro Boy – ASTRO BOY DOES NOT WEAR A SHIRT. (trailer)
• Street Fighter: The Legend of Chun-Li – it’s the halfie chick from Smallville as our favorite Street Fighter! Apart from the part where she looks nothing at all like Chun-Li (where are the thighs?!), this could be… decent? (trailer)
• The Code – Morgan Freeman, Antonio Banderas, guns, theives, heist, etc. (poster)
• Push – Dakota Fanning is growing up, but she’s keeping her strange looks. This movie seems to be a bit like Jumper, but without angsty-pants Christensen. (trailer)
• Necessary mentions you can google yourself: Terminator Salvation, Where the Wild Things Are, Land of the Lost, Angels and Demons (Tom Hanks returns in the se-/pre-quel to The Da Vinci Code), Year One (Jack Black), The Taking of Pelham 123 (Travolta).

There are plenty of others to come, and it may be that I need to revisit this list halfway through the year to rejig it, but that should be a good start to the proceedings. There’s enough sequelism to keep the year churning, but there’s enough outside of that to make it a decent year.

The objectification of women starts young and is inspired and codified by dolls such as Barbie.

Discuss.

So a friend is forced to drop out of attending a ballet performance due to work commitments, and she offers the ticket to me. I think to myself, “who me?”, but then I reconsider: “Why the hell not?” And thus it is that I found myself at Manon, performed by The Australian Ballet at the Sydney Opera House, which also marks the first time I’m actually going inside the Opera House, after all these years in Sydney.

My impressions?

• The Opera House is… shall we say distinctly Modernist, even on the inside? It seems a little no-nonsense, concrete and clean lines in wood. From inside, it doesn’t particularly strike as an architectural wonder, nor quite as opulent and grand as one might expect from an “Opera house”… but then chances are I’ve been spoilt rotten by the three places I’ve seen stage-shows in London, all of which were grander than my imagining and had an old world charm. SOH comes out alright in comparison, but it appears to definitely be a building to admire from afar.
• Ballet is essentially musicals without the lyrics, and better dancing. Also better music – from this all-too-brief introduction to the genre, the orchestra plays a role front-and-centre in the exposition in a ballet. As opposed to a musical, this allows you to focus more clearly on the music and the dance than let the lyrics and speech distract your attention.
• More is the pity that the orchestra doesn’t play much of a more prominent role. Buried as it was in the orchestra pit (inevitably), I got the feeling that their role was underplayed compared to the dancers, when really the orchestra almost entirely construct and conduct the evening at their pace. I suppose it’s a compromise that must be made given that it’s a ballet, after all.
• That said, full credit must go to the dancers and choreographer for bringing the various whims of a composer into context with the dance – abstract as it may be at times, it provides a visual counterpoint to a purely audio experience that could have been interpreted in all manner of ways.
• There’s so much going on on stage that it’s easy to miss something – little wonder then that people go time and time again to the same show. While for the most part there’s a clear draw of attention, the dancers in the background never seem to let up, maintaining their stage personas and frittering around the edges.
• When they call them “tights”, they really aren’t kidding!
• These people are fit. Clearly not just in a we’re-dancing-every-day-so-we’re-skinny-as – the ladies stay up on their tip-toes for extended periods, and move around at a fair clip without appearing to break a sweat – no heavy-breathing was visible to me, even after they’d ran around a fair bit. And the men – some of the lifts were practically holding the women up in the air or waist-at-shoulder-heght on a single hand. This is while prancing around themselves enough to raise a sweat in any ordinary man. Maximum respect.
• That all said, were it not for the trusty program guide handed to me on my way in, I would’ve been all at sea – clearly, I am not one to fully comprehend interpretive dance. On the other hand, I can follow the line of reasoning behind this – a certain level of intellectual snobbery, if you will, meaning that if you know the story beforehand you’re educated and cultured enough to belong amongst the intellectual elite.
• Finally, some of the moves are damn suggestive – were it to be a more modern movie, say, you would’ve had to exclude many of the kiddies from attending. Or maybe that’s just me and my ingrained analyse-this-for-subtext from years of English.

All up, I think it’s definitely a cultural experience to be had, and the performers, dancers and orchestra both, are brilliant. The Opera House in some ways is a disappointment, but any complaints are well qualified with the fact that the accoustics still did sound excellent, and the modernist style is a refreshing change in many ways.

But… I think you’d struggle to drag me to another ballet performance without a helluva reason for attending =)

Quantum of Solace? What kind of name is that for a Bond film? Thunderball, From Russia with Love, Goldeneye or even The World is Not Enough – these are the names that could grace cheesy airport novels, and Bond is only just a cut above the pulp thriller genre by virtue of a sense of dry humour and Bond’s ingenuity. Quantum of Solace as a name is but a cut above Die Another Day.

With such a disappointing first impression, Quantum can only surpass expectation, surely? Well, let’s say it depends what expectations you bring in to the cinema with you, and how much you’re committed to the expectations of the Bond genre.

My first expectation was that Bond movies don’t do sequels. Bond does his job, does the femme fatale, and he moves on. Quantum isn’t so much a sequel of Casino Royale as it is the part after an intermission. The best way to flow into this movie would be to have just finished Royale and with it fresh in your mind walk into the cinema.

My second expectation was that Bond is a suave bastard who can charm the pants (or perhaps more appropriately panties) off the gorgeous woman at a black-tie event, and later on kick some bad guy butt while foiling the plot of a madman. Quantum doesn’t do suave – Bond is a hard man who certainly doesn’t look out of place in a black-tie, but there’s no charm – there’s no dry humour. I think there was one laugh line in the whole movie for me. And while there is the obligatory Bond girl, the bedding is almost a fait accompli.

Bond movies have a plot – and at some point Bond is put in danger. Except in Quatum, where Bond is never ensnared by the bad guys, a polar opposite to Casino Royale where I genuinely wondered whether they were intending to close out the series and character. Quantum also shortcuts exposition in favour of action, to the detriment of really developing a plot line of any significance – no interest forms for the lesser characters. Again, this would fit right in were this a post-intermission of Casino Royale, but it doesn’t stand alone.

The influence of the Bourne movies is overt – there’s no gadgets, the action is visceral and personal, the editing choppy and the international locations exotic and plenty. The cinematography is certainly top notch and the design aestheic prevading the film superb, including unique and beautiful location titles, but the fact remains is that this is not a Bond movie as Connery, Moore or even Brosnan would portray.

Bond should not need to fall to Bourne’s action focus – Bourne is the American to Bond’s quintessential Englishman, and to see the series come to this is disappointing.

This is not to take away from the performances of the cast – or at least the “good guys”. Dench, Craig, Olga Kurylenko and Jeffrey Wright as a moody Felix Leiter are all excellent as usual, and Kurylenko as Camille particularly is a strong character and actor, far from your typical Bond girl. It does full credit to her to come out of this movie as a character that could fully support her own franchise.

All told, Quantum of Solace is a good film, but not a great one. Missing the key elements of what makes Bond movies authentically Bond movies, it is a strong follow-up to Casino Royale but does not stand on its own. Watch it for the action, but don’t expect a Bond movie.

★★★☆

700 posts, three(ish) years, 1700+ comments, seventy thousand spam blocked (I <3 Akismet), averaging 22 page views a day, thousands upon thousands of words, and I’m still here.

Hmmm.

Let’s see where this puppy can go.

Have fallen head over heels stop rocker chicks rock stop previews below stop

ida maria stop norweigan rocker chick stop famous quote i like you better when naked unquote stop
[audio:http://pushingthesky.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/01-oh-my-god.mp3|titles=Oh My God|artists=Ida Maria]

kimya dawson stop softly spoken emofolk stop famous juno soundtrack stop
[audio:http://pushingthesky.net/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/03-loose-lips1.mp3|titles=Loose Lips|artists=Kimya Dawson]

enjoy stop endtransmission

Almost spooky – the third debate looks like a re-run of this debate, from 68:

:)