The Number 23

Twenty-three is apparently the linchpin of the entire universe, or so Walter Sparrow (Jim Carrey) believes, in this dark thriller from the man who camped up Batman & Robin (oh Joel Schumacher, no-one will ever forget your sin).

Based on the already popular belief that a number is connected to just about everything, The Number 23 concerns Walter and his perusal of a book his wife (Virginia Madsen) buys for him, which just happens to be about a detective (also Jim Carrey) with a lot of similarities to himself, and an obsession with a fatal number.

As Walter becomes more obsessed with the book and the titular number, more truths are revealed about his own past, making him question his sanity and memories, and putting him on course to a series of events that may or may not lead to murder.

It looks great: dark, brooding, full of people writing on walls (does nobody own a notepad?). Walter’s obsession is tangible, and Carrey really is at his best when he’s doing drama. But it’s not quite the brilliant madness of The Truman Show or Eternal Sunshine: he looks like he’s slotted himself into the genre and is reading from the script, rather than immersing himself in the role. He does good, but it’s a bit blank, and his over-the-top detective is uneasily close to his usual rubber-faced caricatures.

The film has a wonderful build-up – the story twists and turns around itself, with great editing to allow the narrative to unfold. But once it gets there it hits a stumbling block. Not a large one, admittedly, but for such an ingenious story (or maybe because of it) it’s unable to come up with a satisfying conclusion, and instead bounces to an uneasy halt.

All in all, it’s quite good. You’ll never guess what’s going to happen next, and that’s what keeps you watching, but the ending is a disappointingly unfortunate conclusion for what could have been such a perfect film

Feed

The DVD-case says this one "comes on like Silence Of The Lambs". Apart from being a very weakly cut-out phrase from what was probably a less-than-glowing review, they did get one thing right. This one is like Silence of the Lambs. Except better.

First of all, I'll admit that I wasn't exactly enthralled by Silence Of The Lambs. It was a half-way decent crime thriller masquerading as some great psychological terror. Feed has that similar sort of storyline: some psychotic freak is doing grotesque things to fat chicks. It's based on real events. Sort of.

After a truly freaky opening scene inspired by real-life German cannibal, Armin Meiwes, the story locks on to an Aussie cop tracking down cyber sex-offenders (Patrick Thompson). He ends up tracing a lead to Toledo, Ohio (which looks awfully like a Sydney suburb) to find freaky 'feeder' Michael (Alex O'Loughlin) and his 'gainer' girlfriend Deidre (Gabby Millgate in a fat suit). Which throws into the mix all sorts of moral questions: is a man feeding a woman to morbid obesity (they hold a party when she hits 600 pounds) justified in doing it if she asks him to?

But maybe Michael's got flat-out murder on his mind.

It's that cat-and-mouse kind of thing. The psycho has a lot of smooth-as-silk psychobabble monologues about morality and the human condition, while the copper doubts his own motives and personal stance on sex, relationships, and privacy. And despite a number of plotholes and inconcistencies (Thompson must be the world's worst suspect-follower), this one manages to be disturbing and compelling enough to keep you watching right up to a commendably unpredictable ending. The production values are great for what is obviously a low-budget film - it looks slick and the script is tighter than Deidre's knickers - and it's helped by the fact that this sort of depravity is untapped territory, lending a particular originality to what is basically an above-par crime thriller.

If you can find it - I had to order it online from JB - it's definitely worth a look, even if you may want a bucket handy for the occasional vomit-inducing moment.

The Simpsons Movie

Everybody loves the Simpsons! Well, they did ten years ago. With episodes getting steadily more slapstick and stupid, the show has been going downhill since about season nine, the adult satire and knowing subtlety drifting away in a tide of obvious sight gags.

Remember when Homer used to say D’oh, and you’d really feel it? Remember when Maggie sucking her dummy didn’t sound like re-used stock footage? Apparently the old writers do, and thank god they’re back on board for the film.

I expected a lot less from the film. It should have been made in the show’s heyday, not in its sad decline, and the fact that it’s passable at all is a relief. But it’s more than that. Apart from a plotline that’s a bit like the time Mr Burns blocked out the sun, The Simpson Movie is a real delight, though it may not deserve all the hype that’s pushed it to the big screen.

Going with the currently-popular global warming debate as its central satire, the Movie is full of all the things that made the Simpsons great. Weird subplots involving a pig, Flanders' parenting, and Alaska all pop into play, without any of the disjointed chaos typical of later episodes. Once again, we care about the family, their neighbours, their friends and enemies. There are laughs to be had, new jokes and situations to explore. Befitting the big screen, the humour is altogether more adult, with gay jokes, nudity, and a truly weird sex scene.

It may not be as funny on DVD, admittedly. The sensation of a packed-out, laughing audience does give the jokes extra gravitas, but to paraphrase Homer, why did you pay to see something you can see for free on TV?

Because it’s damn worth it.

Lucky Miles

Everyone’s been giving it rave reviews. You kind of have to, otherwise you’ll be branded uncool, or too right-wing, or racist.

But Lucky Miles is not that good.

It’s got its moments, and fair play to them because they’re truly memorable and outstanding, but this apparent comedy about boat people pulling together to make a go of it lags from beginning to end.

Made on a nothing budget over seven years by Michael James Rowland and all his ethnically varied friends, it tells the long and drawn-out tale of a bunch of boat people – Iraqis and Cambodians – the fishermen that drive the boat, and the army reservist unit tracking a mismatched group of them across the Western Australian desert.

It’s supposed to be a comedy, but it’s only occasionally funny. The actors are wonderful, wringing every shred of sentiment they can out of what is, essentially, an Aussie buddy movie with blokes that don’t happen to be ocker white boys for a change. Our two refugee blokes, Cambodian Arun (Kenneth Moraleda) and Yousif (Rodney Afif) bring real weight to their roles, and the exploits of reject fisherman Ramelan (Sri Sacdpraseuth) and our gang of Aussie misfits are entertaining while they’re onscreen.

But all the entertainment and emotion is squashed into about ten minutes of the movie. Tops.

The rest is just a bunch of blokes walking across a desert.

Harry Potter And The Order Of The Phoenix

The new Harry Potter movie is good… but not that good.

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix is the latest merchandising juggernaut from Ms JK Rowling: money-making queen of Britain. Coming a year and a half after what was arguably the best film in the series (Harry Potter and the Goblet Of Fire), it’s got a lot to live up to, and doesn’t quite manage it.

It’s very good, as Potter films go. Certainly David Yates film reaches the usual quota for ‘dark and mature’, which is why the first two films (aka the Christopher Columbus films) never get any fanfare, but it all seems a bit flat and superficial.

Usual story: Voldemort (Ralph Fiennes) bad. Harry (Daniel Radcliffe) good. Conspiracy. Showdown. But the main problem is that some of the charm of the book seems to have gotten lost along the way. There are some great moments. A classroom fireworks display is wonderful, and Imelda Staunton inhabits her role as sugar-coated-evil Professor Umbridge, not to mention the brilliantly creepy Final Showdown. But the CGI is fake-looking, the characters spend far too much time doing not much of anything, the titular 'Order' is hardly ever in it, and they seem to have picked all the wrong parts of the book to highlight.

It will leave Potter fans unsettled over the disservice done to a great book series, and non-fans scratching their heads, wondering where the narrative went.

Sadly enough, this instalment seems to be without magic.

The Fountain

I didn’t review this one when I saw it on its initial release. Why? I simply didn’t know what I thought of it. I knew I liked it, I knew it intrigued me, but I couldn’t quite articulate it into words. All I knew was that I had to buy the DVD.

Darren Aronofsky’s The Fountain is not for those who get frustrated with abstraction and pin their hopes on a linear narrative that lays it all out for you. It’s anything but that, and will probably gain its cult following when people turn to each other and say: “watch this, and explain it to me”.

In essence, it’s three stories linked by Hugh Jackman’s character Tom, taking place in three timelines set over the course of one thousand years. In the past, he’s a conquistador working for the Spanish queen; in the present he’s a surgeon searching for the cure to cancer; in the future he’s a bald new-agey bloke floating up to the stars in a bubble. But all three Toms are searching for the secret of eternal life, to benefit his wife (and occasional queen, cancer patient or ghost) Izzi (Rachel ‘Mrs Aronofsky’ Weisz).

Um. Yeah.

The story twists and turns, doubling back on itself and combining the three vignettes in a way that, while obscure, is also wonderingly beautiful and possesses an innate simplicity. Colour and light combine to give scenes a genuine ambience, and the dialogue and storytelling (especially with present Tom) is emotionally affecting enough to bring a tear to your eye.

At its core it’s about life and death, and the true meaning of eternity. Punctuated with Mexican legends, dying trees, and one very special book, Aronofsky has woven something that seems like a dream. Beautiful, emotional, colourful, yet ultimately bewildering.

Really, it’s no surprise that this tanked at the increasingly dumbed-down, blockbuster-riddled box office, leaving Warner Brothers to give it a pitiful DVD release with no commentary or extras. And while it’s been out for months in the USA, you won’t yet find it in Australian stores, and may not for awhile yet.

But order it. See it. Give it to your friend. Ask them what they think.

And watch your mind explode.

Burke & Wills

My review for Burke and Wills is currently published in FourThousand magazine. Subscribe and check it out!

Transformers

Ladies and gentlemen, I have an impossible, amazing announcement to make. One that will shatter your mind into tiny, disbelieving pieces.

Michael Bay has made a movie that doesn’t suck.

I know, I know. It’s crazy! But after a career replete with MTV-action mediocrity (The Island, Armageddon, Pearl Harbour), Michael Bay has hit on a winner. It’s about robots… robots in disguise.

Based on the successful Hasbro toy franchise, animated series, comic books, animated film… yeah, you get the idea, the Transformers are given a new lease on life in their first big-screen live-action outing.

It’s big dumb fun. That was never in doubt. This is, after all, a Michael Bay film. It’s full of fast-edit fight sequences, syrupy emotional bits, and the usual crap about how ordinary people can find inner strength and save the world blah blah blah

But despite and maybe because of all the chaos and running about, the film triumphs. The machines have been overhauled from their original incarnations, looking bigger, shinier and more streamlined than ever. There’s nothing to fault as far as special effects go: frankly, they’re mindblowing. And the characters they do bother to put emphasis on - Shia LeBeouf’s (Holes, Disturbia) reluctant hero for example - are genuine enough and believably heartfelt, even if minor characters fall by the wayside

The balance is perfect. Michael Bay has managed to imbue real heart into his characters – we do actually care what happens to them, even the robotic ones. There are moments of comedy (wait until you see what the Mountain Dew vending machine does). And the action is spectacular.

But we’re all here to see the machines, aren’t we? There’s a plot, yes. Something about a magic cube and a pair of reading glasses in the Antarctic. But who cares? As the Autobots duke it out with the Decepticons, we’re transported to a world where god is Optimus Prime, the devil is Megatron, and a stereo can be more than meets the eye.

A must-see for all the eighties kids who remember a simpler time, and for a new generation of human children.

Fantastic Four: Rise Of The Silver Surfer (SPOILERS!)

Look, it’s a spoiler, I know, but I feel this should be said as a simple public health warning for all you geeks out there.

DON’T get excited about Galactus.

The film’s definitely a sequel: slightly less funny, slightly less fresh, slightly less clever (Yes, I DID like the original, stone me if you must). But by all accounts, Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer is actually pretty good.

Keeping in with the PG-rating, it’s the epitome of inoffensive action fun, with a bit of a Disney morality lesson thrown in. All that stuff about how we choose to do right and wrong, as the titular Surfer (Doug Jones) draws the monster Galactus ever closer to Earth while last year’s villain Victor Von Doom (Julian McMahon) comes back to wreak metallic havoc on our Four.

Where Four finds its strength is through the characters. It’s not the dark introspect of recent Batman or Spiderman flicks, but our heroes are drawn as more than pencil sketches, as people with personalities, wants, and conflicts, even if they do have rubber limbs, stone flesh, or Jessica Alba’s arse, and as a family unit they provide a different slant on the genre from the tortured solitary villain (Batman) or feuding team (X-Men).

Then, as I mentioned, there’s Galactus.

The Silver Surfer’s great. Hell, you’ve seen the trailers. And the special effects are bloody fantastic (especially a set piece involving the London Eye). But do they give the Devourer of Worlds (TM) the slightest bit of love?

Do they buggery.

A spoiler again. Don’t read if you like being disappointed:

Gone is the helmet, gone is the awesome looming body.

Galactus is a giant cloud.

The End.

Pirates Of The Caribbean: At World's End

Bringing the end (hopefully) to the trilogy, Pirates Of The Caribbean: At World's End doesn’t do too bad a job, even if it does lack the flair of the original.

Gore Verbinski brings a darker tone than the first two films, as well as redeeming himself slightly for the woefully average Dead Man’s Chest. The laughs come faster, the action is more riveting and succinct, and the emotions are more genuine.

Rejoining the story after Jack Sparrow’s (Johnny Depp) death in the mouth of a huge, tentacled, toothy vagina (otherwise known as the Kraken), its up to our pirates to rescue him from Davy Jones’ Locker, while also coming to blows with the good old Brits, various international pirates (Chow Yun Fat and Keith Richards among them), and Davy Jones himself (Bill Nighy).

It's a bit of a shambles. The first hour drags on, even if it does have twenty times the Jack Sparrow (literally) and Keira Knightly’s bare legs, but once it hits its stride there are one too many characters and storylines. Davy Jones (aka, the best thing about Pirates 2) is still fun, as are the ragtag gang of minor players, but we’ve really seen it all before.

As with the first film the best part about At Worlds' End are the two captains: Barbossa (Geoffrey Rush) and Sparrow. They bounce off each other like old hands, their overacting perfect rather than jarring, and account for most of the laugh-out-loud moments. Orlando Bloom, as well, finally gets to do something that doesn’t require him to look earnestly pretty, and proves that he does have acting chops beyond holding a sword.

In the end it’s not a bad film, keeping more to the upbeat frivolity of Black Pearl than the drudgery of Dead Man’s Chest, and providing some blackly emotional scenes into the bargain. Though it does have some slow points, the exciting ones more than make up for it. It’s just not enough to convince of the fact that they shouldn't have stopped with one film.