Rewind - The Constant Gardener

2005's line-up for the Best Supporting Actress category at the Oscars was pretty impressive. It had the always amazing Catherine Keener for her performance in biopic Capote. Previous winner Frances McDormand was nominated for her stellar performance in the gritty drama North Country. Michelle Williams was in there for her stunning turn in Brokeback Mountain, a.k.a the film that should have won Best Picture. And the brilliant Amy Adams was nominated for her first time thanks to her show stopping performance in Junebug. But who was the one who got the award over those four equally amazing performances? Rachel Weisz in The Constant Gardener. She had considerably less screen time than most of her competition, and probably a least 'flashy' role. Though I was a huge fan of Amy Adams and her electrifying performance in Junebug, a performance that is done with so much heart, even though her character wasn't the nicest, and that genuinely sparks up the screen instantly even though most of her time is used for flashbacks, deserves a win. My question is, why the hell wasn't Ralph Fiennes nominated for his leading performance?

Fiennes and Weisz, both giving it everything they've got, star in what is effectively a love story, just set within the confines of a political thriller. It's all about Fiennes, who plays British diplomat Justin Quayle, who is trying to seek out the real explanation as to why his wife Tessa, played by Weisz, was murdered during their stay in Kenya. Though this is not a true story as such, there isn't anything that is too unbelievable in this movie. As Justin looks into the reasons that could possibly point to his wife's murder, the film switches gears and also looks at the horrible world of drug-testing on humans. Now, Justin is running up against a corporation who uses poor Africans to test a tuberculosis drug, and he has the power to expose their secret, so naturally, they want him dead, too. People want Justin to stop with this little quest of his, but does he want to? No. Because he loved his wife dearly, even though the many secrets he uncovers after her death probably would have broken their marriage anyway.

This movie set out to be a provocative thriller, and in that, it succeeded. Whether that be because of the fierce portrayal of the slums in Kenya, or the amount of corruption that happened because of this drug testing thing, the film certainly shows a whole lot of anger towards nearly everything. The best thing is that, even though it definitely doesn't want to shy away from being a Hollywood thriller of sorts, it remains completely realistic. While there isn't a whole lot of human brutality shown on screen (something which I thought there should have been more of), the vision it has on corruption is truly blood-curdling. But even though this movie has some things to say about some shocking stuff, there were a few times when I switched off from it. Particularly when Justin returned to Britain. There was some truly heartfelt stuff in that segment of the movie (especially when he breaks down outside of Tessa's house...just one of the many reasons why I love Ralph Fiennes and his acting skills), it was just a little on the boring side. The movie, despite it's brilliant material, fails to be anything ground-breaking or great. Mind you, it ends really well, with a hint of justice for it's more serious plot strand, and a sense of beautiful closure for it's romantic storyline.
 

The romantic storyline is something which makes this film good, but it also lets it down. Fiennes and Weisz have this undeniable chemistry which is evident from their first meeting, which happens to be a cracker of a scene. But the one thing I really struggled with was all of the secrets that Tessa had and the fact that Justin wanted to keep going with his little plight. He was such a shy character, and I thought he would have been the kind who would have given up easily. While his love for Tessa was admirable, I don't know how he could have possibly kept fighting for her considering the way she effectively used him and his status. His resilience is...I don't know...inspirational, but in the romantic context of the movie, I found it impossible to connect to. However, when you put his resilience into the whole corruption storyline, he comes out as quite the hero. Without the partnership between Justin and Tessa, and maybe the good old 'you-think-you-knew-someone-but-you-really-didn't' theme, this film probably wouldn't have been that enjoyable for me. But while I'm sure it was supposed to give me something to root for, I was left a little dumbfounded by it.
 

As I said, Fiennes and Weisz give top performances. They both master the art of subtlety, with most of the pain in this movie being written across their face. Oh yeah, and I guess it's worth mentioning that Fiennes is really hot in it too...those eyes of his make me die inside, as does his sweet performance. Pete Postlethwaite was a stand-out too, even though he turns up really late in the piece. Along with the performances, this film has high points in it's direction and editing. Fernando Meirelles gives a dark film plenty of colour and vibrancy when it's in Africa, which is also backed up by some thrilling direction in the more action-esque scenes. He uses plenty of interesting angles which keep things interesting to watch. The cross cutting between when Tessa was alive and when she wasn't didn't turn out to be as corny as it should have been. The romantic strand always seems to come in at the right time, especially with the flashbacks incorporated into the ending. There's so much to like about The Constant Gardener, but there is a lot that I didn't like about it as well. I would definitely watch this again, because I felt that there was enough to outweigh the large amount of flaws the film has. It's certainly not a bad movie unworthy of a watch...it just isn't the great movie that I wanted it to be.
 
THE VERDICT: Ralph Fiennes and Rachel Weisz give stellar performances in a thought-provoking movie with brilliant direction, which is ultimately let down by flaws in it's story-telling.
 
What I hoped for:

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
What I got:

DVD - Limitless

Do you know how hard it is to be a student at high school? Pretty hard. The teachers expect you to remember the smallest details of crap you couldn't really care less about. You write all of these notes down, and then like ten months after you've learnt about it, you have to go back to these notes. And try to remember them, all over again. Which is pretty impossible if you are as unmotivated as me. Because, I don't know about you, but it's really hard to sit down and memerise every rule there is in algebra.

To make life even harder, though, Limitless was released. This film features every student's, or maybe everybody on this Earth's biggest dream: a pill that can allow you to use your brain to it's full potential. As the title suggests, this pill gives you the power to live without limits. The guy who gives it a test drive so we can all wallow in jealousy? Eddie Morra (Bradley Cooper). He used to be a hobo-lookalike writer who was suffering from a chronic case of evil writer's block. But he manages to catch up with ex brother-in-law Vernon (Johnny Whitworth), who just so happens to be a drug dealer. Vernon gives Eddie the key to getting over the writer's block: a pill called NZT. Eddie takes the pill, and at once he is addicted. His book is written. He suddenly knows how to get lots of money in the stockmarket. He can speak Italian fluently. He's got his girlfriend Lindy (Abbie Cornish) back. He catches the eye of business mogul Carl van Loon (Robert De Niro). Life's good for Eddie. Perhaps too good to be true.

This film raises a very important question: how many of us know what it's like to become the perfect version of ourselves? But more importantly, it asks, what would people do if they became the perfect version of themselves? Eddie takes a vote from all of us: he goes wild with his powers. He uses them to their absolute advantages. He opens himself up to a world filled with lots of potential, which is really fun to watch. The problem is, however, the fact that this movie is exactly like the drug. It's damn fast-paced, it's as rushed as anything, and ultimately, it is filled with potential but it just doesn't know what to do with it all. This film has a really good premise, which is used pretty well for the most part, but it fizzles out fairly quickly. It also keeps swapping and changing its ideas at a rapid place, which gives it a fairly uneven tone. The final act, however, is the one that lets it down the most. I thought it was pretty slow compared to what the rest of the film had built up, and I didn't think it fit in properly. Mind you, the film was heading in the right direction by that point.

In saying that, while this film is plagued with flaws, this is one hell of an enjoyable film. Thanks to it's fast pace, I didn't get tired of the film and it remained completely interesting for the entire time. The one thing that makes it a cut above any of the other movies I've seen this year is the brilliant direction and editing. Neil Burger wants you to feel like you are on NZT too. He uses different graphics to show the pill working inside Eddie, along with quick editing to show the pace in which Eddie is working at. Burger really involves the audience into the film, which is admittedly a really hard thing to do with such an out-of-this-world premise. Along with that, he has the modern kind of direction which I really like...the one that is backed by an awesome soundtrack and incorporates odd camera angles and plenty of editing. I know it will never get the accolades that it deserves, but Neil Burger's direction of this film truly is excellent.

Another strong point in Limitless is the leading performance from Bradley Cooper. Many people have doubted his acting abilities before, mainly due to the amount of crap he has starred in. But here, he is given the lead role which he doesn't have to share with anyone else (unlike his role in The Hangover). He is a great leading man, more than capable of holding the film up when the material starts to wear off. It was particularly intriguing to watch him stand up to Robert De Niro in quite a few scenes, because I'm sure that's not the easiest thing for an actor to do, but Cooper held his own. Speaking of De Niro, he was wasted in this movie. I expected his character to have an evil edge, but no dice. Abbie Cornish plays Cooper's love interest. She continues to impress me as an actress, even if she's let the quality of the films she makes slide a bit of late.

When it comes down to it, Limitless is a film that has a brilliant premise. It might not use it to it's full potential, but it's still enjoyable. It could have been better, but it could have been much worse.

THE VERDICT: Brilliant direction and likeable lead Bradley Cooper are sure to keep you watching even when Limitless doesn't give you all that it could have. It's a fast-paced thriller, a cut above some of the ones that have come out recently.

What I hoped for:

What I got:

Cinema - Captain America: The First Avenger

Just like I did with Thor a few months back, I went into Captain America: The First Avenger without knowing much at all. Okay, so I saw the trailer a few times (as it was always attached to most of the movies I have seen at the cinemas this year), I knew that it was a part of The Avengers, and I also knew that it starred Chris Evans, who was my favourite evil ex in Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. Other than that, I didn't really know much about the character or anything. In fact, the only reason I went to see this is because it was an excuse to get out of Dannevirke these school holidays, and since I saw Thor in cinemas as well I thought 'why not?' The good thing is, this wasn't a shabby visit to the movies, that's for sure.

This must be the greatest story for those who are bullied. Our main character, Steve Rogers (Evans) is a bit smaller than the average male, and because of all his health problems and minuscule stature, no one wants to let him enlist in the army to kill some Nazis. Poor Steve is always beaten up and such, but he always fights back because he believes he has to fight for his right, which usually gets him trouble. He meets Dr. Erskine (Stanley Tucci), who miraculously lets him finally enlist in the army, and now Steve is well on the road to becoming a soldier. But you know what would make this weak boy even better? Dr. Erskine has a serum that will make him taller, faster and stronger...basically a super human. Now he's Captain America, and has the mission of trying to take down evil Nazi research department HYDRA, which just so happens to be run by Johann Schmidt, better known as Red Skull (Hugo Weaving). Oh, and let's not forget that this is a superhero movie, therefore there has to be a love interest, who comes in the form of Agent Carter (Hayley Atwell).

Now when I went to see Captain America, or any other movie of it's kind (in the cinema), I usually just try and have a good time. I really liked the film, but I do have to admit that it was nothing special. First of all, I felt like this movie could have been a lot more badass. As I said, I don't really know that much about the character Captain America, but I felt like he could have been a better brand of badassery. In saying that, he was a genuinely nice character, never wasting his new found powers and always knowing the meaning of fighting back. He makes for an interesting superhero, with his ultra fast healing times and whatnot. But the problem is the fact that he is invincible. He can't even get drunk. He's so bloody nice it hurts. Where Thor and Tony Stark have their arrogance, Steve Rogers has his niceness. The only thing that could count as a flaw is the fact that he is a little on the weak side, but that pretty much disappears once he undergoes that big transformation. The big transformation not only ends the flaws of Steve, but it also ends Stanley Tucci. Which really pissed me off. How dare he leave so early?

Anyway, aside from Captain America's perfection, I still found the character's actions pretty interesting. Especially because of the way he was used as propaganda for the US army. The 'Star-Spangled Man' sequence was a particular highlight of the film, mainly because it was done the old-fashioned way. This film really excels with it's 1940's setting. Like X-Men: First Class, this film dedicates itself to the time period it is supposed to be in, incorporating history into it. The way it is made is very old-fashioned, as if it were made in the 1940's, just with better technology. Even with that better technology, director Joe Johnston opts not to overload the film with CGI, which is a huge relief. The villainous Red Skull looks believable rather than over powered by computer graphics. The fight scenes all manage to look very realistic, instead of trying ever so hard to look good for the 3D audiences. But the best thing that the CGI does, which you actually can't even tell is CGI really, is the appearance of Chris Evans before he becomes a beast. We all know that he doesn't actually look as small as that, but the effects used will have you believe that he did once.

Performance wise, this film is very strong. Evans did a brilliant job in his role, I thought, even though there was definitely room for improvement in the character. Another thing I didn't like was the relationship between his character and Agent Carter. It was all very nice, but they didn't seem right for each other at all. In saying that, Hayley Atwell, one of the brightest young talents around, was really good in her no-nonsense role. Tommy Lee Jones is a hero of deadpan humour in this flick, definitely getting the most laughs. Sebastian Stan, who seems to be in everything I watch these days, makes for a nice, if a little dull sidekick. One person I could have done with more of, though, was Dominic Cooper as Tony Stark's daddy, Howard. Once I got over the fact that he could actually speak in a good American accent, I kept wanting to see his cocky character show up...which didn't happen an awful lot. But usually the star of the show in a superhero flick is usually the villain, and when the villain is played by Hugo Weaving, it's a double win. He's kinda scary with his Hitler-esque dreams and appearance. One thing I did have to laugh at was the whole "Heil HYDRA!" business. That was so silly it was funny.

A lot of people have compared this to Thor, mainly because they're the last installments in the longest trailer ever for The Avengers. I think I enjoyed Captain America a little more, but I do have to admit this was quite simple compared to Thor. There wasn't any father/son conflict, nor was the main character put through a significant emotional change. But people probably should stop comparing the two. They both stand up well as their own films, especially considering that they are just small features before the big presentation. I do have to say that now Captain America has come along and it was a damn good film, my expectations for The Avengers have sky-rocketed.

THE VERDICT: Captain America: The First Avenger has style and class in it's setting, an adequate use of CGI and some solid performances. Yes, you better be ready for The Avengers.

What I hoped for:

What I got:

Classic - Heavenly Creatures

This might be a bit presumptuous of me, but I'm sure when people hear the words "New Zealand film industry", they instantly think of Peter Jackson. And that's okay. The boy has done well for himself, by starting off with cheap gorefests to moving on to the biggest task in the world: making an epic trilogy of adaptions known as Lord of the Rings. Which pretty much everyone has seen. So yeah, it's cool if y'all think of orcs and elves when I say "New Zealand film industry". But you must remember that Sir Peter Jackson has done some films that aren't filled with orcs and elves...the gorefests, the snorefest (The Lovely Bones) and Heavenly Creatures. This was the film that put him on the map for the first time. It was also the film that put Kate Winslet on the map. Yes, Lord of the Rings may have all of it's technical achievements and such, but Heavenly Creatures introduced us to the greatness of two of the biggest people working in film today. And it also gives us a shocking insight into one of the most horrific crimes in New Zealand's history.

The horrific crime in question is one that was in the hands of 15 year old best friends Pauline Parker and Juliet Hulme, played by Melanie Lynskey and Kate Winslet respectively. What did these seemingly innocent young girls do? They murdered Pauline's mother. Why? Because that was the only way they felt they could stay together. Instead of focusing on the notorious court case that followed their horrendous crime, this movie focuses on their friendship and the period of time leading up to the big murder. These were girls who had an obsessive friendship, who couldn't bear to be apart and who lived a life in fantasy, also believing that their many stories would be made into huge Hollywood epics. All of this was tracked in Pauline's diary, which became a crucial piece of evidence in the case. Also, it provides most of the narration for the film: none of the diary entries which are spoken of in the film are edited down. Just so this is even more realistic.

I'm ashamed to say that before I watched this film, I had no idea about this murder. Even though I know it's a true story, I really couldn't believe it. Maybe that's because I love my mother so much. Anyway, the one thing I did believe was the way screen-writers Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh managed to build up this world of teen angst that was constantly battling with a fantasyland worlds away from reality, while remaining faithful to the material. It's clear that they didn't want Pauline and Juliet to be seen as psychopathic monsters, which I believe they weren't. They were, however, two teenagers who were a little bit misunderstood, but they were so compelled by their own little world that it was difficult for anyone to even begin to understand them. This film also deals with a raft of other 'teenage problems', such as (obviously) hating your parents, sex (now this seems to pop up in every damn teen movie) and that ever-present need to break away from everything. Considering what happens in the end, you expect this to be a cold-blooded movie that never seems to pull away from a huge state of depression. But that only truly comes through in the final act. The first acts are filled with mysterious whimsy and evil parents. It's an interesting mix, but it works.

For a New Zealand film, this is a bloody good one. As I've probably said before, I really dislike the acting that comes out of this country because of our damn accents, but the performances in this film are all brilliant. But you've really got to hand it to Lynskey and Winslet as this was their first feature film, and they did so well. Lynskey had no previous acting experience, so taking the role of Pauline was a huge ask. But she filled the character up with a lot of that adolescent angst (sometimes too much, but I guess the character was a bit of a moper) and genuine frustration with the world. Winslet seemed to get a lot of acclaim back in the day when this was first released. Her performance was good, even though I found her character diabolically annoying at the start. You can definitely see that she was onto something great with that feature debut...and just look at her now.

This is exactly the type of film that I want Peter Jackson to direct more. Sure, he's good with Lord of the Rings and everything, but he does have a good knack for directing 'coming of age' films, with a killer twist. This is a chilling film that New Zealand should be proud of...if they can be.

THE VERDICT: Heavenly Creatures provides a good insight into both a chilling murder and the minds of two slightly misunderstood teenagers, rather than repeating a piece of horrific New Zealand history. And yes, Peter Jackson directed it.

What I hoped for:

What I got:

How do you know that you've 'found yourself'?

The teen movies all have it. Well, apart from the ones where teens are vampires or overly depressive bitches. Most films that focus on the lives of a teen always seem to have them hit rock bottom, and then rise again, eventually showing that they have found themselves. Now I'm going through this strange stage in my life where everything is becoming so much more clear to me and I'm, how do I put this, thinking a lot more. But no, nothing substantial has happened to me. I haven't hit anywhere near rock bottom. Being 15 years old, nearly 16, I believe I am in that phase of finding what I want out of my life. It never stops though. People constantly find themselves, change every day. There's never one point where people decide they are one thing and not the other. That's what the movies don't tell you.

Okay okay, so it's not a movie's job to tell you how to live your life. But I am easily influenced by anything, particularly movies. I watch An Education, I want to study and read French literature. I watch Black Swan, I want to be perfect. I watch Ferris Bueller's Day Off...I want my own musical number. In most of the movies I watch, characters will always have a distinct turning point and are usually as unique as they come. And yet, all the time they always seem so sure of themselves. Lately I've been wondering about my own 'character' and wondering if I have hit a turning point. So here, I seek the help of the film characters who have most influenced me in my life, and see who I really want to be. In other words, I'm just another teenager who wants to know who I am. I guess.

One of my biggest character 'idols' is Jenny from An Education. I love this film to bitty bits, which has a lot to do with how damn stylish it is, but mainly because of the heroine of the story. Jenny is a very smart girl who is always pushed to achieve with excellence and usually does, unless you are talking about Latin, one of her weaker subjects. She works hard, under a lot of pressure from her father, to go towards an education at Oxford. This means that there is little or no time for her to have any 'interests', but that's okay, because all she knows is to work hard to keep other people happy. Her first turning point, though, comes when she meets David, who is in his thirties and studied at the "University of Life". Through David she is welcomed into a world that accepts her for having interests rather than an education.

Ultimately, Jenny is betrayed by this world. While she may be having a really good time, she's thrown away all of the hard work she achieved while still at school, which will come back to bite her on the ass in future. Lessons learned from the movie? Always have interests, because they make you come alive as a person. Never underestimate the power of a good education if you're smart and a hard worker. But if you make a mistake, take it as experience and move on. The real turning point that Jenny had was the way she came back after all of that experience. She learnt about herself through something that was completely new and exciting to her. It hurt her, but she then realised that after all of that, she had enough courage to, for loss of a better word, 'rise again'.

But it all sounds like the same stuff we've heard all throughout our lives..."learn from your mistakes", "always have courage", "this is your life, not anyone elses". That doesn't make it any less true. But yes, you do learn from your mistakes, even though you pretty much regret making the mistake in the first place. It's hard to have courage when you lack confidence. Of course it's your life, but there's a lot of pressure to live up to other peoples standards. What are we supposed to do? Not care about anyone else? No. Because the one problem that lies within everyone in this world is the fact that we can't consider the needs of everyone else on this planet all of the time.

Consideration, I think, is one of my best, but most annoying traits. As I said to a couple of my friends, my motto in life is "always think of the other person". Most of the time, I always take into consideration how the other person would feel if I said I didn't like a certain movie that they love, or something along those lines. Most of the things I do are all done with a lot of consideration (just like this post...I don't expect many to read it anyway but I just needed to post it). But I reckon this attention to consideration makes me weak and unable to stand up for myself. You hear that "this is your life, not anyone elses"? I can't adhere to that. I want to make everything a lot easier for everyone else. I may not be really good at it, but that's what I aim to do. I'm a bit like good old Nina Sayers from Black Swan in that respect...I'll always say sorry, even if it makes me sound "fucking weak".

But who am I kidding? That's probably who I'd like to be. I'd like to be the nicest person on earth. I'd also like to be the makings of an awesome movie character. For example, I like to think I have a deep passion for film. But really, the only people who do that are the ones who watch lots of Italian neorealism and silent films. Me? Oh, I only just like movies. I like to watch them, and then I can tell you what is right and what is wrong. I'd like to be able to read only classic novels and revel in the works of Oscar Wilde or Shakespeare. I'd like to have this huge capacity of brain power and motivation that allows me to study for hours on end. I'd like to have all of these old fashioned interests. I'd like to live by Jenny's ideals, more than anything.

Is that me though? No. I've been living with this dream in my head for ages, but now I've pretty much realised I'm never going to be what I'd like to be. So the point of this post is not only to tell y'all why I love Jenny out of An Education or just to ramble on about 'teen' stuff (but I guess all of you are thinking that anyway and just wish I'd shut up, haha). It's to tell you what I have decided I really want out of my life. I want to continue being considerate, to try not to be cynical and to always remember that my life isn't that hard compared to others. I'll continue watching movies, even if they aren't the 'right' ones. I'll always understand the importance of a good education. When people ask me what I want to do when I'm older I'll actually tell them that I want to become a director, instead of saying "I don't really know yet" just because everyone frowns upon my career decision. But most of all, I want to have an influence on people. That's one thing I'd like to do more than anything else in the world. As Anne Frank said: "I want to go on living, even after my death." It's just a small piece of greatness that I know can be achieved...we all just have to live, though. That is how, I believe, you find yourself.

How about you? Got any characters you look up to? Any dreams and aspirations you want to be achieved?

Limitlink

Well, I was in the middle of writing this ultra personal-but-still-about-movies post when I realised I odn't have the time, or the energy, to write it right now. So I'll just give you a little post filled with everyone else's writing before I settle in to watch Limitless.

Andy @ Andy Buckle's Film Emporium reviews Meek's Cutoff, a film which I might try and catch at the NZFF.

Jack @ Jack L. Film Reviews has just moved to Ireland and is starting an Irish move marathon. Anything with Cillian Murphy or Liam Neeson and I'm in!

Emma @ Suspend Your Disbelief reviews small budget sci-fi Monsters.

One of my favourite films of last year, City Island, was reveiwed at Aditya's Movie Blog.

Candice @ Reel Talk really liked Captain America, which I'm going to watch on Thursday.

Dan @ Public Transpotation Snob unleashes his Top 5 Post-Apocalyptic Movies. I like those types of movies.

Another list made this week was one by Tyler @ Southern Vision, who shared his top 10 movies about the Holocaust.

Oh, and another list. This one's from Custard @ Front Room Cinema: top 10 movies that changed their name before their release!

There you have it. Have a good week.

New Zealand Gets Funny: Love Birds and My Wedding and Other Secrets

I must admit, I'm never usually a big fan of New Zealand films. Okay, so we do churn out some good ones, the most recent one being Boy, which just so happens to be one of the funniest movies I've ever seen. But other than that, I find most of NZ's efforts pretty 'meh' (fellow New Zealanders, don't shoot me down...). That's probably because I think whenever us Kiwis use our accents to act, we sound terrible. Our voices have terrible inflection, which makes it hard for us to try and get something dramatic across. But we are getting better, especially if you take Shortland Street out of the equation.

Over the past couple of weeks, I checked out a couple of Kiwi flicks which were successes at the cinema and on DVD: Love Birds and My Wedding and Other Secrets. Their common bond? They are both comedies, with a lot of romance in them. Did they get a like from me? Here are my quick reviews:

Love Birds is pretty much your generic Hollywood rom-com, just done in New Zealand. It has prestige by enlisting the help of a pretty good cast. Heading the lot is Rhys Darby, whom you may or may not know. Here in NZ, he is huge, mainly because he has this very funny, and slightly immature sense of humour. When going into this film, many of the people who know his humour will expect his sarcasm and his immaturity to come through, but no dice. Here is a little more mature, definitely trying out a more dramatic side, which will disappoint some misled people. His love interest is played by Sally Hawkins - you know, the gal who is in just about every British movie at the moment - and she is wonderful, like always. The two together? It's odd to watch, but it works. Rhys plays Doug, who has just been dumped by his girlfriend (Faye Smythe who used to be in Shortland Street - her character really ruined it for me), and then happens to find a rare type of duck who can't fly. Compelled to help this poor creature, he decides to make a home for it, but has to seek help from some people who know stuff about birds, which is how he comes to Holly (played by Hawkins). Love comes after that, and Doug has to try and win the girl by also making friends with her children.

The film isn't too bad, but I just didn't really like it all that much. It's okay, but that's all. I didn't really laugh a lot, as many of the one-liners and jokes came with a dose of awkwardity. In fact, much of it was really awkward, especially some of the sub-plots. Doug and Holly's love story, along with the story about the duck were fine. But as I said, Doug's ex-girlfriend really ruined it. While it's perfectly plausible for a jealous ex-girlfriend to come into the equation, but the way she came back into the movie was just straight out annoying. Oh well, no bother. Love Birds wasn't that great at all, and was everything I expected out of a NZ romantic comedy. But I do have to say, the soundtrack that was pretty much all 'Queen' music was pretty awesome.

What I got:

My Wedding and Other Secrets is another romantic comedy, which is pretty predictable, but it's actually a true story. Director Roseanne Liang decided to share her story of how she came to love a European New Zealander, even though she wasn't supposed to. She first made a documentary about it as an assignment for film school, which eventually made it to the New Zealand Film Festival back in 2005. But now, in 2011, she released a feature film about it, with Outrageous Fortune's Michelle Ang playing Emily (based on Roseanne herself) and Go Girls' Matt Whelan playing her husband, James. Emily is an over-achiever born into an Asian family, with parents who refuse to see her marry anyone who is not successful or Asian. But Emily does the opposite and accidentally falls in love with James, who is, well, not that successful or Asian. Emily, already going against her parents wishes by attending film school instead of medical school, decides that she and James should get married in secret and then continue living life without her parents ever finding out. But it's not long before they find out that their daughter is going out with someone who isn't Asian, and now Emily and James have to beg for their blessing.

I don't know whether I liked this film because it was true or whether it was just so twee. Sure, the story has probably been done before, but the way it is done here is exceptionally cool. It's like watching a movie made out of candy floss...it is so sweet, but not so sweet you start to feel sick after a while. Our heroine Emily is a pretty cool chick as well (she loves flicks by Spielberg and Lucas, and only really wants to make kick-ass actioners), even though I got a bit annoyed that she was so stubborn, apart from when it came to her romance with James. There are some really funny moments, and it slides into sadness a lot easier than most films of it's kind do. To say I was pleasantly surprised with My Wedding and Other Secrets is a bit of an understatement. I just found it easy to watch and easy to relate to, in some ways. It was a really cute movie.

What I got:

So, what about you...do you have any Kiwi movies you particularly like/dislike?

Classic - Lost in Translation

I must admit, I was pretty unsure about Lost in Translation before I watched it. I mean, I know that it was very well loved and all by the critics, but not many 'other' people really liked it. However, since I loved Somewhere, I'm pretty sure it was a given that I would like Sofia Coppola's most lauded film. Which does make me a little confused, as between this and Somewhere, not a lot happens. Most films that I've watched recently, like, I don't know, The Mechanic or Season of the Witch, have been films that I have found really boring. And, while I mean this in the nicest possible way, there's a bit more happening in those films than the two Sofia Coppola movies I've seen. However, those films, with all of their sequences of blood and violence fail to draw me in, whereas Somewhere and Lost in Translation rope me in from the very start, making me want to observe a character's life. Does that mean I'm becoming a snob? Whatever, I like Sofia's films better.

Anyway, Lost in Translation is a film set in the beautiful looking city of Tokyo, Japan, where two strangers meet and form an unlikely friendship. Bob Harris (Bill Murray) is an American filmstar making an advertisement for whiskey, which has provided him with an opportunity to get away from his boring marriage. Charlotte (Scarlett Johansson) is a young wife of a photographer and spends most of her time at the hotel alone, as her husband is often out taking pictures. The two, very alone souls wander around Tokyo hoping to find something fun, which is when they come across each other. So now, these two Americans are together exploring Tokyo, being as confused and amused as each other by their relationship with the Japanese. But with their relationship comes with the fact that their relationship will have to end when one of them ends their stay in Tokyo. Which is of course a shame, but through finding each other, they both 'found themselves', so to speak.

Well there's no denying that Lost in Translation is one hell of a beautiful movie. You know that a director has done well when she makes a movie romantic without the story involving a lot of romance. This may sound weird, but I could really feel the romance between the camera and whatever it was filming. Rarely do I ever watch a film that is so understated in the way it is made, but the beauty just glows through it. This is the main reason as to why I pretty much love Sofia Coppola now: she knows how to make a film look gorgeous, without much effort at all. What she also manages to do is give us a good tour of Japan, exploring everywhere from temples to arcades. She doesn't try to make the city look like one perfect place, though, as she makes it look as frustrating as it is beautiful. The relationship between the visitors and the Japanese is particularly funny to watch though, because as any traveller would know, things always happen differently in every country, which makes for a pretty confusing time. There's just a divine simplicity about Lost in Translation which is given life through Coppola's excellent vision of Tokyo and how a film really should be. Hell, this was way more interesting to me than that Jason Statham movie.

Maybe the reason I found this more interesting than watching Statham beat the bejesus out of people was the fact that there was a proper, realistic relationship between two characters. Okay, I don't know if some normal girl would just meet a film-star in a bar and they would strike up some wonderful friendship. But you really can't tell me that some assassin would be paired up with a guy whose father was killed by him. Anyway, the relationship between Bob and Charlotte is gorgeous to watch. They never, to our knowledge, really engage in any hanky panky between the two, which is nice, because their friendship is enough. The two, instead, are joined by the fact that they are in the same boat: lost in a city, not being able to understand what everyone else is saying, feeling very alone instead of enjoying the city as most tourists would. They are reduced to spending their free time in their hotel room, venturing out to the pool and gym sometimes, eventually ending up in the bar at night. This just goes to show that there is no point in going to a beautiful city unless you have someone to enjoy it all with, and Bob and Charlotte, with the help of Tokyo, are perfect for each other.

Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson do a wonderful job of making this relationship work, as without their chemistry, the film probably would have fell flat. Murray was nominated for an Oscar for his performance, and rightfully so. While there's a great deal of seriousness in his performance, his comic charm overrides this. His character is really a wounded soul, but he doesn't let that be known through a depressed performance. Instead, he just looks haplessly bored with his life, and has that certain 'I-should-probably-try-to-make-you-like-me-since-I'm-famous' air about him. I found it somewhat hard to like Bob at the start, but as the film progressed, and his relationship with Charlotte deepened, I came around to him. Scarlett Johansson delivers a brilliant performance too. At first I thought she was quite boring, but that only came down to the bored life she was living. However, there was something in both the character and Johansson's performance that I really connected with; whether it be general abandonment, a slight jealousy towards someone on a higher level (that would be movie star Kelly, who is played brilliantly by Anna Faris) or the need to find herself, but not in the way everyone else does (like her discontent with not feeling anything while visiting the temple - because everyone is supposed to feel something there). Both of these characters are essentially dead inside, until they discover each other. Which might sound clichéd, but in all honesty, that doesn't matter. This is a film which observes a friendship in the most beautiful possible way: with simplicity and elegance. The best thing? It ends all too soon.

THE VERDICT: While not moving at the fastest pace, Lost in Translation is a great observation of a relationship between two stranger in a foreign land, beautifully done by director Sofia Coppola and stars Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson.

What I hoped for:

What I got:

Angry Men with Raspy Voices: Unknown and The Next Three Days

Unknown and The Next Three Days. They both feature guys who want to save something. They spend a lot of time driving around angrily in cars. They both have raspy, serious voices. Oh, and incidentally, they both feature the only 59 year old I find really attractive: the one and only, Liam 'I am probably God' Neeson. One has him as the lead, the other has him in a single scene. But he's awesome in both of them. Obviously. Because whether he likes it or not, he is now my adopted dad. And I'm awesome, which means he is too. Obviously.

Anyway, without further ado, here is the ultimate battle between the Neeson's, the angry men, the raspy voices...

The story:

Unknown is about a guy, Dr. Martin Harris, who has a 'ravishing' wife, Elizabeth. He goes to Berlin for some summit, only to wind up in a car accident. When he wakes up, no one seems to know who he is. So, ultimately, this is a story about a guy in his 50's (though I wouldn't say old Liam looks a day over 49) trying to find himself - finding his true worth in this lovely world we live in. Okay, so it's not a heart warming story. It's more an opportunity for Liam to show off his skills that he acquired in Taken. And there ain't nothing wrong with that, now is there? (here is the part where you say 'no' because Liam Neeson is fucking awesome)

The Next Three Days is a remake of a French flick called Anything for Her, which ironically stars Diane Kruger who just so happens to be in Unknown. Our hero is John Brennan, who is now a single dad as his wife, Lara, was accused of murder and was sent to jail. John can't take it anymore and neither can Lara, so John, convinced his wife isn't a murderer, decides that he is going to get his wife out of that jail. No, it's not as easy as it sounds. John enlists the help of Liam 'I am probably God' Neeson, and he surprises his wife one day by rocking up and dragging her out into the open. Yeah, I think a surprise birthday party would just be enough for me.

The winner: While I think Unknown had an intriguing premise, if I were to choose between the two based on story alone, I'd have to go with The Next Three Days. It's as predictable as hell, but it does make for some intense stuff.

The director:

Unknown's director is Jaume Collet-Serra, a.k.a the guy who made Orphan. Which is the movie that everyone else hated, but I really liked. He's also done the remake of House of Wax and a sequel to some soccer movie called Goal II: Living the Dream. I think it's safe to say that Unknown is his best work - and he makes this film look pretty good.

The Next Three Days has Paul Haggis behind the camera. He's written quite a few movies, including Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace and Million Dollar Baby. His feature directorial efforts go as far as Crash (a.k.a the most hated Best Picture winner ever) and In the Valley of Elah. Definitely a bit more up-scale than Jaume Collet-Serra, but this is definitely his worst work (directorially speaking).

The winner: I gotta say, I'd pick Haggis anyday. So let's just say we base this on their body of work...yeah, Haggis wins.

The angry man with a raspy voice:

Unknown's headline star is Liam Neeson. You know, the guy that has played Oskar Schindler and Zeus, killed a whole lot of people to get to his daughter, gave Aslan a nice voice, led the A-Team and trained Batman. Yes, you're fucked. Not to mention, this guys voice is exactly what I imagine chocolate ice cream and velvet sound like. Even if he was supposed to be American in this movie, the Irish accent that came through was always pleasant to listen to.

The Next Three Days is led by Russell Crowe. The dude that has been in such works as L.A. Confidential, Robin Hood, Gladiator, A Beautiful Mind, Cinderella Man, Master and Commander and the highly revered Aussie soap series Neighbours (hahahaha). Oh, and he is from New Zealand. Where I happen to come from. And I am awesome. So he must be too. But his voice...yeah, that wasn't chocolate ice cream and velvet at all.

The winner: I should go with by fellow Kiwi, but come on, this is Liam 'I am probably God' Neeson we're talking about. He had a nicer voice...

The women folk:

Unknown gives Liam Neeson the pleasure of starring opposite Diane Kruger and January Jones. Diane, for one thing, is really good in this movie. I thought she had an Oscar-worthy turn in Inglourious Basterds, and here she proves that she is still awesome. How the woman is in her thirties is beyond me. January Jones, however...she drives me nuts. I have been watching some re-runs of Mad Men lately, and she's average in that. But between Unknown and X-Men: First Class, she's really pushing it. I think it has something to do with the fact that she has a really childish voice, she always looks stuck-up, and she's like an ice woman. And no, no matter how 'hot' the men folk think she is, I did not enjoy watching her cannoodling with Liam in the shower.

The Next Three Days features Elizabeth Banks as Russell Crowe's wife and Olivia Wilde as a fellow parent. I really like both of these actresses. Banks has always been a favourite of mine; she was brilliant in W., Zack and Miri Make a Porno and Definitely Maybe. Her performance here is beyond brilliant, showing that she really is good at both comedy and drama. Olivia Wilde was the best part about TRON: Legacy, and while she is barely used in this movie (her character was pretty much wasted), she's still awesome.

The winner: While I'd like to think that Diane can make up for January's bad performance, Elizabeth and Olivia are just better.

The intensity level:

Unknown is apparently just a rehash of Taken, which is true, to a point, but it as nowhere near as intense as that one. Liam doesn't have nearly as many people to beat the crap out of and he comes out as more of the victim. In saying that, the movie keeps up a nice pace right the way through, with wavering amounts of intensity.

The Next Three Days is quite slow, until it quickly burns up all of it's intensity in the final act. Once the movie gets to it's point, it is pretty explosive, but it takes a while to get to that point.

The winner: Definitely Unknown.

The cliché level:

Unknown, I'll admit, is ridden with with clichés, once we find out what is really happening. But the thing that I found unpredictable is what is 'really happening', if you know what I mean. Mind you, I get surprised by anything.

The Next Three Days isn't the most original piece of work (and I don't mean because it's a remake), as the premise can really only go a few ways. I felt like the thing had already been done many times before (again, I haven't seen the original so I don't mean that) and I pretty much knew what was going to happen right from the get-go (while I'm at it, the start was pretty weird in context with the rest of the film). One thing about this film that isn't so predictable though, is Lara. Now she was a wild one...

The winner: The one that has the least amount of clichés is Unknown. Hmmmmm.

My overall enjoyment level:

Unknown, of course, had my vote because it has Liam Neeson in it kicking ass as only he knows how. While I definitely wasn't wowed by it at all, and have pretty much forgotten most of it after a couple of weeks, I still really enjoyed it. Yeah, my new dad Liam could do with some better films, but Unknown isn't so bad. It looks gorgeous, it is well-acted for the most part and it definitely has a few thrills. It was perfectly adequate, and I'd probably watch it again.

The Next Three Days was a very solid film, but like Unknown, I wasn't wowed by it. The slowness really got to me, along with the waste of Olivia Wilde's character and the fact that Russell Crowe is...well, Russell Crowe. But hey, Liam has a cracking single scene, which is awesome. But looking at it's critical reception, it is a tad underrated.

The winner: I definitely enjoyed Unknown more. Yes, that is 75% to do with the fact that Liam is in it kicking butt.

Overall, the best movie that has angry men with raspy voices in it is: Unknown, which wins 4-3. They're both perfectly solid films, and I'd give them both...(leaning towards a 7 rating instead of an 8)

NOTE: I'm not awesome at all. I was only joking about that one.