The Great Gatsby (3D) – Full Screen Time Review

THE GREAT GATSBY (3D)

Plot? Tobey Maguire writes his memoirs, detailing his experiences in New York as a Third Wheel. Thankfully slumdog millionaire, Leonardo DiCaprio, is a bit livelier, and throws parties where everyone is invited. Meanwhile, I’m a little pissed off that my agent didn’t try harder to get me literally involved as an extra at these parties – turns out that no one tanned themselves in the 1920s, and so my pasty-white body would’ve fit right in, especially right next to that inflatable zebra. Grrr!

Recommend it? Oh heck yes! This is Baz Luhrmann’s best film to date, and that’s saying something as I really adore Strictly Ballroom and Romeo + Juliet, whilst Moulin Rogue has grown on me over the years. Not Australia though. Someone told me beforehand that with The Great Gatsby, it seems that everyone is finally acting in the same film. I didn’t understand their comment at first, but now I do. Unlike Baz’s other films, there’s no weird character that seems to be on speed… or from some other planet where people socialize differently. No, for once all the acting styles are quite similar. But Baz still manages to keep his style – you know, that surrealistic world where reality is just that bit heightened. I loved the atmosphere of this film. And the production design. And Baz’s taste in music – modern tunes, yet he still manages to encapsulate that flamboyancy of the rich 1920s. And the love story. And the character development and how you witness their flaws come out as the plot progresses. And last but not least, the message the film delivers.

So I don’t know why critics have slammed this film as I thought that all elements of it were quite well done. I can only hazard a guess that the people who criticize it do so because they’re comparing it to the book. I haven’t read the novel, so I can’t really assess how faithful Baz’s adaptation is to the source material, but what I do know is that it’s usually the case that due to one being a piece literature and the other a visual form of communication, the book normally wins the contest as it can just take the time to describe stuff better. I suspect there’s some Great Gatsby book fan out there saying, “Oh, I just wish they got more of Gatsby’s inner turmoil and angst in there!” Uh, but how exactly does one do that in film (apart from hideous soliloquies)?  Should Leo have squeezed his fists a bit more? I don’t know, and the book fan won’t have any better ideas either. It’s just a different form of communication with separate issues and limitations. Movies are also at a disadvantage due to the film being one person’s interpretation – the original material however is viewed on a pedestal as something untouchable or incorruptible. …Can you tell it’s a pet peeve of mine when people snobbily state, “the book is always better than the movie”? My response to that is “well, what about Die Hard?” It produces an awkward silence. Go on. Google it. It was a book. Suck on them apples!

So if you haven’t already, I do recommend NOT reading The Great Gatsby until after seeing the film. I actually tend to do this quite often. I watch the movie first then read the book. People find that weird or backwards for some reason. I just find it efficient. Movies take up less time, so you can quickly suss out what stories you like faster. I feel that reading the book after seeing the film is a similar experience to delving into the DVD extras – you know you like the story, but reading the book gives you more details on the side stories, the character relations and the inner thoughts behind their actions. I’ve rarely done it the other way around. Whilst I had seen Stand By Me years earlier, a few months ago I finished reading Stephen King’s Different Seasons which contains the short story, The Body, which Stand By Me is based on. After finishing the book, that night I hired the film again, and honestly it was one of the worst movie experiences I’ve had. Just the constant comparing and analyzing your brain does! The movie leaves something out and you’re constantly wondering why this and why that, instead of just sitting back and allowing the film to tell its own version of the tale. After doing that, I can see why people are always dissatisfied with film – reading the book first just doesn’t give the movie a chance to stand on its own two feet and develop its own identity. So please, try it the other way around for once. You may find both forms of media to be a more enjoyable experience.

But I seriously digress!

I went to a midday session that that was quite busy. It’s the old people. The elderly tend to sit up the back though, so if you like the middle-front of the cinema, then you shouldn’t have too many problems just rocking up to a session. For nights however, it’ll be packed. Bookings essential for a decent seat or just a seat in general. Vmax/Imax was incredible – visually it’s an amazing film and the extra large screen helps to immerse you into the film’s world. I’m not completely sold on the 3D however. Baz uses old stock footage, or at least makes it look a bit olden in places, so sometimes the 3D looks a bit grainy and rather hard to focus. He also uses layers a lot – seeing through material, glass with snow, etc, and so the 3D can get a little blurry. But the 3D does have the advantage in making the world more surreal; really pushing forward Baz’s odd style. Personally I think you’d experience a different movie depending on whether you watch it in 3D or 2D. If you like things just a bit cartoony, then go the 3D.

(WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD!)

Further discussion? You can tell this story was written towards the start of the previous century because of the realist message it puts forward. Since the 1970s and through films such as Rocky, society has been adopting a humanist message. We can do anything if we set our minds to it, right? It’s a generational thing. There’s real concern these days that the newest generation are being too built up; their world is so sugarcoated that they’re not prepared for disappointment. Not sure if culture influences art or art influences culture, but for the past few decades films have depicted a general abandonment of duty towards the community, rejection of organized religion, and almost preaches the message of hedonism in return. If you want it, you can have it. No movie displays it so bluntly like Mulan 2. I’ve never been so sickened by the moral of a kids film in all my life. Then again, Disney has a lot of things to answer for anyway – while I’m not completely against their princess campaign where they empower kids to follow their dreams, kids do need to learn that it’s ok if you’re not seen as being successful in society’s eyes as well.

And so I guess I found it rather refreshing when The Great Gatsby produced the message of “You can’t have everything you want in life”. When the tragic ending came filled with a bit of hubris, I just wanted to shout, “YES! FINALLY SOMEONE UNDERSTANDS!” (Ok, so there’s other themes and messages in the film, but that’s the one that resonated with me the most). I feel like this might be the perfect time for old stories with more down-to-earth, sobering lessons to be displayed, especially when our society just seems to be so full of it these days. Will there be a revival of these types of tales? Could the rather depressing moral be the reason why The Great Gatsby has been panned by the critics living in the dream-driven United States of America? Just a few thoughts I’m pondering.

Or maybe I just feel resentment towards Disney because they lied to me.

2-Minute Movie Reviews (Beyonce: Life Is But a Dream, The Hangover Part III, The Great Gatsby, Snitch)

BEYONCE: LIFE IS BUT A DREAM

Plot? Documentary voiced over by Beyonce herself, where she gives wisdom about self-worth, etc, describing what her life was like before fame, so that you can relate to her and feel inspired… Until you leave the cinema and remember that she’s famous and you’re not, and that she’s probably not the best person to give advice on how to be satisfied with your life anyway. It’s not like fame solves anything, but even if you think it did, not everyone can be famous, as that’s just defeats the very concept of fame in the first place, and so you realize that you’ve just spent over an hour listening to a pipe dream.

Recommend it? It was only a one-time showing at the cinemas, so you’ve already missed out. Sorry. Even though it was a straight-to-TV doco in the States, I’m guessing it’ll eventually be available on DVD, possibly in the music section. Look, if you’re really into Beyonce, then don’t let me hold you back. If you’re interested in being inspired, then this may be worth a look, though really she’s no different than many other countless stars. The parts I walked in on did look good, though I can’t help but feel that no matter how good/loved/appreciated you feel watching this, you’re left with the bitter aftertaste of returning back to reality once it’s over. Kinda like every episode of Oprah. So I’d say this one’s just for the fans.

 

THE HANGOVER PART III

Plot? Whilst on route to take Alan to a psychiatric hospital (which begs the question as to why on earth he wasn’t placed in one before), the Wolf Pack somehow passes through Las Vegas and are dragged into another crazy adventure thanks to Chow. They then spend the rest of the movie screaming at each other in increasingly bizarre scenarios, wondering why this crap keeps happening to them, only to come to the conclusion that it’s because they haven’t all grown up, aka, entered into marriage (except the audience knows otherwise and the real reason why they keep doing this is because the characters never actually learn ANYTHING. But then again, why would we expect them to learn from past mistakes? They’re either too drugged to remember what they’ve done, or suffering from a hangover). However the REAL reason why they keep getting into the same situation again and again is because the screenwriters know it makes money.

Considering that the first two movies followed the exact same formula, I’m guessing that this one will break it slightly, and instead of the Wolf Pack getting totally smashed and they have to figure out what they’ve done, instead they walk in on Chow’s devastation and have to follow the clues to find him. Meaning… they may not actually be hungover this time! But that’s ok – once you factor in the audience’s drunkenness, the movie ends up being a blur for everyone involved anyway.

Recommend it? Maybe it’s because there’s a LOT of people in the audience, and therefore there’s just a higher percentage of people laughing (or the audience is just drunk), but I haven’t heard this much laughter in a cinema in a while. If you’ve seen the first two films then you’d know a lot of the gags come from a mindset of, “That’s so ridiculous, I can’t believe they did that!” That type of comedy isn’t for everyone… though it certainly seems to please the masses. Out of the trilogy, since this film is the most entrenched with the characters and their development, you might be better off watching the first two films before watching this in order to appreciate the overall journey more, though it’s not as though the plot’s so far advanced you’re not going to follow it if you’re just coming to see this one. Regardless, it’s the best comedy out at the moment, so if you’re in the mood, or you like the atmosphere of being in a friendly crowd (did I mention they’re drunk? That’s all thanks to the popcorn and alcohol combo we’re offering exclusively to the patrons of this film o.0! Either that, or people think being drunk is a prerequisite to watching this movie… just never seen this many drunk people gather to watch a movie before in my life o.0!), then watch it at the cinemas. But really, the film isn’t enhanced that much by a big screen, so you could just wait until DVD. Sessions are PACKED at the moment, so you need to book ahead. There’s a stereotypical Hangover sequence part way through the credits that you don’t want to miss out on. Rated MA15+ for adult shenanigans.

 

THE GREAT GATSBY

Plot? Tobey Maguire, the dweeb that he is, narrates in Moulin Rouge-esque style as he enters into a world of parties with bright colours, weird characters, sex and drunkenness. That is, until he meets Gatsby, who then really shows him how to party. Kinda like The Hangover, but with no hangover, just the horrible feeling that the rich are oppressive and abusive and ruining lives or something or other.

Recommend it? Looks FANTASTIC! See it in VMax/Imax. True to Baz Luhrmann’s style, he’s bringing the eccentricities of theatre to cinema once more. Word on the floor is that it’s one of his better films (possibly his best thus far), where for once it seems that all the wild characters actually fit into the same movie. The only criticism is that Baz does some wild camera movements every so often that doesn’t seem necessary – he could’ve pulled back a bit. It’s said to be better than the Robert Redford adaptation, mainly because all movies filmed in the 70s, look like they’re from the 70s -.-! Whilst Baz takes a more modernized approach, using recent music, he still manages to pull off the 1920s feel. Just go watch it – it’s just one of those movies that wants to take you on a wild ride. The critics in the States have criticized it heavily, mainly because it’s not a great adaptation of the book… which is nothing new – we hear that from the book nerds every time. But if you are an avid reader, then don’t get your hopes up – we all know that Baz is a bit more for style over substance. And WHAT style! Wooo! Bookings are essential – this movie is going to be BUSY! If you must see it during the first week and can’t make a day session, then Monday or Wednesday night will be your best bet at getting a smaller audience.

 

SNITCH

Plot? Dwayne (The Rock) Johnson has found himself not only in a film that’s not rated MA15+, but also in a serious role. Is it just me, or are his roles just getting better and better? In Snitch he is a father whose son has become involved in drug dealing. Whilst against his son’s crimes, Dwayne regardless finds himself involved in this drug underworld, and in order to ensure his son doesn’t go to prison, he has to provide information to the authorities, which somehow pertains to his job as a truck driver. Hence, he’s a snitch. Or a rat. I like rats.

Recommend it? This is one of those action/drama films that just slips under the radar. It’s not fantastic, but it doesn’t look bad either. It’s just decent. It’s the film you watch when you want to go to the movies and you’ve seen all the blockbusters already. I wouldn’t say it’s a big loss if you don’t catch it in cinemas – there’s always DVD, or that random Saturday night when it’s on TV and there’s nothing else to do. So worth a look, particularly if you’re into more serious action films.

 

 

The wrap for this week?

MY TOP PICKS: Olympus Has Fallen, The Great Gatsby, The Place Beyond The Pines, Star Trek: Into the Darkness.

THE WORST: The Big Wedding, and possibly The Hangover Part III

THE MOVIE THE OLD PEOPLE ARE SEEING: The Big Wedding, The Place Beyond The Pines.

LAST CHANCE TO SEE: The Big Wedding, The Croods, Escape From Planet Earth, Olympus Has Fallen. (I think the kids’ movies are still in theatres because there’s a LOT of MA15+ movies out at the moment. It’s just always good to offer a bit of variety and parents always complain if there’s nothing to take their children to).

MOVIES YOU REALLY NEED TO BOOK AHEAD: The Hangover Part III, The Great Gatsby.

 

The Call – Full Screen Time Review

THE CALL

Plot? Halle Berry is a (fully-clothed) emergency services dispatcher who begins to develop emotional issues when she is unintentionally responsible for a girl’s murder. Months later, she’s at it again, and this time she wants to catch the murderer no matter how hard she has to try. Meanwhile the movie camera spends one third of the film trying to find a tripod to rest on.

Recommend it? This movie is intense! It’s a thriller that achieves its objective of keeping you on the edge of your seat. Wonderfully claustrophobic at times complete with rising action and shaky close-ups, it will satisfy a lot of viewers, though it’s not suitable for everyone. It’s rated MA15+ for a reason – the villain’s methods and actions are quite disturbing to watch, and while the movie never really dips into true horror, the premise of girls being kidnapped is quite unsettling due to recent events and the fact this scenario could happen in real life. The Call is certainly one of the better thrillers we’ve seen in recent years, though I wouldn’t get your hopes up too high as it’s not without its flaws. Act 1 and 2 are wonderful, though in Act 3 we see our protagonist’s grasp of logical reasoning nosedive into the ground. Despite that it’s an enjoyable film (albeit rather unsettling) that does benefit from the large screen, sound, and darkened room of a cinema. Sessions aren’t too busy so you can get away with not booking ahead.

 

(WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD)

 

Further discussion? There are some movies where I believe you can actually pinpoint the moment the plot starts to go downhill. Or rather, your suspension of disbelief gets a little strained. When there’s a film like this, I’m very curious if it’s just me or if it’s more a universal thing. The moment that really bugged me was… when Halle Berry dropped her phone into the murderer’s lair, she climbed down to retrieve it, but then didn’t climb back up to get a phone signal so she could call 911 for backup. Yes, Halle Berry may have believed that the girl was in immediate danger and therefore she needed to suss out the scene first. But for the audience, we’ve witnessed the killer brutally murder two male bystanders, one of which was holding a small blade, and here we have just a mere switchboard operator taking on a very dangerous man by herself, unarmed. Her decision just seemed too illogical and I found it quite jarring, as though the scriptwriter forced her character a bit into that situation in order to create more drama. Was it just me, or were you wondering as well why the hell she didn’t just go back upstairs and call the cops?

Then there’s that final beat in Act 3. You know what I’m talking about. The vengeful ending that seems to be a nod to Saw. I don’t like to use the term Out Of Character (OOC) a lot as I disagree with how the word is normally used, though it’s the best way to describe what has happened at the end of The Call.

To explain further, when people say “this person was OOC”, they tend to use absolutes, when technically there’s nothing that’s truly out of a character’s range of behaviour, rather we’re discussing the likelihood of someone’s actions when responding to different stimuli/stakes/circumstances.

For instance, you see the term OOC get discussed in the fanfiction world a lot, as that writing form is all about keeping the adopted characters recognizable to the readers. You’ll see phrases like “Superman would never kill Lois Lane as that would be out of character for him”. Really? He’d NEVER kill her? Of course, what the person is referring to is that on a normal day it’s highly unlikely that Superman would kill Lois Lane (close to 0%), whereas for Lex Luthor, his likelihood for killing her is higher as that’s more within his character. But anyone is capable of anything given the right circumstances. What if Superman was given an ultimatum, where if he didn’t kill Lois Lane, then an entire primary school would blow up resulting the deaths of over a thousand children? What if Lois begged him to save the children instead of just her? You’ll find that the likelihood of Superman killing Lois has risen considerably (probably to 30% as you’re probably thinking that, knowing Superman, he’d just have a crack at saving everyone). But what if on top of that Superman was drugged and, along with his actions, his ability to make decent decisions was impaired? The probability of him killing Lois has increased even more. And what if Lois Lane had heartlessly broken up with Superman earlier that year and hasn’t spoken to him for months? Suddenly it just seems to make a lot of sense to simply kill Lois Lane. So that’s why I don’t like how people use the OOC term, as there’s really no behavioural limits as to what a person is capable of; rather what we’re seeing is a character’s actions being at odds with the current circumstances, where they’ve chosen a path that’s not the most likely response given the amount of pressure they’re under (or lack thereof).

This is what happens in the last few minutes of The Call. Yes, the whole film displays how Halle Berry is unable to keep emotionally detached in her line of work. However she’s not so emotionally involved that she’d resort to exacting justice herself, turning her back on her own workplace and comrades. She’s a character with a strong sense of duty and that outweighs her need for personal revenge. While her trust in the emergency services does wane throughout the film, I feel that the reason she goes searching for the kidnapped girl herself is because she desires closure as opposed to vengeance. By not calling 911 at the end, it’s a slap to the face to the industry she works in, to her workmates, and to her lover who’s currently working his ass off on the same case. Jordan, despite her issues, obviously loves her field of work and believes in the system, otherwise she wouldn’t have resorted to teaching after her initial breakdown, rather she would’ve just quit. The ending was just out of character for her – at that moment it would’ve seemed more likely that she’d just phone the cops. Her character just wasn’t at that point. Had the killer instead have captured Jordan, threatened/tortured her a bit (although this would’ve in turn been OOC for Michael as he was more likely to just kill any intruder right away), and made things more personal, then it would make more sense for Jordan in the end to respond in a likewise fashion.

It’s as though the screenwriter wanted an edgy ending and so they went for something a bit left of field, and while the end result was interesting, it just wasn’t the right conclusion for the main character. Instead of admiring Jordan’s incessant need for helping others, we’re left to witness the cold, unforgiving side of her character, willing to stoop down to the moral level of her nemesis. Well, I guess The Call certainly succeeded in giving me an uneasy feeling in the end. 

Olympus Has Fallen – Full Screen Time Review

OLYMPUS HAS FALLEN

Plot? It’s Die Hard in the White House.

Recommend it? If the above sentence didn’t excite you one bit, then there’s nothing else I can say to convince you to see this movie – it’s just not for you. But if you were intrigued… then YES, OHMYGOWSH SEE THIS FILM! Rated MA15+ for cold, hard, butt-kicking action, that not only looks good, but is also wrapped in a very modern political issue. While it may not be classed in the same league as the aforementioned Die Hard, it is one of the better actions films to be released over the past few years. Seeing it in the cinema was fantastic – I just wished I watched it sooner so I could’ve recommended it earlier. Sessions are now few and far between, being downgraded to mornings only. Ick. If you’re like most people and that doesn’t suit you, then your best bet to see this in cinemas now is on Last Chance Monday.

Of course, if you miss your chance, then there’s always White House Down in a few months time -.-!

 

(WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD!)

 

Further discussion? I wanted to give this a 10/10 score, but I hesitated. For me a 10/10 movie is one that not only fulfills its intended purpose, but it also combines all aspects of filmmaking so perfectly that I’m unable to think of what needs to be improved. Problem is, I can’t really think of what could make this film better, yet I don’t want to rank it 10/10. I don’t hold it to the same level as other films I’ve rated 10/10 like The Shawshank Redemption, City of God, The Matrix, The Prestige, and yes, Die Hard. Maybe it’s because I value Die Hard so highly, which is why I can’t rank Olympus Has Fallen on the same level; e.g. if it’s a rainy Saturday night and I had a choice to watch either Die Hard or Olympus Has Fallen, Die Hard would win nearly every time. Olympus Has Fallen just isn’t as good, but why is that?

Olympus Has Fallen is a great action film that will no doubt get some kind of cult following over the next few years, but it’s not on the same level as the Die Hard’s, the Mad Max’s, Lethal Weapon’s, etc. While some of those movies aren’t the greatest, they last the ages mainly due to the characters. I know I keep mentioning Die Hard, but it’s important to use it as a comparison because Olympus Has Fallen practically follows that movie beat for beat. Both characters wish to repair a relationship, both seek words of encouragement before the last battle, both get fooled by a wolf in sheep’s clothing, both just go to town in messing up the enemy’s plans, etc. But what makes Die Hard better is John McClane. Without him, the movie would’ve just been average. That’s not to say that there’s no character development in Olympus Has Fallen – Mike is a great little character, who is brave and always loyal no matter what. That’s well established. It’s just… those are attributes you’d expect from anyone in the Secret Service. There’s nothing terribly unique about him (apart from his above-average fighting skills which manage to keep him alive unlike his other comrades). He’s like Rambo, but without the crazy… except we like the crazy, as that’s what makes Rambo even more fun. Mike is predictable and therefore kind of boring.

So Olympus Has Fallen is a great piece of cinema, but it just could’ve been that little bit more fun. I don’t think changing Mike to be like John McClane would’ve suited, as this is a more serious film, but his character does need a tweak, just can’t put my finger on what. Ultimately I feel like this film will be remembered as time passes, just not to the same extent as the 80s classics. Sort of like Crimson Tide – a film that just sits on that ledge between great and excellent, it just needed that little bit extra to push it over the edge. Olympus Has Fallen does have a great deal of pizzazz, just not enough to complete with the more legendary films in its genre. 

Star Trek Into Darkness (3D) – Full Screen Time Review

STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS (3D)

Plot? In Act 1 we see Kirk as a brazen, arrogant captain of the Enterprise, who follows his own rules and is told to get a dose of humility. After facing the challenges presented throughout Act 2 and 3 with some kind of death wish, Kirk learns… nothing. Rather the audience learns that the main character isn’t Kirk, but once again it was Spock all along, as despite being an emotionless being, he has the greatest emotional journey. Well that doesn’t sound too promising for character development, now does it? But don’t get me wrong, they’re still entertaining characters at the end of the day. Meanwhile everyone else practices their poker face in Act 2, except for those wearing a red shirt – turns out they’ve all been selected for random extermination.

Recommend it? I do, particularly if you’ve seen the first one (actually you won’t understand a lot about the characters if you haven’t seen the first, as Star Trek Into Darkness leaps straight into the action and doesn’t dumb things down, which I appreciate). The characters are enjoyable, there are explosions, fights, special effects and it’s all a bit of fun, really. It’s exactly what you’d expect from a Hollywood blockbuster – honestly I can’t say it’s better or worse than any other film that’s typically in its genre. It’s certainly not ground-breaking cinema or anything – in a few decades time I’m not sure how well this series will be remembered, although its done wonders for the Star Trek fandom. But as I said, these films are kinda just made to be entertaining and nothing much else, and comparing it to that standard, Star Trek Into Darkness achieves its goal.

Act 2 does get a bit mind-bogging in regards to character motivations. Remember in The Avengers where there’s just a lot of talking and guessing of other characters’ motivations? Yeah, it’s that all over again, but thankfully Star Trek Into Darkness still manages to keep momentum, unlike The Avengers which practically grinds to a halt with its action. Apart from that, you’ll enjoy it and possibly even watch it twice. Go for 3D – you get more of the feeling of the sparseness of space. I was too lazy to drive to a place with Vmax/Imax, but honestly I didn’t mind it on a regular sized cinema screen. Upgrade if you’re particularly picky. If you’re too impatient to simply wait a week, then do book your seat ahead. After the first Sunday, the number of admissions tends to die off quickly with these blockbusters (how about seeing it Monday night? What a novel idea!). Morning weekday sessions are dead, as always.

(WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD)

Further discussion? I feel the more you try to analyse Kirk’s character journey and lessons, the more you realize he didn’t learn anything. The writer’s tried to make it so that Kirk learns from Spock and the same vice versa, but the thing is, in Act 1 Kirk makes the decision that his friends are important and worth saving, and in Act 3 when he goes to sacrifice himself, he still does it for the same reason. Hence there’s no real character development. Yes, he imitates Spock’s willingness in the beginning to sacrifice himself, but Spock merely did it for the mission – it was just awkward to get rescued in the middle of a volcano, completely unlike the situation Kirk finds himself in and therefore their two character journeys can’t be compared. I know some viewers will be like, “Kirk and Spock ended up trading places – that’s so clever!” but it’s all just surface level. However, Spock does grow more and more as a human, learning that it is ok to experience fear and to value of your own life, while also appreciating friendship and how others perceive him. So he does end up developing as a character.

I guess it bugs me so much because I feel a bit cheated. There are a few things they set up in this film that never gets addressed or there’s simply no payoff. For instance, Pike says Kirk needs to learn humility. I can’t say that he did by the end of it. Also when Future Spock advises Spock, telling him that he defeated Khan with great sacrifice. What exactly was that sacrifice? You could say that it was Kirk’s life, but it just seems a bit indirect (he dies trying to fix the ship… which I guess in turn was the result of Khan, but still…). Of course, by getting advice from his future self, Spock could’ve altered the future and averted the full pain he would’ve experienced otherwise, which seems to have been the case when he thought ahead and armed the missiles. But that’s no fun! The other way creates more drama! Spock cheated!

Overall I think I will have to see this film again, as I’m sure a few others might as well. Not necessarily at the cinemas though – I can wait for DVD. After hearing Khan’s back story, then the Admiral’s version, then future Spock, it just became a little hard to follow about who really believed who, who was lying and manipulating and when, and who had the best poker face. I think I came away thinking that all the versions were true, in that case there were two villains in this movie; Khan and the Admiral, who both had evil desires but they obviously couldn’t combine forces. If that really is the case, then kudos to the writers for being a bit original, though as I said, I think I need to watch this again for clarity.

I give it points for killing off Pike though. That took some balls.

2-Minute Movie Reviews (The Big Wedding, The Company You Keep, Escape From Planet Earth, Exhibition: Monet, Olympus Has Fallen, The Place Beyond the Pines, Star Trek: Into the Darkness)

THE BIG WEDDING

Plot? Amanda Seyfried is getting married again! Though as we have learnt from Hollywood, the wedding’s not at all about the couple-to-be, but about everyone else and keeping up appearances. There’s the standard religious jab at having a Catholic ceremony in order to please some older relative, even though the couple aren’t practicing in their faith at all, as no doubt there’s some subplot of a shotgun marriage. Meanwhile the sister or sister-in-law (I don’t know who the main character is really supposed to be) is having her own relationship problems, probably having many and ‘woe is me’ moments throughout the film. Yet despite all the stress behind the upcoming event, Robert De Niro still manages to be in many sex scenes, which is most likely why this movie is a) rated MA15+, and b) attracting the attention of many, many old ladies. Seriously, they’re coming in droves.

Recommend it? Are you an elderly old lady? Then yes. As for everyone else, I’m not sure as of yet how much of a comedy this film is, and how much of it is just plain drama. I haven’t walked in on too many funny moments – things always seem a bit serious. Regardless, The Big Wedding is this month’s standard romantic film that women drag their men to. Personally I don’t see why you’d need to see this one on the big screen as opposed to DVD. It’s insanely popular though (has there just been a drought of romantic films and now suddenly everyone’s grabbing their fix?) so you’ll need to book ahead if you’re going to watch a night session. It’s all the old ladies gathering together for a night out to watch some De Niro porn, seriously.

 

THE COMPANY YOU KEEP

Plot? About two decades back some people manage to pull off a bank robbery. Now, when a reporter pressures them a bit, it suddenly dawns on the criminals that actions have consequences… such as Susan Sarandon going crazy. 

Recommend it? Word on the floor is that the casting is a bit unbelievable. Robert Redford has a thirteen-year-old daughter? Please, he’s like grandfather age at least. Apart from that particular customer’s complaint, a lot of people have said it’s good. Indeed it does look like a good thriller/drama. Though if you had to choose between this or Olympus Has Fallen, go with Olympus. The Company You Keep, whilst a competent film, is just one of those movies you only watch at the cinemas once you’ve seen all the other good stuff. You could easily just wait for DVD with this one.

 

ESCAPE FROM PLANET EARTH (also in 3D)

Plot? An alien-run rescue agency (like The Rescuers, but without rodents, and with less obscurity) decides to respond to a call for help from… the Dark Planet, DUN DUN DUN (Spoilers – it’s Earth). So they send their leading rescuer, a muscular alien version of Beauty and the Beast’s Gaston. When things go wrong, his nerdy/weedy-looking and unadventurous brother goes in search of him.

Recommend it? It reminds me a lot of Megamind… though that might purely be because of the blue. Though the movie does have the same kind of attitude. To be honest, I do want to see this movie, though I probably won’t be able to get around to it, as frankly there are better films out right now. If you’re a parent and need to drag your kids to something, then this is a good choice. Sessions are disappearing fast, so see a morning session soon. 3D and animation looks good and polished.

 

EXHIBITION: MONET

Plot? A documentary on Monet’s life and artworks. Watch as the camera zooms in on the paint whilst a mysterious voice tells you all about it. Like going on an art exhibition tour, but this time you’re sitting down, eating popcorn…

Recommend it? If you’re into his artworks, then sure, why not? This movie has already left the cinema though – it was only a one-off session. I’m mainly just posting this to let you know that there’s other filmed art exhibition documentaries coming out soon, so check the website to see if there’s any classic artists coming up that you’d like to learn more about.

 

OLYMPUS HAS FALLEN

Plot? Harvey Dent is once again involved with the political world; emotionally distant from his family until a terrorist attack no doubt teaches him what is really important. Emotionally charged with stuff blowing up (it’s Washington’s turn this time – NYC is on Spring Break) and bullets, blood, politicians acting like action heroes… just everyone goes Rambo.

Recommend it? Yes. I have heard nothing but excellent things about this movie. People say it’s a good story with twists and turns, it’s action-packed, there’s ‘splosions!!! What more do you want? Rated MA15+ for excellence. It’s still drawing a bit of a crowd, so book ahead if you’re really picky about your seats, particularly for Friday and Saturday night sessions. Watch it soon as there’s not going to be many cinemas physically left over to show films other than Iron Man 3 and Star Trek: Into the Darkness.

 

THE PLACE BEYOND THE PINES

Plot? Ryan Gosling is some kind of morally-bankrupt loser with bad tattoos, who resorts to a life of crime in order to provide stuff for the ones he loves.

Recommend it? You’re watching this because of Ryan Gosling. Believe it or not, but he’s not hot in this movie. Sorry.

So for the people who don’t watch a movie solely because they like to ogle the actors like a piece of meat, this film does look quite good. But seriously, who watches a drama at the cinemas? The big screens are useful for making explosions, action sequences, CGI and scary moments so much more engaging – straightforward dramas in contrast aren’t any less brilliant on a smaller screen. If you’re looking for a movie that’s not so mainstream, or a bit more intelligent that your average run-of-the-mill blockbuster hit, then this is a good choice. Rated MA15+ for I don’t know what yet.

 

STAR TREK: INTO THE DARKNESS (also in 3D)

Plot? After some difficulty, particularly with Spock, Captain Kirk manages to get his team together again for an ill-advised space mission. Turns out it really was a good idea of Kirk’s to get Spock re-instated, as his non-man efficiency is greatly needed for much ass-kicking. Seriously, I popped into the theatre and thought the film had just broken into Act 3, left to do something else, then five minutes later I saw the audience leave. Either I had made a wild assumption (never!) or Spock is just super efficient at wrapping everything up!

Recommend it? Of course! But if you’ve seen the first one, you’re going to see this one anyway, despite what I say. As expected, the special effects and production design looks great and so does the 3D (ok, for me it just looks blurry… but it’s a good blurry, you know? Oh whatever – you just can’t go wrong with 3D spaceships… or fistfights on top of spaceships). There’s no scene after the credits. Just leave. As for sessions, if this is anything like Iron Man 3, then everyone will see this during its first weekend, leaving the following weekend relatively dead. If you can wait a week (oh I know, I know, it’s just soooo hard, poor you) then you’ll get quieter sessions and better seats. A good candidate for Vmax/Imax.

 

 

The wrap for this week?

MY TOP PICKS: Oblivion, Olympus Has Fallen, Iron Man 3, Star Trek: Into the Darkness.

THE WORST: Scary Movie 5, The Big Wedding, Exhibition: Monet, Drift.

THE MOVIE THE OLD PEOPLE ARE SEEING: The Company You Keep, Olympus Has Fallen, The Big Wedding.

LAST CHANCE TO SEE: Identity Thief, Scary Movie 5, A Good Day To Die Hard, Warm Bodies, G.I. Joe: Retaliation.

MOVIES YOU REALLY NEED TO BOOK AHEAD: The Big Wedding, Star Trek: Into the Darkness, Olympus Has Fallen (only on Friday/Saturday nights), Iron Man 3 (only on Friday/Saturday nights).

 

Coming up next is The Great Gatsby and The Hangover Part III. 

Oblivion – Full Screen Time Review

OBLIVION – FULL SCREEN TIME REVIEW

Plot? It’s like all the best parts of 2001: A Space Odyssey are put into a coherent plot.

Or to be more specific… Aliens invade Earth by blowing up the moon, throwing the world into chaos with all the natural disasters. The remaining humans retaliate by nuking parts of the world ‘cause that’s always a smart idea. Apart from a few remaining alien warriors, the humans have won the battle for Earth, although it’s mostly uninhabitable. Most are now living on a moon of Saturn, with the exception of a few teams of two who are maintaining the droids that are helping to return the planet back to normal. Tom Cruise is one such technician, or so the story goes…

Recommend it? Yes. First of all it’s just visually beautiful. I regret not watching this in time to see it on a Vmax/Imax screen. Secondly, it’s just good story, or rather, it’s told well. It’s enjoyable watching this plot unfold, as though the writer’s knew the perfect time to release certain bits of information. I felt like the main character for most of it, on the constant quest to uncover the truth. As you may have guessed, this movie is heavily plot-focused, becoming a rare straightforward sci-fi flick, as opposed to many others that are more action-orientated films with splashes of futurism. I guess I just found it refreshing to just follow a journey, not being constantly distracted with massive yet pointless explosions of expensive set pieces (although I love a good explosion, just not at the expense of plot). With that said, there are a few battle sequences in the mix, so don’t worry, it’s not all talking. As for the twists and turns in the story, there are some you can see coming, but there are others you just would never have guessed.

Unfortunately there’s a lot of you who’ll never watch this movie simply because Tom Cruise is the lead character. If you stop to think about it, that’s rather a bizarre reason as to why you shouldn’t watch a movie. Please, just stop and think about it. Right now. I’m not going to defend Tom Cruise’s behaviour and beliefs in real life, BUT, if there was any profession where a person’s social life and work life were completely separate, then it’s acting, or even just the arts in general. As a budding actress myself, it depresses me to think that people will judge my movies based on who I am in real life, because… well, the reason why a lot of people take up acting in the first place is because they want to explore being another person. So in Oblivion, you’re not watching Tom Cruise, you’re watching droid-repairer, Jack. Ok fine, so you’re watching Tom Cruise’s interpretation of who the character Jack is, but still… The artist and the artwork are separate entities.

Hmm, you’re still not convinced, are you? You know, Michelangelo, back at the height of the Renaissance, was a bit of a tool. He was a depressive, egotistical, angry man who was rather intolerable to work with, sometimes going as far as pulling a dick move and incorporating his superiors into his artworks, placing them in compromising positions for many future generations to see. Now that you know that, when you find yourself in Rome, are you going to pass up the chance to see the Sistine Chapel, his architecture or even his statue of Moses?

Good. Now grow up, shut up and watch this movie.

 

(WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD)

 

Further discussion? As entertaining as I found this movie to be, when you take a step back and view the story overall, it is rather simplistic. The film’s strength really does come from how this simple plot unfolds. Take that away and it’s no different than any other run-of-the-mill post-apocalyptic movie. Since I liked this film so much, it does sadden me to think that Oblivion will eventually be forgotten in the swathes of people’s memories, as the story is just not distinctive enough to stand out from the rest of all the sci-fi films, unlike Terminator or The Matrix.

Save for one part. The mass cloning of Jack and Victoria. For a moment in the film I thought those questions concerning why Jack and Victoria were put together as a pair weren’t going to be addressed, that was until they played the final bits of the space ship’s flight recorder. I found it rather creepy to think of how another race might interpret certain words and gestures, particularly when they don’t understand the world’s culture or context. But anyway, that whole part of the film was very unique and unexpected. Though I know it caused me and few others watching the film to question the movie’s lesson about individuality and the human soul at the end. What I thought it tried to say about Jack was that, despite him being manufactured, there’s something distinct about him – something that made him an individual. Except that concept is pissed away the moment Tech 52 appears, wanting to hook up with his long-lost wife. Sure, it’s a happy ending, and maybe Tech 52 was awakened when he saw Julia during the fight scene, but doesn’t that mean that all the others are going to be the same? Does personal experiences account for nothing? When Tech 52 is told that the other guy sacrificed his life for the planet, can he still take the credit and go, “yeah, that’s totally what I would do… but I didn’t”. And what happens to all the other Jack clones? Exterminated? But they’re human, just like everyone else. Do they all go in search of Julia?

Something tells me there’s a crackfic of billions of Jacks dating the one and only Julia somewhere on fanfiction.net

 

Drift – Full Screen Time Review

DRIFT – FULL SCREEN TIME REVIEW

Plot? Australian movie. Two brothers really love surfing. It’s their passion and their reason to live. However while one brother is a total beach bum, the other is trying to discover a way to turn their hobby into a financially stable way of life by building a surf brand empire, though he has to overcome many obstacles including banks and drug-dealing bikies.

Recommend it? It’s really more for the people who like sport movies. The plot itself is rather average and quite cluttered at times. Only when it gets past the midpoint does the drive of the protagonist become clear and therefore engaging. So while you’re not watching it for the story, the cinematography does make up for it. The surf footage is stunning. Breathtaking even. They didn’t get professional DPs to shoot the surf scenes, rather they got the guys who usually shoot those surfing documentaries to do those parts. And you can tell. They’re right there in the action, getting battered by waves, and whilst I don’t normally watch it, by far Drift contains the best surf sequences I’ve ever seen. I’d say it’s worth the admission price alone just to see those action scenes. And it’s always good to support the Australian film industry. Good on Sam Worthington for agreeing to be in this otherwise small feature film.

Sessions are rather quite and I don’t think this movie will be out for long. If you’re into this kind of genre, then watch it as soon as you can before it’s too late.

(WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD)

Further discussion? It took me a while to get into this movie as quite frankly I was rather confused throughout Act 1. We see two boys taken by their mother, escaping what we assume was an abusive dad. Ok. Then they grow up in a little beachside community. Then there’s a travelling photographer and his tag-along best friend’s daughter, and the two brothers kinda-do-but-don’t have a love triangle. The photographer is also a druggo. And then there’s a bikie gang that teases them in bars and stuff… that’s where I got lost. Why is there animosity between them? Did I just not pay attention in this part? Hello, you can’t solve a problem without first showing that a problem exists. It lacks set up.

Meanwhile a lot of the other things mentioned didn’t need to be in the movie at all. So much stuff could’ve been stripped back. Why bother mentioning the dad if they’re not going to deal with him again for the rest of the movie? Just watching the main character trying to create a surf shop and dealing with a bank that didn’t believe in him was fascinating enough. But simply put, for the first half of Drift, the movie doesn’t know what it wants to be. Like most other Australian films, it doesn’t want to commit to a genre, as Australian filmmakers feel that genres are cliché and artistically limiting. However Australian audiences, raised on American films, are culturally trained to recognize genres, and stories marketed within one do better than those that are wishy-washy, ambiguously-plotted dramas.

But thankfully, once we’re past the midpoint and a supporting character dies, the movie suddenly finds its legs. It’s an underdog sports movie. They must win a competition in order to solve their problems. All the issues are streamlined and their goal is clear. If only there was such clarity from the start, Drift would’ve been so much more enjoyable. Unfortunately it is a bit too little too late, and what could’ve been a great movie is only a good one.

Still better than most Australian films though. Man that’s depressing.

Iron Man 3 (3D) – Full Screen Time Review

IRON MAN 3 (3D) – FULL SCREEN TIME REVIEW

Plot? When one of Iron Man’s friends is injured through one of the Mandarin’s terrorist attacks, Tony Stark egotistically declares a personal war on the criminal. When the Mandarin seems to accept the challenge and successfully manages to destroy everything but Tony Stark himself, our hero eats humble pie for the rest of the movie.

Recommend it? Pfft, if you’ve seen Iron Man 1 and 2, you’re going to see the 3^rd film no matter what I say. So many Hollywood producers are banking on that. I’ve noticed over the past two weeks that there’s a lot of negative nit-picking of this film – tearing apart the plot mechanics and criticizing it because it has the regular Hollywood format – but to be honest I feel that’s unfair. Iron Man 3 is no better or worse than any of the other Marvel films. In fact I enjoyed this one because I felt that the stakes were really high for Tony Stark, unlike the previous two films where it was just a battle over who had the better suit. But you can’t blame the fact that Hollywood films seem rather formulaic – they’re made that way because that’s the traditional style of storytelling and that’s what translates well into other cultural groups, and therefore it’s the smartest format if you want a decent financial return for your movie investment. Are you tired of it and want to see a film that has a non-traditional way of storytelling? Then see Cloud Atlas. Oh wait, you probably didn’t. If you were a Hollywood film producer, would you make a film that’s artistically exciting but a risky investment, or would you make a film that’s most likely going to earn three times the production cost? Stop whinging – Hollywood keeps making these types of films because people like you keep paying money to see them!

With all that said, Iron Man 3 is a very entertaining movie with great special effects that look great on a large screen (Vmax or Imax preferred). Though while I defend its typical 3 act, character inner and outer conflict structure, it does have its flaws and some of the story beats could’ve been hit a bit better, but I’ll talk about that in the spoiler-heavy discussion section lower down the page. To maximize your enjoyment of this film, I do strongly recommend that you at least watch the first Iron Man and The Avengers so you have some background context. Though there’s a limit, and if you watch too much, say of the actual Iron Man series and comics, then you’ll just hate this film, like a few of my Iron Man fan friends that watched this with me. Apparently for the film they’ve changed a lot of the Mandarin’s character and even Iron Man himself, and my friend’s reaction reminded me of those Transformer fans who are now out for Michael Bay’s blood.

So… I guess, if you’re just an average person who’s completely ignorant of the canonical history of Iron Man, then you’ll enjoy this film. And if you’re not… you’re still going to watch it and whinge anyway, you unintentional Hollywood franchise supporter you.

There’s a scene at the very, very end of the credits (I have it quoted lower down if you didn’t stick around). Meanwhile it seems that everyone saw this film the first weekend it came out. Most sessions are dead – you only need to book ahead if you plan on seeing it Friday or Saturday night. Watch it soon if you want to catch it on Vmax/Imax. I don’t think the 3D’s all that necessary.

 

(WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD)

 

Further discussion? I like the fact that this movie isn’t yet another suit vs. suit, and rather this time around it’s more like suit vs. genetically modified humans. It’s a different kind of enemy and I genuinely felt that Iron Man was out of his league for a lot of the story. However whilst I enjoyed the high stakes, I must admit that I worried that Iron Man 3 was going to suffer from what screenwriter and analyzer, Blake Snyder, describes as “Double Mumbo-Jumbo”.

Double Mumbo-Jumbo is the term used to describe what happens when something is added to a film, which causes the audience to drop their suspension of disbelief. For most part, audiences are willing to go along for the ride, accepting certain things set up in the movie’s world. Like Harry Potter – there are wizards out in the world who go to school to learn more about magic. Cool – audiences will accept that. But if halfway through a battle with Voldemort, Ginny says, “Hey, let’s open a portal and call our wizarding brothers and sisters from other dimensions”, yeah that crosses a line. “Whaaaaat? There are other dimensions now?” an audience’s knee-jerk reaction would be. Or for another example, it would be like the Winchesters from Supernatural suddenly battling aliens – angels, demons and other monsters of mythological lore are all cool and established in the world, but for some reasons aliens are just classified as something else and audiences will naturally reject it. The Box starring Cameron Diaz is a good example of a movie suffering from Double Mumbo-Jumbo.

The first two Iron Man films are quite realistic as far as comic book stories go. A genius mechanic building a high-tech suit? Yeah, that’s plausible and fits within the rules of our own world. But genetically-infected humans that can burn others through their touch? That’s more in the fantasy realm, and so Iron Man 3 teeters on the edge of Double Mumbo-Jumbo. But this is solved by the fact that Iron Man 3 follows the events of The Avengers. Iron Man’s world now includes aliens, which is why, if you can accept that, monster humans are now ok. In fact, I feel the screenwriters addressed this issue by having Iron Man suffer PTSD from his alien battle – Tony Stark is trying to grapple with the idea of aliens, just like the audience.

But by directly referring to the events of The Avengers so heavily in order to make the Mandarin plot plausible for audiences, it brings in other problems. For instance, where are the other Avengers? I think the writers tried to answer this by saying that the Avengers initiative was created for global threats – the Mandarin is an American issue. Fair enough. Why should Thor care? But if it’s and American issue, then what the heck is Captain America doing? Playing a friendly game of chess with Vladimir Putin?

However, the idea of a super hero suffering from PTSD really fascinates me, although I feel it’s wrapped up too quickly. I’m just not entirely sure how that inner struggle really relates to his outer struggle in the film, where normally they go hand in hand. Speaking of inner conflicts, the other issue Iron Man 3 tries to tackle is the concept of who exactly is Iron Man? Is it the man or is it the suit? The movie practically bashes the audience over the head with the message “it’s the man”, but I don’t think many would agree judging the action of the film. Iron Man is the suit. Sorry Tony Stark, but you’re kinda boring and useless without it. The action speaks louder than the words. I can’t help but feel that while trying to neatly wrap up this little trilogy, they managed to wipe away everything that made Iron Man unique, including Tony Stark’s reliance on the arc reactor. Uh, that’s what made Tony special. Sure, he’s really smart and a great mechanic, but seriously, anyone could wear the suit and do the same job as him. Heck, just shove a martial artist in there instead and they’ll do a better job… actually, Jet Li dressed as Iron Man would be amazeballs… Damn, I wanna pitch that movie now.

Anyways…

If you didn’t stick around till the very end of the credits (because let’s face it, they were bloody long and it’s awkward sitting there a full five minutes after the lights have come up) then you unfortunately missed out on the final scene. But don’t worry. I’ve seen it enough times now that I can practically quote it. So without further ado…

 

As the credits continue to roll, Tony Stark’s voice is heard.

TONY: And I want to thank you for listening. It’s been really helpful to get this off my chest and out into the atmosphere. Not bottling this up inside. I think that’s what makes people sick, you know?

TONY is now pictured sitting in a chair. A psychiatrist’s office?

TONY: Wow, I never knew you were such a great listener. To just be able to share my intimate thoughts and feeling with, it just cuts the weight of it in half.

The camera pans to Tony’s left and we see BRUCE BANNER sitting in the ‘psychiatrist’s’ chair. He’s asleep sitting up, his glasses held loosely in his right hand as he rests his head on his right wrist.

TONY: Like a snake eating its own tail, everything just comes full. You’ve just been able to really help me process-

Bruce does a sleepy noddy, causing his glasses to fall from his hand and onto his lap. He wakes with a start. The movement catches Tony’s eye.

TONY: You with me?

BRUCE: Uh, I (unintelligible utterances)

TONY: What were you? Actively napping?

BRUCE: I – I, I, I, I… drifted.

Tony gives a disappointed look.

TONY: Where did I lose you?

Bruce strokes his 2-day-old stubbly beard. It makes a raspy sound, causing me to wonder if he had a microphone taped to his chest for that scene, or if the sound guys just had fun creating that in foley.

BRUCE: Elevator in Switzerland.

Tony is now annoyed and disappointed simultaneously.

TONY: So you heard none of it?

BRUCE: I’m sorry. I’m not that kind of doctor. I’m not a therapist. It’s not my training. I don’t have the-

Tony’s not cutting him any slack.

TONY: -What? The time?

BRUCE: Temperament.

Tony ignores Bruce’s subtextual plea for him to stop.

TONY: That reminds me. Oh God, my original wound. 1983. I’m fourteen years and I still have a nanny. That was weird.

Bruce throws his head backwards and tiredly rubs his face wondering if it’ll ever end.

The screen goes black. The words “Tony Stark will return” appear. 

And that’s the story of how all the Iron Man/Hulk pairing fanfics began.

Trance – Full Screen Time Review

TRANCE – FULL SCREEN TIME REVIEW

Plot? The theft of a famous artwork goes wrong when the art curator hides the item but later develops amnesia. When the curator gets captured later, the criminals insist he undergoes hypnotherapy in order to recover his memory and the artwork. Yet there appears to be many twists and turns down this little rabbit hole.

Recommend it? Yes. It’s one of those rare well-plotted pieces of cinema that keeps its audience guessing from start to finish. It’s not a popcorn flick – this movie appeals to your intelligence. However, with cinema sessions dwindling, I will say that it’s not that much of a big deal if you don’t get to see this one on the big screen; the movie’s impact won’t be lost on DVD. I’d also not recommend it for those people who like to know exactly what’s happening, Every. Single. Step. of the way through the movie. It goes without saying that you also don’t watch this movie with those people. It’s painful. There were only six people in my session, and yet this one person ruined it for everyone with their constant loud whispering of “WHAT’S HAPPENING NOW????” Trust the damn screenwriters, people!!

Pet peeve.

So yes, there are quite a few wonderful twists in this movie, though I wouldn’t classify it as a ‘see-twice’ – you can understand it all through the first viewing, whereas the second viewing would just make you appreciate the set up even more. The plot unfolds evenly as well, allowing you to follow it nicely along (provided you keep paying attention), not like The Matrix where you’re just left in the dark for half the bloody movie. So if you’ve seen a lot of the other films already and you somehow find yourself outside Box Office wondering how to kill an afternoon (happens far too often to people), or otherwise just want to go for something a bit more intellectual, then give Trance a go. Otherwise be sure to give it a watch when it comes out on DVD. Rated MA15+ for strong nudity.

 

(WARNING: SPOILERS AHEAD).

 

Further discussion? You know, as much as I did love the twists and turns of this movie, there was a certain point where I felt it all became too fanciful. Did the hypnotherapist really have to be behind the idea of the theft in the first place? Did her character journey really need that? It just broke my suspension of disbelief. The full frontal nudity was also rather jarring, and I’m noticing a trend in Danny Boyle’s work where he tends to physically or thematically depict women in a highly-sexualised or otherwise demeaning light. Just kind of irritates me when films are so full on in showing female nudity, but then get all modest when the bloke gets naked, as though there’s a subtext of “Oh, female nudity, that’s ok to show – it’s in every movie contract! But MALE? Whoa, hold on there! You kidding!? You gotta protect the actor’s dignity!”

So once again Danny Boyle highlights violence against women as a motif, and I thought it was rather masterful how quickly he managed to paint his protagonist as the true antagonist of the movie. Though with how central and import the violence that occurred in the past sequences were, I’m rather baffled by how quickly the hypnotherapist got into bed with the lead criminal. Was it just me, or was that just really sudden? Like BAM! There’s a couple! o.0! It only really served to confuse the woman’s character motives. I mean, really, if you had a horrible ex-boyfriend like that who is kind-sorta-not back in your life, would you be that fast in hooking up with the guy he’s illegally partnered with? It undermines the story’s punch line about how she’s so hurt and emotionally scarred that she actually hypnotized her ex to commit theft for her… and yet she seems perfectly over it by the time her grand scheme comes into play. I know I’m being nit-picky, but damn it, it bugs me!