Iro's Reviews

I agree with you on the single viewing thing. I'm just not sure if I'll be able to sit through El Topo again. Or want to. I liked parts of it. It didn't blow me away though. It was definitely interesting.

__________________
We are both the source of the problem and the solution, yet we do not see ourselves in this light...

That's definitely true. I wonder if I could watch either El Topo or The Holy Mountain again. Both have this really bizarre pace that really does feel very jarring and vaguely uncomfortable. Then again, repeat viewings would get me used to that though...

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

I didn't think The Holy Mountain was incomprehensible but I really enjoy it. For one thing I've never seen any movie that was structured like that (the first half consists of a long series of voice-over narrated self-introductions from the movie's protagonists). For another the movie has some good surreal satire (the jingoistic weapon/toy manufacturer), and some just that are fantastically weird and amusing. Oh well, I guess if someone doesn't find the emasculation cult and the "sanctuary of a thousand testicles" funny, we're just never going to see eye to eye on anything (and only partly because my eyes won't stop rolling). I guess the big ambition of the movie is to say something about art, and while its statements as such aren't all that profound, I don't think you could call them prosaic or totally incoherent either, so I think it's at least partially successful, and certainly a very original presentation.

Feel free to disagree with me, though I'm not sure I'll be able to satisfy much in depth discussion. I haven't seen The Holy Mountain (or any other of Jodo's movies) since I was a teenager in the 1990s. I will say none of them stood out or were nearly as memorable as The Holy Mountain. I guess retrospectively I would say:

The Holy Mountain
El Topo
Santa Sangre

Iro, see if you can find the Jodorowsky/Moebius sci-fi comic book, The Incal. I remember liking that as much as The Holy Mountain and more than any of his other movies that I've seen.

He and Katsuhiro Otomo (AKIRA) also announced a comic they would collaborate on called Hunchback, but nothing ever came of it.

I find it rather ironic that in the past six months I've been writing reviews on this site, I haven't reviewed an Australian film. Lantana is the first one I've seen since I started and it was also quite an interesting film, so it gets a review.

Lantana (so named after a plant that features prominently in the film's Sydney setting) is half mystery, half ensemble drama. It opens with the slow revealing of a dead woman caught up in a bunch of bushes, before progressing on to the main stories.

The first half of the film sets up each of the dozen or so main characters: the apparent protagonist is detective Leon (Anthony LaPaglia). Although he's married to Sonja (Kerry Armstrong), he has an affair with Jane (Rachael Blake), who's currently separated from her own husband Peter (Glenn Robbins). Sonja suspects Leon's affair and confides in renowned therapist Valerie Somers (Barbara Hershey). Valerie is herself having a personal crisis or two, dealing with her emotionally distant husband John (Geoffrey Rush) and the unnerving revelations of one client, a gay man named Patrick (Peter Phelps). There are more sub-plots and characters that interweave in the lives of these characters on the edge, but those are the ones that truly drive the film.

The second half of the film begins when it's revealed that Valerie has disappeared. Since several characters have some connection to her, it ramps up the tension between each character to breaking point.

Handling a movie with multiple sub-plots is always difficult. You only ever hear about it if the makers get it absolutely right. Lantana managed to get it right, juggling each sub-plot smoothly. The film lasts for about two hours (roughly an hour less than films of a similar breed like Magnolia or Short Cuts) and it does not drag at all. It even feature a couple of mysteries outside of the main "disappearance" arc (the most obvious ones including "Who has Patrick been sleeping with?" and "What does Sonja say at the end of the therapy session?")

Visually speaking, the film is brilliant. The quality see-saws from grainy to polished in such a manner that it works. The acting (comprised of several well-known Australian actors, including a surprisingly serious turn by Robbins) is top-notch. Some moments may be over-the-top, but overall it's done well and with considerable restraint. I don't remember being too impressed with the score, but I'd figure that if it was good I'd remember it.

Lantana may not be the most original of films. As I outlined earlier, it's very similar to Short Cuts and Magnolia in terms of narrative, and the strength of the disappearance mystery may seem about as strong to a modern audience as the plot of the average CSI episode. However, as a whole the film works out fine. It proves to be a complex, thought-provoking meditation on the lives of overly human people that aren't necessarily bad, but just struggle to try and stay good even in the face of such extreme adversity.

Great review, one of my favourites

__________________
Health is the greatest gift, contentment the greatest wealth, faithfulness the best relationship.
Buddha

This was a short film so it gets a short review. The story was excellent - minimal but still very emotional. This is the whole "soldier-overseas" story ramped up to 11, with the soldier in question (a 15 year-old girl named Mikako) piloting a fighting robot in outer space against some sort of alien scum. This fairly clichéd set-up, combined with the amateurish animation, doesn't do the film many favours. (But hey, the whole film was made by one guy and a computer. By that standard, this film is damned impressive.)

However, the real focus isn't the war - it's the relationship between Mikako and Noboru, the guy she left behind on earth. The only way they communicate is by texting each other. However, each text message takes longer and longer to reach as Mikako ends up travelling light-years away. One message takes a year to send, later on another message takes eight years to send. While Mikako stays a 15-year-old girl in space, Noboru ages regularly.

Voices is about as tragic a movie as I've watched in the past few weeks, and the ending was a seriously sad one. It managed to pack a lot into its brief 30-minute run-time and I highly recommend it to everyone.

I'll be damned if I wasn't going to review this one. After a lifetime of growing up on the original trilogy, watching them to the point where I have every little sound effect committed to memory, I can now at last revel in the latest installment, Kingdom of the Crystal Skull.

I think anyone who's been waiting for this movie anywhere near as much as I have should already know the gist of the plot. For those who don't, it's 1957. The Nazis of the original trilogy have been replaced by communist Russians, who are constantly trying to coerce Indy into searching for the eponymous "crystal skull". The mystery behind it is unbelievable even by the series's standard (and these are movies where prior artifacts include God melting faces and people living with hearts ripped out), and as such won't get spoiled here because the beauty of it was getting it revealed. Anyway, the adventure takes Indy from the middle of the Nevada desert to the heart of South America in search of the real story behind the weird-looking skulls.

I know that it's not particularly original to rely on comparisons to other movies, but all the while I couldn't help but think of Die Hard 4.0. For those of you who aren't familiar with Die Hard 4.0 or more importantly its stylistic departure from its predecessors, it's pretty much an incredible exaggeration of the action that made the original trilogy first. Granted, since the Indy movies were meant to be more over-the-top than the Die Hard movies, this makes Crystal Skull a lot easier to watch, but there a still a number of sequences that are bound to make you go, "Pfft, like that'd ever happen." Even so, the action is damned cool in most parts, with one highlight being a rather amusing rip-off of the legendary truck chase from Raiders.

Needless to say, I enjoyed it a lot. Even though it was prone to several of the same flaws as any of the others, it was still great. The references to all the earlier films were a nice touch, none of them being as cringeworthy as you'd expect. The acting was a plus, with Ford managing to do yet another great job wearing the hat. Sorry for sounding bad, but everyone was good. Hell, even Shia LeBeouf didn't ruin every frame he was in, he was that good. And the music - right on par with every other Indy score.

The only serious fault with Crystal Skull is the relative overuse of CGI. Even though some bits would've been nigh-impossible to do without it, it was still of a quality inferior enough to be distracting, which is a bit of a shame. That's a minor complaint against Skull. It's just a matter of finding out where exactly it sits in comparison to the others. I'll let you know what that is once I've seen it about as many times as the other three (i.e. about fifty times). For now, it was certainly not a waste of time, and it gets my recommendation.

Thanks Irrie great review, can't wait to see it

Over the past few weeks, I have become a Beavis and Butt-Head fan. Something about those two ugly, sniggering morons clicked with me, and I ended up getting all 3 DVD collections and the movie. The movie promised to be like every other TV-to-movie cartoon adaptation - the TV show writ large. Beavis and Butt-Head Do America certainly delivered on that aspect, but it didn't really deliver a great film full stop.

B&BHDA centres on the duo as they search for their stolen TV. Their search leads them to a psychotic criminal hell-bent on getting revenge on his wife. They agree to do so under the idea that they're going to be paid to "score". This leads them on a trip from their home ground of Highland to Las Vegas to Washington D.C. Along the way, they unwittingly attract the attention of the ATF due to a powerful biological weapon hidden in Beavis's pants, causing the pair to be dubbed "the most dangerous men in America".

I've found that context is important in trying to appreciate B&BHDA. It came out three years before the South Park movie that took the epic feel of B&BHDA and amped it up considerably, making its spiritual ancestor feel somewhat inferior. That is not to say that B&BHDA is a bad movie - in the wake of imitators it feels like the shine has been rubbed off a little.

That said, B&BHDA's qualities are particularly strong. Compared to the series, the animation style is superb. Even by today's standards for cel animation, the film looks excellent (specifically, the White Zombie freakout scene and the "Rollercoaster" sequence). The film's taut pacing goes hand-in-hand with its 78-minute runtime, allowing for exposition, drama and the boys' trademark humour to surface in balanced amounts. Speaking of humour, well, obviously if you couldn't stand the show you probably won't be able to stand the movie. The jokes sometimes work, sometimes they don't. As much as I love to see Cornholio make a random appearance or two, somehow it just feels like it was tacked on and doesn't really gel with the rest of the film.

One particularly impressive feature of the movie that stood out was the soundtrack. It just wouldn't quite be Beavis and Butt-Head without some cool tunes. Aside from a well-executed instrumental score (pitch-perfect for the film's larger-than-life cartoon tone), the highlights include Isaac Hayes's Shaft-inspired rendition of the B&BH theme, AC/DC's Gone Shootin' and the aforementioned White Zombie freakout. The only song I have a real problem with is the Chili Peppers' cover of Rollercoaster, if only because of the obvious use of vocoder being synced up to a live band in the film. It's quite amusing that this film can feature two teenagers fall out of a speeding car into the path of oncoming traffic and survive intact and nobody blinks an eye, but painfully obvious vocoder ruins an otherwise decent musical montage.

When I write reviews I often feel obligated to spend my last paragraph talking about who I could recommend this to (and half the time I do write some sort of recommendation-related comment). Can't really imagine recommending it though, because objectively speaking this lacks both the shock value and artistic merits (so to speak) of its spiritual successor, South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut. I will recommend it to the kind of people who can find a laugh in the duo's trademark brand of juvenile humour, which is weaker in effect than South Park or Family Guy, but still pretty amusing. However, it's a well-made piece of animation and worthy of a decent rating, if not an overly gushing positive review.

I reckon is an accurate score, seems unlikely to go up or down at all. South Park was a , Simpsons was a - Beavis and Butt-Head fits in nicely for me.

Huh huh, I said "fits in nicely", huh huh huh, huh huh huh.

"Is it a God Dam?"

"Check it out. This old lady likes sluts too."

I freakin' love this movie.

__________________

Try looking up Southland Tales on the Internet. Richard Kelly's sophomore effort (after 2001's Donnie Darko) is the centre of a large chunk of controversy and polarisation among the relatively small number of people who have seen it. It has borne the brunt of largely negative criticism both by moviegoers and critics alike. Of course, there is a minority that does appreciate the film as well. Just check the reactions of the MoFos who've seen it. Some like it, most hate it. Even though I'd already wanted to see Southland Tales ever since I heard of it a couple of years ago, my interest was jacked up by the negative attention it drew. What was so bad about this movie that actually didn't sound so bad?

Southland Tales is a tale about the end of the world. Set in 2008 (following a fictitious nuclear attack in 2005), the film switches focus between a large and eclectic cast of characters over the course of a few days, all supposedly leading up to the end of the world. That's about as basic as the plot can get. But of course, it gets much more convoluted than that. Spelling it out defeats the point a little, for this reason: the less I knew, the better.

I know that making comparisons to other films are seen as a relatively cheap reviewing technique, but in the case of Southland Tales I think I really need to do it. I watched it while trying to know as little about it as possible - I think Mulholland Drive would've weirded me out much more if I didn't know that the narrative backflipped three-quarters of the way through. Southland Tales appears to have been going for a similar kind of "weirdness" factor, and there are countless bizarre aesthetic choices that I don't necessarily see as a drawback, yet not exactly much in terms of strength. Plenty of the characters and scenes are weird, yet the film could just as easily have been done without them. However, they gel perfectly with the film's bizarre sense of reality, and if you really reckon that's an issue, Southland Tales is definitely not your kind of film.

I've also noticed a number of complaints about how the story is muddled or confused or whatever synonym you care to choose. I personally don't see how the story is so hard to follow. As I have said, I have not looked into this film much at all before watching it. I have not read others' opinions too closely or looked up theories that do attempt an explanation of the film. I watched the film "cold", starting at about 11:30p.m. last night and finishing around 1:45a.m - and I still managed to follow the stories fine. There was no real confusion for me personally. The multiple stories, however ridiculous and contrived they seemed at times (especially one of the story's later twists, concerning Seann William Scott's character, which I semi-expected), managed to flow fairly smoothly without anything that particularly needed an explanation. It was certainly easier to understand on a first viewing than, say, Donnie Darko was. This is at once a serious strength and weakness for Southland Tales. On one hand, it's a clearer, more concise film than Darko or most of David Lynch's handiwork and therefore much quicker and easier to grasp. On the other hand, this means the film doesn't leave as much up to interpretation as the aforementioned examples. Those of you who love to watch thought-provoking "puzzle movies" repeatedly and trying to piece it together by yourself and discuss it with others, you may be somewhat disappointed by how easy Southland Tales is to figure out after one or two viewings.

Granted, it is easy to become disoriented in the whirlwind of stories that is Southland Tales. Although if the story confuses you somewhat, you can always try and appreciate the amusing banality on the film's surface. It's set in Los Angeles, the blackened heart of the consumer culture that drives America (and by extension much of Western civilization). Several of the main characters are played by people who are more celebrity than actor (chief among them being Dwayne Johnson and Justin Timberlake). Kelly has gone for a not-so-subtle mockery of the importance of celebrities in our lives (especially through Johnson's character) and their relation to the end of the world. While it doesn't pay off with any laugh-out-loud moments, you do find it amusing in almost the same way you'd find Dr. Strangelove amusing.

Obviously, Southland Tales isn't for everyone. Ask anyone who's seen it and they will probably tell you the same thing. While I found it easier to understand initially than your usual "mind-f***" movie, it's definitely weird enough to have appeal for the people who liked it. What I wonder is whether or not I should bother with a second viewing. Something tells me I will, although not at any point in the immediate future. I got enough out of the movie on one viewing that a second viewing seems rather pointless. This does not affect my opinion of what is otherwise a rather good film with some well-crafted visuals and a decent storyline.

(was originally going to give it , but decided against it due to some pacing issues that did make the film a little hard to sit through at times. Or maybe I just don't have as much patience for films over 2 hours long anymore. Oh well.)

Before we begin, I'd like to reveal something about myself. I am not a fan of Batman. That is not to say I dislike Batman, but I have never been especially driven to seek out adventures and merchandise pertaining to Gotham's favourite costumed watchdog. Prior to seeing Knight, the only two Batman movies I have seen in full are Batman and Robin and Batman Begins. I'm not about to pass harsh judgment on either - I admit B&R was quite amusing in a rather unintentional way and that Batman Begins was a well-crafted film (but I do not consider it to be a masterpiece in any way). At the very least, it set the bar high for its successor, and rather high up at that.

I know there's a thread floating around here with the first five minutes of Knight in it. I never looked at it here, seeing it for the first time on an IMAX screen. This opening scene alone - which follows a bank robbery, and that is all I shall say about it - gives a very good indication of just how highly Knight sets its own bar. It burns its way into your head and lets you know that the next two-and-a-half hours are going to be quite a step up from what you were probably expecting.

Plot-wise, you should have a fairly good idea what's going on. There's Batman and there's the Joker and there's the usual kind of plot complications that dog the "superhero sequel", namely the whole act of strongly humanising the hero (just like all the other "2" movies). I'm not about to deride Knight for its few clichéd plot devices - show me a blockbuster sequel without them. It's what the plot gets surrounded with that will truly impress you.

First off, the acting. A serious sequel demands very strong character development. Seeing as a lot of you are hardened moviegoers, you no doubt already know that. Of course, Knight sticks to this "rule". But how it does is impressive. The cast is impressive. Aside from strong returns from Caine, Oldman and Freeman, you have the introduction of a handful of new characters that will stick around in viewers' memories longer than, say, the Scarecrow.

Obviously, the first thing to come to mind is the Joker. Naturally I was wary of all the hype surrounding Heath Ledger's oh-so-epic final role. Could it really be as good as everybody was saying? The answer is a loud and hearty YES. Ledger is quite simply a showstopper. He steals more scenes than the Joker steals loot. His presence is simply commanding. Right from one of the earliest scenes (which I won't spoil with anything other than the phrase "magic trick") he takes hold and doesn't let go. Whether this talk of an Oscar is far-fetched or not, I can honestly see a nomination happening. I kept thinking to myself, "This is Ledger?" And when an actor is capable of doing that, well that is a good actor indeed. Now I can see how much of a tragedy his death truly is.

The other character of note is Aaron Eckhart as Harvey Dent (best known to fans for becoming Two-Face). Granted, Eckhart does not do as much show-stealing as Ledger, but his performance is carefully played and very convincing as he goes through a number of stages, from smooth and trusty to thinly veiled psychopathy. When his transformation into Two-Face is revealed, it is one hell of a shock (and a damned good effects job).

Ironically, for a movie titled The Dark Knight, it seems like Christian Bale as the eponymous character is overshadowed by the aforementioned examples. Granted, this is because Bale is quite simply not a showboating kind of actor (at least in my experience), and that makes a fine contrast to the Joker's wild streak. Also, Maggie Gyllenhaal doesn't really make that much of a better Rachel than Katie Holmes did, but it's a forgiveable flaw in an otherwise brilliant spot of casting.

Of course, being a summer blockbuster (or winter, as the case may be), it just wouldn't be a superhero movie without a hefty helping of action sequences. The action is par for the course - there's chases, fights, even a couple of handfuls of suspenseful "beat-the-clock" moments. There are a handful of moments which induce laughs or a collective "Whoa" from the audience (namely, the Batpod). The inclusion of the Joker and his penchant for playing tricks make for some truly interesting setpieces, especially the "social experiment" he pulls near the climax.

Then we get to the ending. While it's not a cliffhanger, it really does end on a rather ambiguous note (kind of like The Road Warrior did) which sort of leaves it open for a third film, but at the same time doesn't, if that makes any sense. It could've been handled better, I suppose, but it's all about leaving them wanting more and the ending - which shows that things are only going to get much worse for Batman - certainly illustrates that.

The Dark Knight really did manage to pull off a miracle. It lived up to all of its hype (both pre- and post-Ledger's demise) and it indicates that not all blockbusters are going to shit. The only problem I can see this creating is that if there is a third instalment in this new trilogy (which, in all probability, there will be) it probably will not manage to top this one. This will be a one-of-a-kind, and who knows, maybe in 30 years' time when people are talking about which sequels were better than the original, the first movie to pop up will be The Dark Knight.

(the in the Movie Tab was more out of hyperbole than a serious rating)

Great review, Iro. And I really appreciate you making sure it didn't have anything too spoiler-y in it. I usually don't let myself read reviews before seeing a film that I plan to review, too, but I've made an exception for a handful of less formal ones, and have been on the lookout to make sure I don't accidently read anything too important about the plot, so thanks for that.

What can I say? I wouldn't want to read big spoilers when I read reviews either, so that's the way I write.

Great reviews, Iro. Glad you liked Southland Tales, as I was beginning to think I was off my rocker with that one. I didn't think I could get any more excited about The Dark Knight, but your review has indeed pumped me up even more for it.

__________________

God, your making my Thursday night so much more bigger

__________________
I used to be addicted to crystal meth, now I'm just addicted to Breaking Bad.

Great review Thanks

I got freaking goosebumps while reading that review; goosebumps I tell you!! Oh, the hour is so near.

__________________
"This is that human freedom, which all boast that they possess, and which consists solely in the fact, that men are conscious of their own desire, but are ignorant of the causes whereby that desire has been determined." -Baruch Spinoza

Whoa, thanks for all the kind words and rep, everyone. It's almost like an avalanche.

Nice review, sir



This was actually my first thought after I had watched The Dark Knight: Nolan will never, EVER top this. He should just quit while he's ahead. I really can't see anywhere else he could take the franchise. While there was no real closure for any of the principle characters (except for the one's who died), Nolan's put just enough in there to satisfy me, at least.