The World Of Jadeey

Out of the Blue is the latest film from director Robert Sarkies. The director best known for his work on the 1999 film Scarfies and the television show The Strip once again does not disappoint.

The film is based on the real-life events that happened in the South Island town of Aramoana in 1990. Most New Zealander's who were old enough at the time to have any comprehension of what was going on remember the horror of the 13th and 14th of November 1990. The country awoke to the news that, overnight, a gunman had gone mad and begun shooting up his town.

Robert Sarkies gives us an overview of the events leading up to the massacre and draws us into the horror of the people of the Aramoana township as they became aware of what was going on. As with most New Zealand films, some of the acting leaves a little to be desired at times. However, Matthew Sunderland excels in the role of killer David Grey. He has the audience believing right from the outset that he is a slightly deranged, not to be trusted man who is likely to snap at any moment.

Also, as is the trademark of a New Zealand film, the scenery in Out of the Blue is exquisite. There are plenty of long, lingering shots of beautiful lakes and hills, making you wonder if, in fact, you are watching a glorified travel ad. Of course, the content of the film soon assures you that you are not.

I had two major gripes about this film. One is that Sarkies and cinematographer Greig Fraser appear to have shied away from the use of a tripod. I'm not sure why this is, I personally love the tripod. The end result is a very shakey, slightly nausiating film as the camera moves around so much.

The second gripe I had is that, at times, it got very confusing. Time jumped back and forth a lot at the beginning. One moment David Grey would be sitting holding his newly purchased gun, the next he is at the shop purchasing that same gun, the next he is using the gun to kill his one-time best friend.

As well as the confusion with time I found the soundtrack slightly disconcerting and confusing. There were a number of times when you could hear the dialogue of characters who were not on the screen. This in itself is not usually a problem in film, the audience are smart enough to understand that conversations can be happening off-screen. What Rob Sarkies does wrong is to overlay conversation that is happening in an entirely different location. The worst example of this is when the killer is slinking around we can hear a police officer talking. I kept thinking the killer was going to turn around and start shooting the police officer, but it turned out the police officer was miles away in a car so in no danger of being shot.

Overall it was an excellent film. It certainly recaptured the horror of the events is it was based on. But, as with so many New Zealand films the production value leaves a lot to be desired.

Labels: movie review, movies

Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire was an enormous book. When I first heard they were going to make it into a movie I truly didn’t believe they would be able to fit everything into one film without making it six hours long.

Mike Newell and Steve Kloves do an admirable job, fitting the majority of the story into two hours and 45 minutes. I do worry though, that the stuff left out will make the future films increasingly complicated for those who have not already read the book. The friend I watched Goblet of Fire with commented to me that he thought at least half an hour could have been cut because it seemed pointless to the story. As an avid fan of the books I disagreed with him, but can see that for those who do not know the books some parts of the film may drag a bit.

The actors are really starting to hit their straps. The adult cast has always been impeccable but the children often left a little to be desired. It is hard to fault them for this, they were all very young and relative newcomers to the acting game. Now though, they are on their fourth film as these characters and that experience is starting to show through. They are now believable as their characters and are enjoyable to watch. Daniel Radcliffe as Harry coped particularly well with the emotions this film required.

Just as the books get darker as they progress so have the films. Goblet of Fire is truly the darkest film yet, it’s M rating can attest to that. This is a good thing for the adults in the audience but is putting the films slowly out of reach for the younger viewers. Goblet of Fire deals with a lot more death and destruction as Voldemort gains strength. Harry is once again thrust into a situation he has no control over when his name is pulled from the Goblet of Fire and he is chosen as the fourth Tri-Wizard champion. The Tri-Wizard tournament involves completing a number of challenging tasks, each one seemingly far to dangerous for Wizards who are not yet even fully trained.

There is a lot of CG in the film. As well as being the darkest film yet Goblet can also boast the most CG of all the films so far. There is a lack of quidditch playing which is disappointing as they finally seem to have gotten the hang of the CG when characters are flying on their brooms. The computer generated parts of the film are still not perfect, perhaps for the next film Warner Brothers would do well to hire Weta Digital who’s CG far outstrips anything we have seen in the Harry Potter movies to date. They are getting better though, it is just a pity that the early films are probably not going to stand the test of time due to the poor graphics. For the most part Goblet’s CG was satisfying, while it was still obviously CG, it was not painful to watch.

Goblet was without doubt my favourite Harry Potter film to date. While it still does not live up to the books in my mind I don’t think any film really ever will. This one got pretty close and was well worth the lack of sleep I had to suffer in order to watch it. If the films continue to improve as they have from film to film I very much look forward to the last film, it may well get pretty close to perfect.

Labels: Harry Potter, movie review

I saw two movies yesterday. One was awful the other made me really happy. Not happy because it was excellent but happy because, unlike most films I have been anticipating recently, it did not let me down.

Elizabethtown

I will be the first to admit that when I saw Fellowship of the Ring I thought Orlando Bloom was hot. I was also fairly impressed with his acting ability. Looking back now I realise that to play Legolas did not require a huge amount of acting skill, but at the time I was impressed.

In Elizabethtown I was anything but impressed by Bloom's performance, he was mediocre at best. Kirsten Dunst did not overly impress either. There was very little chemistry between the two, which is unfortunate given that in a romantic comedy one of the most important things is chemistry between the main characters.

Anyone who has seen Garden State would recognise it in Elizabethtown. From the slightly screwed up lead actor who makes friends with the quirky girl to the film student feel to the shots to the laid-back soundtrack, Elizabethtown has Garden State written all over it.

There is comedy in the film and the characters are likeable enough but at the end I just felt like there had been something missing. Perhaps it was the slightly unrealistic aspects of parts of the film. Not that we expect a huge amount of realism from our movies but we do expect a romantic comedy to be at least believable, which I felt Elizabethtown wasn't in parts. Or perhaps it was just that it reminded me so much of a poor version of Garden State that I could not help but dislike it.

If you really want to go to the cinema and watch a movie and there is nothing else on then give it a go. Otherwise, I'd leave this one until it comes out on dvd.


Must Love Dogs

I had been looking forward to Must Love Dogs for quite some time. At work I see a lot of trailers and almost always have an opinion on what every movie that is coming up is going to be like. With Must Love Dogs, from the trailer, I saw a typical romantic comedy but one that would actually be funny and aimed at adults rather than teenagers. This is what made me look forward to it.

When I watched the film this is exactly what I got. There is no suspense, no twist ending, no surprises. But anyone who expects any of these things from a romantic comedy (a tradional Hollywood one anyway) is just crazy. Must Love Dogs was absolutely filled with humour, and it was humour that adults will enjoy, and it had a truly amazing cast.

I've always been a fan of John Cusack. He's not spectacular looking but he is cute and real looking, he actually looks like someone you can imagine knowing in real life. Diane Lane is just gorgeous and she carried off the dry humour of her character with a practiced ease. The two together had chemistry, without doubt you wanted them to end up together. The supporting cast is also excellent, never once letting the side down at all.

I, and the people in the cinema with me, were laughing out loud throughout the film. The humour is there without doubt. This is not to say that the film was perfect, there were a few things in it that really annoyed me. One of which was the Sandra D type change Diane Lane's character went through for no apparant reason in the film. The change did not occur for long and was perhaps inspired by the fact that Stockard Channing, who played Rizzo in Grease, was a member of the supporting cast.

Must Love Dogs is a film I would recommend without hesitation, as long as you go in expecting to see a traditional Hollywood romantic comedy you will not be disappointed. It is certainly being added to my collection of romantic comedies to watch when I'm in the mood for them, and believe me that list is not that long.

Labels: movie review

Saw II is the uber-sequel, far more violent and sadistic than the original. It opens with a man being tortured by having to wear a headbrace filled with needles, if he does not get it off in time it will snap shut venus-flytrap style.

Saw II has a lot more blood and guts than its predecessor and is by far out for the shock than it is for the scare. While I find Saw to be a fairly creepy movie with a ton of suspense, Saw II is lacking in this department, however, it more than makes up for this lack of scare with an abundance of violence. Where, in the original, it was implied what was happening to people but not actually shown, in the sequel you see the blood, see the clamp slam shut over the man’s face and the blood ooze out.

Bousman is a fairly new director but takes to the task willingly and enthusiastically. The transitions between shots are interesting, often a character will appear to walk through a wall into a completely new set and a completely different time. In the wrong hands transitions such as these could be jarring for the viewer but Bousman and editor Kevin Greutert handle the pressure well. The transitions flow seamlessly, if feel a little overused by the end of the film.

The story is there, while a little thin on the ground, for those wanting an interesting tale, not just two hours of violence. Jigsaw is holding 6 people hostage in a house, one of which is the son of police officer, a police officer Jigsaw just happens to want to play a game with. One of the brilliant things about the film is that, by paying careful attention, the viewer can piece together a lot of the puzzle themselves just through the hints given. A second viewing of the film reveals just how many hints there are as to the eventual outcome.

Saw II is certainly not a film for everyone, its R18 rating ensures that. But it is a must-see for any fans of the original or anyone who did not like the original because it did not have enough violence. It will be an enjoyable film for anyone who likes blood and gore, though fans of psychological thrillers may be left feeling a little disappointed.

~~~

As well as watching Saw II last night I went to Hogs Breath for a thouroughly enjoyable meal. I tried the Italiano steak instead of my usual and it wasn't as good, though it was still well worth the money I paid.

Have been at work since 6am this morning! The contractor I was suppossed to be meeting didn't turn up though so it feels like a waste of time. Have got heaps of stuff done though!

Am watching Must Love Dogs tonight - Awesome!

Labels: movie review

Guram Masala SUCKED!!! So much that it is now at the top of my list of the worst films I've seen this year. I'm just glad I didn't have to pay. For anyone thinking about seeing it - don't. Go rent Lagaan instead - at least you can almost guarrantee your enjoyment of that.

On another note - I did a very idiotic thing today (hence the title of this post). I should regret it more than I do. I'm sure in a weeks time I will regret it majorly.

Another weekend has come to an end. I'm still having trouble remembering that I've got all my weekends free from now on. No studying, no nothing. I keep trying to cram everything I want to do into each weekend but I don't need to!

Got my Sports Management grade back - got a B. Just one more paper to find out about. Unfortunatly it's the one I'm least certain about. In fact, though I'd be devastated, I wouldn't actually be surprised if I failed it. Really don't wanna have to go back next year just for one paper though so fingers crossed that I passed

Labels: boys, movie review, school