BRUNO review

In 2006, Sacha Baron Cohen caused quite a stir with his film, Borat: Cultural Learnings for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan, which was part-mockumentary and part-shockumentary. Borat was a humorous but shocking insight into American attitudes and culture. But according to this movie’s tagline, that was ‘so 2006’, which is indeed correct, since Baron Cohen has now seemed to have outdone himself with his latest work, Bruno.

Played very well by Sacha Baron Cohen, Bruno is Austria’s famous fashion reporter. In his trip to America, however, he has been fired from his job after a certain incident, involving a Velcro suit, occurred. The now jobless Bruno, decides to travel with his assistant, Lutz (Gustaf Hammersten) to America and through the rest of the world in a quest to try to make himself famous again.

Bruno is quite a rare film, and the reason I say that is because it’s funny. It makes you laugh instead of chuckle. A good example lies in the scene where Bruno mispronounces several names of Hollywood celebrities. But most of all, much of the film’s humour, which is very perverted, is so strong that it makes you cringe tightly and gasp, even. The film’s cringe humour also involves stunts, some of which are so dangerous, that it makes you wonder if they are scripted or genuine and authentic.

But this movie does have a brain. Whilst Borat was a focus on several things within the American culture, Bruno seems to be more of a focus on one thing, and that is America’s acceptance of homosexuality within their society. Yet, it’s an analysis that is about as strong, if not, stronger than what we saw in Borat, despite being two fairly different analysations on two fairly different subjects.

Personally, I think Bruno is a much better film than Borat. Sure, it may not stir as much controversy but it is much funnier and is about as, if not, more shocking. It will also make you leave the theatre wanting more, especially that interview with La Toya Jackson.

4.5 ‘you did not just say that’ moments out of 5

BRUNO review = tomorrow (14/07/09)

Don’t worry, I’m sick of my procrastination, as well.

GINGER SNAPS review

I don’t know if it’s just me but I have a strong feeling that American horror movies these days that are directed towards Western teenage audiences, are no longer original nor clever. Whatever happened to classics like Scream, A Nightmare on Elm Street or Halloween (okay, well maybe Halloween may no longer seem very original nor clever but, come on, back in the day, though)? Usually what is given to us are sequels, remakes or just anything that finds an excuse to be gory. Well, here we have something a little different; here we have Ginger Snaps.

Brigitte (Emily Perkins) and Ginger (Katherine Isabelle) are two sisters who really do not give a single toss about life, which is why they have constant suicidal tendencies. They have even promised each other they will die together. However, on one full moon night – when Ginger has her first period – she and Brigitte decide to go out for a walk. As they take their evening stroll, a werewolf comes out of nowhere and suddenly attacks Ginger. However, Ginger’s wounds are healing quickly but the worst part is, she is starting to have a few physical and emotional changes. Brigitte suspects that her sister is turning into a, you guessed it, werewolf. Brigitte wants to desperately help her sister and so she asks for the help of Sam (Kris Lemche), who may have a solution to this supposed werewolf problem.

Whilst the film has several strong performances, I cannot say they make the characters very likeable, particularly the two female leads. Sure, they are well-developed and their suicidal tendencies are understandable but, as demonstrated in the opening credits sequence, their tendencies seem really overblown, which contributes to making these characters seem rather pretentious. A friend of mine asked me how else they can make an opening credits sequence for this film. As a response, all I can is that they could have gone for something a little more simple and less over-the-top, or maybe no title sequence at all. After all, sometimes less can mean more.

Another one of the film’s faults is that it unfortunately makes me question the plot/Brigitte. It makes me ask why she cannot see a genetic engineer to fix this werewolf problem instead of seeking for the help from the stoner that is Sam.

But with all that said I have to say that I enjoyed Ginger Snaps. Even though the plot does seem flawed, it is without a doubt, original. And unlike a lot of the teen horror films these days, this one is fairly scary, particularly its last 30 minutes, which deliver both a literal and metaphorical sense of claustrophobia. Its horror certainly does put the viewer on the edge of their seat or it can make them cower in it. Another positive is that the movie ends on quite an emotional note.

Ginger Snaps isn’t for everyone but horror fans should certainly check it out.

3 unsubtle coming-of-age undercurrents (as you can probably tell from the plot) out of 5

THRILLER review

As a tribute to the late Michael Jackson, who is known as the so-called King of Pop, I am going to review his most, or probably THE most famous music video of all-time, Thriller.

Back in ‘83, the year this music video was made, no one saw anything like it. It was more like a short film rather than a conventional music video because it had a narrative, rather than just having the singer or band performing their hit in front of cameras.

Here’s it’s narrative, even though it isn’t much of one: Michael (Michael Jackson) and his girlfriend (Ola Ray) walk out of a horror movie and decide to take a walk down a foggy street in the nighttime, where Michael sings and dances to the verses of his Thriller song. As they pass a cemetery, corpses start rising out of their graves to Vincent Price’s rap (yes, THAT Vincent Price doing a rap, he even says ‘y’all’ to prove it) and then surround Michael and his girl. They are then terrorised by the zombies, or at least his girlfriend is, through the art of performing the famous Thriller dance.

To this day, this music video would still be considered unconventional because music videos these days are rarely made as short films. But what do I think of Thriller on a personal level? I think it is quite an entertaining, funny (intentionally and maybe slightly unintentionally) and creative because it just takes one unexpected step after the other with its several twists and turns. By the way, if you’re wondering why I said this video is funny, it’s because it doesn’t seem to take itself very seriously. After all, it is a spoof of horror movies. Also, a good example of its humour is in its disclaimer after the end credits about the film’s characters and events.

I also forgot to mention that this video still has the power to scare, no matter how cheesy it is. It has quite an atmosphere that can still unnerve anyone (the fact that its dated also helps a lot). I recommend you watch it with the lights off to fully understand what I mean.

However, what this video will mostly be known for is its choreography. It never gets old and it really does show how much of a mover Michael Jackson was.

Thriller is  a music video that will go down in music history’s page as it made the music video a form of storytelling. Thriller will always be known as a classic and just proves how ahead of his time Michael Jackson was.

4.5 yellow eyes out of 5

Click here to watch it.

VHS collectors and cinephiles, take note

Remember how I did a post a while ago that just contained clips from old VHS tapes? If not, then don’t worry because they were just clips taken from a YouTube channel (pardon my laziness but I ran out of ideas for posts that day) that I strongly recommed you check out. It is called AussieRoadshow, created by a VHS collector from Australia, who goes by the name of Darron. This channel mostly contains videos of bumpers and trailers extracted from old Australian (maybe American and UK) VHS tapes. There are also some informative and iteresting videos of him showing off his VHS (and sometimes his DVD) collection (he even has the very rare X-rated Australian VHS edition of ‘Pink Flamingos’). Interested? If so, click here.

So in conclusion, I would like to leave you with one of my favourite VHS bumpers. Anyone remember this (it’s starts at the 0:26 mark)?:

TERMINATOR SALVATION review

(in memory of David Carradine and Charles ‘Bud’ Tingwell, it was great to meet you)

I guess a lot of people hated Terminator 3 because it was unnecessary and ruined the second movie’s ending, which was supposed to be left to open-interpretation. Its ending was a powerful emphasis to its message of how we do not know what will happen to us in the future. But other than that, I will admit that it was a fun and entertaining film and it ended making me wonder what the next film will be like as it will have a very different storyline. It won’t be set in the present where robots from the future will come back to kill John Connor, instead it will be set in judgement day in the war against the machines. So I was waiting for this movie with much anticipation and whilst I was not expecting it to be as good as the first two Terminator films, I was expecting it to be at least better than the third film (even though I did not have too many problems with it). Surprisingly it isn’t. Unlike the first three movies, there is not a lot to remember about this one but I will admit, it was quite entertaining when it wanted to be.

Set in 2018 in the post-apocalypse, years after judgement day, the resistance, lead by our hero, John Connor (Christian Bale) is at war with Skynet and its army of Terminators. Connor then encounters Marcus Wright (Sam Worthington), a man who was experimented on after his death by Dr. Kogan (Helena Bonham Carter) and 15 years later, Wright wakes up as half-man half-machine, who believes he is still human. Both Connor and Marcus then go on a journey back in time to rescue the young teenage Kyle Reese (Anton Yelchin) from Skynet because Kyle Reese is of course, John Connor’s future father.

I always expect a movie to stick to its storyline throughout and this one does not. Unlike the previous three movies, this movie’s narrative is a mess. Sometimes the viewer gets to know what is going on; sometimes it just jumps randomly from one plot point to another rather than just letting itself flow. And this movie also makes me wonder, what happened to the T-1000s and the T-Xs that we saw in the previous two movies? How come we see no more of them? This all contributes to making this movie rather forgettable, as it just confuses us with its unanswered questions and getting lost in it own world rather than sticking to its storyline.

But as I have said before, Terminator Salvation isn’t entirely bad. It has a rather clever use of referencing the first two Terminator films (sometimes these references are quite subtle) and has several scenes that are technically well crafted. Key examples include the action sequences, which use a series of one-take shots using handheld camerawork. And speaking of action, this movie has something that we don’t get a lot in cinema these days, and that is a decent chase scene.

But overall, Terminator Salvation is a bit of a disappointment but thankfully the series has not ended on a disappointing note (or at least not yet) as this movie promises a sequel in its cliffhanger ending. I wonder what that one will be like.

3 convincing Arnold Schwarzenegger look-alikes out of 5

Next post next week – 14/6/09

Urgh! When will Year 12 end?

YOU’RE STILL NOT FOOLING ANYBODY review

For those of you who don’t remember my review of a movie called Who Do You Think You’re Fooling?, I wrote that it is a documentary that claims director Quentin Tarantino ripped-off a Hong Kong action movie called City on Fire, for his debut feature-film, Reservoir Dogs. It was a rather convincing documentary and made me think twice about the originality of Tarantino’s film, even though I still think of it as a cinematic great. Who Do You Think You’re Fooling? was then followed by another documentary called You’re Still Not Fooling Anybody, which claims Tarantino stole several moments from other movies and used them in his second feature-film, Pulp Fiction. However, unlike Who Do You Think You’re Fooling?, You’re Still Not Fooling Anybody is highly unconvincing.

I will admit though that this movie has quite an interesting start; it opens up with an MTV news reporter talking about the release of the short film Who Do You Think You’re Fooling?. He mentions its claims about Quentin Tarantino ripping-off the movie City on Fire, yet concludes the report saying that Tarantino claims he is ‘dying to see’ that movie. After that moment, this movie goes downhill. You’re Still Not Fooling Anybody claims director Quentin Tarantino ‘ripped-off’ several moments and ideas from the movies Kiss Me Deadly, The Bodyguard (as in the Sonny Chiba film, not the one with Kevin Costner), Three Little Bops, American Boy: A Profile of: Steven Price and Charley Varrick. It claims he ‘plagiarised’ moments and ideas from these movies for his highly praised Pulp Fiction. Director Mark White tries to prove this point by comparing footage with Pulp Fiction with the movies he claims it ‘rips-off’. However, the ‘evidence’ Mark White gives, as shown through his use of comparison is so little; the things he calls ‘rip-offs’ are so small that I do not see why he does not stop to think of them as references.
When comparing Pulp Fiction with certain scenes from the movies American Boy and Three Little Bops, sure, Pulp Fiction may come slightly close to plagiarism but in my opinion, they are just references (look, you need to see it to believe it).

I would also like to mention that this documentary is poorly put-together. He compares footage to the movies Pulp Fiction references – sorry, ‘rips-off’ – by playing each scene with the films it ‘rips-off’ simultaneously, which makes the comparisons awfully confusing. For example, it is sometimes hard to make-out who is saying what, due to characters shown and heard talking over each other. So the reason why Mr. White (sorry, bad Tarantino in-joke) does not compare films by first playing a scene from Pulp Fiction and then playing the scene he claims Pulp Fiction ‘stole’ it from is beyond me.

There is a difference between this film and it’s predecessor; Who Do You Think You’re Fooling? was convincing because it gave a reasonable amount of evidence that Tarantino was probably more than just homaging City on Fire in his movie Reservoir Dogs. You’re Still Not Fooling Anybody on the hand is just an unintentional and a somewhat convoluted reference list.

0.5 ‘wait, who is saying what now?’ moments out of 5

Watch the movie below:

Movie review will be posted tomorrow (26/05)

In the meanwhile, here is the film I will be reviewing:

What do we think?

Next post tomorrow (25/05)

Year 12, as usual.

-Max