When word was out that the Coen’s follow-up to last years A Serious Man was going to be a remake of a classic western movie, many were excited to see what they could do with this under-appreciated genre. What was actually put on screens was ultimately dissapointing and this review is going to contain a lof of, ‘for a Coen brothers film, this is surprisingly ….’.

To begin with, for a Coen brothers film this is a surprisingly dull script. Having never read the book it is impossible to tell how closely they followed the original book (although looking at the wikipedia page for both it appears like it is pretty close), but the story that is presented is far too simple for the excellent world the Coens have created. Typically, the Coen’s material is nuanced with superb characterisation and snappy, polished dialogue. They have faltered on a couple of occasions, The Ladykillers is apparently pretty awful and Intolerable Crulety was a bit of a misstep (although it does have some redeeming features), but they typically produce good, interesting modern cinema. True Grit is at heart a bit of a lifeless screenplay and it feels like they they pulled their punches a bit.

The main actors all play their parts quite well, with special mention having to go to Hailee Steinfeld’s accomplished portrayal of the young Mattie Ross. For such a young actor, she had a wonderful screen prescene and really carried the film along its rather dull storyline. Jeff Bridges competently does his bit as the gruff Rooster Cogburn, but there is nothing there to challenge this accomplished actor. Matt Damon is woefully miscast in his role and his Texas Ranger character feels like it could have been completely omitted without affecting the movie in any way.

So the problem then does not lie with the acting, rather the script and the storyline. For instance, watching the movie, it is difficult to know what to make of the main villains of the piece. Are we expected to fear them (like Javier Bardem’s excellent villain in No Country for Old Men)? If that is the case, then the script gave no real tension on the part of the main two villians. In fact, the impression that we are left with is that one of them is a pretty reasonable guy and the other a complete idiot. You could say that they were trying to make the point during this time there did not exist a stereotypical, Hollywood style good vs evil. Rather there was a whole raft of normal people doing whatever they could to take advantage of the situation without the typical passion for good or evil deeds that we are used to in movies. If this is the case, if the Coens wanted to give the impression that the notion of good/evil didn’t really apply in this time, then they did it in a very hamfisted fashion. One particular scene, where the Bardem’s character finally manages to capture the young girl out for his blood was such a missed opportunity. The film grammar and tone was suggesting that something dark and uncomfortable was about to happen, but the resolution of that scene was pathetic.

While this movie is worthwhile watching and a must for any Coen brothers fan, far better modern western movies are out there ready to be appreciated. The Proposition (another movie with links to Nick Cave) and The Unforgiven are better made and have much more depth and nuance.

Here we have two decidedly different movies, with no real common thread other than that they happened to come in the mail at the same time. Normally these two movies would probably have almost nothing to do with each other but watching these two movies so close to each other highlighted some peculiar similarities that are definitely worth exploring.

Looking at the first piece, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford we find a interesting modern western movie. Set around the death of Jesse James this movie is mostly character driven, set in and around the lives of the main players, rather than trying to tell us some grand overarching story. Romulus, My Father is similar in this regard. It is a simple story with only a few main characters which looks to highlight the relationship between a father and son. It employs a efficient form of storytelling, using dialogue sparingly and letting the strong acting carry the narrative.

Although both of these movies are trying to reach a similar goal, they go about it in markedly different ways. Romulus is stripped back, subtle and simple. It doesn’t try to overwhelm the viewer with sentimentalism or a message, it just tries to outline a basic story of a father and son, and leave actors to go from there. The massive amounts of emotion that come from this film are in fact driven almost completely by the acting of the two main actors. The script in and of itself is actually fairly simple. There are no long pieces of dialogue to bog down the emotion impact of the imagery and acting.

Jesse James on the other hand suffers from the exact opposite of this. Where Romulus has a stripped back simple script, Jesse James is dialogue and exposition heavy. The dialogue is incredibly well crafted, with impeccable acting from all of the main players, especially the actor that plays Robert Ford. However, the writers felt it necessary to try and put in quite a bit of context and back story to the piece. This would not necessarily be a problem, but the script was not quite strong enough for the historical and contextual information to be put in the dialogue so instead it delivered by a jarring, out of place voice over.

Now voice-overs are not by their nature a bad thing, they in fact can be put to very good use. It could probably even be excused if the information that was being relayed was actually necessary, but it really is not needed in the piece. The main focus should really be on the characters, specifically the title characters, and the constant narration simply gets in the way of this. This is the main reason that we can compare these two seemingly unconnected movies, Romulus handles this incredibly well. The temptation was probably there for the writers to put in a narration from the boy, now grown up to be a man, thinking back on his father and the way that he brought him up. But instead they left it to the pared back script and wonderful direction to answer any questions that the viewer might have had. You get the distinct impression that is was at least partially dumbed down to suit a mainstream audience. That is not to say that mainstream movie goers are adverse to intelligent cinema, rather that in an effort to make it appeal to as wide a audience as possible, they put in a heavy-handed narration in order to explain to everyone the context that the James Gang was working in.

Nevertheless we have here two very competent, watchable movies that deserve close attention. The Assassination of Jesse James for its incredible dialogue and acting, and Romulus also for is incredible acting, but also for the considered directing and subtle script.

Twin Shadow – Forget

Ariel Pink’s Haunted Graffiti – Before Today

Deerhunter – Halcyon Digest

Sufjan Stevens – The Age of Adz

Arcade Fire – The Suburbs

LCD Soundsystem – This is happening

Kanye West – My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy

Hot Chip – One Night Stand

Morning Benders – Big Echo

Holy Fuck – Latin

Looking back at this list now, I probably would shift a few things around and possible add/subtract a couple of albums, but this is a good representation of where my music tastes where at the end of 2010.

An interesting article on some of the less pleasant aspects of Roald Dahl’s life. I had always heard some of the Anti-Semitic statements that he had made over the years, but this detailed article goes in to Dahl’s personal life and the circumstances surrounding the publication of his various works. The writer is fairly transparently against him, which does make for a rather entertaining read.

Follow the Sun – MK12

Another video from MK12, the prominent graphic design studio hit the internet recently and it is definitely worth a look. I am quite a big fan of their style, the graphic touches that were applied to the movie, Stranger Than Fiction were fantastic. This movie is a interesting take on the old school cinema ads encouraging everyone to go and buy candy before the start of the feature. The slow perversion of this seemingly wholesome advertisement gives a wonderfully unsettling feeling.

Kurt Vonnegut & Sarah Ockler Books Removed from Missouri High School Library

This is a rather sad story of the banning of some important works of fiction from a particular high school library. Vonnegut responded by offering free copies of his banned book to anyone at the school that wanted them. But still, it is rather depressing to think that books still get banned in schools.

The blog is going to be a bit of a catch-all for the random comments, thoughts and links that don’t really have a place on the main pages of the site. It could be ideas that aren’t properly fleshed out into a full article, random links to other interesting things on the web, or simply updates on various things that are occurring in my life, they should hopefully find a place here. If you want to get the RSS for this, you can subscribe using this feed:

http://www.innerdialogue.net/category/blog/feed

As always, comments are more than welcome on the blog as they are on the rest of the site. If you have anything interesting for me to put up here, email or leave a comment and I will take a look at it.

One of the strengths of Jansen and Siems is that they bring an interesting perspective of the filmmaker to their movie discussions. Too often, we concentrate on the artistic merits of the film rather than examine some of the more technical aspects of cinema. What was especially interesting was the intercut interviews that they inserted in with Fincher and Sorkin, which go a long way to backing up some of the points that they are making. I, for instance, had absolutely no idea that the Winklevoss twins were played by the one actor and the duplication was done by CGI. The graphics were that seamless, and did not detract from the movie experience one bit. The CGI generated breath when they were standing out in the cold was horrible and distracting.

Anyway, these guys have a great podcast and this would be a great introduction for anyone who has seen the movie and wants to get a interesting perspective on it.

The Hollywood Saloon – Face Off

The arrival of first Toy Story in 1995 heralded not only a new age of CGI based animated movies, but the arrival of the powerhouse that is Pixar Studios. From that first effort, the studio has gone from strength to strength, putting out numerous well written animated movies with only a few minor missteps (Cars is probably their weakest effort, but it still more interesting than almost everything that Dreamworks has put out to date). Their 1999 film, Toy Story 2 is in a exclusive club of sequels that are better and more well realised than movie that precedes it. The sequel built on the universe established in the first movie and added a fantastic amount of texture and complexity to the characters. The announcement that they were going to put out a third installment in the series was always going to be a bit of a risk, and unfortunately the final product does not live up to the quality of Pixar’s previous efforts .

Toy Story 3is one of the few Pixar movies to have not only a weak story but a uninspiring screenplay to match. The entire first act feels like a few minutes of character development stretched out to fill almost thirty minutes of screen time. This would not normally be an issue if there was a typical Pixar flair to the screenwriting, but the whole first act felt very flat on the screen, with only a few gags and very little exposition and plot development. One saving grace was the competent opening credit sequence which did a great job of showing the progression of Andy’s life from when we saw him last as a boy, to finally leaving home and going to college. What would have been a far better idea would be to expand this montage to include much of the story of the first act. This would have allowed the story could move out of the house more quickly and to get to the childcare centre, which is easily the strongest part of the film.

The movie begins to build some momentum once it moves to the second act and some of the Pixar magic that we are all used to begins to shine through. The idea that the toys have been taken to a childcare centre has a lot of potential, and the writers use this to bring in some fantastic new characters. The standout new character is the ultra-vain Ken doll that drove much of the humour throughout the film. This is a great example of a well realised character that brings so much humour to the movie, while still being used to drive the plot along. Characters like Ken show how adept Pixar are at developing humorous characters, without resorting to mundane pop culture reference like other animation studios and franchises (Shrek is the worst offender for this, with the later installments of this series having the shelf life of a carton of milk). Some of the other new characters are not as well realised as Ken, with the notable exception of the movie’s villain, Lots-O’-Huggin Bear (wonderfully voiced by Ned Beatty).

There is a considerable amount of time spent here at the daycare centre, but the inevitable action climax comes all too soon and is  fairly predictable. Toy Story movies are meant to be all about characters, and while it is understandable that an exciting climax is needed at the end of the movie, the one they chose here is visually exciting, but ultimately forgettable. It seems unlikely that Pixar would have the bravery to kill off one of their characters and as such there is a expectation that everyone will find a way to pull through in the end. The movies redeems itself slightly with the last few minutes of the movie, which deals with Andy and what he decides to do with his beloved toys is great, but this small coda does little to revive the fortunes of the story.

Moving on from the plot and characterisation, like every Pixar movie that preceded it (and pretty much all CGI animated features these days) the visuals in Toy Story 3 are immaculate. They really have this down to a fine art now and the emotion and depth that they can get on the screen is truly amazing. What is less exciting is the use of 3D in this movie, which was so minimal that 2D would have probably been a more satisfying experience. If the extra dimension is not being used for anything interesting, then the darker picture and lack of smoothness becomes so much more of a problem. The only other stylistic problem that comes to mind is the rather dull Randy Newman score. This is a calling card for the series (especially the theme song, You’ve got a friend in me) but it feels dated and gives an odd rehashed flavour to the movie. An update to the tired score would have gone a long way to shake the constant feeling that we have seen this all before.

Toy Story 3is not a bad movie, and is miles ahead of other sequels in the big animation franchises. It is firmly in the worth watching category, but the lackluster story, boated first act and average 3D effect mean that it is ultimately a bit of a disappointment. If this story was all that was left in the Toy Story universe, then it is probably best for everyone that we leave the franchise alone and look toward what Pixar wants to show us next.

This first volume contains three short stories with the first part of the larger narrative and two small vignettes coupled with an discussion with eh. The first, Train Ride, is the most successful part capturing a single conversation between a girl whose relationship just ended and her friend. It is a great example of simple, efficient storytelling and manages to bring in great emotion using just a few pages and small amounts of dialogue. I love it because it is believable, you can easily imagine eavesdropping on these two girls and overhearing something similar.

First Date, has a similar, low-key vibe to it, but is aiming for a slightly different, more comical goal. As the title suggests it chronicles the first date between two prospective lovers and what occurs after they go back for coffee at her house. The final panel payoff got a good laugh from me and the success here comes from the subtlety in the humour. The build up is spot on and the punchline works because it is surprising and unexpected.

Oxygen Part 1 completes the book, but as it is only the introduction to a larger story, I will not go in to any great detail here. Rather, once I have picked up the next two volumes from the creator’s website and a full review of the whole work at a later stage. As it stands, Digested Issue 1 is concise, effective storytelling coupled with great B&W art and a slightly twisted outlook on life. If the quality is maintained across the rest of the story, then this will be a great Australian comic and something that is definitely worth seeking out.

Based off a popular graphic novel, Kick-Ass sets out to be a very different type of superhero movie. The idea that a regular kid could decide one day to become a superhero is an interesting one and something unique in the world of comic book movies. He has no special powers, no discernible skills or special merit that differentiates him from any other teenager save for a desire to be a comic book hero. Mixed into this interesting world is the real superheros of Hit Girl and Big Daddy and a genuinely evil main villain.

Easily the best parts of the movie come in the form of the story of Big Daddy and Hit Girl. They are the most interesting part of the whole story with their over the top comic book violence and incredibly foul language. They add a fantastic energy to the film and the audience is eager to see them back on the screen whenever the story shifts away from their arc. Its not often that we can say this, but Nicholas Cage is fantastic as Big Daddy and just goes to show that he can excel when presented with good material.  Chloe Moretz as Hit Girl is a complete revelation. She jumps into the role of a ultra-violent superhero with complete enthusiasm. The scenes that we get with these two characters are worth the price of admission alone.

The main problem with the movie comes down to the rather dull screenplay. Having never read the graphic novel that it is based on it is difficult to say if the problems lies with a director who was too concerned with staying true to the source material, or if its an inherent problem with the story itself. Looking at the movie, I imagine the problem lies with the script more than anything. It seems to be really concerned about telling the story of Dave Lizewski and while Aaron Johnson did a reasonable job in this role, this character is far and away the most boring part of the movie.

This problem comes to the fore during the second act. Everything slows down to a crawl and we get to see the most boring part of the movie, the love interest. The notion here is that everything thinks that Dave is gay and thus becomes best friends with Katie while all the time being secretly in love with her. Well unsurprisingly, this love story turns in to a predictable, boring mess. The inclusion of this into the movie drags it out, and the time wasted on developing the relationship could have been better spent on other areas of the film. One area that could used some more depth relates back to Hit Girl. We get a brief reference to the possibility of her being brainwashed by her father into becoming this violent superhero. This notion is interesting, but the movie drops it almost as soon as it is brought up by one of the minor characters. This would have been a much better use of screen time than the dull relationship that offers us no real insight into the main character.

Kick-Ass is a decent 3 star movie brought down by its poor script and character development. It is definitely worth seeing, especially on the big screen with some of the best comic book action that we’ve seen in the last couple of years. It is however, a slight disappointment. Kick-Ass could have been an interesting look at the nature of heroism, but instead decided to go for a slightly juvenile action movie with some redeemable qualities.

The debut of the Melbourne version of Jersey Boys was met with considerable fanfare in June 2009. Its continued success and the almost full Wednesday matinee that I attended attests to the popularity of the show. The story revolves around the birth of the band and its various iterations before the final lineup comes together underneath the name of The Four Seasons. Following the history of the group, Jersey Boys attempts to use the familiar music to draw the audience into their story. As might be expected the music is easily the best bit of the show. The song selection was fantastic and a good range of music across the band’s career was featured.  Unfortunately the story side of the musical is nowhere near as interesting. Most of the problems with the story come in the first act. For a musical about the Four Seasons, they spend an large amount of stage time on the various groups that preceded them. There is no doubt that the varying band members and number of band names that they performed under are an important part of the Four Seasons. But so much time is spent on this part of the band’s history that when some of the tragedy and emotion comes in the second act, the audience didn’t seem to care.  This was evident from looking at the crowd reaction to the story and the music. The crowd was indifferent during the first half and hour and only came to life when they finally performed some of the big hits (The run of Sherry, Big Girls Don’t Cry and Walk Like a Man got a great reaction). Finally when one of the few tragic scenes occured right near the end of the second act, it failed to get much emotion from the audience. For a musical that was light-hearted and even a bit throwaway at times, this attempt at tragedy fell very flat.

The humour felt very clunky at most points in the show. Most gags fell flat on the slightly older crowd with the notable exception of some of the physical humour and the character of Nick Massi. This is a bit of a shame as a good musical can usually be relied upon to deliver some good jokes to lighten the mood. Finally the amount of swearing was a bit unexpected for a show of this nature. They understandably wanted to capture the culture of New Jersey during this period and rampant swearing was definitely part of this. However, I suspect they at least partially wanted to add it in to defeat any criticism that the material was a bit too sweet and light-hearted. Apart from a few jokes about sex and some double-entendres the rest of the material was pretty light. There were only a couple of more serious scenes in the whole piece and as mentioned previously those were pretty throwaway and had little emotion.

On the positive side, the music and performances by the cast were top notch. The distinctive falsetto of Frankie Valli was done very well and the backing band was right on the money. One minor annoyance was that the New Jersey accents were a little bit much though, especially from Scott Johnson. I understand that most people would expect people doing this show to put on American/New Jersey accents, but unless they are seamless it is rather distracting. It would have been better to run with a more generic American accent or don’t bother with it at all. The Melbourne version of Jersey Boys is a very solid performance of an alright musical. The pacing of the musical is a little out of whack and the writing is just not sharp or funny enough to be truly memorable. Fans of the band will enjoy the musical because of the great music, everyone else should try and get cheap tickets if they want to bother at all.