A nineties thriller from 2005

'The Interpreter' (2005) feels like it was made in the nineties.

- This is partly due to the way the opening credits come on while the first scene is playing. This seems like a pretty nineties thing to me. Films don't bother so much with opening credits these days.

- The music doesn't sound like it's of this decade. It reminded me of films like 'The Fugitive' and 'The Firm' (another very nineties Sydney Pollack film. At least that one was actually made in the nineties).

- The two main actors, Nicole Kidman and Sean Penn were big in the nineties (not to say that they aren't big now) which makes this film stand out a bit because there are no up and coming, flavour of the month young actors in it. It could have been released in the nineties.

- There's something about the camera work, and the production (I can't quite put my finger on it) that makes this film seem dated. I think it's just the way that Sydney Pollack directs (I know he's dead but I'll still use the present tense); he doesn't seem to put many artistic flourishes into his work, he favours a more workman like approach to film-making.

- The thriller is very nineties. Especially the vaguely political thriller. They are still made today of course, but they were especially popular in the nineties. Think of all those nineties Harrison Ford films, for example.

I'm not saying that any of this is a bad thing. It was kind of refreshing to see an old school thriller.

Raging Bull

This Thursday, TBT is launching 'Block Cinema', a monthly community screening of some great films. The first film in the line up is Martin Scorsese's classic 'Raging Bull'. This is a tremendous movie that anyone with an interest in cinema should see.

You should go along to 'Block Cinema' because:

- The idea of a community cinema is very cool. It's a fun way to be a part of something Hobarty.

- 'Raging Bull' features (or perhaps, stands on the shoulders of) one of the greatest acting performances of all time by Robert De Niro. The way he gets into this character is quite frightening. He trained as a boxer and became mega-buff, then he ate like Elvis and became a total chubster for the later scenes. And that's only the physical stuff. It's such a complex and emotional performance, one that leaves barely any trace of the actor Robert De Niro behind.

- This film might be about a boxer but it's not really about boxing. It's about obsession, jealousy, masculinity, aggression, violence, relationships, trust. The themes are important and dealt with in a confronting manner through this horrible character that you can't help but despise for most of the film.

- Cinematically, the film is packed with great stuff. The editing is awesome, the camera is used perfectly, the placement and choice of music is very clever, and the decision to film in black and white was a risk that paid off. The boxing scenes are brutal and actually make you feel like you've been punched in the head a few times; they give what I can only guess would be a realistic view of being in the ring of a boxing tournament.

- This film unearthed Joe Pesci as an actor worth watching. He was excellent in this, and went on to star in other Scorsese classics like 'Goodfellas' and 'Casino'. He was also in the 'Home Alone' films. I'm not sure what to feel about them.

- There are many cool stories about the making of this film. Robert De Niro actually competed officially, as a boxer, during his training, and won a couple of matches! Martin Scorsese has said that De Niro's insistence on him directing this film, saved his life as it distracted him from drugs. Scorsese told De Niro to alter the script in order to get a more surprised reaction from Joe Pesci in one particular scene ("you f***ed my wife?!"). They used chocolate for blood.

'Block Cinema'
Thursday 30th April
South Hobart Community Centre
8pm
and it's FREE

Inexplicable Oscars

1997 Best Supporting Actress - Kim Basinger (L.A. Confidential)

'L.A. Confidential' is a fantastic, near perfect film but I can't understand how Kim Basinger's portrayal of Lynn Bracken was considered worthy of an Oscar. It's certainly not a bad performance; Basinger is convincing enough, looking and sounding the part, but was she that good? I have a soft spot for the Academy Awards, I like knowing who wins and trying to work out why. Sometimes there are awards given for seemingly inexplicable reasons, and I'm going to do my best to work out these reasons.

So, who were the nominees for this award in 1997?

Kim Basinger - L.A. Confidential
Joan Cusack - In & Out
Minnie Driver - Good Will Hunting
Julianne Moore - Boogie Nights
Gloria Stuart - Titanic

I wouldn't say it was the strongest group of contenders so maybe it's not so surprising that Basinger won. However, I think Julianne Moore was much more impressive with her role in 'Boogie Nights'.

Maybe I missed some subtleties in her acting. Perhaps I should give her more credit when I say she was convincing in this role because, maybe it was not such an easy character to play. In the hands of someone like Sharon Stone, for example, this character probably wouldn't have had the depth that Kim gave her; it would probably have been a one-dimensional femme fatale stereotype (although I could be completely wrong there, because Kim Basinger has never been considered one of the great actresses). But I don't think she should have won an Oscar just because someone else could have done a worse job; I hope that's not how they decide these things.

A somewhat cynical theory as to why she was considered the best supporting actress, is that because 'Titanic' swept up most of the awards, this award was handed to 'L.A. Confidential' as a consolation prize. As if to say "look it's a great film guys, too bad 'Titanic' had to come out... here, have this actress award". I really hope that's not what happened. I like to think that the Academy make these decisions based on what was the best in each category.

Has anyone else wondered why she won this award? Or have any other inexplicable Oscar beefs?

Dances with Woolworths

Wouldn't this be a great film? Kevin Costner stars as a supermarket manager that employs Sioux Indians on night-fill. Tension arises when Kevin refuses some of his employees the right to have their real names on their name badges (Swooping Eagle, Chief Kicking Bear etc). He soon realises he was wrong to do that and they find a respect for one another. There is a very moving scene where Kev helps the Sioux stack shelves for about three and a half hours (which is also the length of the film).

The Pursuit of Happyness

Just watched the Will Smith film The Pursuit of Happyness at Bible Study. It was the victor of four other contending films in a potentially flawed electoral system (pair and elimination). It's probably the easiest way to select a film to please a large group of people.

Will Smith was very good; he plays a serious part with excellence. I can't really remember any standout moments, and the film kept up the same pace throughout. My biggest problem with it was the music and production; it just made it seem too slick, too polished, and too cheesy. I felt the story (quite a powerful tale) would have been better served by a more gritty style.

It's not a bad movie though. Worth a watch. Much better than Boondock Saints.

Just a quickie

Pirates of the Caribbean 3 is really weird. That is all.

Body of Lies

An above average thriller about the US involvement in the Middle East. Not quite as awesome as I hoped it would be, but well worth watching. Good acting, especially from DiCap and Crowe. The message of this film bows down to political correctness but, because it's a thriller, and not a serious topical drama, it gets let off the hook. The Middle East is a very exciting setting and the political climate make for a pretty gripping film. Russell Crowe plays a family man whose indifference to the life and death situations of others is pretty vile. DiCaprio plays a similar role to his in The Departed. He's good at playing these stressed out, well intentioned guys. My favourite character was Hani Salaam (pictured). He wore some awesome suits and was basically 'Captain Meaty' in every scene.

It's better than The Boondock Saints.

The Boondock Saints

This movie is a huge heap of rubbish. For some reason, it has a cult following, and from that following I had heard many recommendations to watch it. Normally, I think even a fairly bad film is worth watching once, but this is beyond bad. The characters are as thin as anorexic paper, the script is embarrassingly corny and unrealistic, the violence is gratuitous, the acting is laughably over the top, the editing is a mess, and the story is completely stupid.

The Boondock Saints follows the story of two Irish brothers (played unconvincingly by two annoying B-list actors) in Boston, that have been assigned by God to eliminate all the criminals in the city by mercilessly killing them. An outrageous gay FBI detective is leading the investigation into the killings (a cringe worthy performance by Willem Dafoe). That's pretty much the plot. One of the film's many problems is that it has no suspense or mystery because you already know who the killers are, so watching the lengthy crime scene investigations is utterly pointless. Speaking of which, Willem Dafoe was even worse than David Caruso in CSI: Miami, with his cheesy dialogue delivery. There are quite a few moments where this film attempts humour and fails miserably. The funniest thing about it was watching Dafoe doing a little Irish jig.

The writer and director Troy Duffy was clearly desperate for his film to be a Reservoir Dogs or a Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels. It was definitely meant to draw adjectives like "cool", "slick", "badass", and "edgy". It doesn't come close to any of those things though. It's stylised but in a Chickenfeed sort of way. Troy Duffy is not Quentin Tarantino and this film will look quite dated in the future, if it doesn't already, 10 years on.

The Boondock Saints has the nerve to end with a blatant attempt at a serious moral dilemma (is it wrong to kill bad people?). A question that doesn't deserve to be answered in the context of this film. Duffy doesn't take his film seriously for the the first 90 minutes and then, all of a sudden he changes the film's tone. That's an awful lot to ask of an audience.

I haven't disliked a film this much for a long time. It was a struggle getting to the end of this one. I can't understand why it has such a large legion of fans. It's just a terrible, terrible film. Stay away from it.

Top 10 Nicolas Cage Films

It's Nicolas Cage's birthday today. A lot of people underrate him as an actor, but I think he's pretty good. Here are some of the best films he's been in:

10. 8mm - Creepy and seedy detective thriller, in the same mould as 'Se7en'.

9. The Weather Man - Very funny and under appreciated black comedy.

8. Wild At Heart - Weird and, at times, disturbing David Lynch film... wait that's all of them.

7. Raising Arizona - An 80s classic from the Coen brothers.

6. National Treasure - A very fun adventure, and a great role for Cage.

5. Leaving Las Vegas - Harsh, depressing, bleak film that won Cage an Oscar for playing a suicidal alcoholic.

4. Matchstick Men - A very slick Ridley Scott tale about con artists.

3. The Rock - An action classic. Cage plays the nerdy chemical weapons specialist really well.

2. Bringing Out The Dead - Another wrist-slitter, this has Cage, directed by Martin Scorsese, as an ambulance officer. It's very grim but I consider it a hugely underrated film. Watch it when you can't sleep.

1. Adaptation - One of my favourites. I love the multi-layered realities, and the characters. This is Nicolas Cage's finest acting performance. He plays two characters; twins that are almost opposites in personality. Somehow he pulls it off so well that you forget it's the same actor playing both!