The Place Beyond the Pines

Director: Derek Cianfrance

Actors: Ryan Gosling, Bradley Cooper, Eva Mendes, Ray Liotta, Ben Mendelsohn

Runtime: 140 minutes

Release Date: 9th May 2013

Reviewed by The Mole[s]

MO: What an unbelievably bleak film? This is why I am still yet to see Blue Valentine, I know what I’m in for and I just can’t put myself through it. Although to be honest, I thought this was going to be more violent than it was but that could just be because I kept getting this and Only God Forgives mixed up…

LE: See, I thought it was bleak, but then I left the cinema feeling remarkably non-devastated. I thought it would tear me apart, but it didn’t.  Was it because it was so long? I feel like it could have been a better film with a tighter screenplay/editing. All I know is that halfway through the second act (and then several times after that) I got the urge to check the time, and that definitely means I’m not truly engaged in the story.

MO: I know what you mean, the length was not justified, the second act and the ending were really weak, I wanted some big revelation, instead it just felt like a resetting of the pieces. 

LE: And the more I think about it, the more it pisses me off. What was the point of the Ray Liotta arc? WHY WAS IT IN THERE?! And you made a really good point when you mentioned post-screening that perhaps too much time was spent with Gos.

MO: I hate to admit it, I mean everybody loves the Gos who wouldn’t want to spend as much time as possible with him but if you want to cover two generations you have to make some hard and fast cuts. I probably would have preferred the first act expanded on and made into a whole film, you could still have spent some time with the sons and maybe had a stronger message at the end.

LE: I know, girls complaining about too much time with Gos? Who would have thought?

Aside from the issues with the length, I also found the score annoying at times. Don’t get me wrong - I think Patton is an exceptionally talented musician, but I found it SO OBTRUSIVE during certain scenes. Sometimes, moments can be just as poignant (even more so) without music. It felt like Cianfrance was like “well, I’ve got Patton, so I want his music WITH EVERYTHING”. It would probably be great to listen to on its own, and during certain scenes it was perfect, but other times it was just too much.

MO: It didn’t bother me, that riding through the pines song was so perfectly eerie that everything else passed me by. I did keep thinking throughout though, am I missing some vital connection with this film because I’m not a man, is the whole father/son dynamic just lost on me? Did you feel that?

LE: I do believe that women were not well served in the film, but I don’t think it was necessarily the father/son connection we were missing, as I didn’t really relate to Blue Valentine either. Maybe it’s just Cianfrance’s writing/directional style? Just not for us? A third feature will be the decider!

MO: It’s frustrating, I was so engrossed during the first half, I thought that opening scene when you follow the Gos (and his tats!?!) to the arena and he’s smoking and he’s got his red leather jacket on and riding in that sphere - it was brutally intense! Then it just slowly dwindled downhill.   

LE: I thought that sequence and the Ben Mendelsohn/Gos relationship was quite special. It was only after the Bradley Cooper story began that I started to lose interest. And this is not to take away from Cooper’s acting - I thought he was great. In fact, everyone was great (with the exception of Mendes, she was a bit of a weak link). It was the character - no real redeeming qualities at all - I just couldn’t relate.

MO: Her character was really sad and not even in a beautifully, cinematic tragic way, just plain, boring run of the mill sad. I think Mendelsohn deserves some kind of award for being Australia’s biggest creep.

LE: Hahahaha, I’ve always had a soft spot for him (does this mean that I’m a creep by default?)

I’m so frustrated! What is it with this film? Are the characters too “real” for us? Or are they two-dimensional and underdeveloped? Is the story original or is it cliched? It’s infuriating, because parts of the film were so melancholy and tragic and beautiful and well-shot, and I really want to love it, but I can’t, I JUST CAN’T. Ok film. Needs work. I can’t think about it anymore. 2.5 choc tops.

MO: It was really close to being something great but I don’t want to sit on my ass for 2 1/2 hours to learn that how matter how much we rebel, in the end we all just become our fathers. 2.5 from me too.

MO:

LE:

Trailer

The Hunt

Director: Thomas Vinterberg

Actors: Mads Mikkelsen, Thomas Bo Larsen, Annika Wedderkopp

Runtime: 116 minutes

Release Date: May 2nd, 2013

Reviewed by LE

Having grown up in the big smoke, I have always harboured an odd fascination with small towns. A close knit community, a place where everyone knows your name, only one local Chinese restaurant (oddly enough, called “Chinese Restaurant”), etc - you get the gist. They always appear to be so insular and safe! Not so, says director Thomas Vinterberg. With his latest offering, The Hunt, the dangers of living in a small, tight-knit community are fully revealed in this tense and traumatic tale.

The acting is superb in the film, with Mads Mikkelsen delivering yet another solid performance as the woebegone Lucas. Also notable is Annika Wedderkopp, who plays the “victim” Klara - the performance she gives in this film is nothing short of incredible; it always astonishes me when young children prove they have the ability to deliver such memorable performances.

The real gems behind this film, however, are the script and direction. The script is masterful - the story of Lucas and his demise is so well written! And it’s so believable - you truly believe this is something that could happen to anyone. From the very beginning, where the viewer is brought into a world of long-standing friendships, to the tragic innocence of the accusation, to the slow burn and then full ignition of the consequences of Klara’s words; it is so well crafted, and with impressive objectivity. After walking out of the screening, I was so angry at the way Klara’s words were handled by certain characters, but upon thinking about it, I changed tack. If I were a teacher in a small town, who’s to say I wouldn’t do the same thing? And if I were a mother, who’s to say I wouldn’t react in the same way Klara’s mother does? I’ve known a lot of mothers in my time, and objectivity with regard to their children is not the first trait that comes to mind (SORRY MUM/S).        

I also respect anyone who has the guts and gumption to examine the subject of pedophilia - it is an incredibly tricky subject to tackle. Every time I read the news, it’s a guarantee that something shocking about someone doing something to a child somewhere is going to be featured prominently. Think Michael Jackson? And whilst I understand that it’s something really scary that could happen to any child, I also believe that it has been sensationalised in the past decade or so by the media. And it is so black and white - once you’re deemed a pedophile, that’s it, life over, no matter what the truth is. And one of the consequences of this is that many men nowadays have an inherent fear of jobs that involve working with young children - you will be hard pressed to find male primary school teachers these days, and who could blame them? It is a crying shame though, because men can be great teachers - some of my favourite primary school teachers were male. And this is exactly the point driven by the film.

Whilst not an easy film to watch, as it’s so brutal and confronting, what Vinterberg has delivered is a very good film. I probably won’t watch it again (at least not in the near future), but I won’t need to, as it will resonate with me for a long time.  

LE:

MO:

Trailer

Sydney Film Festival 2013

It’s almost that crazy time of year when all of the Mole’s Christmases and Birthdays come at once: Sydney Film Festival. Twelve days when the Moles live only for movies.

This year will be extra crazy: it will be the Moles official 1st Birthday and we’ve booked in twenty films, yes, TWENTY! 

What are we watching?

THE LIST

• The East 
• Pieta 
• Longing for the Rain
• Stoker
• Blackfish
• The Iceman
• The Attack 
• What Maisie Knew 
• Prince Avalanche 
• Mood Indigo 
• The Look of Love 
• Blancanieves
• We Steal Secrets 
• Greetings From Tim Buckley 
• Frances Ha 
• The Past
• Michael H. Profession 
• Only God Forgives 
• Betrayal  
• Upstream Colour 

We attempt to create a list that is a little bit of everything (and fits around our 9 to 5s) - a degustation if you will; a little foreign, a touch of asian, sides of documentaries and a big serving of whatever we’re most excited for, which always trumps our only rule: that we’re not suppose to pick films we know will get future theatrical release… but with films like Stoker and Only God Forgives, WHO CAN WAIT?

The Company You Keep

Director: Robert Redford

Actors: Robert Redford, Nick Nolte, Stanley Tucci, Julie Christie, Susan Sarandon, Shia LaBeouf

Runtime: 122 minutes

Release Date: 18th April, 2013

Reviewed by The Mole[s]

LE: As much as I love Robert Redford, I can’t say that I loved this film. Or even enjoyed it that much. And it wasn’t like it was poorly made, it was well acted, and directed. I think it was the content? Perhaps you had to live through the socio-political turbulence surrounding Vietnam to really relate to the central story? What do you think?

MO: This is my second big disappointment for the year (although Trance is still winning), it had so many things going for it and it just fell flat. Maybe it’s not a lack of connection with the past but seeing what happens in the future: those bold, young, extremists… they all get old, really old.

LE: Does this make us terrible people? It was definitely a reality check - those scenes with Robert Redford running… it was a reminder that he is no longer the glorious Sundance Kid - he is 76 years old. Aside from the horrific discovery that we are ageists, I think there were questionable moments - he has a daughter and he’s easily old enough to be her grandfather - what is that about?

MO: He married a younger woman? That happens all the time doesn’t it, even to ageing hippies… that run like T-Rex (too far?). I felt like the story had too many angles, any of which could have made a much higher caliber film, if just one had been focused on. I went in wanting this massive conspiracy theory, or FBI manhunt, or a 30 year old mystery solved, but all we got was a glorified family drama. 

LE: And the cast - albeit a fantastic one, it just seemed like such a waste! When you have Stanley Tucci and you only use him for five minutes! Same for Brendan Gleeson. And Susan Sarandon. And Julie Christie. Terrence Howard. RICHARD JENKINS. Anna Kendrick. CHRIS COOPER. You get the point! It’s more like a message: look at all the friends I can have in my movie!

MO: Who could say no, if you got that call from ROBERT REDFORD. I just wish someone had the balls to tell him to follow through with a great story. 

LE: This is true. It sure would have been nice on set though - all these good friends together again, making a film about political activism and perhaps reminiscing about their own activist/hippie pasts… 

MO: I think that’s what it needed (which would have meant less usage of the aforementioned fantastic “mature” cast), if it had focused more on the early days, even the build up to the robbery, it would have been so much more exciting. 

Is there anything we liked about it? 

LE: Does the chorizo and prawn roll we ate during the trailers count?

Perhaps we’re being overly harsh. But I think this was too easily forgettable - and the slow build up led to quite a disappointing finale, where you were just left thinking, “that was IT?!?” I think Redford is a great director and actor, but this is far from his best.  

MO: I don’t we’re asking too much for a lineage such as this, how can so much talent get something so wrong! I’m wondering if we can lay blame once again on the source material… browsing reviews, consensus seems that the book’s ending was also very “neat.” 

To be honest, I haven’t seen any other films Redford has directed, I know you keep harping on about The Horse Whisperer… How does this compare to his other films?

LE: Not a patch on Quiz Show nor The Horse Whisperer. BEST HORSE MOVIE EVER. 

MO: That’s a pretty big call…

LE: Watch it, and you’ll see! 

MO: I don’t know, I’m a pretty big fan of The Silver Brumby and that’s got a young Russell Crowe in it!

LE: Ummm… young ScarJo? PLUS BONUS K-SCOTT-THOMAS. AND EXTRA BONUS CREEPY SAM NEILL (think The Piano - only not as creepy). 

We’ve gotten off the track a little (see what I did there?) Two and a half choc tops from me.

MO: Ehh, I hate creepy Sam Neill. Although he’s back in my good books after watching JP-3D the other week… I suppose I better rein it in also, I’m giving it 2. 

LE:

MO:

Trailer

Warm Bodies

Director: Jonathan Levine

Actors: Nicholas Hoult, Teresa Palmer, Analeigh Tipton, Dave Franco, John Malkovich

Runtime: 98 minutes

Release Date: 11th April, 2013

Reviewed by LE

It’s official: zombies have taken over the world… but not in the way you would expect. Ever since 28 Days Later and the Dawn of the Dead remake, I seem to be encountering zombies everywhere I turn. And after the disappointment that was Walking Dead: Season 3, I must admit, I was beginning to find zombies a little tiresome.

So, in this dreary age where everyone is becoming slowly zombified by zombie media, it was quite nice to encounter a fresh take like Warm Bodies. We find ourselves in the head of R (Nicholas Hoult), a self-aware zombie, who is finding his banal existence increasingly unsatisfying. Enter Julie, a human survivor, whose gang gets attacked by a group of zombies (headed by R) whilst on a supply-gathering mission. R is somewhat drawn to Julie, and, aided by human memories (which are supplied via morsels of Julie’s boyfriend’s brains), begins to fall for her. He takes her back to his home, and finds himself slowly becoming more human as they begin to develop a relationship.

The thing I like the most about this film is that it doesn’t try to be more than what it is, which is a fun, zom-rom-com aimed at a young(er) audience. At its heart is the classic tale of Romeo and Juliet with an interesting twist, and it is well written and executed. The acting is very good - Nicholas Hoult is amusingly self-deprecating and very sweet, and Teresa Palmer is also solid - there is a striking similarity between her and fellow girlfriend-of-the-supernatural Kristen Stewart. But where Stewart is sullen and wooden, Palmer is natural and likeable. Except girlfriend totally needs lessons on how to run.

There’s no denying that the film has little flaws. But at the end of the day, this is a very tight, and very fun film. At a sharp 98 minutes, every scene is used to its potential, there are no wasted scenes within. After sitting through ALL of the Twilight films which sapped me of every single emo fibre I had in my brain (with some brain cells on top of that), Warm Bodies was surprisingly emo-free (sans-emo?) for a film that plays to the same audience. Perhaps there is hope for mankind after all?        

LE:

MO:

Trailer

Trance

Director: Danny Boyle

Actors: James McAvoy, Rosario Dawson, Vincent Cassel, Danny Sapani

Runtime: 101 minutes

Release Date: 4th April, 2013

Reviewed by Mo

Simon (James McAvoy) an art auctioneer, takes part in the heist of a priceless Goya painting, everything is going to plan until he’s knocked unconscious and the remaining thieves realise they were double-crossed. The only problem is, when Simon wakes up he can’t remember where he stashed the painting. Under extreme duress Simon seeks the help of Elizabeth (Rosario Dawson) a hypnotherapist, to help his recover what he has locked in his mind, along with the lost painting. 

This is fast paced, thrilling, action at its best, at times the violence is confronting and unexpectedly gorey, perfected suited to a Goya painting. I can’t question Danny Boyle’s film making abilities, at time’s it is flawless, it’s just at other times, I thought he was laying it on a bit thick. There are so many shots being filmed through glass, whilst a character is reflected by a mirror onto a plethora of other shiny surfaces, that it distracting - this wasn’t “misdirection,” it was just annoying. Perhaps it’s my own fault but I felt as if I was being constantly bombarded with clues, that I gave up caring about trying to solve the mystery and just went along for the ride.

Hypnosis is more frequently joked about than taken seriously, so perhaps Boyle decided the best way to sex it up, is with a lot of flesh, and it works. Trance has a surprising amount of nudity, not that I’m complaining. I’m one for James McAvoy’s butt to be contracted to make an appearance (or two) in every one of his films and I’m sure I’m not alone and who knew Vincent Cassel was so ripped… Butts and boobs aside the acting is infallible: I could get lost for weeks in McAvoy’s dreamy, blue eyes (I almost forgot how good an actor he is), he’s so boyish and charming, perfectly contrasted to Cassel’s Frenchness, (that some may read as sleaziness) as the calculating gangster, Frank.  

I enjoyed the majority of the ride that is Trance but after thinking on it for several days, I have two main problems with it, the first is the resolution of the film, which for obvious reasons I can’t really discuss… My second issue is with Rosario Dawson’s character: Elizabeth (which is also directly related to the first but I’ll let you make up your own mind). There’s a lot to the character you’re asked to just go along with and I found it difficult to understand some of her motivations, perhaps not even understand, I just plain didn’t buy into them.

Don’t get me wrong, Trance is extremely, entertaining and I will happily watch it again (on DVD), I just didn’t love it, I didn’t leave the cinema with my head reeling, scrambling to work out, who did what and why, to be honest, I didn’t really care anymore. In the end, I came out feeling more frustrated than thrilled, it felt like a whole lot of teasing for a anticlimactic, ill-fitting conclusion.  

MO:

LE:

Trailer 

Rust and Bone



Director: Jacques Audiard

Actors: Marion Cotillard, Matthias Schoenaerts, Armand Verdure

Runtime: 122 minutes

Release Date: 28th March 2013

Reviewed by the Mole[s]

MO: What an impressive film? I was absolutely floored and not in the way I had anticipated, Audiard creates these totally un-extraordinary characters (ok, I’d probably be pretty impressed if I meet someone that worked with Orcas) and their story gets right under your skin and tears at your heart.

LE: Such a good film, and my introduction to Audiard (trust me, Un prophète is number one on my list of films to watch next). Great material - the development of the two lead characters is so complex, yet you would never believe it whilst you’re watching it, because it unfolds before you so smoothly. And don’t get me started on the performances - poor you, who had to suffer through my endless raving about Cotillard…

MO: What do you mean “poor me,” I’m holding a torch for her like nothing else, I’d go as far to say I think she’s the best young[er] actress around, especially when she’s in her native tongue. She is phenomenal, to transform from this detached, slutty, woman, to a person at their absolute lowest and then rediscovering yourself and your soul almost… To have the ability to convey so much pain and yet still be stunning. It was cruelly, breathtaking.   

LE: Tell me about it! I recall us both cursing Cotillard post-viewing (pure envy) as she’s just so beautiful - and this is going to sound sooooo clichéd, but it’s more than just physical beauty - there’s something in her ability to immerse herself in a character the way she does in this film. There were moments when I thought I could see straight into Stéphanie’s soul - nothing short of sublime! Cotillard was really robbed of an Academy Award nomination for this, ROBBED.

MO: I don’t even want to talk about it…

To me it was a very physical film, it started with Stephanie bloody and on the ground because someone had punched her in the face. Then you have Ali, who is this thuggish, brute, who in a fit of anger shakes his son and accidentally hurts him and those gypsy fight scenes were intensely raw and confronting, I think at one point you just see a tooth clearly smashed out of someone’s mouth. Even the way he f**cked was brutal but he had this basic, tenderness about him that you were completely drawn to.

LE: It was a very physical film, it had a running theme throughout that really explored the animalistic tendencies of human beings. Ali is such a great French brute and I never really understood why Stéphanie was so drawn to him but then I realised that her accident debases her emotionally, essentially bringing her to his level. So she calls on the only person that she feels she can relate to and it’s Ali. And their relationship is so beautiful, and OH MY GOD I NEED TO STOP TYPING AND JUST WATCH IT AGAIN.

MO: He was just so direct, even when they first meet and he pretty much calls her a whore and you know he doesn’t have any ulterior motives, he just lives by his instincts: saying whatever comes into his head, eating, sleeping, fu**king. I thought she was attracted to him because she was accustomed to training animals and she liked that honesty that comes with the territory: animals can’t lie. I loved the setup that these two people who normally would never have come in contact with each other, were suddenly and violently, thrust into each others lives.

LE: I also loved the story of Stéphanie itself. I knew the accident was coming, and it was still so shocking - I was so tense during that sequence. And there were so many memorable moments: the devastating scene in hospital with her sister, the wheelchair-dancing scene, the scene where she re-connects with the whale… watching her character in the depths of misery and watching her come back to life… Honestly, I could rave about this film until the cows come home.

MO: Tell me about it, as soon as she stepped out onto the pool’s platform, my heart was thumping, I was so close to just burying my head in my hands until it was all over but I kept watching and I thought it was handled almost gracefully.

It makes me sad, to think a lot of people have overlooked this film but it’s a hard sell, I mean you have this simple story: a broke and homeless father and son move in with the father’s sister. He has vague aspirations to be a boxer, meets a whale trainer who is viciously injured, somehow their coming together saves them both. Bonus Katy Perry song.

LE: Hahahaha - it’s as if the film was made just for us! You are right - this film really flew under the radar and it deserves so much more. Beautiful romantic drama/character study. Wonderfully acted. Masterfully written and directed. I’m going to go out on a limb and give this FIVE Big Fat French/Belgian Choc Tops. It was perfection for me, and I can’t stop thinking about it.  

MO: HOLY SHIT, 5 CHOCTOPS, WOW! Your first one, I like that you reserved it for Cotillard.

I am going to sing its praises to as many people who care to listen and start further investigating Audiard’s back catalogue: first The Beat That My Heart Skipped (Romain Duris - love) and Read My Lips (Cassel - need I say more…). I’m giving it 4 1/2 just to be different.

LE: Consider the extra half-choc top from me a salute to the uncredited star of this film: Cotillard’s heaving bosom.

I’ll be right next to you for the Audiard back catalogue investigations - and I’m sure I’ll be expecting this from you this Christmas?

MO: Only if I can borrow it after you’ve finished. Just reminding me of that bosom is making me want to rethink my choctop allocation…

MO:



LE:



Trailer

Cloud Atlas

Director:  Tom Tykwer, Andy Wachowski and Lana Wachowski
Actors: Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Hugh Grant, Jim Sturgess, Ben Whishaw
Runtime: 172 minutes
Release Date: 28th February, 2012

Reviewed by the Mole[s]

LE: I can proudly say that I was totally blind walking into this film - having shied away from trailers and such (and also not having read the book)…  I can safely say that I thoroughly enjoyed this film (although I do acknowledge that I probably need to watch it about 5 more times and perhaps read the novel before I fully grasp the concepts/story behind it).

MO: It is a film of many layers, I found it slightly overwhelming to begin with (but not necessarily in a bad way), there was just a lot to process, both mentally and visually but I kept the faith that it would all come together at the end. And it did, in a roundabout fashion.

I also have not read the book but it’s now on my list (after Anna Karenina, of course).

LE: I think combining all those individual storylines together is a big ask, and perhaps it was too big a task (despite the film being almost 3 hours long). Maybe the stories could have been connected together better? It is very confusing and overwhelming, and does take awhile to really engage you. To genuinely assess the film, you would definitely need a second viewing. I was a little distracted by the makeup and wondering which character was which, etc. but overall, once I got the general gist of it, I was wholly engaged. I don’t see how they would have achieved it differently. But this is really a question for those who had read the novel.

MO: I think anything near the 3 hour ballpark is a big ask of an audience, especially one not familiar with the book. I did enjoy the obvious fan that was sitting next to us, she laughed / gasped when no one else did, so clearly (one person is a clear example, right?) fans of the book will be pleased.

I have so many questions and my head is still buzzing, which I know is a great thing for a film, to leave such a lasting imprint but I still question how long is too long? I was never bored, it was just a little challenging at times (maybe we just need to work on improving our own attention spans?).

LE: Here I have to admit, that when it comes to films, I’m a bit of a clock-watcher. The moment where I feel the need to look at my watch during a film is the moment that I decide that perhaps something is moving a little too slowly. I did not feel the need to look at my watch once during this film, which I think (in my view anyway) speaks volumes. It’s certainly an ambitious film, but it’s not a boring one. It’s hard to describe. I feel like a phoney speaking about this film after one viewing - I think it needs maybe 3 viewings before one can safely speak about it. Perhaps we should just speak about what we loved/hated after Viewing #1.

Things I loved: I love, love, LOVED the whole concept of Neo-Seoul. Ben Whishaw. Ben Whishaw’s bare bottom. Intertwining stories and the cheesy but not overdone theme of love throughout the ages.

Things I did not love: the weird half-language that’s used. IS THIS WHERE WE’RE HEADED?!?!?!?!

MO: That language was really frustrating! If we’re evolved into higher beings, you’d think our language would evolve with us, not go backwards. Things I did not love: the fact that Zachry’s (Tom Hanks) demon looked exactly like the hitcher from The Mighty Boosh LIKE EXACTLY. It was so distracting and I couldn’t take it seriously. I think that was it, haha.

Things I loved: yes, I’ll will agree with you there, the naked interlaced bodies of Ben Whishaw and James D’Arcy, the same actors playing all of these different parts; Hugh Grant as that brutal heathen, Asian white people (and white Asian people), that floor in the diner with the goldfish and the idea that the smallest action can have the greatest impact.     

LE: The makeup was incredible - it took me ages to figure out that it was Hugh Grant!

I think with a film like this, if there was anything I could wish for, it would be for more seamless interweaving of storylines. That, and perhaps more character study (but this may be because I would want to watch an entire film about a bisexual Ben Whishaw). I can’t really comment on the acting: I think it’s fine - but then again, I don’t remember a moment where I was blown away, but maybe this is because you’re not really given that much time with each character.

THIS IS SUCH A DIFFICULT FILM TO COMMENT ON!

But after reading some reviews, I’m a little puzzled as to how people can just rubbish it after a single viewing. In this mole’s opinion, I don’t think this is doing the film justice. After one viewing, I can say that I enjoyed it, I was never bored for a second. Who knows what will happen after the fourth or fifth viewing? And if a film entices you to watch it more than once to truly deconstruct it, then I think that’s a job well done.

MO: I agree, this is not your typical film and I think you’ve got to be prepared for that. The Matrix was groundbreaking, but did everyone get it the first time (did they care to “get it”)? Tom Tykwer directed Run Lola Run; it’s 80 minutes of non-stop crazy, but it’s phenomenal and Perfume: The Story of a Murderer (a sadly, totally underrated film) is this highly visual and sensual (and I mean “sensual” in both a sexy way and appealing to all of your senses) experience, and the first time I was introduced to Ben Whishaw in film. Ahh memories.

For me it was like this giant puzzle that I had to solve. AND I LOVE PUZZLES!

LE: The film challenges you, certainly. And you’re right, I don’t think you should be expecting “just your average film” from these directors. At the end of the day, I can’t safely say that I enjoyed this film the most out of all the films I’ve seen this year. But it’s definitely the one that I’ve thought about the most. And I’m  super keen to watch again. And then read the book. Can we please stop watching films that are based on books (especially ones that I haven’t read)? My year is looking grim enough, time-wise…

MO: Tell me about it, I’ve only just started a 1000 page book, then I’ve got Anna Karenina lined up (700+) and now this! How are we going to watch any movies if all we’re doing is reading!

LE: Beats me… maybe cut out family and friend time? Who needs those guys anyway?!?!? Haha, anyway, this intriguing film gets 3 1/2, bizarrely shaped choc tops from me. With a TBC to follow after subsequent viewings…

MO: I’m giving it four multi-flavoured choctops.

LE:

MO: 

Trailer

West of Memphis

Director: Amy Berg
Stars: Jason Baldwin, Damien Wayne Echols, Jessie Misskelley
Runtime: 147 minutes
Release Date: 14th February 2013

Reviewed by Mo

I don’t listen to Black Flag, Henry Rollins or Pearl Jam. If I’m being truly honest, I’ve never seen any of the Paradise Lost documentaries (I know, but I live a pretty secluded life at the best of times), the first time I’d ever heard mention of The “West Memphis Three” was when the Internet exploded with the news of their release in August 2011.  

Directed by Amy Berg, West of Memphis painstakingly recounts the tragedy that occurred on the 6th May, 1993: the discovery of three eight year old boys, brutally murdered, naked, hogtied and left in a drainage canal. The resulting media induced hysteria and witch hunt that culminated in the arrest of three teenage boys who would later be referred to as the West Memphis Three (WM3). The documentary further analyses the botched police work and absolute joke of a trial that saw the boys imprisoned for much of their adult life. The story is [re]told using a combination of news footage of the arrests and the trial and interviews with some members of the families involved, interestingly victim Stevie Edward Branch’s mother: Pamela. There is also the perspective of Lorri Davis, Damien Echol’s wife (they married in a Buddhist ceremony whilst Echol’s was still imprisoned) and biggest supporter of the free the WM3 movement.   

Then there are the opinions and stories from the musician/celebrities involved, which was a bit strange to me at first but cleared up by Henry Rollins, as he quotes descriptions of Damien Echols and compares them to himself noting the drastic similarities. It was this celebrity involvement and commitment to the WM3 that spotlighted the injustice that was occurring and helped get their voices heard, we’re talking about people the likes of Eddie Vedder, Patti Smith, Iggy Pop, Johnny Depp, Peter Jackson and Fran Walsh. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that these are people who have all probably been described at one stage in their lives as “odd,” or “different.”  Covering almost 18 years, West of Memphis is understandably long, some may consider it slow moving but for someone who was not familiar with the case, I appreciated the attention to detail.  

Director Amy Berg is no stranger to crimes committed against the innocent, her 2006 documentary Deliver Us from Evil investigated the Catholic Church and its denial and cover up of convicted pedophille Oliver O’Grady, a Catholic Preist. At times during West of Memphis it would be hard to describe Berg’s documentary style as “objective” but in circumstances such as these where the law and the prosecution acted with clear subjective motivations, hate almost, I imagine it’s hard to not let your own emotions interfere. This is a painful and infuriating documentary to watch, the concept of a fair trial is totally perverted and it seems as if the police found the most shocking and quickest resolution to an horrendous crime and then just disregarded any other possibilities and didn’t follow up some of the most basic and obvious leads.    

Australia is not immune to this kind of small town mentality and influence of sensationalist media, we have the infamous death of toddler Azaria Chamberlain supposedly at the hands of her mother, Lindy in 1980. As if losing a child isn’t enough, to be wrongly incarcerated for her murder and to wait 33 years until finally a coroner agrees with your original statement; that the death was caused by a dingo attack, is astounding. What I find even more astounding is that you can still hear some Australians murmuring their disbelief of the dingo story. I guess it just proves that we all believe what we want to believe. At the end of West of Memphis I was more than believing in the suspect the filmmakers put forth as the real perpetrator of the crimes and I don’t think I was alone. This was the saddest part of the documentary for me, the question of whether justice was ever served, three young boys were brutally murdered and three teenagers were wrongfully accused and spent 18 years of their life behind bars but who are the real guilty parties? There are some positive outcomes from this story, the WM3 are now free (although not truly exonerated), highlighting the power of people, to enact change and make a difference.

Generally documentaries are challenging, especially for the viewer, they can be emotionally draining and this puts the filmmakers in a unique position: they can make you believe almost anything. I’m not saying that I don’t believe in the innocence of the WM3 or the guilt of others put forth, I just think it can be hard at times, when you’ve been asked to question so many things, when do you stop questioning?

MO:

LE:

Trailer

Anna Karenina

Director: Joe Wright
Actors: Keira Knightley, Jude Law, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Matthew Macfadyen
Runtime: 130 minutes
Release Date: 14th February, 2013

Reviewed by the Mole[s]

MO: I’m going to be perfectly honest, I thought this was going to be the first film that we [like ever] disagreed on. I secretly knew I was going to love it, no matter what: Joe Wright plus Keira Knightley (whom I know you are not a fan), Aaron Taylor-Johnson, romance, period drama, Russian aristocrats… and I love Wright’s version of Pride & Prejudice (again, you, not so much). I kept looking at you out of the corner of my eye throughout the film AND I COULDN’T READ YOUR FACE and it was only when it finished and we were outside and I very tentatively said, “umm, I loved it…”

LE: Hahahaha… I do give great poker face! If you’d like us to disagree on something, we could always write a (very late) review for Pride & Prejudice, and watch the fists fly! I must admit, I did approach the film with a little trepidation. As much as I loved Atonement, I did not love Pride & Prejudice or Hanna - Joe Wright’s been a bit hit and miss with me. But I LOVED this adaptation, I thought it was inventive, lush, evocative and beautiful. I’ve currently got the novel in my handbag, and I’m desperate to read it…

MO: I purposely held off from reading it, I wanted to come to this adaptation totally fresh with no expectations and wow, was I rewarded. The start was so dazzling and giddy but I got slightly worried that this concept of the film, predominantly taking place on one central stage was not going to work but it slowed down and I got accustomed to the movement from scene to scene and it was such an ingenious plot device, to think that so many useless scenes could just be done away with and you could be taken from one city to another just through a door. It was magical.

LE: There has been some criticism over this style that has been used, and to be honest, I DON’T GET IT. There have been a number of adaptations of this novel, and to see something so different and clever! You get the feeling that it really invigorates the story, and it’s so refreshing! And the changes between the scenes were so seamless (the one with the constant changing of coats!) I just felt it really was fantastic screenwriting (thank you Mr Stoppard!) and directing. And (I feel this is very important coming from an ardent non-Knightley fan) I thought Ms Knightley was nothing short of exceptional.

MO: She was robbed of an Oscar nomination, she was so subtly, expressive and you felt for Anna and her plight even though at times it was hard to understand her motivations and choices. I thought she and just about everyone was breathtaking, I felt like I was on this merry-go-round, dance with the actors. Oh and that dance between Anna and Vronsky… what is Russian for WOWSERS?

LE: My Russian is a little rusty, but from memory, I think it’s вот это да. LOL. I’m glad that Jacqueline Durran won the Academy Award for Best Costume Design but I think it’s a damn shame that it didn’t win Best Production Design as well. And I particularly loved the cinematography and lighting - how it moved from being incredibly vibrant and sharp, with vivid reds and blues, to dull, soft tones of grey bleakness - it felt like it was balancing not only the moods of the characters, but the mood and political instability of the country.

MO: Yes, and the use of glass and mirrors and doors. It was such a textual film for me, so rich and opulent, from the fur and the jewels to the soft touch of Anna running her hands up her sleeping sons arms. I can’t remember the last time I gushed so much about a film, I want to write Joe Wright a handwritten letter on some linen finished, ivory coloured, 250 gsm paper and beg him to just dedicate his film life to period dramas.  

LE: Sprayed with perfume and enclosed with a wax seal? I thought the supporting cast were very good also, Aaron Taylor-Johnson was excellent (as usual) the chemistry between Vronsky and Anna was wonderfully believable. Such passion! Moustache-licking has never been hotter… Do you think ATJ delved into the Russian mafia to research this role? What else would explain this look?

MO: I can’t believe I was attracted to a man with a moustache, a concept I previously would have thought impossible but ATJ, you have conquered me. There was a lot of great British and European actors: Matthew Macfadyen, Kelly Macdonald, your girlcrush: Alicia Vikander, Ruth Wilson (who plays Jane in one of my favorite adaptations of Jane Eyre), Domhnall Gleeson (also, just worked out why he’s familiar, not only is he in Black Mirror but he’s also BILL WEASLEY!), not to mention the understated and cold Jude Law.

LE: OH MY GOD, I was wondering where I knew her from and it’s JANE! THANK YOU! That would have annoyed me for weeks.

I think it’s a testament to Wright’s adaptation that not only can I not wait to finish reading the novel, I can’t wait to go back and watch this adaptation again. Four big, red, Russian, choc tops from me.

MO: I am dying to read the novel now, then I’m going to line up a back-to-back viewing of Pride and Prejudice, Atonement and Anna Karenina. I’m giving it 4 1/2 lick-the-icecream-from-ATJ’s’-moustache choctops.  

MO:

LE:

Trailer