Dimboola

I wouldn't exactly label Dimboola as an ozploitation film but there's certainly a sense that it's a close relative of the genre, owing to their common ancestor in The Adventures of Barry McKenzie - the popular early 70s Australian film that brought Barry Humphries' satirical comic-strip creation to the big screen. Dimboola takes a similarly parodic but good-natured look at over-the-top Australian social mores by offering a contrast with the British national character, favouring a broad three-act approach to a 'typical' Australian country town wedding with a cast of engaging two-dimensional caricatures brought to life by an array of crusty and gawky 70s Australian acting talent.



The town of Dimboola is about to play host to the wedding of Morrie (Bruce Spence) and Maureen (Natalie Bate), a typical young couple very much in love. Morrie's mates have taken him to the shearing shed for his bucks night, which could have some very disastrous consequences thanks to the presence of a stripper with rather loose, er, 'financial motivations'. Meanwhile, Vivien Worcester-Jones (Max Gillies) is a rather uptight British journalist who has come to observe the town and it's wedding for the purposes of an anthropological article on Australian culture. He dons drag to infiltrate Maureen's kitchen tea.



There's some comment passed on the role of alcohol in relation to the Australian national character (summed up by Mr. Booze - the plaintive, ambivalent showtune at the end) but the film only brings it up as an afterthought, neither condoning or condemning it's prevalence in the plot. Bruce Spence is a rather unlikely-looking leading man - an endearing factor when it comes to regional filmmaking like Dimboola or any other piece of cultural filmmaking that comes from a part of the world where movies have virtually no financial incentive attached to making them. Indeed, the growing commercial viability of Australian films in the 1980s would put an end to any further possibility of Bruce Spence taking lead roles in film productions, but I guess it's no small consolation that he's probably one of our most internationally-recognised actors thanks to his subsequent supporting roles in major franchises like Star Wars, Lord of the Rings and The Matrix. The rest of the cast of Dimboola is recognisable but more in a "did I see that guy in the pub a few months ago?" kind of way as opposed to a "what other films was she in?" kind of way.



I was surprised to learn that this film was based on a play... it didn't really seem wordy or involved enough to have been based on a piece of theatre. There's a subplot where Worcester-Jones misinterprets the Dimboola-based oddballs as typically Australian and tries to work out our traditions accordingly, but it isn't really developed enough, and Worcester-Jones spends most of the film as a jokesy British stereotype who just hangs around in the background. A lot of the film's more overt jokes are based on the rising Australian hatred/ridiculing of poms in the 1970s, a trend based on the public emergence of our own national character thanks to the growth of Australian media (and the subsequent subsidence of the 'cultural cringe'). It's mildly amusing in the context of films like Dimboola and The Adventures of Barry McKenzie because it positions Australia in opposition to the UK, a relationship that would pale into insignifcance (and something resembling camaraderie between white Australians and their colonial cousins) when our social landscape changed further with the rise of multiculturalism in the late 1980s/early 1990s. There's a particularly funny scene where a rather large and thuggish Australian (Max Fairchild) challenges Worcester-Jones to a fight, revealing a T-shirt with the slogan "Keep Australia beautiful - shoot a pom". Worcester-Jones further represents the butt of jokes when he asks a breakfast bar if they have any "Twinnings" (the reply? "Get nicked"), and tries it on with Maureen ("Pardon my colonising instincts").



As far as 'ocker' comedies go, it's actually rather gentle in its exploration of Australian cliches. I mean, they're all there and they're hardly subtle, but the film doesn't draw attention to itself in the post-modern self-referential way that a modern Australian comedy would. In Dimboola you can see the ancestry of more recent Australian comedies like The Castle and The Nugget, but this 70s comedy would probably fall flat with modern viewers because its comedy relies on a range of quirky Australian characters and situations that have become nauseatingly well-trodden cliches in the last two decades. There's little else to sell this film to modern viewers, it doesn't exactly have strong character development, and it's plot is a simplistic collection of large set pieces - first act: the bucks party/kitchen tea, second act: the next day, third act: the wedding. It's a shame, because I'm sure the film would've been quite entertaining in it's day as a genuine slice of smart-arsed, coarse, thick-skinned Australiana. I certainly enjoyed it as a modern viewer, but I also don't have the general expectations that the average Australian filmgoer would have. I didn't find it laugh-out-loud funny, but it has a lot of charm to it, and I just enjoyed experiencing the fictional community they put on the screen.



HIGHLIGHTS: Maureen's dad gives a speech at the wedding and drags out every cliche in the book of Dad Wedding Speeches.



There is also some nice usage of salvation army band music as everyone in the local pub goes home for the night... the drunk, the broken-hearted, the bickering and the loving, all belched out into the night as the pub shuts it's doors. It beautifully evokes the atmosphere of closing time in small pubs and bars the world over.



TRIVIA: Quite a few of the supporting actors who appear in Dimboola have never appeared in any other films or television shows.



Dimboola is a real town in Victoria, and this was also where the film was made.



DIRECTOR: John Duigan

WRITER/SOURCE: Written by John Hibberd, based on the play by John Power.

KEY ACTORS: Bruce Spence, Natalie Bate, Max Gillies, Bill Garner, Max Fairchild, Max Cullen.



RELATED TEXTS

- The play Dimboola, which actually just focused on the wedding reception. The film version expands it into a larger three-act structure.

- A filmed 1973 version of the play exists on the Umbrella DVD release of this film.

- The films The Adventures of Barry McKenzie and Barry McKenzie Holds His Own are progenitors of the Australian vs. Pom thing. Alvin Purple is another close relative of these films.

- As mentioned in my review, films like The Castle and The Nugget can trace their ancestry back to films like Dimboola. There's a whole plethora of Australian comedies that fall into the same 'quirky Australiana comedy' subgenre.

The Invention of Hugo Cabret

Just a short blog for the moment as I am currently knee deep in the jungles of the Congo. This is a teen fiction novel that I read for a university course recently, and it really stood out as a one of a kind reading expereience. You'll probably be hearing a lot more about it soon as Martin Scorcese is apparently adapting it into a film. It's a very unusual/unique book as it's half picture book/half novel... but the picture sequences take over the narrative of the story (they are wordless but they continue telling the story on their own, they aren't illustration of what the text says). It's a bit like reading a silent film, which is apt as the book concerns film's first forgotten genius - Georges Melies, director of A Trip to the Moon - and also looks at some 19th century toydiggery such as automata.

I don't have time to say much more than that, but it's thoroughly worth checking out. The author/illustrator has clearly poured a lot of love and time into it, and it shows in every etching. It didn't get a lot of attention in bookstores when it was first released as it doesn't really fit neatly into any single book category (or genre), which is a tragedy. Hopefully Scorcese's film (if it happens) will give it a second chance at glory.

Hulk

I tried not to build up my expectations too much when this film first came out. I mean, it was the Hulk (!), and with Ang Lee directing (double !), therefore it had to be good. Nothing would prepare me for the end result though... it was unlike anything I had see before. An actual comic book on screen, and a genuine attempt to steer it towards a tragedy of Shakespearean proportions rather than presenting it as a standard action piece. As such, it remains unpopular amongst fans, but I will continue to honour it as a deeply flawed but courageous attempt to do something different with the genre.

The story of the Hulk is an essentially tragic one, like a comic book Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde, and Ang Lee seems intent on stretching out this vein of thought for the film. The film Hulk is tragic in the way that only a comic can be. The human drama builds, piecing together layers of understanding and never quite making it clear to us until the great green one himself appears. Admittedly, the film is a little slow to get to this pivotal point, but it manages to hold our attention through it's kinetic and hyper-visual style of direction. Ang Lee employs comic-book styled cells and other directorial innovations along these lines, using them to brilliant effect alongside a great score reminiscent of the original Hulk television series.

Eric Bana doesn't actually do all that much acting, considering it's the CGI Hulk that gets to be the angry one, but his performance is okay for what it requires. Nick Nolte's mad scientist role was fun to watch, but the motivations behind his character seemed a little too muddled for most of the time. Sam Elliot probably shines the most as the ambivelent military man, Ross. The CGI Hulk itself is awesome (I think I prefer it a lot more to the version seen in the more recent The Incredible Hulk)... whilst it's not 100% realistic it seems perfectly suited to the style of the film, and it's wise to remember that a giant green man with purple pants is never going to seem "100% realistic".

This is a worthy film adaptation of the concept... unlike a lot of other comic-based films, the 'hero' himself is the main story (Bruce Banner and his ulter ego - as characters - sit somewhere between protagonist and antagonist), and Ang Lee's concentration on this is one of the film's greatest strengths. As I mentioned before, it's a little slow to get going action-wise, but once it does it really kicks some arse, and the film must go down as the one of the most ambitiously realised comic-to-film adaptations of the early 2000s. It's probably a mistake that it took so long for Banner to visibly Hulk-out in the movie, perhaps then the film might not be remembered so widely as a failure, but I still enjoyed it nonetheless though.

TRIVIA: Lou Ferrigno (who played the Hulk in the original TV series) and Stan Lee both cameo as security guards.

Bizarrely, Ang Lee was also offered the opportunity to direct the third Terminator film at this point (I say it's bizarre as he isn't exactly a director associated with action films). He chose to do Hulk instead.

Ang Lee himself performed the Hulk-movement sequences for motion-capture.

This film was in development for roughly 12 years.

DIRECTOR: Ang Lee
WRITER/SOURCE: Story by James Schamus, script by John Turman, Michael France and James Schamus, based on the comics and characters created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby.
KEY ACTORS: Eric Bana, Nick Nolte, Sam Elliott, Jennifer Connelly, Josh Lucas.

RELATED TEXTS:
- The comic series created in the 1960s by Marvel comics.
- The 1970s television series The Incredible Hulk.
- The Incredible Hulk is a second Hulk film (not a sequel) made only five years later, starring Edward Norton in the lead role.

AWARDS:
Nominated for a handful of special effects awards at specialist awards ceremonies.

Lethal Weapon 4

The Set Up
Riggs, Murtaugh and Leo Getz stumble upon a slave trade-like illegal immigrant operation whilst fishing. Murtaugh takes a poor Chinese family under his wing and goes after the Triad gang responsible, whilst Riggs starts to suspect his buddy of being on the take. New detective Lee Butters (Chris Rock) comes to their aid as they journey into chinatown to face off against Wah Sing Ku (Jet Li), the Triad leader who has taken to exploiting immigrants in order to fund the release of Triad criminals back in China via a corrupt Chinese general.

Riggs
Is starting to feel his age and no longer feels that fire in his belly now that he's becoming a family man. He's shacked up with Lorna in his caravan-home, and she is heavily pregnant with his child. Riggs questions whether he should marry Lorna or not as he still doesn't feel ready after the death of his wife. He also no longer has his bad 80s mullet, and he uses his dislocatable shoulder as an excuse to get out of a sparring match in the police gym. He doesn't seem to be the 'lethal weapon' he was back in the first film, and gets the crap kicked out of him several times as a result. Both Murtaugh and Riggs get promoted to captains due to becoming too expensive for the department's insurance to cover them.

Murtaugh
Seems to have a lot more cash, much to the puzzlement of Riggs and his other fellow police officers, but is unaware of the rumours of corruption surrounding him. He takes the semi-enslavement of the illegal Chinese immigrants rather personally due to his black heritage, and bends the law to take in a family of escaped immigrants (he sees it as 'freeing slaves'). He spouts pro-immigration tracts to bigoted civil servants, "I s'pose you're Native American, huh?" and is still both a source of mirth for Riggs and his other colleagues (especially after Riggs convinces him to strip to his underpants and act like a chicken at the film's beginning) and for the audience (he pursues a suspect by commandeering a bicycle). Murtaugh is also about to become a grandfather, though his daughter is yet to tell him who the father is.

Villains
The Triad gangs are much more effective villains than the rogue cop in Lethal Weapon 3 or the mercenaries in the first Lethal Weapon, but the South Africans in Lethal Weapon 2 still take the cake as the best overall villains of the series. Jet Li is creepy and effective as the stoic badass gangleader Wah Sing Ku, but Kim Chan steals the show as the genial Uncle Benny (with his catchphrase, "Bloody marvellous"). Jet Li sports a bad queue-styled rat's tail, only has one line of English dialogue, and gets to show off his cool martial arts skills on a couple of occasions. He also spends a lot of the film fondling a string of beads in a sinister manner and looking like he's just stepped directly out of a Hong Kong kung fu film.

Supporting Characters
The cast of supporting characters grows and grows... Leo Getz is as annoying as ever, and is also irritatingly accompanied by Looney-Tunes-ish comedy music. He's now a Private Investigator, reveals that he is descended from German Jews and starts wearing a stupid-looking pork pie hat. He also a surprisingly touching moment with Riggs towards the end of the film, giving Joe Pesci a rare opportunity to show his greater abilities as a serious actor. Rene Russo also returns as Rigg's love interest, though she doesn't feature as much due to her character being pregnant. Murtaugh's family still appears but only barely, and Chris Rock joins the team as an out-of-place angry young detective and the impending father of Murtaugh's grandchild. Dr. Woods, the police psychiatrist seen in the previous three films, also has a cameo.

Gotta Love Hollywood
Despite being made in the late 90s, Lethal Weapon 4 probably has the highest offence rate of the franchise when it comes to cliches and suspension of disbelief. The police chief, without the slightest sense of irony, refers to Murtaugh, Riggs and himself as 'dinosaurs'. The entire film is filled with distractingly hokey incidental music, and continues to show a flagrant disregard for real life police regulations and the rights of average citizens (case in point - when Riggs and Murtaugh decides to smash up a Chinese restaurant due to Uncle Benny's lack of co-operation). There's also the standard irrelevant action sequence at the beginning of the film, complete with requisite massive fuel tanker explosion. Lethal Weapon 4 also introduces a convenient Chinese-American detective character that we've never seen before in order to provide a realistic source of exposition, and there's a sudden and randomly ominous cutaway to a high-security prison in communist China about halfway through the movie. There are also two car-related sequences that might leave viewers squawking in disbelief... one scene shows a car getting slowly pushed into the path of a train and the driver holding his hands up and screaming for the better part of the minute rather than thinking to just get out of the vehicle. Another scene laughably has Riggs smashing a car window with his bare hand and pulling a bad guy through it without even the slightest injury to himself. There's also plenty of bad jokes, so I'll just quote the one...

TRISH: I thought you were coming home last night.
MURTAUGH: Yeah... I had some bad chinese.

Also, the film ends with a cheesy freeze-frame where everyone poses for a photo and shouts "We're family!"

Final Outcome
By and large, the last film in the franchise isn't anywhere near as bad as I thought it might be. All four films are surprisingly consistent in tone and quality, and Lethal Weapon 4 doesn't depart from the formula in the slightest (witness the lack of fanfare attached to the re-introduction of Riggs and Murtaugh at the film's beginning). I think the success of this film (and the others) lies in the fact that it never gets too self-congratulatory and a lot of the emphasis is put on the standard Hollywood action sequences and new developments in the relationships between the characters. By this point it's almost like a soap opera, and the film wisely avoids trying to canonise itself, resisting the nostalgia angle until the cool polaroid-based credit sequence at the end.

I'm Getting Too Old for This Shit
It's Riggs' turn to embody the immortal line, with Murtaugh saying to Riggs understandingly "You're getting too old for this shit" at the 55 minute mark. They then start chanting a mantra together, "We're not too old for this shit", in an embarrassing display of camraderie. Riggs later gives in at the 99 minute mark with the line, "I'm too old for this shit too".

TRIVIA: Mel Gibson originally wanted his character killed off to ensure there would be no further Lethal Weapon films but had so much fun making this film that he actually offered to make a fifth one when shooting wrapped up.

This is Jet Li's first English-language film and the first time he ever played a villain. Jackie Chan was offered the role first but Chan turned it down as he never plays villains.

DIRECTOR: Richard Donner
WRITER/SOURCE: Screenplay by Channing Gibson, based on a story by Jonathan Lemkin, Alfred Gough and Miles Millar (and based on characters created by Shane Black)
KEY ACTORS: Mel Gibson, Danny Glover, Joe Pesci, Jet Li, Rene Russo, Chris Rock, Kim Chan, Steve Kahan, Mary Ellen Trainor

RELATED TEXTS
- The first three Lethal Weapon films: Lethal Weapon, Lethal Weapon 2 and Lethal Weapon 3.
- Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang was written by original Lethal Weapon scripter Shane Black as a reaction against the many cliches of the Hollywood action/thriller genre (with the Lethal Weapon being one of the main culprits for this sort of thing).

AWARDS
Nominated for various popular-choice awards in America, but no wins.

The White Buffalo

A loose western re-telling of Moby Dick starring Charles Bronson... you just don't get much more awesome than that. The concept alone is enough to excite me, so it admittedly didn't take much for the film to impress. Even so, this is an interesting and entertaining hybrid film that successfully mixes elements of the western and horror genres. Plus it has Charles Bronson as Wild Bill Hickok, complete with cool-as-ice steel sunglasses and a line in iron nerves.

Bill Hickok (Bronson) is travelling to the Black Hills incognito as James Otis. He is haunted by dreams of a scary white buffalo, and is compelled to hunt this near-extinct creature, even if it means putting himself at the risk of his many enemies. Worm (Will Sampson) is the disgraced Native American chief who seeks to free the tortured spirit of his white buffalo-slain daughter by finding and destroying the beast, an act that will also restore his true name - Crazy Horse. The two legends find themselves forming an unlikely alliance as they track the mythical creature, though only one can claim the honour of killing the white buffalo.

This is an odd idea for a film, but it's not as cut-and-dry as a simple high concept action-horror adventure (if such a thing could be called 'simple'). Primarily, it's about honour and friendship in a lawless time when such things were hard to find. Wild Bill is a gentleman in a land of dishonourable men, everywhere he turns he is constantly at the mercy of gunslingers out to make their reputation by being the one to kill him. So, despite the racism and inequalities of the era, Wild Bill finds friendship in his rival, Crazy Horse. They might both seek the same goal (something that only one of them can claim) but Wild Bill is drawn to the former indian chief due to a sense of kinship based on a personal code of honour. Bill's offsider, Charlie Zane (played with mountain man-relish by Jack Warden) can't seem to see beyond his own prejudices, but Bill can sense Crazy Horse's inherent honour (quote, "Brave men don't back-shoot").

White Buffalo doesn't gloss over the racial injustices of the era, nor does it seek to overcompensate by taking the typical liberal 70s approach to native americans in westerns. Instead it confronts the issue head-on, with Wild Bill acknowledging the incompatabilities of 'red' truth and 'white' truth, highlighting the tragic inevitability of complete and total white conquest, and effectively sweeping away any romanticism one might attach to the era. The film ends with twin sepia photographs of Will Sampson and Charles Bronson as their respective historical characters, accompanied by the epitaphs "Murdered 1876" and "Murdered 1877", a disturbing touch that at once highlights their equality in the eyes of fate and the lack of room for honourable men such as themselves in the violent and anarchic old west.

The white buffalo itself is a creature that more closely represents a Jaws-like threat than any preservationist anti-hunting agenda. The film introduces us to this beast amongst a shadowy, white landscape of snow-capped rocky outcrops (calling to mind the icebergs and arctic of Moby Dick). It's a roaring screen-filling creature with rolling eyes and murderous intentions (accentuated by the blood-red opening film credits). Later we witness it brutally murdering and destroying a whole village of indians, who both fear and revere the white buffalo - implying it to be some kind of sacred and evil spirit.

It's a one-of-a-kind film, and it also features some great larger-than-life dialogue ("colder than a hooker's heart"). Plus Charles Bronson looks the business as Wild Bill Hickok, and he has some great scenes too, and the white buffalo itself is impressive in all it's ambitious glory (though you might have trouble with the various scenes that show it 'galloping' furiously). Some viewers may write this film off as a flimsy excuse for a series of cliched western set pieces, and I think on some level the film is exactly that (producer Dino De Laurentiis was almost certainly just cashing in on the popularity of Jaws...) but to not see through this to appreciate all the elements that work would be a shame. I mean, it's worth the price of admission alone just for the hilariously bizarre moment where Slim Pickens reveals he's been carrying a bag full of live cats for the full duration of a hazardous stagecoach journey. I can appreciate that there are certain aspects of this film that could have been developed more or cut altogether, but there was just something about the sheer audacity of the concept that made the whole thing endearing to me, and I wouldn't change any of it at all.

TRIVIA: This is one of only a few horror-westerns - it's just not a genre mash-up that happens very often. See Related Texts section for some other examples.

DIRECTOR: J. Lee Thompson
WRITER/SOURCE: Written by Richard Sale, based on his own novel.
KEY ACTORS: Charles Bronson, Will Sampson, Jack Warden, Kim Novak, Slim Pickens, John Carradine.

RELATED TEXTS:
- White Buffalo by Richard Sale, the novel this film was based on.
- Jaws, the smash-hit horror film that re-energised the 'monster' movie thanks to a heightened sense of realism, and served as the primary inspiration behind this film getting made.
- The classic Herman Melville novel Moby Dick, from which the script takes a lot of it's cues.
- The first season of the TV series Deadwood, which features a more historically-accurated version of Wild Bill Hickok.
- The Plainsman, a big budget 1930s western starring Gary Cooper as Wild Bill Hickok - and just one of many westerns featuring Wild Bill.
- Some other significant horror-western films are Billy the Kid Vs. Dracula, High Plains Drifter, Tremors 4: The Legend Begins, The Burrowers and Gallowwalker.

The Assassin's Apprentice

Back in 2006 I decided to spend all my reading time devoted to Robin Hobb and read her first nine book in one big stretch. When The Assassin's Apprentice first came out my friends got it and read it and proclaimed it be the greatest thing ever... at the time I was uninterested in the bulk of the fantasy genre, I was still pretty much a sci-fi and TV tie-in kid - reading Doctor Who and Red Dwarf books like they were the only books that existed. I've moved a bit beyond that mentality now, and so, in 2006 - about 10 years after her first book - I decided to finally give Robin Hobb a shot.

Holy crabsticks.

I was missing out. I went straight through this book to the other two books in the Farseer trilogy. I then read Hobb's followup trilogy - The Liveship Traders - and from there I went straight into her Tawny Man trilogy. Nine books all up... roughly 6700 pages altogether. What a wild ride it was, I felt like I had taken a long and fantastic journey with all her characters, I felt like I knew Fitz (the narrator/protagonist of the first and last of the three trilogies) personally by it's end and I was very sad to finish the books.

The Assassin's Apprentice is the first of the these books, the Farseer trilogy. Fitz tells us his story in flashback, writing it down as if he were writing a history of the Six Duchies (the pastoral and medieval-ish land in which he lives). He is the bastard son of Prince Chivalry, who was heir to the Farseer throne, only Chivalry has to abdicate once Fitz's existence becomes public knowledge. Fitz is taken under the wing of King Shrewd and brought up by Prince Chivalry's right-hand man, the stablemaster Burrich. He is also brought up in secret by the King's assassin, Chade... King Shrewd seeks to make Fitz useful to the Farseers by making him a royal assassin. A decree both cruel and merciful.

I won't go into too much detail about all the machinations of the Farseer court and what character is what, you might as well read the book if you want all that. What is at the centre of this book is Fitz's learning of two different magics... one being the Skill, a royal magic that is only taught to the Farseers and is generally held in high esteem. And the other being the Wit, a 'beast' magic that Fitz seems to have a natural aptitude for - and a magic that is forbidden in the Six Duchies.

This book deals mainly with Fitz's upbringing and learning of the ways of the Farseers. Where the book differs with others in the fantasy genre is that Fitz is very much at odds with all those around him... he is a loner, and he seems to be of little importance in the grand scheme of things - he is, at the most, a tool to be used by the Farseers in their inter-familial struggles and varied attempts at diplomacy. There is no quest for Fitz to embark on and he has no central desire to improve his lot in the world. In fact, his motivations are almost non-existent - making him a strange kind of fantasy protagonist and something of an anti-hero.

As a stand-alone book, The Assassin's Apprentice fairly satisfying. The story builds to a strong finish and answers enough questions so you won't feel duped into having to read the next book. Like all good series-fiction, the desire to read the next story comes purely from an enjoyment of the characters and setting and wanting to know more. It's quality storytelling at it's finest.

Harry Brown

When this film first came out there was a lot of fanfare attached to it in regards to Michael Caine getting back to his tough guy roots (with inevitable comparisons to Get Carter). There was also some flack for the level of violence, with some reviewers complaining that the film went too far. I don't think either train of thought really stands up to scrutiny, and I think Harry Brown is actually an interesting film in it's own right. There is some apt comparison to be made with Gran Torino, a similar tale of old man-turned-vigilante from across the pond, but Harry Brown wins out in terms of credibility. Whereas Gran Torino did most of it's business off the back of Clint Eastwood's status as a living icon, Harry Brown prefers instead to focus on maintaining a certain sense of realism to explore similar ideas of community, crime and the failure of the system.

Harry Brown (Michael Caine) is a widower living in one of Britain's notorious low-income estates. He maintains a certain sense of dignity in the face of rising youth-related crime and the encroaching sense of lawlessness that surrounds him, but when his only friend Leonard (David Bradley, best known for his ongoing role in the Harry Potter films) becomes too afraid to take it anymore, Brown is forced to call upon his long-buried skills as a marine to restore some order to the community. Alice (Emily Mortimer), is a local detective who seeks to achieve some results where most of her colleagues have given up, and she finds herself investigating the puzzling aftermaths of Harry's vigilantism.

Harry Brown takes the worst of chav gangsterism to build a case against the inability of the law to protect those at the mercy of drug-abusing teens and cold-blooded killers. The level of violence in this film is confronting, but it's not gratuitous or exploitative - it's a realistic depiction of the unpredictable and fleeting brutality of real life thuggery. The only sequence that I can form any real negative criticism against is the early scene where two teens on a motorbike senselessly shoot a woman with a pram. It's never linked to the plot nor referred to again throughout the course of the film, and as such it stands out as a too obviously manipulative attempt to put the viewer on Harry's side from the outset. It's a shocking moment so it's hard to ignore it, and the director and writer would probably hold it up as an example of the changing nature of crime, but that's a load of crap as I'd argue that the socio-economic relationship between crime and youth gangs is nothing new. But anyway, it's one small flaw, and aside from this the rest of the film is well-structured and thematically sound.

It's said by staticians like Stephen D. Levitt that crime in the western world is down in comparison to earlier decades, but I think media exposure and the increasingly failure of our legal system to combat violence and the drug trade has prompted wider levels of fear in the public (the main example of this in the film is how ineffectual the police are when faced with rioting estate gangs). There's always this sense in the media that our society is on the brink of collapse, and Harry Brown exemplifies this by personifying the silent majority as Harry and Leonard - the old guard watching their world slip away under a tide of lawless scum. As a result, it's a very grim film, something that isn't alleviated in the slightest by Harry's transformation into a veangeful angel of death due to the film's unwillingness to take the Hollywood route...

Unlike Eastwood in Gran Torino (or any other film about righteous vigilantism), Caine and the filmmaker resist fetishising Harry as a tough-talking action hero. Harry might go on a revenge-fuelled rampage but he's still very much an old man, with an old man's body and an old man's attitude, speaking dialogue very much in keeping with a quiet, unassuming ex-army man in his late 70s. Caine doesn't have the same history as Eastwood - his career hasn't been as singleminded or focused on creating an iconic screen persona, so he doesn't come with the baggage of an action star. He's able to convince the viewer of the reality of this film. When he sits in the house of a disturbing-looking junkie gunrunner (Sean Harris), he's very much an alien in this world. He shouldn't be interacting with these gun-toting animals, and he looks every bit as uncomfortable as his character should be. He doesn't offer a multitude of pun-heavy zingers, nor does he hold his gun in an aesthetically-pleasing manner (though try telling that to the graphic designers and marketing minions who promoted this film...) 'Refreshing' is probably the wrong word for such a downbeat film, but it's certainly a welcome break from the way the film industry parasitically glosses up the crime world for the benefit of a gangsta-wannabe audience.

It's an interesting film that reflects the attitudes of our modern times, and it's important as a non-American perspective on a very American subgenre. And, as much as Americans like putting Michael Caine in their films, he still has to go back to Britain to play the lead roles he deserves (though he probably gets paid a lot more for his five minute appearances in films like Inception) so it's worth watching if only to see him do some serious acting again.

DIRECTOR: Daniel Barber
WRITER/SOURCE: Gary Young
KEY ACTORS: Michael Caine, Emily Mortimer, David Bradley, Iain Glen, Ben Drew, Sean Harris

RELATED TEXTS:
- The most obvious contemporary film would be Gran Torino, in which another old-age screen legend takes it upon himself to clean up the ghetto he lives in.
- The media and marketing worlds latched onto this film as a continuation of Caine's occasional tough-guy screen persona, represented by films such as Get Carter and Shiner.
- Then there's the original vigilante vehicle, Death Wish.

AWARDS:
Daniel Barber was nominated for a 'breakthrough British filmmaker' award by the London Critics Circle.

Frankenstein

There have been many adaptations of Mary Shelley's influential sci-fi/horror novel over the years, ranging from the famous Universal version starring Boris Karloff as the most iconic version of the monster to more recent attempts including Kenneth Brannagh's meticulously faithful adaptation, Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, and the modern stem cell-related production made for the British television station, ITV. This Thomas Edison-produced version made in 1910 is actually the very first film based on the novel - and whilst it gives forewarning that it's a 'liberal adaptation' it's actually surprisingly faithful for a short 15 minute silent film, using period costumes and actually showing the monster as being able to speak.

Frankenstein (Augustus Philips) is depicted here as a young medical student who arrives at college and has a eureka-styled moment whilst preparing for an experiment. He seeks to create life but "Instead of a perfect human being the evil in Frankenstein's mind creates a monster", and Frankenstein finds himself faced with an ungodly being (Charles Ogle) that he instantly regrets birthing. So our young 'hero' does what any of us might do, and simply runs away. Of course, the monster follows him, and haunts him on his wedding night - menacing Frankenstein's newly-wed wife in their bedroom, and expressing horror at it's own appearance.

As I mentioned, this is surprisingly faithful to the novel - especially when you consider that it's a 300 page book condensed down into just a quarter of an hour. The film keeps the main crux of the story, and suggests a great deal of sympathy for Frankenstein's creature rather than just descending into a short, simplistic horror film. Frankenstein's ambitions are laid out in the form of a letter to his sweetheart, allowing for the film to fast forward to the bit any modern viewer will want to see - the creation of the 'monster'. This sequence is exceptional even by modern standards... the monster is shown literally forming before our eyes, flaming bones and ragged tendons stretching themselves together to become an abomination.

Charles Ogle is a curious footnote in film history thanks to being the first person to portray the monster on screen. He's fairly over-the-top and theatrical, all skulking and big arm movements, and the film goes some way to suggest that the creature is a reflection (literally) of Frankenstein's evil ambitions. However, the monster's fate is the film's most radical departure from the novel, with the creature bizarrely disappearing into it's own reflection because it just decides that it doesn't want to be evil anymore. Another interesting aspect of this film is that it depicts the creature's creation as a somewhat magical process, with Frankenstein conducting his 'experiment' by mixing up a series of potions in a big cauldron and then locking it into a cast-iron structure that kind of resembles a massive oven.

It's an interesting version of the tale, and if you want to watch it you can see it for free on youtube, due to the fact that it's old enough to not be covered by copyright anymore.

TRIVIA: This film was considered lost until around 1975, when it was rediscovered.

The scene of the monster's creation was achieved by melting a fake body and then running the footage backwards.

DIRECTOR: J. Searle Dawley
WRITER/SOURCE: J. Searle Dawley, based on the novel by Mary Shelley.
KEY ACTORS: Charles Ogle, Augustus Philips, Mary Fuller

RELATED TEXTS:
- Mary Shelley's novel, Frankenstein, is an early 19th century gothic novel considered by many to be the first true science fiction novel.
- A second silent film, Life Without Soul, was made in 1915 and also based on Shelley's novel. It is considered lost and hasn't been seen since the silent era.
- Frankenstein, the 1931 adaptation made by Universal pictures with Boris Karloff as the monster, is considered by many to be the definitive film version. It was followed by an acclaimed sequel, The Bridge of a Frankenstein, and a more forgettable follow-up, Son of Frankenstein, both also starring Karloff as the monster. Universal pictures went on to make five further films with other actors playing the monster.
- The British horror film production company Hammer made seven films based on or sequelising the Frankenstein story between 1957 and 1974.
- There have been ten or more other adaptations over the years, including Mary Shelley's Frankenstein in 1994, the version considered to be the closest to the novel.

Dreamgirls

One of the bigger controversies of 2006's Academy Award nominations was the snubbing of Dreamgirls for the Best Film category. Personally, I don't think it really matters either way as The Departed deserved to win that year either way. Having said that though, Dreamgirls could easily have taken the place of Babel as one of the Best Film nominations, and it accumulated a very respectable 8 nominations (no other film was more nominated that year) in other categories.

Dreamgirls is the story of the Dreams, a Supremes-styled trio of female singers who work their way to the top of the music industry - overcoming inner turmoils, label machinations, and the race barrier. Of course, it's not all up and up magic, along the way the biggest talents of all (played by Eddie Murphy and Jennifer Hudson) get left behind thanks to the moods and whims and Curtis Taylor Jr (Jaimie Foxx), one-time Cadillac dealer and the current head of a rapidly expanding ruthless music empire.

Encompassing two decades of soulful and revolutionary black music, Dreamgirls parallels the story of Motown records and the talents it used, promoted, loved and abused. It's almost fairytale-like, and works as a towering soap-opera-esque epic of talent, bertrayal and power. This film could just be the best musical I have ever seen. Seriously, I don't think I've ever enjoyed a musical more.

Just as epic as the film itself is the story of it's journey to screen from the stage, an odyssey that had it's beginnings back in the 80s. Bill Condon (writer of Chicago - the last 'big' musical film before Dreamgirls, and an Oscar-winning production hugely inferior to this breathtaking film) lends his more dramatically-attuned directorial talents (Gods and Monsters, Kinsey) to this famed and acclaimed broadway musical, bringing us a highly polished and near-perfect gem.

A film like this would be so much pointless screen candy if it wasn't for the other extensive talents involved too... the set design is impressive and the songs are fantastically memorable and almost as good as the 60s and 70s Motown R&B tunes that inspired them. The cast, too, is spot on. Jaimie Foxx is suitably scheming as cold-hearted money-man Curtis, and Beyonce Knowles is well-cast as the Diana Ross-like figure Deena Jones. But, of course - as anyone who saw the various 2006 awards ceremonies should know - the biggest performances are by those in the attention-catching 'supporting' roles... Eddie Murphy's dramatic foray as James 'Thunder' Early feels so right, and it would be nice to see him doing more acting along these lines as opposed to films like Norbert or Meet Dave. Meanwhile, American Idol runner-up Jennifer Hudson's debut turn as Effie White is nothing short of phenomenal, an astonishing combination of sincere, unsentimental pathos and raw musical talent.

Dreamgirls is a stirring, golden recreation of an era of soul music in all it's sleaze and glory, and one of the most flat-out entertaining films I've seen in a while. Great soundtrack too!

Fearless Hyena

Featuring Jackie Chan's mischievious early era screen persona, this low budget kung fu film showcases some exciting camera work and Chan's innovative trademark choreography. The title 'Fearless Hyena' refers to the 'emotional' style of kung fu that Chan's character uses in the final parts of the film, and the film itself is a fairly fun piece of comedy kung fu.

Chan plays Shing Lung, a rather aimless and lazy young man who learns the art of kung fu from his wise grandfather, Chen Peng-Fei (James Tien). Shing Lung falls in with a gang of knockabout conmen who decide to make him their champion, and he starts using his skills to win cash fights set up against other kung-fu clans. Unfortunately this attracts the attention of Yen Ting Hua, an evil kung fu master who inexplicably roams the countryside killing random good guys whilst looking for Shing Lung's grandfather.

Fearless Hyena is almost completely plotless, the first half of the film is little more than a series of sketches centring about Chan's character (witness one superfluous comedy sequence where Shing Lung tries to get a job as a second-hand coffin salesman). For most of the film Shing Lung is very much a comedy character, accompanied by Three Stooges-styled cheesy sound effects (and a ripoff of the Pink Panther theme tune), until the last half an hour or so where the film does an about face and turns into a semi-serious revenge quest (with Shing Lung having to grow up as a result). It's fairly silly a lot of the time, and the older characters are very obviously just young men made up to look old thanks to some grey hairspray, but hey - no one's watching this film for it's plot.

The main reason to watch it is for Chan's skill as a kung fu master... you can see a lot of Buster Keaton in the way he works physical comedy into his routines, though sometimes it can get pretty low brow (witness the sequence where Chan fights in the guise of a retarded gardener, or where he beats a massive opponent whilst dressed in drag as a shy, young woman!) One of the film's major highlights would have to be the 'fight' scene that takes place over a lunch of noodles, with most of the action being played out via chopsticks. The film's other big selling point is the invention of 'emotional' kung fu, where Chan battles his nemesis using a variety of ridiculous styles that mimic basic emotions such as sorrow or playfulness.

DIRECTOR: Jackie Chan and Kenneth Tsang
WRITER/SOURCE: Jackie Chan and Kenneth Tsang
KEY ACTORS: Jackie Chan, James Tien, Lee Kwan, Dean Shek, Yam Sai-kwoon, Chan Wai-Lau

RELATED TEXTS:
- This film is also known as Revenge of the Dragon.
- It was also followed by an exploitative sequel, Fearless Hyena II. Chan started work on this film but broke his contract quite early to join another picture company, leading the director (Lo Wei) to try and blackmail him via the Triad gangs. The dispute was resolved without Chan returning to the film, and Lo Wei created the rest of the film using outtakes and archival footage from the first film. Chan saw the end result and thought it was unreleasable, he even went to court to try and shut it down but was unsuccessful.
- There is also another film, often titled Fearless Hyena III (despite the fact that it was filmed between the first and second films), that apparently features a hopeless Jackie Chan look-alike named Jackie Chen.
- A lot of Fearless Hyena adheres to the same formula used in the earlier Chan film Drunken Master.

Iron Man 2

Anyone worth their salt when it comes to comic books and the films inspired by them will tell you that Iron Man was one of the great runaway successes of the genre. Whilst no less iconic in design or conception, the character of Iron Man isn't weighted down by the continuity or expectations that accompanies other more well-known superheroes such as Superman, Batman or Spiderman. With a perfect opportunity to tell a story very much in tune with our modern times, director Jon Favreau and lead star (and writing collaborator) Robert Downey Jr told a genuinely exciting and un-cartoonish superhero origin story without resorting to angst or cliched grittiness. Iron Man 2 seeks to continue this trend whilst building up the mythos with the introduction of several more significant characters... the end result is an entertaining superhero film that remains faithful to the traditional elements of the genre but falls short of the intelligence that made the first film so great.

We open on Ivan Vanko (Mickey Rourke), the prison-baked son of a disgraced Russian physicist. Vanko watches his father die and swears revenge on Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr) for the wrongs the Stark corporation visited upon his family. Meanwhile, Stark is loving the spotlight as an out-of-the-closet superhero, but finds himself struggling to retain his intellectual property (the Iron Man suit) when both the government (represented by Senator Stern, played by Gary Shandling) and his competitor (Justin Hammer - played by Sam Rockwell) come calling. Stark's main defence is his assertion that the rest of the world is a decade or two away from having the same technology as him (quote, "I've successfully privatised world peace"), but when Vanko makes a violent appearance in Monaco brandishing similar technology things start going a little less well for our hero, and it also doesn't help that Stark's own power source is starting to kill him.

There's a lot going on in this film on a superficial level - we have the introduction of the supervillain Vanko, the government and military wanting to co-opt the Iron Man technology, Sam Rockwell oiling up the screen as Justin Hammer, Tony Stark's ongoing problems with being a team player and his private struggles with mortality, the development of the character of Rhodey (Don Cheadle) into the sidekick/rival War Machine, the subplot involving Stark's love interest Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow), the introduction of Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), and the continuing development of the Avengers storyline that is currently running through just about every Marvel film (represented in the film by Nick Fury, played by Samuel L. Jackson). It's a lot to juggle, and I gotta say that Jon Favreau does a stellar job in keeping the film relatively balanced and un-messy, but at the same time it's just too much. Not enough time is spent focusing on the aspects that would serve the film the best... Johanssen's presence is unnecessary and she doesn't seem at ease with her role at all, and the attempt to integrate the Avengers stuff into the storyline left the film feeling a bit more like a stepping stone rather than the event-blockbuster it should've been.

Iron Man 2 starts off well enough, Vanko (a shrewd combination of two seperate villains from the Iron Man comics) is a great concept for a villain, and Rourke puts a lot of restraint and subtlety into the character. It's just a shame that not nearly enough time in the film is spent focusing on him (the final battle between Vanko, Iron Man and War Machine isn't nearly long enough... instead we get about twenty minutes of dramatically-bereft drones flying around). Also, Stark starts out the film as a spotlight-mad superstar whose hubris is just begging for him to be brought down... thematically-speaking this could've dovetailed quite nicely with Vanko, someone who felt that they're entire family had been victimised by Stark, but it's a missed opportunity. Rockwell is also quite good as Justin Hammer, he's like a morally bankrupt Stark-wannabe, but the similarities between Hammer and Stark aren't really explored enough. Instead the film gets waylaid by Marvel's plans for the film version of The Avengers.

It also doesn't help that the central driving force for Downey's characterisation becomes all this stuff about his power source slowly killing him... it's a nice idea, but hardly fertile ground for interesting and thought-provoking character dynamics. The first Iron Man film brilliantly brought it's superhero into a post-9/11 landscape and managed to do it in a way that didn't politicise the film too heavily in favour of America's somewhat dodgy foreign policy, and it also took it's key plot mechanics (Stark's betrayal at the hands of his mentor Obadiah) from the thematically-rich territory of corporate dealbreaking and backstabbing. It's frustrating because in Iron Man 2 you can see a genuine extension of these strands fighting to get out from underneath all the franchise tie-in junk that Marvel has insisted on shoehorning into the film. We might've had a sequel that looked at the idea of Stark as a privatised vigilante who refuses to sell out to the American government while battling a very real threat in the form of Vanko - a man who not only threatens Stark's life but also his reputation. There's even still room in there for Justin Hammer as a trickster figure waiting to assume to Stark's place as a faux-heroic industrialist.

Don't get me wrong, it's still an entertaining film with lots of spectacle and fun dialogue. Fanboys will probably like it because of the Avengers stuff, but I prefer a really strong stand-alone film any day of the week. I would've liked to see Favreau and Downey continue what they started in Iron Man, but I guess we've at least got them to thank in regards to this film managing to be entertaining at all in light of the ridiculous amount of subplots and characters. Also, what's with Gary Shandling's weird bubblegum lips?

TRIVIA: Stan Lee cameos as Larry King.

Rhodey was originally played by Terrence Howard in the first Iron Man film but he had a falling out with Marvel productions and was replaced by Don Cheadle.

DIRECTOR: Jon Favreau
WRITER/SOURCE: Justin Theroux, based on the Iron Man comics (in particular the series Demon in a Bottle).
KEY ACTORS: Robert Downey Jr, Don Cheadle, Mickey Rourke, Gwyneth Paltrow, Scarlett Johanssen, Sam Rockwell, Gary Shandling, Samuel L. Jackson, Jon Favreau, Paul Bettany, Clark Gregg.

RELATED TEXTS
- The Iron Man comics.
- Obviously, this is also a sequel to the film Iron Man.
- It also serves as a prequel for The Avengers, and has links with The Incredible Hulk, Thor and Captain America.

Across the Dark Metropolis

Across the Dark Metropolis is the third and final book in the Borribles trilogy by Michael de Larrabeiti. If you've been following this blog at all, you might be familiar with my less than stellar reaction to this series. The first book was fairly clumsy and it's 'cult' status seemed fairly unwarranted. The second book picked up the game a bit and seemed to display a wiser sense of plot construction and grasp of language. So what's the verdict after reading the third book? Well, I wasn't impressed... it was surpremely average.

We pick up our story almost immediately after the last Borrible adventure. Most of the Borribles are lying low in Battersea, waiting for the heat of the SBG (Special Borrible Group - a police division specially created to track down and capture Borribles) to wear off. When it seems to be safe, they decide to travel back across London to distant Neasden, where their beloved horse - Sam - can be put to pasture and live without any further worries. Meanwhile, the SBG are being reprimanded by the higher echelons of administration for letting the Borribles get away, and are being encouraged to use more underhanded means in catching the wayward pointy-eared ones.

What ensues is a long and eventful journey across a Borrible's-eye-view landscape of London. The sewers and junkyards and back alleys are their terrain, and they come across various memorable and crude figures in their travels... including hideous 'meffos', other tribes of Borribles, and a disgusting and decrepit old woman named 'The Queen Mother'.

But at every corner, it also seems the SBG are waiting for them. Diabolically, the police have enlisted the help of disguised dwarfs to infiltrate the Borribles and help engineer their capture. Traps are laid, and virtually no stranger can be trusted, and things start to become very desperate for the Borribles as it soon becomes apparent they may never have freedom again.

The author continues his exploration of what it is to be 'Borrible'... freedom, lack of interest in monetary values, a healthy disdain for authority and order, and refraining from violence amongst their central tenets. All admirable themes. Unfortunately, this exploration remains as stunted and unfinished as it has been in the previous novels, and sometimes the logic of de Larrabeiti's world is far too undeveloped and full of holes. His action sequences are as impressive as always, and the last few set pieces involving a slaughterhouse-stampede and a battle in a junkyard are amongst the most well-executed in the trilogy. Unfortunately these remain sone of the few memorable things about these books.

The second book, The Borribles Go for Broke, succeeded in it's improved writing. Now I'm not sure if I imagined this or not as this third book seemed fairly poor at times. Sometimes the author would come out with a surprisingly effective piece of descriptive writing, and the dialogue wasn't as clumsy as it has been in the other books, but at other times he wrote some atrociously bad pieces of prose, such as "Napoleon smiled like concrete" or "He could feel his mind dancing. Like an electronic chip the size of a hillside".

Also, one particular thing I felt rather miffed about was the author's reluctance to show rather than tell. Constantly we're told how each Borrible has a story attached to their name, and they're forever telling these stories to one another, but not once are we (the reader) ever told what any of these stories are. Hence we get nonsensical name after name, 'Twilight' (a Bangladeshi character - don't tell me he's called Twilight just because he's black?), 'Norrarf', 'Swish' and 'Treld'. What does 'Treld' even mean? What interesting story or adventure could possibly be connected to a name like that? It's patently obvious the author doesn't know either, because we never get to hear the origins of these names, despite being told that they all have fascinating stories behind them.

Anyway... while a lot of it was childish and awkward, I don't regret reading this trilogy completely. It passed the time fair enough and it wasn't boring, it was just poorly executed and could've been so much better. The second book was easily the best, which doesn't bode well for any trilogy. Meh.

The Borribles Go For Broke

This is the second book in The Borribles trilogy, published in 1981 - three years after the first Borrible adventure, and set almost immediately after the last book. You may remember my previous review of the first Borrible book from a few days ago... well, I'm quite happy to say that this book is a definite improvement on the rather awkward and juvenile first installment, and I read it a lot quicker as a result.

We pick up on the heroic Borribles of the 'Great Rumble Hunt' (the name given to their last adventure) only a few months after their return to the Battersea district of London. Chalotte (one of the Borrible heroes from the last adventure) seems to be our initial point of focus this time around, she drifts about feeling dejected and dispirited by the way their last adventure turned out - depressed by the absence of the Borribles who didn't make it. Soon the six surviving Borribles of that mission are back together again, aided by a new friend - the Bangladeshi Borrible Twilight - and by the duplicitous Spliff (who despatched the Borribles on their previous mission). They have received word that Sam, the horse they left behind, is alive and well and possibly within reach, and so they set about trying to figure out a way of finding and rescuing him.

However, it seems highly likely that Sam's whereabouts might be the end part of a trap laid by the SBG - the Special Borrible Group, a police division obsessed with capturing the Borribles and clipping their ears (thus taking away their Borrible-ness). And thus, so begins the second big Borrible adventure. Sooner than they know it, the Borribles have made friends with Old Ben, a rather stinky but likeable homeless drunk, and are back within range of Wendle territory - the horrible sewerage-ridden domain of a tyrannical group of Borribles who featured in the first book.

I have to say, this adventure was a lot more consistent, well-written and confident than the first book. The author seemed less self-conscious and his exposition-techniques were nowhere near as awkward. One aspect, such as Twilight the Bangladeshi Borrible, feels a little dated in it's overly-PC depiction and the author's general eagerness to be forward-thinking is a little embarressing in light of modern-day approaches to the problems of stereotyping. The SBG, on the other hand, are a marvellous creation - a much more solid and realistic threat than the rather two-dimensional Rumbles of the previous book, and they're a lot easier to hate as villains - being an absolute embodiment of authority and everything the Borribles stand against. The character of Old Ben also continues the author's subversive and anti-establishment tone... both he and the Borribles represent people who become marginalised by society simply because they're uninterested in things like money, jobs and order. It's a very admirable theme to make central to a book primarily aimed at teen readers. Kudos.

The ending is a lot better too. The action throughout the book is thick and fast and the ante is upped and tweaked chapter by chapter until everything explodes wonderfully. Some of the final developments are a little unexpected and perhaps unneccessarily violent, but still quite good when the dust settles. It also leaves things nicely set up for the third and final adventure.

The Borribles

The Borribles is the first book in a young adult/children's fantasy series written by British author Michael de Larrabeiti. It was published in 1976 and was a source of some controversy, owing to it's casual depiction of violence and it's somewhat subversive attitudes. As a result, the book was kind of buried after it's initial publication and it's sequels never really got released into the mainstream book market. In 2002 the three books were bound together as a trilogy and finally given a proper release... they're considered 'classics' but they aren't really all that well known. I picked up my copy of the trilogy omnibus in a bargain bin last year.

The Borribles are creatures who live side by side with human society. They look like children but have long pointed ears, and Borribles are created when a child has 'a bad start' and runs away to join the other Borribles. Borribles live on thievery, love crowded areas and dirty cityscapes, hate the country, and have a more than healthy disdain for authority and all things materialistic. They are governed by anarchy and the only way for a Borrible to get a name is to earn it in an adventure.

The principle (or initial) hero of this story is Knocker, a Borrible scout who sights a Rumble deep in Borrible territory. Rumbles are child-sized rabbit/weasel-like creatures who live in luxury outside of the city. They are the sworn enemies of the Borribles. Knocker catches the interloping Rumble and the Borribles decide to form a crack squad of assassins to send to kill off the Rumble High Command in the hopes of nipping an imagined invasion in the bud. Eight un-named Borribles are chosen from the various Borrible tribes and Knocker becomes their trainer... what follows is high adventure.

I have to say, I wasn't terribly impressed with this book. The back cover blurb made it sound fantastic, and a lot of the ideas within appealed to me, but I just wasn't sure how to take it. I wasn't sure if this was a book aimed at children or at adults - normally I'd say it doesn't matter, but a lot of it felt really dumbed down. This normally wouldn't bother me if it was a book primarily for younger readers (which I assume it is), but some of the content didn't really feel all that in tune with the book's tone. As I mentioned earlier, there's a lot of casual violence - and it isn't done in a cartoonish way like a Bugs Bunny cartoon or a clever way like a Roald Dahl book. It just felt childish, in the sense that it felt like it was written by a fourteen year old boy.

Also, the text felt rather clunky and awkward at times, the author seems to struggle when it comes to exposition and, to a lesser extent, dialogue. Dumbing something down is one thing, but poor writing is another. The whole thing just seemed kind of shallow, and the plot made little sense at times too - for instance, the mechanics of the Borrible mission to the Rumble High Command were contradictory. Why send only eight Borribles if you are going to purposely warn the Rumbles they are coming? Also, the final battle at the Rumble High Command stretches credibility a little thin as well.

It's not a completely bad book, there's a definite emphasis on adventure and action, and there's something to be said for the book's anti-capitalist and pro-anarchy themes, and I'm sure bloodthirsty teenage boys would like it. I just hope the second and third books pick up the game a bit, the first has it's faults (along with the aforementioned flaws, it also ends all too abruptly) but it does have a sense of fun about it and I liked the idea of the Borribles and their networks throughout London. It'll be interesting to see where else the author takes his story in the rest of the trilogy.

Noah Emmerich

I have been head-wobblingly busy lately, which means this blog has slowed down a little. I have a few reviews I would like to write but will have to get to them later in the week.

Here's a short thought for the day though...


Why is Noah Emmerich not more well known? The guy is a really great actor but he's never even been nominated for a major award at any point, and most people wouldn't even know his name. Three hugely underrated performances come to mind: his multi-layered but small supporting role as Jim Carrey's best mate in The Truman Show, his scene-stealing turn as the exceptionally decent brother in Pride and Glory, and his role as the neighbourhood bully in Little Children.

He's like a cross between Dennis Quaid and Biff from Back To The Future, and the guy needs more respect, dammit!

The Holy Thief

The Holy Thief is the true crime tale of Mark Borovitz. Borovitz started life as your average Jewish kid (who was, no doubt, destined for greatness), who went down that path of easy vice and easy money. In short, he became a con man. It was a long journey for him, but eventually he came out the other side as a Rabbi. He now helps those trying to reform. This is his story.

The Holy Thief starts with a heartfelt depiction of Borotvitz's confirmation as a Rabbi. He is compared to a holy thief of the Old Testament - a sinner who uses his sins as a weapon against the Devil. His experience makes him a valuable commodity to American-judaism - he can help bring back young wayward Jews to their faith, he is shining a light on an aspect of Jewish society that is often shunned and ignored, and he has become a hero to his people.

Or so this book tells us.

Borovitz, in his own words, describes his evolution into a petty conman and thief. He was an alcoholic who lived in the moment, and ended up in gaol twice before having an epiphany and reforming. His reformation eventually led to his search for a new path, a path that would lead him to become a Rabbi. The Rabbi-part of the book takes up the last third or quarter. The bulk of the text deals with his misadventures as a self-alleged tough guy. Sometimes it's funny, sometimes it's tragic. Sometimes it's a complex web of fate and faith.

My main problems with this book was that it just seemed too good to be true. I'm hesitant to call it a work of exaggeration, as I have no proof to this effect. What I will say though, is that it seems altogether hyperbolic and very much in the vein of 'blowing one's trumpet'. Over and over Borovitz paints a picture of himself as a real tough guy not to be messed with, but not once are we told an example or anecdote that truly illustrates this. His holy calling colours the text self-importantly at times, and he writes without humility - which is hardly an endearing trait for a reformed con. What makes this book particularly hard to take is Borovitz's thinly veiled implication that he is some kind of modern day prophet... and his attempts to illustrate this through the quotes of his friends and family (in the hopes that it will look unbiased) are, on the whole, fairly transparent.

It's a shame that the book is so seriously marred by Borovitz's character faults. The text itself is very easy to read and manages to be quite funny when he isn't trying too hard to amuse or impress. Overall, it's a wasted opportunity.

Little Children

Little Children was one of ten or so films that generated a fair share of Oscar-Buzz in 2006, garnering itself three Academy Award nominations, along with several other Golden Globe and S.A.G. nominations. Of all the Oscar-buzzing films that year, Little Children is probably the most American and traditionally Oscar-worthy in terms of how it has presented itself. Like all ‘good’ Oscar-baiting films, it ticks off it’s various requirements… based on a well-received work of literature (check), featuring Oscar-friendly talent (Kate Winslet and Jennifer Connelly, check), shows the disaffection that has poisoned American suburbia and the American dream (check)…

I’m sorry to be overly cynical (not really), but as much as some parts of this film moved and impressed me, there were too many stretches where I found myself thinking, ‘Man, I’ve seen this before.’ I think this movie would’ve really benefited from a stronger focus on the aspects that made it original, rather than the bored and trapped suburban housewife routine that it wheedles through with Kate Winslet. I guess I should go back and start this review at the beginning before I get into my opinion too much…

The Little Children that the title refers can be interpreted to be a reference to the adult characters as much as it might be in reference to their offspring. Sarah Pierce (Winslet, nominated for Best Actress) is the aforementioned bored housewife… she can’t face up to the responsibilities that being a mother has given her, and she dreams of a less monotonous existence. Likewise, Brad (Patrick Wilson), is a stay-at-home dad who can’t bring himself to commit enough to being a lawyer to even pass the bar exam. Instead of studying at the library, he sits outside a skate park and watches the skateboarders, wishing he was young again (and without responsibility). It’s the stories of these two characters that forms the crux of the story. The subplots (and the more interesting parts of the film) concern Ronnie (Jackie Earle Haley, nominated for a Best Supporting Actor Oscar), a recently released sex offender whose existence forms the focal point for the entire neighbourhood’s outrage, and Larry (Noah Emmerich), a disgraced ex-cop with anger issues who seeks to bully Ronnie at every opportunity.

Like I said earlier, it’s these subplots which kept me watching. Ronnie’s story had a depth to it that got barely scratched, and it could’ve made for a more daring and original film had he been focused on more. Instead we get the main plot… the adulterous love affair, the lost opportunities, blah blah blah. Winslet and Wilson are good, but it’s nothing we haven’t seen before. Jackie Earle Haley and Noah Emmerich provide exciting but less-prominent performances, and it was their final scenes in the film that had me crying – not the Winslet-Wilson ending.

The film also has a kind of uneven tone… it was occasionally blackly comic and had a kind of hokey old narration reminiscent of one of those old stop-motion Christmas or Easter specials. I think the film would’ve benefited from running with this more quirky and entertaining approach rather than the lengthy lapses into more straight-forward drama. The themes of responsibility, the future, growing up and abandoning unrealistic dreams wouldn’t have felt so bitter, uninteresting and unbearable either, had the film taken a less orthodox approach (or at least struck a less uneven balance between it’s mesh of tones). Maybe then it might’ve felt more like the melancholy suburban fairytale it should’ve been. It’s not a bad film, there are some quite brilliant scenes (the scene of mass hysteria at the pool comes to mind), I just found it a little lacking and unworthy of all the attention it has gotten.

TRIVIA: Jackie Earle Haley hadn't acted for television or film for about 13 years. His role in Little Children (and subsequent Oscar-nomination) rejuvenated his career completely.

DIRECTOR: Todd Field
WRITER/SOURCE: Written by Todd Field and Tony Perotta, based on the book by Tony Perotta
KEY ACTORS: Kate Winslet, Patrick Wilson, Jackie Earle Haley, Noah Emmerich, Jennifer Connelly, Jane Adams

RELATED TEXTS
- The novel Little Children, on which the film is based.
- Kate Winslet would go on to make Revolutionary Road, another film based on a book about suburban marriage and it's decay.
- The conception and tone of this film owes a lot to American Beauty. Also see Happiness.

AWARDS:
Nominated for three Oscars - Best Actress (Kate Winslet), Best Supporting Actor (Jackie Earle Haley) and Best Adapted Screenplay (Todd Feild and Tony Perotta).
Winslet and Earle Haley both recieved nominations for Golden Globes and a whole slew of other awards, with Earle Haley winning about 6 awards all up for his role.
Patrick Wilson was also nominated by a Best Actor award at two other American film awards ceremonies.

The Truman Show

One of the true classic original films from the 1990s, if you haven't seen The Truman Show yet then you're clearly as oblivious as Truman himself. The Truman Show takes a brilliant science-fiction concept that comments on our society and tweaks it into an all-American parable that should speak to just about anyone in the western world. Not only does it shine a revealing light on such weighty concepts as the rise of reality television, christianity, and the way the media shapes our perception of life, but it also happens to be a heck of an entertaining film with a breakthrough dramatic performance from Jim Carrey (who had previously been known mainly for his over-the-top comedic films). Don't read on if you haven't seen The Truman Show, as spoilers be here...

Truman (Jim Carrey) is the one 'true man' in his world. Ever since he was a baby he has been raised in a fabricated small town filled with video cameras. Every person he has ever met is an actor, their actions orchestrated by the enigmatic artist/director Christof (Ed Harris), who shapes Truman's life from his vantage point inside an artifical version of the moon. In the real world, Truman's life is a smash hit television show, where everyday people follow his life as if it were a soap opera. Truman is unaware of this, but he begins to get itchy feet when a series of freak events make him question his reality.

The first thing you might notice about The Truman Show is that it's full of interesting shots that are used to suggest we are watching him through cameras. This includes scenes where the screen seems to have circular edges, or low shots such as the view we see from inside his car radio. Not only does this help reinforce the impression of a virtual world that has been constructed around this unknowing protagonist, it also makes us (the viewer) more conscious of camera shots in general. We become actively involved in the filmmaking process via these visual cues and metafictional touches, and hence we have a heightened awareness of the 'fakeness' of Truman's world. Another great aspect of this is the way product placement and advertising is continually worked into Truman's life. The film rewards the viewer on repeat viewings too as you spot more of these little touches - such as what the 'extras' are doing in the background, or the scene when Truman impusively decides to visit a travel agent (the travel agent who meets him is obviously drafted in at the last minute and still has her make-up bib on!)

There's a clear sense of paranoia at work as the film progresses and Truman's world conspires to stop him from leaving in any way. Christof has even engineered a fear of water to help imprison him, and there's a great scene where Truman's friend is reassuring him and we cut away to Christof directing him. We see the man behind the curtain, manipulating events for dramatic effect. The added brilliance of this is that it then cuts to the audience watching the Truman Show, and they're being manipulated just as much as Truman, and on top of that - the music we're hearing in the film is revealed to be the same music they're hearing, as chosen by Christof, and there's a sheepish realisation that we're being manipulated too! Another great metafictional moment comes when we see Truman triumphantly crossing the sea to escape, and Christof's voice breaks in with "That's our hero shot". It would altogether shatter the illusion the film constructs if it weren't for how serious and pure everyone involved is - Carrey, Harris and Peter Weir all work hard to put this film on the table with an almost religious fervour - and our participation as audience members is part of the film itself.

Christof is a very interesting character, he sees Truman's world as an ideal representation of what a normal 'good' life should be (hence the hokey small-town Americana that surrounds Truman). But he goes too far in trying to keep Truman imprisoned in his world, playing God in a very Old Testament kind of way (Truman walks on water like Jesus before finally meeting his God - and Christof's face is shown in extreme closeup like the massive face of a deity), and Truman literally turns his back on his God in order to move forward. He rejects pre-destiny in favour of the dangerous unknown, and it's a beautiful ending that works on several levels.

Jim Carrey is better in this than anyone gave him credit for at the time - he goes to great lengths to strip his character of any arrogance to avoid the egocentrism that would otherwise come naturally to a man who quite literally has the world revolving around him. A lot of this is down to the naivete of the character, but Carrey does a really good job of making you believe in him. The scenes where he starts to get wise to the weirdness of his world are edge of the seat moments because you come to cheer for him in much the same way as the audience of his show do. Of course, realistically, if this was the only world Truman had ever known there'd be no reason to hide the cameras, nor would product placement be strange to him... Christof even says at one point, "We accept the reality of the world in which we live in", but I don't think it really diminishes the film or suspension of belief simply because the script is so well-plotted. It really sinks it's teeth into a lot of interesting issues, and it's almost scary how relevant it has become now that reality TV is a fully-established and undying phenomenon.

TRIVIA: There is a real psychological condition attached to schizophrenia that has come to be known as 'The Truman Show Delusion', where people think their lives are really the centre of reality TV shows.

Dennis Hopper was originally cast as Christof, but he left the film on the first day of filming. An earlier attempt to get the film made would've seen Gary Oldman playing Truman.

The film is a set text for Senior High School study in both America and Australia.

The street names and supporting characters are all named after famous Hollywood stars (Marlon, Meryl, Lancaster Avenue, etc, etc).

DIRECTOR: Peter Weir
WRITER/SOURCE: Andrew Niccol
KEY ACTORS: Jim Carrey, Ed Harris, Laura Linney, Noah Emmerich, Natascha McElhone, Holland Taylor, Paul Giamati, Harry Shearer, Philip Baker Hall

RELATED TEXTS:
- The 7 Up documentary series, in which the director visits a group of people to document their lives every seven years.
- The Man With Five Children, an Australian play that deals with themes raised by the documentary series 7 Up.
- Pretty much any reality television show could be seen as a related text.
- The book Dead Famous by Ben Elton deals with a Big Brother-styled reality TV show.
- The film EdTV deals with a similar set up to The Truman Show, though the main difference is that the protagonist is aware he is being filmed.

AWARDS:
Nominated for three Oscars - Best Director (Peter Weir), Best Original Screenplay (Andrew Niccol) and Best Supporting Actor (Ed Harris).
Wins and nominations from a diverse array of film festivals and awards ceremonies - including the BAFTAs (Peter Weir and Andrew Niccol won awards) and the Golden Globes (Ed Harris won a Best Supporting Actor award).
Jim Carrey won a Golden Globe for Best Actor (Drama) despite failing to even get nominated for most other Best Actor awards.