Clever, quirky, hilariously funny and with enough pathos and melancholy to really get you thinking. If you are one of the beige folk, you will hate it. If you march to the beat of your own drum and always find yourself on the side of the underdog you will love it. Mental illness is definitely not off limits and with typical Australian irreverence the subject is tackled head on. Draws some conclusions about "normality" that some people will not be comfortable with. You will recognise a few big names, but the supporting actors were all equally talented. A genuinely amazing film. Actually funnier than Muriel's wedding. Destined to become a classic, with excellent performances from all.
Reviews
6 Reviews
The Passion of the Christ
(2004)
Poor Soul
1 May 2004
Mel Gibson was so depressed before he made this movie that he felt it "healed" him to make it. The making of the movie was obviously related to his own mental problems. What a shame that some people have chosen to reinforce his issues with their own issues.
A person's religious beliefs are their own. The main difference between Mel and other fanatics is that he had the money to back up the "we're right and the rest of of you are all going to the fiery pit rant" with some cash.
The other difference is that if he had not been so rich and powerful before he started this project, those who cared about him might have tried to stop him and help him, rather than encouraging him. Money talks, I suppose even if it means ignoring another persons mental problems.
Regards
Regards
A person's religious beliefs are their own. The main difference between Mel and other fanatics is that he had the money to back up the "we're right and the rest of of you are all going to the fiery pit rant" with some cash.
The other difference is that if he had not been so rich and powerful before he started this project, those who cared about him might have tried to stop him and help him, rather than encouraging him. Money talks, I suppose even if it means ignoring another persons mental problems.
Regards
Regards
Mona Lisa Smile
(2003)
Points to ponder
4 April 2004
Mona Lisa Smile was a fairly good film. Julia Roberts was believable in the role and it is amusing to see how badly she fared with the critics not based on her own performance but because she is of course a little out of vogue at the moment. Five years ago many would have appraised her role rather differently. Some of the comments made within the movie are ironic and pithy. For example when Betty exclaims `Art isn't art unless someone says it is!' it is clear that this is a well placed dig at those within the artistic establishment who try to tell us what `is' art according to their own credo, and have done so throughout history.
The subject of feminism is dealt with, and one important point which is often ignored or misunderstood by some would-be feminists is explored the idea that a woman can be a feminist whilst raising a family and without having to work outside the home. It was refreshing to see Katherine, whose sole ideal of feminism till then had been to try to emulate her male peers, finally understanding that feminism is entirely about choice, including the choice to stay at home and raise a family.
While I would not say this was a terribly deep film, it was well acted, well scripted and showed a snippet of life no woman born in the last 35 years could imagine living. The ending was by far the best part, Katherine embarked on the next phase of her life without a man, a ring on her finger or a job, and to do such a thing would have been almost unimaginable by the standards of that day. Most of us cannot even imagine the revolting `standards' women were forced to endure in those times, and thank goodness for that.
This film was probably a little too slow-moving for most American audiences, whose attention span seems these days to be mostly limited to sound bites and who prefer their heroines to find the solution to their problems in 30 minute homilies interspersed with lots of close ups and obvious dialogue. However, for those who do not need an obvious ending and who are able to see beneath the veneer, Mona Lisa Smile was an enjoyable movie.
The subject of feminism is dealt with, and one important point which is often ignored or misunderstood by some would-be feminists is explored the idea that a woman can be a feminist whilst raising a family and without having to work outside the home. It was refreshing to see Katherine, whose sole ideal of feminism till then had been to try to emulate her male peers, finally understanding that feminism is entirely about choice, including the choice to stay at home and raise a family.
While I would not say this was a terribly deep film, it was well acted, well scripted and showed a snippet of life no woman born in the last 35 years could imagine living. The ending was by far the best part, Katherine embarked on the next phase of her life without a man, a ring on her finger or a job, and to do such a thing would have been almost unimaginable by the standards of that day. Most of us cannot even imagine the revolting `standards' women were forced to endure in those times, and thank goodness for that.
This film was probably a little too slow-moving for most American audiences, whose attention span seems these days to be mostly limited to sound bites and who prefer their heroines to find the solution to their problems in 30 minute homilies interspersed with lots of close ups and obvious dialogue. However, for those who do not need an obvious ending and who are able to see beneath the veneer, Mona Lisa Smile was an enjoyable movie.
The Passion of the Christ
(2004)
Oh dear, not another god squadder...
26 February 2004
The only difference between this and the idea of any other religious delusional is that Mel had some money to throw at the "I'm right and everybody else is the hell-bound spawn of satan" rant.
Clearly, Mr Gibson has lost the plot - in real life - entirely. It is a genuine shame that someone who was such a good actor and who earned so much money at the top of his game, should become so desperate and needy that he feels that the crutch of various fairy tales some wandering nomads made up thousands of years ago is preferable to facing reality.
Here in Aus we are very grateful, all of a sudden, that Mel has so strongly associated himself with America in the last decade. Frankly, we now find him an embarassment and are happy to say "he's all yours guys!"
The film's merits, in the sense of directors, actors etc. are really not that important. Those who are already very bored with this sort of nonsense will call a delusion a delusion and stay away in droves - rather than lining the pockets of the latest Koresh substitute.
Those who find this sort of stuff scintillating are welcome to it. Can we move on to something important now?
Regards
Clearly, Mr Gibson has lost the plot - in real life - entirely. It is a genuine shame that someone who was such a good actor and who earned so much money at the top of his game, should become so desperate and needy that he feels that the crutch of various fairy tales some wandering nomads made up thousands of years ago is preferable to facing reality.
Here in Aus we are very grateful, all of a sudden, that Mel has so strongly associated himself with America in the last decade. Frankly, we now find him an embarassment and are happy to say "he's all yours guys!"
The film's merits, in the sense of directors, actors etc. are really not that important. Those who are already very bored with this sort of nonsense will call a delusion a delusion and stay away in droves - rather than lining the pockets of the latest Koresh substitute.
Those who find this sort of stuff scintillating are welcome to it. Can we move on to something important now?
Regards
Star Trek: Enterprise
(2001–2005)
What a lot of sour grapes
26 February 2004
My word, what a lot of jealous people there are out there. We have had disgruntled comments about Vulcan females wearing clinging outfits and human males looking a bit too heroic.
The truth is that Enterprise is no better and no worse than any other series of Star Trek. Some people do not like change and some people do not cope well with those who are very attractive wandering around in flesh revealing outfits.
So far as the shows go, they are just as imaginative as any past shows. They are smoother and better directed than some - and every Star Trek show, right back to good old James T had women in skimpy outfits, in fact often showing a lot more than they do on Enterprise. I seem to recall Jim usually ripped his outfit in just the right place to show his pecs in nearly every fight scene.
Star Trek has always been human drama set in the future, which means lust and blood with hi-tech guns and futuristic outfits. There will always be, and have always been, good looking women and men in figure hugging outfits killing and kissing one another.
Enterprise is well directed, well acted and the ideas are often interesting. There were a lot of insights into the Vulcan emotional state and development and it was fun to see the Andorians (excuse the spelling?) in colour, rather than technicolor....
Oh, and I could listen to Trip's honeyed tones all day long.
In conclusion - sour grape violet is not an attractive colour.
Regards
The truth is that Enterprise is no better and no worse than any other series of Star Trek. Some people do not like change and some people do not cope well with those who are very attractive wandering around in flesh revealing outfits.
So far as the shows go, they are just as imaginative as any past shows. They are smoother and better directed than some - and every Star Trek show, right back to good old James T had women in skimpy outfits, in fact often showing a lot more than they do on Enterprise. I seem to recall Jim usually ripped his outfit in just the right place to show his pecs in nearly every fight scene.
Star Trek has always been human drama set in the future, which means lust and blood with hi-tech guns and futuristic outfits. There will always be, and have always been, good looking women and men in figure hugging outfits killing and kissing one another.
Enterprise is well directed, well acted and the ideas are often interesting. There were a lot of insights into the Vulcan emotional state and development and it was fun to see the Andorians (excuse the spelling?) in colour, rather than technicolor....
Oh, and I could listen to Trip's honeyed tones all day long.
In conclusion - sour grape violet is not an attractive colour.
Regards
Something's Gotta Give
(2003)
Everything worth saying has already been said.
24 January 2004
The Unemployed Critic should be employed, because he or she has said it all very eloquently. There are also other worthy comments, to varying degree, throughout the site.
My remark is simply this. How could any woman, who was not utterly deranged, throw over Keanu Reeves (or his character in this) for Jack Nicholson (or his character)? And therefore how could any sane woman write the ending to this film?
I enjoyed this film. I went to see it with a girlfriend and we both laughed appropriately. It was not deep and meaningful, but it was funny, the acting was good, Jack and Diane were as excellent as always.
However, were we the only ones repulsed by Mr Nicholson's horrid grunting? He made dreadful noises every time he kissed the heroine, and that, aside from the fact that he looked like Humpty Dumpty (ear splitting grin and all) was very off putting. It is not that we do not find older men attractive (being in the late 30's, married with children category ourselves) but not That kind of older man. Debauched, sickly, sweaty, grunty and over-confident. Regardless of his salary, who would not pick Julian? Even if Julian was a pizza delivery boy, who would not pick him?
When the movie ended I turned to my friend and said "Only a man could have written that ending". I was horrified to find out I was wrong.
So, for the record, regardless of love's old dream, regardless of grunting, sweating, sex, regardless of loneliness or the need for a life partner; can I make it quite clear that No Sane Woman, regardless of her age - would ever, ever, ever - Not Ever - choose Jack Nicholson over Keanu Reeves. At least not in the real, versus Hollywood World.
It had to be said.
My remark is simply this. How could any woman, who was not utterly deranged, throw over Keanu Reeves (or his character in this) for Jack Nicholson (or his character)? And therefore how could any sane woman write the ending to this film?
I enjoyed this film. I went to see it with a girlfriend and we both laughed appropriately. It was not deep and meaningful, but it was funny, the acting was good, Jack and Diane were as excellent as always.
However, were we the only ones repulsed by Mr Nicholson's horrid grunting? He made dreadful noises every time he kissed the heroine, and that, aside from the fact that he looked like Humpty Dumpty (ear splitting grin and all) was very off putting. It is not that we do not find older men attractive (being in the late 30's, married with children category ourselves) but not That kind of older man. Debauched, sickly, sweaty, grunty and over-confident. Regardless of his salary, who would not pick Julian? Even if Julian was a pizza delivery boy, who would not pick him?
When the movie ended I turned to my friend and said "Only a man could have written that ending". I was horrified to find out I was wrong.
So, for the record, regardless of love's old dream, regardless of grunting, sweating, sex, regardless of loneliness or the need for a life partner; can I make it quite clear that No Sane Woman, regardless of her age - would ever, ever, ever - Not Ever - choose Jack Nicholson over Keanu Reeves. At least not in the real, versus Hollywood World.
It had to be said.
Tell Your Friends