fish_stix03 Reviews

The Devil Wears Prada (2006)

Overconfident and underwhelming

[6/10 · 2 October 2006]

I didn't know what Prada was before I found out that the devil wore it. I assumed that it's: a.) some sort of material, or b.) some sort of fashion label. A quick trip to Wikipedia taught me that it is, in fact, option b.). I am telling you this so that you understand that I know nothing about fashion (and I'd appreciate those who know me to keep their comments to themselves), and I still found The Devil Wears Prada funny when it was satirising the fashion industry, but not as convincing when it played as a drama.

The Devil Wears Prada was heavily marketed as a smart comedy for a mature audience. When one boils down the plot into a one-paragraph summation, however, there is nothing ground-breaking or subversive about it. Anne Hathaway is Andrea, a wannabe journalist who lands a job as assistant to the evil Miranda Priestly (played by Merryl Streep, who looks exactly like Cruella DeVille from One Hundred and One Dalmations), the chief editor of a fashion magazine. She also works with Emily (played by the immensely talented Emily Blunt), and Nigel (the vastly underused Stanley Tucci). Andy also has a boyfriend (Adrian Grenier), and an admirer in Christian (Simon Baker), a fashion writer. Because of Andrea's initial ignorance regarding the fashion world, much of the comedy in the film's first half is fuelled by the 'fish-out-of-water' scenario. When Andy decides to take an interest in fashion (and her job), the humour dries up and gives way to an injection of drama. Which possibly may have been an overdose of drama.

Anne Hathaway is a beautiful girl, and despite the film's best efforts to make her look ungainly in the first half, she never looks ugly. Because of this, I found the change in her character during the second half very difficult to buy. While her boyfriend and friends appear to think that she has undergone a personality botox (despite her saying, "I'm the same old Andy, just with better clothes"), I just saw Andy as the same person, who managed to find one or two decent tops to wear to work. The entire melodrama that follows about Andy's deteriorating relationship with Nate and her friends is predictable and dull. The theme the film is drumming into us is that it's difficult to balance work and personal relationships, but that it's important. I must say, I'd NEVER heard that one before.

I admit that the office of the fashion magazine "Runway" is an amusing place. When Nigel first sees Andy, he asks Miranda, "Is there a before and after I don't know about?" There are also several interesting demographics that exist in the office. There are people like Miranda and Emily, who know "Runway", love "Runway", and don't care for anyone that doesn't know or like "Runway". Then there are people like Andy and Nigel, who have settled on this prestigious but (for them) unrewarding job until their real dream job comes along. There was one point in the film involving Nigel and his career that broke my heart (a moment that I shall not discuss further so that I may not spoil the surprise).

Unfortunately, once the film spirals away from comedy and becomes more of a treatise on the dangers of losing yourself in your career, the fun slowly skids to a stop. Merryl Streep is, as usual, excellent as the ghastly Miranda, and Anne Hathaway puts in another good performance after Brokeback Mountain, but the roles of Andy's boyfriend Nate and Christian didn't sit well with me. Nate seemed to be the distant, sophisticated man, while Christian seemed down-to-earth and charming (although, he crosses the line from charming to sleazy several times). The book that The Devil Wears Prada is based on was, apparently, a phenomenon. I must have missed it. What was I doing, apart from seeing hundreds of movies, studying and reading the great works of literature of our culture? And partying.

While there are moments in The Devil Wears Prada that I found quite funny, the emotional core of the film was clichéd and derivative. Sadly, despite its best efforts to avoid it, The Devil Wears Prada is just like the fashion industry it attempts to parody: slick, charming and gorgeous to look at, but ultimately superficial and, at times, annoying.

Nacho Libre (2006)

Is this movie funny? I still honestly don't know.

[5/10 · 1 October 2006]

When it comes to surreal, bizarre characters and hilariously deadpan dialogue, Jared Hess's 2004 film Napoleon Dynamite sets the pace. Now, Hess is back, and this time he's had his $400,000 budget upsized to $38 million, and he has comedian Jack Black at his disposal. Nacho Libre is a film that is just as bizarre as Napoleon Dynamite, but it is a film that at times I found insulting in its laziness and puerile nature.

Nacho Libre's premise is terrific: Jack Black plays Ignacio, a Mexican monk who works as a cook in an orphanage. In order to earn money to buy better ingredients, Ignacio joins his strange friend Esqueleto (Héctor Jiménez) in taking on the local wrestling circuit. Along the way, they wrestle two weird-looking demon/midget hybrids (pictured above), and a big guy named "Silencio" whose specialty is "throwing people". There were several moments in Nacho Libre that made me laugh so hard that I missed part of the next scene. There is also, inexplicably, a fart sound effect implemented every time Ignacio prepares to jump. This strange mix of Hess's bread and butter (exchanges like "it sucks to be me right now", "How come?", "How come do you think?") and immature, lowest common denominator humour makes his new film very conflicting. It has a lovable hero, and admirable intentions, but it makes one stupid joke too many.

Jared Hess has a distinct style. It requires every character who is not involved in the main action of a scene to simply stare just past the camera with their mouths slightly agape and their eyes blank. The actors involved in the actionaren't required to do much more. I'm not sure how many films Hess can make before this style gets old and annoying. I think he's almost reached his limit with two. That being said, Esqueleto is hilarious, particularly when you look back on his behaviour after you see the film, and really see how ridiculous he is. There are also two songs that Ignacio sings that almost had me in pain while I was laughing. I was also very surprised to see that Danny Elfman, of all people, composed much of the film's soundtrack. And, for fans of Napoleon Dynamite, there's a nice little visual reference to the 2003 film's opening credits when Ignacio serves the orphans salad.

Half-way through the film, I remember thinking "this movie is not very funny". In the car on the way home, however, my 26-year-old brother and I recounted several scenes and were in hysterics. Something similar happened the first time I saw Napoleon Dynamite. I simply didn't 'get' the film first time, but on retrospect, and after several conversations with my friends, I decided it was one of the funniest films I'd ever seen, and lines like "but my lips hurt real bad" seeped into my everyday parlance. I'm still not sure if Nacho Libre will endure as well as Napoleon Dynamite has, and at this stage, I can't say I'd recommend it. But if you do go to see it, expect to hear the line, "I only believe in science" on repeat in your head, over and over.

Kenny (2006)

Shane Jacobson hits a clear home run with "Kenny"

[7/10 · 1 October 2006]

It's pretty amazing that a film like Kenny, a mockumentary about a man who runs a port-a-loo delivery and cleaning business, manages to rise above immature toilet jokes and becomes a film that is charming, warm and smartly written. There is, of course, the odd cheap toilet gag (really, it'd be almost impossible to avoid a few in a film like this), but most of the humour comes from Kenny's personality and the warmth of the film comes from his complete decency as a human being.

The film opens with Kenny (Shane Jacobson) talking on the phone to a prospective client. He asks his potential client questions like "Are you serving alcohol, or any hot curries?" Then he states that because the function was serving alcohol and was a curry night, it would affect the services he was providing. I remember smiling inwardly at this, but it wasn't because I saw images of people queuing up outside a port-a-loo after having a chilli cook-off. It was because of the way Kenny was asking the questions. He was completely deadpan and serious, because this is his business. There's no humour in toilet jokes for him, because toilets are how he makes his living. I had a feeling after this opening scene that I would like this film.

As we get to know more about Kenny, we learn that he has a child from a broken marriage, that his father is ashamed that his son is no more than a toilet delivery boy, and that his co-workers (well, one co-worker specifically) come to him with endless complaints about the state of their love-lives. All of the characters are quintessentially Australian. They don't have much, but what they do have they cherish, and while they might not be book-smart, they're not dumb and are incredibly genuine. Kenny's wife appears to have an inexplicable hatred for Kenny (admittedly, her face is blurred, presumably because she didn't want to be shown in the "documentary", and we only ever hear her when she's dropping their son off). This is pretty difficult to believe, because the way the film is edited makes Kenny out to be an engaging, well-meaning larrikin. He has an endless reserve of similes and metaphors (some great lines are, "there's a smell in there that will outlast religion", "I drink beer like it's going out of fashion and I'm a new trend-setter", and that on Melbourne Cup day they'd be "busier than a one-armed brick-layer in Baghdad"), most of them very, very funny.

And so the film progresses, Kenny going from function to function, visiting his father with his son, and taking his son to work (on Melbourne Cup day) because his ex-wife decided to drop the child on him at the last minute. Eventually, the film takes Kenny to an exhibition about portable toilets in Nashville. He makes friends with an Asian businessman he nicknames "The Sushi Cowboy", and is oblivious (for a little while) to the advances of an air stewardess.

There's another moment at the end of the Melbourne Cup that endeared me to the film even more. A young girl, about twenty, is so drunk that she simply squats in the car park and lets her bladder go. Now, that would be the punch line of a joke in a Rob Schneider or Adam Sandler comedy, but in Kenny, it's a sad moment. Kenny sees this from his car as he leaves, and the look on his face is one of disgust and dismay. When I saw that look on his face, I fully understood that Kenny is a man of dignity, a man who has a difficult job, and is pretty damn good at it. There's a montage that shows us the way Kenny is treated by his clients (he offers to shake one man's hand and is ignored, and is yelled at and abused by several others), which leaves us feeling genuine sympathy for him. Kenny is a man who does a difficult job, and doing a difficult job deserves respect.

This film, obviously immensely influenced by This is Spinal Tap, doesn't quite achieve greatness because, as is often the case, the ending falls flat. I remember that when I saw it, the last shot of the film drew huge laughs, but I was more confused than won over. I suppose it is quite funny, but it is inconsistent with who Kenny is and what we've seen of him in the film. I would have liked to see Kenny be the same, understanding, well-meaning bloke through to the end of the film instead of retaliating in a pretty cruel way as he does at the end of the film. It is fitting (the message is that Kenny is defecating on the world that has defecated on him for so long), but perhaps not worthy of the 90 minutes of class before it.

Superman Returns (2006)

Many happy returns...

[8/10 · 1 October 2006]

The resurgence of superhero films in the last decade has been faster than a speeding bullet (I like that cliché). We've seen Spider-man, Batman, The Punisher and Daredevil all return to the big screen, with varying levels of quality. Finally, several botched attempts and roughly $400 million later, the world's most consistently popular superhero, Superman, has returned. Christopher Nolan's 2004 film Batman Begins has been the best of the pretty solid recent bunch of comic book films. Superman Returns isn't quite as good as Nolan's film, but it redeems itself on more than one level, and I think that everyone who sees it will enjoy it, from age seven to seventy (well, maybe until about fifty, I'm not sure retirees are quite the demographic the film is shooting for).

The film begins with Superman (Brandon Routh) returning from a long, unexplained absence. Coincidentally, Clark Kent also returns from a long, unexplained absence at the same time. While this seems like a major plot hole, I think that since Clark Kent has gotten away with wearing glasses for 68 years without being recognised, we should cut him some slack. People in Metropolis don't see these plot holes. It's all part of the Superman myth.

Clark returns to Metropolis, back to his old job at the Daily Planet, to find that Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth) has, like the rest of the world, moved on from Superman and is engaged to her boss's nephew, Richard White (James Marsden). She even won the Pulitzer for an article called "Why the World Doesn't Need Superman". I'm not sure how anyone can argue that the world today doesn't need a superhero, and I don't think the film's writers, Dan Harris and Michael Dougherty do either, which may be why we never see any excerpts from the article. Richard plays father to Lois' kid, who is around five years old. Oh, also, Superman left about five years before. Lois' arithmetic skills are somewhat dubious.

Complicating things for Clark, Lex Luthor (Kevin Spacey) is fresh out of prison, released after Superman was called as a witness and missed his court date due to his absence. He's tricked a rich old widow into giving him all of her money and has a scheme to take over the world that couldn't possibly go wrong. This typical comic-book set-up of the film, while sounding unlikely, actually works pretty well and is quite entertaining.

Brandon Routh is the perfect Superman, full stop. He's good-looking in that clean Superman-ish sort of way, and he perfectly balances introverted assuredness in his Superman with the clumsiness of his Clark Kent character. Kate Bosworth, while a bit too young to be convincing as an experienced reporter, delivers a solid performance as Lois. Some of the best parts of the film are actually when Superman isn't involved (for example, when Lois and Lex Luthor have some one-on-one time). We are aware that he is otherwise engaged, or that he is on his way, but he is not present, and the excitement that it is definitely leading somewhere makes it that much better. The film, at a tick under two and a half hours, is actually very well-paced, and rather emotional at times. The time just flies by (please pardon yet another pun, this critic can't help himself).

I was always drawn to Superman as a kid. I think it was because the other superheroes, like Batman, were just not as honourable as Superman. Batman was always out for vengeance, hiding in the dark like a… bat. Superman, sometimes dubbed the world's biggest boy-scout, is very much a daylight hero. Superman feels no need to hide his face. He fights for moral betterment and lives in the hope that his actions can inspire others to do great things. Sometimes it's nice to think that someone can be unquestionably so darn good all the time.

This is the film Richard Roeper said should have been called "The Passion of the Clark", and I can see his point. Superman, since his inception in 1938, has always had parallels to Jesus Christ and the film's director, the enormously talented Bryan Singer, knows this. The notion of a father sending his only son to protect our planet, the torture that Clark experiences about having to carry the weight of the world on his shoulders (quite literally at one point of the film), and a resurrection of sorts are all present in Superman Returns. Even the villain's name, Lex Luthor, is a derivation of 'Lucifer'. But, religious or not, one has to admit that Superman is an incredibly likable superhero, even if he is susceptible to being called wimpy (by the way, he's not a wimp. I'd like to see you rescue both a spacecraft and a large aircraft at the same time).

Despite its flaws, there are some excellent moments in this film. Superman has definitely returned, and perhaps not for the last time. A conversation overheard by Clark outside Lois Lane's house, Superman regaining his power from our red sun after taking a pretty severe beating, and the figure of Superman falling to Earth after his self-sacrifice are the highlights. This film should reignite the popularity of the world's cleanest superhero, a popularity that has been waning due to the rise of Spider-man and Batman. Bring on the sequels.

Match Point (2005)

Allen shows us his darker, subtler side

[9/10 · 1 October 2006]

Match Point is a film that isn't about the blurriness of right and wrong, but is about the struggle between various degrees of evil to come out on top. As the film reminds us countless times, it's a struggle that doesn't rely on skill or guile, but luck. This film is a pleasant return to form for Woody Allen, after his last fifteen years of churning out insipid comedies that aren't indicative of his enormous talent.

The first thing I should say about this film is that it is unrecognisable as a Woody Allen film. It's not a comedy (although there are one or two Woody-style laughs), he's not in it romancing Scarlet Johansson (thankfully), and it's set in London instead of Manhattan. For those of you out there who generally don't like Woody Allen (and as much as I love and respect the little guy, I know his style doesn't click with everyone), I think you'll be pleasantly surprised with this film. It's not full of the whimsical humour and confidence (many would say, borderline arrogance) of his comedies, but instead is imbued with a sense of darkness and tragedy that we haven't seen from him in a very long time.

Jonathan Rhys-Meyers puts in the best performance I've seen from him as Chris Wilton, a former tennis pro who meets Tom (Matthew Goode) and kind of falls for his sister Chloe (Emily Mortimer). I say "kind of falls for her" because as the film unfurls, it becomes clear that he's after a higher status, is willing to do anything for it, and almost everything that he does is questionable. Chloe's father (Brian Cox) is extremely wealthy and offers Chris a job as an executive at one of his companies. Chris meets Tom's fiancée, Nola (Scarlet Johansson), an American wannabe actress who is also seeking a marriage into wealth and status. Tom's parents don't approve of her as much as they do of Chris, which is made clear during a conversation she has with Tom's mother (Penelope Wilton) regarding her acting 'career'.

Unfortunately for Chris and Nola, they are more attracted to each other than the lifestyles they are trying to acquire. Now, Chris is torn between greed and lust, and the way he handles this situation is where the true genius of the film lies. Unfortunately, I can't reveal too much more of the story without spoiling any surprises, but trust me in that aside from being one of Allen's best character pieces, it is also an incredibly effective psychological thriller. I think much of the film's success has to do with Chris's feeling of fear. He's afraid that he'll lose the lifestyle he wants so badly, but is also afraid that Nola will cause his downfall if he doesn't keep her happy. He wants to satisfy both his greed and his lust, and is too selfish to let one of the two go. Oh, what to do, what to do? You'll find out.

Scarlet Johansson is ridiculously sexy in this film. I suppose she has to be in order to make it believable that she would seduce Chris to such an extent that he would consider losing everything to have her. Rhys-Meyers and Johansson have incredible chemistry that makes the film impossible not to become engrossed in. The sex scenes (and they certainly are sex scenes rather than love scenes) are incredibly raunchy, despite the fact that there is no nudity and the most we see of either of them is Rhys-Meyers' chest and Johansson's bra.

A lot of this film's second half is a modern re-telling of a certain novel by a certain Russian novelist (I won't tell you which book or which author in order to preserve the twists, but there is a hint of what it is early in the film). Match Point is Allen's finest film since Bullets over Broadway and I'd like to think that the reason his twelve films in between are so comparatively poor is because he was building up the courage to make this masterpiece, which is an opera in movie form. Upon further thought, I think I'm wrong. I think Match Point has been a film Allen's been torturing over and writing in his head since the beginning of his career, and I'd go so far as to say it's one of his top two or three best films.

Miami Vice (2006)

Heavy-handed, convoluted and ultimately unrewarding

[5/10 · 1 October 2006]

I'm not sure why Michael Mann felt he needed to make this movie. Why he bothered to revive Miami Vice, a show that he produced in the 1980s is not clear to me. Mann's other films (The Insider, Collateral, Heat), are all much finer showcases of his skill than his attempt here. Particularly, Mann's previous film Collateral is comparable to Miami Vice, but works much better. Miami Vice is an example of how a talented writer/director, coupled with charismatic and gifted actors doesn't always result in an enjoyable and well-crafted movie.

The set-up of the film is as follows. Detectives James "Sonny" Crockett (Colin Farrell) and Ricardo Tubbs (Oscar-winner Jamie Foxx) are given an undercover mission after another undercover agent is killed by drug dealers. What the police want to know are, how the drug dealers knew who he was, and why. What follows is two-and-a-half hours of confusing drug dealer jargon and incomprehensible dialogue, several reasonably exciting set pieces and Crockett seducing the woman he should be surveying. There's also a piece of ridiculous manipulation involving Tubbs' wife (played by Naomie Harris).

Throughout the entire film, the picture is grainy and dark. I don't know why Michael Mann chose to do this. Miami is such a vibrant, lively city (lively enough to be the setting of a film about undercover police officers busting illicit drug deals), but the way its shot in this movie is so poorly-lit. Put simply, it's just a boring film to look at. At first, I thought it was because Michael Mann wanted to make it look like an 80s film, perhaps as an homage to the TV series. However, with the technology that is used in the film (the latest Ferrari model, satellite phones and laptops) tell us that it is set in modern-day Miami. Because of this, the spotty and grainy film makes Mann simply look lazy. Combined with this, Mann's obsession with hand-held shots (which is infuriating in the opening scene of the film) makes much of the action difficult to follow and clutters the screen.

While I'm sure there are many men out there who would love to be Colin Farrell, his performance in this film doesn't make me want to keep my hair long and grow a handlebar moustache. He delivers his lines as if he has deep contempt for the film and its screenwriter. As for Jamie Foxx, it seems that he's only in this as a personal favour to Michael Mann, who gave him a role in his previous film, Collateral. An actor of Jamie Foxx's talent should know not to do films like Stealth and this one in the space of eighteen months. This would kill the careers of many other actors, but hopefully he'll get a decent script to work with soon. He's far more talented that the monosyllabic dialogue he has been given in Miami Vice.

In terms of positives in the film, there is a little bit of fun to be had. A couple of scenes toward the end of the film remind us of what this film could have been, and the use of music is quite impressive. Despite its deficiencies, the movie is still clearly identifiable as a Michael Mann film, and I have to give him credit for his style and grace, particularly in the love scenes. Having said that, if anyone puts one ounce of thought into this film, they will see how ridiculous and derivative it really is.

This isn't a movie Mann should be proud of. In fact, it's probably the worst of his career. But he's not a bad film-maker, which is why it's such a shame. It's a real shame that this film, which should have been one of the most exciting, well-written and action-packed of the summer, turned out to be such a misfire. The director's, and the two lead actors', hearts just don't seem to be in it. After all, if Michael Mann, Colin Farrell and Jamie Foxx don't seem to care about the quality of this movie, why should we?

War of the Worlds (2005)

Spielberg *almost* shows us how it's done

[7/10 · 20 July 2005]

When I walked into the theater to see Steven Spielberg's new film "War of the Worlds", I felt the back of my neck tingling... Surely, in this era of incredibly mediocre films, I found myself almost cheering for Spielberg, egging him on to show us that there are still good movies to be made. In this project, he has one of the most chilling tales to work with, that of HG Wells' chilling tale of Martians invading Earth and mercilessly zapping anyone in their path with ray guns. For the first act and a half of the film, Spielberg delivers. The introduction of Ray Ferrier's (Tom Cruise) family is intriguing, and the initial attack of the aliens is pure Spielbergian genius. Eventually there's even a nice little shout out to the 1953 classic in a scene where Ray and his daughter are stuck in a basement, surrounded by the aliens. Overall, I must say I was disappointed in War of the Worlds. By Spielberg's standards it is an average movie, but it is still worth watching and is deserving of some acclaim. In my opinion it doesn't measure up to Minority Report, which is probably the most comparable of Spielberg's recent works to this film. But as the box office slumps further and further due to people simply getting fed up with the rubbish thrown at them, War of the Worlds is a refreshing change. Keep them coming, Steve.

The Girl of Your Dreams (1998)

Entertaining, even if it is "Life is Beautiful" lite

[5/10 · 13 June 2005]

Fernando Trueba's film The Girl of Your Dreams appears on the surface to be like any other war film... a group of people are studied amongst the carnage and eventually come to learn of the true horror of the holocaust and grow in their personal lives as a result. While this is an admirable pretense, the tacky jokes and schmaltzy shout outs to films like Casablanca work against Trueba. Another shortcoming of the film is the portrayal of Goebbels; while it plays on the historical fact that he was a womanizer, he is shown to be a dithering Neanderthal, while in reality, he was a terrifying and calculating genius. Had Trueba shown Goebbels obsession with Macarena as a manifestation of this madman's carnal desires, the themes of the film may have been the better for it.

Cruz is fabulous (much more so than in any other English speaking film she's been in) and offers an enticing performance in an otherwise overcooked and ill-humoured extravaganza.