Review: Yes Man

[Originally published in the Forge Press 05.12.08]

Review: Yes Man

With a Jim Carrey comedy you know what to expect, namely facial expressions and funny noises being emitted from a man who, at forty-six years old, should possibly know better. Yes Man employs these qualities to their fullest extent throughout in a vain attempt to hide the fact that the plot is essentially non-existent and merely consists of a bunch of non sequiturs whose only connection is Captain Malleable doing his magical face changing trick in each of them. But whatever. As long as Carrey is allowed to shout things like "I've got blisters on my fingers!" in Ringo Starr's voice, some source of enjoyment can always be gleaned from Yes Man's lifeless, decaying corpse.

The story involves Carrey's protagonist Carl Allen, a banker who lives alone, spends his free time watching endless DVDs, shuns his friends and says no to every offer that comes his way. After attending a self-help seminar, Allen then decides to say yes to every offer that comes his way. Who saw that coming? Even more unbelievably, his saying yes to everything leads to him meeting a girl and they both fall in love. And he gets a promotion. And everybody thinks he's great, even though he's essentially lying to everybody. It's all so fresh. I can only assume the screenwriters took Danny Wallace's original novel, read the synopsis, possibly urinated on it before throwing it in the bin, laughed, and then set about writing their own screenplay based on the last film they'd both recently seen and thought the world needed more of, which was Bruce Almighty. Thanks guys.

The only actor who actually seems like they're having a good time is Rhys Darby, who plays Carl's boss, Norm. Sure, he might be an imitation of David Brent, but considering the screenwriters enjoy reusing ideas so much they managed to weave a whole film out of doing this, at least with Norm they stole an idea which is funny. However, they don't stop there. Later in the film, Norm holds a party which, in its execution is such a blatant rip-off of Rick Moranis' gathering of his neighbours in Ghostbusters that I'm sure Moranis is probably spinning in his grave. If he were dead. Which he isn't. Other than Norm, the only character worth remembering is the love interest, Allison, who isn't memorable because of anything she does (Oh look! She's quirky! Look at her running and photographing! Only Juno is quirkier!), but rather because she's played by Zooey Deschanel, who may or may not be an angel. Any scene she is in goes some way to alleviating the hebetude the film tries so hard to induce, and in particular the ones where she wears the cutest faux-military jacket in the world.

Of course, if you don't happen to like Zooey Deschanel then you're a little stuck. You may take comfort in seeing a 78 year old woman remove her dentures moments before engaging in oral sex with Carrey, which is possibly the highlight of his career after everything else he's ever done, including the Cable Guy. Solace may also be found in an excruciatingly lengthy fight scene between a 'drunk' Carrey (hello silly voice/funny face combination) and a muscle-bound cliché. Happily, it never seems to end, allowing one pun after another to fall flat on its face while the audience watches on reticently, kind of like slowing down to see a car crash.

In all, Yes Man is only offensive in the sense that it doesn't try at all to create something even slightly original, choosing instead to rely on tried and tested mediocre formulas in order to deliver a mildly amusing diversion for an audience that will forget the film the moment they leave the theatre. So, while Carl Allen would unequivocally say yes to the question, "Do you want to go and see Yes Man?", I know that he's really thinking "No, obviously not."

Grant Price

Feature: Happy Endings

[Originally published in the Forge Press 05.12.08]

Happy Ever After?

Feature: Happy Endings

Baz Luhrmann, king of tragedy, has met his nemesis: the test screening.
After audience responses were negative, he has been persuaded by the big cheeses at 20th Century Fox to change the ending of the upcoming Australia from a death bed to a rose petal, everlasting love fest. The purported reason for the change is the aim for bigger box office takings, but is this really what audiences want?
Baz Luhrmann’s two biggest films, Moulin Rouge and Romeo and Juliet, both end in tragedy.
The double death of the lovers in one of Shakespeare’s most heart-wrenching tragedies needs no explanation, while tuberculosis has never exactly been recommended for its aphrodisiac effects.
The drama of these stories is ingrained in their weepy endings and the tales would be incomplete without such morbid culminations.
However, what is wrong is the use of a sad ending for the sake of it. Script writers get to the end, they think: ‘Uh oh, the characters have fallen in love, everything’s perfect, where do we go from here?! She will get wrinkles, he will grow hair from his ears……how oh how do we preserve such perfection?!’ Lightbulb moment. ‘Kill ’em off.’ This is unacceptable conclusion dodging.
One test screen audience member was reported in the Australian Sunday Telegraph saying that "there is no reason to kill off Wolvie.’’ If there really was no need then perhaps this is one siphoning of a director’s artistic integrity that can be forgiven.
We go to the cinema to laugh; we go to cry; we sometimes might go to be educated. But, overwhelmingly, we go to escape.
A film gives us a chance to forget our own meagre existences and enter a world where everyone is beautiful and no one ever does boring things like go to sleep, unless it is in the arms of another beautiful person.
A tragedy can be heart-warming by making us realise how lucky we are but sometimes a sad ending can be unsatisfying and, like the final sip of tea that has been allowed to go disgracefully cold, leave a nasty taste in the mouth. Rather than putting our own grievances in perspective, sad cinema serves to reinforce harsh reality.
In Breakfast at Tiffany’s the ending was changed from Truman Capote’s more open-ended novella to the famously romantic trench-coated kiss in the rain. Sigh. Let’s hope that Australia can recreate this kind of sunset

Natasha Lewis

Feature: Realistic Endings

Without meaning to sound like a miserable bastard, happy endings are rubbish. Complete and utter crap. Who in their right mind wants to watch some emotional nonsense where everyone learns a valuable lesson at the end and lives happily ever after?
It’s perfectly understandable if you are under the age of 10 and enjoy a bit of Disney; 101 Dalmatians wouldn’t be quite the same if all the puppies ended up dead now, would it?
Then again, perhaps when watching such Disney classics as The Little Mermaid, you were unaware that in the original version of the fairy tale the little mermaid’s handsome prince decided he’d rather marry someone who wasn’t a fish, so the little mermaid tops herself by jumping off a cliff. Morbid, yes, but far more emotionally affecting than the alternative, and we are all spared the rainbows, singing and tearful farewells. Thumbs up for the dead mermaid.
On the other hand, endings don’t have to be completely miserable to be any good, just so long as the audience’s intelligence isn’t insulted by the illusion of perfect people living unobtainably perfect lives (The Holiday, everyone is looking at you) or nonsensical drivel about being nice and thinking happy thoughts (The Holiday, go back and never be made).
Take one of the best movie endings of all time in The Empire Strikes Back, a climax which fits the dictionary definition of ‘bleak’ but succeeds in making you really want to see Return of the Jedi. And then take the end of Return of the Jedi which opts for the simple ‘all is well in the universe’ ending and has ever since been regarded as a complete cop out.
So, perhaps the main point here is that while happy endings are generally vomit-inducing, realism is the key to whether or not they are acceptable. Obviously, a film such as The Holiday probably wouldn’t work so well if someone walked in with a machine gun at the end and shot them all (or would it?), yet it’s just too happy to be taken seriously.

While the romantic ending to Titanic did end up bordering on the offensive, the previous hour had been depressing enough to lend the ultimate ending sufficient poignancy in order to get away with it.
The final nail in the happy ending coffin is the predictability of such films; if you hadn’t read the book, how could you possibly have seen the ending to Atonement coming?
Whilst being the mother of all depressing endings, it resounds in the mind long after all bitter memories of The Holiday have been banished to the fiery depths of hell, and that is the real reason why happy endings just don’t cut it anymore. So throw away your Kleenex, toughen up, and enjoy some really depressing cinema.

Jamie Cusworth

Review: Che Part I

[Originally published in the Forge Press 05.12.08]

The Face of a Thousand T-shirts

Review: Che Part I

Che Guevara’s face is a tad annoying. The iconic image of his flowing beard and meaningful gaze is like a song that has been overplayed for forty years, the meaning is lost and those who sing it have never really listened to the lyrics. A proportion of the vaguely left-wing layabouts who adorn their chests with Che Guevara T-shirts are greatly unaware of Che as a person, apart from the fact he’s from Cuba and, like, rebelliously rad if y’know what I mean. Well, he’s not Cuban, he’s from Argentina and his name isn’t even Che.
Che – part 1, the first in a film of two parts, follows the story of the Cuban Revolution, from its beginnings with the making of acquaintance between Castro and Guevara to the capture of Santa Clara, the victory that caused the enemy, General Batista, to flee the country. The character of Ernesto “Che” Guevara is played by Benicio del Toro who also takes the role of co-producer. The film took seven years to research with the majority of information taken from Guevara’s own writing and this is the reason that it stands out as more than a mere documentation of revolution.
Guevara’s nickname derived from his habit of punctuating his speech with the interjection ‘che’, a common Spanish term that loosely translates as ‘friend’ or ‘kid’. It is this side of the lovable cigar-smoking Guevara that is shown in the first film as we see his development from intelligent and socially conscious Argentinean doctor to fully-fledged revolutionary and guerrilla warfare expert. Guevara and Castro’s dedication to their cause is emphasised and also the way that they achieve results: with a mixture of hard graft and love. They are committed to reform and there is repeated insistence on the importance on learning: the increase in literacy was seen as one of the major successes of the Revolution.
Far from death or glory, the much-lauded phrase of this Revolution is ‘homeland or death’ and it is shouted throughout the film as the revolutionaries make their way over unfriendly terrain and face numerous challenges. The fact that the producers choose to extend this story over two films rather than try to squeeze it into one means there is room for plenty of detail and the film celebrates the comradeship and inner politics of organising a group of people who have nothing to hold them together but their beliefs. Guevara cites belief as the trump card that the Revolution army held; explaining that when your army know why they’re fighting they will fight better and therefore be able to defeat bigger and seemingly stronger forces as the revolutionaries seemingly did.
Even in his moments of glory, Guevara is grounded and principled. Immediately after their glorious victory in Santa Clara, he sends some celebratory members of his army back after they leave the town driving in a stolen car. Spoil sport? Perhaps. Infallibly moral revolutionary superstar? Yes.So perhaps there is more to learn about Che Guevara. The realities of revolution are portrayed in an unflinching fashion: tell your housemate who thinks he subverts society by smoking weed all day to go and see the reality.

Natasha Lewis

Review: Transporter 3

[Originally published in the Forge Press 05.12.08]

Big Package Delivery

Review: Transporter 3

Transporter 3 makes you leave the cinema with lukewarm, mixed feelings. It follows a similar plot and with villains comparable to those in Quantum of Solace but has better fight scenes and a less logical plot than the recent Bond film.
The story follows Frank Martin (Jason Statham) as he tries to deliver a package. Simple, yes? Well, no. Unfortunately he is being monitored and if he moves 25 feet away from the car he will explode. There is another twist in the plot as Frank’s cargo turns out to be Valentina (Natalya Rudakova), the daughter of Ukraine’s Environmental minister, and his journey is treacherous as he has to deal with villains to save her from her gloomy fate.
The female lead is annoyingly pretentious, stereotypical and is unoriginally portrayed as nothing but a simple sex object. Frank even disdainfully states that he prefers dealing with cars than with her. Unlike another up and coming Eastern European lead, Olga Kurylenko, the new Bond girl, she lacks the talent and class that her pretty physique exhumes.
However, there is light at the end of the tunnel. Innovation is shown with an action sequence where the main prop is a bicycle and Jason Statham’s performance suggests potential as Britain’s answer to a young Bruce Willis.
The director also shows great potential as he ups the ante with bigger risks and obstacles, in what will probably be the last installment of a successful franchise. Another brownie point is earned with the excellently pumping soundtrack with tracks including the classic punk anthem by Iggy and the Stoodges’ I want to be your dog.
The main negative point is that this film does not even try to appeal to a female audience except for the occasional revelation of Jason Statham’s ripped body and his overtly defined abs. Mainly it contents itself with appealing to its predominantly male audience. Will it be a big box office hit? Most likely. Is it better than the first two installments? No.

Iris Provias

Review: The Secret Life of Bees

[Originally published in the Forge Press 05.12.08]

Put a Sting in Your Step

Review: The Secret Life of Bees

Every once in a while, Hollywood puts the superheroes, ditzy rom-coms and talking animal movies aside, and gets its claws around something with a little more substance. In 2008, a good contender for this crown is Gina Prince-Bythewood’s ‘The Secret Life of Bees’. Based on Susan Monk Kidd’s New York Times bestseller, the film is a heart-warming story of the relationships between women, but is a tale with a sting.

Set against the racial tension of the Deep South in the sixties, The Secret Life of Bees follows the life of Lily Owens, played by wunderkind Dakota Fanning. The tone is set from the opening scene where four year old Lily accidentally kills her mother. This is not a world inhabited by happy people.

Time jolts forwards a decade to find Lily living with her father and their black maid Rosaleen, played by Jennifer Hudson. Lily’s fourteenth birthday coincides with the passing of the Civil Rights act, a day with disastrous outcomes for both Lily and Rosaleen. The two run away, in search of the truth about Lily’s mother, and find themselves at the bright pink home of three black beekeeping sisters.

This is a film that focuses on the subtleties of people’s emotions and the small events that affect us the most deeply. The shock of the secretary who hears Lily is living alone with black women speaks volumes. This theme finds solidity in the ‘wailing wall’ built by Queen Latifah’s matriarchal character, August, and filled with tiny pencil notes scribbled by Sophie Okonedo’s cripplingly sensitive May.

Fanning gives a performance beyond her early teenage years in its sensitivity and understanding. Lily’s innocence sometimes verges on stupidity as she is annoyingly naïve about racism. She’s wide-eyed in disbelief when a shopkeeper refuses to allow Rosaleen into his shop, leaving Rosaleen cowering against a wall. Surely she’d noticed before that not many people where she lives like black people very much?

Paul Bettany elicits a sympathetic performance as Lily’s domineering father. The short scenes of him alone give real insight into a character that has twice been abandoned by the women in his life. Despite his aggressive actions by the end of the film it’s impossible not to pity the man who is returning to his empty home.

And while Alicia Keys is not the greatest actress her coldness works well as the hardened but musically gifted June. She is the antithesis of the male white racists in the film; the black female activist whose suppressed anger and frustrations are taken out on her boyfriend and with silent venom against Lily.

While it is an obvious comparison to draw, the film does have added resonance in light of Obama’s election. It makes the achievement all the more remarkable to realise it has only been in Obama’s own lifetime that America’s black population have had the right to vote. ‘The Secret Life of Bees’ may not make it amongst the all time greats, but it’s certainly thought provoking in these changing times.

Kimberley Long