Change Your Image
damianj
Reviews
Oliver Twist (2005)
Please sir, NO MORE!!!
'MORE' will be the last thing on your mind, if you can sit through this unnecessary, and under-whelming remake of the Dicken's classic. It beggars belief that Polanski, the same man responsible for the award-winning The Pianist, could go wrong with such a quality story to work with, but he has and spectacularly so. The first mistake was made in his young leading man. Forget pickpocketing, Islington lad Barney Clarke is guilty of one of the most ordinary performances in a title role ever seen on the big screen. With a few exceptions, his take on the supposedly lovable urchin Oliver involved little more than gratuitous overacting, an annoying sulking pout, sad puppy dog eyes and the personality and presence of a wooden puppet. When you're half way through the film and your hero has barely uttered a sentence, and you couldn't give a damn what happens to him, you know you're in trouble. This frustrating lack of character development is not confined to just Oliver. Polanski has managed to stifle the potential of every character in the cast Nancy, Sykes, the artful Dodger. None are given any priority in Polanksi's streamlined summary of Dicken's tale hence leaving them all as shallow, substance-less souls merely filling up a few minutes screen time here and there. So fleetingly are they presented, it's near impossible to become interested in their plights and actions, or to understand their motivations and what they (should) contribute to the story. Even Fagin, superbly played by Ben Kingsley, is sidelined as an ensemble character, despite providing the film's most animated personality, and is incredibly wasted in the role of the thieving mentor. David Lean's 1948 version and even Carol Reed's 1968 musical Oliver! are superior to this one, both delivering the emotional roller-coaster that Oliver's journey should be. Polanski's film moves from high to low at astonishing speed, but the climaxes are painfully dull and appear to be just going through the motions. Polanski is consistent though. The empty plot is wanton right up to the dreary, drawn out conclusion. On a positive note, the grim vision of 19th century London that he has created is glorious. Looks though aren't everything are they especially in this case. Please sir, no more.
Corpse Bride (2005)
Macabre magic
Tim Burton, the master of spooky, kooky and cute has delivered another classic that makes magic out of the macabre. If the whimsical story, derived from a Russian folk tale, doesn't charm the pants of you, the stunning puppets, sets and stop-animation imagery surely will. The vivid worlds, both above and below ground, that Burton has handcrafted are simply enchanting, and his second foray into stop-animation (the first was The Nightmare Before Christmas) further stamps his name as a leading artist in this medium. Corpse Bride follows the unexpected journey of groom-to-be Victor Van Dort (voiced by Johnny Depp), who is spirited away to the underworld on the eve of his wedding when he unintentionally betroths himself to a dead bride. Ever since she was mysteriously murdered on her wedding night, the Corpse Bride (Helena Bonham Carter) has waited, heartbroken, for her groom to come and claim her. Victor unwittingly becomes that man while practising his wedding vows in the forest and is dragged down to the land of the dead. He tries in vain to find his way back to Victoria, but his late bride is determined to make him honour the bond of their unholy matrimony, and isn't going to make it easy. The film is peppered with cute one-liners ("People are dying to get in", one of the dearly departed says to another at one point) and sight gags ("Is it my eye?," the heartbroken bride asks her bewildered husband as it is popped out by a roguish maggot), and the subtle touches of adult humour are brilliant. Burton has managed to make the most unlikely, adorable even the aforementioned eye-popping maggot, and given the afterlife an entirely new image in Burton's land of the dead, the pubs never close and the corpses are more lively than anything you see up in the world above. Spectacular song and dance numbers complete this deliciously dark treat that will delight film goers of all ages. Take my word, you will be dying to see this one again!
A History of Violence (2005)
Audiences will be divided
A History of Violence will invariably leave everyone who sees it with something to think about, but probably not all in the way director David Cronenberg had in mind. Powerful, graphic and well-acted by the cast, especially Mortensen, the drama explores the culture of violence and whether its possible to live free of it, but leaves too many questions unanswered. Mortensen plays Tom Stall, a normal guy with a normal life, a wife (Bello) and two kids, who owns a normal small town diner in America. His perfect world is turned upside down when, two thugs enter his diner and attempt to rob the place and rape the waitress. Normal quiet spoken ol' Tom however has other ideas and, much to the surprise of the entire town, takes out the pair like a seasoned hit-man. He becomes an instant hero, and his face is splattered across the national media, attracting the attention of some bad guys from the big smoke, led by the menacing Carl Fogarty (Ed Harris). Fogartyand his henchmen show up at the diner claiming that Tom is not Tom, but actually a notorious and very violent Philadelphia gangster Joey Cusack. Tom denies that he is Joey and claims he has never met Carl or any of his henchmen, but Carl doesn't take no for an answer and starts a campaign of harassment against Tom and his family, which culminates in more bloodshed, this time on the Stall's front lawn. It is an engaging thriller, that if nothing else, does have you questioning just who is telling the truth is Tom really Joey Cusack? The story is interesting enough to keep you watching until the end, but there are some annoying holes (especially the characters' histories), and in an obvious attempt to paint a contrast between the Stall's idealistic family life and the big bad world of violence it has collided with, the loving family scenes are overdone. The ending leaves many loose ends too, which some film goers will appreciate, while others will just be left confused and wanting some closure. There are a handful of very graphic scenes, both of the violent and sexual nature, some warranted some unnecessary, including a rough sexual romp on the stairs which doesn't really add anything to the story. An earlier scene is borderline pornographic, again for no obvious reason, aside from sex for sex's sake. It's by far not a bad film, and the acting is excellent all round, but its clumsy narrative flaws ruin what could have been an excellent film.
Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo (2005)
Worst film of the year
In the race for worst film of the year, a clear winner has emerged in the form of Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo. This unnecessary and largely unfunny sequel to the 1999 hit comedy is barely worth waiting its 80 minutes duration for, let alone six years. The toilet humour and politically incorrect gags are misguided and offensive in so many ways it's breathtaking. Is it just me or does anyone else find the thought of squeezing a few cheap laughs from a Chernobyl radiation victim who has a penis instead of a nose (and yes, when she gets excited so does her nose) incredibly desperate? No prizes for guessing what happens when she sneezes. The so-called story involves naive American and unlikely gigolo Deuce (Rob Schneider) heading to Amsterdam to escape some unwanted police attention in America and reuniting with his ex-pimp, T.J. (Eddie Griffin) who is living large off the profits of a new crew of 'man whores' in the liberal European city. Once a few lame 'American abroad' culture clash jokes are served up, Deuce is forced out of retirement to help T.J. (who for reasons known only to the writers is the butt of every gay joke known to man this time round) when he is wrongly accused of being the serial killer who has recently been culling the ranks of Europe's finest male prostitutes. Deuce's search for the real killer paves the way for a string of the series' signature jokes about ludicrously handicapped and sexually needy women. Schneider and his team of writers are truly scraping bottom of the barrel here. Having mocked obesity, height, Tourette's Syndrome, narcolepsy and blindness in the first film, they have, somewhat unfortunately, turned to Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, Tracheostomies, and hump backs, and the results are uncomfortable, predictable and barely laughable. At the film's lowest point, the women with a penis for a nose is involved in an unfortunate accident with the woman with a Tracheostomy. See where I'm going here? In a bid to be comically offensive in new and original ways, they've failed to notice that the script is a rehash of the first film. The best thing about this one is that it's a quickie but certainly not worth paying for.