Kenny, dir. Clayton Jacobson
Plot: Kenny Smyth is a portable toilet distributer and operator. He calls himself a plumber though. Kenny is a mockumentary as we follow a period in the life of this man as he deals with his job, his family, the people who don't want to deal with him and all that stuff. There's nothing else to it really.
The Verdict: Sometimes there are movies that just make you happy. They're not particularly challenging, they don't aim to be high art - instead, they just focus on a nice person going about their lives. Kenny is a fine example of this. The character of Kenny (played by Shane Jacobson in his brother's feature length directorial debut) is such a good person that you learn to love him. Sure, he's ugly and he works as a portable toilet distributer, but so what? You really get to know the man and he's a good man. He's not cruel or whatever. He's a nice guy who loves his family, who loves his work and is proud of what he does and doesn't let the bad people of the world get him down.
It also helps that the movie is funny. Really funny. There are so many great lines in this movie, my favourite of which was nice little zinger about the, er, "innocence" of Virgin Airlines employees. Yes, a lot of it is toilet humour, but it's not the typical teen variety of toilet humour. We don't see any of the stuff that Kenny deals with, but we hear a lot about it ("there's a smell in here that will outlast religion").
But, what it all comes down to is that it's a warm-hearted movie. I just really liked the guy. And when it came time for an unexpected romance subplot I was smiling the entire time. Like, I know it's fake, but if you didn't know that you would swear it was real (it's not like a Christopher Guest movie) and after a while you do forget that it's just actors. The only problem I had was that it was possibly a tad too long. 10 minutes probably could've been cut out of it. But, that didn't bother me that much. Kenny is gonna be right up with the great Aussie characters of all time. B+ (I really wanted to give it an A-, but...)
2:37, 2006, dir. Murali K Thalluri
Plot: The start of the movie tells us somebody has committed suicide (or at least tried to), from there we follow six teens as they arrive at school dealing with their issues and secrets. We follow these six teens (and several other side characters) as they each have moments of weakness. Eventually we get closer to the revelation of who is dying in the toilet block.
Verdict: I honestly can't remember having a reaction to a film quite like the reaction I had to Thalluri's impressive (but frustrating) debut 2:37, the film he made without any government funding (that's a big deal here). One one hand, the film looks incredible, it's very well made. The sound design and cinematography are top notch. The actors (all of whom haven't acted before) all equate themselves well with the material - Teresa Palmer, Marnie Spillane and Joel McKenzie do good work as does Sam Harris. I give Thalluri big hearty congratulations for having the balls to actually make this movie, one that deals with the subjects that it does (trust me there's more than just teen suicide here).
...and yet (and this is quite possibly the biggest "and yet" I've ever written) the movie makes me angry. Not one single frame of this movie is not a copy from Gus Van Sant's 2003 masterpiece (in my eyes) Elephant. From the long-tracking shots, to altering states of time, to even the recurring motifes of classical music and gay issues. Hell, there's even scenes that are almost copies of those in Elephant. There is a scene involving the quiet kid and a girl in an empty room. There is a scene where a group of students discuss homosexuality. There is a scene where a girl does an act of bulemia. You get the picture.
And then there is the fact that these characters are dealing with heavy motherfuckin' shit y'all. And then, we don't get any conclusion on their stories. In Elephant, the point was that all these characters lead dull uninteresting lives and that school was a monotonous and repetitive exercise, and then most of the characters died! We got conclusions to their stories. However, in 2:37 we are left in the lurch over all these characters. Now, I'm gonna do some big spoilers here, so don't read the strike-through text if you don't want to know the identity of who died or the other stuff in the film.
Done now. So, on one hand I think the film is good, but on the other it's really annoying and frustrating. Thing is though, it's the type of film I can see myself watching again (like I do with Elephant) and while the bits I disliked really pissed me off the film has some weird pull on me that makes me want to give it a high mark. I can't explain it. I can't possibly give it any higher than a B- because there are just too many issues. For now it's a C+ but that could change at any time.
Solo, dir. Morgan O'Neill
Plot: A professional hitman decides to quit the business, and while apprehensive his boss decides to let him go on one condition. His last kill be that of the young university student who is poking her nose around the underworld trying to write her thesus. He doesn't want him, and instead inacts a plan to save her.
Verdict: This is a sad sorry creature of a film. An ugly grotesque beast of a film. It was the first film to come out of the Australian version of Project Greenlight so I can't even comment Morgan O'Neill for going out there and getting it made because he got the money given to him on a silver platter. The whole thing is just incredibly depressing.
The performances are debatable. There are some that are just mediocre (Colin Friels who's usually so good at these sorts of characters) to out and out awful (Linal Haft doing an awful impression of Timothy Spall. You would recognise Haft as The Duke's "Man servant, Warner" in Moulin Rouge!). For a while I was liking the performance of Bojana Novakovic as the student, but eventually her character became so incredibly revolting that I lost all interest. Not even my soon-to-be husband Vince Colosimo could rescue things (he was among the bad stuff). Ugh. D+
Footy Legends, dir. Khoa Do
Plot: Luc Vu's mother recently died and his grandfather (who may or may not have fought in the Vietnam war) is in a retirement home. Luc is forced to raise his younger sister. A social worker however threatens to take her away because he does not have a job. Seeking the only employment possible, he and his old rugby playing friends start up a team and enter a championship hoping it will show his dedication (or something).
Verdict: Say hello to the worst movie of the year! This movie is despicable in the tricks it will use to get viewer sympathy. It will plumb the depths of every saccharine music-filled movie that came before it and then it will take the most obvious bits and put them within rapid succession. Without shame it will halt a scene and suddenly bring on the violins to tug at your heartstrings. It will hit you over the head with it's sentimentality until your brain is so damaged that these tricks work.
And that's just the start of the many many things that are wrong with Khao Do's pathetic Footy Legends. I wasn't a fan of Do's debut The Finished People, which at least tried to wring emotion out actual heartfelt stuff (that movie starred mostly homeless youths as themselves, essentially). There is the fact that this plot is terrible cliched. Just typing it up there gave me shivers. Yes, the man just prove his worth (or he could just get a fucking job!) For some reason we're meant to feel sorry that social workers (here played by Claudia Karvan) want to take this little girl away from him yet there is scene after scene of him being irresponsible and, quite frankly, a bad parental figure. Take her away I say!
The film uses every single possible cliche possible. There are just too many to list. There's a new one every minute. Oh and look! Director Do (Luc is played by Anh Do, surprise surprise - the director's brother) has decided to continue to social-consciousness by throwing in a multiple scenes of these characters living in squaller. Yeah, this girl should definitely stay with her brother who doesn't work, doesn't try to find work and, from the look of it, doesn't do any housework. Oh, he does get her a turtle. From the river. And doesn't even give the turtle water in it's tank. He's even cruel to animals!!
There was one good subplot but the director (he also co-wrote it with Anh Do) decided to just end it. It involved the character played by Angus Sampson and his beautiful neighbour who he has a crush on (played by the lovely Emma Lung). There are two scenes that all but give you the end of it (she comes back at the end to realise she really does love him or whatever) yet after her character skips town she's not heard of again. What a waste. And then there's the performances. Only Emma Lung gets out of this one unscathed. And she's only there for about five minutes! Anh Do is woeful (he cannot act. See also his small role in the above Solo), Angus Sampson is annoying, Claudia Karvan is one note (stern! Except at the end when they win the championship and the little girl runs up and hugs her brother... she smiles! Aww, all is well). Peter Phelps who shows up towards the end is just... wow. Beyond words bad.
And then there's the scenes of them playing football. I'm not exactly well-versed on rugby league, but Do elimates all sense of time. Entire games are done with in mere minutes without any indication of how the game has gone. The game starts, there's a tackle or two and then the game is over. I was scratching my head the entire time.
The worst moment for me though was when the Hunters & Collector's AFL anthem "Holy Grail" started up. And then they even used Shannon Noll's "Lift" as well! The entire movie was worthless shit. F
5 comments:
In my review I talked about the dialogue showing Thalluri's age. I think the Elephant thing is symptomatic of that as well. Young people emulate their heroes, and that's what he was doing here.
As for why he/she did it...
(SPOILERS!!!!)
She did it because she was depressed, pure and simple. I think, in the end, none of the six were even considering killing themselves, even though for some of them it would have been understandable. The fact that she was ignored doesn't help, someone could have reached out and maybe saved her, but I don't think she had anything going on in her life at the level of the kids, and yet, she was depressed enough to do it.
(END SPOILERS!!!!)
CONTINUED SPOILERS for 2:37
But WHY was she depressed. She wasn't a major character throughout the film, and then suddenly she decides to top herself.
I actually thought about half way through that maybe it wasn't gonna be any of them to die and that it was just gonna be a random we didn't know. But it was someone we knew and he just decided to not explain.
I suppose that's the point though. The unexpected people can do it and nobody will ever know why. But it was so frustrating.
still, the bit that annoyed me most about the movie was the being left in the lurch about these characters. Like, I wanted to continue on with the incest rape storyline (as horrible as it is). That is heavy stuff and for this guy to just toss it aside as if it all ended nicely, just didn't sit well.
And yes, some of the dialogue was a bit on the nose but that didn't bother me so much.
The style was a blatant rip off of Elephant though through and through. No ifs or buts about it.
will you be posting updated afi awards predix?
uh-huh!
I so agree that 2:37 was the most derivative film of the year; and also agree with you that the whole 'she killed herself because no-one paid any attention to her' so-called twist was pretty fucking stupid. It wil be interesting to see what the director does next though, given that he clearly has some skill...
Post a Comment