A relatively unknown animated feature from Ireland rocketed into the limelight with an academy award nomination for best animated feature. Although ultimately losing out to Pixar’s “Up”, it is the author’s opinion that this film should have won that particular award. All the elements of plot, visuals, music, and character development come together in this brilliantly complete movie experience. Aspiring film makers should take note because this isn’t just a wonderful example of an animated film, but a brilliant film full stop. It is an exemplary example of what a film should be, and that is a vehicle to tell a story.

The story is about a book – the Book of Kells, which is considered an Irish national treasure. Set in the 800s against the backdrop of viking raids it follows the story of a young monk in the abbey of Kells where his uncle, the abbot, is coordinating the building of a very large wall around the town to defend from the vikings. During the course of the story, Kells is visited by brother Aidan, a master illuminator who is part-way through his book, the book of Iona, named for the island he previously fled after it was overrun by vikings. The young monk takes an interest in illustration and the book, and in the process must journey into the forest where he encounters fear as well as a helpful spirit.

Aisling shows Brendan around her forest

The film is paced well from start to finish, and the characters (with their lovely irish accents) captivate the audience’s interest from the get-go. The real crowning glory of this film however, is the visual style. The animation is hand-drawn rather than computer generated, and reflects the desire of the film makers for life to imitate art (or art to imitate art) for one of the features of the book of Kells itself is it’s arresting illustrations and unique visual style. As such, every frame of this film is a wonder to behold as it very well reflects the visual style of the book of Kells, all the way down to the finest details and motifs. The unique visual experience immerses the audience in the universe of the film and suspends disbelief far better than most films of recent memory.

It is a great pity that this film did not receive a very wide cinematic release, but such is the plight of very small studios. It certainly deserves a wider release as it is entertaining in a way that even a small child can understand, yet does not fall into the trap of dumbing-down the content in order that it may be more easily classified as a “kids movie” (although the promotional material does seem aimed that way). A number of smaller cinemas are still playing it in the US. With any luck, the added publicity that an academy award nomination brings will ensure that it gets a good DVD release, but until then, there’s always the internet.

Watch this film! It’s only 75 minutes of your life, and you’ll love it.

Watch the trailer below:

Neill Blomkamps District 9 is edgy and brilliant

The readers of my website who have been following for a long time will know that I have written the occasional film review. In truth, I review a shockingly small percentage of the films that I watch. Part of the reason for this is because I often can’t be bothered, but the main reason is because I don’t want this website to become a movie reviews site, or to become known as one. That may seem strange, but this website is very much my public “face” on the internet, and while I am very much into movies, I don’t strongly identify with being known primarily as a film critic. In truth, I’m not particularly enamored with being known as a speed skater, preferring “mathematician”, “scientist”, or even “photographer”. (I also answer to “shit stirrer”, and “THAT guy”)

Recently though, I’ve been getting back into the business of watching a lot of films. In my youth, I was a very frequent patron of a local video rental store and I have easily seen over a thousand films, most of them very bad. These days, with the advent of the internet and torrenting, it has become increasingly easy to watch whatever films one chooses. I also fly a lot and boredom on long-haul flights combined with increasingly convenient entertainment systems has further increased my movie-watching opportunities. On the subject of technological advances, it has become increasingly cheap and easy to get into the business of making films. That’s right, I’m getting into film making. It has long been on the cards for there to be a TV show or documentary made about the Australian speed skating team, and the extraordinary story of its formation and progress, now punctuated by Sophie Muir’s participation in the Olympic Winter Games.

One of my mini-philosophies on life is that, if you ever want to be good at anything, there are two things that you must do: (1) observe as many examples of people who are good at doing that thing, and their work, and (2) practice as much as possible. I think that is the key to my success at still photography, that I spend a lot of time just looking at really good photos and thinking about them, and also that I just get out there and take a lot of photos (in the last 12 months, I’ve taken well over 60,000 photos).

So, as part of my preparation for constructing the documentary on the Australian Speed Skating team, I’ve assigned myself several bits of homework. First of all, I’ve begun making short videos (the training video, Josh’s introduction, and Sophie’s Pep Talk are examples). Second of all, I’ve been watching all the nominees for this year’s academy award for best picture (and then some). I’m a very opinionated and snobbish movie watcher preferring Lawrence of Arabia over Titanic any day, and one should keep this in mind when reading my reviews about the films and my opinions on their chances at the best picture award. But first, the nominees:

Avatar

James Cameron’s 3D epic is not a bad film, not at all. It is noteworthy for many reasons: first and foremost, it is in 3D. Unlike other offerings requiring polarizing glasses, the 3D-ness of Avatar was very well done. It wasn’t gimmicky, and after you got over the initial excitement of watching a movie in 3D, you mostly forgot about it and it really just enhanced the medium rather than becoming a distraction. I imagine that the first moviegoers watching films in color back in the 30s had a similar experience. There is no doubt in my mind that this is the future of film although we may not see widespread adoption for quite some time. The commercial success of Avatar, however, is very encouraging as it was undoubtedly a very costly production, and almost certainly recouped its costs.

Once you strip away all the technical wizardry, what are you left with? A well-paced plot with a fairly simple story, wrapped in a handful of deeper questions about the value of modernity, technology, and spiritualism in a post-colonial world. Filled with clichés, it is almost as if Cameron is making a mockery of the genre. “Unobtainium” is the classic MacGuffin and it is only actually seen once in the film’s entire 162 minutes. Visually, many scenes are strongly reminiscent of older Hayao Miyazaki films. The floating islands remind me of Laputa, and the tree of souls and its surrounds look a lot like scenes from Princess Mononoke. The writing and dialogue in general is sound but nothing special. In fact, it reminds me of action films from 15-20 years ago which, back then, would have been considered very bland, but in the context of the current crop of nearly-unwatchable action films (like 2012) which take bad dialogue and writing to whole new levels, it is a breath of fresh air.

The characters are not particularly complex, nor do they really need to be. Stephen Lang’s performance as head of security is quite strong, but is borderline overkill, especially towards the end where the energy of the film escalates and his behavior becomes frenzied. Michelle Rodriguez also played her character well and kept it very “real” in a surreal environment. Sam Worthington’s accent changes annoyingly throughout the film, but his performance was otherwise decent. He certainly didn’t mess it up, but an actor with a greater screen presence may have been able to add more substantially to the role.

Certainly a contender for best cinematography, and best editing, it is not best picture material. It is almost a certainty for best special effects even though it is up against two very strong nominees in Star Trek, as well as District 9 (both blend their special effects into the film more subtly). The academy and I haven’t always agreed though, so Avatar could well win best picture, even though I don’t believe to be good enough to even deserve a nomination.

The Blind Side

This is good old fashioned storytelling in film form. This is a formulaic story about a disadvantaged and talented sporting youth being adopted by a wealthy family. It is based on a true story, and focuses on the human struggle above all else, and that is its strength. The struggle is a mighty one, and the story is real, giving the movie an emotional weight that many sporting movies find difficult to find.

Sandra Bullock plays a very good WASP and carries the narrative of the film. Having only seen one of the other nominees for best actress, it is difficult to say whether she will get the nod, but she takes on the role well and with a maturity that I didn’t expect.

As for best picture, I doubt it will win. There’s just not enough there. If Bullock had pulled out a performance on the level of Jack Nicholson’s in One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest, then that alone could have pushed this into the hunt. While engaging, it didn’t feel urgent enough. While touching, it just wasn’t moving enough. It is an outside, but highly unlikely contender.

District 9

Neill Blomkamp was discovered by Lord of the Rings director Peter Jackson and he does a stellar job with this edgy and brilliant piece. Curiously, he did not receive a nomination for best director, but his is, in my opinion, the strongest contender for the title this year.

Based very loosely on the infamous district 13 in Johannesburg, this film is ostensibly about a large number of alien refugees who have to be dealt with by a sinister, privatized “Multinational United” corporation. It is a poignant statement about racism, segregation, and privatization. The best thing about it all, is that it doesn’t actually state any of these things to make that statement, instead, relying on the story to reveal those things to us. The character development and transformation of Wikus van der Merwe takes us through this gritty film at a brisk pace from the start all the way through to its conclusion.

It is similar in many ways to the 1988 film Alien Nation, although the situation of the aliens in this case is slightly different, as is the overall motivation behind them. Towards the end of the film, the tone changes slightly and it becomes more of an action shoot-out, which is disappointing. Nevertheless, it remains engaging and riveting throughout, and was a surprise commercial success despite no big-name actors and very little publicity. It is also up for the best screenplay based on previous material (a short film, directed by Blomkamp called Alive in Joburg) and definitely has the quality to win that as well. Being of the Sci-fi genre, it wouldn’t surprise me if it didn’t win best picture, but I certainly hope that it does.

An Education

Based on the Lynn Barber memoir, An Education is a coming of age story about Jenny, a young school girl from London’s outer suburbs with aspirations to go to Oxford, set sometime in the early 1960s. She begins seeing Dave, an older man who opens her eyes to the grown-up world. The story is simple enough, and the narrative follows the slow revelation of the life of David and his best friend Danny. Danny’s ditzy girlfriend is sometimes a little too ditzy, almost to the point of being jarring, on hearing that Jenny hadn’t done well on a latin test in school, she remarked “Someone told me that in about 50 years, no-one will speak Latin, probably… not even Latin people”.

Other than that constant comic relief threatening to burst the bubble of disbelief, the characters are textured and believable. Alfred Molina is great as Jenny’s father, and Emma Thompson makes a wonderful albeit brief appearance as the principal of Jenny’s school. Carey Mulligan gives a great performance as the main protagonist and the overall coming together of the elements of writing, editing, acting, and cinematography progresses very well and seamlessly throughout the film.

Though thought-provoking in light of what was to come later (e.g. feminism) and the issues that are dealt with, are carried well by the character development. We are encouraged to sympathize with Jenny, and we are drawn into the story which is engaging and well constructed… that is, until the last 10 minutes or so. For some inexplicable reason the whole film seems to fall apart just towards the end, and feels very weak towards the finish. It feels almost as if the film makers stopped trying, and that is a pity. Until then, An Education is a very strong contender for best picture, but due to the lack of punch in the ending, I’m fairly confident that it won’t emerge victorious. Mulligan though, is an outside chance for best actress.

Carey Mulligan in school uniform, getting wet at the side of a road with a cello

The Hurt Locker

As war movies go, this one’s pretty good. Following the story of several members of the bomb squad in Iraq, it captures the tension of the life and death situation well. It is technically a superb movie and could well pick up cinematography, editing, sound editing, and sound mixing, all of which it was nominated for. Unfortunately, as a complete film, I feel it falls short just slightly, but director Kathryn Bigelow (best known for Point Break, who is also nominated for best director along with ex-husband James Cameron) should be very happy with the film.

The film is an extended character study of Sgt William James, played by Jeremy Renner (and played very well I might add). A bomb specialist who seems to delight in the high-tension, high-risk situation of having to disarm the myriad of improvised explosives that the Iraqu insurgents dream up. The tension is very well-captured indeed, although I feel that the overall narrative lets the film down in that it is very episodic. The story moves from one set piece to another with only the faintest of segues. Each set piece is, individually at least, a wonderfully constructed piece of work (I especially liked the one where they get pinned down by a sniper for a whole afternoon), but there isn’t enough of a common thread to unite them all.

If, however, you can ignore the lack of narrative “glue” in this film, it is quite enjoyable and very well-paced. It is gritty in the way that the opening scene from Saving Private Ryan, or most of Black Hawk Down is, and cleverly avoids the realm of the political by focusing on an individual story through his tour of duty. I also have a great respect for the movie because it doesn’t fall into common hollywood traps like “you can’t kill a main character”. This film, just like the war, is indiscriminate about who gets knocked off. It may, despite its deficiencies, win best picture, though I doubt it. Much more likely to win the more technical awards, and is a decent chance for best director.

Inglorious Basterds

This is also one of my more liked films among the nominees. Quentin Tarantino directs a not-quite-historic period-ish film about Nazi-occupied France during the war. Clearly a talented director (and one of my favorites from a stylistic point of view) Tarantino’s films have always seemed a bit incomplete, or perhaps not-quite well-rounded would be a better way to describe what I’m thinking. In any case, Inglorious Basterds is his first very “Complete” film.

A story told quite simply, it is the characters and their development which drive the plot. Engaging dialogue, and charismatic characters keep the viewer glued to the screen throughout its 158 minutes. Unusual for a big hollywood film, a large portion of this dialogue takes place in French and German and is accompanied by subtitles. If you pay careful attention to the subtitles, you will notice that they occasionally (and intentionally) don’t translate what is being said, for example “oui” in French is sometimes subtitled “oui”. This, along with many other subtle signs throughout the film indicate Tarantino’s propensity to quietly mock the film making establishment.

Christopher Waltz, who playes Colonel Hans Landa (the “Jew Hunter”) gives an exceptional performance (speaking four languages quite fluently during the course of the film), and is rightly nominated for the award for best supporting actor. Overall, I wouldn’t mind seeing this one grab the best picture award, although I have a sneaking suspicion that it won’t. Still, a thoroughly enjoyable film, and enjoyable by a very wide demographic owing to the combination of Tarantino’s stylistic action sequences, as well as the more subtle in-jokes about the film industry peppered throughout.

Precious: Based on the Novel Push by Sapphire

A moving drama about the car-crash life of poverty and teen pregnancy in modern society (with a bit of incest and sexual abuse thrown in for good measure). Precious traces the story of Precious, an illiterate, overweight teen who is pregnant with her second child by her own father. You would struggle to start out worse in life, but this story is more about hope than anything else, and is ultimately uplifting.

Mo’Nique, who plays Precious’ abusive mother, gives an inspired performance and is my pick for best supporting actress. Even Mariah Carey makes an appearance, and thankfully actually does alright in the role of Ms Weiss (she also doesn’t look anything like she normally does, which helps the suspension of disbelief – and disbelief is what you invariably feel when you see her name on a cast list). In fact, the director, Lee Daniels, deserves a lot of credit for keeping this film together, because with subject material like this, it is all too easy to descend into melodrama and cliches. Instead, the film is gritty, real, and quite confronting.

The editing also deserves a mention, although at times it does seem to “try too hard” and overdo things just a little. Although the film doesn’t have any significant dead-moments where the momentum stops carrying, it also sometimes fails to connect with the audience. Perhaps it is my fault for not being culturally sensitive enough, although having occasionally lived briefly in Harlem (where the film is based) I doubt this is the case. A good movie, not a feel-good movie, and also not a best-picture.

A Serious Man

This was very enjoyable to watch. The Coen brothers do awkward, strange comedy very well, and this is no exception. A very cleverly-written piece about a man whose life is slowly disintegrating around him. The narrative flows almost like a piece of classical music, with central themes and recurring elements popping up and being repeated and reinforced as the story develops, giving the viewer a sense of an impending climax.

Larry Gopnik is a physics professor, and he leads a very happy life with a wife and two kids. He doesn’t really “do” anything, and that is one of the central recurring themes. There is also another interesting recurring theme concerning duality and uncertainty. There are many forks in the story which are almost-but-not-quite revealed (and some that are) but this lack of narrative closure doesn’t detract from the plot. In fact, it is used to enhance it.

A very clever film, and perhaps a little too clever for its own good. Many viewers will find the lack of closure in its various sub-plots confusing and ultimately unsatisfying (blame the current environment of brain-dead instant gratification movies like the unwatchable 2012). It should be a leading contender for the best screenplay written directly for screen category, but I doubt it will win best picture. I wouldn’t mind if it did though.

Up

Up is an unusual story about an explorer who sets out to accomplish the unfinished quest of traveling to “paradise falls” which, in many ways is an exact movie-universe replica of Angel Falls in Canaima, Venezuela (which I happen to have visited once). Of course, not everything goes according to plan, and a boy scout of sorts ends up an accidental passenger on this voyage, which takes place in a house suspended by thousands of balloons and propelled by sails (which doesn’t make sense if you know anything about sailing, but whatever).

Many have been raving about Up, calling it the best Pixar film ever. I disagree, feeling that honour still belongs to Wall-e (the first 50 minutes of it anyway). This film is worth it for the first 10 minutes and the last 5, for reasons that I won’t go into because it would spoil the film but anyone who has seen the film should know what I’m talking about. The rest of the film lacks the emotional gravitas that the bookends at the beginning and the end carry. I think part of the reason I didn’t enjoy the film as much as others is because I failed to connect or sympathize in any way with the character of the kid-boy scout who I found distracting and annoying (which is ironic, because as a child, I was very much like that).

That being said, this is not a bad movie at all. It is entertaining, and deals with (albeit at quite a superficial level) weighty issues like old age, parental neglect, and hero worship. Out of all the pixar movies, this is the one I would most categorize as a “kids film” while most of the others are quite mature films dressed up as kids films. I don’t believe Up is a serious contender for best picture, but should win the best animated feature category.

Up in the Air

Ryan Bingham (played by George Clooney) has the unenviable job of being a man who is hired by other companies to fire people. For this he spends over 300 days of the year on the road, flying from place to place across the US’ extensive air travel network. This film depicts the story of what happens when a “new kid” arrives in the company and changes their practices, effectively grounding him when he is just short of a lifelong goal – a million frequent flyer miles (myself, I am probably just short of 300,000, but those are from much longer, and less frequent trips).

Based on a book, the dialogue is snappy and it is the characters who ultimately bring this story to life. Clooney, along with Vera Farmiga, and Anna Kendrick are all nominated for acting awards and rightly so. Kendrick especially gives a great performance as the young naïve new kid who comes to face the human realities of what it means to actually fire people (apparently she’s in the Twilight series of movies, which seems like a waste of acting talent really). I was not particularly impressed by Clooney’s performance, although his reaction to certain plot twists is very well carried-out. I don’t believe he has a chance in the best actor award being up against the likes of Jeremy Renner (The Hurt Locker) and Morgan Freeman (Invictus).

A fun and very competently executed film. It loses a bit of momentum just towards the end of the second act, but that is mostly to prepare the audience for the third. Kendrick, being very attractive (how else do you get cast for a Twilight movie?) is sometimes distracting in this sense, although it is a welcome reprieve from what is otherwise a very dialogue-driven and cerebral film. I wouldn’t pick it for best picture, but it is a film that I would have no trouble recommending.

George Clooney fires someone while Kendrick looks on

Naturally, on exiting the cinemas, my first words were “we HAVE to do that!”. Sadly, there was the small matter of having to complete a university degree that got in the way of that. Fast forward nine years and a lot has happened (this website is evidence enough of that). Just recently, the Yes Men released another movie, so naturally I had to go and see it.

Like the previous film, “The Yes Men Fix The World” takes the form of a documentary, going behind the scenes of the buildup and aftermath of some of their pranks. The main difference I noticed was the pranks had become “better”. They were certainly bolder, more far-reaching, and more polished in their execution. As before, they were rarely caught in the act, or even suspected.

The first featured prank was one that I was already quite familiar with. I spent some time while I was living in the U.S. involved with students for Bhopal, an organization which works for the “fixing” of the mess that was left after the Bhopal disaster of 1983. For those unfamiliar with this prank, I encourage you to watch the YouTube video of it during which one of the Yes Men, posing as a spokesperson for Dow Chemical, goes live on BBC to announce that Dow will finally clean up its mess.

The backlash from this prank was not entirely positive. Within 20 minutes Dow Chemical contacted BBC and corrected the prank and the BBC had to apologize. In that time, Dow’s stock fell in value by a staggering 2 billion dollars. Interestingly, there was also a backlash from those who ordinarily support the plight of the Bhopalis saying that the prank was cruel because it raised false hopes. While I find this a ridiculous assertion, I can see why someone might think that. I do, however, find it ironic that someone who objects to someone being a fake spokesperson for Dow and misrepresenting Dow’s position on Bhopal, could in the same breath presume to represent the position of a Bhopali.

To their credit, the Yes Men decide to investigate this by doing the obvious thing which is to visit Bhopal and ask the Bhopalis what they thought of the prank. Unsurprisingly, the Bhopalis seemed quite supportive of what the Yes Men did. Here are a group of people who have suffered for over 20 years because of a terrible industrial disaster, and who have basically been ignored by all the people who are supposed to help fix the mess. Now someone pulls a prank which is seen live by over 300,000 people and over the next few days by goodness knows how many, moreover, this prank educates viewers about the fact that the mess still remains. Even if the “good news” turned out to be false, the publicity alone is a huge victory.

The film continues in this vein through more presentations and pranks. Their love for puns and wordplay is appreciated by corporate types as well as myself and their props, as usual, are hilarious in their absurdity. Again and again, the viewer is astonished at just how outlandish the suggestions and presentations can get without any of the attendees at these conferences bat an eyelid. (ok, that’s not quite true, when they lit “vivoleum” candles that smelled of human flesh, a few people got suspicious).

The film suffers many of the problems that plague films of this type in that there is a lack of a strong plot to steer the direction of the film. It wanders from episode to episode often without a particularly strong segue. There are, however, strong themes which recur time and time again. The Yes Men are often accused of lying, to which they retort with an argument along the lines of – “but it isn’t a lie, it’s the truth, it is reality that is being dishonest here”. And that is, in my view, the central thrust of the film – that the reality that we have come to accept is dishonest, and one of the most effective ways of making this point is to present an alternative reality – one which may be a “lie” under certain definitions, but is simply a demonstration of what the world could be.

During a retelling of the episode where they handed out fake copies of the New York Times, I couldn’t help but think of Fidel Castro’s famous line “A better world is possible”. Despite the disjointed nature of the film, I couldn’t help but smile my way through it. It is so refreshing to see a movie about “real life” which is actually optimistic in tone. The pranks are inspirational, and those of you who are sick of the corporate spin and doublespeak will enjoy the refreshing “truth” that the Yes Men’s culture jamming will bring.

Highly recommended, three and a half stars. Screenings begin in the US on October 7

“Do Aye!!” Translated variously as “our cause”, “it is our task”, or “our struggle” is a familiar cry for anyone who has been to a protest on behalf of Burma. I’ve been attending protests like these for about nine years, but the sound of “do aye” (pronounced daw-YAY) has never sent a chill up my spine quite like it did when I heard it being chanted by the monks in this film.

In late August 2007 an uprising began which culminated in massive peaceful demonstrations in the streets of Burma, led by monks, in late September. These protests against the brutal military dictatorship which has existed there since 1962 made world headlines, as did the brutal crackdown which followed. Almost all of the footage that is seen in this documentary was filmed using rudimentary consumer-grade hand-held camcorders and had to be smuggled out of the country. This documentary skillfully and deftly edits the footage and brings it together in a cohesive whole to tell a story that will blow you away.

The story of Burma is a moving one, to say the least, but that is not what this film is about. There are plenty of books and online resources where one can educate oneself about the history of this nation, and her nobel prize-winning leader Aung San Suu Kyi. This is about the here and the now. Even though these events took place almost two years ago, the sense of urgency and immediacy of the events can almost be felt. The sights, always close up and shaky, the sounds always hinting of slight claustrophobia due to the cameras always having to be hidden under jackets and in bags.

As a matter of historical record, the value of this footage is unquestionable. While the military junta turned off the internet and tried very hard to suppress any reports from within the country, a handful of brave reporters from the Democratic Voice of Burma (DVB), an underground media outlet run by a passionate ragtag gang of journalists who literally risked their lives day in and day out just to tell their story. This is the stuff that journalists dream of, and the events surrounding the Saffron Revolution were the perfect stage. There is even footage of the Japanese journalist who was mortally wounded by a soldier during the crackdown; the very incident which resulted in the 2008 Pulitzer Prize for breaking news photography:

Adrees Latif/Reuters

We follow the plight of a young reporter known only to the viewer as “Joshua” and the narrative is seen through his eyes. Credit must be given to Anders Østergaard, the Danish director who put the footage together to tell his story. The build ups are stirring, and I was struck particularly by one which followed a public announcement that people were no longer allowed to congregate in groups larger than five. A pair of people is seen on a street corner, they are then joined by another, then, after some time, another, all the while the cameraman counts. Eventually then number five is reached, whereupon the small band is overwhelmed by a marching column of hundreds of monks chanting “do aye”.

The brutality of the crackdown is well-documented, and you really feel the air of suspicion that overshadows everything in the day-to-day business of everyday life experienced by everyone. As the protests build up, only to be knocked back down, you really get a sense of how significant every individual act of defiance really is in such an environment, an environment so completely foreign to our own. In light of the recent post-election turmoil in Iran, as well as the show-trial of Aung San Suu Kyi herself, this film brings it home to the viewer, in a very real way that all is not right in the world today.

Admirably, the film does not attempt to gloss over, or hide the violence or brutality that takes place. Some of the scenes are very disturbing, but not inappropriately so – you should be disturbed, the truth IS DISTURBING. Strangely, the most chilling things aren’t the scenes where innocent, peaceful monks are beaten to a pulp, nor even the one where you see the Japanese journalist shot at point blank range. The most chilling moments are after the streets have been cleared, when everything is quiet, when “order” has been restored. The silence is enough to make you cry.

The film ends, as did the protests, on a sombre note. We learn in the closing credits that the headquarters of the DVB were raided and most of the reporters were detained and await trial, expecting to receive life sentences, for the simple crime of wanting to tell the truth. This film serves as a reminder to us all never to take our freedom for granted, and that there is a great deal of work to be done in order to make our world a better place to live.

I was moved. Greatly. Four and a half stars.

While browsing the apple movie trailers website, I happened on a fascinating preview for a feature length documentary on, you’ve guessed it, planet Earth. When I saw this film, I couldn’t help but remark on how timely such a piece could have come, and how conveniently it fits in with the recent content of this website.

The film was actually completed in 2007 and, coincidentally, received its first cinematic release in the Netherlands. Of course, I wasn’t in the Netherlands in 2007, and now that it is 2009, it is no longer playing in cinemas here. Strangely, it was recently released in cinemas in the United States (April 22 – Earth Day) which would also explain why the trailer was on the apple website.

There are two English versions of this documentary and the one I saw was narrated by Patrick Stewart, a.k.a. Jean Luc Picard, captain of the star ship Enterprise. The other version is narrated by James Earl Jones, and that is the version that was released in the US. Regardless, it cannot be understated how much of an impact a powerful voice can be on a nature documentary, as fans of David Attenborough can attest to. From start to finish, Stewart’s voice, like the voice of Saruman draws the viewer in and lends authority to all that is said.

The story line is a simple one, the lives of several different animals are followed in the course of one calendar year, taking the viewer through the different seasons. The journey begins in the arctic with some baby polar bears (there’s nothing like footage of baby animals to make everyone go “awwww”). This differs from many older nature documentaries in that there is a sense of a storyline, albeit a weak one. However, nobody really goes to see a nature documentary for the storyline, and the photography is absolutely stunning.

The footage, and indeed the film as a whole, is a compacted, film-length version of the television series “Planet Earth” and a large portion of the footage is shared. You could be forgiven for asking “why see this in cinemas?”. All the footage is filmed with the latest techniques and simply begs to be seen on a huge screen. Any and all photographers who are reading this review simply MUST see this film.

The message is clear, the balance of the planet’s delicate ecosystems is being unbalanced. Many of the stories, in their own unique way, illustrate how the impacts of climate change affect their lives. In the same way that a picture is worth a thousand words, this film conveys in a way that a thousand essays never could just what is at stake, and what we stand to loose if we fail to act to protect our precious planet.

From the magnificent panoramas, to the revealing time-lapse footage, to the super-slow-motion action shots, all the way to one particularly magnificent aerial shot of Angel falls in Venezuela, this film is one of the most visually stunning films I’ve seen in a long time. Patrick Stewart’s voice adds another dimension of beauty to this multi-layered cake of natural wonder. Although not a particularly challenging film in and of itself, the issues it raises with the preservation of our natural environment is the challenge of our generation.

I loved it. I want to be on the film crew the next time they make one of these. Four stars.

The new Star Trek film is not a standard Star Trek film. While possessing of a wealth of references to older Star Trek canon, it is not a film which requires any amount of prior Star Trek knowledge in order to be enjoyed. Above all else, and I feel that film makers charged with sustaining long-time franchises often forget this, this film is an enjoyable one.

I saw this recently with a group of friends (whose identities I will not reveal to protect their reputations), one of whom had never seen a Star Trek movie nor watched a single episode. Afterwards, while the rest of us avid trek-fans discussed the finer points of how well the young cast had adapted the characters we all knew and loved, the lone non-trek-fan was able to relate that, despite having no foreknowledge of any of the in-jokes (and there were many) he found the film enjoyable.

This film, like many recent releases from studios strapped for ideas, is a prequel and is set in a time period prior to the original series (and after the series “Enterprise”, for those who know what that means). We join Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and friends as young cadets at Star Fleet Academy and learn of how they meet each other and of how their initial meetings eventually shape the eventual crew of the Enterprise. There is even a nod to Gene Roddenberry’s original pilot episode of Star Trek with the inclusion of captain Christopher Pike, as an instructor at Star Fleet and captain of the Enterprise prior to Kirk.

The film opens with an engaging action sequence in which Kirk’s father, then a first-officer, is temporarily promoted to captain when his captain is lost while investigating a mysterious unidentified ship which we later learn is a Romulan mining ship from the future. The use of an element from the future allows the writers to diverge as they wish from many of the restraints they would normally encounter in trying to preserve consistency with the earlier/later episodes in the star trek universe. The ship, predictably, is overwhelmed by the vastly superior firepower of the ship from the future, although Kirk the elder is able to occupy the Romulan ship for long enough for the evacuating shuttle craft to make an escape, during which James T. Kirk is born (and fans can tick off their first checklist item – Kirk being born on a shuttle craft).

Production design is excellent, in that they were able to give a look consistent with the original series yet keep the technology looking more advanced than our current technology, much of which was inspired by the original Star Trek. The look of the bridge of the Enterprise as well as the costumes and the exterior of the Enterprise itself look sufficiently modern, while not being overly retro. Special effects are also brilliant because, while state-of-the-art (the special effects of all Star Trek films were state-of-the-art at the time that they were made), they are delightfully unintrusive and don’t make the common mistake of distracting from the plot.

The plot rolls along nicely and is paced well. J. J. Abrams, a director more well-known for his work in television, and mostly-bad motion pictures, has produced a great product of the storyteller’s art. He deserves special praise because of the peculiar problems of having to tell a story where many elements are generally already known by fans (although the use of alternate realities resulting from time travel is useful here), he instead concentrates on elements which are more important anyway like character development.

In particular, I enjoyed the development of Spock’s character and the way that his human-vulcan duality was played gave the film and his character some depth, which is often lacking in big-budget blockbuster action films. The interactions between Kirk, McCoy, and Spock drive the dialogue and make the characters very real. Their interaction, for me, was one of the best parts of the original series, and the preservation of this as a central element was much appreciated.

The cinematography was very well-done, in particular when it came to exterior space-shots which were filmed in a disoriented, twisting-panning fashion to contrast the simulated-gravity, straight up-down environment of the interior of ships. A friend described the special-effects well “it’s like the original series, but on steroids”. The shot making, as well as the sound editing contributed to a very visceral and intimate feel which further drew the viewer into the universe of the film and suspended disbelief.

It is said that all odd-numbered Star Trek films are pretty average, while the even-numbered ones are good. While this is the 11th in the series, it bucks the trend by being not just a good Star Trek film, but by being a good film, period. At a time when the franchise is struggling after the cancellation of the series “Enterprise” and box office non-success of “Nemesis”, this is what studio execs as well as fans desperately needed. I hope this re-boot of the franchise is the start of a new golden age of Star Trek, or at the very least, the prelude to a few more good Trek films.

Definitely one to see in the cinema environment. Four stars.

A story told with a captivating wit that draws the reader into her world, Unpolished Gem is a polished work of the storyteller’s art. A simple story about growing up the daughter of immigrant parents the author gives the reader more than just an insight into her cultural melting pot of a world. She puts you into her shoes, invites you to step into her mind and by the end of it, you feel like you are the one who has lived her rather interesting life.

When reading recreationally, it is not often that I come across a book in which I frequently catch myself laughing out loud. A story about a girl who just wants to “do the things that ordinary young people did, like falling in love without being under the spotlight of Indochinese (in)security cameras” it is charming, heartfelt and very witty all at once. Curiously, I bumped into Alice one Friday afternoon while waiting to meet someone for lunch. The next day, while catching up with some friends for lunch, I learned that she had written a book. After lunch on the following day, I decided to obtain a copy to read and, before lunch on Monday, I had read it. I knew Alice through the Amnesty International group at Melbourne University where she was my predecessor as president of the group. She was strong-willed, witty and intelligent and was a real inspiration to me during my early years at the group. After reading this book, I am beginning to understand why.

The book is very easy to read. It isn’t buttered up and padded out with flowery language. She tells it like it is, how she sees it, as it happens. Like many a master storyteller, she controls the pace and volume of the writing effortlessley and the reader can be forgiven for occasionally forgetting that they are reading a book. Much more than just words on a page, the scenes and characters jump out at you as you are immersed in the author’s world. There is possibly a danger here that someone who has not grown up in Melbourne (and did not happen to personally know the author) may not grasp the imagery in the kind of vivid detail that I clearly did. However, I doubt this would detract significantly from the experience of reading this book. After all, one does not have to come from Melbourne or be aquainted with the author to understand such delightful phrases as:”Foreign words did not seem to slip out of me as easily as the contents of my bladder”.

This is much more than just a documentary of growing up as the offspring of immigrant parents. Indeed, if information is all that was provided, I needn’t have read it being in a similar situation myself. Fundamentally, this is a very personal story about a girl growing up and discovering the world around her. The story actually begins prior to her birth and spends considerable time introducing the main supporting charaters, and telling their stories. Eventually, the book develops into a personal narrative centred around the star of show who happens to also be the author of the book. While I found the various stories to be very interesting, the real pleasure that I gained from reading this book came from the quirky insights and strange quotes found throughout the narrative. Quotes such as “having a white son in law could be good, more people kowtow to you, you know” punctuate the flowing narrative and force the reader to occasionally take a second take.

Though I was already very familiar with the world that the author introduces and describes, her book breathed new life and new perspective into it. In addition to these fresh insights to a strange world, the writing itself is a delight to read. Quirky, captivating and absolutely charming. I certainly hope that Alice continues to write many more stories for us to read and I do hope that this book is as much a success as it thoroughly deserves to be. Like a good photograph or video, this book captures the essence of life as girl growing up in Australia who happens to have Cambodian immigrants for parents. It gives us insight into not only the slightly unusual everyday happenings which decorate the landscape of her life, but also the quirky thoughts that lend perspective to it. An absolute joy to read. I couldn’t recommend it more.

A pseudo-historical story which I have heard countless times before, retold with an all-star cast and with the help of Christopher Doyle’s cinematography, Hero is a treat of a film. Shown recently at the Melbourne International Film Festival, its single screening sold out quite quickly. In fact, a group of five friends of mine who went to buy tickets managed only to get the final three for the session. We soon found out why.

Based in China during the warring states period, the story revolves around a nameless assassin played by Jet Li. The king of the province of Qin, who would eventually go on to conquer all of China, has summoned “nameless” to his court in order to reward him for vanquishing three legendary assassins who were bent on assassinating him. The basis for the movie is the retelling of the story of how this impossible task was accomplished.

Given the calibre of the production crew and the cast, there was never really any doubt that this movie would be a success of some sort. What I was expecting, was a big-budget martial arts film which would sell itself on the basis of its stellar cast and crew. Indeed, the website for the movie bills it as “The first martial art epic from Zhang Yi Mou”. Interestingly, it was the martial arts scenes in this movie which let me down a bit – but that was where the letting down stops.

The film is very character driven. This is a good thing, especially in a world where all too many martial arts films seem to be made up of stories and characters whose sole purpose in life is to generate situations for fights scenes. The characters have good depth; this is further complimented by the nature of the storytelling which I also found to be very well done. At first the story seems quite clever, but essentially clear cut and simple. However, the character of the King is revealed when he, himself, retells a part of the story which is apparently at odds with the original story.

Various versions of the story then make themselves known, each with the characters wearing different colours to help you keep track. This device is used to brilliant effect and complements the already stunning cinematography of Christopher Doyle. Themes of love, honour, loyalty and duty run through this film and through clever storytelling and good characterisation are revealed to be having something of a tug-of-war. This is one of the strengths of the film, that it keeps you on the edge of your seat right until the very end, to see which ideas win this tug-of-war.

A surprise of a film, but a welcome one. The king of Qin, who is usually depicted as a simple and ruthless tyrant, is given new dimension and complexity which really helps to bring the film together. The cinematography is simply gorgeous, it would not be inconceivable to see this film for that reason alone. There are echoes of “Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon” in this film (not least because Zhang Ziyi is in both films) but this is a different film, and is of a very high quality in its own right.

In 1982, when The Dark Crystal was released, it set a new benchmark for special effects, in particular its use of models and puppets. While today, in a world of million-dollar computer graphic budgets, the impact of its special effects is more difficult to appreciate, it is still a remarkable piece of work, and one which I still consider a benchmark. Directors Frank Oz and the late, great Jim Henson, both legends in their own right, weave a magical journey in a mysterious land. A journey which, unlike many of today’s movies, captures the imaginations of children and adults alike.

I first watched this film when I was in primary school. I was transfixed by the characters and their struggle. The plot is not obvious, nor is it simple or dumbed-down in any way. The film, although primarily aimed at children, doesn’t do what most films aimed at children do, which is pretend that children are the most unintelligent subgroup of the human population. In fact, it does quite the opposite. Herein is where the film gets most of its value, the characters and story draw the viewer into the world of the movie without the cop-out method of explaining everything explicitly. The script is intelligent and the character motivations aren’t always what they seem. When I came back and watched this movie some 15 years after I first saw it, I was amazed to find myself still drawn into the world of the Mystics and the Skeksis, still sitting on the edge of my seat while Jen and Kira fought their way to the conclusion of this whirlwind adventure.

From the start, the viewer is placed in a world which is clearly not our own, the main characters are quickly established and the narrator tells us all we really need to know. Jen, a Gelfling, is a human-like creature who has been raised by the Mystics, powerful peaceful beings, because there are no more Gelflings left, or so it would seem. He is sent on a quest to fulfil a prophecy and repair the “Dark Crystal” a crystal which is the source of balance and truth in the universe. If he does not succeed before the three suns converge, then darkness will reign forever. Typical fairytale stuff really.

As the film draws to its conclusion, you can’t help but feel involved in their world. You are not so much a viewer, but a participant and if you can suspend your disbelief and not get distracted by the somewhat dated special effects, then this film is a truly worthwhile experience. My only qualm is perhaps that the movie is too short, at times it the screenplay seems ever so slightly rushed. It would have done well to spend even more time developing the characters and background story. I dare you not to be helplessly charmed by the characters and emotionally involved in the story.

Great Journey, great story, great movie, just a bit old and a bit rushed. 4.5 Stars.

You would have to be pretty naïve to believe that there are no drugs in sport. The cycling scandals, the Olympic weightlifters, Chinese swimmers and, of course, Ben Johnson are, however, only the tip of the iceberg. Nine time Australian Discus champion and 1995 Australian senior athlete of the year, Werner Reiterer, tells the story of the proliferation of drugs throughout top-level competition from the perspective of an athlete who has been on both sides of the fence. That’s right – both sides. His story as a “natural” athlete is inspiring, uplifting but, ultimately, quite sad. The story of his experiences after making the decision to dope will blow your mind. I challenge anyone to read this book and not come away with a completely different perspective on high level sport in general.

In this book you will learn the story of a very promising discus thrower who rose up the ranks in Australia and eventually the world. You will learn that when he broke a junior world record, he was treated with indifference by a hypocritical system which perpetuated the problem while simultaneously denouncing it in the media. Werner went to two Olympics as a “natural”, steadfastly sticking to his guns. In the end he gave in because “To go through all the pain and sacrifice, the hard winters, busting your guts morning and night, then to travel the world and be beaten by inferior athletes with inferior technique is very hard to deal with”.

Not only does this book talk about one person’s experience as an athlete who decided to dope, it also describes the system which allows it to happen. The extent of the cover-ups and conspiracies which allow, even encourage, athletes to resort to artificial means of performance enhancing is unbelievable. At the very highest levels of sporting organisations, players of all strata collaborate to ensure that athletes are not only able to dope, but that their country’s athletes are on the best dope available and, most importantly, that their athletes pass all the drug tests. The feigned naïvety of these organisations with regard to drug testing and even the way that they handle positive results is just downright depressing.

The extent of doping in high-level competition, particularly track and field is absolutely astounding. The argument put forward by many people against doping is that those who dope have an unfair advantage over those who don’t. However, when it gets to the point where an overwhelming majority of the athletes are on dope, it becomes more the case that anyone who doesn’t dope is at a disadvantage. Dutch coach Henk Kraayenhof puts it so “People like to think that things are better since Ben’s [Johnson's] first positive. I argue the opposite. Ben Johnson getting caught promoted drug use – He won.” Speaking of Ben Johnson, the post 1988 enquiry into his positive revealed that, since 1981 he’d taken Dianabol, Stanozolol, Furazabol, HGH, Testosterone and many masking agents. In seven years he had passed every drug test, in the two years leading up to the Seoul Olympics he passed a total of 19 drug tests.

Pearls of wisdom scattered throughout the book will make you sit up and take note, things like “Since the Seoul Games, more than 100 Australian athletes had been caught. Of course, few were role models generating money for organisers or sponsors. They were mostly third-tier athletes. ‘Socially digestible positives’, one authority described them as”. He also tells of how, when random out of competition testing was introduced, times were suddenly slower and distances of throws would drop, at least until the dopers figured out ways around the testing. Of course, the figures relating to his increases in performance after beginning his doping are equally, if not more, noteworthy.

The rather negative tone of the material contained within the pages of this book is lightened somewhat by the occasional retelling of experiences at international competitions. As an athlete who has been to many an international competition, I found this diversion more than amusing, however those who can’t relate to such experiences may find this a distraction from what is otherwise a very strongly directed statement about drugs and sport in general.

If you’re into sport, especially the Olympics, you must read this book. This is a book which should have been on the best seller lists prior to the Sydney 2000 Olympics, when it was released. The IOC, AOC, AIS, IAAF and many other acronyms did there utmost to prevent this book from ever getting published. When it was clear that that plan wouldn’t succeed, they spent their efforts trying to prevent anyone from knowing about this book. To an extent, they have succeeded. This book is very difficult to find (or at least it was difficult for me to find). The narrative is very relaxed and direct, very “tell-it-as-it-is”. I found it difficult to put down in the two days that it took me to read it. An excellent read, and a timely one considering the material. Highly recommended.