Australia (2008)

Genre

Adventure | Drama | Romance

Director

Baz Luhrmann

Country

Australia | USA | UK

Cast

Nicole Kidman, Hugh Jackman, David Wenham, Bryan Brown, Jack Thompson, David Gulpilil, Brandon Walters, David Ngoombujarra, Ben Mendelsohn, Essie Davis, Barry Otto, Kerry Walker, Sandy Gore, Ursula Yovich, Lillian Crombie, Yuen Wah, Angus Pilakui, Jacek Koman, Tony Barry, Ray Barrett, Max Cullen

Storyline

In northern Australia at the beginning of World War II,  an English aristocrat (Nicole Kidman) who inherits a sprawling ranch reluctantly pacts with a stock-man (Hugh Jackman) in order to protect her new property from a takeover plot. 

Opinion

I haven't seen a lot of stuff from Luhrmann so I did not have any particular expectation for this film. I was kinda expecting it to be good though, since it stars Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman. Was it good? No, it wasn't.

Beautiful to look at, "Australia" is a terrible, too long and unfocused film that tries to be too many things at the same time: an adventure, a slapstick comedy, a romantic drama and a commentary on racism and war.

The script is just all over the place. The storyline is utterly predictable and keeps on shifting from one thing to another and you are not even sure if you are watching the same film.

The film's storytelling has already been used over and over again in other adventure films of the past and honestly those movies were way more exciting and engaging than this one. And for some weird, inexplicable reason the whole story is told through the eyes of a 10-year-old speaking a bad English. You eventually get used to it, but it still makes no sense.

The most incredible thing is that in two and a half hours they didn't manage to develop the damn characters. They all are awful and stereotypical, not to mention the fact that the main characters, Kidman's Lady Sarah Ashley and Jackman's Drover, are basically Olive Oil and Popeye. To end in style the actors as well do their best to give awful performances.

Then there's Australia, that land that is so mysterious and fascinating, especially for someone like me who lives so far away from it, which has been beautifully captured. But one cannot watch a film for the photography only (yes, that half point is for the cinematography).

Fast & Furious (2009)

Genre

Action | Crime

Director

Justin Lin

Country

USA

Cast

Vin Diesel, Paul Walker, Michelle Rodriguez, Jordana Brewster, Gal Gadot, John Ortiz, Laz Alonso, Jack Conley, Shea Whigham, Tego Calderon, Don Omar, Sung Kang, Liza Lapira, Mirtha Michelle, Greg Cipes, Ron Yuan 

Storyline

Working again for the FBI, Brian O'Conner (Paul Walker) teams up with Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel) to bring down a heroin importer (John Ortiz) by infiltrating his operation. 

Opinion

I'm laughing so much right now because the Italian title says "Original parts only", and this film is basically a copy and paste of the other entries in the franchise. In a few words "Fast & Furious" is a sometimes fast but never furious film that is also tedious beyond words.

I'm getting tired of criticising the lack of a plot but since there isn't one, I have to point that out, and I'm also going to waste some time talking about how ridiculous this already-seen-a-million-times storyline is, how many clichés there are throughout the whole film, and basically how dumb it is in general. I guess this is what happens when you make a useless sequel. Or a useless franchise.

While I forgave those flaws to the previous entries because of the characters and/or action sequences and pace, "Fast & Furious" cannot be saved. There's nothing good about it. The characters, first of all, are goddamn awful. All of them. Character development is an unknown concept to the writers, and the characters are basically what they were in "The Fast and the Furious" 8 years earlier. And the bad guys - wait, I thought they all were bad guys - are two dimensional and dumb.

Earlier when I said "sometimes and fast but never furious" I was of course talking about the action. The bloody awful action. Which is a huge shame for an action flick. There is one, maybe two sequences that are fast and decent, but they are so not thrilling. And the massive use of CGI completely ruin them.

I could spend more of my time, and yours, to talk about the cast, but I think saying the acting is beyond bad will do.

Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs (2009)

Genre

Adventure | Animation | Comedy

Directors

Carlos Saldanha | Mike Thurmeier

Country

USA

Voice Cast

Ray Romano, John Leguizamo, Denis Leary, Sean William Scott, Josh Peck, Queen Latifah, Simon Pegg, Chris Wedge, Karen Disher, Bill Hader, Joey King, Jane Lynch, Kristen Wiig, Carlos Saldanha, Eunice Cho, Maile Flanagan, Clea Lewis, Devika Parikh

Storyline

After stealing three dinosaur eggs, Sid (John Leguizamo) is abducted by their real mother to an underground lost world, and his friends attempts to rescue him.

Opinion

I don't say it often because it rarely happens, but at the third installment of the franchise Blue Sky doesn't misfire and delivers another good animated film. "Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs" indeed is a nice and entertaining film that appeals both kids and adults (if possible I think I like it even more now that I'm an adult).

Once again, the story is quite simple and easy to follow and it's executed quite well. The whole dinosaurs idea is quite interesting, and I don't care how unrealistic that is, this is a cartoon after all.

Maybe this time the screenwriters worked too much to create all those subplots. The romantic subplot involving Scrat and the female Scratte is nice and has a lot of funny moments, but some others don't have a place in the film. The pregnancy subplot, for example, doesn't have any purpose.

But those little flaws can be forgiven thanks to the characters. Even though Diego has been basically watered down into cameo quality, a new entry steals the show, Simon Pegg's Buck, a looney weasel who joins the herd halfway through. When he makes his entrance, the film completely changes. The earlier few dead moments are replaced with funny ones, and I believe it's impossible not to fall in love with the characters.

There are a lot of jokes and visual gags. The animation is great - I remember watching it in 3D when it came out and it was great. And it's good in 2D as well. And the voice cast does a good job. And yes, I loved Simon Pegg.

Melinda and Melinda (2004)

Genre

Comedy | Drama | Romance

Director

Woody Allen

Country

USA

Cast

Radha Mitchell, Chloë Sevigny, Jonny Lee Miller, Will Ferrell, Amanda Peet, Chiwetel Ejiofor, Wallace Shawn, Josh Brolin, Vinessa Shaw, Steve Carell, Arija Bareikis, Matt Servitto, Zak Orth, Brooke Smith, Daniel Sunjata, Larry Pine, Andy Borowitz

Storyline

A girl, Melinda (Radha Mitchell) arrives unannounced at a dinner party, and two alternative stories unfold, one comic and tragic.

Opinion

Right when I started to think Woody Allen's 21st century stuff was good, he had to make something to prove me wrong with "Melinda and Melinda", a slow, dull and a bit confusing comedy-drama that doesn't really work neither as a comedy nor as a drama. 

Shouldn't one wait until he/she have a story before bother making a film? Well, it looks like Allen forgot about it when he decided to make this film. He just put together two alternatives to a given situation, and it looks more like improvisation than a proper plot. 

Maybe it's because I was a little tired when I watched it, or maybe it's the way the film is made, but the two storylines get a bit confusing, and at times it takes time to realize which story you are in. Not to mention that is almost impossible to say which one is supposed to be tragic and which one is supposed to be funny, because they are both bland.

Allen's narrative choice is interesting - a group of people are telling the two stories - but it's nothing new, he did that already ages ago in "Broadway Danny Rose". And I really shouldn't mention that film, because it is on a whole different level.

The only thing that made me laugh about "Melinda and Melinda" is the script. It is so bad, it's laughable. The dialogue is horrible, and the characters are so not interesting.

Part of the cast was a bit of a surprise considering everything else. In spite of the script, Radha Mitchell somehow managed to carry the film, and Amanda Peet managed to give a good performance - even though she didn't have enough screen time in my opinion. Unfortunately Will Ferrell wasn't able to make the film funny with his attempt at impersonating Woody Allen. And Chloë Sevigny was just annoying.