Water for Elephants Review

•June 9, 2011 • Leave a Comment

Waterforelephantsrussian2 S1kodf Water_for_elephants_movie_post Water-for-elephants


Posted in Uncategorized

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides Review

•June 9, 2011 • Leave a Comment

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

is the fourth entry into the Pirates of the Caribbean series, directed by Rob Marshall of Chicago, Memoirs of a Geisha and Nine fame. The film is based on the book On Stranger Tides by Tim Powers, which also inspired the LucasArts game series The Secret of Monkey Island


After seeing Capt Jack Sparrow (played by the forever young Johnny Depp) rowing in the sea with the map to the fountain of youth at the end of the last instalment, we meet him here in London as he sets about rescuing his former first mate, Joshamee Gibbs (played again by Kevin McNally) being hanged. Soon they are both brought before King George II ( played by Richard Griffiths), who wants Jack to guide an expedition to the Fountain of Youth before the Spanish get to it first. During the meeting Jack crosses paths with his nemesis, Captain Barbossa ( played once again by Geoffrey Rush) who is now in the Kings British Navy, minus the Black Pearl, and his leg. Amongst all of this Jack must also discover the identity of an imposter who is recruiting a crew to also search for the Fountain, where wackiness ensues.


Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl was actually quite a gamble back in 2003. Cutthroate Island, Directed by Die Hard 2’s Renny Harlin and starring Geena Davis, and Matthew Modine sunk an entire production company and regaled Geena to television ever since. It is amazing that the director is still working in Holywood! In the early 00’s we had fantasy movies coming out of our ears, what with the The Lord of the Rings trilogy and the never-ending Harry Potter movies. Disney obviously wanted to get onto the gravy train and so, using a title that they already had the rights to, and a plethora of Pirate books to plunder (arrrr), Disney went ahead and produced a fantasy action adventure with a hint of the supernatural. If the movie sunk, it would still make a killing in the box-office due to its already standing Disney goodwill. The production would have been solid, with a wonderful score to match. Swashbucking to-and-fro would bring in the older crowd watching for a hint of matinee nostalgia, and the inclusion of “he’s-so-hot-right-now” LOTR  Orlando Bloom and Kiera Knightly would get the tweens in. Geoffrey Rush would be on board as a character actor, and Johnny Depp’s involvement would be enough to pump the project to A-level status.

However, something peculiar happened; a fortuitous, unexpected ingredient. The star, who was hired for nothing more than an A-list presence delivered a crafted, three dimensional performance!

Johnny Depp took the notion of a dirty, conniving, rebellious pirate and completely flipped it on its head. Inverting the notion of a pirate, Johnny Depp’s Capt Jack Sparrow was an observer of the action, not an antagonist nor a protagonist, Jack was an amoral watcher, flipping in and out of the goings-on as it suited him. Instead of the traditional villain, Capt Jack had a conscience. Instead of a traditional hero, Capt Jack was an opportunistic coward. Johnny’s Jack was a creature of survival, acting and reacting off of the world’s developments, and always trying to come out on top, with no other real motive than just simple survival. Hell: his magical compasss couldn’t even tell him what his true heart desired.

Johnny’s Johnny also gave his Capt Jack a whole host of mannerisms, quirks and aural inflections, fully rounding his character out. Johnny Depp reportedly admitted that he held onto a slew of character traits after playing gonzo journalist Hunter S. Thompson in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. Here, Depp goes back to the well and pulls out a pirate who is more rock-star than anything else. It is no surprise then when Johnny later admitted his Capt Jack was based on and inspired by the living rock legend Keith Richards who would go on later to play Sparrow’s father. Johnny’s Pirate held a swagger, a drunken broken speech pattern and a natural campiness that seems inherent in 70’s-80’s rock. Capt Jack Sparrow was a rock legend without a band, constantly lost without his crew and stage; the Black Pearl.

If Johnny’s  risky performance (backed only by Dick Cook, former Chairman of Walt Disney Studio Entertainment) was the ingredient that launched the first Pirate’s into the stratosphere, it was milked during the inferior, increasingly convoluted sequels. Capt Jack seemed to be restrained more-so as more screen-time was dedicated to Orlando, Kiera and a swath of second stars and extras. The plots were convoluted, the storylines multiplied, and we were taken further away from what made the first one so fantastic: the character of Capt Jack Sparrow.

Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides was given a smaller budget compared to the sequels (55.5 million of it going to Johnny Depp), and only  Capt Jack Sparrow.and Barbossa were expected to return in this new spin-off. There was an expectation that the movie would be scaled back to concentrate on the strengths of the first instalment, being the  Capt Jack Sparrow.character.

At the end of the 2nd instalment, Capt Jack was devoured and killed by the Kracken, transporting him to limbo, or, Davey Jones’ Locker. From this expeireince, Jack resolves to never die again, thus attempting to become the Capt of The Flying Dutchman to live forever, albeit under a curse. When this attempt fails, he is determined to uncover the Fountain of Youth.

Instead of stripping down events, characters and plot-lines in an attempt to have a more character based story following Jack as he attempts to avoid his mortality, the film instead repeats the mistakes that bogged down the original trilogy; too many characters, too many subplots, too many mindless action set-pieces and too much exposition. We have another evil  Capt Pirate (Blackbeard played by Ian McShane) who has a super power that allows him to magically steer his own ship (why does he need a crew?), and after the jettison of Orlando Bloom and Kiera Knightly’s character’s from the series, the filmmakers feel the need to shoehorn a young couple back in. This movie does all of this, replicating the original trilogy, on a lesser budget and it shows.

Another problem is the characters’ intent. Why is everyone searching for the Fountain of Youth? Instead of following Jack as he goes about finding it from the ending of the last film, we are inexplicably in London where many a thing have changed, and we need to be brought up to speed through exposition. Barbossa, who has already escaped death after being killed at the climax of the superior first film is now working for the British Royal Navy, minus a leg. The Black Pearl is once again lost, again emasculating Jack.

Penélope Cruz  is introduced as a past jilted lover much like Marion from the original Raiders of the Lost Ark, and once the characters are all set up, its back to business as usual, although in rather darker settings, more muddled fight scenes leading to an empty, bland feeling: the difference between a matinee and a pantomime.

On the plus side, if the first one is to be remembered for the creepy un-dead crew, the second for the sea creatures (and third) this one’s highlight is undoubtedly the spooky, nasty little mermaids led by Australia’s Gemma Ward. The beautiful french actress Astrid Berges-Frisbey plays an extremely vulnerable mermaid, and it would be fantastic to see her in another feature soon.


Instead of just giving the audience what they want ( Capt Jack Sparrow captaining the Black Pearl and being a Pirate! Arrrr), Disney has delivered the least satisfying Pirates movie yet. There are another 2 planned (filmed back to back). I would recommend watching the first one again, however, this film is doing gangbusters so perhaps it is the case of why try harder?

It is fun admittedly, and because its cheaper than travelling to London and watching a god-awful pantomime, I’m giving this 2.5 out of 5 mermaids.

Check out the film at IMDB, and check out the trailer.

~                                                                                                                                 ~

Luke McWilliams June 2011

Ph5edzurzswu9c_2_m Pirates_of_the_caribbean_on_st Pirates-of-the-caribbean-on-st Pirates-of-the-caribbean-on-st 0pirates-of-the-caribbean-on-st 1pirates-of-the-caribbean-on-st Pirates-of-the-caribean-4

Posted in Uncategorized

The Ghost Writer Review

•September 3, 2010 • Leave a Comment

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

~                                                                                                                                     ~

The Ghost Writer is a 2010 political thriller film. It is adapted from the novel, The Ghost by Robert Harris. Directed by Roman Polanski, the screenplay was written by him and Harris.


 After the death of a ghost writer who was writing the memoirs of former British Prime Minister Adam Lang (played by Peirce Brosnan), Ewan Magregor’s anonymous ghostwriter agrees to complete the manuscript.

The ghostwriter flies out to Lang’s beachfront mansion to work on the project behind high security in the middle of winter. Unfortunately, the day he arrives, Lang is accused of war crimes. Lang faces prosecution by the International Criminal Court, and all of his staff are subject to reporters and protesters swarming to the island mansion. Amongst all of this, the ghostwriter continues his work, uncovering along the way that perhaps his predecessor’s death was not as straight forward as he was thought to believe.


The movie has a great, classic thriller feel, like the recent The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. However, it also has unnecessary, old-fashioned sentiments.

The ambience is fantastic: a large office window shows a wintery ocean-front setting which depicts the natural and humanistic chaos outside the steely confines of a mansion. Such unsettling imagry and sound reminds of another great classic thriller Shutter Island.

The performances are unfortunately uneven; Kim Cattral is a wispy female, not unlike Mia Farrow’s performance in Rosemary’s Baby, and has an air of film Noir about her, such as Evelyn in Chinatown. Dressed in white, she is contrasted ( although her prowess is subverted) with the dark hued, femme fatal Ruth Lang (played by Olivia Williams), the backbone of her husband, the Prime Minister. Olivia delivers a surprisingly unconvincing performance in a scene of supposed vulnerability. Perhaps Roman has a perception of women in film that resonates.

There are also some choice camera angles throughout the movie, and the lens lingers too long, almost making sure that the viewer captures every little nuance the actor is giving, which is completely unnecessary, and patronises the actor’s performance. From research in comparison with the book, it is surprising that Polanski chose to actually downplay some scenes that would have played very cinematically.

The score is almost darkly comic. I would have preferred a much more intimidating, straight thriller score, given the context, in the mold of other recent films Shutter Island and Inception which both used amazing, menacing, bombastic scores which had as much presence and personality as any other actor on screen.

As mentioned above, it is surprising how the film bears away from use of technology. When The Ghost Writer tries to use a computer with a USB key, all hell breaks lose. Instead, The Ghost Writer must engage in the practical, textural feel of the original manuscript. Characters labor over it, feel it with their fingers and almost enjoy the physical pleasure of touching it. Such use of manuscript-texture reminds me of The Ninth Gate and the supernatural powers that are within the pages of a book.

As The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo demonstrated, research through means of computer can be just as textile, whilst also conveying the sense of a ghostly observer, someone who is dabbling with people’s lives from another sphere of existence. Also, the use of computer data can just be just as hard to trace and hold as a ghost. Cinematic research montages can be delivered with both mediums, but layers of a computer screen imposed over the researcher is far more cinematic than following text on a manuscript. In this sense it may be unfair to call this film old fashioned, but it is warranted here.

There are great allegories of ghosts here; Ewan’s unnamed character is haunted by his predecessor, finding his spirit within the pages of his manuscript, his clothes and the furniture in his room. Ewan prefers spirits rather than wine, and, whilst being an anonymous ghostwriter, holds a certain amount of power over the very public figures. The theme of the Ghost within the Machine could have given another metaphor if technology was not presented in such a phobic way.

The film has a strange dark comic humour; delivered in Ewan’s performance, the score, filing of scenes and some script choices. Ewan’s performance aside, I would have preferred a much more straight approach given the success of the recent, and superior above-mentioned thrillers.


The Ghost Writer is unfortunately, disappointingly and irritatingly flawed in the sense that it is a good movie, a great visual experience but it could have been so much more. There are many editing and acting choices that take away from the film, in both logic and quality. Like the superior The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, however, this movie has compelled me to read the novel and think of what may have been.

3 pages out of 5

Check out the film at IMDB check out the trailer, and see what Margaret and David (and Ewan) have to say.

~                                                                                                                                     ~

Luke McWilliams August 2010



Brothers Review

•September 3, 2010 • Leave a Comment

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

~                                                                                                                   ~

Brothers   is a 2009 American-British dramawar-thriller film directed by Jim Sheridan. The film is a remake of 2004 Danish film Brødre directed by Susanne Bier. Both films take inspiration from Homer‘s epic poem The Odyssey.


The film follows Sam (played by Tobey Maguire), a Marine captatin, and bad-boy Tommy Cahill (played by Jake Gyllenhaal) who are brothers. We meet Tommy as he is released from jail for armed robbery, and we soon see Sam embarking on his fourth tour of duty to Afghanistan, leaving behind his high school sweetheart, Grace (Natalie Portman), and their two young daughters.

Tommy’s family soon receive news of Tommy’s death. In Tommy’s absence, his brother Sam supports Tommy’s wife and children in their collective grief. However, when Tommy unexpectedly returns home very much alive, whackiness ensues.


There are great performances all round in the movie, although admittedly it is a little odd to see such young looking actors in parent roles with young children.

The casting for Tobey and Jake is very good. The audience really does feel Tobey’s character’s  sense of mental trauma, and we expect him to lose control at any moment. We, like the family depicted, feel at ease with Jake’s character on screen and miss him when he is absent. As a reformed bad-boy trying to-make-good to the family that he has let down in the past, you can understand why the bad-boy is so attractive.

One could argue that Natalie’s emotional response to hearing prematurely of her husband’s death as being a tad too understated, however, this could just be the actor’s choice as the character would have undoubtedly have been prepared for receiving such inevitable news from past tours.

The only real letdown was the redundant narration at film’s end which annoyed an otherwise subtle and emotional revelation.

The director for the remake decided to make the film more about the brother’s relationship with each other then the emotional attraction to Tommy’s wife. This is a good move as it keeps a clear focus of the film’s intent.

One may argue that this was again an excercise whereby Hollywood again ‘ruined a fine movie’. I prefer the wording of the remake’s writer; that he and the director had  discovered the ‘bones’ of a great story. Certain characters have had their backgrounds more fleshed out, giving their entwining familial relationships more weight. A bigger budget has given the film a more cinematic style and attracted a beautiful score and, of course, a swath of young, good looking stars.


Brothers is a very satisfying film. Toby Maguire has done a fine job portraying a stable family man who suffers trauma as a result of his experiences in war. This was a much more satisfying study of the psychological effects of war on soldiers and their families than The Hurt Locker as previously discussed on the Movie Club.

I loved Jake Gyllenhall’s character and could completely understand the attraction that Tommy’s family had for him during such an emotionally vulnerable time.

The lead character’s intertwined past with their marine father is completely relatable and understandable. The story served as a foreboding parallel of what happened during the brother’s early family years with a father who had returned from Vietnam.

Apart from the unnecessary short narration at film’s end, Brothers is a solid movie experience.

4 brothers out of 5

Check out the film at IMDB, and check out the trailer, and see what Margaret and David had to say about the original.

 ~                                                                                                                   ~

Luke McWilliams August 2010

Youth in Revolt Review

•September 1, 2010 • Leave a Comment


~                                                                                                                    ~

Youth in Revolt is a 2010 American film adaptation of C.D. Payne‘s epistolary novel of the same name starring Michael Cera. The novel was written in 1993 epistolary novel, and is part three of a six-part series.


Nick Twisp (played by Michael Cera) is a 16 year old virgin who has, by the standards of his peers, a peculiar taste in media culture; the music of Frank Sinatra and the films of Federico Fellini. Nick lives with his mother and her awful boyfriend, Jerry, who soon finds himself owing a group of angry sailors money due to a sour car sale. Instead of righting this wrong, Jerry decides to lay low for a while and takes Nick and his mother on vacation to a Christian trailer park. This is where Nick meets the beautiful but dangerous Sheeni Saunders (played by Portia Doubleday). The two strike up a relationship however it is soon thwarted as Nick inevitably has to return home. The shy, awkward and naïve Nick is however encouraged by Sheeni to become “very, very bad” so he may be kicked out of home and be free to live with his father, George (played by Steve Buscemi), and they can be together. Nick soon develops an evil, French alter-ego to help him along with his quest to become evil, afterwhich whackiness ensues.


The epistolary nature of the novel is referenced in the film by use of plastacine stop-motion characateurs of the characters, references to letters and diary entries. This lends to the quirkiness of the film that a Michael Cera movie seems to ask for.

The film is not quite a drama, not quite a comedy. This makes it fall into the safe niche of young adult quirky dramedy, a la Juno; i.e. if you don’t find it funny, you weren’t supposed to, as it was a drama. Laughed at it? You were supposed to; it was a comedy.

I loved Michael Crea in Arrested Development as he played the shy and socially awkward George Michael brilliantly; a minor character in a pretty much all-star show. I am not yet sold with the idea that he can carry an entire movie, especially with the same ‘hipster’ type of role. He has played this type of character in most of his film roles, but it is at least pleasing to see him stretch himself in this role if only by just a bit; as an evil-French alter-ego.

Obviously Michael Crea fans and fans of this type of quirky comedy in general may like this movie.


It is curious that Michael’s films are based on material that was created in the early 90’s (such as Scott Pilgrim vs The World)but are reimagined as movies to apply to ‘hipster’ contemporary youth culture. I am not part of, nor a fan of, ‘hipster’ culture and therefore, again, I cannot empathise with the main character and the choices he makes.

2 revolting youths out of 5

Check out the film at IMDB, Rotten Tomatoes, and check out the trailer.

~                                                                                                                    ~

Scott Pilgrim vs The World Review

•August 31, 2010 • Leave a Comment

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Scott Pilgrim VS The World is a 2010 American action comedy film directed by Edgar Wright of (Spaced, Shuan of the Dead and Hot Fuzz fame) based on the comic book series Scott Pilgrim by Bryan Lee O’Malley. Interestingly, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World was planned as a film after the first issue of the comic was released!


The film follows the precious little life of Scott Pilgrim (played by Michael Cera). Scott is a bass guitarist for the band “Sex Bob-omb,” who dates a Chinese catholic high-school girl Knives Chau (Ellen Wong) and lives (and sleeps) with his gay housemate Wallace (Kieran Culkin). Scott eventually literally meets the girl of his dreams, a mysterious American called Ramona Flowers (Mary Elizabeth Winstead). To date her however, Scott must defeat the League of Evil Exes, 7 of Ramona’s Evil Ex boyfriends who are hell bent on destroying all that is Scott Pilgrim. Whackiness does indeed ensue.


As a director, Edgar Wright makes all of the right decisions in regards to this film: Edgar hired Mr Brad Allan, the wushu expert who has worked with Jacki Chan in countless movies, and Bill Pope, the cinematographer of the Matrix trilogy was brought on board. The soundtrack includes music from Beck, Canadian bands Metric and Broken Social Scene, Nigel Godrich (who is a producing collaborator of Radioheand and Beck), and two members of Supergrass who recorded a Legend of Zelda theme. Several sound effects were sampled from retro 8-bit titles like Sonic and the Legend of Zelda to give it the most authentic flavour possible and techniques such as switching aspect ratio’s were used to mimic the look of in-game cut-scenes.

As with Shuan of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, this script is well constructed; the first part serves the audience metaphors of what is to follow in Scott’s subjective ‘reality’. For example, there is a great scene where we see Scott and Knives at an amusement centre. Without giving too much away, a lot of information in regards to Scott’s subjective outlook on his own life is weaved into this scene both visually and through the dialogue, setting up more surreal / hallucinatory sequences for later.

A lot of trouble has gone to marketing the film to both Gen Y ‘hipsters’ and Gen X gamers. It is interesting to note that Scott does not use a mobile phone, plays coin-operated arcade games in arcade stations and is pretty much computer illiterate. The technology on show is either the use of a pay phone, an old beige computer and several old Nintendo consoles littered around his (sorry; Wallace’s) apartment. However, one can’t help but feel that the film is a very expensive marketing exercise that ultimately targets a very specific audience: males currently in their early 20’s.

The film tries to hard to be hip and cool, or perhaps this is what the current hipster culture is all about, it certainly was with Gen X…or like, whatever.

Thankfully, in regards to this, the film has a lot of self-referential observations of how ridiculous it all is, from bystanders of Scott’s ‘world’, i.e. – Scott’s friends namely his older sister and his roommate Wallace, played brilliantly by Kieran Culkin.

The special effects are amazing and cannot be flawed. It is such a shame to see Brandon Routh play a superhero role which is shot in a way that you wished his performance in Superman Returns was.

It is interesting to note that this movie has bob-ombed at the box office. This may not be all that surprising as the film is a dangerously niche, quirky comedy. It will be interesting to see if it dates quickly. It is a tremendous indulgence and it is amazing that such a film was made on such a budget in the first place. It seems that lessons were not learned from Speed Racer; a film which audience’s did not know what to make of amongst the tremendous amount of CG which created a digital divide between the audience and film: ie – is it a cartoon? Is it supposed to be taken seriously? Or perhaps falut can be found simply in the marketing strategy of the film: if you think you are walking into a hip-cool counter-culture movie a la Empire Records, Dazed and Confused or Clerks you might be disappointed. You will definitely be surprised!

Scott Pilgrim vs The World is a surreal, hallucinogenic kung-fu rock-musical peppered with retro-video game and other pop-culture that Scott has been raised in. All of this serves Scott’s perspective of his world and his role in it. As Randel in Clerks, and Holden in Chasing Amy, Scott must confront his feelings of inadequacy in relation to his current crushe’s romantic past, all the while facing the end of his adolescent reality as he knows it. In fact, this film would have been Kevin Smith’s opus if hehad been, like, bothered to make it…..pfft……

This type of money, expertise and the serious nature in which the film has been constructed makes one think of all the missed opportunities in regard to other comic-book-titles (The Batman film series, Superman Returns and a possible Ultimate Spiderman).

For all Gen X grouchiness aside for a minute, one can empathise with this world viewed from the self-interested mind’s eye of its protagonist: when one is young, everything is played for high-stakes and you are the immortal rock-star of your own life (such a metaphor was used successfully in The Lost Boys).

Special effects aside, Scott Pilgrim VS The World is a study of growing up: waking up to the world around you, coming to terms with a serious relationship, confronting sexual jealously and planning on leaving all childish things behind to venture off vulnerably into the great unknown, strengthened by the one that you love.


Ultimately, I was not the audience for this, so I felt like I was babysitting for 2 hours and was slightly angry that I could not join in on the fun (a bit like watching The Goonies again. Trust me; the experience has changed). 10 – 15 years ago I would have loved it. It would have been perfect if it was made in 1985 and starred Michael J Fox!

That being said, if you are already a fan of Scott Pilgrim, coin-op or console video-games (now labeled as, sigh, ‘retro), romance Manga comic-books, kung-fu, rock’n’roll and Michael Cera, you will undoubtedly love this little-big film.

3.5 evil Ex-Boyfriends out of 5

Check out the film at IMDB, and check out the trailer.


This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Crazy Heart Review

•August 12, 2010 • Leave a Comment

~                                                                                                                         ~


Crazy Heart is a 2009 American musicaldrama film, written and directed by Scott Cooper and based on the 1987 novel of the same name by Thomas Cobb.

Other supporting roles are preformed by Colin Farrell and Robert Duvall who do all of their own singing in the film.



Crazy Heart follows “Bad” Blake (Jeff Bridges who won an Oscar for his performance) who is a country and Western singer songwriter musician, who once was a big star. As a 57-year-old alcoholic, Bad now goes from one small South West American town to another playing gigs to very modest crowds. We experience his lonely existence travelling on the road in his old car, having one night stands and living in cheap motels, regularly in a drunken haze.

We become privy to his past through his brief interviews with Jean Craddock (Maggie Gyllenhall ) – we learn that Bad has had several marriages, and is without a family.

It is at this point then that Bad takes stock of his life and decides to make some changes for the sake of a burgeoning relationship with this young journalist and her son, and wackiness ensues.


Crazy Heart is a pedestrian story, written and directed for television, although it did get a cinematic distribution. The theme of an aging faded star, has been explored before recently in the The Wrestler.

Like The Wrestler, Bad Blake is at his best when he is doing what he loves, in this case playing Country and Western music. However, unlike The Wrestler, the movie itself holds such segments as its main strength. I grant that such scenes may hold more significance to a fan of the Country and Western genre.

Like Monster’s Ball, the central figure methodically soul-searches, takes stock of his life and goes out to get his groove back. Unfortunately, I hate Monster’s Ball.

The story does not have any real depth. An example of this is when Bad decides to get sober. The scenes of this are too quick and easy. We are not made privy to the amount of pain, suffering and insight that the character undoubtedly went through to achieve sobriety. This may have added much more weight to the protagonist’s perceived feelings for Maggie Gyllenhal’s character, as she is the main catalyst of his chosen transformation. That being said, this may have been deliberate choice on the director’s part to highlight Bad’s friends’ perceptions of him which are fractured due to Bad’s various comings and goings.

Jeff Bridges did win an Oscar for his performance. It may have been the stand-out asset of this film, but this should not be a seen as a good thing as one element of a film should not overshadow another to its detriment. What we have here is a fine actor in a sub-par film.

However, like Sandra Bullock’s Oscar award winning film The Blind Side,this film concentrates on a very American theme – Country and Western music, its fans and its stars. Perhaps the significance of these themes are lost or distilled for overseas markets, or just myself.

Its interesting to note that other recent Oscar worthy performances focus on the on-screen representations of the actors who play them, such as George Clooney  in Up in the Air, Mickey Rourke in the Wrestler and Ben Stiller in Greenberg (I think it is Oscar worthy anyway). If this is the case, then Jeff Bridges performance in The Big Lebrowski is the one to watch. When asked where the wardrobe department sourced his costume for the dude in The Big Lebrowski by a reporter, Jeff replied simply, “They were mine!”


Crazy Heart has made me want to watch Walk the Line, a movie that won Joaquin Phoenix an Oscar, based on the life’s story of Country and Western star Johnny Cash.

2 out of 5 glasses of whiskey

Check out the film at IMDB, see what Margaret and David have to say, and check out the trailer..

~                                                                                                                         ~

Luke McWilliams August 2010