"Goddess"

I recently wrote and directed a short film starring one of my all-time favourite comedians, Greg Fleet.

Guess what? The short is not a comedy. Well, it's kind of a comedy, but maybe only to people as bent as me and some of the folks who helped me make it.

To read the synopsis, view the trailer and some photo galleries, head on over to the film's website:

http://goddess.holscope.com.au

If you only want to view the trailer, here it is:



A premiere screening will be taking place soon at a as-yet-selected venue in Melbourne. Festival screenings will hopefully follow.

Stay tuned for more details.

"Moon" review

I'm always wary when PR people compare a contemporary science fiction film with Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey". What's funny is that no one would have had the gall to make the comparison if Kubrick were still with us.

"Moon" is the latest film to be given that erroneous honour. See, the problem is that Kubrick was a true visionary, a one-of-a-kind filmmaker with the mind of a brilliant philosopher, and "2001" is much, much more than a film about the pitfalls of technology and the avarice of mankind.

I would describe "Moon" as an accidental satirisation of the "Jupiter Mission" or HAL-loses-his-artificial-mind sequence in "2001". Nothing more. And there are shades of "Solaris", too.

Thanks largely to "2001", the themes and ideas presented in "Moon" are shopworn and banal. Does everyone who works solo on a remote space station have to be mind-fucked, self-inflicted or otherwise?

A lot of people are excited about the mid-point twist in "Moon". I can sort of see why, but I happen to think that if the film had to have a twist then it should have been based on a more original and challenging idea. Yes, big corporations are greedy and only care about the bottom line, and sometimes their devotion to greater profits can be more important than adhering to a moral code.

I guess it's no surprise then that these bullshit-artist PR people who compare films like "Moon" to "2001" work for big corporations. That or they've spent too much time alone on a space station.

My score: 6/10

"Antichrist" review

If you enjoy pulling at your clothes and clawing at your face when watching a film, then you're gonna love Lars von Trier's "Antichrist".

But is that type of strong, visceral reaction ultimately necessary, and does it automatically qualify a film as good?

No. "Antichrist" is a good film in spite of the confronting moments of graphic carnality and violence.

Von Trier is a filmmaker with a unique voice, verging on anarchic, and with "Antichrist" he has given us a lot of food for thought about the nature of evil. Thematically, it's a highly original and compelling piece.

It's also a polished film, too polished -- the excessively graded imagery calls attention to itself, as does the overuse of extreme slow motion. Like the graphic sex and violence, it's unnecessary and masturbatory.

Roman Polanski didn't need to show a penis ejaculating blood, and he certainly didn't need extreme slow motion to hit the same buttons with his similarly-themed "Rosemary's Baby".

If only von Trier could have shown the same restraint.

My score: 7/10

Thoughts on "Avatar"

Let me start off by saying that I admire James Cameron for making monumental films; for enriching popular culture; for his bang-on populist instincts; and for his ability to create iconography, the latter being one of the hardest things to pull off.

His latest film, the behemoth that is "Avatar", is the cinema equivalent of the moon landing, at least from a technical standpoint.

Yes, it's a game-changer, but maybe the worst kind. The just-because-you-can-doesn't-mean-you-should kind, like the hydrogen bomb.

But I tend to think that fledgling filmmakers should be a little cheesed off at the King of the World for creating a demand for NASA-budget 3D blockbusters. Filmgoers have become spoilt and fickle, and, as always, the film industry is too much of a closed shop. Megabusters like "Avatar" are only going to make it harder for emerging filmmakers to find money for a low budget, 2D film set on earth, even if the proposed film is bent to fit a fashionable genre. If a fledgling filmmaker happens to find the money for their film, cultivating an audience large enough to deliver a decent return on investment is an even harder challenge.

James Cameron has said that high grossing blockbusters like "Avatar" actually make it easier as studios have more money to play with and filmmakers have better tools with which to tell their stories and make an impact.

Problem is, the studios haven't been interested in nurturing talent since the late 1970s, early 1980s. As a result of films like "Avatar" conditioning most of the world to develop a preference for such fare, it's going to fall to the studio system to re-assume the role of nurturer, but until filmmakers like Cameron, Spielberg, Lucas, and Jackson no longer feel a need to play the sophmoric -- and resource-draining -- game of one-upmanship, I just don't see it happening.

To top a technical innovator like Cameron requires that one be a greater innovator, and that level of technical innovation requires money. Lots of money.

Just ask NASA.

January stack - "Narc"

I know, I know -- we're in February. The business end of February, too. As I warned in the first 'January stack' post, I strayed from the list by letting my whims take control. Too many impulse viewings.

Anyway. I got around to re-watching "Narc", director Joe Carnahan's 2002 calling-card feature that pushed all of Tom Cruise's buttons. He liked it so much he bought it, and the rest is history.

"Narc" is a fierce, moody, testosterone-laden cop drama. The direction is sharp, assured, and the performances are excellent across the board. I was of the opinion that Ray Liotta was the best thing about this film, and after re-watching the film, my opinion hasn't changed.

My score: 8/10

January stack - "The Forbidden Kingdom"

Okay, 1 film down, 18 to go, with 13 days in which to watch the rest. Wish me luck!

If you're a student of kung fu, chances are you'll dig "The Forbidden Kingdom". But if you're ambivalent, like me, then you'll no doubt find "The Forbidden Kingdom" to be a little underwhelming, a little toothless. The story is strictly by-the-numbers, interrupted by tedious and unengaging fight scenes. Jackie Chan struggles in the dual roles of Lu Yan and Old Hop, and Jet Li is his usual stoic self as the Silent Monk and overreaches in the campy role of the Monkey King. Yep, you heard right: Messrs Chan and Li appear together and play dual roles in this disappointing film.

My score: 5/10

Thou shall not steal

The Greatest Movie Never Made

"Ten books in one tell the fascinating tale of Kubrick’s unfilmed masterpiece.

Tucked inside of a carved-out book, all the elements from Stanley Kubrick's archives that readers need to imagine what his unmade film about the emperor might have been like, including a facsimile of the script. This collector's edition is limited to 1,000 numbered copies.



For 40 years, Kubrick fans and film buffs have wondered about the director's mysterious unmade film on Napoleon Bonaparte. Slated for production immediately following the release of 2001: A Space Odyssey, Kubrick’s "Napoleon" was to be at once a character study and a sweeping epic, replete with grandiose battle scenes featuring thousands of extras. To write his original screenplay, Kubrick embarked on two years of intensive research; with the help of dozens of assistants and an Oxford Napoleon specialist, he amassed an unparalleled trove of research and preproduction material, including approximately 15,000 location scouting photographs and 17,000 slides of Napoleonic imagery. No stone was left unturned in Kubrick's nearly-obsessive quest to uncover every piece of information history had to offer about Napoleon. But alas, Kubrick’s movie was not destined to be: the film studios, first M.G.M. and then United Artists, decided such an undertaking was too risky at a time when historical epics were out of fashion."

More info