The Rover - Spoiler free

So another movie that puts me in an awkward situation, I believe at the end I will recommend the Rover, but be aware that there is a condition to that.

The Rover is a good film, an incredibly well shot, well acted film that succeeds beautifully in being horribly oppressive and miserable. The Rover is our art entry into the decade of the dystopia films. One of the most inescapable genres at the moment, the dystopia film is only growing as more YA novels are adapted, remakes of iconic films are planned and people muse more and more on the possible global disaster that Global Warming presents.

The Rover depicts the Australian outback on the edge of the complete collapse, although never stated it is shown that the Australian Economy has imploded and to law and order are only just holding on. The Australian out back lends itself well to both the lawless idea of gun slinger as well as the long quiets that often mark an art house film.

The Rover intends to question the value of human life in our society by presenting one where life has lost all value. I believe the film works well to accomplish this aim, although I found the ending, a little out of left field.

There are also a number of clever nods through out the film to the direction it believes Australia is heading. Little things like a strong presence of Chinese characters and writing, although American currency being what is accepted most readily confused me. The film is apparently depicting a global collapse but the faith seems to remain in the American dollar. I feel this would be the first currency to loose faith in after the GFC however it is possible I am missing the point.

If you are an art film lover than go and enjoy the crushing despair and grotesque picture of humanity masking the tiny glimmer of hope.

As for me, well, I am glad I saw it. I enjoy supporting Australian films as well as watching Robert Patterson try and break free from the mould that Twilight may have forever bound him to. However I found the time passed very slowly and I found myself checking my phone more times than I should have.

I'm glad I saw it, however next time I will probably give it a miss.

The Lego Movie want's you to be a kid again, and is the best version of Batman in a while. Spoilers.

These day's it seems like a month doesn't go by where I am not brought to a mouth foaming, red haze level of rage by the news that some old franchise is getting a big budget Hollywood remake, as the Nostalgia dollar seems a far safer bet than trying to float an original thought. However I wasn't brought to this frenzied state by the news of the Lego movie, partially because unlike the old T.V shows or mobile apps that will be coming out in the next few years, Lego doesn't have a story. It has an aesthetic, it is a canvas. As such there were plenty of stories that could be told, plus Lego had built up a lot of good will from me for it's continued success in making great games off of popular franchises.

When the first trailer came out, I became excited. When the first reviews hit the stands from America (due to Australia getting fucked over with release dates... again), I avoided spoilers but my expectations were set even higher. People loved this film.

So when I finally sat down in the theatre did it meet my expectations? Was the incredibly high bar set reached? Yes, pretty much it was. It's always more fun in reviews to disagree with popular opinion than to heap more praise or scorn on a properly already buried under it. However the Lego movie just holds up, it's creative, it's vibrant, it's fun. And oh how I have been missing fun in movies. 

We enter spoiler territory now, so really, if you haven't seen it yet. Back out now and come back after the movie.

I said that Lego was a canvas, that it could be used to tell any story. And that's true, what at first appears to be a chosen destined narrative which we've seen a hundred time but subverted with anarchic humour turns out to be the story of Lego. It's the narrative of creating, of not always following instructions and just doing. It's the narrative of anyone who ever played and was told to stick to the rules.

The chosen one narrative we see is that Emmet, the most unremarkable man in the Lego world is in fact destined to defeat the evil Lord Business who has a plan to end the world with his special weapon, the Kragle. A group of Master Builders, those who can build beyond the instructions given, are there to help him. In particular the resident wild girl love interest but has a boyfriend character... aptly named Wyld Style. 

This is worked both into the destined narrative and the twist. The whole story we've been watching is a child at play, and certainly hints are dropped throughout the movie, still the reveal was nice and the scenes in the real world worked well. A father has been collecting and building Lego sets, his son sneaks down and puts the Lego worlds together, mixing pieces and creating new works. That the father is taking the toys of youth and rigidly confining them to the 'correct' way of enjoying them is the heart of the movie, and the reason that Batman is so central.

The Lego movie is saying that perhaps...

Just maybe....

A gritty, dark, reinterpretation...

Of something as joyous as a child's toy...

Isn't a good thing.

Batman is after all the character most readily portrayed as the gritty face of superheros, the dark brooding loaner, and the one who always seems an inch away from snapping and killing everyone. Despite the fact he has perhaps the largest network of immediate allies, friends, and what is essentially family in the Robins, Alfred, the Batgirls, the Bird's of Prey, and his international network of Batmen. To the point where his gritty-titus has crossed over and affected his best friend Superman...yes you read that right, not enemy, not ideological opposite... Friend... AHHHHDJHSILJD DC STOP IT!!

Sorry... Back to Lego

Another thing the film does is to completely subvert the 'chosen one' narrative, the prophecy... completely made up. Our resident, Morpheus/Dumbledore/Gandalf/Obi-Wan Kenobie (even though some of those are present in the movie) is Vitruvius... played of course.. by Morgan Freeman. In what is clearly a last ditch effort, he has made a prophecy, because it can be the push to cause those needed to believe in themselves, rather than guarantee any one person can do it. While it's fairly obvious this ties more into the idea that everyone has the spark of creativity in them, everyone at times plays. I'd like to believe that is a bit of a dig at how many movies have begun using 'Destiny' as a narrative crutch because it's easier to explain.

Ahem...

AHEM...

I MEAN COME ON... WHY DID YOU NEED TO MAKE HIM MORE LIKE JESUS??!!

Right... Sorry... The Lego Movie...

A thing I've heard a lot from people having seen this move, 'this was my childhood'. Mostly from those who Lego and a parent threatening to glue it was actually present, but it still touches what seems to be a fundamental aspect of childhood. That desire to break the rules and see what can be made in place.

That most kids, will just wing it..

It' s a Bat Pun.

Captain America 2 - go see it... now... just go... why are you reading this when you could be seeing the movie??? -also *spoilers*

To say Marvel Studios has an ambitious plan, is at best, an understatement. Business Week's interview with Kevin Feige revealed that they have a movie continuity map that extends into 2028 with a planned two releases a year. So around another 27 films are planned after Captain America 2.

I... I just, I am boggled by a plan like that. And having now seen The Winter Soldier, I am completely excited about it. The reason Marvel's plan sounds like it might just be pulled off rather than saturating the market with to many superhero films is because they are embracing secondary genres to their films. The Winter Soldier is a superhero film, but it is also a political thriller. Guardians of the Galaxy (if you don't know what it is, look it up and get pumped) is a superhero film but also a giant space opera in the veins of Firefly.

Now we begin to enter spoiler territory, let's do a quick run down of the plot.

Cap is now working for the security agency Shield, going on covert missions with Black Widow. We see Shield is building an air fleet to take out threats before they arise. Nick Fury is suspicious and suddenly assassinated by the Winter Soldier. Cap and Black Widow go on the hunt whilst being chased down by Shield and the Winter Soldier, only to discover that Hydra; the agency dedicated to peace through 'cleansing' and control, is not dead but in fact alive and well within the walls of Shield. From then on it is a large third act as our five heroes, Cap, Black Widow, Maria Hill, Nick Fury (oh come on, you didn't think he would actually die did you?),  and the new hero Falcon have to infiltrate Shield and take down both Shield and Hydra.

At the heart of this film it's asking what measure of freedom are we willing to sacrifice for protection? The film's position is about as subtle as a superhero but it doesn't hit you over the head with it; it's also a nice reversal of The Dark Knight. While that movie is amazing,the sacrifice of personal liberties is how Batman defeats the Joker. In contrast Captain America 2 is all about not sacrificing personal liberties for security, while still making a genuine case for why people would do so. Yes it is the science Nazi's Hydra who makes the case, but their reason is still very human. 'If your daughters were being taken out, about to be shot by terrorists, and you had the power to stop it, instantly without other casualties. Wouldn't you do it?'

I've heard this film touted as a brilliant spy political thriller. For those who are use to political thrillers they'll find the plot a little simple and easy to work out, the twists are pretty easy to pick with the exception of the decision to take down SHIELD as well. The strength is in the characters, we have a strong arc for Cap 2, Black Widow and Nick Fury as well as a weakish one for the Winter Soldier. Falcon doesn't have much of an arc, however we do get a strong sense of his personality and an incredibly bad-ass introduction to his wing suit and his humour as the 'I'm not cut out for this shit' person is played well and not overdone. If they end up giving a main character status to him in his own movie, Falcon could easily become one of my favourite Marvel Heroes.

The stand out however, was Black Widow. A friend of mine mentioned, 'Hello Captain America, and awful lot of you in my Black Widow movie'. While Cap is the emotional anchor for most of the story Scarlett Johansson really does steal the show. So it is unsurprising that there is such a call out for a Black Widow film to be made.

 Yeah... I just wanted to include this image... for reasons.

The Marvel Stingers, so now I'm going to quickly run-down the things that are in the film that will most likely return in other Marvel movies. Please note, speculation and comic book geekery follow.

The Winter Soldier - In case you didn't stay till the end of the second after credits scene, we have a shot of the Winter Soldier, formerly Bucky Barnes looking over the history exhibit of himself, giving a pretty clear indication that rehabilitation is in the future for this character rather than tragic death. The other thing that suggests this, Bucky Barnes is important in the comic for a number of reasons. He had a romantic relationship with Black Widow, and more importantly he took the mantle of Captain America after Steve Rodgers death. Now, in a film universe the idea of killing a character like Captain America when there are plans going into 2028 seems strange. However there isn't a chance that the entire cast of the Avengers will be interested in hanging around for ever. In fact the first two to suggest they are ready to move on is Robert Downey Jr and Chris Evans. Iron Man 3 gave a strong suggestion that Iron Man is ready to retire, while now it looks like Cap might pass on in the near future (Avengers 3 would be my guess).

The Carters - Peggy Carter was Captain America's best gal in the first movie. Cap 2 finally gives a bit of resolution on that having them talk. It also introduces Agent 13, Sharon Carter. Originally Peggy's sister in the comics and then her niece, Sharon is Cap's on and off girlfriend. I also have heard rumours of Peggy getting her own film or tv show, considering she was the creator of Shield. There is certainly a lot that can be done there. However, that is very much only a rumour at this point. And I have heard a lot of rumours.

Dr Steven Strange - Steven Strange gets name dropped twice in this film. For those who aren't familiar with the comic, Dr Strange is the sorcerer Supreme and one of the most powerful beings in the Marvel universe. He serves as protector of the earth from Magical and Mystical threats; and is one of those heroes where you have to conceive reasons for them not to be able to win. Much like the common complaints about Superman, Dr Strange is very possibly too powerful. So while I would put money on his film being the second movie for 2016 along side Captain 3 to be announced. I very much doubt we will see him in the line up of the Avengers.

The Twins - The first after credit scene shows a Hydra fort that has a set up for Avengers 2. The introduction of Quick Silver and Scarlett Witch. If you're familiar with the X-Men franchise you already know these characters. However due to Fox owning the rights to X-Men and the concepts of Mutants don't expect this to be a lead into a cross over. Their powers are unlikely to be explained and daddy Magneto will definitely not be mentioned, probably in favour of an orphan back story.

And... Oh so much more but I've wasted enough of your brain cells for a day, come on back later and expect far more musings on Marvel as well as my predictions on who characters we will see in Phase 3 and 4 of Marvel Studio's ambitious plan.

Noah - a determined leap, little shaky on the landing (spoilers)

When I had first heard of Noah, I like most of my friends, was immediately thinking of The Passion or the more recently Son of God. Films that pander to extreme demographics in an attempt to draw funds from the hardcore Christians. Suffice to say, I didn't plan on seeing it. However, a review I frequent made a video explaining why he was excited for the film. Saying that Darren Aronofsky was using the Christian myths as a canvas for creating an epic more in the veins of Ten Commandments. MovieBob got me willing to give it a chance, this is the video in question.

I still was cautious, having dispelled the fear of a propagandist film I now began to question if the epic was in fact aiming a bit too high with all the ideas it wanted to explore. On this count the movie does suffer a little, but there was still a lot in this to make me suggest it.


Firstly I should note that I don't personally have anything against a movie which does chose to represent religious stories sincerely, even though I know several of my friends do. I find Prince of Egypt, a Dreamworks film to be incredibly beautiful, moving and heartfelt. It doesn't skirt around including God nor does it spend its time trying to force it upon you. The religion matters to the story because it matters to the characters in it.

That said I found that the increased presence of pandering Christian films in this past decade has left a slight social dissonance within Noah. I kept expecting the worst of the medium and was left confused when it didn't happen. But enough about Christianity and this movie, lets talk about the film itself.

Noah is a very ambitious film, a large scale epic with huge spectacle. If you like seeing films with big moments there is plenty here to get you excited. So much that a few aspects got left by the wayside to my disappointment. Such as Methuselah's fire sword... yes, you read that right. There are also incredibly creative creatures in The Watchers, a group of fallen angels who had decided to help man after they were cast out by the Creator. Ok, sorry, back to religion real quick. This film skirts around a full representation of Christian religion because, it's not what it want's to be, and it appears to not want to offend or alienate audiences. As such there is only mention of a 'Creator' and the description of the creation of earth by the Creator is a montage from Big Bang through evolution.

And now, back to the plot.

The sons of Adam and Eve were three, Cain, Able and Seth. Cain killed Able and his descendants serve as our bad guys. While the descendants of Seth act as shepherds to the world caring for the creatures. The sons of Cain are numerous, greedy and selfish. They are post/pre-apocalypse versions of any Captain Planet villain. Although Noah and his family would suggest to be passive, as the last remaining descendants of Seth, Noah frequently kills in this film, a small hint to what will be the massive turn for this film.

During the building of the ark and the flood the movie has already been good. But once the ark is afloat is where things suddenly become dark. Noah believes that all man must be purged; including himself and his family. So they shall die off as the only women young enough to bare children is barren; however she becomes pregnant and Noah realizes that if it is a girl than mankind has a hope of continuing and all those he sacrificed, all those he killed have died for naught because the world is still not clean of the sin of man.

Noah, seemingly suffering from both sever post-traumatic stress and cabin fever, has said that he will kill the child if it is a girl. And they live in a constant state of fear for months as the baby is carried to term, it is tense to see how far Noah has slipped and to see his family unable to escape him.

What this movie does right it does amazingly well, however it is probably a bit to ambitious and some parts could have been cut as I get the impression that part of some sub-plots was already removed for time. While the remains feel disjointed.

Still, you should see this one. As I bitterly complain about another nostalgic property from the 80's, or a mobile phone game receiving a blockbuster treatment, I will always try to reward ambition when it does emerge.

'It's not what you do, it's what you are' - No...

For those unaware the quote above is from the new Wachowski siblings film Jupiter Ascending and I have a few problems with it.

Firstly I should make clear I was really looking forward to this film when I first heard of it, I like Channing Tatum, I like Mila Kunis and I like Sean Bean but I really like big epic space opera's from talent who can create something as revolutionary as the Matrix was. After the first trailer came out I was pumped for how new everything looked, although I thought the plot sounded a little lack lustre but I will still ready to see what they did with it.

And then the second trailer came out. Mila Kunis who appears to be unknowing space queen of Earth quips that they wont believe what she does for a living as it shows she appears to be some sort of maid/cleaning laid cleaning a toilet. This isn't really the problem, poor person didn't know they were actually the most special snowflake stories can be good, they can be done well. Harry Potter is the prime example. But the line Sean Bean says after this annoys me for two reasons, 'It's not what you do, it's what you are.' And no, I'm sorry, but no. I understand they are saying that she isn't defined by her job but a characters actions are what is important to the plot and the more I see the more I realise that she doesn't take any action. At no point in the trailers does she do anything.

On top of that I have no idea who she is, that one little quip is the closest thing we get to any character from her. I can make a reasonable guess as to Channing's character as well as Sean's but other than the fact she seems to have such a problem with gravity I've started calling it Jupiter Descending.

I am still keen to see the film, huge visuals are a guarantee while the Wachowski siblings are often able to raise questions that give a film depth. However thinking back over the Matrix I remember that character, was never their strong suit. A fact made worse to me that the title character, the main female character appears to be a human macguffin or sexy lamp.

But hey, it seems to pass the Bechdel test, so those who consider the test the value of an actual individual movie rather than as a way of examining the entire industry (which is meant to be)... yay.

P.S. Is it just me or does that poster look really similar to the posters from Oz the Great and Powerful... just me? Fine.

Quick Bits - movies I missed in 2013; the good, the bad and the Stephanie Meyer

White House Down -

This movie suffered from coming out at the same time with Olympus has Fallen, a movie with a very similar premise but generally a much worse film. However White House Down is every the insanity and tension of an 80's action film with the politics of left wing America today. The closest comparison is Die Hard, battling a force greater then you in an enclosed space with a loved one in the balance. The difference being, the rather lofty task of being as charismatic as young Bruce Willis is split between President 'No I swear it's not Obama' Jamie Fox and the every man, ex-service man Channing Tatum.
If you are an action movie fan, rent it and give them some money cause this is Roland Emerich's most enjoyable film since Independence Day.

Beautiful Creatures -

Time for the YA romance adaptations... and there were a LOT in 2013. I still haven't managed to catch up on them all yet. However Beautiful Creatures was the stand out for me. It's, not without it's problems. The climax in particular is, rushed and awkward. The idea that men area able to chose their path while women are chosen for light or dark by... something... the moon, I think? Irritated me, however the movie does it so they can deal with the concept. It's always difficult to criticise the 'we are using misogynistic ideas for tension... but we keep pointing to them and saying they are misogynistic, that makes it ok right?' Still, this is a beautiful film. I hadn't considered how seenic that area of America was before. On top of that it gets bonus points for having the couple TALK about their problems and agree to work it out together.

The Host - 

So... here's the Stephanie Meyer drinking game. Take a shot every time:
- A female character tries to Martyr herself
- A male love interest is physically or emotionally abusive (or becomes the love interest after doing so)
- A far more interesting plot/character/idea is brought up briefly only to be glossed over
- Finish your drink after 15 minutes of characters doing NOTHING
That all said... I was actually hoping for something more terrible than what the Host was, being a connoisseur of bad movies. The Host's biggest crime is being dull, being very safe with a concept that is crying out for a better writer. That said, I think there is a dramatic improvement between the Twilight Saga and the Host... so hey, at least she's learning.

Dhoom 3 - 

How have I lived my life for so long without seeing a Bollywood film?

The sheer campish brillance of a film that will mix genres depending on scene, have actors give their all in every moment with the occasional musical interlude. Dhoom 3 is the first fully bollywood film that was made and marketed with a clear goal of an American audience. The villain is amazing while the hero's fill the typical budy cop roles of straight guy and funny guy. If you are looking for a well made, utterly shamless movie in its enjoyement.

More quick bits will come later, in the mean time get yourself to a TV and put in a copy of White House Down or Dhoom 3.

Dallas Buyers Club

Ok, I should explain where I am coming from with this film.

I did not want to see this, I'd heard good things but personally can't stand a lot of movies that focus on the issues of AIDS, homophobia and drug dealing. I always feel uncomfortable when these issues are explored. I don't have a great frame of reference, I have a few friends who are in the LGBT community and have experienced homophobia but never when I've been around. I am too young to have lived through the massive AIDS scare and even though I know it still exists, it just doesn't affect my life. On top of that, when I heard drug dealing I pretty much shut down, I hate the way the movies moralize and are rarely anything more than a PSA.

However, my boyfriends family had tickets to the moonlight cinema so, decided to give it a go.

I have never been so glad I gave a movie a chance. Everything that I usually hate about these kinds of movies is skimmed over for a well built character drama and a battle against a failed system.

Honestly, it reminds me most of Erin Brockovich as a film. Which I did like although
I feel it was quiet flawed, you were also always aware you were watching a movie.



Dallas Buyers Club's strength is how real it feels, everyone is believable as a person not just a character. Matthew McConaughey has been having a fantastic time in films of late, the last few years he seems to have been able to break away from his type cast as 'past boyfriend you probably broke up with for very good reasons, but you'll get back together with by the end of the movie'. And I am glad because he was fantastic in this, I've also heard amazing things about him in Mud (2012), and his brief role in Wolf of Wall Street. Both of which I haven't seen yet.

Jared Leto was also amazing as his transgender business partner, McConaughey was able to stand out more because his character had an arc, it was his story. The weakest role was probably Jennifer Garner, she was the one most obviously acting.


I'd heartily recommend seeing this, I can't say how accurate a true story it is, after all every film based on a true story has to be changed to some degree.

The acting is excellent, the cinematography great and the script tight.

Her - the love story of the year set 20 minutes into the future.

The idea for Her is one that is so easily messed up, a man falls in love with his operating system. To many it sounds silly, a comedy or an exploration of madness perhaps; but a legitimate romance?

Her deals lightly with that idea, Theodore Twombly (played by Joaquin Phoenix) does experience confusion, insecurity and judgement for being in a relationship with the A.I. Samantha (Scarlett Johansson). However that is not the focus, the movie is not about people's perception of A.I's as much as it is an exploration of love; as well as a coming of age story. Not for Theodore, but for Samantha. 

I should clarify something for those who aren't familiar with the technology this films relies on. An A.I (Artificial Intelligence) such as Samantha is implied to be one that has reached the singularity. The Singularity is the point as which intelligence can augment itself. That is to say, an A.I can increase it's own intelligence. Her's interpretation of this is that an A.I past the point of singularity can experience emotions (a similar idea is being played out in Transcendence to a very different effect). It is so complete a being that the only distinction between it and a human is that it evolves and changes so much faster than us.

In the world of the movie, Samantha is completely capable of love. She does not pretend, and although her knowledge is already greater than a humans and is exponentially expanding it is without experience. Which is what Theodore is able to provide. Samantha is continuously growing throughout the movie and I simply can't say where that journey takes her.

The movie subtly makes assertions throughout the movie that love, that is the love between humans, already has an artificial element to it. Theodore's job, which I won't spoil, is all about how a little bit of artificial helps make the 'real' love so much more powerful.


This film is unyieldingly uncomfortable to watch, even before the concept of true A.I's are introduced. It will make you squirm in your chair but never look away from the screen, and that's part of it's power. It isn't interested in romanticising human to human or human to A.I, or even A.I. to A.I. Every relationship has fights, has uncomfortable silences, has pain and then has those beautiful moments when things just go right.

This film is about growth, about change, and most of all about love. 

Go an see it, because even if you don't come to the same conclusion of the movie. This film, may become reality. It is estimated that we will be seeing true A.I. within 50 years. It raises ideas and concepts worth discussing and thinking about.

On top of that, you will simply be seeing one of the best films of 2013/2014. As well as some of the finest acting from Johansson who brings across her performance solely through voice.

For those interested in the Singularity - this is an easy video that explains it and was my introduction to the concept.  Extra Credits - the Singularity