1.4.11

'Animal Kingdom' directed by David Michod.

Produced by: Liz Watts.
Written by: David Michod.
Studio: Porchlight Films, Film Victoria, Showtime Australia.
Distributed by: Madmen Entertainment.
Year of release: 2010.
Run time: 112 Minutes.
Budget: $5 Million.
Gross Revenue: $6, 019, 846.



It appears that the Australian film industry is so dead that even when an excellent movie isn't supported by the public. A six-million dollar return on Animal Kingdom? Christ alive! Things are grim. The movie is about a family called the Codys, who all work together to earn their respective livings by robbing banks. Kind of like The Partridge Family if you replaced the bubble-gum pop with swearing and guns. Even Janine, the mother character played by Jackie Weaver, has a significant role to play, which comes out later in the film. Oddly, she looks like she would be the perfect choice for Shirley Partridge if they were to ever give The Partridge Family a gritty reboot:



 Animal Kingdom is loosely based on the Pettingill family, who were (and I think maybe still are) prominent figures in the Melbourne criminal underworld. Events in the film are inspired by events that occurred in real life, like the Walsh Street police shootings that involved the murder of two young Victorian police officers at the hands of Victor Pierce and other members of the Pettingill family in 1988. However, this movie is no biopic; instead opting to go the Wolf Creek route by using true events to ground a work of fiction.

They get it right too; Animal Kingdom received virtually universal acclaim. I’m sure that there are wealthy Australian critics out there, who grew up on the Northern Beaches of Sydney, who used words like ‘socio-economic status’, or ‘class struggle’ in their reviews for this movie. They probably praised it as a thrilling insight into the seedy underbelly of Australian society. However, chances are that they don’t really know what it is like to be a bogan, or surrounded by bogans.

As a male who grew up on the Central Coast of NSW I had the delightful opportunity to be surrounded by bogans, and I can tell you that a lot of Animal Kingdom is authentic. The language, the clothing and the nature of the relationships between brother and brother, and mother and son in this movie are all realistic. There is one scene where the mentally unstable Andrew Cody (played by Ben Mendelsohn) sarcastically bullies his younger brother Darren Cody about wearing a pink shirt to their brother’s funeral:

“Where’d you get that suit? What is that suit? What do you think it looks good on ya? It looks gay. You gay?... It’s a serious question; I don’t care if you’re gay or you’re not gay. It’s all right if ya are mate, I just want you to tell me about it, you know? You making yourself a drink? What is it? A bourbon and coke? Yeah, well a bourbon and coke is not a very gay drink. Look, if you’re a gay man and you wanna make yourself a gay drink, you should just go ahead and make yourself a gay drink.”

Though I am ashamed to admit it, I probably performed such sarcastic affronts to friends of mine when I was in highschool. It wasn’t really about homophobia; it was more that a culture of sarcasm and machismo does exist in Australian society. And whilst modern Australian bogans may call each other gay, the same men can routinely be found celebrating the gay and lesbian Mardi Gras in Sydney amongst the fabulous queens and trannies. Such dialogue as presented above lends authenticity to the movie, and it really does provide insight into Australian culture to those interested.

Another concern in Animal Kingdom is the nature of crime and its relationship with socio-economic status. Those Northern Beaches critics wouldn't be wrong if they dropped such loaded concepts. The protagonist Joshua Cody (James Frecheville), reminds us at the beginning of the film that the reason he got involved with the family’s crime ring is because he was just there at the time: “Kids just are wherever they are, and they do whatever they’re doin. You know? This is where I was, and this is what I was doin’.” This invokes the nurture side of the ‘Nature vs. Nurture’ debate, and I think it’s largely true of the role of poverty in Australian crime. If Joshua was living in a home that was financially stable and given economic support while he attended high school, he probably wouldn’t have given the life of crime a moment's thought. As it stands however, he is growing up with Ben Mendelsohn’s Andrew Cody as a father figure.

Ben Mendelsohn is simply divine in this. I know there has been a lot of buzz about Jackie Weaver (who received an academy award nomination for her role), but for me it was Mendelsohn’s performance that was the most entrancing. He occupies the screen as a waifish ghost of a man who wavers between friendly joviality and pure psychosis. You never know what he’s gonna do, and this unpredictability provides much of the film’s tension and suspense. It’s hard to give you an idea of this without spoiling it too much, however there is one scene at the end of the movie where Mendelsohn’s character gives Joshua’s young girlfriend a hit of heroin and then pumps her for information about whether or not she has spoken to the cops. I won’t tell you what happens, except to say that it’s a brutal scene, and one that will stay with you for a long time after the credit's roll.

Animal Kingdom is probably one of the best movies made about the Australian criminal underworld. It sits right up there with Chopper. The last half of the movie stretched on a little bit, and I probably would have preferred it if they ditched such elaborate plot developments in exchange for further character development, but I would recommend Animal Kingdom to anyone who wants to know what lower class Australian culture is really like. It’s a gripping film; it’s just a pity that it didn’t make much money at the box office.

Four stars:

'Saw: The Final Chapter' directed by Kevin Greutert.

Produced by: Mark Burg, Oren Koules, and Gregg Hoffman.
Studio: Twisted Pictures.
Year of release: 2010.
Run time: 91 Minutes.
Budget: $17-20 Million.
Gross Revenue: $133, 310, 178.



I don’t have much patience for the Saw franchise. It sucks, basically. But as long as the retarded masses keeping forking out their hard earned for movie tickets, I guess they’ll just keep pumping them out like the Catholic woman in the beginning of Monty Python’s: The Meaning of Life. Oh and don’t let the subtitle of this flick trick you; a sequel will happen. A Google search of Saw 8 reveals the following results.

 So seeing as I am diametrically opposed to torture porn in all its varieties (with the exception of the first Hostel movie, and possibly The Human Centipede—I remain undecided on that one), what made me waste 91 minutes on this turd? I guess I watched it because of the poster art. I mean, just look at it: You’ve got a fucking huge statue made of the franchise’s iconic villain, Jigsaw, complete with various search lights and helicopters surrounding it. Even though I knew that the poster was purely symbolic, there was part of me that suspected that the people behind the Saw movies might just be retarded enough for it to be literal. After all, one recurring motif of the Saw movies, and indeed horror movies in general, is that they all have to outdo each other by featuring more violence, and increasingly elaborate death scenes. When I saw the poster for this movie, for some reason I just pictured a giant Tobin Bell running loose amongst a city, stomping people to death. Well Lionsgate Studios marketing department; you can rest assured that your poster ensnared at least one viewer.

Alas, there is no giant Tobin Bell stomping people; there isn’t even an army of Jigsaw compatriots running around causing mischief. Saw: The Final Chapter was largely a disappointment. The movie is really underwhelming in light of all the ‘final chapter’ hype. All we get is some bogus plot about a guy who pretends to be a survivor of Jigsaw so he can sell books and make some cash. Of course, Jigsaw can’t allow this to happen, and so a kind of meta-Jigsaw trap is set, whereby the protagonist needs to undertake a real test because he has been making so much money by faking it. The standard hammy acting and gore results.

There is fun to be had in some of the gruesome death scenes, but you can tell that they are meant to be enjoyed in 3D. Since I’m poor, I can’t afford a 3D television and had to make do with my Sony HD TV (man, technology ages quickly these days), so I didn’t get to appreciate the deaths as much. But it’s all there: Drills going into eyes, jaws being exploded inside out, and hooks being dragged out of oesophagi. You add the rusty, mechanical apparatuses and it’s almost like the first scene from Michel Foucault’s Discipline and Punish.

The fans will probably like it, but if I were a Saw a fan I’d be disappointed that the supposed final chapter went out with such a fizzle. I was expecting an army of Jigsaw devotees swinging bommy-knockers facing off against an army of incompetent detectives in an all out brawl, but sadly all I got were the typical tricks of the Saw trade. Oh well, I’m sure after a stretch of about six months, the series will be rebooted and they can try and do it right next time.

One and a half stars:


31.3.11

'Gentleman Broncos' directed by Jared Hess.

Produced by: Mike White.
Written by: Jared and Jerusha Hess.
Cinematography: Munn Powell.
Edited by: Yuka Ruell.
Distributed by: Fox Searchlight Pictures.
Year of release: 2009.
Run time: 90 minutes.
Country: United States.
Budget: $10 Million.
Gross Revenue: $118, 492.



So I’m back after a moderate hiatus that involved enrolling into a degree and withdrawing from it, freaking out about wasting the past five years of my life on a degree that is vocationally impotent, and wondering what the hell I’m gonna do with the rest of my life (I just had a flashback to the SNL skit featuring Chris Farley as the motivational speaker Matt Foley: “Now what are you gonna do with your life!”). To cut to the chase, I haven’t really been watching too many movies lately.

I did happen to catch Gentlemen Broncos at a friend’s house. It’s the third feature length film from the Hess brothers, who made Napoleon Dynamite, which was really popular back when it was released in 2004. Gentlemen Broncos contains the same kind of absurd humour as Napoleon Dynamite and Nacho Libre, but I’m almost sad to say that I didn’t like this one much at all. Don’t get me wrong, there were a few funny moments in it, but the movie was just so weird that it was alienating.

Basically it’s about Benjamin, a home-schooled teenage boy who writes sci-fi stories in the style of L. Ron Hubbard, and who attends a writing camp guest lectured by his favourite author, Dr. Ronald Chevalier. After submitting his story ‘Yeast Lords’ to the camp’s competition, Chevalier—who is hard up for story ideas—steals it and publishes it as his own original work. The movie is basically about how all of this unfolds in typical Napoleon Dynamite fashion.

I think it’s safe to say that the events of this film, Nacho Libre, and Napoleon Dynamite all occur in the same fictional universe. All three movies are stylistically similar, and all contain the same humour. It just so happens that the universe is a really fucking weird one. I’m no prude when it comes to weirdness (I gave Splice four and a half stars!), but there is something about the weirdness in these movies that just freaks me out. The characters are so cold in their interactions with each other; even the loving relationship between Benjamin and his mother—played quite well by Jennifer Coolidge—is marked by a kind of barrier to communication. They never seem to talk to each other for longer than one sentence. It’s almost as if every character suffers from some form of autism. Of course, this is where the humour lies; the best laughs coming from the awkwardness of these interactions.  I don't know why I didn't like it. I guess it's just that I found such scenes as the one where Benjamin massages lotion into the hands of the lead female character-- whom he has just met-- while some other guy gently hums in her ear, as too cringe worthy to take. This style of humour is very much like a rich mud cake; good in small slices.

It’s not all bad though. Jermaine Clement of Flight of the Concords fame absolutely steals the show as Dr. Ronald Chevalier, the campy science fiction author who published his first trilogy ‘The Cyborg Harpies’ at the age of fifteen. Clement is in his element, delivering such lines as: “...and finally we have a young-ling trying to penetrate the secrets of the human mind. You won't do it like that young-ling, you must use friendship” with such absurd seriousness that you’d have to be a Psychlo not to find it funny.

All in all, Gentlemen Broncos misfires more than it hits. It performed dismally at the box-office, but we can’t hold that against it. I’m sure that it will become a cult classic amongst the group of dedicated Hess fans, and rightly so. It’s got some great comedic beats, but I just didn’t get this one.


Two stars: