Movie Meat Reviews: Twilight New Moon

Bee stung lips, Bare chests and Broken promises – by Nick van der Leek

And blood from paper cuts of course. Brace yourself because the next installment of the 'Twilight' Saga is the same animal as the first, just deeper, darker, fiercer, and more grown-up. The attention to detail and faithfulness to the spirit of Stephenie Meyer’s stories was preserved - you'll be happy to hear - through the entire production process. And it's because you really do sense Meyer's quintessential depth-of-detail that fans will love ‘New Moon’. Compared to ‘Twilight’ there’s more action – lots more – more anguished depression and, phew, more excitement in ‘New Moon’, if that makes sense.

If it doesn’t, not to worry, there are plenty of bare naked male torsos onscreen for the girls. For the guys, well, two words: Kirsten Stewart. Sean Penn, who directed her in ‘Into The Wild’ says, “She is a real force with terrific instincts.” The kicker is we know now exactly what he means. In ‘New Moon’ she’s as soulful as ever, and that innocent but not too innocent sensuality is there for the taking, or so it seems. Bella’s booty is behind, once again, what the vampiric fussing and fighting is all about.

Females with a crush on Edward [Robert Pattinson] get teased in the beginning, but will be disappointed to hear that for vast chunks of this flick they have to go without Mr. Pale-and-Sensitive. The ladies are in for a treat though, because while Pattinson is on leave, a pack of wolves is running around. Personally I found the amount of screen time devoted to abs, biceps and bare chests quite amusing. More on that in a moment.

The Saga is a success, and so is this episode, because everyone involved understands how powerful and important subtlety is when mixed with vapid melodrama. It’s in the delicate details, the nuanced acting, the colors and hues, that ‘Twilight’ transforms into something special beyond what would otherwise be an insipid and almost nonsensical plot. Think about it: ordinary high school girl falls in love with a sensitive vegetarian vampire. In ‘New Moon’ we visit the more advanced complications in Bella’s plight with the Cullen vampires.

Director Chris Weitz [‘The Golden Compass’] delivers on every level: his color palette is immaculate, his werewolves credibly incredible [I loved the close-up fairy-tale quality of Bella shining in the wolf’s eye.] Even the music is both haunting and soothing. Rolling Stone describes the music on ‘New Moon’ as “living up to the story because it captures the day-to-day bleakness, along with the sexual obsessions seething under the surface.”

Director Weitz soars most of all by tapping into that most subtle of virtues, the essence of these sagas, which the balancing of that melodrama. There’s just enough melodrama to almost satisfy deep-seated teenage angst, just too little to keep bloodthirsty teenagers hungry for more. And if you’re older, prepare to have forgotten memories surface. If you’re one of those people who has seen the first installment over and over again, you’ll be pleased to hear that ‘New Moon’ also has those simple but exquisite touches mixed into deeply layered and darkly impenetrable plots. What are they thinking? Why do they make the decisions they make? Why must they resist? But then what could be simpler than a girl turning eighteen and saying this to her boyfriend:

Bella Swan: It's my birthday, can I ask for something? Kiss me.

‘New Moon’ is riveting because the cast are skilled and watchable. For the guys, besides Kirsten, there’s Edward’s sister Alice [the darkly delicious Ashley Greene] while ladies get to salivate over Jacob [hunky Taylor Lautner] who spends most of the film in a state of undress. Lautner has described the amount of passion surrounding Twilight as “not normal.” Of course, ‘New Moon’ offers plenty of new characters to feast hungry eyes upon.

While the vampires have gifts ranging from mind reading to reading the future, in ‘New Moon’ the focus falls on an entirely different place: a pack of hounds with a different set of gifts. They excel at brute force, at speed, and loyalty, and savagery, but they falter in that they are less sophisticated, less capable of reigning in their own passions. Love can be blind when you’re not trying to hold back on your desires. Even so, there is something puppy-like and grounded about the wolf pack – they’re warmer and easier to affiliate with than their cold and prudish, but elegant counterparts.

While vampires are chosen by design [their own one would imagine], the werewolves are chosen by fate. The werewolves are more children of nature, children of the forest than the lunar-skinned vampires, who somehow seem more terrifying, more abominable, despite their civilized exterior. So where do the werewolves come into it?

A gene is activated by the presence of vampires straying onto the ancient territories of a tribe known as the Quileute. These ancient people evolved as protection against vampires. The gene manifests in a particular group of young men [all Native Americans] when vampires begin to stray onto their lands, in violation of a treaty.

The gene has the rather nasty side-effect of creating an insatiable desire to have long locks cut off, but this is offset by being unable to resist tearing shirts off. The wolves in ‘New Moon’ are a combination of Native American peoples, including Sioux and Cree. Their presence, it must be said, adds an authentic animus quality to the series, a dimension that both deepens and broadens the mythology in a meaningful way.

The Battle on Facebook

On Facebook, two opposing groups have started, a Team Edward group, and a Team Jacob group. Author Stephenie Meyer says, “The whole Team Jacob/Team Edward thing is based on the type of boy that an individual is interested in. If I were for a team,” Meyer enthuses, “I’d probably be for Team Jacob. That’s more my style. If you believe you can develop a deep friendship and then all of a sudden fall in love later on, then you should be in Team Jacob.” What about Team Edward? “If you believe in love at first sight and seeing the mysterious man in the corner, then all right, join Team Edward.”

The overcast weather, stormy seas and dark forest settings feel consistently damp… and something else. The outdoors feels very real. The sea is a rough, heaving backdrop, so is the bruised, unsettled sky. Then there is Bella’s red truck, school, snaking wet roads, modern timber and glass houses, inner sanctums [also known as bedrooms], even the soil always feels rich and moist, like wet cake. None of that unreal, commercialized, postcard sunnyness lives here.

I believe the power in this saga is wrapped up in the many metaphors, both visual and contextual, that remain sensibly coherent, and as such, ring true. It’s compelling because it’s these symbols that stir something up inside most of us. Memories and longing, but mostly longing.

Bella Swan: The absence of him is everywhere I look. It is like a big hole has been punched through my chest.

The longing remains sharp, painful and dangerous throughout, and it is this perhaps more than anything else that resonates. Because in ‘New Moon’ the longing is haunting and especially beautiful.

Beyond the ordinary

People who only catch glimpses of this flick might wonder what all the fuss is about. After all, isn’t the ‘Twilight Saga’ interchangeable with any other series out there? Isn’t it just Smallville-goes-ghoulish or the rural teenage version of Desperate Housewives? ‘Twilight’, like many other dramas out there, accentuates the ordinary. But let’s face it, teenagers lives, even when they’re ordinary, don’t feel that way.

Think of the experience of teenage love and infatuation, the secret keeping, the awkward alliances, the unspoken loyalties, the addictions [blood in this case rather than heroin] the sometimes deadly experiments, the silliness, the shifts in status quo that are sometimes impossible to fathom even though their realness is never in dispute. We can all identify with the potency of those first feelings, which is why ‘Twilight’ is such a triumph. Teenage angst trumps what we’ll feel for the remainder of our lives.

Bella [Kristen Stewart in fine form] epitomizes in ‘New Moon’ an idealized teenage existence, even the longing is idealized. The ever-distant and inward-looking Edward appears to her in ‘New Moon’ as a protective ghost. He’s there even when he is absent. Bella’s vampire-lover admits, helplessly, that his very existence is because of her.

Edward Cullen: [to Bella] You're my only reason to stay... alive. If that's what I am.

A gay reviewer sitting a few seats from me crossed and uncrossed his legs each time male flesh appeared, so much so that eventually his seat in the cinema might have become a bicycle he was pedaling. Put it this way: I think I understand what girls must feel like watching movies filled with mostly naked women, where breasts are the fulcrum of attention. In ‘New Moon’, there are no boobs in sight, but plenty of knuckled abs shining in the rain. Do I hear cheering?

In the real world these guys would be suffering from hypothermia, and Edward would be arrested for being too cheesy, or at a minimum, labeled a laughable stalker, a lovesick loser, a pathetic poepol, because when you grow up you realize that anyone who thinks you are their entire universe really does have some growing up to do. You know this because once upon a time your entire universe laughed at you for being so naive and lost in your emotions.

But then Edward isn’t your average teenager in the ‘Twilight’ mythos. He’s allowed to be cheesy because he’s not helpless or weak, or even juvenile, but quite the opposite. He’d very old, and dangerously strong. Bella loves the combination of his incredible vulnerability towards her coupled with his strength. Bella’s great hold over him, and all the other vampires, is her mystery. They can’t read her mind, but despite the threat posed by their uncertainty of her thoughts, her mortal love for them,and Edward in particular, is obvious.

Edward Cullen: Happy birthday
Bella Swan: Don't annoy me.
Edward Cullen: Bella your birthday is definitely something to celebrate.
Bella Swan: But my age is not.

Many adult reviewers may finger ‘New Moon’s’ narcissism, but then it’s not a movie directed at adults. In the same way ‘Harry Potter’ has a specific audience in mind, and ‘Star Wars’ is meant to be a fairy tale, so too is the mythos of ‘New Moon’ meant to inspire not real love but idealized love.

Loving the Shakespeare way

Why else do we see an opening scene of Bella with Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet on her pillow? These idealizations remind us of the furious flame of passion and the intense icicles of hurt that are part and parcel of first experiences at intimacy. The vampire mythos does nothing to detract from the reality of those feelings. The more exotic settings, the forests, the wolves, the damsel, the castle, the kings on their thrones, the jousting; all these agents powerfully collaborate on a symbolic level to extract the very potions and poison that heat and chill our blood.

‘New Moon’ is perfectly paced, and wonderfully poised; it brushes large swathes of credible emotion interspersed with iris tickling fantasy scenes. Director Weitz’ inclusion of special effects is appropriately elegant; they seamlessly flow through the film tapestry like stars in moonbeams.

What I found strangely enjoyable was how, towards the final third of the flick, the audience, especially the ladies [who obviously appreciated the generous displays of abs] began to giggle and chortle. The sweeping promises begin to wear thin towards the end, as we must know they will. How can we promise to love someone forever when – as a teenager –tomorrow the world may be a completely different place?

I think it’s difficult not to appreciate that if you’re Bella, having entire clans warring over you, having search parties patrolling the forests at your service, well, all this has got to be quite flattering. It’s every little girls dream. And what’s wrong with retreating into your inner child once in a while? Well, mark these words, ‘New Moon’s’ ending is likely to remedy such childish notions.

Score: 8.5/10 [For teens and Twi-hards a solid 9]

Running time: 2 hours, 10 minutes

Movie Meat Reviews: The Stoning of Soraya M.

Need a good reason to hate Iranians? by Nick van der Leek

Feminists will love this film, so will politicians bent on invading Iran on the premise of more weapons of mass destruction. The weapons of mass destruction is an interesting metaphor, because in 'SORAYA', those with the most sin, cast the most stones.

The New York Times provides a brilliant summary of what this film is about. STEPHEN HOLDEN writes:

“The Stoning of Soraya M.,” a true story of religiously sanctioned misogyny and mob violence in an Iranian village, thoroughly blurs the line between high-minded outrage and lurid torture-porn.

On second thoughts if you've not watched a frame of this flick, that may not mean much to you. So here's a suggestion to get you into the ballpark. It's like an Iranian version of the crucifixion, and in this, Jesus is a woman, Soraya [sensitively portrayed by Mozhan Marnò]. The crucifixion - whether you think it's fiction or not - uses wood and nails. The 'SORAYA' story uses stones. For some reason the story transported me back to Gibson's PASSION OF THE CHRIST. The reason is unpleasant to dredge up, but I believe it is the troubling and absolute dehumanising of a human body by a community that these stories have in common. It's bloody and it is difficult to endure.

In a sense 'SORAYA' is an important film for South African audiences to see. One of its themes is male lust and misogyny, and while those terms may sound dull and politically loaded, the reality is that South Africa is rife with troubling levels of abuse against women, cover-ups, and stressed communities that are easily incited. Having said that, the film doesn't feel like a sermon in a church. It does that most vital public service which is that it reminds us what a community must be, and what we owe to each other to bring this about. And very simply, what we owe to one other is simply our honesty. And manners.

It's also importantto note that in Soraya almost all the men are wicked and controlling. STEPHEN HOLDEN again:

With the exception of the mayor (David Diaan), who has qualms about the execution, and Mr. Caviezel’s reporter, who appears only briefly at the beginning and end of the movie, the men are fiendishly villainous.

There are many stories out there about murder and death and dying, but few that give you a sense of the inescapable and painful inevitability of death. 'SORAYA' does that, and I noticed in the dark of the cinema, while I was watching, that other journalists and reviewers had their hands over their mouths. I did too. The actual stoning is particularly hard to watch. It is easy to like Soraya and to understand her frustration, her sense of helplessness and finally, her terrible but not self-pitying despair. It isn't sentimental, but it is realistic. It is difficult not to leave the cinema having borne witness to such an atrocity - based on true events - and have a sense of not wanting to add to the aches and pains that we have inflicted upon ourselves in this world.

'SORAYA' is a foreign film, with subtitles, and a foreign cast. There is a little English in the flick, thanks to the performance by an almost unrecognisable James Caviezel as Freidoune Sahebjam, a French-Iranian journalist. The Iranian scenes are a refreshing change from the usual Hollywood fare. Cyrus Nowrasteh the director has bases his story in the rocky, mournfully beautiful rural town setting of Kupayeh, in southwestern Iran. The actual filming is elsewhere, an unidentified location. While the actual event occurred in August 1986, stonings continue today, sanctioned by Islamic law.

The violence in 'SORAYA' is extreme, and people who generally enjoy gore are unlikely to enjoy this. The two sons of Soraya show the poignant change from theoretical violence as the reality of the process of what and who is involved in taking someones life. The corrupt relationship between the prison guard [Soraya's controlling husband] and the former prisoner, now mullah [an Iranian clergyman or priest, essentially a local leader of the community] is enlightening. It demonstrates to what extent power and religion can be used to manipulate simple people. For me, the most disturbing scene was the children collecting rocks for the stoning. Like murder, or killing, is a children's game in Iran. The town having a party after such blood-curdling activities asks us to probe our own conventions wherever we live.

It is perhaps no coincidence that Mr. Caviezel played Jesus in Passion of the Christ, since both stories evoke in such detail, the unspoken horrors of the human condition. Is it helpful to have this film come out in 2009? I wouldn't be surprised if this film stirs up powerful resentments against Islam, and Iran. Whether these resentments are deserved is a different question entirely. Because the shining star in this story, the Mary Magdalene, is the powerful performance of Zahra[Shohreh Aghdashloo]. It is in her that we see signs of hope and meaning for the human condition, and any chance of redemption.

Let us hope that people like her are the future of Iran, and that in our communities, there are enough Zahra's to maintain the white wedding gown fabric of honest cohesion, compassion and ultimately, common sense and common decency.

'The Stoning of Soraya M.' is a new release to the national cinema circuit in South Africa.

Score: 8/10
Running Time: 116 min

Avatar Movie - Want to know what it's all about?

Today I was fortunate to attend the 30 minute teaser premiere of James Cameron's latest flick, AVATAR. I watched it on the world's largest 3D screen, which at the moment is here in South Africa, at the Nu Metro Montecasino cinema. It really is huge, and curved, and somewhat smaller than an IMAX screen, but probably 2-3 times the size of conventional silver screens. And of course, it provides cinema in 3D. So what is AVATAR all about?

First of all, this is the first project since Cameron made Titanic - er...the highest grossing movie ever. Some of the journalists present commented that Cameron's movies are soulless. Well...they certainly are more innovative and technically refined than a lot of films, and perhaps this distracts Cameron from a more cogent storyline and more fleshed out characters. As an engineer Cameron has brought us some useful and really creative work, from the submarine The Abyss to the groundbreaking Terminator franchise. Cameron was not involved in 2009's Terminator permutation, and you can sense the Cameron magic is somehow not there. John Connor [played by Christian Bale] somehow became a central character that was hard to care about in this year's Terminator, but let's not forget, Worthington stole the show, and he's the male lead here, in AVATAR, so Cameron must like him.

Okay, so there's the pedigree of the director, and one of the main actors. Cameron waited several years for the technology to be ready to bring his very elaborate vision on screen, and as you can guess, he wanted it rendered in 3D. This required building special cameras. And to watch it, you'll be wearing those special flat black geeky glasses.

And the film itself. Well, it features the likes of Sigourney Weaver [ALIENS], and, yes, Sam Worthington, who plays the legless Jake Sully. It's no coincidence that in AVATAR he asks a female alien why she rescued him, and she replies, "I see how have an unusually strong heart," or words to that effect [echoing stuff said about him in Terminator.]

Initially I was impressed with the opening volley of scenes. It looked fresh. But there were a bunch of scenes that reminded me of, at turns, Jurassic Park, some have suggested the aliens resemble Gollum, there's a scene stolen from Star Wars [a lush planet features during the extermination of the Jedi's], and perhaps even Planet of the Apes. It is also irritating that the lingua galactica happens to be English. And if you want to make a film about dangerous creatures, why not do a documentary about crime in Johannesburg, or some poisonous frogs in the Amazon, why fly all over the galaxy, and when you find life, why must you immediately start conquering and fighting? So I found that somewhat juvenileand not very elegantly done and possibly not very well thought out. But then this is fantasy and I suppose anything goes then - right?

So those are a few reservations, but there are also some breathtaking moments, and it's the sort of magic you can see filtering into game platforms and making hundreds of millions. There's a beautiful sequence that evokes the breaking in of flying dragons. So AVATAR is likely to be a big deal. I'm not inclined to gush over it, though, as some reviewers have. It's good, but it's not breathlessly magnificent. And as I say, the Jurassic Park scene [where Worthington's character battles a dinasaur like creature for what felt like a really long time] seemed more about showcasing 3D cinema, an advertisement therefore, than having any other point.

I also have an idea about the storyline [remember we only watched 30 minutes worth of snippets]. I'm guessing that it's a sort of Alien-based Dances with Wolves. Worthington's character falls in love with a rebellious but somewhat protective, and aggressive alien lovely, Neytiri [Zoe Saldana], and when it comes time to return to base, he decides to rather fight with them, allied to the new love of his life, and against the coming [human] invasion. That's a guess. It's obviously possible the flick will be far more elaborate than that, but the dinosaur scene tends to make me think the plot will be less fanciful and intricate than the blue-skinned aliens.

But there you have it. Some of the hype is deserved. Like District 9 it's originality and novelty factor will pull in titanic shiploads of people. Will it break box office records? Well, the 3D feature is also it's limiting factor - see there just ain't that many 3D cinemas around. I personally didn't fall out of my chair when I saw some of the 3D effects. I thought they were good, but I'm not ready to say it's the future of cinema. Dark Knight was a perfectly rendered 2 dimensional film, and it is the quality of the picture and the power of the story that are still by far the most important. That said, I'm pretty sure Cameron's work will be something of a triumph, and the breaking of new ground in cinema is always exciting. And AVATAR certainly is that.

Score: Tough one on 30 minutes. 7-8/10.

Harry Potter's Half Blood Prince Delivers

Horace Slughorn: These are mad times we live in! Mad!

"It's all about sex, drugs and rock n' roll," British director David Yates has said to The Daily Telegraph. "Okay, maybe we should take the 'drugs' out. Really, this film is more sex, potions and rock n' roll."

HHarry Potter and the Half Blood Prince' is stellar. It's the edgiest Potter flick of the lot so far. The cinematography is top notch, Steve Kloves has written a screenplay that is tight and well-conceived, and David Yates delivers a Potter flick that's a crafty combination of intelligence and sheer cinematic beauty. It's edgy.

The themes in Half Blood Prince are essentially love and death. The stakes go up a few notches in this one, and the film is undoubtedly the best of the Potter series thus far.

Ron Weasley: I'm in love with her!
Harry Potter: Alright. Fine. You're in love with her. Have you ever actually met her?
Ron Weasley: [pauses] No. Can you introduce me?

There's an unusual combination of levity and darkness in this one, but it's pulled off very well, with numerous artful representations that colorfully epitomise the tone and texture of wizards, castles, the battle between light and dark. This is some of the most skillful use of technology in the cinema. And there's a good story - and a lot to get through - to boot.

Albus Dumbledore: Oh to be young and to feel love's keen sting.

The ceramic Emma Watson (as Hermione) and Rupert Grint (Ron Weasley) have matured as performers, and are also old enough now to bring oodles of chemistry to the screen. They bring a delightful subplot (high school wrestling matches, infatuation versus love delightfully portrayed in the Hogwarts setting).

Lavender Brown: I happen to be his girlfriend!
Hermione Granger: Well, I happen to be his... friend.

Naturally there are the usual Potter (AKA 'The Chosen One') efforts - to counter the shenanigans of Voldemort (oops shouldn't have said that). Harry gets more than his fair share of luck, as you might recall from the J.K. Rowling book, especially when he discovers a potions textbook owned by The Half Blood Prince, which he uses to good effect in the new lecturers (Professor Slughorn's) class. Slughorn is played credibly by the veteran Jim Broadbent (you'll remember he was Bridget Jones' father), but there are plenty of fine cameos besides. Who is the Half Blood Prince? What is a horcrux? Who falls in love with who? There's plenty waiting for you in this one, including HARRY POTTER KISSING A GIRL, but Harry has an awful lot on his plate here, as the flick's motif suggests: Once again I must ask too much of you, Harry.

Half Blood Prince requires Harry to work with the difficult subtleties of emotions and memories, and I'll give this away. Someone dies in this film. [Yes, you probably knew that already if you read the book, but do you remember how?].

Remus Lupin: [from trailer] Voldemort has chosen Draco Malfoy for a mission.

Draco Malfoy adds another subtext to this intricate, interesting flick. Malvoy is uncharacteristically ashen, and keeps company with a new set of dark allies. One of them is played by Helena Bonham Carter.

Half Blood Prince in the end is a wonderful concoction of chuckles, light romance, beautiful flourishes and delicate touches and then some brutal and visceral magic. The magic is probably the real star, and it is woven throughout with such perfect brushstrokes that this has got to be one of the best flicks of 2009. I think Star Trek might have pipped Potter to the post, but by a whisker, by a flickering fairy light.

After this one there's only one more, sadlym so enjoy Half Blood Prince. It really is a triumph - but before I send you on your way to watch this, two warnings:

First, a last quote: Albus Dumbledore: Take my arm. That was fun. Most people vomit their first time.
Second, you really don't want to miss a glowing morsel of this flick, so visit the loo beforehand, and get an extra large popcorn for the ride. It's a tad over 2 hours 33 minutes long.

You'll walk out eager for more of what has become a high value product for young and old (besides the owners of this now billion dollar franchise). It's become an increasingly meaningful collection of stories about a sensitive but strong young man, who is growing up, who is trying to remember who he is and what he is meant to be doing. Good, right?

Star Trek kicks Wolverines hairy arse in an Imaginative Thrill Ride

Leonard 'Bones' McCoy: Space is disease and danger wrapped in darkness and silence.

Star Trek will be the best flick of 2009. I can't see how Terminator will top this, or anything else quite frankly. Star Trek is vivid and powerful, and whops Wolverine's butt 6-0 in virtually every category.

I read a few reviews of Star Trek, some that I wished I hadn't, before going into the cinema with baited breath. I come out punch drunk after an amazing thrill ride. Star Trek is everything a sci-fi flick should be - big budget, fantastical, left-field, inspiring, an adventure and most of all, a fly-by-the-seat-of-your-pants thrill ride. In a word Star Trek is imaginative. J.J. Abrams delivers in the true spirit of Star Trek.

Christopher Pike: [to Kirk] You've always had a hard time finding your place in this world, haven't you?

While we know the Star Trek story as a brave search for alien civilisations, all along we knew it was also a search, in terms of the crew, to find their (and by extension 'our') place in the universe. This is especially true in Star Trek, where Kirk has to find out who he is and what stuff he is made of. We see him - more than any other crew member - pushed to the limits, both physically and otherwise.

Nero: James T. Kirk was a great man... but that was another life.

I have a bone to pick with reviewers who re-tell the plot and give away elements of the story, effectively stealing from the punch the flick aims to deliver firsthand. It is something of an art then to convey the ethos of the film without giving too much besides away. One reviewer said the following (if you haven't seen the movie probably best if you skip the remainder of this paragraph) - that there is a major plot twist halfway through the movie and if you can swallow this, well then the movie works.

I don't really agree. Star Trek is all about the plausible and less plausible, and it tests and re-tests our assumptions of logic. That is part and parcel of the Star Trek mythos.

For my part I religiously watched each episode of the original Star Trek series as a young boy with my dad, so I am a trekkie, and I am one of those people J.J. Abrams needed to bear in mind when making this permutation.

Scotty: I like this ship! It's exciting!

I thought the story was quite masterful, and the introduction of the cast was done with a great deal of wit. Most of all, J.J Abrams brings a combination of respect to the franchise and injects it with a powerful dose of youth filled vigor.

Undoubtedly we will see many more voyages of the starship, Enterprise.

Score: 9/10
IMDB: 8.6/10

Movie Meat Reviews: The Reader

I avoided this flick for a few weeks because I wasn't really in the mood for a Nazi, 2nd World War, witchunt type of movie. But in the end it was either Kate Winslet or movies like Tornado (which IMDB doesn't even rate) and Finding Lenny.

I was surprised how much The Reader made me feel. It really takes you places. I've had a couple of relationships with older women and The Reader gives the right amount of empathy, passion and raw but not over-delivered sexuality to the whole process. A lot of credit has to go to Winslet - she won an Oscar for her performance - for stripping herself down not only in terms of clothing, but in terms of her persona. The flick is at times incredibly bleak, but always intriguing.

Michael: I'm not frightened. I'm not frightened of anything. The more I suffer, the more I love. Danger will only increase my love, will sharpen it, will give it spice. I will be the only angel you need. You will leave life even more beautiful than you entered it. Heaven will take you back and look at you and say: "Only one thing can make a soul complete and that thing is love."


A strange, unsolicited memory floated up to me whilst watching The Reader. When I was a small boy I developed a voracious appetite for reading. It started at the age of about 6 or 7 with Enid Blyton. The Famous Five, Secret Seven, the Adventure stories, and then I ventured into Franklin W. Doxon's Hardy Boys and Willard Price's outdoor adventure stories.

From there I went into everything else - biographies, classical fiction (I loved Wuthering Heights) and at the age of 13 I was so inspired by what I was reading, I started to write. By 15 I was ensconced in a novel (titled Versatile Flying Secrets - a mixture of Highlander, Star Wars, Braveheart and the French Open) which took me two years to write. But I digress.

As a youngster I was the most well read of my peers, and in junior school when lessons were over in some classes (if not all) the teacher would settle down to marking and hand the class over to a reader. I was one of them and eventually I was unanimously elected as the class favorite - mostly because I did not get stuck on words and could explain the meaning of most and so we could move swiftly through one exciting story after another. I remember the books of those times: The Day of the Triffids, Buchan's The 39 Steps, Gerald Durrell's My Family and Other Animals.

The art of reading means you have to anticipate not only the flow and cadence of the writer, but also sense the ethos with which he has imbued his story. You have to represent this in the tone and levity (or lack of in one's voice). It is an incredible compliment to have readers/listeners accept your interpretation. One feels quite a special sense that although one is not the writer, one is a step closer to the magical place the writer sat or stood (the place in his or heart or mind) when he or she wrote it. And this says something important about the acuity of one's perceptions. At least, I like to think so.


The flick made me think that I would love to take my favorite books from right now [The Hours is one] and read the first or a handful of pages and record these as individual podcasts. I've recently recorded my voice and am not happy with the result, so I will probably have to practise in order to be satisfied that the voice does justice to the text (and that the exercise is worth doing in the first place). So that is something I intend to do as another ongoing project on this site.

The other aspect that rang a bell was that when I visited Germany in the late 1990's I visited the camp known as Dachau. Winslet is right to say that you can visit these camps but you get nothing from them. Nothing comes out of them. My experience was the same. The photographs spoke to me more than the clean barracks or the brickwork (which looked brand new). And photos can be found in newspapers or books or online.
I was surprised not to feel the ghosts in an area that had seen so many people die. Even the ovens looked less used than an ordinary pizza oven, giving the impression much had probably been rebuilt, replastered etc.

And I had a very strange experience in Munch, and quite unpleasant. When I left England, I shaved my head with a slight perception in my head of wanting to fit into the German modicum of neatness and precision. One day I went walking around Munich and dressed entirely in black. It was one of the most uncomfortable days I have spent in a foreign city anywhere, before or since. A lot of people shot me strange looks, and it wasn't long before I realised they thought I was a skinhead, or a Nazi. This was crushing experience for an expat South African who has to deal with people who commonly think so he must be a racist once you've told them where you're from.

When I arrived at my friend's flat in Dietramzellerstrasse and I told him how the ordinary German's had stared at me he laughed. In Germany there is still a definite feeling of guilt and unease about the atrocities during WWII. Coincidentally, South Africans carry around similar but obviously different burdens. Some countries of course have no political burdens at all, such as Australia, Canada and New Zealand, which is why these are the favored destinations for so many immigrants.

The Reader is a riveting but tragic story. It is a story that demonstrates how small substleties can steer entire lives, and how our stern judgements are sometimes salt in already deep enough wounds. It is also one of the most intelligent movies out there, so I highly recommend you catch it while you can.

8.5/10

Movie Review: Marley and Me

John Grogan: A dog has no use for fancy cars, big homes, or designer clothes. A water log stick will do just fine. A dog doesn't care if your rich or poor, clever or dull, smart or dumb. Give him your heart and he'll give you his. How many people can you say that about? How many people can make you feel rare and pure and special? How many people can make you feel extraordinary?

IMDB gives M&M 7.2/10. But don't take their word for it. Animal lovers, like religious people, have a different set of values, insights and experiences from everybody else. And this movie has something of a back story for me.

My father bought a Labrador puppy years ago - the runt of a litter. We named him Pasquinel after a french explorer in the James Michener book Centennial. It was a crazy choice that somehow stuck. Pask - I remember that dog licking me awake on sooo many mornings... Pask was absolutely terrified of thunderstorms, but sired three beautiful dogs. Lala and Jessie are all that's left, bitches that are now old tannies, Lala with a biggish tumor on her hind leg. Max, the male, suffered from a degenerative spinal disease that slowly ate up the dog's spine. My father, an old dog himself, didn't want to put the dog down. He said he believed the dog still wanted to live and that it wasn't up to him to deprive him of his right to life. Max suffered more than we thought was necessary, and there was some snot and trane when he was put down.

Barry Ronge's review is one I think you should read too: Paws for thought.
Ronge writes: I know it all sounds very “Disney on sentimental steroids” but it is a true story. Marley was a real dog and the Grogans are a real family, which adds the necessary ballast to one of the best “dogs-and-their-families” movies so far this century.

I liked this flick for a few reasons besides. Based on a true story, about a man, John Grogan, who yearns to be a cutting edge writer (that resonated with me) and at the same time is trying to balance a home life (and keep it happy). Simple and unambitious you think?

Marley & Me is a meaningful flick in that it touches some basics, but big basics, in that great Scheme called Life. Sometimes we forget the simple themes in our gadget-filled and infotainment lives. And one of the basic themes in life is simply to go out there and seize it. Go OUTSIDE, onto the lawns, into the outdoor swimming pools (or duckponds) and get wet, get into the wind and sun. Writing about the Ironman, a day in which people run around all day wearing barely a thread of clothing, I said- The goal is here. Not some time or place in the future, but Now. The world suddenly seems irretrievably large, and glowing. Now look at what you can live, and then leap in to it.

That is what we learn from having a dog or any pet for that matter. That they are there, they seize life by the paws or by the teeth. They live it. They seize each day for its scraps - the fun, the food, the lazy comfort of a square of sunshine on the carpet. And then it is gone. In that simple contrast is a valuable lesson. That we appreciate each other. That we recognise a moment for its fleeting specialness. That we remember that this too, however good it is, or bad, will pass. To honor our moments together, especially those shared. And that the most valuable of our moments and memories are those shared with others - human and other creatures alike.

I cried in this film, and so did other men. A woman I know that works for Twentieth century Fox told me not a single man walked out of her first screening with dry eyes. This is why I highly recommend this flick. Not because you will cry, but because you will be moved in a way that reminds you what makes sense in life. 8/10 and don't you forget it.

Movie Meat Reviews Watchmen: AWESOMMME!

Adrian Veidt: We can do so much more. We can save this world... with the right leadership.

After reading two idiotic reviews by geeks who ought to have known better, I'm happy to report that Watchmen is a work of art. It has everything. Gritty 80's retro, flashbacks, comic lore action, fantasy, action, gadgets and a subversive plot. It is gratifying to see an intelligent film that speaks about a bygone era but remains relevant to ours. Zack Snyder deserves a smacker on his forehead for a great job on his adaptation of Alan Moore's and Dave Gibbon's universally lauded graphic novel.

Why does Watchmen work? The ethos of the story deals with the problem of fear and losing hope in an increasingly troubled world. How should we respond? The flick shows Moore's premise that we shouldn't expect heroes to save us, or 'leaders', we have to save ourselves. It also deals with the hopeless reality, thanks to Dr. Manhattan, that there isn't a God to save us, there's just us. To believe otherwise and to wait for rescue invites disaster. Yup, some serious topics for inner debate.

Meanwhile, a confession: though I grew up in the 80's and like any normal 80's teenager ate Green Lantern, Thor, Captain America, the Fantastic Four and X-Men for breakfast (of course Bats and Supes too), WATCHMEN kinda went off my radar. Can you blame me? If you don't know the backstory, the glowing blue naked dude, and Batman ripoff, and a masked fella with a name like Sasquatch...never mind Ozymandias....all seemed a bit absurd at the time. The clue lies in the yellow and black smiley face, with the drop of blood on it.


"Honestly, if I have a complaint it is that the film feels brief to me. Two hours and 40 minutes and it went by like a blink for me. I easily would have patiently sat for another 2 hours, but that's me." — Harry Knowles, Ain't It Cool News

Ditto for me. A movie that's this long, but feels this short has got to be good. It has a brilliantly dense, credible and incredible tell-it-once storyline (which explains why you can't make WATCHMEN I, II and III (in theory at least).

At one point when the Owl guy and Sally Jupiter/Silk Spectre break into a prison to rescue Rorchach(I had to look up that name to check how to spell it) it occurred to me that they were beating up prisoners and prison guards - so why are we on their side? I think the reason why we like the idea of a super-hero is that for a time at least we like to believe we can be special, and powerful, and exceptional in our talents. We like to believe we can make a difference. And that's a start. But Watchmen kinda turns that psychology on its head.

"Who is watching the WATCHMEN?"

This flick - as you'll hear a million times - paints superheroes as ordinary people (who smoke, drink and beat up women) with exceptional skills. So it's dark and credible like Dark Knight, but not completely credible, and yet at times, more in touch with the real world than Dark Knight or any other superhero story for that matter. It deals with the threat of annihilation by nuclear weapons, among many other similar debacles we face in our era.

Silk Spectre II, I also had to look up her name. She and Rorchach are the catalysts of this flick. Silk Spectre II is the movie's hot chick, and the daughter of another ex-hot chick hero.

Rorchach is the star of the show, played well by Jackie Earle Haley, who is as good with the mask on as off.

The sound effects I thought were brilliant, the music much better than I was lead to believe based on the reviews.

Look, the die hard obsessed WATCHMEN geeks may not like it, some people that this sort of movie was never meant for (housewives, gays and cynical movie reviewers)won't like it either. I knew virtually nothing about the flick and loved it. I do recommend that you read up a bit on the premise on WIKI and WIRED. You may find elements confusing (I didn't) such as the flashbacks to when the Comedian was still alive (if he's alive you're back in time, if he's not, you're in the present).

Edward Blake:...we're society's only protection.
Dan Dreiberg: From what?
Edward Blake: You kidding me? From themselves.

You may also find some elements shocking - GASP - full frontal male nudity, GASP - two superheroes having sex (er...that is definitely something of a turn on) and there are a few funny moments. For example Rorchach being interviewed by an overweight black policeman, the copper showing Rorchach ink blot cards...

Overall Zack Snyder has done an incredible job here; an incredible piece of movie making. Not everyone will get it, but the crowd who liked Dark Knight will like this, in fact it's quite a close content. I give Watchmen 8.5/10.

Jon Osterman: Why would I save a world I no longer have any stake in?
Laurie Juspeczyk: Do it for me.

Who is watching the Watchmen? Do it for yourself.

Movie Meat Reviews Slumdog Millionaire: Nice, but how did the Academy choose this over Dark Knight?

The Academy made a choice this year; one that will be echoed by millions. They set a dangerous precedent in making that choice, but it is not hard to understand why. I'm speaking of course about the Academy choosing Slumdog Millionaire as its Oscar pic - best movie, best director and so on. It was either Slumdog or, of course, Dark Knight. Sure, many who haven't seen the movie (or don't know better) would have 'blamed' any Dark Knight win on Heath ledger's death.

So what is Slumdog Millionaire about and is it worth watching? I give credit to film that directs our attention to the slums of Mumbai. Any film that gets Europeans and blacks thinking about other people is worth its salt.

The problem with Slumdog is similar to the one of Valkyrie. You know what's going to happen. It wouldn't be called 'Millionaire' if the hero didn't answer all his questions correctly, so you know you're going to see a happy ending. In Valkyrie everyone knows Hitler was never assassinated so you know Tom Cruise is going to fail.

And so you can epitomise Slumdog as 'wishful thinking' and Dark Knight as 'dystopian'. What does the Academy choose as the best movie? Wishful thinking, because they believe that is what the audience wants. If you want to be rich, if you want a pretty girlfriend, just wish with all your heart and your dreams will come true.

There are some good visuals and the story is not too bad. I enjoyed a glimpse of the Proteas - Andre Nel I think - when one of the mobsters turns on the TV to watch cricket. The premise - anecdotes surrounding each question - is interesting but not really worthy of all the hype and hubris we've seen.

We learn a lot more in Dark Knight, and why we ought to take what is happening a little more seriously. Instead, as our circumstances deteriorate the Academy expects us to maintain a Jiminy Cricket Syndrome, and I think they're right. Good luck with that.

7.5/10
[I gave Dark Knight 9/10]