Movie review - "Liquid Bridge" (2003) **

 Phil Avalon surf melodrama with weirdly not that much surfing. Ryan Kwanten good value as a star. Simone Kessell uses a French accent. A lot going on. Drug smuggling. Woman struck by lightning. Brother overdosing with drugs. Kwanten going to prison. Embracing island style. Some Kessell nudity. Quite watchable.

Movie review - "Innocence" (2000) ***1/2 (warning: spoilers)

 Many of Paul Cox's films were up his own backside but he had a very endearing affection for older people as demonstrated in A Woman's Tale and this which is about two former loves who find love later in life. Charles Tingwell and Julia Blake get a lead role in a feature which must have tickeled them pink.

The kids are played by Marta Dussledrop (his) and Robert Menzies (hers). The show is stolen by Terry Norris who plays Blake's cuckolded husband. Cox had a soft spot for cuckolds - they pop up in My First Wife and Golden Braid. 

I love the nding where it builds to Tingwell dying of cancer... and then Blake dies. That was very smart.

This gave Cox a late period hit and helped him going for another decade or so. A quite lovely movie.

There's 8mm flashbacks of course and appearances from Chris Haywood and Norman Kaye. And smoe nudity from the Julia Blake film in flashback.

Movie review - "The Nugget" (2002) **1/2

 One of the several flops from the Macquarie Film Group though the idea is strong and the cast excellent - Eric Bana, Dave O'Neill and Stephen Curry discover a nugget on the weekend and wonder what to do with it. But they might have checked that Bill Bennett struggles to make commercial films. His strengths are authenticity and when motived by outrage at something. I'm not sure he has a sense of humour, or much of one.

Every now and then this slipped into a groove, of being a fable, and seemed to work. I like the last third.

The cast is very Melbourne - in addition to the stars there's Peter Moon and Vince Colosimo.

I think Bennett missed a beat not having a romance - everyone is partnered up. Someone should have fallen in love.

Mudgee looks very pretty and there is affection for country people not often found in Australian films which are traditionally classist. I can see why this didn't do well at the box office but can also see why it's lingered after - it goes down easy, has charm.

Movie review - "Tempe Tip" (2001) **

 I think they were hoping for something like The Castle but it's not very funny. Jason Donovan is good value as a dad married to Helen Dallimore who moves into a house with a backyard. They think there's money in the backyard and dig it up.

The shenanigans are not interesting, there's no jokes, a quite spectacular sequence at the end when the rain comes pouring in. There's a lot of comic caricatures especially ethnics. The film strives for a deeper meaning it can't convey and some roles seem undercast eg Gary Day in a part that needed someone more iconic. Jason Donovan has an easy charm and the film's heart is in the right place. It's not very good.

Movie review - "Horseplay" (2003) **

 Good on the filmmakers for taking a bold swing - this is  a farce about dodgy types in the racing industry. If it doesn't quite work they gave it a shot.

Marcus Graham isn't perhaps entirely well cast as a horse trainer who marries the daughter (Tushka Bergen) of a successful trainer (Bill Hunter) but cheats on her with his ex (Natalie Mendoza). He's short of money so he decides to arrange for the wife of a jockey to be kidnapped so he can fix a race.

I know there's a debate over how likeable characters need to be - but they definitely need to be watchable, and it's hard to watch Graham do this, especially as he's doing it just ebcause he's bad with money.

Some of it is a little ahem questionable such as Alyssa McLelland having to gyrate in a bikini and talk about the joys of sex with middle aged men.

Some of the acting is very good - Abbie Cornish, Damien Richardson. I think Marcus Graham is not quite right - Jason Donovan (very animated as Graham's sleazy mate) would've been better.

The film makes some simple errors - like it's got too many blonde women (McClelland, Bergen, Krista Vendy, McClelland's friends) so I got them mixed up. I struggled to tell the difference between the wacky hitman too.

Some critics said there were too many characters - I don't think that's the problem, I just think they needed stronger motivations. For instance I'd have Graham need the money because someone wanted to kill him not just because he's lazy. The film could have used its violence more - it's rather coy on that.

Give Tuska Bergen a moivation. Like what does she want? To rip off her dad? To arrange for Graham to be killed? Marc Owen Taylor is her ex who wants her back but... spends most of the time dancing? As does Donovan's ex and Bergen and then Dichardson and Morales.

Some scenes are mean like McClelland's parents finding her dead and Bergen seeing her father be killed.

Book review - "Rebel Rising" by Rebel Wilson

 She has the courage of her convictions. The book explains a lot. A slightly dodgy dad (gambling) obsessed with status. A mum who acts as if everything is fine all the time. The constant list of achievements - property owned, fees earned ($10 million for Pitch Perfect 3), likes on Instagram, views on Netflix, perks at Disneyland, trips to exotic resorts.

She hypes her poverty in LA, but everyone in LA has log cabin fever, i.e. telling stories as if they were born in a log cabin and overcame incredible obstacles. The omits a lot of stuff (not a lot of discussion about Anna Kendrick) but everyone does that in their memoirs.

The best bits are when Rebel encounters tough opposition. The chapter on Sacha Baron Cohen is terrific, and also the stuff about her exploring her sexuality, but also the chapter on making The Wedge where the boorish behaviours of the producers is all too believable. Good on her for admitting she lost her virginity at 35 (I think it helps to start rooting when you're a millionaire film star). All the hot guys she slams seem to have addiction issues.

She's an odd duck but the book explains why, I think.

Play review - "A Local Man" by Bob Ellis and Robin McLachlan

 I'd be curious to see how this played on stage. A one man piece, with Ben Chifley talking into a dictaphone, and taking phone calls. It read well, like an essay - Ellis' essays are full of pieces on Chifley. He also loves to write about "oh poor me" and "if only". Mind you there's some interesting if onlys here... if only Labor hadn't lost Francis Forde or Nelson Lemmon (who I didn't know)... maybe. Most effective moment is him going to bed and the radio announces from four days later that he'd died.

Movie review - "Nature's Grave" (2008) ** aka "The Long Weekend"

 I wonder why they remake it? It's basically the same script. It is an interesting comparison.

Claudia Karvan is a much better actor than Briony Behets. But Jim Caviezel isn't as good as John Hargreaves - his American boorishness also doesn't work as well in an Australian film as Hargreaves' Aussie boorishness. It's nicely shot but not as well shot as Vincent Monton and it doesn't have the same creepiness. They kept the partner swapping plot which seemed to work better in the 70s. They keep the wife masturbating to a book scene. It's on digital and film is better.

De Roche talks about writing the film in a very good career interview here. He has a cameo in the bar and Roger Ward is the truck driver.

I love the intent behind it. I just can't see the point.

Movie review - "Visitors" (2003) ** (warning: spoilers)

 I saw this at the Valhalla in Glebe with high ish hopes... it sounded intriguing a limited location film on a yacht, reuniting Richard Franklin and Everett de Roche in the thriller genre. There are some really spooky moments - a yacht is a creepy place, and star Radha Mitchell has a compelling presence with her look and beauty. Nicely shot. Effective sound.

Main problem - not enough happens. It's a series of scares. Other boat thrillers things happen - Dead Calm they've lost the kid in the opening sequence, they pick up Billy Zane, Sam Neill gets stranded and has his own B plot, he has a goal, Nicole has to sleep with Billy, etc etc 

De Roche/Franklin needed to think more in terms of acts... a real visitor on the boat, as opposed to a fake visitor (she can be unsure). Big things happening at home - not just an unexciting affair between Dominic Purcell and Totti Goldsmith but, say, her father having been murdered or her mother has escaped. Or, I don't know, a shark attack. Some progression.and genuine threat. Or have Radha follow in the footsteps of a woman who went missing on another voyage so they could solve that mystery.

I think a lot of it is too easy for her. There's no storms. No real threat. Even the pirates aren't real. Also very under-developed relationship with that random accountant.

I was getting more confused as it went on and the ending didn't seem to make sense with Radha not stepping off at the end (I mean, why not... okay Tottie rooted her boyfriend but she still ponied up the cash) No sense of triumph at the end. They should've killed off Radha at the end. At least that would've had some oomph.

Movie review - "Ned Kelly" (2003) **

 I was curious to revisit this. I remember what a big deal it was at the time and how no one seems to talk about it now. It made a lot of money (domestically) but certainly didn't "stick" in people's minds. I think they might recall there was a Heath Ledger Ned Kelly movie but that was about it.

The opening few minutes are effective with its beautiful score and photography and some nice images... and Heath Ledger is charismatic... but the problems soon emerge... 

What is the take they had on Ned Kelly? Villain? Hero? Enigmatic anti hero? Revolutionary? It all feels... blah. There's no passion. Or viewpoint. It's like no one wanted to make it except for maybe the art department.

I totally would have green lit a film on Ned Kelly from the team that made Two Hands. But that had a clear point of view. A hero battling with a clear goal. This doesn't. Ned is kind of put upon... but not really. He takes bunch of people hostage... then releases them and they are fired on so Ned is trying to save the hostages, is that right? (I wonder if the film had voice over added and lines of dialogue like "let's save the hostages" added).

He is hard to dramatise and the filmmakers don't succeed here. I don't mind inventing a Ned Kelly love story, I mean no one really knows but... there's no point to the Naomi Watts one. The scenes have no heat. You could cut her out of the film and it wouldn't mean anything. In contrast, Saskia Burmeister's quick turn as the girl who Ned gives a ride to and encounters at Glenrowan has real emotional weight because she clearly admires him and she's there. Why not put Naomi Watts at Glenrowan and have her killed? Give the piece some bite? 

On the sunny side the sets, costumes are great, as is the music. The beards, unfortunately, mostly look fake. There are some effective moments such as the death of Aaron Sherritt (this scene always works, it did in the Douglas Stewart play), Geoffrey Rush taking the sash at the end.

Other moments glimpse what the film could've been: the aforementioned Saskia-Heath stuff, the scene where Ned chats to his brother. I think this was the core problem for me: Ned Kelly had no relationship with anyone. He had a stock, removable romance with Naomi Watts, but I never got the sense of his friendship with Joe Byrne, or Steve Hart, or a relationship with his mother or his brother or sister. It fails to bring to life any of the Kelly women (this is a common flaw in all Kelly adaptations).

A mess. A frustrating mess. The Ned Kelly story is a challenging one for film adapters but one thing is clear... it needs a strong point of view. This doesn't have it.

Book review - "Home Truths" by David Williamson (2021)

Enormously enjoyable. Better than his wife's biography. Peak Boomer - there's an index "Williamson - real estate purchases". Invaluable. Names names of inspirations and circumstances. Has an engineer's thoroughness. 

Leaves out some stuff eg his Macbeth. Some bitchy swipes eg people being mean to Kristen. Both of them seem like big personalities. Talks a lot about kids. The Bob Ellis orgy is in there. 

Wonderful book though.

Movie review - "Blurred" (2002) **1/2

 Bright Aussie teen film with plenty of energy, engaging cast and good ideas. It doesn't quite work. The problem is easily identified... in my opinion anyhow... and it was something not picked up on my any of the critics that I read. All the central situations have potential but they aren't developed.

Craig Horner is besties with Veronica Sywak and Kristen Schmid and they hook up. Great scenario - when three becomes a crowd. Horner is very good. But that happens at the end, after we've just hung out with them, when it needed to happen earlier, and we play out the real drama i..e Horner finding life without his best friends.

Tony Brockman wanting to break up with Jess Gower because it's schoolies. That's great. But then Brockman just sits on a seat and gets wasted with a girl and... nothing much happens. Gower grabs Jamie Croft to root him and... she doesn't. No story progression. You could've spun it any sort of way. Had a romance. A fight. Just some relationship progression. But instead they jump up and down on the spot.

Mark Priestley and Travis Cotton as two yokels going to schoolies - great. But they just yokel around, run into Damien Garvey, do more yokeling. Then they meet the two private school girls and it looks like they might get off on them... and you go "that's the story. Those four having a romance." But they dismiss it in one scene.

Nathalie Roy as a posh girl meeting some raucus boys, but one seems nice... That has promise. Girl letting to let hair down. But we find out straight away the boy is a lout. No progression.

The film is good in its serious moments - Horner realising his two friends want to root, Horner making friends with Roy at the beach,  Gower and Croft saying goodbye.

A lot of the comedy is uncomfortable. I don't mean to sound old but two girls getting wasted and driving a limo erratically on the road... that's frigging dangerous. The scenes where Nathalie Roy is surrounded by boozy aggro boys is realistic in a really unfun way.

Play review - "Soulmates" by David Williamson (2002)

 Williamson takes on the world of literature and low art vs high art debate. Low is represented by a best selling chick lit novelist, based on Kathy Lette, who Williamson knows and admires and it's one of his most engaging female heroes.

He tries to be fair to the antagonist, the snobby literary critique, supposedly based on Dinny O'Hearn, making it clear he loves his wife and people talk about him being loyal and principled. However Williamson can't resist stacking the deck - the critic is a bad lover, and Williamson never dramatises his principles, we just see him pestering a friend into publishing a worthy book. 

He might have a work of more complexity if he got stuck into the Kathy Lette character too - I don't know, had her cheat on her husband, or try to write something literary, or plagiarise or something. She's a little too perfect still. (She is engaging, I just felt her character could have done something more in the second half to do with theme... like realising she's not the soulmate of her husband or have her fall in love with the Jackie Weaver character or something).

Also Williamson doesn't quite nail high literature - there is more to it than suffering; I think he over simplifies because it's not his bag. And the supporting characters of the publisher and his wife, and Kathy Lette's husband, felt as though they could have been used more - to complicate things. It's a little linear.

This review has turned out more critical than I intended - irony! It's a fun play, a bright social comedy, with some witty lines. It tells a story, the world is vivid, and his female characters are stronger than usual. He should have brought back the Kathy Lette character in another play.

The literary critic is one in a long line of Williamson characters supported by a partner because they can't make a living from their art - this seemed to pop up in every second Williamson play of the 21st century.

Play review - "Birthrights" by David Williamson (2003)

 A very strong story with rich emotional undercurrents, very well structured. It's heavily female orientated and women have never been Williamson's strong suit. The dialogue and characterisation felt as thought it could have used another draft - there's clunky sounding stuff about refugees and Keating and Howard (it's all in character I just wish it had been smoothed over so wasn't so bald), and the teenage girl character is wild and yep has sex with an older middle aged man.

It is moving, every character earns their weight, there's funny lines.

Play review - "Operator" by David Williamson (2005)

 Highly entertaining workplace politics comedy with one of Williamson's most enjoyably slimy creatures, the workplace shark Jake who all office workers will recognise.

This was a lot of fun. Jake's plans were cunning. I enjoyed the setting of exercise equipment manufacturing -that was different. It does lose points for having the young woman want to go off with the divorced middle aged man at the end... I guess the happy ending was different but... oh anyways.

Play review - "Scarlett O'Hara at the Crimson Parrot" by David Williamson (2009)

 To my knowledge David Williamson has never written a musical, which is a shame when you consider his work ethic and gift for structure, but he came close with this piece, written as a vehicle for Caroline O'Connor. She plays a mid thirties ditz who works at a restaurant and dreams a lot, particularly of movies; I've seen this character before a few times (Play it Again Sam was one) but you can imagine O'Connor would be terrific in the lead.

Most Williamson plays you read it's easy to imagine them on stage; this one is more theatrical, involves more imagination - there is back projection, fantasy sequences, clips from films. It's more broadly theatrical which I think is great. Simon Phillips directed it and I'm sure he would have done a solid job.

There are some familiar Williamson types (alpha cook, sex-mad waitress, nerdish guy) but there is a genuine sense of camraderie among people at the restaurant. I also enjoyed the scenes with Scarlett and her mother - Williamson had a gift for characters of his parent's generation. This was quite a warm and fun play; in a minor key but sweet.

Play review - "Let the Sunshine" by David Williamson (2008)

 One of Williamson's more autobiographical later works, the tale of a lefty documentary filmmaker and his book editor wife who have moved to Noosa. I wish it had been more autobiographical - I confess I was looking forward to an Emerald City examination of the differences between Noosa and Sydney; we get a little of that, with satire of both places, but soon it develops into a family saga (it takes place over a few years) about the muso son of some lefties falling for the lawyer son of the business types. The muso becomes a little more right wing as he buys a studio, the wife gives up law, the parents sort of buzz around. The kids take over, there's a GFC.

It's an odd sort of play, as if Williamson couldn't pick a lane. The pessimism of the main lefty is affecting - is this how Williamson sees the world? He's depressed. Which I get. But the Williamson character drifts out of focus.

The character based on Kristin is fascinating: everyone loves her, she's smart, a success in business, the Noosa wife wanted to be her, the husband wants to schtup her, the David Williamson character adores her. I don't think there's been a female character in Williamson more put on a pedestal. Yet the last section has her being fearful of being a dud grandmother.

There's a lot of whingeing here. Lefties worried about the world, righties worried about lefties, boomers wanting more time with their grandkids. A lot of entitlement.

Did this play stop Williamson writing more autobiographical plays? Did his kids arc up? Did Kirstin? I actually wish he'd made it more autobiographical and really explored what it was like to live in Noosa - how his old friends responded, making new friends. I sense that would've been more interesting than what goes on here. Still, it's his play.

As always there are some funny lines and it tells a story.

Play review - "The Great Man" by David Williamson (2000)

 There's a lot to admire about this play. Williamson's stage craft was very assured at this stage - it takes place in real time, the conflict is solid, all the characters are different. There's a sulky son, a feminist second wife who was once into orgies, a satyr like painter, a Keating like pollie, a blousy working class first wife, a sexy journo... There are some cracker lines (such as Australia's sixties not happening to the seventies but being the best seventies there were), and it's heart is in the right place.

It just felt a bit overly simplistic. The sixties were great, Whitlam was great, the Labor Party sold out, we suck up to Indonesians. The arguments felt a little dinner party-esque - the characters felt thin as a result. Like they needed another dimension or twist or something. I enjoyed it's craft, just felt maybe Bob Ellis does this stuff better.

Play review - "Up for Grabs" by David Williamson (2000)

 Not one of Williamson's most highly regarded plays - it's probably best remembered as the one Madonna appeared in - but it's terrific. Moves like a freight train, fabulous structure, very funny, different characters: the dogged art dealer Simone, the swinging dot com couple, the ruthless tycoon who's closeted and his wife, the drunken old corporate art dealer. The stakes are high, the pace is frenetic, it's theatrical and great fun.  It also makes some serious points too about love of art and the importance of it. The world of the super rich and the art world felt real.

Madonna had good taste picking this.

Play review - "Amigos" by David Williamson (2004)

 I saw this on stage. It's a mixed bag. It's not terrible - there's some funny lines. No one talks about climate change.

It's about three men who were part of a four man rowing crew. One is dead, one is a drop out the other two are alphas... one is a surgeon the other a banker. 

Williamson doesn't really do much with the Olympic thing. I did like they won bronze. But really they could have been in any football team or even just at school. I felt like it was an opportunity missed.

It felt like it needed another few drafts. I think he could have played it all out in real time he didn't need to have all these short scenes and time jumps. It lacked something. Maybe the wife of the investment banker should have turned up with her tantric sex boyfriend - they sounded fun. Or more of a reveal. Or maybe the boyfriend of the dead rower. You didn't get much of a sense of friendship between the men.

I wish the younger wife didn't turn out to be a former hooker and that the wife we see wasn't a tired middle aged bitch. I did like the drop out character - the way he talked emotionally about his son was some nice writing.

Like I say, mixed bag. Williamson needed someone to push him more on this one.