The Boy in the Striped Pajamas (2008)

Eight-year old Bruno’s (Asa Butterfield) life is uprooted when his family moves from their home in Berlin to a new home in Poland so that his soldier father (David Thewlis) may continue his important work. Young Bruno sees a farm from his new bedroom window where everyone seems to be wearing striped pajamas. Isolated and curious, Bruno befriends Shmuel, a boy who lives on the other side of the fence. Unaware of the boy’s fate as a Jew, Bruno provides food and companionship to Shmuel out of his own loneliness. Educated by his tutor, Bruno soon becomes conflicted by his friendship with a Jew. When confronted, he denies Shmuel. But in an act of reconciliation, Bruno embarks on a dangerous journey inside the prison camp.

The Boy in the Striped Pajamas is another unforgettable film on the subject of the Holocaust. Told from a German boy’s perspective, this film is beautiful in its detail and somber in its execution.  It's amazingly atmospheric.

The cast is superb despite glaring English accents. And although you could take to task such a glaring oversight in another production, that criticism is quickly put to rest thanks to such incredible performances. Vera Farmiga as Bruno’s naïve mother who begins to question her husband’s role in the war is exquisite. David Thewlis as Bruno’s father whom fully believes in the Third Reich, but wants to protect his family from the ugliness of the extermination. Thewlis is a pitch perfect cold father/soldier. But it is young Asa Butterfield who speaks volumes with his inquisitive eyes that carries the film. His innocence and naiveté is enviable. And as Bruno discovers the hard realities before him, it is the viewer alongside Bruno who feels the wind blow cold and your heart break. David Hayman as Pavel—he is supposed to be a supporting character, but his role as a doctor turned Jewish prisoner of war and house servant epitomizes the subject matter.

Even with all it’s faults (underdeveloped Schmuel, underutilized Thewlis, bad accents) nothing can prepare you for The Boy in the Striped Pajamas. As I see it, much like The Pianist or Schindler’s List, The Boy in the Striped Pajamas has you consider yet another view—one that forces you to see the beauty in the ugliness, one that saddens you when something so innocent is destroyed by ignorance.

Dorian Gray (2009)

This retelling of Oscar Wilde’s novel The Picture of Dorian Gray is a far more visceral experience than you’d expect. It’s an assault on the senses. Lavish, lurid, breath-taking, and sometimes shocking, this is a new look at an old Dorian.

The film’s one success is owed to impeccable performances by Colin Firth and Ben Barnes (Prince Caspian). As Gray, Barnes is perfectly naïve; his decent in hedonism is more direct in this version, but Barnes plays so nonchalant it’s captivating. As chief influencer, Lord Henry Wotton, Colin Firth is at his most devious. Wotton’s infatuation with Gray is reciprocated with disastrous results, but watching Firth and Barnes flirt is something else.

As with any interpretation, the book is merely source material. Director Oliver Parker focuses on sexual deviation as Dorian’s primary corrupter. The book was broader in pleasures, more refined and considered the ramifications of said lifestyle. The film belabours Dorian's bedroom affairs much to the discredit of the director. Sadly, the film doesn’t delve deep enough into the morality--a primary theme of the book--furthering the disappointment for this viewer. Still the brooding Gothic overtones and occasional starts may keep you intrigued.

As I see it, Dorian Gray is a picture show and a gorgeous one at that. The period settings, costumes, and cast are simply stunning. A keen eye will notice the gradation of color as Gray’s descends into debauchery. But the film lacks a key emotional element that makes the book far more interesting.

The Young Victoria (2009)

The beginning of one of the greatest love stories is told here in The Young Victoria. Victoria (Emily Blunt) ascends to the British throne at the early age of 18 fighting after a brief fight against regency. The young monarch confides to her young German suitor Prince Albert (Rupert Friend) that she feels a bit like a chess piece. His response “Then you had better master the rules of the game until you play it better than they can” pierces through the noise of her courtiers and handlers who are out to manipulate the young girl. Victoria sets her mind to rule not only the throne, but her court.

Chronicling the early life of Queen Victoria, the film is a stunning period piece thanks to brilliant execution by Blunt and Friend. The pair, surrounded by opulent costumes and settings, is given every tool to shine and they do. Blunt and Friend lose themselves in their historic roles with amazing chemistry and passion.

The supporting cast of courtesans, politicians, and players include a spot-on Jim Broadbent as King William who is prone to emotional outbursts. Paul Bettany as the charming Lord Melbourne, Mark Strong as the conniving Sir John Conroy, and Miranda Richardson as the Victoria’s mother, the Duchess of Kent all impart strong will to pivotal roles that wish to bend Victoria’s ear.

The lush drama unfolds, focusing on the relationship between Victoria and Albert which evolves subtly. Their love cuts through the power plays and manipulations. She needs him, more than Albert needs her. And yet, from the moment the two pawns meet it is apparent this is a relationship to build a monarchy on. But the two are determined to play by their own rules. As Victoria learns to trust him more, she becomes a stronger woman, finding success on the throne as well.

Though I can’t speak to historical accuracy, I don’t believe that is the film’s intent. Rather, The Young Victoria is a condensed look into the early years of a beautiful love story.  The film's one downsides is its running time.  As a fan of this genre, we are given only a parts of the story to advance the plot.  But with this many interesting characters, I wanted more intrigue, villainy, and usurpation.  Victoria's one good outburst—she mistakes stubbornness for strength—is worth seeing for Blunt's remarkable execution.

Falling short of grandiose, the film is content to be human and poignant. But as I see it, the sumptuous production that is The Young Victoria is nothing without the powerful performances from Emily Blunt and Rupert Friend. A must-see for fans of historical drama!

Pirate Radio (2009)

One awesome looking film with an equally awesome soundtrack, just don't go looking for a plot.

Inglourious Basterds (2009)

I’m at a loss to describe the spectacle I have just beheld. Perhaps Quentin Tarantino’s most honest film to date, Inglorious Basterds feels unusual, yet familiar. Truly, I don’t know how to react—it’s like a smash up of Spaghetti Westerns and Band of Brothers.

My biggest issue with Tarantino is his inability to check his ego and create something original—it’s always an homage to something. Inglorious Basterds is that—an homage—but somewhere along the way, this story of Jewish-American soldiers who brutally attack (and scalp) Nazis transcends the brutality to become, well, interesting.

This film is balanced. That’s what I like. The QT flourishes are there, but underscored. The viewer isn’t smacked in the face with references, the gore and violence refrained, and dialogue subtle. Combined with inspired casting, Inglorious Basterds is audacious, egregiously inaccurate, and wonderfully entertaining.

As Lt. Basterd Aldo Raines Brad Pitt is simply inspired—brilliant with is Appalachian twang and Eastwood swagger. Oscar winner Christoph Waltz as SS Col. Hans Landa is equally fascinating. Waltz commands every scene with smarmy theatrical energy and obnoxious self confidence.

Typical of Tarantino there are WTF moments including David Bowie’s Gasoline and Heinz Steiglitz’s introduction but these patches of random don’t quite reach the silliness of his previous fare. I loved the nod to French cinema and the use of foreign languages becomes an event onto itself. The opening sequence is by far my favorite and is quite misleading of what is to come.

As I see it, Inglorious Basterds stands alongside Reservoir Dogs as my favorite QT films. Strong dialogue and brilliant casting make it work. The success herein is thanks to Tarantino’s strong dialogue and brilliant casting. One doesn’t know whether to laugh, cheer, or run for the exits. But you will be entertained.

Masterpiece Theatre: Cranford (2007)

 Cranford is a town resolute in its traditions. At the heart of the small town is group of women who are unwavering as the town becomes fraught with change.

This delightful BBC adaptation stars a delightful cast. Dame Judi Dench leads the way with the likes of Imelda Staunton, Eileen Atkins, Greg Wise and Michael Gambon close beside.

The production is a feast for the eyes and a blessing to the soul. Despite the myriad of disasters that occur to the inhabitants of Cranford—many at the doing of a certain gossip—Miss Pole (Staunton), the viewer is engaged and bemused by the goings-on. Societal taboos and classes are severely rendered and held to. The dependence on marrying well and other customs are represented. The lavish production is beautiful. With all the trimmings found at the local shops to the grime of poor Harry’s abode, no detail is spared.

Women are the fairer sex and men, well, are gentlemen in Cranford. As I see it, fans of Austen, Dickens or even Eliot will enjoy this adaptation of Elizabeth Gaskell’s period novels.

Public Enemies (2009)

Director Michael Mann’s latest drama centers on the life of John Dillinger (Johnny Depp) and the man, Agent Melvin Purvis (Christian Bale) who must bring him down. With Baby Face Nelson (Stephen Graham) and Pretty Boy Floyd (Channing Tatum) at his side, Dillinger charms the nation and evades J. Edgar Hoover (Billy Crudup) and his men. But for all the style found herein, Public Enemies lacks in hearty substance.

Public Enemies is nearly too smart for its own good. The entire cast including Marion Cotillard but especially Depp and Bale are perfectly nuanced. But the film feels too reflective and doesn’t allow this gifted cast to breathe. As Dillinger, Depp exudes a man who has transcended his meager upbringing. He seems almost otherworldly in the eyes of Mann. So, too, is G-man Melvin Purvis and Hoover. Bale and Crudup are also amazing, but the reality of these men seems lost.

This film is brilliantly executed. Stylistically is looks gorgeous. The production is glamorous, but gritty. And the cast—did I mention the cast? It’s a roll call for some of the best, often overlooked, and up-and-coming actors. It was distracting to find David Wenham, Giovanni Ribisi, Carey Mulligan, Emilie de Ravin, Leelee Sobieski or even Diana Krall pop-up in bit characters.

For what it is—the gangster equivalent to Jesse James—Public Enemies is masterful. But the film isn’t approachable. The production is open for interpretation and might leave much to be desired for most. However, as I see it, Public Enemies is a brilliant portrayal of a most interesting man.

Hair (1979)

I wonder if movies from this time period are supposed to make sense. Or maybe I should be stoned in order to really enjoy them. Either way, Hair is ridiculous. But I think it also captures the period nicely.  {Not from experience, mind you.}

On the eve of his Army enlistment, Claude (John Savage) meets a hairy group of hippies in Central Park. The naïve Oklahoman is fascinated by this bunch of dope-smoking free thinking weirdoes. The next 24 hours becomes a haze of random activities that include song and dance numbers.

Hair is a fun time warp. The settings, costuming, hair and dialogue—it’s all a trip. Clark Griswold’s wife is the love interest for Claude. I found the songs to be a riot—sometimes shocking, but always eye-roll inducing. The film’s climax is surprisingly heartfelt.

As I see it, Hair is a solid period film.  One that you won't get much out of unless you lived it.

Taking Woodstock (2009)

Director Ang Lee’s latest film is one with epic surroundings; but amid the beautiful chaos is a coming of age story. Elliot (Demetri Martin) offers up his parent’s failing hotel as the base of operations for a then unheard of music festival called Woodstock. What he doesn’t realize at the time he donates an important music festival permit is how much the festival will change him.

Based on a memoir of the period, Lee strips away the iconic elements of the historical festival. What’s left in Taking Woodstock is an often comedic look at the pre and post hippie affects on Bethel, New York.

Starring a solid ensemble cast, Taking Woodstock is a real trip thanks in part to characters that give the film an offbeat feel. Demetri Martin is the twenty-something Jewish son. As Elliot, Martin plays him queer, uncertain, and an aspiring painter who is unfortunately tied to his parent’s motel. Imelda Staunton has an incredible turn as his paranoid, riotous mother, Sonia. Staunton is unlike anything I ever seen her before.  She's a chamelon.  Henry Goodman is her long-suffering husband, Jake. Elliot’s relationships with them are the impetus for welcoming the hippies. With the festival organizers comes slurry of great characters that help build the film’s off-beat, easy going naturel: Vietnam Vet Billy (Emile Hirsch), Vilma (brilliant turn for Liev Schreiber), and the VW couple (Paul Dano and Kelli Garner). Eugene Levy is the now famous farmer Max Yasgur.

The colors and production detail are dazzling. Lee doesn’t skimp on any element. Taking Woodstock looks epic, but manages to keep its cozy, personal feel. Elliot’s acid trip courtesy of VW couple is an incredible sequence.

Stripped of the nostalgia angle, independent of the music and political events of the day, this film strikes a remarkable chord. Taking Woodstock is a completely different animal with none of Lee’s heavy-handedness found in Lust, Caution. What he has done is successfully capture a pivotal moment in music history and celebrates the beauty of like-minded random strangers. As I see it, that’s pretty cool.

Sherlock Holmes (2009)

Despite Guy Ritchie’s stamp of grit and rapid-fire, often blurry action sequences found in this adaptation of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s literary genius, Sherlock Holmes is spectacular. Well worth the price of admission, my good man.

Trading lively banter is Jude Law and Robert Downey Jr. as Dr. Watson and Holmes, respectively. Both are well suited in this new interpretation. Holmes is an insufferable man, that much holds true.  He’s a bit boorish too. Watson, a young, but well-rounded gentleman is looking to marry, settle down, and put their pairing behind them. But Holmes won’t hear of it.

Their last case centers on occultist Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong). Blackwood is convicted of murdering five women and on the eve of his hanging calls Holmes to his cell. ‘This is just the start…’ Holmes leaves all of Scotland Yard and Inspector Lestrade behind as he unravels a murderous conspiracy.

Ritchie has reignited my hero wonderfully. Building in just enough characters—including Holmes’ nemesis Professor Moriarty and Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams) who is annoying foil throughout the film—to spawn sequels.  Sherlock Holmes is a magnificent production. Old world London is gray, aptly violent, gritty, and beautiful. We see more of its dirty underbelly that anything else, but even that is delightful.

Holmes’ mindset is smartly rendered in a few key scenes that also foretell the impending blur. The screenplay underscores the impetus for Holmes’ odd manner and discomfort. Downey Jr. plays Holmes as slightly cocky, unyielding to society’s rules, and seemingly scattershot, full of undisclosed eccentricities. With his riding crop ever at the ready, Holmes dispatches his foes with a blend of critical thinking and martial arts.

In contrast is Watson. Law is gentlemanly and loyal. Ever apologetic for Holmes despite his frustration with him, Watson is a stalwartly friend. Don’t let the limp fool you. He is quick in the fight with his sword cane. Watson’s penchant for gambling was downplayed with only a few lines of dialogue, but here we see (FINALLY) Watson as Holmes equal.

Under Ritchie’s direction, Sherlock Holmes is alive and bare-knuckled, no less. I think Doyle would have been proud. The story is multi-layered; though it has its weaker points (see Rachel McAdams, the Dark Arts), the film remains a solid vehicle. A befitting, if odd score from Hans Zimmer brings another level of charm. Combined with otherworldly settings and detailed costumes, the production is a full-on assault of the senses.

As I see it, the screenplay of Sherlock Holmes is convoluted; the plot uninspired. It is the film’s weakest link. Redeeming the film are the performances by Law and Downey Jr. For that, my dear readers, you must go.

31 More Days of Horror: From Hell (2001)

From Hell, the eerie atmospheric adaptation of a graphic novel might not qualify as a true hack and slash. However, the source material—Jack the Ripper—and the hunt for him is oozing with potential.  Under the director of the Hughes brothers, this viscious gory drama is bloody spectacular.  Furthering the goodness is  Johnny Depp as the opium-addicted Scotland Yard inspector.

Key to the film’s success is a fascination with Jack the Ripper. Victorian London is painstakingly recreated, gorgeously so and it becomes a playground for a man to prey on prostitutes. As Mary Kelly’s (Heather Graham) friends/co-workers are found dead, horribly disfigured, often disemboweled, the hunt for the killer becomes bogged down as Inspector Abberline’s theory may lead straight to the royal family.

The Hughes brothers effectively build tension and fear through the seedy streets of London. The cinematography creates amazing depth and shadows.  London was a creepy place in the 19th Century.  As the heinous murder mystery unfolds—supported by a top-notch score—the viewer can’t seem to grasp the horror. Much of the violence takes place off screen, but your imagination conjures gruesome images that will haunt for days. The throat slashing comes to mind.

From Hell is a great horror flick in the same vein of Silence of the Lambs or se7en. With its conspiracy theories, top-notch cast that includes Robbie Coltrane and Ian Holmes, and bloody violent images, its fine addition to any horror queue.

Dangerous Beauty (1998)

Cursed by her station, Veronica Franco (Catherine McCormack) has two choices: join a convent or become a courtesan. Following in her mother’s (Jacqueline Bisset) footsteps, she chooses the latter. Veronica quickly finds her powers over men and the court rising. Before long, Veronica is faced with the nobleman (Rufus Sewell) that spurned her.

Inspired by the true story of Franco who would be a lover, poet, hero, wife, and a victim of the Inquisition, Dangerous Beauty is an intelligent period piece. Set in 16th Century Venice, the film is both lavish and eloquent.

Catherine McCormack (28 Weeks Later, Braveheart) is stunning as Veronica. Her onscreen evolution is brilliant. Bisset is also beautiful in her supporting role. Rufus Sewell as the tortured nobleman is solid, but Oliver Platt is amazing. His Maffio deviant turned Monsignor oozes evil.

The history lesson is short, but the romantic passion is real. The film centers on Franco’s enchanting power and her ability to use it. She ultimately turns the war in Venice’s favor. This is a film of untold courage and tenacity.

The production is gorgeous. Opulent settings and the highly detailed costuming are enchanting. The dialogue is strong and surprisingly witty. The banter between court and courtesan is biting. The supporting score is inconsequential against the strong emotion found in the cast.

As I see it, Dangerous Beauty is a must-see for lovers of historical drama. Romantic and captivating, it’s a rare honest beauty.

The Man in the Iron Mask (1998)

The three Musketeers: Aramis (Jeremy Irons), Athos (John Malkovich) and Porthos (Gerard Depardieu) have moved on. D'Artagnan (Gabriel Byrne) remains in the employe of tyrannical King Louis (Leonard DiCaprio) with much chagrin. The young king wields his power for his own good and vices--not for his kingdom. After the death of Athos' son at the hands of the jealous king, the Musketeers reunite to usurp the king and replace him with his benevolent twin brother.

The Man in the Iron Mask is not a true rendering of Alexander Dumas' novel, however, it is great fun. The period film is lavish with costuming and other detail, but it's smart casting that makes the film. The likes of Irons, Byrne, Depardieu, Malkovich--these heavyweights play with a marked nimbleness that brings credence to a fluffy story. Leonard DiCaprio is young and stiff here, but supported well in the ensemble cast. It's fun to see Peter Sarsgaard and Hugh Laurie pop up in small roles.

Writer/director Randall Wallace pulls from great source material to create a fresh, continuing story of the famed trio. The film doesn't take itself seriously, but unfolds with conviction.

As I see it, The Man in the Iron Mask is memorable period entertainment. It makes a stuffy novel approachable and perhaps more inviting.

Valkyrie (2008)

At the height of the Third Reich, many Germans may have wished Mein Führer dead. Only a few would actually try. Nazi Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg (Tom Cruise) was one of them. Stauffenberg returns to Berlin, Germany after sustaining injury in Africa. In Berlin discovers senior officials that share his view and are working to show the world that "we are not all like him." Hitler is dangerous and must be removed from office if Germany, nay, all of Europe is to survive this war. Joining political and military figures already installed in Hitler's government, Stauffenberg plots a daring mission. As Operation Valkyrie (See German composer Richard Wagner's "Die Walküre") unfolds, Stauffenberg finds himself a central player as he is tapped to deliver the bomb to the Führer's feet.

Valkyrie would be a riveting, effectual period drama if it weren't for practically everything! This film does everyone, actor and viewer alike, an injustice. Character development is only the beginning of the problems. With a loaded cast that includes the likes of Bill Nighy, Eddie Izzard, Kenneth Branaugh, Tom Wilkinson, Terrance Stamp, and Stephen Fry, there should be genuine development. Additionally, the British accents that pop in and out of the scenes are irritating. The film opened in German and should have stayed that way.

Honestly, I can't tell what director Bryan Singer is doing. The film is uninspiring, but it looks good. Set detail and costuming create a cold, menacing atmosphere. Sure you know the ending, but that shouldn't keep it from being interesting. For this drama to be effective, you've got to develop the people behind the plot. There is no suspicion, intensity, or emotional provocation.

As I see it, there are better films that document this heinous period of history. The life of Claus von Stauffenberg is fascinating. This movie, however, is not.

J4T: 1 star

Revolutionary Road (2008)

April and Frank Wheeler (Kate Winslett and Leonardo DiCaprio) are a young couple with the perfect life. He travels to the city each morning to a comfortable, if inane, job. She is the pinnacle of domestication. Together with two children, The Wheelers are the seeming portrait of suburban bliss. Then one day, two people wake up amid the ordinary and realize they have settled. April has aspired to the theatre. Instead, her day is filled with the chores of a housewife. On Frank's 30th birthday, she reminds him of their dream. Paris. Once again, the couple feel alive. But as they are met with skepticism from friends, an unexpected pregnancy, and Frank's own career path, underlying tensions threaten to undo everything. For April and Frank, the real question is... do they care enough to pick up the pieces?

Revolutionary Road is a devastating beautiful film that examines the banality of suburbia. Sam Mendes directs this powerful cold reality and pegs the uncomprable DiCaprio and Winslett. Their flawless chemistry onscreen is provocative. Winslett gives a performance of a lifetime as April. She is both beautiful and hopeless. DiCaprio is subtly expressive and equally captivating.

Under Mendes, every element culminates to create a multi-faceted picture. Set in the mid-50s, the production of the era is top-notch. Mendes utilizes design, score, and subtle detail to speak volumes without saying a word. These essential elements serve to underscore our couple or punctuate an emotion. Every frame is visually arresting adding weight to our downward spiral.

As I see it, Revolutionary Road is a dangerous film not for its themes, but for its finality behind the white picket fence. This film is not life-affirming; rather, Mendes offers a masterful soul-crushing drama of societal mediocrity for those brave enough to face the reflection.

Alice's Restaurant (1969)

Inspired by the 18 minute song by Arlo Guthrie, Alice's Restaurant is a meandering piece of hippie Americana that I cannot, in my right mind, recommend to general audiences or cinephiles. This is a true niche film that celebrates a generation. Alice's Restaurant, for the uninitiated, is the story of Arlo and his unorthodox way of avoiding the Vietnam War draft.

The film unfolds as a seemingly random series of events. Here's the gist. Long-haired hippie Arlo visits Alice for Thanksgiving. As a favor, he takes a VW Microbus full of trash to the local dump which happens to be closed for the holiday. In turn, he finds a ravine (already filled with rubbish) and tosses it all there. Paraded about as the scourge of society, Arlo's littering charge leads him to be declared 'unfit for service'.

Arlo Guthrie narrates the very embodiment of a generation. When viewed in context, Alice's Restaurant is very much a socio-political statement from a generation filled with hope for a better tomorrow. But if viewed otherwise, the film is tired, dated, and downright slumber-inducing.

As I see it, Alice's Restaurant is better known as a song, not a movie. But the film could easily stand alongside Easy Rider as a voice for a generation.

There Will Be Blood (2007)

Daniel Plainview (Daniel Day-Lewis) is a simple prospector turned ruthless tycoon after securing the oil rights to a family's goat ranch. Eli Sunday (Paul Dano) is the son of the family and a young charismatic preacher in the town who quickly becomes at odds with the greedy Plainview. Driven by pride and greed, the gentle parlay an unsteady relationship and ultimately live to see the demise of each other.

There Will Be Blood is a masterpiece of storytelling. Writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson's adaptation of Upton Sinclair's novel, Oil! is in a word: magnificent.

With minimal dialogue, elegant score, and two brilliantly executed characters, Anderson delivers a film of epic proportions. Daniel Day-Lewis is captivating as the multi-faceted Plainview. The story follows a quarter century of a self-made man and the events that hardened him. Day-Lewis ages along with his character. He turns an honest, hopeful face into a tired and twisted one. Paul Dano owned Eli Sunday with balanced conviction. It was remarkable. Toe to toe, both actors reflect an art form and its the viewers that win.

Darkly vicious, the film examines the human psyche exposing the very worst. It would be uncomfortable if not so effortlessly rendered. The cinematography is stunning and Anderson is right to use it as a pressure release.

There Will Be Blood is a must see for Anderson's Kubrickian execution and mesmerizing performances, but I imagine it will be a very polarizing film. Clocking in at nearly three hours, you're either going to feel cheated or relieved. One thing is for certain... you will be haunted.

Australia (2008)

Lady Sara Ashley (Nicole Kidman) leaves England and travels to the dusty Australian Outback to take hold of the dream her deceased husband once had. She arrives to find a sprawling ranch that has seen better days. When threated by a local land baron and competior, Ashley makes a reluctant pact with Drover (Hugh Jackman), a roughshod cattle rustler to drive a head of cattle through unforgiving territory. Add Nullah (Brandon Walters), a 'magical' child of mixed race (white father/Aboriginal mother) who steals the heart of Lady Ashley, the Japanese bombing of Dawin's harbor at the turn of WWII and you have a film of grandiose proportions.

Australia is a melodramatic period epic that indulges writer/director Baz Luhrmann. He starts with good intentions, but ultimately becomes mired in his own imagination. The sweeping cinematography provides gorgeous renderings of the landscape and that is Australia's redeeming quality.

Kidman and Jackman are beautiful onscreen. They manage average chemistry, but neither own their performances well enough to make us care. David Wenham has a nice turn as a clichéd baddie.

The trials of this tenacious trio are predictable and never quite achieve Luhrmann's intentions--which I think is a romanticized historical drama. Australia suffers from a massive identity crisis. Is it an epic romance? Adventure? Or a piece to memorialize the disgraceful treatment of the Aboriginals? Instead of culling the nation's history, Lurhmann packs his film in an attempt to make it as interesting as the country and fails miserably. There's enough information here for a trilogy.

As it is, Australia plays out at two films. The first half focuses on Ashley and her, ahem, adjustment to the rugged state of affairs. The second half focuses on the war and how it effects Ashley's state of affairs. Neither part does right by it's actors.

Lurhmann gets two things right. The cinematography and production values are top-notch. He knows how to build a frame and set stunning images on fire. The score is a little too melodramatic to be of much good.

I loathe to say it, but as I see it, Australia is an epic cliché. It's not great; it's not bad. It's simply average.

Wilde (1997)

If this BBC production is to be believed, Irishman Oscar Wilde was a poet, playwright, father, homosexual, and a foppish bore. Wilde traces the story of Oscar's (Stephen Fry) rise to fame as one of England most gifted writers. His advantageous marriage to Constance (Jenniger Ehle) gave way to numerous escapades with young men (Ioan Guffard, an uncredited and very young Orlando Bloom, Michael Sheen). It's the torrid affair with Lord Alfred Douglas (Jude Law) that ultimately brought about his downfall.

Stephen Fry phones in his performance of Wilde. What a disappointment. Other than a pert accent and lilting swagger, the viewer sees no other effort from Fry. The entire cast is aloof and in turn, the film becomes an annoyance.

The film parks on Wilde's self-realization of homosexuality leading the drama to take on a sense of voyeurism. Poorly executed attempts are homo-eroticism are laughable and compound Wilde's issues.

As period dramas go, Wilde is lavishly produced with sweeping detail. If it weren't for the irritating cast, it would be enjoyable to look at. Alas, everything is marginalized by Fry's disinterested performance. There is nothing to see here. Nothing at all.

Far and Away (1992)

Young Irishman Joseph Connelly (Tom Cruise) dreams of America where land is free. Young socialite Shannon Christie (Nicole Kidman) is tired of her family's old fashioned ideas and dreams of being modern. Together, the two set off to conquer their dreams. Upon arrival, the two part only to have fate thrust them together again. Shannon is quickly swindled out of her small fortune and looks to Joe for guidance. Connelly leads by example. Digging his heels in, determined to do whatever it takes and soon finds himself a champion bare knuckles boxer. Shannon follows his lead. Taking jobs and saving money, the two struggle to make their way in the new world.

Far and Away, a period epic from writer/director Ron Howard, is a grandiose tale in style and texture. The film is beautiful to behold. 19th Century Boston is hard, gritty, and loud. Howard's production feels overwhelming. He pegs the hostility of a strange world, this paranoia of sorts perfectly.

Adding to the extravagant production, are Cruise and Kidman. With obvious chemistry, the two play off one another well, building a believable relationship that grows from suspicion to trust and ultimately life and death.

The cinematography is easily the film's best asset. It romanticises the film and ultimately creates the film 'epic' running time. No frame is wasted. The dialogue and underlying subplots are Far and Away's weakness. The dialogue has no depth and Howard insists on chatter when none is necessary. His dedicate to the Christie's is commendable, the story would have been better served detailing our young couple.

While predicable, Far and Away is a solid period drama. Howard leans towards the romance, but it's the framed beauty of the story's surrounds that make the film. Fans of the genre will no doubt enjoy.