JamesRoy

I wonder if the makers of this piece of garbage actually bothered to go to the actual site of the first-fleet landing. I say this because the place where they filmed the first settlement scenes bears no real resemblance to the actual place. Sure, I know that you can't film it in the exact spot, since it would be hard to film without getting accidental shots of the Botanical Gardens pavilions, the Opera House and the Bridge, but seriously! Also, any reading of the seminal historical text "The Fatal Shore" by Robert Hughes will tell you that most of the women on the first fleet were raped on the first night ashore, not once buildings and storehouses had been set up. I know it's only a small thing, but when you set out to make an historical film, get the simple bits right and you're halfway to making the rest fall into place. Get lazy with the little things, and the whole deal looks shabby.

The tagline on this movie, "Every man fights his own war" is disturbingly apt. I say it's apt because we get to see the private war of several of these men. Unlike most movies, which focus on one, maybe two main plots (plot and subplot) this movie gets far too carried away with too many stories. Sean Penn, Nick Nolte, John Travolta, Jim Caviezel, Woody Harrelson, George Clooney and others each played a top-billing kind of role. Each of them had a story that we were supposed to care about. But that's too many stories, and in the end the movie comes across as scattergun and ad hoc. Two stories handled well, and I'd have been happy. But that many? Sorry, it's all a bit much.

Look at Saving Private Ryan. Two main stories - Tom Hanks' character and his journey, and James Ryan. The rest is important, and valuable. The young communications officer, for one. Tom Sizemore's crusty sergeant. But Hanks' Capt Miller was the man with the real journey, and we care about him, which is why we keep watching.

A friend who knows some of the crew from the filming of Thin Red Line (in North Queensland) tells me that much of the cinematography involved wandering through the rainforest filming filler of shrubs and birds and dripping water. And watching the film, I'd believe it. The photography was breathtaking, but in my opinion a movie needs more than pretty pictures to deserve a Best Picture Oscar nomination. A story, for example. A real, human story with characters you care about. I don't think it's too much to ask.

A middle-aged teacher reaches fulfillment in helping young students reach their full potential. Blah blah blah. There is nothing here that Good Will Hunting, Dead Poets Society and Finding Forrester didn't do better. Much better. The premise of this film is a bunch of loosely-connected vignettes that involve a frustrated composer becoming a teacher, and reluctantly growing to love his students. These students return at the end of the story to perform a tearful rendition of Mr Holland's 5 minute masterpiece. 5 minutes! This composition has apparently taken him most of his adult life to write. Again, 5 minutes!This is the greatest contrivance of this underwhelming and ultimately infuriating piece of heartstring-tugging tripe. My advice? Watch "Dead Poets Society" again. You'll find more that is new in the hundredth viewing of that masterpiece than you will in one viewing of this shower of offal.

More gentle than Christopher Guest's other mockumentaries, "A Mighty Wind" lacks the obvious satire and parody of "Best in Show" and "Waiting for Guffman." This is not a criticism. If the actors in this film weren't already well-known from other movies, in particular the above-mentioned mockos, one might be totally suckered into thinking that this was a real account of real folk musicians. Fred Willard's hysterical "once-was" character and the rather dim-witted publicity assistant aside, these characters are believable and endearing. I would go so far as to say that Eugene Levy's acting in this film is real, serious, heart-tugging acting, rather than the goofy buck-toothed oddball he usually plays.

And of course there is the music. If you were impressed by the lads from Spinal Tap and their musical prowess, check out this incredible ensemble of actors who throw themselves headlong into the folk genre with amazing aplomb. You don't like folk? Don't worry about it. This'll get you every time.

One of the criticisms levelled at JD Salinger's classic book "Catcher in the Rye" is that the voice of Holden Caulfield feels a little clunky at times, and very self-conscious. And yet this can also be seen as a comliment to the way in which Salinger finds his way into the mind of an adolescent creeping up to and looking over the brink of independence and adulthood.

Rushmore is just like this. Max Fischer is a frustrating character, high on delusions of grandeur, desperate to be seen as a leader, determined not to be seen as a scholarship tryhard. Up until now every adult he knows has seemed willing to accept him at what he thinks is face value. But he's not who he thinks he is, and he sure as hell isn't an adult yet, even though he believes himself to be.

This movie is quirky, poignant, warm and the performances are understated (especially Jason Schwartzmann, whose naive self-confidence as Max is so finely tuned.) At times it's excruciating to watch, in much the same embarrassing way that "The Office" (BBC TV) is excruciating to watch. But that discomfort is what makes films like this so irresistible: in Max Fischer we see a great deal of ourselves, and we cringe, and we totally understand.