Kikis2

So many hyped shows this year and so much disappointment. Surprisingly, this one was pushed the hardest (I had "Crimson and Clover" stuck in my head every day for months before the show even debuted) and the only one that managed to live up to it. Sorry, Jessica Jones.

I came in expecting the X-Files, alien impregnations and all, and was disappointed for a good 5 minutes. Turns out old unsolved missing children cases and small town politics are a good mix. Plus I'm a sucker for a good conspiracy, even if it's more Michael Palmer than Whitley Streiber.

Like already mentioned, the photography is gorgeous, but also apt considering the main contention between the mill and greenies. For me the pace is in the sweet spot, anything faster would ruin the atmosphere and wouldn't give enough time to each theory. I might think differently if I were waiting a week between episodes, rather than watching a couple at a time on demand. There are a few stand out performances, but more importantly there's no terrible ones, no jarring moments ripping you out of the moment.

I should add that's a tentative 9. The ending could make it or break it. Too many red herrings? All the wrong clues given and the right ones withheld? But I like the direction enough so far that I have high hopes.

This is my favourite Australian film, not because the cinematography, or acting is flawless. Just for heaps of tiny things.

Jimmy (Ledger) is an average guy, wanting just a little bit more than the tiny bit he has in life. Pando (Brown) is the quintessentially Australian, crime boss who can give it to him.

In the first scene Jimmy's being dragged into the desert by Pando's guys with guns out and stubbies on. We don't know how he got here, but we're about to find out. We're soon introduced to out narrator: A dead guy, digging at some dirt. He explains yin-yang; the good in the bad and the bad in the good.

Two hands is part caper, part thriller, and a bit of romance. And it works. It's an unlikely story of bad luck and insane mishaps. Our narrator ghost is there to remind us that the preternatural isn't all that unnatural. Fate happens.

No it's not cinematic genius (though Ledger's charismatic smile might count as a masterpiece). It doesn't break boundaries, or overturn canon. But the rough-edged characters are hilarious, the plot never fails to entertain, and I'm not sure there's anything like it floating around...

Watch it. Or watch it again! If you don't ROFL during their "crime spree", you can direct your disappointment this way ;).

As many before have said, this will not appeal to everyone. It won't even appeal to the majority, but it certainly leaves its mark. It's a horror filled thriller that feels very different to others of its genre. It's truly original.(If we ignore the fact that it's a shot-by-shot remake of the original Austrian version.)

An idyllic bourgeois family on an idyllic bourgeois vacation is held hostage and terrorized by two sweet, well-dressed, psychotic youths. It is all a game. It's a game they've played before, a game they're very good at, and a game they always win.

The cast is superb. Watts and Roth are predictably good. Watts plays terrified well and Roth is completely believable as the trapped father, frustrated by his powerlessness.

But Michael Pitt with his relatively short resume, which doesn't show, is truly captivating as Paul. His character is odd and captivating and he knows it! We want to know "why?" we want to know what's going on in his head and he taunts our desires. Along with his trusty, unstable sidekick, Paul, he's almost comically sociopathic. The absolute horror of the whole event and its perpetrators is what draws us in.

It's self-reflexive bits (always reminding us that this is just a film) work well. It breaks the palpable tension with moments of levity, fitting in with the "this is just a game" theme. Addressing the camera, considered avant-garde six decades ago, still manages to feel fresh and surprising. We're pulled into Paul's game, we're in on the joke, and its not all that funny.

What are their motives for abusing the family? Well, what are our motives for wanting to watch a family abused? It's all in the name of entertainment, babeh.

Peter and Paul manage it all with a smile and a wink and some preppy looking outfits. I doubt any one of us makes it through to the other end still feeling that clean.

But, hey, give it a try.

Now I won't go on about the characters or the plot. I read the first book in high school the year it came out and my feeling were "meh". I'd read dozens of its ilk and saw nothing special. I'm now a few years over the target demographic, so you can guess what I think.It is what it is. Broody vampire meets bland teen. Not an awful contribution to the urban fantasy world.

The acting is fine. Stewart has a confidence that compensates for her character's lack of a spine, Pattinson's lack of expression fits the undead theme and Lautner...Well, with a face like that, who really cares?

But the young cast, cardboard cut-out characters, and lightweight plot are all completely outshined by the cinematography. The photography is absolutely scrumptious. The directing was different and added a rougher, younger edge and overall changed the feeling.

This could have been Gossip Girl with fangs, but instead you have a darker, less glossy, but more vibrant feel.