Cindy Tartt

A film about incipient feminism where ironically what jumps out is Law’s Henry rather than Parr or Princess Elizabeth. How this failed to register is beyond “us.”

Did this pass the ironing test? Nope. I ironed a quilt cover AND pillow cases. Losing my mind, I would've started on the underwear. The direction is pretty awful, & at some point Jaws became a Canadian bear as the sound guys had it growling. I'll give it a 1 star because James A. Contner was Director of Photography. But as an artistic director he's known for Buffy & Angel; The Equaliser; the original Sisters and Dollhouse. Way back in '75 Contner was an uncredited camera-operator for Jaws. Quaid does a good job -it's basically running, yelling, riding boats onto sand like James Bond as does his feisty partner, Dr Morgan, played by Bess Armstrong. The other characters are 1 dimensional stereotypes because, hell, why worry about character development, or even sense when you've 3D images from INSIDE the shark chewing up main characters & way too many failed jump scares causing raucous laughter instead of terror. Don't abandon all hope immediately because the first water skiing scene features the gorgeous Lea Thompson (female lead in Back To The Future) in her first role. A week before filming she fibbed her way in claiming screen credits & gymnastic aquatic skills. She spent 12 hours a day practising til she nailed it. Louis Gossett Jr plays your nasty, money-before-lives grubby businessman but as an African American actor it feels completely wrong. The original Jaws had mystery, silence & sufficient pacing, allowing for the discovery of the enormous problem in Amity beach. It's filled with murky shadows & impenetrable soupy water & there's significant character back stories & development. Also, it showed a sincere engagement between the main characters & their community which this film totally ignores. It's turbo-charged s*it.

Did this entertain enough to stop ironing? Yup. It's a surprisingly good retread. Scheider's acting & stamina blows up the screen as do the teen-aged characters. Chief Brody's kids are grown up & this sets the stage for some thigh biting terror. The young actors are a pleasant surprise as some end up in films & TV during the decades to come like a second Brat-Pack. It's a chaotic film, particularly in its last 25 minutes, but put teens in catamarans high on coca-cola & sex & there's bound to be some confusion. Unlike a lot of thrillers it has a B & C story line mixed with flying dialogue. The water action is nicely filmed & realistic. I left my bucket of ironing, ate the mother's day chocolates & watched the whole damn thing.

I loved TGP. So, much I actually paid attention more the second time around. I hate it when people say "this is the thinking person's show. Makes moral philosophy 'relate-able'." But it is, and it does! Danson & Kristen Bell bounce off the page & the range D'Arcy Carden gives as 'good' and 'bad' Janet is hilarious. With each season it gets better and better. By the second time I was half in love with Jason myself. The ending nailed it too. Totally. Watch it. Take your time: because you'll miss the characters when it's over. Ah, OK, this is an edit because of one tiny "negative 17 point issue": the actress playing the Australian doctor. She was terrific in every way but I couldn't get past the accent. Why you guys didn't hire an *actual* Australian? Or an actual *indigenous* Australian, amazes me. Half of 'em live in Hollywood so go do it! Also a name-mention: Drew Goddard began on Buffy. Another awesome reason to watch this.

You don't need to know about The Conjuring universe to follow it but Vera Farmiga & Patrick Wilson reprise their roles as the Warrens on sabbatical following the 1976 investigation of Amityville. In Enfield, a market town in north London, children experience a haunting by a male entity speaking through the youngest daughter. Enter the Warrens. James Wan tells his story through a tight lens, focusing on the close-knit Hodgson family where Peggy raises 4 kids on spare change. Wan again uses original photographs interposed with actors, as well as corroborations of police officers, appearing briefly, but which add a stamp of authenticity to the haunting. Any good film introduces relationships between characters. The on-going love story of Lorraine & Ed, shown through a moment of joy, is a respite at Christmas. This scene is what makes Wan so terrific -& he has the perfect actors for the role. But I won't spoil it :) All the child actors are terrific & Frances O' Connor (Peggy) delivers a panicked nervousness which rings true. The beginning of the film, involving a nun who hints at Ed's death, follows from the previous movie. But the threat is neatly revisited in the final struggle of The Conjuring 2. It's a film packed with complexity & efficient special effects. Wan knows how to draw in his audience & leave them guessing before an epiphany whips up the pace cracking through to a nail biting climax.

I've always liked Armie Hammer. Amazing in The Social Network. Wounds isn't The Social Network. In the last 4 years we've seen Stranger Things & The Tunnel, even the final Paranormal movie had an interesting organic tunnel, compelling & terrifying & Wounds has a similar 'quest' but unlike the others is totally without redemption. Some spoilers....The characters played by Dakota Johnson & Hammer have no depth & the plot hints at elaboration but nothing actually happens beyond a very brief narrative. A scrappy fight with drunk bar hogs ends in torn flesh & the rest of the film shows several characters drenched in sweat or leaking ink, but always followed by cockroaches until they crawl over everything including the final scene which then implodes. The end. All you need to know. Several films have employed cockroaches including David Cronenberg's Naked Lunch but that had more joy & light than Wounds. Even Fortitude with its mysterious bugs in the middle of a spectacular, lonely landscape had something more to offer than a lame copy of a theatre of disgust like Wounds. And no, no: it's nothing like "The Shinning" -even if the viewer doesn't know its called The Shining. Please don't confuse Wounds with *that* feast of delight & sorrow. Yes, Wounds shows us The Book of Wounds once or twice & is allegedly "important" but it's a red herring (it's a red book, after all & herrings are creatures too, just like roaches). Beyond the 'creepy' phone messages, "you've been chosen" we never again see the teens who buy beer in Will's (Arnie Hammer) pub. And spam "chooses" me too but I never find it particularly harrowing & it doesn't cause ancient creatures to breed inside my mouth. Leave it well alone. (M C)

Jeepers. I can't even conceive the thought processes behind this film because, if you think about it all, very little makes sense. Chekhov's guns fire with all the subtlety of hand held grenade launchers but irrelevant scenes made it through editing anyway. Sadie Sink -Max from Stranger Things - is nicely placed and Lili Taylor from The Conjuring does a good job too as a distracted but committed immunologist. Spoilers ahead! The references by Eli's 'dad' to "I have a lot invested in this" & his mask of bored misery - even when it's clear Eli could die -proves, far too soon, Eli isn't a kid with an immuno-compromised malady. When you know he wasn't born with it, it's easy to see something else afoot what with wacky mom in regular communication with valium & Eli's 'Devil Daddy' whilst earthly dad has the prim certainty often associated with desperate people -& those easily led. The creepy nunnery is hardly a "a clean house, honey," what with all the old file cabinets, rusted steel & wood- burning fires. Eli's little red-haired friend always appears at night looking surprisingly well put together, continuing the theme from various supernatural series where "red is devil wed" - just like Eli's mom, AKA, bride of Satan - whose disposition swings like a pendulum from bewildered devotion, "we will fix you son" to totally nuts, "oh woe is me & my afflicted devil- child" who must heal from within by a few hundred thousand dollars & 3 witches wackier than the cast of Macbeth. It has the predictability of any horror movie with creaky doors, swinging mirrors, bad electrical connections & ghost writing. On a positive note, though their adult counterparts are as wooden as upside down crosses, Sadie Sink and Charlie Shotwell throw themselves into their roles having plenty of fun.

I was excited to see this -mainly because of the A-Listers from Heche to Julianne Moore and William H. Macy. The original film opens with Marion and Sam getting dressed. Marion's a stern woman, she's warm on occasion, but independent, fully aware of the problems within her relationship. In the remake, Marion's snuggling with Sam as if imagining a completely different future, her face continuously moving from thought to thought. By creating a completely new Marion, Van Sant loses the point of her 'hiding' in a cheap hotel with Sam. Heche's Marion is addled, roving from disorganised to foolish, her personality reflected in animated movements, swinging between absorption & disinterest in Norman's concerns. Overt, surging colours from costume to bright sunlight create chaos where a clear through-line would keep the film tight & punchy. Van Sant's Sam isn't proud or in love, but sleazy & suspicious. Thus, it makes no sense for Marion to steal & run. Janet Leigh's Marion is mostly mature & infrequently impulsive (beyond her love of clothes & trysts with Sam) leading her to steal the money - effectively laid out for her. Heche's compulsive twitchyness is thoroughly exhausting making us wonder why she has a successful job dependent upon reliability & trust. Hitchcock was never covert about his sexism; & his daughter, Pat Hitchcock, plays Caroline as overblown & unpleasant. No attempt is made by Van Sant or Rita Wilson to remove the cringe factor or bring that specific element up-to-date. Macy is competent; the highway patrolman blank & convincing like the original & Julianne Moore is a more complex Lila Crane. Hitchcock sure loved his birds :) allowing us to see the almost-lovable creep in Perkins: anxious yet refined, lanky but handsome, polished & delicate. He imitates his birds with slim hands & darting eyes. Next to the still & silent Janet Leigh, you had terrific balance within the gloom of Norman's office. The thrill was that Norman was absolutely likable -a confused guy but perfectly nice. Vaughn's Norman is a joke: heavy; over-loud & frightening, calling out Marion for her suggestion to "put Mother someplace" (without Perkin's gentility) causing Marion to grab keys, get luggage & get gone! But she does the opposite, apologising profusely rather than essentially preoccupied. She's over-invested in Norman's personal problems immediately & in a way Leigh's Marion could never be. Heche's Marion is the 1990s 'listener' & advocate & Van Sant's attempt to mirror their problems destroys any suspense. Norman's laugh is edgy & obvious; his tone obnoxious rather than ingratiating. I have no problem with re-makes if they serve a purpose. As a commercial failure, Van Sant acknowledges this as an "experiment" hence Marion's original dialogue. Had this 'experiment' worked, Van Sant would've dodged that concept for "a renewed re-do of a well-loved classic." Hitchcock was a wizard experimenting with authority figures, sex & terror. But when a light hand was needed, Hitchcock stepped back & allowed tonal colour, music & camera to fill his canvas. His Psycho WAS confronting but as far as I recall he didn't specifically show Norman masturbating. I found this aspect troubling -I'm no prude but it seemed heavy handed & awkward; instead of finely judged or deft. So, with nothing left to the imagination, the suspense was diluted & clumsy.

A lot of negativity about this terrific show. From the get-go there's unexpected relationships; groups of people from all sorts of backgrounds making a go of life. Australia's back-yard is bigger than ever and complicated too. I don't find The Heights 'predictable' at all; in fact, having lived in Sydney, Brisbane, Adelaide & Melbourne as well as country ACT & Victoria, I find this a specifically written piece for this decade: even 10 years ago you wouldn't find a gorgeous high school student, mouthy, funny as hell with cerebral palsy on telly; you most definitely wouldn't find a group of Muslims depicted cleverly without the usual stereotypes. Muslims are as diverse as any Christian, working hard to provide for their families. The Heights proves its writers know how important it is to dispel misconceptions (of Muslims in Australia) & stereotypes whenever possible without tearing the fabric from the story. The Heights comes from a place of heart. It's engaging & absorbing telly & for many typical ABC viewers, a reality check about how this Lucky Country lives. It might be apartment living, but there's efforts made among these characters, some with 2 or 3 jobs, each with their own private dreams, coming together for soccer & sausages around 'The Towers.' Some eat late at night whilst the wife continues her ironing job & the husband returns from driving cabs. Others are alone, in cramped conditions surrounded by evidence of better times & private memories scattered about their apartment. Where I live, the houses are over a million dollars & no-one, after 20 years, bothers to know, really KNOW other people. Sure, they work long hours, but so do people in The Heights. Obviously there's artistic license, it's not a doco but, for example, the issue of a former police officer using dope (perhaps because pain killers are too expensive or fail to work) is treated delicately & carefully but without fancy camera tricks so you're immediately enmeshed in the drama . Overall that suggests a decent amount of time in the investigation of the issues & finding writers who can bring out subtlety & realism in their actors. It's worth your time.