Review: Warrior

Warrior

Dir. Gavin O'Connor

Year: 2011

Aus Rating: M15+

Running Time: 140mins

Let’s face it – Rocky has been done to death! And yet its simple underdog tale gets routinely trotted out due to its unwavering success at moving audiences, most notably big manly men, to tears. Director Gavin O’Connor tries sprucing up the material by swapping out boxing for mixed martial arts, but it’s still the same old story told the same old way. At least Real Steel had robots.


Read the rest at Trespass Magazine

And just in case that review doesn't make it clear enough? I'm on Team Edgerton. For everything.

Yes please.

Scream to Scream, Scene by Scene: SCENE 3 of Scream 3 (0:10:21-0:12:01)

In this project I attempt to review the entire Scream trilogy scene by scene in chronological order. Heavy spoilers and gore throughout!



SCENE 3 of Scream 3
Length: 1min 40secs
Primary Characters: Gale Weathers (Courteney Cox Arquette), Detective Mark Kincaid (Patrick Dempsey), Student (Richmond Arquette) and The Moderator (Julie Janney)
Pop Culture References:

• None

And thus begins what will become a Gale Weathers ritual during Scream 3 in which we ruthlessly insult her horrible hair. This current version of her hair isn't even the worst of it! When he lets it out it just... well, yeah. This was the first image released, if I remember correctly, and we were all like "what has she done to her hair?!?" And it's not a Scream 3 specific wig, either, since she had the same hair on Friends. What was going on at that time? Why did she think this was good hair? And after her awesome red-streaked bob from Scream 2, too!

That young man right there rolling his eyes is Richmond Arquette, David's brother and Courtney's brother-in-law. In this franchise's ongoing desire to become the unofficial Arquette family album (remember Lewis Arquette was in Scream 3 and I fully expect Coco Arquette to be in Scream 12: Ghostface in Space!) we get another of the Arquette clan. Where was Alexis though? Could Scream 3 not fit in a hot transsexual anywhere in it's two hour runtime? What's Jenny McCarthy got that Alexis Arquette doesn't? ...Wait, don't answer that! Patricia Rosanna Arquette, on the other hand... well, she's probably still busy trying to find Debra Winger to make an appearance in this franchise. Wouldn't that be a hoot thought! Did Dewey have a secret sister he didn't know about? Ooh aah!

"Excuse me! So you're saying that we should be ready to go out and cut each other's throats because that's what you did?"

"Metaphorically, yes."

"So tell me Ms Weathers... was it worth it?"

There are so many red herrings thrown about in Scream 3 that they were even making the glorified extras into suspects! This little exchange between Arquette and Cox Arquette (...) is clearly meant to be a "ooh, who is this character? i bet they're the killer, ooh!" moment and yet this unnamed character (known only as "Student" in the cast list) never returns. Lovely.

Looking at Richmond Arquette's filmography, I'm actually quite surprised at the number of movie's he has under his belt including several David Fincher movies (Benjamin Button, Zodiac, Fight Club and as the delivery man in Se7en!) and Rob Zombie's remake of Halloween.

"That's quite an impressive resume."
"Thank you. I assume you're not here for an autograph."

I love that they make Gale Weathers' career a running gag by now. In each film she's worked for a different television news program and I'm sure when the detective says "impressive" he means "long and undistinguished."

Speaking of the detective, I love that Patrick Dempsey is in Scream 3. I like to think that if it weren't for Scream 3 then Dempsey's career revival wouldn't have panned out the way it did and without it Grey's Anatomy would've have become such the hit that it did (that show was very good for, what? two seasons?) Basically, Patrick Dempsey has Scream to thank for everything he has right now. ...okay, perhaps that's a bit of an overstatement, and he was quite good in his brief Will & Grace tenure, too, and I was certainly surprised to see him pop up in Sweet Home Alabama. I was secretly disappointed that he didn't return in Scream 4, but we'll discuss that later.

And, of course, I love the Scream 2 photo shot used on her press tour marketing. She'd never looked better!

"I'm here because Cotton Weary's been murdered."
"Someone killed Cotton?" "And his girlfriend. Someone who left something he wanted us to see. I'll show you this because you're the Woodsboro authority and because you knew him. I promise you, if you share this with the world it's you I will be arresting."

"I swear on my Pulitzer Prize, which I plan to win one day, detective."

Oh Gale! Forgetting the lack of any sustained grief at the news that her early career pet project had been murdered (after Scream 2 I suspect they soured when his career get sky high and she had a failed gig at 60 Minutes 2), I do love her reaction here. In Scream she was going for the Pulitzer and she still is! We can never say that Gale Weathers rested on her laurels.

Also, gosh Patrick Dempsey's hair is amazing.

"This is Maureen Prescott, Sidney Prescott's mother!"

Dun-dun-duuuuuunnnnn.

The Scream films were always much more interested in being a whodunnit than traditional slice-n-dice slasher flicks, but Scream 3 really took it to a new level. I've already noted the lack of traditional slasher movie chase and kills, instead choosing less gore and more exposition. The whole Maureen Prescott story... I ultimately don't think it works as well as they wanted it to, but it was a gallant effort at making a more grandoise stand for these films being taken more seriously, even they were always considered amongst the higher class of the teen horror craze.

Scream:
Intro, Scene 1 Scene 2, Scene 3, Scene 4, Scene 5, Scene 6, Scene 7, Scene 8, Scene 9, Scene 10, Scene 11, Scene 12, Scene 13, Scene 14, Scene 15, Scene 16, Scene 17, Scene 18, Scene 19, Scene 20, Scene 21, Scene 22, Scene 23, Scene 24, Scene 25, Scene 26, Scene 27, Scene 28, Scene 29, Scene 30, Scene 31 Scene 32, Scene 33, End Credits

Scream 2
Scene 1, Scene 2, Scene 3, Scene 4, Scene 5, Scene 6, Scene 7, Scene 8, Scene 9, Scene 10, Scene 11, Scene 12, Scene 13, Scene 14. Scene 15, Scene 16, Scene 17, Scene 18, Scene 19, Scene 20, Scene 21, Scene 22, Scene 23, Scene 24, Scene 25, Scene 26, Scene 27, Scene 28, Scene 29, Scene 30, End Credits

Scream 3
Scene 1, Scene 2

Scream to Scream, Scene by Scene: SCENE 2 of Scream 3 (0:08:21-0:10:20)

In this project I attempt to review the entire Scream trilogy scene by scene in chronological order. Heavy spoilers and gore throughout!



SCENE 2 of Scream 3
Length: 2mins
Primary Characters: Sidney Prescott (Neve Campbell)
Pop Culture References:

• None

Again with the gorgeous California location work. Whoever did the location scouting these films really did a great job. While Scream 3 doesn't make good use of these newfound open surroundings (remember in Scream when we saw Stu's house seemingly in the middle of nowhere and yet it was somehow more claustrophobic because there was nowhere to runaway to?), it's still nice to look at.

Aw, hi Sidney Prescott! Long time no see. Meanwhile, why does this movie dog get no credit?

I'm getting the sense that Sidney doesn't feel particularly safe anymore. What with the "Beware of dog" sign and the multiple security entry locking systems. How does the system work in that second picture? Is it electrified? What's to just stop a killer climbing over that fence? Hmmm. Meanwhile, the security password is 1-2-8-8... is that a horror reference? I feel like it must be. The address of a famous horror movie house? Something?

I like that she has The Fall of Troy poster on her wall. Probably a reminder of Derek and that her college drama department had really bad flyer-making skills.

Aw, she has Dewey on speed dial! Bless.

Ya know, despite all the killing and dead boyfriends and the raped mother and all of that, Sidney seems like she has a nice life. Beautiful surroundings, working as a counsellor helping women (albeit under the fake name of "Laura") and a pet dog. Stupid Ghostface, always with the calling and the killing.

Scream:
Intro, Scene 1 Scene 2, Scene 3, Scene 4, Scene 5, Scene 6, Scene 7, Scene 8, Scene 9, Scene 10, Scene 11, Scene 12, Scene 13, Scene 14, Scene 15, Scene 16, Scene 17, Scene 18, Scene 19, Scene 20, Scene 21, Scene 22, Scene 23, Scene 24, Scene 25, Scene 26, Scene 27, Scene 28, Scene 29, Scene 30, Scene 31 Scene 32, Scene 33, End Credits

Scream 2
Scene 1, Scene 2, Scene 3, Scene 4, Scene 5, Scene 6, Scene 7, Scene 8, Scene 9, Scene 10, Scene 11, Scene 12, Scene 13, Scene 14. Scene 15, Scene 16, Scene 17, Scene 18, Scene 19, Scene 20, Scene 21, Scene 22, Scene 23, Scene 24, Scene 25, Scene 26, Scene 27, Scene 28, Scene 29, Scene 30, End Credits

Scream 3
Scene 1

Scream to Scream, Scene by Scene: SCENE 1 of Scream 3 (0:00:00-0:08:20)

In this project I attempt to review the entire Scream trilogy scene by scene in chronological order. Heavy spoilers and gore throughout!



SCENE 1 of Scream 3
Length: 8mins 20secs
Primary Characters: Cotton Weary (Liev Schreiber), Christine Hamilton (Kelly Rutherford), Ghostface (voice of Roger Jackson) & "Female Caller" (voice of Beth Toussaint)
Pop Culture References:

• Are there any? Only broad stuff like a similarity to The Shining in the knife/door sequence. Where are they all?!?

For all the talk of Scream 3 not adhering to it's own "all bets are off" idealogy - and, in certain respects (mostly those regarding the three lead characters) that's true - this film did quite a bit that was unexpected. Beginning with this opening scene, for instance, we have a male central victim, the new voice dynamic and a huge location change. By changing the setting from the original "return to Woodsboro" idea (after the Columbine shootings, Scream 3's return to high school killing spree idea was mooted) to Hollywood the filmmakers gave themselves a much larger scale upon which they could work their magic. Some people think that "magic" was a load of ol' tosh, but I happen to love Scream 3. As we'll see, Scream 3 is beloved by me for, at times, being a sort of bizarro world comedy that just happens to have a few killings in it (a few?), but there are times when this film is just as good as it's predecessors. We're back in the saddle, folks!

Oh hai, Cotton! The way I remember the lead up to Scream 3's release panning out is that we'd all kinda figured out that Cotton Weary was going to die and that it'd be great if he were the opening victim. I think all just Scream obsessives eventually (wait for it) cottoned on to the fact that he was going to get the chop very early since, for obvious reasons, all the clips and images of him seen in the trailers and stills featured him wearing the same costume throughout. It's just science.

"You sound a lot like that guy on TV. Uh... Cotton Weary."

The introduction of this new voice curveball was, for a while, quite great. They never really came through with a big payoff with it (unless you count the bed sheet mother scene, which I don't), but for something like this it works well. The only major problem is that by the third film in this franchise we know that whatever's going on on the other end of the line isn't quite right. The moment the switch happens isn't so much a surprise as it is a "yup! i guessed that" sorta moment.

"So, why don't you tell me who you are?"

"You're a naughty boy, Cotton. Now what would your girlfriend say?"

"What makes you think I have a girlfriend?"

*click*

"I know you do. I'm right outside her bathroom door."

Scream 3 takes all of one minute and 52 seconds to get to the ominous, threatening tone. Ghostface is clearly not as interested in playing cat and mouse this time. It's an issue through the entire film, actually.

I do like the parallels to the Casey Becker/Ghostface chat from Scream's opening scene. "Do you have a boyfriend?" "No, why? You wanna ask me out on a date?" and so on. Speaking of Casey Becker... I'll sure we'll discuss it at some point in the future, but I remember I and many others were very disappointed that Casey's house (or, more to the point, the Stab set of Casey's house) wasn't used as the opening or closing scene of Scream 3. It would've been perfect!

And here is Kelly Rutherford. She was a disappointing name for the Scream 3 opening scene then, but I have definitely warmed to her as I'll discuss a little bit later in this piece. Nevertheless, I think she does a good job in making the secondary victim more of an identity than either Steven Orth of Phil Stevens were before. In other news: Why don't Americans use the god damn fan in their bathrooms?

I like how cheesy all the billboards are in this film, whether they're this for Cotton Weary's television chat show or those for Stab 3.

As you probably saw at towards the start of this entry, under the "references" title, Scream 3's opening sequence actually doesn't use any outright. Instead, it takes most of its cues from the first two Scream films. Whether it's the similarity to Casey Becker's dialogue or this shot that mirrors the Heather Graham shower sequence in Scream 2. Thereby making Scream 3 an even more meta; it's referencing its itself.

Oh Hollywood, what the hell is this?

Stab 2 tagline: "EVEN TRUE STORIES HAVE SEQUELS..."

Okay, that Stab 2 tagline is incredible. I'm surprised nobody thought of it sooner for an actual horror sequel. It's stuff like this that makes this project endlessly fascinating; I'd never seen that (the tagline) before! It's so golden that I feel like it's wasted on a brief one second cut away shot. Still, I see it there now!

"Cotton, is that you?"
I like this little tracking shot of Christine. Craven was definitely trying to go with a more voyeuristic look during Scream 3's opening, I think. Trying to get under the same skin that the original did with that brilliant moment when you know Drew Barrymore's Casey is being watched. As great as the Scream 2 opening is - and boy, it is! - it did miss this part of the equation. Meanwhile, the shot of Christine's feet as she walks down the corridor is a reference to something, I am positive of it... I just can't put my finger on it. Can you?

"Okay Cotton, you know I don't like your 'stab' games."

I kinda love this line because of the images it alludes to. The idea that Cotton Weary, a man whose story was morphed into the series of fake slasher flicks known as the Stab franchise uses those very stories for roleplay sex? Does Cotton wear a Ghostface mask? Does Christine pretend to be Maureen Prescott? The mind boggles.

Bam. Helllloooooo Ghostface! It really didn't take long, did it? And, of course, Ghostface's theme song - the one that seems to play whenever he arrives at parties - is that improbably shwing sound effect that happens whenever the knife cuts through air. I don't think knives make that noise outside of being sharpened. I swear that knife gets bigger with each passing instalment, too. By Scream 4 it was positively machete-esque!

Review: The Thing

The Thing

Dir. Matthijs van Heijningen Jr.

Year: 2011

Aus Rating: MA15+

Running Time: 103mins

Enter any debate about “original versus remake” and John Carpenter’s The Thing will inevitably arise. It’s a proverbial trump card in any argument with anybody who says remakes are never better than the original. Carpenter’s 1982 remake of The Thing from Another Planet is a pulse-racing, terrifying, claustrophobic horror-thriller that featured (quite literally) out of this world make-up and visual effects that remain as gruesomely effective today as they were then. So, in this day and age of ad nauseum remakes it’s a pleasant surprise to see the filmmakers of the latest version of The Thing have actually gone down the road of making a prequel rather than an out and out remake.


Read the rest at Trespass Magazine

To Mislead, or Not to Mislead: Surviving Georgia Producer Speaks Out

Last week Stale Popcorn broke the story (for once the word "EXCLUSIVE!" could be hailed about a news item I posted) of the Aussie film with the misleading marketing. If you recall, the trailer and poster hailed a four-star quote from "The Guardian", which was actually nothing of the sort. Rather, it was an anonymous user comment on the film's Guardian website that hailed the low budget Australian feature as a film that "....touches the heart and leaves you with a smile", whilst attributing a 4 star rating a whole four months ahead of it's local debut. Well after we wrote about it here, the story caught on with discussions continuing on Twitter, Facebook and websites Crikey and Cinema Quest.

Well, now producer/actor/distributor Spencer McLaren has spoken to Encore Magazine about the issue and... well, take a look. It's a doozy.

When Encore suggested that attributing the quote to a publication such as The Guardian was deceptive to the public, McLaren claimed: “It was not The Guardian, but Guardian.co.uk. But we contacted The Guardian to let them know. I think, what’s occurred, is it’s been accredited wrong. We’ve had different marketing people at different times. Ultimately it’s our fault as producers to cross-reference, that’s where the responsibility lies.”

He also claims that the initial furor (McLaren only cites Luke Buckmaster - what am I? No good? Oh woe is me!) as "some Machiavellian plot to mislead the public" and that “We’ve now got plenty of great reviews. So it’s not like we need it.” It's this latter quote that strikes me as both dismissively insulting, but also incredibly stupid. If they thought they had a great product that was capable of garnering plaudits from critics then why wasn't Surviving Georgia shown to them any earlier than two weeks before release (the earliest Melbourne media screening was held on 29 September). Why weren't the producers and distributors using grass roots techniques to get word of mouth going? Sending screeners to potentially influential critics and writers in order to get words online? I suspect it's because they knew their film wasn't good enough, that's why. These so called "great reviews" amount to some nice comments at Citysearch and this from Buzz Magazine.

Meanwhile, there has been no mention whatsoever of the issue on the film's official Twitter and Facebook pages, but the offending quote has indeed been removed from the official website and replaced with a simple 3-star review from Empire without an attached quote. Lastly, I went to the Yarraville Sun yesterday to see a movie and what should I see hanging up in several locations? The poster featuring the same four-star review discussed.

Hmmm.

Review: Red State

Red State

Dir. Kevin Smith

Year: 2011

Aus Rating: MA15+

Running Time: 88mins

As poster boy for the American independent cinema movement of the 1990s, Kevin Smith has found himself lost and seemingly unmotivated amidst the film landscape in recent years. He has churned out a sequel to his beloved Clerks and made the resoundingly lead-footed mainstream wannabe Cop Out, but with Red State Smith has returned to his indie roots, resulting in some mixed returns. It’s certainly an ambitious film and, unlike many of his recent films, is can actually be labelled as competently made, but it still suffers from Smith’s usual bag of frustrating tricks.

Read the rest at Trespass Magazine

Let me just say that there are two jokes about Melissa Leo's wig in there. I think I restrained myself quite well.

Review: Dragonslayer

Dragonslayer

Dir. Tristan Patterson

Year: 2011

Aus Rating: M15+

Running Time: 75mins

Debut director Tristan Patterson has teamed up with legendary film producer Christine Vachon to create bring forth this evocative documentary, Dragonslayer. A film that ducks, weaves and swoops through its world of low-stakes skateboarding competitions as if the camera is as lost as its protagonist. Watching this beautiful film is like being transported to another generation, one soaked in grunge aesthetics straight out of the early 1990s. Dragonslayer looks absolutely nothing like the vision of youth that we so regularly see on film today and if Gus Van Sant says his favourite film of 2011 is anything else then I will be surprised.

The subject of Dragonslayer is Josh “Skreech” Sandoval, a skater who Patterson follows around America (they met at a party at which Sandoval claims to have been on five squares of acid) as he aims to skate through as many empty swimming pools as possible before the chilling realisation of life (he is a divorced father) finally get to be too much. He and his girlfriend sell items in period garage sales to pay for road trips to Oregon, California and everywhere in between, sleeping in a tent in their friends’ backyards and taking advantage of cheap hot chip offers available at roadside diners. The glamourous life this is not, but what comes through thanks to the gorgeous cinematography, rhythmic editing and hypnotic music is a story of this rather simple man living a rather simple life and somehow being more satisfied than any of us could ever imagine.

My initial scepticism of the project – a 75-minute doco about skateboarders hardly sounds promising – were very much put to rest once I actually laid eyes upon it. Eric Koretz’s award-winning cinematography manoeuvres about the American landscapes, both natural and unnatural, with a flowing beauty that was like magic to an Americana tragic like myself. Capturing moments of bliss and hardship without ever succumbing to clichéd representations of either, something that is certainly aided by the fantastic soundtrack. Ace rock tracks that harkens back to grunge, punk and the rise of indie rock with modern day incarnates like The Germs, Bipolar Bears, Best Coast and Little Girls. During scenes of house parties filled with gangly-faced young adults wearing flannel and tee shirts unadorned with popular labels, I actually forgot I was watching a film from 2011. Perhaps funny that this film should come out just a couple of weeks after Nirvana’s Nevermind album celebrated its 20th anniversary.

Dragonslayer drifts about amidst its hypnotising haze despite the hectic editing of Lizzy Calhoun and Jennifer Tiexeira. Despite lacking the initial visceral thrill of Senna, it’s form of vibe and atmosphere is just as potent. Echoes of the aforementioned Gus Van Sant’s Paranoid Park are perhaps too obvious, and yet pertinent with skating sequences that are crafted like stunning musical sequences and allow the athleticism to be truly appreciated. The way Patterson nestles himself in the culture is just so wonderful; these people never once talk about being “outsiders” or “losers” and the film works hard to show why they’re idols to an entire swath of people who have nobody else to look up to. These people know their future will ultimately not be the brightest, but they’ll be damned if they’ll let that get in the way of life. Dragonslayer is a superb film, a rich breakthrough and ultimately a transcending look at a culture that society (and, yes, even Hollywood) is letting slip away. It’s absolutely one of the best films of the year. A-

Dragonslayer is screening at ACMI until 16 October.

Review: Higher Ground

Higher Ground

Dir. Vera Farmiga

Year: 2011

Aus Rating: M15+

Running Time: 111mins

One woman’s struggle to abide by religious dogma in 1970s America forms the basis of Higher Ground, the directorial debut for Vera Farmiga, who also stars in this film as Corinne. The character of Corinne is based on Carolyn Briggs, whose memoir, This Dark World, was the inspiration for the film, and who also co-wrote the screenplay. After an accident nearly causes the death of their infant daughter, Corinne and her husband, Ethan (Joshua Leonard, turn to God. Years of devout worship begin to unravel, however, when the world she inhabits begins to suffocate her and she is forced to question her beliefs.


Read the rest at Trespass Magazine

Surviving Georgia and the Case of the Four-Star Review that Never Was

It seems that once a month an Australian film comes along that goes so under the radar that you'd be forgiven for thinking it doesn't really exist without seeing it with your own eyes. I had heard about the production of Surviving Georgia, the first film by Sandra Sciberras since the small, but nice, Caterpillar Wish in 2006, but that was so long ago that I was instantly surprised to see it pop up on the local release schedule for next week (13 October). I haven't had the chance to see Surviving Georgia as I was busy at the time of the press screening, but those who have inform us that, well, it's not very good. Hardly surprising, but you never fully hope for a bad movie so it's a shame when one just lands with a thud. Especially when it features a cast like Pia Miranda, Caroline O'Connor and Shane Jacobson.

Still, get a release it shall (into 8 cinemas, more than some other more acclaimed films) and good on them for doing so. Just getting a film completed and out there is a win in this day and age, and if the cinematic release acts as nothing more than a token gesture before DVD (a much more forgiving arena for Australian films, I assume) then so be it. The film is being distributed, I believe, by the co-director (Kate Whitbread) and co-star/co-producer (Spencer McLaren), although I may be wrong on that detail, and a recently released trailer didn't exactly set the world on fire - two unrelated Twitter followers labelled it "abominable" within minutes of each other. Take a look for yourself and think "would I rather see this or A Heartbeat Away?" Hmmm, that's a tough one!


So far, so ordinary. It may look bad, but not offensive and barely worth a second glance. Sad, but true. Nevertheless, something about this trailer piqued my curiosity at the time (I saw it play before The Help and promptly forgot all about it), but it wasn't until I received an email from a "Jarrod Sturneiks" just yesterday that it really clicked. In between the many moments of inept acting displayed by star Holly Valance ("you've got to be bloody kidding me" is a snorter, that's for sure!), the dunderheaded title cards, grating budget music choices and the entire film being laid out in front of us, there is a moment of unexpected curiosity when a four star review from The Guardian is referenced.

Considering even Australian critics hadn't had much of an opportunity to see Surviving Georgia at the time, it was curious that this tiny Australian film starring Holly Valance (of all people) managed to secure a 4-star quote from a well-known source such as The Guardian website. Alas, what they have done is in fact used a user review posted by somebody on the film's default Guardian page. Looking at the website in question and it becomes quite clear, rather quickly, that this review by "Lutherfilm" is not an official review by any means and that the producers have misrepresented The Guardian as somehow endorsing Surviving Georgia.

How do they get away with it? The same star rating and quote is featured on the poster, too. One must assume that they figured their film is so small that nobody would really notice and that by not including the actual name of the person who wrote "...touches your heart and leaves you with a smile" they can feasibly get away with it. But, then again, that's like saying CNN endorses radical alternative therapies simply because they feature an interview with somebody who does. Who on Earth knows who this "Lutherfilm" person is, anyway. The comment was posted way back on 18 May, which is coincidental since the film's original release date, according to IMDb, was 29 May. This person's profile features no other activity; they may as well be a stock standard Anonymous and be done with it. There's even a typo in there to look unofficial.

It almost feels like I'm criticising a puppy for peeing on the carpet, but this sort of blatant false advertising does nobody any favours. Not the Surviving Georgia filmmakers, nor any other filmmakers who work hard and get their film out there just to see it fail. Australian films are currently doing quite well at the box office, what with Red Dog and The Eye of the Storm, but this much smaller film obviously didn't have the resources at their disposal, which is hardly their fault. Nevertheless, so much Australian film marketing is grass roots, especially for a film like this, and perhaps I was just looking in the wrong place, but I never heard a peep out of this film trying to get itself out there and raising its profile. If they thought slapping a fake quote on their dodgy trailer was going to cure their film's ills then they were sorely mistaken. If they don't even trust their own product then why should we? I like to try and see as many local films as possible, but for Surviving Georgia I'll make an exception. This one I'll skip.

Review: Footloose

Footloose

Dir. Craig Brewer

Year: 2011

Aus Rating: PG

Running Time: 113mins

Censorship leading to rebellion was hardly an original concept when Herbert Ross’ Footloose premiered nearly 30(!) years ago, but the concept is given a fresh shake in Craig Brewer’s remake. Taking the 1984 original and shaking it of its dorkiness and ugly 1980s veneer, Footloose is a notable exception amongst a glut of disappointing remakes. It takes what worked in the original (the layered plot, the fresh music and the character of Willard) and polishes them up in a shiny new package that finally serves them justice.

Read the rest at Trespass Magazine
I want to see it again right now, that's how much I enjoyed it! Add it to the pile of films that justify a remake.