Theme Month: John Hughes movies

Because the last theme month was such a glowing failure, I'm going to try again, except this time I'm on uni break and I've got Edward to help. The theme this time around is the movies of John Hughes. He wrote or directed all the movies of your youth that you probably love and cherish. If you're saying I don't know who this guy is or I don't know what you're talking about, then that means you're going to get film educated.

John Hughes is responsible for some of the most heart-warming and meaningful films of the 80's and 90's and is generally attributed to having created the idea of the teen movie. A lot of the themes are relatable to people because they touch on feelings we all had about growing up or relationships or family.

He worked on a huge number of movies of which we've selected eight (four for the both of us) and we'll be releasing one each a week in addition to our regular reviews. So here are the films we will be watching.

Edward:

• Ferris Bueller's Day Off (1986)
• Weird Science (1985)
• Pretty In Pink (1986)
• National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation (1989)

Jack:

• National Lampoon's Vacation (1983)
• Home Alone (1990)
• The Breakfast Club (1985)
• Sixteen Candles (1984)

Those are our movies for July. Check back every so often to check for updates. If your favourite John Hughes movie isn't on this list, I'm really sorry but he was involved in way too many movies.

Celebrity Guest Reviewer: Mark Wahlberg - Transformers: Age of Extinction

Hi guys, so neither Edward nor I wanted to review the latest Transformers movie. Lucky for us we have a very special guest to come in and give the most impartial review I'm sure he can give under the circumstances. So over to Mark.

Hey, how you guys doing? You doing good? I'm Mark Wahlberg, but hey you knew that already. What, you don't know who I am? Psh. That's your last chance and you only get one. Oh yeah, they told me I couldn't fucking swear in this review, but fuck that. You know why? Because I'm Mark fucking Wahlberg.

So I guess many of you are saying, 'Hey Mark, why are you in the Transformers movie? You're like a proper actor.' First, I know I'm a good actor. Remember when I said I'd be a star in Boogie Nights? Well here I am. But to answer your question, when the last movie came out I was walking Donnie on Hollywood Boulevard and he asked me when I was going to be in a Transformers movie. And I was like 'Shut up Donnie or I'll hit you again.' That was his last chance by the way.

But that did get me thinking I should be in a Transformers movie. You know why? I'm Mark fucking Wahlberg. So I went Michael Bay and was all like I'll be in your movie, just as long as you get someone to look after Donnie while I go away and fight some robots.

The first thing about this movie that I didn't like is that I'm supposed to be some weedy inventor guy. No one will believe that. Look at this picture.

Do I look like some kind of nerd who looks like he invents things to you? No. I look like I could punch your teeth in like I did to Donnie last Thanksgiving when he spoke back to me.

Another thing, they told me I was going to be the star of this movie, but then they kept talking about this Optimus Prime guy. Who the fuck is that and why does he get more screen time than me. I'm the star and I'm a star. Anyway, fuck that guy, I get to shoot a huge gun in this movie and run around all over the world. There are some other people in this movie, but they're not as good as me.

Verdict: Yeah this movie's pretty good. Only because I'm in it. The rest is pretty shit. It's just a bunch of robots and explosions. Now I gotta go pick up Donnie. And guess what? You're welcome.

Oh yeah, I only measure things in good vibrations.

22 Jump Street

So since neither Edward nor I could decide who would review this movie, you're all gonna get a weird (dis)joint(ed) review. So let's get to it.

Edward:

Having first seen 21 Jump Street when I was in high school, it was filled with plenty of jokes that I could relate to. Yet whilst it was funny enough, it always seemed like it was lacking direction in some areas, and I felt that much of the humour needed more of a setup. Now, as I’ve moved on to University, the boys are back and are going to college, with the (self-aware) sequel 22 Jump Street.

The new action packed installment picks up the pace a lot more, and overall I found the jokes quite a bit funnier than they were in the first. Whilst there’s still plenty of the “Suck my d*ck! No you suck my d*ck!!” sort of humor that dominated the original, it feels much more natural and flowing this time around, probably due to the vastly improved screenplay.

The film is also hilariously self-reflexive, taking satirical jabs at Hollywood’s obsession with sequels as we see the 23 Jump Street condominiums under construction, as well as the nature of the industry in general. There are also the absolutely hilarious credits - honestly one of the best parts of the movie - that I urge you to stay for, as they will certainly expel any worries you may have about the direction that this franchise is going in.

The action sequences are not over the top but definitely won’t disappoint, with plenty of eye-candy courtesy of explosions and slow-motion sequences. The acting is also spot on for this sort of comedy, with both Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum just as good as they were in the first and with a great supporting cast.

Verdict: Overall, 22 Jump Street stands up strong and is quite an improvement over it’s younger sibling.  If you enjoyed the first, you’ll be laughing all the way through this one!   

Jack:

Unlike 21 Jump Street, 22 knows it is a TV show spinoff (it also knows it a sequel but hopefully Edward's already written about that). We even get a previously on Jump Street recap, as if this is just another episode of a sitcom version of the original show.

This movie also has a bunch of references to other 80s TV shows and movies, such as The Golden Girls (which if you know the reference when it comes is hilarious) and Top Gun. These references are hilarious, but then again most of the film is funny. Schmidt and Jenko's bromance escalates to a homoerotic level that guarantees even more laughs.

This movie made me laugh so much that Edward must have regretted seeing it with me. The jokes were fast flowing and weren't too stale. However, the majority of the audience must have been a lot younger than us because I don't think they got a lot of the jokes, especially when the references are aimed at an older audience (like a superb Straight Outta Compton joke directed at Ice Cube).

Speaking of Cube, there is a lot more of him in this movie. And he is even funnier than he was in the first movie. His chemistry with both Tatum and Hill is fantastic and you tell they all had a really fun time making the movie. Especially Channing Tatum. He bounces around the screen like an actual teenager with a lot of glee.

The other standout performance comes from newcomer (to the franchise) Jillian Bell (Workaholics). If you are at all a fan of the aforementioned Workaholics, you'll especially like her character because she is just a slightly more unstable and violent version of Jillian on the show.

Verdict: A great sequel that is terribly self aware and just a pleasure to watch.

Classic Movie Review: American Psycho (2000)

American Psycho is the kind of movie you have to watch at least twice. Preferably more. The first time you'll watch it and see a movie about a guy who just likes to murder people and is just what the title says. But after a few viewings you start to notice things that you missed out on before. So after probably my fifteenth viewing, I think (rather hopefully) I finally understand the film.

It follows Patrick Bateman (Christian Bale), a young attractive finance executive in New York, who tells us that he is an insane psychopath who loves to murder people. And that's anyone and everyone. Through the course of the film he kills homeless people, dogs, models, colleagues, prostitutes, police officers and friends.

From the first viewing I always knew that this film was an obvious satire of late 80's yuppie culture. It's pretty hard to miss it. Bateman and his friends are obsessed with the best clothes, girls and food. Through Bateman's narration we are told of his morning routine with precise detail, including the specific types of lotions he uses and the properties that they have. There is a great scene where the guys compare each others business cards, with Bateman's tense narration playing over the top. This particular scene highlights the need Bateman has to one-up everyone, even in the most minute details.

But at it's core the film is also about conformity and Bateman's extreme need and desire to fit into the popular culture. He loves listening to Huey Lewis & The News and at many times gives lengthy speeches about particular singers before offing his victims, you can watch the most famous of them here. One facet of conformity that he cannot attain however, is a table at the elusive restaurant Dorsia, much to the dismay of the people around him.

Now, despite being best known for playing Batman, Bale's best work ever is as the two-faced Bateman (only one letter really divides the two roles). In the above scene, the blood splatter on his face only accentuates the two-facedness of his character.

There are also great supporting roles from Jared Leto, Justin Theroux, Reese Witherspoon and Willem Defoe. But due to Bateman's role as an unreliable narrator, all these characters fade into the background due to his disinterest in them.

As the film goes on and Bateman kills more and more people his grip on reality becomes more tenuous.  The films ends with with a mind-bender and leaves you thinking what just happened and when you think you got it, you don't.

Verdict: A scathing satire of of yuppie culture of the 1980s that is also about the need to fit in.

The Two Faces of January

I'd expect nothing less from the writer of Drive for his directorial debut. Hossein Amini is a master at adapting novels and if you can adapt James Sallis' existentialist Drive, you can adapt anything.

Rydal (Oscar Isaac) is a young American conman working as a tour guide in 1960s Greece. He takes around rich college girls whilst overcharging them for everything. One day he comes across the MacFarlands, Chester (Viggo Mortensen) and Colette (Kirsten Dunst), a mysterious wealthy couple from America. He is drawn to both of them and soon becomes embroiled in their dangerous past.

Based on the 1964 novel by Patricia Highsmith (who is known for writing The Talented Mr Ripley), Amini has constructed an intensely suspenseful adventure that very reminiscent of suspense films of the 1960s, not unlike those by Alfred Hitchcock. There were many times where I did in fact hold my breath at the outcome at many of the situations.

Isaac has proven himself once again in this film. His character Rydal is naive enough but not entirely unknowing of how things will turn out. Rydal's backstory is present, but because of the nature of him being a conman it is hard to know whether or not he is telling the truth about his past.

Both Mortensen and Dunst play perfectly off each other. Their chemistry is evident at the beginning and as the film goes on you believe that the strain in their relationship is genuine. Isaac also works well with both of them. The subtle hints of romance between Colette and Rydal are believable and Chester's strange surrogacy as father to Rydal is quite telling.

Verdict: An intensely suspenseful and gripping adventure through Greece. Amazing performances from all three actors.

The Rover

David Michôd is an extremely visual director. Rather than the narrow suburban streets of Melbourne in Animal Kingdom, we get the sweeping plains of South Australia. Set a decade after a presumed economic collapse that affected only Australia, we follow Eric (Guy Pearce), a former soldier and farmer, who is trying to recover his stolen car.

Guy Pearce is a force of nature in this film. His character Eric is unrelenting in his goal and will stop at nothing. He kills whoever gets in his way and though extremely brutal these scenes can be rather light, even funny, in this increasingly bleak film. Pearce is mostly silent and speaks when only absolutely necessary.

This is probably Robert Pattinson's best performance, but I've only seen him in two movies including this one (Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire being the other). He plays Rey, a young American, who once you figure out is a little slow becomes rather endearing. Like Eric he struggles to get used to the fact that you have to kill people to survive in this world.

The film handles it's subject matter with a pretty blunt approach. Michôd is unapologetic in his depiction of the violence and brutality. Nor does he skirt around the issues of a country selling it's own resources offshore. I viewed it almost as a cautionary tale of what would come if Australia kept selling it's resources and land the way it is now.

Michôd also explores the ideas of knowledge. Pearce delivers an incredible speech about what we truly know as opposed to what we are just told to accept as the truth. This permeates throughout the film in it's imagery. The film is also extremely bleak and we are shown that we just have to accept life as it comes.

On top of everything this is a beautifully cinematic film. The countryside is amazing to look at and we get some fantastic cinematography. There are endless shots of Pearce driving but you never get tired of looking at them.

Verdict: An extremely bleak film that endlessly rolls throughout the country. At the end it you'll understand that it all makes sense.

Under The Skin

Searching for meaning in Under The Skin is very difficult. It's not that there is no meaning to the film, rather it is up to the audience to find their own interpretation of the film, much like when you watch 2001: A Space Odyssey for the fiftieth time and think you understand it.

There is no real plot as such. Rather it is a series of events that fluidly evolve into each other. Scarlett Johansson plays an alien who has taken the body of an attractive young woman. She drives around the Scottish highways luring in young men whose flesh she harvests. After an encounter with a deformed man, she becomes more conscious of her human form.

This film is littered with beautiful and very Kubrickian imagery. There are beautiful shots of the Scottish countryside to masterfully crafted interiors of the alien's all black and extremely reflective lair. The nighttime road scenes are also amazing to look at.

Johansson's performance is chilling and captivating. Although most of the film is without dialogue, she uses her gaze to convey a variety of emotions, from seductive glances at her prey to distant stares at her own body. Through these looks we really get an insight into the characters thought process.

Verdict: Although a very minimalist film in terms of story, Under The Skin is breathtaking and thought-provoking.

The Fault in Our Stars

I had no idea how popular this movie was until I saw two high school girls taking photos of themselves with their tickets in front of the theatre that was showing the film. Of course I had heard of the fans throwing themselves at the stars and author John Green at the premiere, but I dismissed that as just teenage obsession a la Twilight.

I can see how this story could be so popular too. Two relatively normal seeming teenagers with 'normal' problems fall in love. Except with the added baggage of both having terminal cancer. Can there be a bigger recipe for a tearfest of a movie.

Well, you know how I said these two teens had normal problems, I was sort of lying. We see glimpses of Hazel and Augustus (both played spectacularly by Shailene Woodley and Ansel Elgort) beginning to deal with things like having sex for the first time, dealing with rejection and other angsty teen stuff. And that's what I thought what this film was going to be; a frank, yet emotional, portrayal of being a teenager whilst having cancer.

Instead, the first half of the movie doesn't take the opportunity to build up this relationship. Instead we get an obsession with an abruptly ending book that Hazel and Augustus can't handle and their journey to track down the author for answers. By the time the film gets to the relationship part, I was not invested in their romance. Sure I knew it was coming, I'm not an idiot, but the it should have happened earlier instead of painfully prolonging it.

Also this film is supposed to make you cry, right? Not once did I shed a tear during the two-hour run time. There were moments when I felt emotional, or as close as I could get, but never all out bawling.

If you're like me and you're unable to cry at kids with cancer, don't despair, the performances are pretty decent. Major props to Ansel Elgort who is amazing as he tries to put on a brave face in light of his situation. Laura Dern and Sam Trammell are also fantastic and I'm sure if I had of seen more of Trammell's sad face I probably would have cried. The same goes for Elgort.

Verdict: Cancer kids don't make Jack cry.

Edge of Tomorrow

It seems to me that this is a pretty equal opportunity Tom Cruise movie. By that I mean that rather than having an overabundance of DON'T YOU FORGET THIS IS A TOM CRUISE MOVIE, we get a movie where we get to see some actual acting from good actors and a hint of what Tom Cruise can be capable of when he wants to try.

The sci-fi concepts in the movie aren't shoved down your throat from the get go either. Instead the concepts are introduced gradually. First the alien invasion is presented to us in the form of news reports, which at the same time introduces the main character William Cage (Tom Cruise). He is a PR officer for the United Defence Force and gets conned by General Brigham (Brendan Gleeson) to be a frontline troop in an invasion that directly mirrors the D-Day landings that happened 70 years ago.

The origin of the aliens, or mimics, is never revealed. Nor is the type of being which they are. This is a detail that is irrelevant, however. All we need to know is what they look like and that they are bad news. They tear through soldiers like tissue paper, but they can be killed, as Cage finds out soon enough. Only the one he kills, ends up killing him too.

It's at this point that Cage wakes up the day before the invasion. In killing a particular type of mimic, he now has the ability to reset the day after dying. He does this time after time until meeting Sergeant Rita Vrataski (Emily Blunt), a war hero who once killed a thousand mimics. It soon turns out that she too once had the ability to reset the day. Once Cage awakes another time, he sets out to find Rita, who can help him find a way to stop the mimics.

In recent years there seems to be a push to turn Emily Blunt into some kind of sci-fi star. She played a telekinetic in Looper and had a part in the trippy sci-fi The Adjustment Bureau. However, Blunt has some real acting talent and is much better suited for drama films. I would really recommend everyone checks out The Five Year Engagement. Whilst it's a long film, she really showcases how good she can be in a film.

There are two fantastic cameos from Bill Paxton (Aliens), as a drill sergeant, and Noah Taylor (The Life Aquatic) as the seemingly crackpot scientist.

Verdict: A decent sci-fi flick that melds Groundhog Day, Starship Troopers and the D-Day landings.

Classic Movie Review: American History X (1998)

When I first saw American History X a few years ago, it had quite an impact on me. Since then I have re-watched it several times and have come to the conclusion that it is one of the most powerful movies ever made. What has really stuck with me over the years is its message. It’s a film that will keep you thinking long after viewing and will draw you back to it. This is definitely a film you have to see more than once to fully appreciate.

The film is a dark tale about Derek Vinyard (Edward Norton), a prominent Neo-Nazi figure in his neighbourhood, who after imprisonment returns a different man and struggles to prevent his younger brother Danny (Edward Furlong) from being caught up in the same situation. It deals with American race relations, the brutal nature of imprisonment, and the way in which family members can foster bigoted views in one another. The late Roger Ebert criticised the film for a disjointed structure, “The movie needs sweep where it only has plot”, but I don’t see this as the case. The scenes do jump around a bit, but I believe this adds to the story and is never done in a disorientating fashion. Considering the problems during production it’s an incredibly well formed film.

Tony Kaye (Director & Cinematographer) uses both black & white and colour film stock to contrast the flashbacks, with the period after Derek’s release. There are some beautiful slow motion shots in the colour segments but it’s the black and white scenes that have the most impact, magnificently filmed whilst quite distressing to watch. Though in many ways it’s the films editing which brings it together and much of the credit here should go to Jerry Greenberg (The French Connection, Apocalypse Now) and Edward Norton, who were brought in to restructure a third edit after Kaye’s first two did not fulfill New Line’s expectations. It was this third edit that would become the theatrical release, yet Kaye completely disowned it, even attempting to remove his name from the film. If you’re interested in what Kaye’s workprint cut would have looked like then this is a good compilation.

The heart-breaking ending is a fitting conclusion for a film of this nature, reminding us that all of humanity is capable of these actions, no matter what race or culture. This is a movie that is constantly playing with your emotions, through its many disturbing yet beautiful scenes. It is not afraid to rip your heart out and kicked it around like a hacky sack every once in a while. But the most enduring message is in the close. With the final shots of the beach at sunset as Danny quotes Lincoln, we are given a faint glimmer of hope for humanity amongst the darkness, and it is that hope that will stick with me forever.

Edward

On first viewing, American History X could be construed as a very controversial film. Indeed the subject matter is that of neo-nazism in America. But once you push past the surface layer, you find a film with some very diverse themes.

The major thread that runs throughout the film is that of redemption and rehabilitation. During his incarceration, Derek comes to see that the neo-Nazi rhetoric that was hammered into him may not be as solid as he thought. This comes as a result of his experiences with the other white power inmates, who don't quite believe in the cause as he does. He eventually changes his tune when he befriends a black inmate.

The other related theme is that of brotherhood. This is shown throughout the film with Derek's influence over Danny. It is probably true that Danny too would have been able to be rehabilitated if he didn't meet an untimely end. 

The performances are really what makes this film. Edward Norton gives a stellar performance. His is both heinously evil and, as a reformed man, kind, good hearted and tolerant of those who still belong to the life he left behind. Stacy Keach is fantastic as the leader of the neo-nazis.

The two other amazing performances come from Avery Brooks and Elliott Gould, whose characters come under attack from Derek's racist rhetoric. They play different sides of the same coin, Brooks' Dr. Sweeney has the ability to shrug off the remarks, whereas Gould's Murray internalises the mocking and shows how affected by it he really is.

This also is an example of a film that really benefits from a cinematographer directing. Kaye is a master at crafting evocative and meaningful shots. There are many uses of slow motion that give heavy meaning to the character's emotions and actions. The decision to have half the movie in black and white is a bold one, but ultimately pays off.

Jack