Yep its a tardy Father Geek reporting in with not quite the latest from downunder...

Look, it's not in my nature to be mysterious. I can't talk about it, and I can't talk about why.

AICN-DOWNUNDER

Ah, Butt-numb-a-thon. What a marvellous time of the year. I've never actually been, mind you, but it does mean that if I, say, submit this column to Father Geek at the start of the weekend, realise halfway through Saturday that I forgot to write an editorial, hurry home, knock up some acceptable place holder, then send it off again... then all is well. Phew. That was close. Here's what's going on...

NEWS

* Dakota Fanning, who at the tender age of ten has made more films than the entire cast of PULP FICTION put together, will be flying down Melbourne-ways early in the year after she wraps up mentoring newcomers Steve Speilberg and Tommy Cruise in small budget indie project WAR OF THE WORLDS. Ms Fanning, who has yet to date Aaron Carter, will be starring in the new production of CHARLOTTE'S WEB. No word yet if Babe has managed to land the role of Wilbur, but we're quite certain that Shelob's auditions have not been met with much success.

* A lot of people wrote to fill me in on the Untitled Train Project mentioned last week. The film is called LONG WAY TO FREYO, and charts a train trip from Perth to Fremantle during which two women are menaced by a couple of bogans. It's based on a play called "The Return" by Reg Cribbs, which was originally put on by Perth Theatre Company and has since performed around the country. The film is the feature directing debut of Jeremy Sims, who has directed short films and TV as well as the original Perth production. Sims is best known for his acting in comedy NED, "Secret Life of Us" and "Fireflies", amongst others.

* Screen Tasmania has approved seed funding for three feature films; THE UNSEALED ROAD, I LOVE LAUNCESTON, and I CHOOSE YOU. This doesn't mean the films have an automatic green light, but they have been granted appropriate funds to continue developing their respective scripts.

* DiCaprio has echoed what everyone except Baz Luhrmann has been saying for ages: the ALEXANDER THE GREAT project is caputnik. It ain't happening. No siree. Since Oliver Stone's epic has tanked, it's becoming less and less likely that we'll see slam zooms and speed-ups and jump cuts as a twenty-five year old invades the world. Of course, if Stone's pic had been a raging success there would also be no point to making a second version. Suggestion to Mr Luhrmann: make a CGI film about ants instead.

* New Zealand writer/director Glenn Standring (THE IRREFUTABLE TRUTH ABOUT DEMONS) is working on science fiction retro-futuristic flick PERFECT CREATURE. Starring Dougray Scott and Saffron Burrows, the film takes place in a world where vampires and humans have learnt to co-exist. Thanks to "please don't use my name if you use this".

* NSW Young Australian of the Year went to Khoa Do, who comes from Yagoona in Sydney. Do directed 2003 film THE FINISHED PEOPLE, and starred in ANACDONAS: THE HUNT FOR THE BLOOD ORCHID. Presumably, he got the award for FINISHED PEOPLE.

* Fans of the book and fans of the Delta will want to go to ninemsn.com.au/hatingalisonashley to check out the website for (go on, guess) HATING ALISON ASHLEY. The first film to be shot at Melbourne's new Dockland Studios, the film is due for release in 2005.

AWARDS AND FESTIVALS

INTERNATIONAL FESTIVAL OF FILMS ON ART

The Montreal-based festival, to be held this coming March, will feature Australian documentary MR PATTERNS as part of its Creative Crossroads competition.

TASCAPE

"Farscape" fans based in Sydney, this is your lucky news item. January 15-16 is the fourth annual TaScape, a weekend where "Farscape" fans gather to share the love and party hard. Sunday is the traditional BBQ, and many of the cast and crew have been known to attend in the past. Those interested should head to http://fam.gumnut.net and http://magicmonster.com/FAM/index.html. The second event, to be held on the first weekend of April, is the second ever "Farscape" convention in Australia (TaScape apparently doesn't qualify) will be held at the Catholic Workmans Club. For more details, head to www.rcevents.com.au

2005 ACADEMY AWARDS

Australian short animation BIRTHDAY BOY has made it through to the semi-final round of competition for the next batch of Oscars. Written and directed by Sejong Park, BIRTHDAY BOY is now in the final ten.

BOX OFFICE

You've got to wonder why a film like GARDEN STATE is at number ten whilst CHRISTMAS WITH THE KRANKS sits happily in the top five. How could anyone watch the promos for that and think, "Yeah, I wanna spend money to see that!" ? Crazy.

Sooo this is the cream?

• 1. NATIONAL TREASURE
• 2. TEAM AMERICA: WORLD POLICE
• 3. BRIDGET JONES: THE EDGE OF REASON
• 4. SAW
• 5. CHRISTMAS WITH THE KRANKS

RELEASED THIS WEEK

Michael Gambon auditions for the NEMO sequel, a film about a different type of Ocean scares away most competition, and a remake of a terrific French thriller curiously casts Josh Hartnett.

Here's what's new...

• DEEP BLUE
• OCEAN'S 12
• WICKER PARK

REVIEWS

OCEAN'S 12

The most frequent questions I get when I'm walking down the street and someone yells out, "Hey, you're Latauro!" (clearly recognising me from text posted on an internet site in Texas) are as follows: "Did you *really* meet Mel Gibson?", "What does Hercules look like?", and "Why exactly do you love Soderbergh's OCEAN'S 11 so?". So, when I'm not answering them with "No", "A twelve-year old girl in a Buffy t-shirt" and "Get your hand off my fucking leg", I sit them down and explain why my feelings on O11 differ from those of other critics. (The conceit being the assumption that critics have feelings, when we all know they're unfeeling robots pre-programmed with buzz-words designed for posters and DVD covers...)

The main complaint about O11 was that there was no real sense of danger. It was a heist without a big enough threat; Terry Benedict wasn't threatening enough, the police weren't a real factor, there was no point at which we felt these guys were in serious danger. Well, that's a factor in the Lat love of that film. Too many of these films crowbar in some sort-of contrived danger to up the stakes, and that's usually when I tune out. The good films have genuine danger; the bad films have contrived danger. What I'd been hanging out for was a film that had neither; a film that was able to keep the action going and keep me interested without needing some big bad threat. OCEAN'S 11 was that film for me. I was never bored, and I was never anything short of entertained.

Then there's my love of the Soderbergh. He is, hands-down, my favourite director. It's similar to my love of REM in that I feel that everything he does is purely for my own personal enjoyment. His style and material choice is so perfectly in tune with what I like to watch, I always give him the benefit of the doubt. Even when I thought ERIN BROCKOVITCH looked like an Oscar-baiting movie of the week, I went along (it's now happily in my DVD collection). TRAFFIC is perfect, OUT OF SIGHT is phenomenal, THE LIMEY is his best. I love FULL FRONTAL. SCHIZOPOLIS is genius. He's never made a film I don't adore. OCEAN'S 11 is my favourite heist film because it's so in tune with what I love in movies.

OCEAN'S 12 is pretty awful. Typing those words isn't easy because I never thought this day would come. I thought that by jumping from O11 to FULL FRONTAL, Soderbergh was retaining his indie sensibilities and would never fall victim to Lucas Syndrome. His sense of what to keep and what to cut is usually spot-on (as evidenced in the deleted scenes menus on his DVDs), but it has totally failed him here.

The story is so convoluted and slapped together, it's an annoyance even attempting to follow it. The biggest mistake? Using George Nolfi's HONOR AMONG THIEVES and trying to adapt it into OCEAN'S 12. The script ultimately feels like two different stories stuck together, with numerous extra scenes forced in to give the rest of the cast enough to do (they don't have enough, but I'll get to that later).

I don't want to go into spoiler territory, but there's something that I have to warn you all about before you walk into the theatre. This is surely something that both lovers and detractors of the first film can agree upon: the most important element of a heist film is A FUCKING HEIST.

No, I'm not kidding.

There is no heist.

There are small heists, and there are... well, I can't go into too much detail... but if you're waiting for the big finish, you'll still be waiting long after the film is done. It's so disappointing, that even if we were given a beautiful coda moment such as that in the first film (with the group standing by the fountain and silently leaving one-by-one), it would mean nothing. It would be an unearned payoff. But there is no such scene, so don't worry about it.

The cast are left to languish for the most part, with one major character spending the second half of the film off-screen and completely uninvolved in the process. Now, I went into this film expecting that we wouldn't get major arcs for most of the characters. I was happy with that. I mean, the title tells you straight away that there are twelve characters, not to mention Benedict, Isabel (Zeta-Jones), Toulour (Cassel), and others. But the way in which large numbers of characters are left to languish in a random plot device for numerous scenes at a time reeks of lazy storytelling. Too many people in here, can't be bothered thinking of an interesting way to include them, let's lock them in a room for twenty minutes of screen time.

All of this leads to what is by far the dumbest plot element of the year, far exceeding that of THE VILLAGE. I saw it coming about a minute before they revealed it, and I sunk into my chair thinking "God, no, you can't, please don't..." before they said it. Again, not going to spoil it for you, but it's the biggest misfire I've ever witnessed. I'd love to be academic and view it in the kitsch way it was intended, but that would be making excuses for it. You'll know it when you see it. You'll stare in disbelief when you do.

Despite all that, it's not all bad. I certainly don't hate the film, I just don't like it much. So what is good? Soderbergh's direction is always compelling in its avant-garde shakiness; the cast is excellent (Pitt and Damon especially), even if they don't have anything interesting to do; many individual scenes are terrific (including an implausible one featuring Cassel, which I feared would be more clichéd than it was); the locations are beautiful. The film isn't impossible to watch, and I honestly enjoyed a lot of it.

It was, however, a massive missed opportunity, and one that contained the one element I'd been so happy the first one had omitted: the contrived danger. It kills me that I have to write such a massive review tearing apart a film by a director I'm not ashamed to admit I idolise, but this should have been a fun film. It's a film I can look at academically and say, "Yes, if you consider he's referencing this and that and this, it's actually quite good," but this is OCEAN'S 12 for fuck's sake! It's meant to get you on a gut level! This was my most anticipated film of this year (just slightly ahead of THE INCREDIBLES), and it's the biggest disappointment.

SAW

There was one thing going through my mind when I went to see SAW. And that thought was how long it would take me to make a "see SAW" joke. Fourteen words. Who knew?

SAW is a film made by two Melbourne boys. Not many people know that, but Leigh Whanell and James Wan are locals (local to Lat, at any rate) who have hit it big with a high-concept, low-budget film. I think there's a general feeling amongst their contemporaries (young, excitable filmmakers types wanting their first film to hit it big everywhere), an internal conflict that wants to praise them to the heavens whilst simultaneously tearing them down out of bitter jealousy. I'll admit I'm not always immune to such petty moral wrestlings, but more often than not I want it to be good. I want more success for my country, even if a film like this could never be made down here. Not properly, anyway.

It was amusing to read the Goldilocks reviews on CHUD; one hating it, one loving it, and one in the middle. People around me who had seen the film before me were either singing its praises or putting jihads out on those who liked it. Reaction was everywhere. Me? I dug it. I really dug it. I mean, the acting and the dialogue both stunk fairly badly and the direction was all over the place, but goddamn if they didn't impress me.

SAW is one of the best-constructed films I've seen in a very long while. In terms of scene-by-scene setups and payoffs, of knowing where your plot is headed and how to reveal what and when, it's brilliant. There's a bit of wankiness here and there (for instance: the Jigsaw killer? Why a jigsaw? Because he cut a puzzle piece out of one guy's back in the beginning? Is that it?), but for the most part it's the tightest film made in quite some time.

Likewise, the production design and cinematography are terrific. They're clearly Aussie filmmakers: they know how to get the most for their buck. A million dollars is a decent budget in Australian films, even if it wouldn't cover the cocaine consumption on most Hollywood fare, and these guys know how to not piss it all away. But, as satisfying as those elements are, we're forced to look at them through a veneer of dodgy speech and questionable thesping. Writer Leigh Whannell has been dissed enough for his Damflecking his way into his own work, so I won't bag him out too much here. Besides, I don't think it's his fault. Elwes and Glover, both usually solid, are both pretty bad. It's clearly Wan's direction, or lack thereof. It's not that Elwes is *actually* bad, he certainly puts it all out there, it's just left to languish. It's like admiring a really good lump of clay and exclaiming, "My, what a wonderful vase!". Wan needed to do more moulding, because the elements were all there in the three main performances, but nothing was done with them.

Similarly, Wan's style is a little over-excited. He appears too over-the-moon with all the new toys he gets to play with, but doesn't really use them to full effect. Prime example: the most unnecessary car chase in recent memory shot in the most laughably-bad way possible. I don't want to pick at details to tear him down, but they're worth noting. Hopefully this is the sort of thing that he settles down with in his next film, because he knows how to point a camera. He goes for the scare without drawing it out to annoying levels (see: Craven - the Later Years), doesn't hold back on the gore, and keeps you glued start to finish. Oh, and full points for casting Tobin Bell. It's high time he got a role that showed off his Christopher Walken's-younger-brother creepiness.

Though very flawed, it's a very, very impressive work. Whanell and Wan deserve all success coming to them.

TEAM AMERICA: WORLD POLICE

The genius of "South Park" is that everyone is convinced that Stone and Parker are on their team. Left-wingers and right-wingers both think that "South Park" is batting for them; only one of the many reasons why the show is arguably the most relevant social satire today.

I didn't write a review of FARHENHEIT 9/11 because it made me nervous. I felt Moore had gone to the next place, that he had taken a few more steps and was now making propaganda. It was damned entertaining propaganda, as all good propaganda is, but still... What made me nervous about it is the fact that I agreed with it. I agreed with the politics, with the opinions on Bush and war and corporations and all that. But who else was it going to convince? It was one side of an argument. (I'm more comfortable seeing F9/11 as an editorial of sorts, but now I fear we'll be seeing more of those now the floodgate has opened, but that's another thing...)

I was equally nervous going into TEAM AMERICA because I'd heard that this film wasn't particularly even, either. That the liberals are the bad guys, and even if we're laughing at Jerry Bruckheimer films, they're still in the right.

My worries were mostly unfounded. TEAM AMERICA shows the "World Police" as racists who blow shit up at a whim, convinced they're doing the right thing. It's a pretty even attack on both sides of politics, and anyone who disagrees needs to look at the dicks-pussies-assholes speech with more care.

Oh yeah, and it's pretty damn funny as well. Not all of it, but most of it. The Michael Moore thing could have been so much funnier, and Parker is capable of so much more than, "Hey, that guy's fat!". So far, the two funniest Moore send-ups have been done by Moore himself. (His appearance on "The Simpsons" and his cameo at the most recent Academy Awards, yelling at the Hobbits and their unjustified war.) But for the most part it's a howler, with some tear-inducing songs (er, in the funny-cry way, not the emotional-cry way) and gross-out humour that only these guys can do.

Though not as spot-on with its political jabs as it could have been, it's still fairly even across the board. "South Park" is still better if you want to see two opposing opinions of any given issue torn apart mercilessly, but for the most entertaining puppet film since MEET THE FEEBLES, this is the film you want.

NEXT WEEK

- The Warner Bros. marketing department issues an apology after mathematicians use Pythagorean theory to prove that eleven is still eleven

- James Cameron, worried that people won't get that his new documentary is made by him, changes the title to TERMINATORS OF THE DEEP

- Robert Zemeckis preps sequel THE EQUATORIAL EXPRESS, in which a group of kids who have lost faith in the holiday of Purim travel to Senegal on a CGI Monorail

Peace out,

Latauro

AICNDownunder@hotmail.com