DodgeBall: A True Underdog Story

Dodgeball. Not your typical movie sport, eh? But newcomer writer-director Rawson Marshall Thurber has based his sleeper hit comedy on this well-known but rarely actually experienced pass-time. I, for one, have never played dodgeball as it is depicted in his film. But that might be because, though I'm sure there are people who take the game seriously, Thurber clearly does not. Which is a relief - because this movie could never have worked if it had taken itself seriously, even in the slightest.

As idiotic villain White Goodman, Ben Stiller thankfully tries something different, after the abysmally predictable Along Came Polly of this January. But thankfully his part is not overwritten and he doesn't steal the limelight from the real lead, Vince Vaughn, who has a simple role but still manages to make it as funny as Stiller's.

The plot, or rather the excuse for having lots of people get hit in the face by balls, traffic and (ingeniously) wrenches, follows Vaughn and his friend's attempt at saving their gym by entering a dodgeball tournament, which has a final cash price of $50,OOO. Stiller's evil chain of body-building complexes is planning to buy them out if they don't pay off their debts within the next month, so, with the help of an insane dodgeball veteran (played by a wheelchair-bound, scene-stealing Rip Torn) they make their way through the tournament until inevitably facing off with Stiller's team in the final.



Torn's constantly amusing training techniques include dodging traffic and avoiding an onslaught of wrenches - that alone, plus the fact that he drinks his own urine, is enough to make him one of the funniest comedy characters in recent memory. I was predicting Stiller to steal the movie - but boy was I wrong.

There are a few decent cameos throughout, mostly funny, though not up to the standard of Anchorman (which also featured Vaughn and Stiller, as two of the many such cameoers). But what DodgeBall lacks in suprises, it makes up for in sheer lunacy. Thought dodgeball was just a painful sport devoid of any sort of fun? After the film, you'll feel different - but then you'll actually play it, and you'll realise that it is nowhere near as insane as the action in this film unless you find ways to make it insane. But the long discussion on the sport itself and the many different ways you can play it can wait, at least until it makes a comeback and becomes the new 'big thing' - which could actually happen. Maybe.

**** / *****.

The Village

Some spoilers. Ending is not revealed, but is hinted at.
The only other M. Night Shyamalan film I have seen is undoubtedly his best - the Bruce Willis lead gripping ghost story, 'The Sixth Sense'. I loved it, and since I already knew the much-discussed final twist, I was able to appreciate the clever intricacies of the misleading plot as well as Haley Joel Osment's excellent breakout performance. But going into M. Night's latest effort, The Village, mostly bad reviews and bad word of mouth had me feeling deeply cynical, and at best I was hoping for some decent scares and a few good laughs at the expense of the integrity of the 'twist' ending. But that wasn't what I got. To my upmost astonishment, I very much enjoyed The Village, and I especially found myself caring for the characters and even emotionally affected by their plight at some points.

Mostly this is down to the suprisingly accomplished performances from the leading couple, the always watchable Joaquin Phoenix and wonderful newcomer Bryce Dallas Howard, and satisfying supporting performances from Adrien Brody, William Hurt and Sigourney Weaver. Many (bad) reviews of the film admired Brody because he seemed to be the only one having any fun, but in fact the only points where he seems to be enjoying the proceedings are when everyone else is relatively happy - and once things become bleak for all other characters, they become equally bleak for him - pretty much from the point where he stabs Phoenix's character twice in the stomach, in a scene that is scarier and more shocking than any involving the 'creatures' that sorround the village.

The creatures themselves look unbelievably fake and pathetic, (though the reason for this becomes apparent later in the film) but every other detail of art direction and costumes is perfect, and a joy to gaze at. The strong yellows and reds stand out well among the otherwise boring colours, as was intended, and sometimes the film is quite beautiful, if just for a few frames.



At the beginning of the film, you're supposed to believe that the inhabitants of the unnamed village are happy people - but it's a hard sell, even with terrible child actors splashing each-other with water and young women dancing as they clean their porch. You know what's coming, and therefore you refuse to believe anything that is happening. This is a curse M. Night will have a lot of trouble lifting off his shoulders in the future - no matter how much he wants the emotional and technical factors of his films to be admired before he gets into full swing, he may have trouble convincing the audience that his characters are even real people. In fact, I realised as I watching The Village that I was thinking too much about how things were going to turn out and was only half watching the film, something others should try and avoid completely, instead of realising it some way through.

Though the the final resolution of the film is far a more realistic scenario than the original premise, this is completely irrevelant, and the film's many twist do start to become ridiculous, if not a little comical. But they always make sense, and though at first they seem obvious, soon you'll be taken by suprise at how much more complicated the ending is, even if its not particularly original.

***1/2 out of 5.

The Bourne Supremacy

I saw The Bourne Identity, the first in the ongoing series based on Robert Ludlum's books, in the cinema the first week of its release. At the time I was disappointed and underhelmed, but now I've found all the buzz sorrounding its sequel, The Bourne Supremacy, is almost convinving me it was much better than I remembered it to be. However, I have to stand by my original opinion - that is was nowhere near as interesting or exciting as it should have been.

What I remember for sure about the orginal was that the best parts were the scenes with Damon's love interest, played by Frank Potente. Put next to Damon's decent but slightly flat and boring Bourne, she improved the film a considerable amount with her great performance. Therefore I was deeply annoyed when, at the beginning of the sequel, she was brutally killed off - less than ten minutes in! - simply to further the plot. Her death was quick and badly handled - strange after the success of the first film. So not a great start to a film I had been very excited about seeing.

The plot has some new elements but is essentially the same as that of the first - evil CIA man intent on killing Bourne and nice CIA woman intent on finding Bourne clash, as Bourne himself gradually discovers more about his mysterious past and makes daring escapes from city police, a LOT - and offers very few surprises. After Clive Owen's creepy CIA hitman in Identity, Karl Urban's Russian hired gun is disappointingly flat. Joan Allen and Brian Cox work well together but are underused and don't do anything new. Director Paul Greengrass's quick cut style is impressively utilised but isn't the way I like to watch a movie.



There is good mixed in with the bad, though - the action scenes are well coreographed and quite exciting despite their repititiveness. The car chase is disappointing, especially compared to Identity's, but is still decent fun. And Julia Stiles gets to do some actual acting, after her miniscule part in the first film.

Decent action fun - fine if you like your film's mindless with a litle intelligence. Still, not much of an improvment on the first - Damon and his character need to get more interesting if this series is hoping to continue.

**1/2 out of 5.

I, Robot

I like Will Smith. Whether he's acting all cool, trying it serious or just doing his 'Fresh Prince' thing, I always like him, as long as his role is written well enough. In I, Robot, however, he seems to be trying to do all three of his personas at the same time - which, in a film where everything and everyone seems to be deadly serious except him, could never have worked. But it doesn't ruin the film, which is 'inspired by' Issac Asimov's collection of classic short stories that essentially introduced the idea of robots to the world.

The year is 2035, and in Chicago, USR (United States Robotics) is on the eve of its largest robotic rollout in history. Its new model, the NS5, looks like a shiny iMac with arms, legs and a disturbingly realistic looking face, that struts around and (later on) jumps and bounds across walls seamlessly.

Alan Tudyk has done a good job with creating the robots stoney movements and expressions, and the visual effects job is one of the best I've ever seen, easily deserved of this year's visual effects Oscar. Similarly, the futuristic cityscape of Chicago has been beautifully created, as shown in a slightly show-offy sequence in which Smith simply ambles through the city, allowing several shots of the effects team's own interpretation of how Chicago will look in 2035.



The supporting players are hardly as awe-inspiring as the effects, but they do they're job well, from Bridget Moynahan's boring but workable USR scientist and love interest Susan Calvin, to James Cromwell's Alfred Lanning, the inventor of the robots and writer of the 3 Laws that supposedly control them and keep them safe. For someone who's dead for the whole movie, he has a surprisingly large part but fails to amaze. See the current season of Six Feet Under for a better character and performance from Cromwell, who is a great actor despite having appeared in several bad movies.

The action scenes are fun, though slightly disappointing, but thankfully they are integral to the story instead of simply stupid excuses for Smith to go all psycho with a big gun in each hand and a whole lotta ass to whup. In fact, I prefered the more serious, talky parts of the movie to the explosive gunfights and robot attacks. The story twists and turns as the film continues but never gets too complicated for its own good, and I, Robot shows itself to be a much smarter film than the trailers would imply. The cinematography and music are also impressive, and Alex Proyas is a good choice as director - anyone else could have completely ruined the good premise of the film. Pleasently surprising fun. **** out of 5.

Before Sunset

In 1995, Richard Linklater co-wrote and directed a most unique love story. Before Sunrise told of two young strangers randomly meeting on a Budapest-Vienna train and deciding to spend one together in Vienna, doing mostly nothing except exploring the city and talking to each-other. At the end of the film they promise to meet up again six months on, at the same train station in Vienna.

Before Sunset is set nine years later, in Paris. Jesse, played by Ethan Hawke, has published a book about the night the two spent together (though the story is officially fiction) and is on a book tour around Europe promoting it. On his last stop in Paris, Celine, played by Julie Delpy, finds him at a bookstore and they decide to spend some time together before Jesse has to catch his plane out of the city.

In the sequel, the two have already built up a relationship on that first night and, despite the small amount of time they've spent together, have a strong connection, so the film doesn't have to focuse on them getting to know each-other, instead making their second meeting less than two hours long, so the film is pretty much shot in real-time and they only have this small portion of the day to 'catch up' on each-other's lives. There's also less focus on romance and intimacy, becuase both characters are now involved with other people, so Before Sunset has to build up a romantic atmosphere without a single kiss between the two romantics.

Before Sunrise, though always focused on the two main characters, also had many beautiful shots of Vienna, and though there is less of this in the sequel, it's still a beautiful movie with lovely backdrops for the two stars as they walk through the city.



Jesse and Celine are now many years older, so are more experienced and sophisticated, and this comes through in the way they speak. (It's a good idea to rent the first movie a day or two before you go to Before Sunset, if you haven't already seen it.) Neither Hawke nor Delpy have to worry about 'acting' older, because they are older, and they are more experienced in life, which is why it was so wise of director Richard Linklater to wait eight or nine years until he shot the sequel - whether a sequel had always been his intention I'm not sure, but despite the time gap, Before Sunset actually feels more like a continuation of the two's journey than simply 'Before Sunsrise 2'.

Hawke is well suited to his role and plays it fantastically - you'll find yourself hanging on to his every word from the first scene to the final moments. Julie Delpy is just as good, and visually stunning, but neither really steal the show from the other - they simply play well together, never straying from their characters.

The ending is slightly abrupt but perfectly mirrors Jesse's reluctance to leave Celine, afraid he will lose her again and never find true happiness like that which he feels when he is in her company.

Overall, this is a wonderfully uplifting film, well shot, well written and well acted - I can't think of any criticisms I can possibly level at it. I simply loved it. ***** out of 5.