TV REVIEW - BLUE BLOODS

Would you trust this family? Yes, you probably would.

The most immediate thought I had when watching the pilot of new CBS drama ‘Blue Bloods’ is how reminiscent it was of ‘The Good Wife.’ It’s from the same channel in the US so that isn’t surprising, but it carries far more similarities than that. Considering ‘The Good Wife’ is one of my favourite shows, this bodes well for the future of ‘Blue Bloods’.

‘Blue Bloods’ follows the Reagan family – all involved in law-related professions – and their trials and tribulations in New York. Tom Selleck is the big-name star as New York City’s police commissioner and Len Cariou also features as his father who occupied that same position. Donnie Wahlberg is his police detective son, Bridget Moynihan his ADA daughter and Will Estes as his law-grad turned beat cop youngest child. It’s by the numbers casting – but really, really well done by the numbers casting.

So like ‘The Good Wife’, the cast is excellent and eminently watchable. The pilot episode follows a fairly rote, uninspiring and slightly manipulative missing-child case that no doubt suffered due to the time allotted to introducing us to all the characters. Sometimes I wish the occasional pilot episode would save a character or two to introduce at a later episode as any procedural storyline in a pilot episode inevitably suffers – and that happens here. Donnie Wahlberg brings an unusual level of depth to his character during the storyline, however.

The pilot certainly looks fantastic and wears its New York heritage on its sleeve – there’s no beating around the bush about where this show is set (the soundtrack gives that away with not one but two versions of New York, New York.) Even better, the show is actually filmed in New York, giving the whole thing a sense of scale and grandeur that could be fantastically effective if used properly. A TV show where the city is a character (see again: Chicago in ‘The Good Wife’ or Baltimore in ‘The Wire’) is at a serious advantage over its competition.

One of the other similarities isn’t particularly interesting – the ethical quandaries brought to light during the kidnapping case are discussed with passion but a complete lack of depth during a dinner party scene. If you’re going to have a debate about the justification of ‘advanced interrogation’, at least give it the time and depth it deserves, not a cursory listing of the basic arguments.

So ‘Blue Bloods’ is coasting along at a lightly entertaining but unmemorable pace but about thirty-five minutes into the pilot Will Estes character gets involved in what seems like it might be an ongoing, season-long arc of intrigue and if so, count me involved. I actually sat up at this moment (which I won’t spoil) and paid proper attention to a show that had previously only occasionally involved me.

So how can ‘Blue Bloods’ become as good as ‘The Good Wife’? By paying proper attention to the season-long arcs its characters are involved in, by fully exploring any moral questions that it gets involved with, and most of all, by developing the kind of procedural stories that enhance the ongoing plots, rather than distracting from them.

If it does any of that, it has the potential to be an addictive police drama with a great cast and a point of difference. If it does all of that, it could be the new great police drama on television.


Blue Bloods airs at 8:30pm Wednesday night on Channel Ten.

FILM REVIEW - THE GREEN HORNET

It’s hard not to watch The Green Hornet without thinking about Batman. Under the stewardship of Seth Rogen, The Green Hornet plays like Batman if Batman didn’t have skills, an alternative personality or sense of purpose.

That’s not the world’s worst idea. There’s the possibility of a subversive superhero movie there – like a more professional Kick-Ass – and if one director and star combination might pull it off, it’s Michel Gondry and Seth Rogen.

Unfortunately, they don’t.

I’m a big fan of the superhero film, as I’ve made clear already, so I thought the Green Hornet could be something interesting and different. But the film makes Britt Reid such an uncomplicated, unlikeable jackass that you lose any interest in his story whatsoever. That’s the primary problem with The Green Hornet – The Green Hornet.

In my preview piece on this film I guessed that either all the different elements and sensibilities in this film – comedy star Seth Rogen, kung-fu exponent Jay Chou, indie director Michel Gondry and charming, respected Oscar winner Christoph Waltz – would gel to create something special or butt into each other to create a mess. Unfortunately, the answer was behind door number two.

The Green Hornet starts off shakily with what might be the world’s most uninspiring superhero seed-planting scene in history. Spoilt fat kid gets his toy broken by his frustrated father – again, its like the anti-Batman. But instead of making me feel for the kid and understand why he was such an a**-hole, it just made me think maybe he’s always been an a**-hole.

Seth Rogen has a lot of fun with his role but unfortunately Britt Reid is so badly written that he can only do so much. It’s a testament to his screen presence that there are flickers of likability and charm, but he does so many stupid, arrogant things that you just lose interest in watching him. Well done to Rogen for achieving a remarkable feat of screen charm but the odds are too insurmountable for him here.

Similarly Jay Chou certainly has some charm and a watchable presence but the chemistry between himself and Seth Rogen really doesn’t have the spark the film is looking for – and depends on to be a success. Their characters meet during the film and learn about each other in the process of becoming superheroes but that concept sacrifices the two having any sort of long-standing bond. I think that would have overcome the language problem the pair face and helped out both the buddy comedy and our enjoyment in watching it.

When I was watching the trailers I wondered what Cameron Diaz was doing in this film, as she never seemed to be anything more than eye candy. But you kind of get it when watching the film – her character is smart and capable and so on. Nevertheless, although she’s said she took the film to work with Michel Gondry but the role still seems…beneath her somehow. Christoph Waltz does a decent enough job with a horribly underwritten villain* but suffers the same fate as everybody else.

*Can we have a moratorium on the movie trope of the villain that shoots people for the smallest reason and doesn’t appear to care? It’s lazy, lazy screenwriting.

Moreover, it’s hard to tell exactly why these characters are so underwritten. There are only really three action scenes but the story tries to introduce too many characters, none of whom have any chemistry with each other. There’s a scene early in the film that features a cameo from Rogen-associated actor that is by far the best scene in the film – displaying the charisma, wit and energy that the rest of the film is sorely looking.

Looking back on what I’ve written so far I’m noticing it’s almost all negative. There are good points to The Green Hornet if you’re not expecting too much. All the actors are engaging presences by themselves, Gondry involves in the occasional directorial flourish and there are a few funny scenes. Mostly, however, The Green Hornet makes the classic, oft-repeated action movie mistake. If we don’t care about the characters, we don’t care about the action involving them.

I don’t care about the characters in The Green Hornet and I want better from my blockbusters. It’s an occasionally entertaining but ultimately shallow and forgettable film. 7/20

OVERALL RANKINGS FOR THE YEAR

The King’s Speech   17/20

The Fighter               15/20

Black Swan               12/20

The Green Hornet    7/20

TV REVIEW - MY KITCHEN RULES

My Kitchen Rules made its debut early last year in a post-Masterchef haze as Channel Seven’s great white cooking show hope. It kicked off to good ratings and has since become one of my guilty pleasure shows – and Channel Seven are counting on improved ratings in its second season. Subtle as a sledgehammer, the editors desperately eke every ounce of drama out of an undercooked mushroom or a lumpy mousse. It’s great fun, but only if you don’t take it too seriously.

What makes My Kitchen Rules so much fun to watch is the dinner party conceit that opens up the series – it’s so entertaining to see the teams either unsubtly try to undermine each other or blissfully abandon all pretence of competition whatsoever and just enjoy being on TV.

The key to any reality TV show is the casting and this time around the agents have done a good job. This year the show features two sets of six teams after deigning to include pairs from Tasmania – and the first set have plenty of entertaining elements. In a series like this there is always a ‘villain’ team and we’re spoilt with two – the upstart bitchy housemates (SA last year, Vic this year) and the show’s most entertaining couple in sometime, the henpecker and henpeckee from Tasmania.

The other teams in the first set are also entertaining; the two butchers trying to set the world record for use of the word ‘mate’, the charming young sisters with Polish heritage, the ebullient used car salesman and his quiet wife and the delightful Italian cousins from Western Australia. (Don’t let the annoying, gimmicky, oh-my-goodness ads during the tennis put you off, they’re actually really lovely.) They’re mostly versions of teams we saw last year, but no less fun to watch.

The judges (Manu Fieldel and Pete Evans) are more confident this time around, carrying a swagger they didn’t have in the first season. They still indulge in annoying reality-show fakeouts like ‘I didn’t like it…(interminable pause)…I loved it” but they’re charming and good looking enough to keep the show watchable.

I’ll be putting up brief thoughts on each individual show as they come along – because as I said, this show is more in my wheelhouse than Masterchef is. Masterchef is all about inspiration and the life story behind the food we make. My Kitchen Rules doesn’t worry too much about that – cutting straight to the competition and being all the better for it. They’re both perfectly worthy reality shows but My Kitchen Rules has captured that same element that made it so ridiculously watchable last year – and that’s a good thing in my book.

MY TOP FIVE MOST ANTICIPATED FILMS FOR 2011

One of the most fun aspects of being a movie goer is the looking forward - the anticipation of films to come. So with that in mind - let's look forward with eyes full of hope...

5. THE FIRST AVENGER: CAPTAIN AMERICA

Directed by: Joe Johnston

Starring: Chris Evans as Steve Rogers/Captain America

Hugo Weaving as the Red Skull

So I had to put at least one super-hero movie on the list, given my comic-book-nerd sensibilities, and this is the one. I like the fact that its got a period setting and Captain America isn’t quite as phenomenally super-powered as others in the comic book universe. Could be a different take on the super hero genre, could be a giant clusterf*** of a movie – but one way or another I’m looking forward to it.

Especially Chris Evans as Captain America. Show me a Chris Evans role and I'll show you one of the best things about that particular film. (Not another teen movie, Fantastic Four, Scott Pilgrim). So I can only hope that this is the film that puts Evans firmly on the A-List map. Expect him to turn on a witty, charming, layered performance that the material probably won't be worthy of.

I’m also excited for Hugo Weaving as the Red Skull. Hugo Weaving is always awesome, even when he has no idea who he's playing *cough* Megatron *cough*. I can only assume he'll be an awesome Red Skull. Also add the presence of Hayley Atwell and Stanley Tucci to the list of promising acting talent.

So what’s working against it? Three words: Director Joe Johnstone. As I mentioned it my comic book movie preview he’s a massive, massive question mark over the film.

4. MONEYBALL

DIRECTED BY BENNETT MILLER

STARRING BRAD PITT, PHILIP SEYMOUR HOFFMAN, CHRIS PRATT

I’m trying to think of the last truly great team sports movie I’ve seen, but surprisingly I’m struggling. Sports movies have kind of settled into a that’ll-do-pig pattern of above-average to terrible – films like Glory Road, Coach Carter and so on at the top end – and I’m hoping that this is the project that moves the sports film on from the rut its been stuck in.

Moneyball is a movie based on one of my favourite books – Moneyball  by Michael Lewis – and it offers the filmmakers a chance to make this one of the first sports movies about the creation of a team and all the politics involved. Great cast as you can see above – keep an eye on Chris Pratt who has a very charming presence – and the possibility that there could be a really good sports movie in 2011 puts this at number 4 on my list.

3. CRAZY, STUPID, LOVE

DIRECTED BY: GLENN FICARRA, JOHN REQUA

STARRING: STEVE CARELL, RYAN GOSLING, EMMA STONE

The plot to Crazy, Stupid, Love looks brilliantly simple – man has marital problems, young man he meets helps him get back on the horse – but hopefully the talent involved gives a signal that there’s more to it than that. The romantic dramedy is a tricky thing to get right at the best of times but if one man can pull it off I reckon it might be Steve Carell.

If you’ve ever seen the American version of the Office, you’ll know that Steve Carell can pull off pretty much any moment they give him. Broad comedy, subtle comedy, affecting drama, romantic, scared, angry or whatever he’s a far, far better actor than any sitcom deserves. Even when the writing has let him down in later seasons, he’s still been able to elevate the material. From what I know about the role, they couldn’t have found a better man to do it.

Add to that potent lead performance an assist from the wonderful Ryan Gosling and my new favourite actress Emma Stone and we’ve got the potential for a romantic drama that might rise above the mediocre mire the genre has been saddled with so far.

2. TINKER, TAILOR, SOLDIER, SPY

DIRECTED BY: TOMAS ALFREDSON

STARRING: GARY OLDMAN, COLIN FIRTH, TOM HARDY

Anyone familiar with the material will know exactly why I’m so excited about this film. One of my favourite stories, whether filmed or read, this long-awaited version of the famous John Le Carre novel should provide us spy thriller aficionados with the fix we’ve been waiting for. What’s more, I think they’ve picked the exact right man to helm it in Let the Right One In director Tomas Alfredson, a man who understands the power of atmosphere better than most.

You may have noticed I focus a lot on the casts involved in these films and that’s for two reasons. Firstly I think that the mark of a promising film is the quality of the actors prepared to get involved in it and secondly good actors can elevate bad material to middling, middling to good, good to great and great to outstanding. There is an endless list of movies that depend on their performances for the greatness they achieve.

Here, the cast might just be the best assembled in any of these films. Gary Oldman is donning the brogues to play George Smiley, and he’ll be supported by Tom Hardy, Colin Firth, Mark Strong, Stephen Graham, Ciaran Hinds and Benedict Cumberbatch. As for the story, it’s second to none and with the talent involved, this might be the film of 2011. But what am I looking forward to even more than this?

1. THE IDES OF MARCH

DIRECTED BY: GEORGE CLOONEY

STARRING: RYAN GOSLING, GEORGE CLOONEY, PAUL GIAMATTI

Little is known about the Ides of March, so I’m taking a lot on spec here. This could go horribly, horribly wrong but if there’s one genre of film I love even more than the spy/conspiracy thriller, it’s the political movie, and specifically, the political movie about dirty tricks and backroom deals. Some of us are just predisposed to like certain types of movies. For some, it’s the zombie film, for some the underdog sports movie and for others any movie based on a Nicholas Sparks novel.

For me, it’s the political thriller. The Ides of March is a stage play based on the Beau Willimon play about a young man in politics getting a crash course in dirty tricks. Once again, check out the cast – Ryan Gosling, George Clooney, Paul Giamatti, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Max Minghella, Marisa Tomei, Evan Rachel Wood, Jeffrey Wright – outstanding.

The real eye-catcher for me though is the presence of George Clooney as director. One of my favourite films of all time is Good Night and Good Luck, the political-journalism film about Edward R. Murrow and all the backstage drama that went on around him. Clooney directed and featured in that and if this film captures any of the lightning in a bottle that film had, it’s going to be my favourite film of 2011.

SOME HONOURABLE MENTIONS

THOR – Camp superhero fun with an interesting director in Kenneth Branagh.

SOURCE CODE – The new film from Duncan Jones who showed so much potential in the anything-but-perfect Moon.

APOLLO 18: Cloverfield meets Apollo 13 meets Night watch, kind of.

HORRIBLE BOSSES: Could be the better R-rated comedy of the year and maybe the first good Jennifer Aniston film in years?

WAR HORSE: Oscar bait from Stephen Spielberg sounds like the best tearjerker of the year.

COWBOYS AND ALIENS: Um, it has cowboys and aliens. I’m looking forward to the sequel, Angels and Samurai.

SUPER 8: J. J. Abrams Area 51-ish follow up to the found-footage, brilliantly promoted Cloverfield.

THE ADJUSTMENT BUREAU: Matt Damon, Emily Blunt and 'Roger Sterling' in a film adapted from a Philip K. Dick short story.

FRIENDS WITH BENEFITS: Justin Timberlake and Mila Kunis’s combined charm and sexual charisma might make the screen explode.

X-MEN: FIRST CLASS: The short production time is a worry but the presence of great actors and a more than capable director has be optimistic.

FILM REVIEW: BLACK SWAN

Surprise! I'm secretly Annette Bening.

So I figure the mark of a good film is that it stays with you. You should leave the cinema thinking about it – and it should at least occupy some space in your mind in the following days.

So when I sat down to think about the Darren Aronofsky psychological ballet thriller (love that description) it occurred to me that this was, in fact, the first time that I’d really thought about it all day – and I saw it yesterday.

After discussing it in detail on a new podcast I gave it a score of 16/25 – which would equate to roughly 12.8 out of 20 – but getting further away from it I think I might like it even less than that.

Here’s why, after the jump;

I’ll start by admitting that Black Swan is not really my kind of film. I’ve always found Aronofsky a heavy-handed director, ballet is something that eludes this mainstream monkey, and only the best psychological thriller/horror carries much weight with me. So Black Swan was starting off a big handicap.

Having said that, it was also low on the scale of my favourite word – expectation – so there was room to be surprised. But after the 104 minute running time I found myself checking my watch, only occasionally interest and rarely compelled by this strange little genre film.

Natalie Portman stars as Nina Sayers (a good movie name, by the way) a high-strung, controlled, uptight ballerina hoping to become the new star of the company run by cock-of-the-walk director Tomas played by Vincent Cassel. Her life begins to spiral out of control as the pressure exerted by Tomas, her mother and a rival ballerina played by Mila Kunis.

From that fairly standard set-up comes a movie that is anything but, to give it its due, and what is real and what is Nina’s imagination becomes harder and harder to recognise as the film moves along.

The film has been called everything from trash to high art, but the reality is its really somewhere in between. A glorified B-movie (not that there’s anything wrong with that) with excellent technical work from everyone involved – the trash base collides with the high art ambitions constantly.

The biggest problem with the film is Aronofsky. We are completely drilled with black and white imagery to the point where it becomes irritating, as if Aronofsky doesn’t give any of us credit to get it. What’s more, this black/white dynamic doesn’t serve any purpose. It’s there as an incredibly basic signifier of Nina’s journey but doesn’t add anything to it. It’s just there to look cool but by the time I was over it (a good, ooooh, ten minutes in?) it had lost all impact.

That’s the brickbat, here’s the bouquet: the ballet scenes are outstanding. Filmed with a kinetic energy that surpasses anything else the film can manage – they’re very beautiful and scored to perfection by Clint Mansell. Matthew Libatique’s cinematography is impeccable throughout as well – and everything comes to life when we’re on stage.

The script is patchy, to say the least, and never really reaches above its roots as an allegory to achieve the level of character needed to elevate the film. Vincent Cassel’s character is basically there to constantly underline whatever point Aronofsky is trying to make while Winona Ryder and Barbara Hershey do what’s expected of them in the roles this kind of film is contractually obligated to include.

The other performances are excellent; specifically Mila Kunis as Natalie Portman’s rival Lily. Kunis must have put no less effort into her ballet training and she pulls off this loose, easygoing character with the warmth and charm that makes you understand why Portman is so mistrustful (and jealous) of her. She missed out on a Best Supporting Actress nomination but this film has proven to directors and studios that she can pull off a role in a dramatic film with ease.

Portman fares slightly less well, but only slightly, doing a very good job of a character that by its nature restricts how much an actress can really do. She plays the dualities of the character nicely, is incredibly brave and committed to the role and when given the rare opportunity, manages to own the screen. Vincent Cassel also deserves credit for never quite overplaying a role that a lesser actor would chew scenery with.

Overall I think Black Swan is not quite the film it wants to be – never quite deserving of the artistic merit it strives for nor trashy enough to be completely entertaining. Much like Mila’s last name, it’s neither one thing nor the other.

A FEW RANDOM THOUGHTS

-                I don’t know much about ballet, but can someone tell me exactly what we see about Tomas’ production of Swan Lake is quite so edgy? It seemed almost exactly as I’d expect a production of Swan Lake to be.

-                There are scenes here that are distractingly reminiscent of Aronofsky’s previous, superior film, The Wrestler.

-                Winona Ryder: Still not a good actress.

-                I generally have a bad stomach for violence, especially horror violence, but there’s really not much to be worried about here. Or maybe I’m being desensitized.

-                The much-ballyhooed sexual scenes are like reading Zoo magazine, sexy at first and then disturbing, before becoming merely uncomfortable.

-                One of Aronofsky’s next films is The Wolverine, which will no doubt have an actual wolverine in every scene to drive home the ‘message.’

OVERALL SCORE: Yesterday, it was 12.5 out of 20 and I’ve drifted on that but only slightly. Should you see it? Yes, because it tries things and I can imagine it being a thrilling experience if you’re into that sort of thing. But I can only give it a 12/20.

OVERALL RANKINGS FOR THE YEAR

The King’s Speech 17/20

The Fighter             15/20

Black Swan             12/20

TELEVISION REVISION – GREY'S ANATOMY EPISODE TWO

As the blog goes along this year, I’ll be doing episode-by-episode reviews of TV shows gone by, as a sort of DVD companion piece. Whether you’ve just started watching the show yourself, know it well and want to revisit it through someone else’s eyes, or simply want to know what all the fuss is about, these pieces should do the job.

One of the first shows on my list is an immensely popular show, designed mainly for the enjoyment of women, which I have never watched and wanted to see what all the fuss is about. I have a basic knowledge of key plot points thanks to media coverage, but apart from that. I’m going in blind. Guys, let’s see if there’s something here for us too. The show in question is…

GREY’S ANATOMY

My review of the second episode, after the jump....

SEASON ONE

EPISODE ONE: THE FIRST CUT IS THE DEEPEST

DIRECTED BY PETER HORTON

WRITTEN BY SHONDA RHIMES

So we’re back for the second episode of Grey’s Anatomy. I liked the occasional element of the pilot but found the show to be kind of annoying overall. Let’s see if the second episode – entitled The First Cut is the Deepest - improves my view.

This episode featured the opening credits for the first time and they pretty clearly spell out what this show is about. They’re doctors, but they sleep with each other. Groundbreaking!  Also the opening theme, which I had never heard before, sounds awful. Maybe it’s just me but it’s so short and jarring that I’m not looking forward to hearing it again.

(I’m trying to keep these reviews from being too snarky, but this is the Internet. It’s kind of ingrained into the culture. I’ll try and keep the snark fair and balanced.)

I’ll give the early part of this show some credit – it was fast-paced and kept my attention much more than the pilot did, even though the constant reference to a man getting his penis bitten off made me incredibly queasy. That pace continued throughout the episode before dropping away late as the storylines started to infringe on one another.

Overall, this episode was entertaining but way too busy and ultimately unsatisfying. Once again we see a show with plenty of potential fail to live up to it through trying to tell too many stories. We could have lost either the Cristina or the Dr. Burke storyline here and the episode’s other plotlines would have reaped the rewards.

The reason given to Dr. Burke midway through the episode about why he wasn’t the number one candidate for chief of surgery was considerably less interesting than I thought it was going to be. The competition between the two men going for chief or surgery doesn’t have me invested at all and probably could have dropped out of this episode without much trouble. As I said earlier, we could have spent more time on the rape victim storyline - which lost a lot of dramatic heft due to a lack of time.

It’s fun to watch Katherine Heigl continue to break out of the ensemble. She’s really genuine in the role and nice to watch in this episode. Given a good little storyline to play, she nails it. Similarly Patrick Dempsey continues to show why he’s so beloved by fans of the show – he’s the only one at this stage who is really getting the dialogue and delivering it with the panache we look for.

Overall, entertaining but too busy. The show needs to find its focus, but this episode is an improvement on the finale.

Hail of Bullets:

Terrible line of the week: ‘Talk about taking a bite out of crime!” Don’t you have to be Nathan Fillion to get away with a line like that?

First reference to McDreamy pops up here thanks to Christina. I am underwhelmed. I can only assume it pops up again, because surely that line doesn’t deliver such a cultural touchstone as ‘McDreamy’.

In fact overall Sandra Oh’s performance doesn’t impress me – a character like Cristina needs to have some sort of redeeming character quirk and there’s no reason the actor can’t deliver that.

‘Somewhere only we know’ is one of those songs that is really great when used correctly and it’s a half decent use of it here.

When the characters walk away from the hospital at the end of the episode, full of camaraderie and joy, I didn’t feel the pleasure I think the show wanted me to feel. That was kind of a weak, clichéd ending to the episode. Would have been better if they’d all leaped and punched the air.

Every character delivered the word penis like it was written in italics.

Only the barest passing reference to Meredith’s mother pleases me because I wasn’t thrilled with that element of the pilot, but if you did find the end of episode one emotionally affecting, I wouldn’t blame you for feeling cheated.

The (Pod) Casting Couch - Episode One

I've started a new weekly film podcast called The (Pod) Casting Couch featuring the talents of:

Shannon Harvey from the West Australian and 6PR
Simon Miraudo from Quickflix.com.au
Laura Hewison from Channel 7
and Myself!

We discuss Black Swan, The Oscars and our Top 5 Anticipated Films of 2011. I hope you enjoy it, feel free to leave any comments on this post or send an email to thepodcastingcouch@gmail.com. It's perfect for a walk, a long drive or just doing work around the house.

You can subscribe through iTunes by going to http://boxseattv.podbean.com/ and clicking the Subscribe with iTunes link at the bottom right corner of the page.

Otherwise, simply:

Download 

FILM REVIEW – THE FIGHTER

So, can you see me as the Riddler? No? Okay, I get it.

Director: David O. Russell

Starring: Mark Wahlberg, Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Melissa Leo

The story of ‘Irish’ Micky Ward’s struggle to make a career out of boxing while balancing his destructive family situation, the trials and successes of his brother Dickie Eklund and the influence of a new woman in his life.

Acting is a really difficult thing to objectively judge, especially for the casual film enthusiast like myself. For me, a great performance achieves a very simple, very difficult goal – it makes me forget I’m watching someone act.

There are two truly remarkable performances in ‘The Fighter.’

Christian Bale inhabits the character of Dickie Eklund so deeply that you feel like you know the character – to the point that when the real Dickie Eklund shows up in the end credits you can see every audience member’s eyebrows raise. They’re all thinking the same thing – I already know this guy. Bale’s Dickie bounces and swaggers around the screen like a force of nature, owning every frame he’s in. It’s an incredibly different performance to any other we’ve ever seen him give and he makes a reprehensible character a guy you genuinely want to see redeem himself.

The second of the two great performances comes from one of my absolute favourite actresses – but it isn’t Golden Globe winner Melissa Leo – its Amy Adams. Like Bale, she’s playing against type, but her performance stands on its own no matter what we know about the actress. Convincingly tough, inartfully and charmingly profane, sexy as hell without being remotely glamorous, she plays every note of this character perfectly and throws away any semblance of self-awareness in the process. It’s a captivating performance, and a key scene late in the movie between Bale and Adams is the best one of the film, primarily because the performers are so engaging.

The other performances in the film are not quite as good, though the actors are excellent for the main part. Melissa Leo occasionally just overcooks her performance to the point of caricature, while Mark Wahlberg’s central role does the job in anchoring all the vibrant supporting performances. The reason I’ve spent the first part of this review discussing the performances is because they are the main reason to go and see The Fighter – and it is well worth seeing.

The boxing movie has a long and storied history in Hollywood and has far greater scholars in its corner (Ha!) than I. The Fighter hits your basic boxing movie touchstones – the initial loss, the shady characters, the training montage, the girl that gets her man back into the ring – but lifts those moments through a constant, realistic, believable sense of community.

The setting of Lowell, Massachussetts is beautifully portrayed throughout the film, so much so that when Micky and Charlene take a brief detour out of town you can tell straight away this isn’t the characters’ backyard.  That sense of place is the film’s second biggest asset behind the performances – Lowell is a character in this film, a place our main character desperately loves and desperately wants to leave. We spend a lot of time there, time well spent that adds real weight to the time we spend in the ring.

The boxing scenes are placed sparsely enough throughout the film that they are genuinely excite when they come along – providing relief from the despondency we feel when spending time with the Wards (and particularly Micky’s sisters – the most cartoonish misstep the film makes, even if they are real.) They’re filmed with the right amount of physicality and energy but I always felt like Russell could have gone a little bit bigger with the climax of the fights, whether they be losses or wins. Boxing is such a purely emotional sport and Russell does a better job of catching the strategy and technique than he does the emotion.

You should go see The Fighter, what’s more you should go see it in the cinema. It’s not as good as the Social Network or the King’s Speech, but the performances are truly something to behold. Go for Bale, go for Adams, hell, go for Wahlberg. The Fighter is well worth your time.

The Fighter – 15/20

OVERALL RANKINGS FOR THE YEAR

The King’s Speech 17/20

The Fighter             15/20

The Oscar Predictions and Nominations Wrap

Well after the Golden Globes performance I had to redeem myself and hopefully my Oscar picks went some of the way to doing that. Let’s have a look at the nominations and the favourites after the jump:

You can expect Colin Firth to walk away with one of these.

Best Picture

                  “Black Swan”

                  “The Fighter”

                  “Inception”

                  “The Kids Are All Right”

                  “The King's Speech”

                  “127 Hours”

                  “The Social Network”

                  “Toy Story 3”

                  “True Grit”

                  “Winter's Bone"

THE GLOAT-O-METER: 10/10

Let’s put aside for the fact I got it exactly right and look at the possible frontrunners in this category. We can rule out Winter’s Bone, Toy Story 3, 127 Hours, Inception and The Kids are All Right, as none of them were nominated for Directing Oscars. Thanks for coming to the dance, kids. The two clear frontrunners at this stage have to be The Social Network and The King’s Speech. The King’s Speech has the momentum (Producer’s Guild Award and the most nominations) but the Social Network still feels like a very narrow winner. It’s going to be close, folks, but I’ve decided on The Social Network and I’m going to hold my nerve.

Actor in a Leading Role

                  Javier Bardem in “Biutiful”

                  Jeff Bridges in “True Grit”

                  Jesse Eisenberg in “The Social Network”

                  Colin Firth in “The King's Speech”

   James Franco in “127 Hours”

THE GLOAT-O-METER – 14/15

Damn you, Javier Bardem. The fifth spot on this list was always up for grabs, a four-way dance between Robert Duvall, Mark Wahlberg, Ryan Gosling and Javier Bardem, and in the end Bardem took the honours for Biutiful. I don’t think it matters in the long run, as Colin Firth is almost unassailable in this category despite Eisenberg and Franco being equally worthy.

Actor in a Supporting Role

                  Christian Bale in “The Fighter”

                  John Hawkes in “Winter's Bone”

                  Jeremy Renner in “The Town”

                  Mark Ruffalo in “The Kids Are All Right”

Geoffrey Rush in “The King's Speech”

THE GLOAT-O-METER: 18/20

It’s funny how things happen. About four months ago the one guaranteed lock for Best Supporting Actor was Andrew Garfield for the Social Network. Fast forward to now and he’s a late victim of the success of Winter’s Bone, ousted by John Hawkes, as a series of fantastic supporting performances conspired to knock him off the list. It doesn’t matter though, as Christian Bale should win this category and win it easily. He is fantastic.

Actress in a Leading Role

                  Annette Bening in “The Kids Are All Right”

                  Nicole Kidman in “Rabbit Hole”

                  Jennifer Lawrence in “Winter's Bone”

                  Natalie Portman in “Black Swan”

Michelle Williams in “Blue Valentine”

GLOAT-O-METER: 23/25

This is a really, really good category. I said in an earlier piece that maybe the reason Aaron Eckhart missed out on Best Actor was a more crowded field but these are the best five lead actress performances of the year, no doubt, and not a weak link among them. I’m looking forward to see who wins this category because while the Best Actor and Supporting Actor categories have huge favourites, I don’t think Natalie Portman is guaranteed the win here. You could really do worse than to jump on Annette Bening ($6.00 with Sportsbet, punters) to upset this category.

Actress in a Supporting Role

                  Amy Adams in “The Fighter”

                  Helena Bonham Carter in “The King's Speech”

                  Melissa Leo in “The Fighter”

                  Hailee Steinfeld in “True Grit”

Jacki Weaver in “Animal Kingdom”

GLOAT-O-METER: 28/30

The real question, as I mentioned in my predictions, was not whether Jacki Weaver would get nominated but rather whether Hailee Steinfeld would get nominated in Lead or Supporting. Mila Kunis can count herself unlucky, but again this is an excellent category. The frontrunner is Melissa Leo, but don’t discount Amy Adams. I think she’s a genuine shot to win this category. (At $13 as well – not too shabby.)

Directing

                  “Black Swan” Darren Aronofsky

                  “The Fighter” David O. Russell

                  “The King's Speech” Tom Hooper

                  “The Social Network” David Fincher

“True Grit” Joel Coen and Ethan Coen

GLOAT-O-METER: 32/35

The Internet is up in arms about Christopher Nolan’s surprising omission from this category, and I think probably rightfully so. Inception is a truly visionary film, brilliantly directed whereas I think the Fighter is elevated by its acting rather than its direction. But hey, Nolan got a Best Original Screenplay nod, so its not all bad.

TV REVIEW - HAWAII FIVE-O

These are very, very serious people.

PILOT AIRS SUNDAY 30^TH JANUARY AT 8:30PM ON CHANNEL TEN

If you’ve ever read much about Alex O’Loughlin, the Australian actor playing the lead role in Hawaii Five-O, you’ll know he’s been trying to become a TV star with American network CBS for quite some time. First there was Moonlight, the vampire series that was cancelled right before the whole vampire craze really took off. Then there was Three Rivers the medical drama that bombed even worse than Moonlight.

Now, there’s Hawaii Five-O – and third time’s the charm.

What you need to know about Hawaii Five-O is that it’s nothing special or out of the box. This isn’t The Good Wife or Blue Bloods – both network procedurals that rise above the pack. This is just a well-made, well-acted production with name value and a great theme tune that does what it sets out to do – nothing less, nothing more.

Aussie actor O’Loughlin plays Steve McGarrett (the part originated by Jack Lord), a no-nonsense Navy SEAL. We’re introduced to the character during a terrific opening action sequence (which has sadly been completely spoiled by all the promotional material and reviews) that sets up his entry into the elite crime fighting task force set up by the Governor of Hawaii (played by the always awesome Jean Smart).

The crime fighting task force is endowed with a complete absence of checks and balances – which creates great potential for high drama and an unusual degree of ethical ambiguity. McGarrett recruits wise-cracking Detective Danny Williams (Scott Caan) into his team and the team soon settle into a familiar (though entertaining) antagonistic buddy cop routine. Caan is the best thing about the show (and was nominated for an unexpected Golden Globe), bringing comic timing, rugged charm and a surprising level of dramatic depth to the role.

The other members of the team are former cop Chin-Ho Kelly (Daniel Dae Kim, not having to leave Hawaii after making Lost) and his police academy graduate cousin Kona Kalakaua (Grace Park of Battlestar Galactica). Once the team has come together Hawaii Five-O swings into the familiar beats of a police procedural for the rest of the pilot. A very good cop show, but a cop show nonetheless.

The pilot, directed by Underworld helmer Len Wiseman, looks fantastic and Wiseman brings an air of confidence and flair to proceedings that the material doesn’t necessarily deserve. As the series moves along there are hints of a return to an ongoing story but it isn’t compelling enough to warrant watching every episode of the series.

The action sequences, a key element of a show like this, are excellent in the pilot and suffer slightly as the series goes along and spends less money. But for the most part O’Loughlin is a convincing action lead – even if he is trying to match Taylor Lautner and Matthew McConaughey in terms of general shirtlessness. Grace Park also looks excellent every time she is gratuitously put in a bikini or her underwear, which is often, at least initially.

Hawaii Five-O has been a relative hit in America, which means it should be around on our screens for a little while yet. So should you watch Hawaii Five-O? Absolutely, if you like well-produced police procedurals with good looking cast members, cool catchphrases and fantastic theme songs. But if you have limited television watching time and like your dramas with some depth, feel free to give Hawaii Five-O a miss.

SCORE – 6/10. Better than average, but only just.

WORTH WATCHING FOR

-                     Scott Caan’s charismatic performance

-                     Fantastic locations and visuals

-                     Decent-to-excellent action sequences.

-                     Rocking theme tune

-                     ‘Book ‘em, Danno.”

WORKING AGAINST IT

-                     A lack of depth or innovation

-                     Straightforward plotting

-          Not the world's most engaging supporting cast.