The Lake House

Keanu Reeves and Sandra Bullock – and not an out-of-control bus to be seen.

Over ten years has passed since Speed - surely one of the more enjoyable action flicks of the 90s despite Billy Idol’s theme song – cemented Keanu Reeves as every teenage girl’s pin-up dream, and launched Sandra Bullock into the Hollywood-sphere. Reeves made one of the two wisest decisions he’s ever made* in refusing to appear in the abominable sequel Speed 2; so The Lake House marks his onscreen reunion with Bullock. And what a pleasing little romance this is: pairing Reeves’ scruffy appeal and Bullock’s sweet vulnerability - with a time travel twist.

Bullock plays Kate, a lonely doctor, who moves out of the beautiful titular Lake House to be closer to her hospital job in Chicago. Her notes for the next tenant wind up in the hands of Alex Wyler (Reeves), an architect who’s moving into the Lake House – which his father had built – to do it up. Something’s amiss here, and we soon work out that Alex is living in 2004, and Kate in 2006. Using the Lake House’s letterbox – and a scene-stealing dog - as their conduits, the pair embark on one hell of a long-distance relationship.

Romantic comedies need a twist these days to stand out from the bunch – but even so, the quantum mechanics of this particular film would have Einstein himself reaching for the calculator.** The couple is supposed to communicate through the Lake House letterbox, but the filmmakers drop that as a imperative about halfway through the film, and the two narrate their notes and letters as if having a real-time conversation. It’s best, I think, to ignore the minutiae of the time travel and resulting plot holes – or should that be black holes?***

Both Reeves and Bullock perform well here – the roles suit them and it’s a pleasure to see a romance involving two 40-something contemporaries instead of the typical Hollywood pairing (she’s hot bodied; he’s virtually stone cold). The time travel exterior is an allegory for deeper issues to do with time - waiting and commitment. Kate is dedicated to her job at the expense of her personal happiness; Alex is uneasy about following his heart and setting up his own company; and Alex’s architect father Simon (Christopher Plummer) reflects on his lifelong deficiencies as a father. It contains some nice imagery – the city of Chicago is an elegant backdrop, the Lake House is stunning, and there’s some almost poetic use of colour (especially red).

The Lake House will please those members of the audience savvy enough to either make sense of the time differences, or wise enough to ignore them completely. If nothing else…it passes the time.

*The other was taking the lead role in The Matrix. The two sequels, however…
**Hey! My first physics joke!
***Hey! My second physics joke!

Equus

In the interest of truth, I will state upfront that I am a member of the Brisbane Arts Theatre, have performed in numerous shows there over the past seven years, and my partner is also the director of Equus, the theatre’s latest production. Readers may therefore consider the following review biased; I can only encourage those readers (and everyone else) to venture out to Equus, and make up their own mind. Feel free to leave comments!

As a member of the Brisbane Arts Theatre, I can unequivocally say that Equus is the most daring production to be staged so far in 2006; and probably for several years before that. It’s an intense psychological character study; more therapy than theatre, and it’s a brave move for a community theatre best known for its mainstream fare of drawing-room dramas, murder mysteries, historical costume pieces and gentle comedies. The risk has paid off: this production of Equus is of a standard comparable to a professional theatre company, and is a credit to the cast and crew, and the theatre itself.

Equus was written by English dramatist Peter Shaffer over 30 years ago. It ran for over 1000 performances on Broadway, and won Shaffer the 1975 Tony Award for Best Play. In 1977 it was made into a film, starring Richard Burton as Martin Dysart, one of the main characters and the narrator of sorts. The play tells the story of Alan Strang, a 17-year-old boy sent to the psychiatrist Dysart for treatment after he blinds six horses with a metal spike. Strang, as we discover, is a horse-lover, so much so he constructs his own religion around the horse-god Equus. As Dysart explores Strang’s fragile psyche and what drove him to commit such a terrible crime against animals he ostensibly loves, he learns more about himself, and whether “sane” is a better way to live than “crazy” after all.

Peter Norton turns in a staggering performance as Alan Strang. He exposes himself both figuratively and literally, as the role involves a mental breakdown and full frontal nudity. John Boyce is more than his equal as Martin Dysart, the psychiatrist whose life has turned out far different than he expected. Their dynamic performances hold the play together – indeed, like his subsequent play Amadeus, Shaffer likes to focus on the sparring between two lead characters. Stand-put supporting performances come from James Fitzgerald and Joy McLeary as Alan’s bewildered parents Frank and Dora, and Celia Finter as Jill, the temptation that leads Alan from his own path of righteousness. Special mention must also be made to the four actors playing the horses (led by Shaun King as Nugget), in stunning silver-sculptered see-through horse heads, and 20-centimetre high “hooves” (built by Graham Mackenzie).

The stage is kept simple, with an enclosed set decorated only by the horse heads, which hang as watchful sentries when not being worn by the actors. Having all the actors stay onstage during the entire performance is an effective way of keeping scene changes short and the story moving, even though at times their natural movements (coughing, drinking water etc) are distracting. Lighting cues are for the most part clean and timely, and the few sound cues there are work well to enhance the action. Director Greg Rowbotham and assistant director Reneé Daly deserve credit for creating a simple yet dynamic vision; the story deals with almost supernatural elements without forgetting the harsh realities of a life affected by mental instability.

Equus deals with intense issues of identity, religion, illness, violence and sexuality. As mentioned above, it includes full frontal nudity, as well as simulated sex and mature language. It’s certainly not one for the kiddies, but if you like to be challenged by theatre, I heartily recommend it. It’s one of the best shows the Arts Theatre has produced in recent years, and I can only hope they keep a place in their schedule for intelligent, engrossing drama. The audience deserves that choice.

Equus
Brisbane Arts Theatre
Runs until July 29
Thurs, Fri, Sat nights @ 8pm
Sunday matinee 23rd July @ 2pmWednesday night 26 July@ 8pm
Tickets $22 adults/$18 concessionsBookings: 3369 2344
www.artstheatre.com.au

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest

It’s been three years since the first Pirates movie burst onto our screens, buckling its swash with gay abandon, launching the international career of Keira “I need a sandwich” Knightley, and introducing one of the greatest ever screen characters – Captain Jack Sparrow. In a deservedly Oscar-nominated performance, Johnny Depp fired up the imaginations of teenage girls and everyone else alike, inspiring in all who saw it a desire to throw off their corporate chains, escape to the sea and spend the rest of their lives drinking rum to the tune of “Yo-ho, yo-ho, a pirate’s life for me”.

With its incredible box office success, not to mention the acting credibility lent to it by the likes of Depp, and Geoffrey Rush as the villainous Captain Barbossa, it was inevitable the film would become a franchise. Thus we have Dead Man’s Chest, a spirited, if overly complicated movie, that acts as both sequel to Curse of the Black Pearl, and set-up for the grand finale, At World’s End, due out late 2007 (principle shooting on both films was done on location in the Caribbean at the same time).

It’s not a bad idea to re-watch Curse of the Black Pearl, so you’re up to pirate speed by the time Dead Man’s Chest begins. The film launches straight into the action, picking up where COTBP left off. What’s supposed to be a happy wedding day for Elizabeth (Knightley) and Will Turner (Orlando Bloom) soon takes a dramatic turn, when both are arrested and charged with helping Captain Jack escape justice. To win their freedom, Will agrees to track down Captain Jack for the new commander of Port Royal and poster boy for the East India Trading Company Cutler Beckett (Tom Hollander). Elizabeth also manages to break out, stealing pardons for Jack and Will and agreeing with Beckett’s request to find Captain Jack’s mysterious and magical compass.

Meanwhile Captain Jack has problems of his own. The cephalopodic Davy Jones (Bill Nighy) has returned to claim a debt Jack owes him – his soul. Jack and his crew make an escape to land, and after a run-in with the somewhat stereotypical natives (painted bodies, manic dancing, threats to boil Jack and eat him), tricks Will into taking his place on Jones’ ghoulish ship, The Flying Dutchman. There’s high-sea hijinks ahoy as Jack proceeds to double cross everyone in his quest to get a hold of Davy Jones’ heart, which lies in the eponymous Dead Man’s Chest, and is the key to controlling the oceans.

What weighs Dead Man’s Chest down is this bulky and convoluted series of plots, which are hard to follow if one loses interest even for a few seconds. The intertwining storylines all have to be dealt with, which results in the film being about half an hour too long. And yet there’s many questions never answered, and many characters short-changed – most notably Knightley, whose feisty aristocrat from the first film appears to have morphed into a pouty brat; her longing for freedom exchanged for her longing to get married. The movie’s fumbled attempts at setting up a love triangle of sorts between Elizabeth, Will and Captain Jack are also frustrating. I certainly hope they don’t trot out the “Captain Jack is saved by the love of a good woman” tripe in the third film. What makes Captain Jack so much fun to watch is his complete disregard for humans – even ones he likes – if it’s in his own self-interest and preservation. I’m sorry, but Keira Knightley just isn’t good enough to change that!

The film’s highlights are its visually interesting cast, stunning scenery, a few spectacular fight scenes and superb uses of CGI special effects. Davy Jones’ octopus beard is beautifully animated, although it’s a shame to lose so much of Bill Nighy’s wonderfully craggy face (although the man can do more with his eyes than Bloom can do with his whole face). His crew are a frightening mix of man-beasts, their heads having turned into various sea creatures such as hammerhead sharks and lobsters. The Kraken, a giant squid Jones calls from the deep to do his bidding (which mostly involves tearing ships apart plank by plank), is so real, you can see the water dripping off the suckers on its massive tentacles. A tri-cornered sword fight between Jack, Will and Norrington (Jack Davenport in a nice turn) is very well executed, even if does include a somewhat ridiculous joust atop a spinning mill wheel.

This movie includes references to the Disneyland ride on which it was based – most particularly a longboat ride through a creepy bayou to the house of a local mystic. The film ends here; with the gang gathered to pledge their support for yet another adventure, this time to rescue a beloved character, with the help of an old foe. It’s an understandable but unsatisfying ending, and makes it all the more obvious how much of a bridging film this is.

The star of the whole kit and caboodle is however, Depp, and his importance should not be underestimated. Though not quite as joyous as his first turn as Captain Jack (unsurprisingly as that was as much of a journey of discovery for Depp as it was for those of us watching), he still remains the lynchpin for the movie’s success. People would come to see two hours of Depp regardless of who else turned up on the day of filming. His macho posing is beautifully undercut by his cowardice and effeteness, and it’s easy to get lost in his kohl-lined eyes. (Sigh!)

Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest is a rollicking, jollicking romp of a film – it’s about pirates, for goodness’ sake. It might be a bit much for very young kiddies, but otherwise it’s a fun few hours to spend away from the office, out on the high seas, singing “Yo-ho, yo-ho, a pirate’s life for me”.

Superman Returns

Slick, dark and edgy takes on much-loved comic characters have become de-rigeur over the past decade or so. It began essentially with the Tim Burton Batman films, moved on to the Sam Raimi Spiderman films, continued with the Bryan Singer X-Men films, faltered a bit with Ang Lee’s Hulk* and reached a pinnacle with last year’s Batman Begins, directed by Christopher Nolan. In films like these, brightly-coloured spandex outfits were abandoned in favour of leather and rubber, and backstories were vital to fleshing out the superhero characters. You couldn’t just be a good guy - you had to have a tragic childhood/adolescence, intimacy issues, and sado/masochistic tendencies – and be good in spite of all that.

But that approach simply wouldn’t work with Superman. Superman is Superman. He’s the ultimate good guy. There are no shades of grey - he’s black and white all the way.
The aforementioned Bryan Singer (who ditched X-Men: The Last Stand to take up the directing reigns here) therefore opts to avoid altering the character of the most super of superheroes. It’s simultaneously the best and worst thing about Superman Returns.

Superman Returns is a superhero movie that retains a sense of innocence and childlike wonder – as if Singer was directing through the eyes of the wide-eyed comic-reading ten-year-old inside him. But the character of Superman is just not as engaging as his others in the DC universe – and for this reviewer, there isn’t enough of his more human alter-ego Clark Kent to make up for it.

Ostensibly taking place after events in 1980’s Superman II (starring Christopher Reeve), Superman Returns sees the eponymous character (played by newcomer Brandon Routh) return to Earth after five years in the wild space frontier, searching in vain for any remains of his home planet Krypton. He crash lands back in the Kansas farm he grew up in, with Ma Kent (a nice cameo from Eva Marie Saint) on hand to nurse him back to health. Back he goes to Metropolis, to his old life as Clark Kent, newspaper reporter for the Daily Planet. The gang’s all still there – sharp-tongued editor Perry White (Frank Langella); gawky photographer Jimmy Olsen (Sam Huntington); and of course, ace reporter extraordinaire Lois Lane (Kate Bosworth) – but things aren’t exactly the same. With Superman gone, the world, it seems, has moved on – and so has Lois, writing a Pulitzer Prize winning article entitled “Why the World Doesn’t Need Superman”, and more importantly, shacking up with White’s nephew Richard (James Marsden), and popping out a sprog (Tristan Lake Leabu as Jason). It seems winning the public over again will be easier than getting on Lois’ good side.

Also making a return from an exile - albeit of a different kind - is criminal mastermind Lex Luthor (a scene-stealing Kevin Spacey). Out of prison, and newly rich (thanks to a conveniently dead wife), Luthor tracks down Superman’s Fortress of Solitude (complete with projected images of Marlon Brando as Superman’s dad Jor-El), and learns the art of “crystal technology” – the method of building anything and everything on long-dead Krypton. Luthor hatches a plan to rearrange the world’s continental real estate, and has no intention of the letting the recently returned Superman stop him.

The film takes its time with the story – Singer is a master at pacing, and while it’s over two hours long, it always holds your attention. This skill comes especially in handy considering the plot holes the size of the yellow sun that Singer must contend with (nobody notices Superman arrives back at the same time as Clark, after being away for the same length of time?). It’s cinematic sleight-of-hand at its best.

I had no problem with Brandon Routh as Superman – he looks eerily like Christopher Reeve from certain angles, and his inexperience onscreen is well disguised by the fact that Superman’s all-round goodness makes him a bit wooden to begin with. I preferred his turn as the clumsy Clark Kent, all wide eyes, awkward smiles and sneaky runs to the elevator when a quick change is required. Kate Bosworth is a little more problematic – there’s no doubt she held her own, but she just looks too damn young to be a reporter as experienced as Lois Lane, with a top job and a Pulitzer under her belt – not to mention a relationship with Superman going back over five years and now a four-year-old son running about. Obviously she matches age-wise with Routh, but at certain points I wished the casting directors had hired leads 5 or 10 years older.

The supporting players at the Daily Planet are all competent (especially Huntington as Jimmy Olsen); but the real star of the show is Kevin Spacey as Lex Luthor. Spacey plays on the fact that while we all wish we had the power and goodness of Superman, we’d settle for Luthor’s style and panache. Spacey’s timing and delivery are exemplary – while many comic die-hards will no doubt decry the continuing morphing of Luthor from insane scientist to Dr Evil-style megalomaniac (complete with white suit and bald noggin), most will enjoy such energetic opposition to the titular hero. Parker Posey also turns in a fun performance as Luthor’s moll, Kitty Kowalski.

The special effects reflect the movie’s big budget – although the site of a plummeting 747 didn’t turn me off flying as much as I thought it would. The new land built by Luthor using his stolen crystals is impressive, but it’s hard to believe the soulless rocky outcrops would attract a high bidding among land-hungry estate agents.

Superman Returns is an old-fashioned superhero movie, with a clear line between “good” and “bad”. The only complexities come from Lois’ relationship with Superman, and current partner Richard, and they’re interesting enough to watch, even a bit creepy at times (Superman hovering above Lois’ home, listening in to her and Richard’s kitchen talk). As mentioned above, the film suffers in my opinion because of a lack of Clark Kent, but then the movie is titled Superman Returns not Clark Kent Returns. But it’s got action and adventure for the kids, a bit of romance for the romantics, and in-jokes and comic references for the geeks. And surely that must be good enough.

*we don’t mention 2003’s Daredevil, or its 2005 spin-off Elektra.