jimmylee-1

When this came out in the theatres, I heard the reviews. So once again, I waited until it was on HBO before watching (even though it had Hugh Jackman). I was prepared to be irritated by a lengthy, bloated tale of Michener proportions. And naming the Australian ranch "Faraway" - so sadly reminiscent of that unfortunately lengthy "Far and Away" didn't help.

But I have to admit, Nicole put her all into it. She was going to make me believe in her character if it killed us both. Her landing in Australia and the drive to the station was predictable (so similar to "Mogambo", "King Solomon's Mines")... but from her arrival at Faraway station, the movie held my attention.

I'm not a big fan of movies where the protagonist miraculously has the wisdom and insight of today, while the rest of the cast staggers around with the ignorance/racism of the times. People don't do stupid things thinking they're stupid, wrong or racist; they do them with a firm conviction that they're doing exactly the right thing at the time. But the movie did attempt to depict the local attitude towards mission schooling of Indigenous Australians with some sensitivity - and less of the usual heavy hand.

And Hugh Jackman, never painful to look at, certainly threw himself into his character (and out of his shirt with satisfying regularity). Not a heel, just the usual highly attractive, can't commit chap - I challenge you to find a woman who isn't drawn to this type like white on rice.

It's always good to see Bryan Adams (does he make movies where he's not holding a bottle?) and Brandon Walters is quite a find. David Wenham makes a fine villain, especially since he doesn't get to be anything but a villain (no nuances required).

I thought the bombing of Darwin was dramatic enough without the landed Japanese raid (I'm not sure such an event actually occurred) - but certainly it pushed events to an exciting climax. Everyone got their just desserts. Life doesn't get much better.

I was pleasantly surprised. Not blown away, but pleasantly surprised.

I thought I had seen Showgirls before, and it hadn't seemed so bad. I would have given it a 5/10. Not even worth reviewing, really. Apparently that's because I saw it on edited broadcast television before, with all the Show edited out, leaving just the Girls. Now that I've seen it on HBO, I have to confirm it's simply dreadful.

First of all, it's tough to find a casino show (or shows, since for some reason this casino had a good 1+1/2 hours worth of dancing) quite that bad. Most shows after 11PM are topless (even the curtain pullers at the sea lion show). But I am hard pressed to think of a single show where the primary concern is whether the girls' nipples are erect. Yes, backstage is just a fountain of nudity, but up front? Gee whiz, can't say that the shows in Vegas are quite so detail oriented.

And I would be mighty peeved if I were in a casino and I had to pay $60, plus the pre-requisite $20 tip, to get into such an amazingly tawdry, OK, that's just a nice way to say "bad with tits" show. Even if we got comp'd, I'd be peeved.

I do have to give praise for coming up with the most amazing reason for massive amounts of breast exposure in a movie. There could have been more, but I don't know how.

Secondly, that television editing managed to pull out lots of lame scenes, like sex in the pool (wow, that Elizabeth is a workhorse, but I worry about her back) and even more lame lines (such as every single one prefaced with "dahrlin' and "I just had to have (a Ferrari)"). Shakespeare can rest easy.

Thirdly, the lesbian angle, sex, Kyle's hair, and violence never went anywhere. We had one lesbian kiss at the end (so?), the completely unconvincing sex in the pool (again, Elizabeth must have a standing appointment with a chiropractor) and one rape scene (which, if you have to have violence, is really the worst sort, but was completely unconvincing). We could have used a bit more of one of these - any of the above.

Amusing ramp up movie for the bachelor party and good for critiquing how movies designed to be deliberately commercial can go wrong - I really see no other redeeming feature.

I'm all for an oater. Huge fan of John Wayne, John Ford, Gary Cooper. And I'm all for a movie on Jesse James. I've got family from Missouri and relatives inappropriately named for him during the reconstruction.

But movie gods, how long are we expected to watch one mentally unstable man wander around tormenting half wits? Here's how I think it's supposed to work: the movie is shorter than the book, and, when it comes to biographies and histories, the book is shorter than the actual event itself. And, since it's live action (this is the most important thing), we're supposed to be entertained. Compared to this, Lawrence of Arabia was a stroll, and Dr. Zhivago a short story. This movie was endless and DULLER than third-generation nylon stockings.

All credit to Brad Pitt for successfully making this character thoroughly unlikable, since we know from Devil's Own he can make the bad guys look somewhat charming with a bad accent. And James' character here is the closest to reality - best since The Long Riders (and that was the best until now, far better than some of the laughable depictions seen in The Outlaw and the like).

But with Jesse as one endlessly scary dude, I spent most of the movie waiting for the promised old west justice and wishing I had brought my own six shooter so I could put an end to my misery.

No nice daffodils or tulips, no sand dunes - nothing to distract me while I'm waiting. And waiting. And waiting. Oh, and since there was nothing to wax lyrical about, I admired everyone's full mouth of beautiful clean teeth (there's historical accuracy for you).

Since we all know what happened to Jesse, the only surprise is why I sat through the whole damn film.