Connect with us

Movie Reviews

Margaret Pomeranz: The 10 films you should watch, but probably haven’t

Published

on

Margaret Pomeranz: The 10 films you should watch, but probably haven’t

MP: Well, I don’t think we truly gelled for about five years because I was so nervous, and it took me time to be able to relax in front of camera.

Fitz: So you became an iconic duo, just like Roy and HG. In their case, they never socialised much off-camera so as to keep their on-air stuff fresh. Did you spend much time with David Stratton when the cameras weren’t rolling?

MP: We did, but never excessively, apart from when we went to things like the Cannes and Venice film festivals, when we would certainly see a great deal of one another. Back in Australia, we saw a bit of each other until he moved up to the Blue Mountains, which I was really shitty about, actually …

Fitz: And how do you judge the current state of the movie business globally and in Australia?

MP: Well, I think the Australian film industry is really healthy. It’s almost like it’s got the confidence in itself. Globally, on the one hand, I’m sick of those Marvel Comics being translated to the screen, but on the other hand, you can get really good ones, like the one that Taika Waititi directed, Thor: Ragnarok. That was terrific. So you can’t be narrow-minded about such films. Some are extremely good.

Advertisement

Jeff Bridges in Peter Weir’s brilliant Fearless.Credit: Warner Bros

Fitz: And where are your professional energies going right now?

MP: Nowhere! I am trying to get out of stuff, not into stuff.

Fitz: Two more quick questions, then we can rip in. I read a blurry report that you might have had a cameo role in Priscilla, Queen of the Desert. Is that correct?

MP: Yes, but blink and you’ll miss me, right? I had known the director, Stephan Elliott, for some time, and he said, would I play a part in his film? And I said, “All right, as long as I’m not playing anybody’s mother”. Not long afterwards, I was in Venice at the film festival, and a fax arrived for me, saying he wanted me in Priscilla, indeed playing someone’s mother, but … “You’re playing Guy Pearce’s mother”. So I said, “Oh, all right!”

Advertisement

Fitz: Meantime, I loved your review on Charlie Pickering’s The Weekly on ABC of Married at First Sight where you said, “It’s a groundbreaking social experiment in which mentally fragile halfwits marry toxic fame tarts”. Is there anything you’d like to add to that? Or is that about it?

MP: [Laughs.] No, that’s about it.

Fitz: OK, let’s get to the nub of it. Can you please gimme the 10 films few of us have seen yet, but bloody well should?

Dannielle Hall and Damian Pitt in <i>Beneath Clouds</i>.” loading=”lazy” fifu-data-src=”https://i1.wp.com/static.ffx.io/images/$zoom_0.493%2C$multiply_0.7725%2C$ratio_1.5%2C$width_756%2C$x_154%2C$y_0/t_crop_custom/q_86%2Cf_auto/08a46597ac3e941370274207d92640a388acb79a?ssl=1″ height=”390″ width=”584″ srcset=”https://i1.wp.com/static.ffx.io/images/$zoom_0.493%2C$multiply_0.7725%2C$ratio_1.5%2C$width_756%2C$x_154%2C$y_0/t_crop_custom/q_86%2Cf_auto/08a46597ac3e941370274207d92640a388acb79a?ssl=1, https://static.ffx.io/images/$zoom_0.493%2C$multiply_1.545%2C$ratio_1.5%2C$width_756%2C$x_154%2C$y_0/t_crop_custom/q_62%2Cf_auto/08a46597ac3e941370274207d92640a388acb79a 2x”/></picture></div><figcaption class=

Dannielle Hall and Damian Pitt in Beneath Clouds.Credit: © Bunya Productions

MP: Well, my first one is the Australian film Beneath Clouds (2002). That was Ivan Sen’s debut feature about two Indigenous kids, played by Damian Pitt and Dannielle Hall, who accidentally join up as they head for various reasons to Sydney from country NSW. Sen had made a series of really fantastic shorts when he was at the film school, and once he was out he made this. It looks fabulous. It’s heartrendingly great, but very little seen. I’m always moved by the final image in a film, and in this one, it’s just heartbreakingly good. Have you seen it?

Fitz: No, never heard of it, but I will see it soon! Next?

Advertisement

MP: OK, going down the list, I loved Locke (2013) by Stephen Knight. Tom Hardy gives an outstanding performance in this film in which he is the only presence on screen. He plays a man driving to a construction site who takes 38 phone calls from various people as his life falls apart.

Fitz: Hang on, just one actor? So when the screen credits roll for actors, there’s one person?

MP: Yes, apart from voice actors.

Fitz: That sounds like that famous first film by Steven Spielberg, Duel, with the menacing truck being the key presence monstering the poor bloke in front. Go on, next?

MP: Number three is Fearless (1993), by Peter Weir, starring Jeff Bridges and Rosie Perez as survivors of a plane crash who each experience the impact of the aftermath. Have you seen that?

Advertisement
The 1997 film <i>Gattaca</i> imagines a future class divide between the enhanced (as played by Uma Thurman) and the unenhanced.” loading=”lazy” fifu-data-src=”https://i2.wp.com/static.ffx.io/images/$zoom_0.544%2C$multiply_0.7725%2C$ratio_1.5%2C$width_756%2C$x_264%2C$y_202/t_crop_custom/q_86%2Cf_auto/44dab303a07c66b711c11fd1a4018cf9299ac7d2?ssl=1″ height=”390″ width=”584″ srcset=”https://i2.wp.com/static.ffx.io/images/$zoom_0.544%2C$multiply_0.7725%2C$ratio_1.5%2C$width_756%2C$x_264%2C$y_202/t_crop_custom/q_86%2Cf_auto/44dab303a07c66b711c11fd1a4018cf9299ac7d2?ssl=1, https://static.ffx.io/images/$zoom_0.544%2C$multiply_1.545%2C$ratio_1.5%2C$width_756%2C$x_264%2C$y_202/t_crop_custom/q_62%2Cf_auto/44dab303a07c66b711c11fd1a4018cf9299ac7d2 2x”/></picture></div><figcaption class=

The 1997 film Gattaca imagines a future class divide between the enhanced (as played by Uma Thurman) and the unenhanced.Credit: Getty Images

Fitz: No! Look, if it’s not Shawshank Redemption or the like, you may presume I haven’t seen it, but want to. I want you to educate me and mine on the finer things in films so we can say to our friends, “I can’t believe you haven’t seen those wonderful films, Beneath Clouds, Locke and Fearless! What kind of bogan ignoramus are you?”

MP: [Small groan.] Number four is District 9 (2009). This totally original, low-budget science fiction film from South African writer/director Neill Blomkamp has it all – a wild imagination, drama, pathos, compassion, with a few laughs thrown in, as a man organising the relocation of a camp of segregated aliens becomes one of them.

Fitz: You see, Margaret? Don’t despair, I’ve heard of it!

MP: So is that all right?

Fitz: Yes, please go on.

Advertisement

MP: I’ve chosen Nashville (1975). A gigantic tapestry of music, betrayal and politics set in the country music capital of the world and is the work of director Robert Altman. It has a multi-character cast and was the film that excited me most when I first saw it. It is still my favourite film of all time. I fell in love with Robert Altman when I saw it in Sydney, even though it was on screens for just a week, and it was gone. I dragged people to it, and then it disappeared.

Fitz: If you say it is your favourite of all time, that is some recommendation. Next, please?

MP: Gattaca (1997). This debut science fiction film from New Zealand born writer/director Andrew Niccol explores the ethics of genetic engineering. Niccol wrote The Truman Show, but when he went to Hollywood, they wouldn’t let him direct it and gave him Gattaca to direct instead. It stars Ethan Hawke and Uma Thurman and is riveting.

<i>Lust, Caution</i>, directed by Ang Lee, is set in China during the Japanese occupation. ” loading=”lazy” fifu-data-src=”https://i3.wp.com/static.ffx.io/images/$zoom_0.216%2C$multiply_0.7725%2C$ratio_1.5%2C$width_756%2C$x_0%2C$y_0/t_crop_custom/q_86%2Cf_auto/f05d6fc5c81e4c362d73f2f4a856e5e9b9fff307?ssl=1″ height=”390″ width=”584″ srcset=”https://i3.wp.com/static.ffx.io/images/$zoom_0.216%2C$multiply_0.7725%2C$ratio_1.5%2C$width_756%2C$x_0%2C$y_0/t_crop_custom/q_86%2Cf_auto/f05d6fc5c81e4c362d73f2f4a856e5e9b9fff307?ssl=1, https://static.ffx.io/images/$zoom_0.216%2C$multiply_1.545%2C$ratio_1.5%2C$width_756%2C$x_0%2C$y_0/t_crop_custom/q_62%2Cf_auto/f05d6fc5c81e4c362d73f2f4a856e5e9b9fff307 2x”/></picture></div><figcaption class=

Lust, Caution, directed by Ang Lee, is set in China during the Japanese occupation. Credit:

Fitz: Not that you care, but I broadly hate sci-fi. Still, I will give it a go.

MP: The Hill (1965) is a gruelling portrayal of men struggling to survive a military prison camp in North Africa during World War II, and it stars Sean Connery in one of his best performances. I don’t like prison movies much, but this one has stayed with me.

Advertisement

Fitz: I like Shawsha … actually, never mind. Does The Hill have a happy ending? You’ll despair to hear, Marge, my tastes are so plebeian: I genuinely like films where the hero and the heroine go through lots of struggles and get to kiss in the final frame – with the exception of Brokeback Mountain, where it was the two heroes.

MP: [Small pause.] I absolutely adored Brokeback Mountain. I saw that in Venice, and when everybody else was rushing off to the next screening, I just stayed sitting there alone, still absorbing it, it was so wonderful. But, moving on. I love tough films. And the one that I love most is The Lives of Others (2006), the debut film from German writer/director Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck about the impact that Stasi agents, East Germany’s secret police, have on a group of artists and intellectuals. A really powerful cinema experience.

Fitz: Next?

MP: Lust, Caution (2007). Ang Lee’s beautiful, emotionally powerful film is set in China during the Japanese occupation. It’s about a young student’s relationship with a high-ranking collaborator despite the fact that she’s part of a group that aims to assassinate him. And the next one after that is a soft one for you, Peter. I’ve chosen Chef (2014), written, directed by and starring Jon Favreau. It’s the story of a celebrity chef in an upmarket restaurant who loses his temper as he’s not prepared to conform. So he starts up a food truck with the help of his son and estranged wife. And you’ll be thrilled to hear, Peter, this one has a happy ending.

Loading

Advertisement

Fitz: Excellent! And that’s our 10. So the last thing is this. We’ve talked about films that you know are great, that should be more widely celebrated. What about films where everybody loves them except you? I hate to say it, but the best example for me is the one you’re in: Priscilla, Queen of the Desert. Yes, all the actors are great, and Hugo’s a personal friend. But I just never understood the level of acclaim it received.

MP: [Laughing.] Of course it was the one I was in! But, yes, I don’t always like what everybody else likes. I don’t necessarily like what David Stratton likes. I actually talked to him this morning about the list I just gave you, and I think he approves of just about all the ones on my list, but not all. Generally, I think that within seconds of a film opening, you know whether you’re in good hands with a director or not, and it’s really weird that some films just scream: “I am no good!” from the very beginning.

Fitz: And the blockbuster that you detest?

MP: A really popular film that everyone else loved was the remake of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. It’s only one of the two films I’ve ever walked out of.

Fitz: And what is the other, please?

Advertisement

MP: I will tell you, but it’s not for publication. [We go into the Cone of Silence.]

Fitz: Oh! Oh, I see … Thank you, indeed. I, and my readers, shall report back before Chrissie on what we think of your list. In the meantime, we are in your debt. At least we hope so.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Movie Reviews

Movie Review: ‘Avatar: Fire and Ash’ – Catholic Review

Published

on

Movie Review: ‘Avatar: Fire and Ash’ – Catholic Review

NEW YORK (OSV News) – “Avatar: Fire and Ash” (20th Century), the third film in the always visually rich franchise that got its start in 2009, brings forward thematic elements that had previously been kept in the background and that viewers of faith will find it impossible to accept and difficult to dismiss. As a result, it requires careful evaluation by mature movie fans.

Against the recurring background of the fictional moon Pandora, the saga of the family whose fortunes were chronicled in the earlier chapters continues. The clan consists of dad Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) and his wife Neytiri (Zoe Saldaña) as well as their three surviving children, teens Lo’ak (Britain Dalton) and Kiri (Sigourney Weaver) and tyke Tuk (Trinity Jo-Li Bliss).

Rounding out the household is Jake and Neytiri’s adolescent adopted son, Spider (Jack Champion).

As veterans of the earlier outings will know, Jake was originally a human and a Marine. But, via an avatar, he eventually embraced the identity of Neytiri’s Pandoran tribe, the Na’vi. While their biological kids are to all appearances Na’vi — a towering race with blue skins and tails — Spider is human and requires a breathing mask to survive on Pandora.

Lo’ak is guilt-ridden over his role in the death of his older brother, Neteyam (Jamie Flatters), and wants to redeem himself by proving his worth as a warrior. Kiri is frustrated that, despite her evident spiritual gifts, she’s unable to connect with Eywa, the mother goddess the Na’vi worship.

Advertisement

For his part, Jake is worried about Spider’s future — Neteyam’s death has left the still-grieving Neytiri with a hatred of the “Sky people,” as Earthlings are known on Pandora. He also has to contend with the ongoing threat posed by his potentially deadly rivalry with his former Marine comrade, Col. Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang), who is also Spider’s estranged father.

As if all that weren’t enough, a further challenge arises when the Metkayina, the sea-oriented Pandorans with whom Jake et al. have taken refuge, are attacked by the fierce fire-centric Mangkwan, led by Varang (Oona Chaplin), a malevolent sorceress. A three hour-plus running time is required to tie up these varied strands.

Along the way, the religion adhered to by the main characters becomes more prominent than in previous installments. Thus Eywa is both present on screen and active in the plot. Additionally, Kiri is revealed to have been the product of a virginal conception.

Director and co-writer (with Rick Jaffa and Amanda Silver) James Cameron’s extension of his blockbuster series, accordingly, not only includes material uncomfortable at best for Christians but also seems incongruent, overall, with monotheistic belief. Even well-catechized grown-ups, therefore, should approach this sprawling addition to Cameron’s epic with caution.

The film contains nonscriptural beliefs and practices, constant stylized but often intense combat violence with brief gore, scenes of torture, narcotics use, partial nudity, a couple of mild oaths, at least one rough term, numerous crude and a handful of crass expressions and an obscene gesture. The OSV News classification is L — limited adult audience, films whose problematic content many adults would find troubling. The Motion Picture Association rating is PG-13 — parents strongly cautioned. Some material may be inappropriate for children under 13.

Advertisement

Read More Movie & TV Reviews

Copyright © 2025 OSV News

Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

‘Gurram Paapi Reddy’ movie review: Naresh Agastya, Faria Abdullah’s con comedy is hilarious yet overcooked

Published

on

‘Gurram Paapi Reddy’ movie review: Naresh Agastya, Faria Abdullah’s con comedy is hilarious yet overcooked

If this week’s Telugu release Gurram Paapi Reddy were a human, it would most likely be a teenager. It bursts with energy, overflowing with ideas and wearing its unabashed enthusiasm like a badge of honour. The audience too might end up surrendering to its infectious energy. Yet, like a distracted teenager, the film also gets so enamoured by its very idea that it loses control and does not know where to stop.

The vibe is eerily similar to Jathi Ratnalu early on. Again, Brahmanandam (as Vaidyanathan), is a judge. Faria Abdullah, the actress in the former film, is the only female presence in the lead lineup here. The other oddball male characters — Gurram Paapi Reddy (Naresh Agastya), Chilipi (Vamshidhar Goud), Goyyi (Jeevan Kumar) and Military (Rajkumar Kasireddy) — are the not-so-smart ones who get entangled in a mess.

The similarities end there. Brahmanandam, who is in terrific form, sets the tone of the comedy, doling out harsh punishments to petty criminals, not for their crimes, but for their sheer stupidity in getting caught. Gurram, Chilipi, Goyyi and Military are the victims who reunite after their jail term. This time, they are joined by Soudamini (Faria).

Gurram Paapi Reddy (Telugu)

Director: Murali Manohar

Cast: Naresh Agastya, Faria Abdullah, Brahmanandam, Yogi Babu

Advertisement

Runtime: 160 minutes

Storyline: A gang of four ex-convicts swap dead bodies for easy money and land in a ‘royal’ mess.

While their earlier heist at a jewellery store goes terribly wrong, the new plan is strangely simple. The four men need to swap a dead body from Srisailam with another body in a graveyard in Hyderabad for a meagre sum. While they execute it, albeit with difficulty, it gets messy when the motive behind the swap comes to the fore, dating back to a royal gift from the pre-Independence era.

The key conflict is established prior to the intermission, but newer problems surface later. Though the story idea is deceptively straightforward, the director builds many layers to the fun quotient and it’s evident that he treats comedy like serious business.

The actors react to the situations without trying too hard to impress. The scenes are not only thematically funny, but also packed with outrageously hilarious one-liners. Every time one feels the film’s trajectory is sorted, there is a surprise. The screenplay is busy with backstories and subplots.

Advertisement

The second hour could have benefited from some economy in writing. Past connections are strung together, newer characters and their complexities are introduced, there are backup plans, flashbacks and a song is thrown into the mix. Thankfully, the humour quotient remains unaffected. Some breather would have been welcome.

The subplots involving Sangi Reddy, particularly the courtroom proceedings, and Markandeya Raju’s son crowd the screenplay, leaving the viewers with too many dots to connect. It’s inevitable for some restlessness to creep in towards the final 45 minutes — a stretch packed with several events and coincidences. A clever climax salvages the film.

Gurram Paapi Reddy is aware of the crucial balance between the goofiness of its characters and the seriousness of the plot. Too many characters and a packed, expansive narrative make the film exhausting, given its 160-minute runtime.

Naresh Agastya, Vamshidhar Goud, Faria Abdullah, Jeevan Kumar and Rajkumar Kasireddy share wonderful on-screen camaraderie and get ample scope to shine individually too. Yogi Babu, as a convict with night-blindness, brings the roof down even when he doesn’t dub for himself. Motta Rajendran’s antics look repetitive at times, though they land well.

This is also among Brahmanandam’s best on-screen appearances in recent times. It’s an absolute joy to see the veteran actor ever-hungry to prove his worth when he senses potential in a scene. John Vijay is in dire need of reinvention with his dialogue delivery and body language. Both songs in the film, composed by Krishna Saurabh, though well-shot, feel abrupt.

A narrative with lesser flab would have amplified the film’s impact. The makers tease the audience with a potential sequel idea, but appreciably it does not appear forced. The film is also complete in itself.

Advertisement

Gurram Paapi Reddy is a smartly written and performed con-comedy that delivers laughs aplenty, though a few segments become indulgent.

Published – December 19, 2025 08:22 pm IST

Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

‘Avatar: Fire and Ash’ Movie Review and Release Live Updates: James Cameron directorial opens to mixed audience reviews – The Times of India

Published

on

‘Avatar: Fire and Ash’ Movie Review and Release Live Updates: James Cameron directorial opens to mixed audience reviews  – The Times of India

James Cameron clarifies Matt Damon’s viral claim that he turned down 10 per cent of ‘Avatar’ profits

Filmmaker James Cameron has addressed actor Matt Damon’s long-circulating claim that he turned down the lead role in Avatar along with a lucrative share of the film’s profits, saying the version widely believed online is “not exactly true.”

For years, Damon has spoken publicly about being offered the role of Jake Sully in the 2009 blockbuster in exchange for 10 per cent of the film’s gross, a deal that would have translated into hundreds of millions of dollars given Avatar’s global earnings of USD 2.9 billion. The role eventually went to Australian actor Sam Worthington, according to The Hollywood Reporter.

“Jim Cameron called me — he offered me 10 per cent of Avatar,” Damon says in the clips. “You will never meet an actor who turned down more money than me … I was in the middle of shooting the Bourne movie and I would have to leave the movie kind of early and leave them in the lurch a little bit and I didn’t want to do that … [Cameron] was really lovely, he said: ‘If you don’t do this, this movie doesn’t really need you. It doesn’t need a movie star at all. The movie is the star, the idea is the star, and it’s going to work. But if you do it, I’ll give you 10 per cent of the movie.’”

However, speaking to The Hollywood Reporter, Cameron said Damon was never formally offered the part. “I can’t remember if I sent him the script or not. I don’t think I did? Then we wound up on a call and he said, ‘I love to explore doing a movie with you. I have a lot of respect for you as a filmmaker. [Avatar] sounds intriguing. But I really have to do this Jason Bourne movie. I’ve agreed to it, it’s a direct conflict, and so, regretfully, I have to turn it down.’ But he was never offered. There was never a deal,” according to The Hollywood Reporter.

Advertisement

The director added that discussions never progressed to character details or negotiations. “We never talked about the character. We never got to that level. It was simply an availability issue,” he said.

Addressing the widely shared belief that Damon turned down a massive payday, Cameron said the actor may have unintentionally merged separate ideas over time. “What he’s done is extrapolate ‘I get 10 percent of the gross on all my films,’” Cameron said, adding that such a deal would not have happened in this case. “So he’s off the hook and doesn’t have to beat himself up anymore.”

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending