Adam Sandler: From the Goofy to the Gratuitous

Any seasoned film buff would concede that Adam Sandler has never exactly been Oscar bait. His comedic films make for light, breezy entertainment. You never go into a Sandler film expecting debonair wit or original, introspective characters. You enjoy them for what they are—entertaining farces peppered with rambunctious scenarios. Of course, Sandler has experimented with his dramatic side through films such as Reign Over Me, Funny People and Punch-Drunk Love—films that have received mixed to positive reviews. It could be said that, since 2007, Sandler’s films have been especially disappointing (with exceptions granted to Reign Over Me and Funny People). Sandler made a name for himself in the 90s playing eponymous roles in films like Billy Madison, Happy Gilmore and The Waterboy. These films weren’t technical masterpieces by any means, but we laughed because we believed in the goofiness of the characters. It was all a bit of campy fun. Nowadays, Sandler’s characters are caricatures of his past roles. This is telling when you consider that Sandler received a total of six nominations (a record) at this year’s Golden Raspberry Awards, winning four. Amazingly, Jack and Jill was nominated for twelve awards and won in every category. This article will attempt to get to the bottom of Sandler’s string of mediocrity (I’m being euphemistic), and strip bare the problems underlying his films.

As of April 2012, Sandler has either performed in or lent his voice to 33 feature films (including cameos). According to film review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, the most successful of these films has been Paul Thomas Anderson’s Punch-Drunk Love. 79% of critics praised the film, presenting the consensus that it is “odd, touching, and unique.” This should come as no surprise, as Anderson’s five Oscar nominations establish him as a talented writer-director. Critics were not so impressed, and justifiably so, when it came to Dennis Dugan’s Jack and Jill, where Sandler played the role of identical twins. This is Sandler’s worst film, according to Rotten Tomatoes, where a measly 3% of critics gave it a positive review. Did Sandler think that playing two characters would automatically earn him praise? When the characters are vapid and uninspired, it doesn’t matter how many you play. Perhaps Sandler should have studied Dustin Hoffman’s performance in Tootsie. Remarkably, a mere 12.1% of Sandler’s films have received positive, or ‘fresh’, ratings on Rotten Tomatoes. That’s right—only four out of 33 films. These films are Punch-Drunk Love (79%), Funny People (68%), The Wedding Singer (67%) and Reign Over Me (63%). Of these, The Wedding Singer comes closest to being a ‘typical’ Adam Sandler movie, but the film cannot be faulted for its unabashed sweetness. The other three films feature Sandler in a more mature performance, where over-the-top antics are exchanged for wry earnestness. Since 2007, Sandler has churned out seven films which have been deemed ‘rotten’ by Rotten Tomatoes’ critics. These include I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry (14%), Bedtime Stories (25%), You Don’t Mess with the Zohan (36%), Grown Ups (10%), Jack and Jill (3%), Just Go with It (19%) and Zookeeper (14%). It should be noted that Bucky Larson: Born to Be a Star—co-written by Sandler and produced by Happy Madison Productions—failed to receive a single positive review on the website. With 2009’s Funny People being the last ‘fresh’ film on Sandler’s résumé, that’s a streak of four ‘rotten’ films. Sandler has actually had a longer streak of misfires. Between 2002 and 2006, he featured in eight consecutive films that were panned by critics. However, the Tomatometers of these films are a lot more respectable than those of his four latest offerings. For those who are wondering, Sandler’s average Tomatometer score is 31%. That happens to be the aggregate rating of his 2005 reboot of The Longest Yard, so we can call that the typical Adam Sandler film.

Sandler’s films have generally fared well, but not astonishingly, at the Australian box office. That said, Sandler’s filmography is rather bereft of sequels, remakes and blockbuster films, so it’s understandable that his films don’t rake in gargantuan box office figures. On average, a film featuring Adam Sandler grosses $6,291,582. The most financially successful Sandler film in Australia to date has been The Wedding Singer, released all the way back in 1998. The film accrued a total of $11,196,306. The average grossing for a Sandler film between 1998 and 2006 was $5,608,808. For films released in 2007 and beyond, the average grossing is $7,429,539. Does this mean that cinema-goers give greater regard to Sandler’s films now than they did prior to 2007? Well, yes and no. All actors have their humble beginnings, and it follows logically that more people know of Adam Sandler now than they did when he broke onto the comedy scene. Hence, if it was 1999 and you had to choose between The Waterboy and Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me, you would probably side with the Austin Powers film, not only because you had seen its predecessor, but because you could rely on the comedic performance of an actor like Mike Myers, who you’d probably admired in the Wayne’s World films. As his career’s progressed, Sandler has starred alongside greats such as Jack Nicholson (Anger Management), Christopher Walken (Click) and Al Pacino (Jack and Jill), which hasn’t helped the financial performance of his films. However, a recent film like Grown Ups performed considerably well, most likely due to the combination of Sandler, David Spade, Kevin James, Chris Rock and Rob Schneider. Of Sandler’s ten highest-grossing films in Australia, half of them were released in 2007 or beyond. This can be attributed to the fact that Sandler is starring in more family-orientated films (Grown Ups and Jack and Jill were rated PG; Bedtime Stories was rated G), which means greater audience accessibility, and ultimately more bums on seats. Looking at the figures for opening weekend grossings, we notice that Sandler’s most recent offerings just aren’t drawing audiences in like his films once did. For films released in 2007 or beyond, the opening weekend grossing only accounts for, on average, 27.9% of the total grossing. If we compare this to Sandler’s films before 2007, where a film would gross, on average, 39.9% of its total grossing on the opening weekend, there is a considerable difference. In today’s world, where film advertising permeates our culture more than ever, you’d expect fans to be bursting at the seams with anticipation for Sandler’s films. This is not the case, and it seems that audiences are growing weary of Sandler’s repetitive shtick, perhaps using naive friends as test guinea pigs to brave his films.

To address Sandler’s recent run of puerile films, it is worth examining the common themes that permeate them. This requires content analysis of the Internet Movie Database’s plot keywords for Sandler’s post-2006 films. The most frequent word among the keywords is ‘relationship’, which is fairly inconspicuous. All great films feature relationships of various categories: familial, romantic, friendship, business, etc. That’s all well and good if the characters within the relationships are acutely developed, but more than a few of Sandler’s films are hampered by walking clichés. The second most prevalent word is ‘male’, appearing in keywords such as ‘male nudity’ and ‘male bonding’. Now, male nudity didn’t prevent Steve McQueen’s Shame from making a mark, and a film like Stand By Me poignantly explores the many nuances of childhood through a group of male friends. It’s the faux profundity of a film like Grown Ups which is proving a liability to Sandler’s acting career. Male-centric films act as a barrier between female audiences and potential empathy, and female audiences may well be baying for another Punch-Drunk Love. Other prominent keywords include ‘nudity’, ‘sex’, ‘gay’ and ‘panties’. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with these plot elements. Sex and nudity is a feature of countless films, and can be handled tastefully and with sensitivity. Sandler seems to choose roles where being crude reigns supreme. Provocatively bathing elderly women is not funny. There’s no punch line to this behaviour, and yet this is what passes for a scene in You Don’t Mess with the Zohan. I Now Pronounce You Chuck and Larry was panned by critics for its stereotypical depiction of homosexuals; however, Joanne Kaufman of the Wall Street Journal believes the film additionally insults “straights, men, women, children, African-Americans, Asians, pastors, mailmen, insurance adjusters, firemen, doctors -- and fans of show music.” It’s shocking to think that the vastly talented Alexander Payne contributed to the screenplay, but it comes as no surprise to learn that Sandler allegedly “Sandlerized” Payne’s initial draft. All in all, these keywords imply that in order to restore some credibility to his name, Sandler may need to work in films where both sexes are given equal representation, and where the jokes are innocent and relatively inoffensive. Being risqué is one thing, but telling the same unfunny joke over and over again is another.  

Looking at Sandler’s upcoming attractions, it looks as though no significant improvement will take place anytime soon. This year will see the release of the comedy That’s My Boy, as well as the animated feature Hotel Transylvania. That’s My Boy is directed by Sean Anders, whose Sex Drive was a raunchy teen road movie with many funny scenes. Regardless, it’s unlikely that this one film, which also stars Andy Samberg, will be the catalyst for a major upheaval in Sandler’s career. The really disappointing news is that a sequel to Grown Ups is scheduled for release in 2013. Dennis Dugan, who has garnered a reputation as the accomplice to Sandler’s downfall, will reprise his role as director.

If this article comes off as harsh, it is only because I am longing to see Mr Sandler explore his full potential. He’s shown glimpses of his capabilities in serious efforts and sweetly sentimental romantic comedies, and it’s a shame his latest films appeal to the lowest common denominator. I miss the old Adam Sandler—the one who fought with Bob Barker in Happy Gilmore; who serenaded Drew Barrymore on a plane in The Wedding Singer; and who had the ambition to star in an art film like Punch-Drunk Love. That was the Adam Sandler I loved.

Shen Wednesday - Calligraffiti

WESTERN SYDNEY WELCOMES NEW STYLE OF ART

                       An example of Shen Wednesday’s Calligraffiti      Picture: Steven Savona

By Steven Savona

Shen Wednesday is making a mark at the Fairfield City Museum and Gallery with her eclectic fusion of Western and Eastern art.

Her exhibition, Calligraffiti, combines elements of calligraphy and graffiti: styles which are generally seen at opposite ends of the artistic spectrum.

Wednesday has said that the intention of the exhibition is to “display the process and aftermath of what happens when an artist integrates two vastly similar and yet different artistic disciplines.”

Calligraffiti is a fairly recent art form, believed to have been pioneered by Dutch artist, Niels Shoe Meulman, in 2007.

Wednesday’s exhibition gives her the chance to create the precedent for Calligraffiti in Australia.

Museum Coordinator and Education Officer, Carmel Aiello, believes it is refreshing to see such innovative work on display in the gallery.

“It’s the first time we’ve seen this type of work at the gallery,” she said.

The exhibition features a space where patrons can express their own artistic flair, which Ms Aiello believes is a positive sign.

“I think people like the idea that they can actually contribute to the exhibition, rather than being a passive viewer,” she said.

Wednesday is currently studying her PhD on calligraphy and graffiti at the Penrith campus of the University of Western Sydney, where her exhibition has its roots.

After displaying some of her calligraphic works at the university, she allowed students to deface them with spray cans, which planted the seeds for her current exhibition. 

Wednesday believes that art should be a democratic process, and that traditional gallery conventions are too ritualistic.

“Art galleries can be arrogant at times,” she said.

“Sometimes you’ll feel like touching a work because you admire it so much, but you’re not allowed to. You’re allowed to touch my artworks. You can even damage them if you like.”

Wednesday’s attitudes toward art stem from her insistence against perfectionism.

One of her artworks was partially ruined by her pet dog, although this did not deter Wednesday from exhibiting it.

“Most people think that beauty is the most important thing when it comes to art, but not everything has to be perfect. What matters the most about art is truth,” she said.

Wednesday was born in Taiwan, and Calligraffiti is a way of merging her experiences from her homeland with her life in Sydney’s western suburbs.

Ms Aiello believes that this will benefit local residents who come to see the exhibition.

“Shen’s profile fits in with a lot of immigrants living in western Sydney who are trying to incorporate something about their culture into a Western, capitalistic society,” Ms Aiello said.

Wednesday hopes that her exhibition will inspire people (especially young audiences) to create their own art, and convince them that graffiti is not a lowbrow art form.

“Graffiti is more than just spray paint. Tribal rock paintings can be considered as their own form of graffiti, and The Last Supper is a mural,” she said.

“I want to espouse the message that graffiti is not a criminal act. It’s not something you have to sneak off at night to do.”

“Art is not hard. Art is thinking. Art is writing.”

Calligraffiti is on display at the Fairfield City Museum and Gallery until April 28. Admission is free.

On Being a Grammar Nazi

For those of you who know me, either on a personal level or from the Internet, you would have gathered that I am rather fond of respecting the English language. I have, on many occasions, corrected people on matters of spelling, punctuation and grammar, both online and during real-life conversations. Some people express genuine gratitude because I have righted their wrongs. Others hot-headedly abuse me, as though I were committing a crime against humanity. This has led me to restrain myself from voicing a correction on many instances. I have lost count of the number of occasions where I've suppressed the urge to enlighten someone about a superfluous 's' they tacked on to the end of 'anyway'. It hurts, but I consider such moments as practice for more important moments in my life where restraint will be key. 

Of course, being a Grammar Nazi requires sensitivity (unlike being an...um...actual Nazi). I will not correct a person's grammatical misdemeanours if he/she is holding back tears while recounting the death of a loved one. We Grammar Nazis have hearts, you know!? And that's essentially why I'm writing this post—to dispel the myth that anyone who cares about literacy is a mood-killer, or just a generally unpleasant person. The first thing you should know about Grammar Nazis is that most of us don't actually derive any enjoyment from correcting mistakes. Seeing mistakes evokes the sad realisation that the society I belong to is either lazy or uneducated. Every day, I scroll down my Facebook News Feed (I just had to refer to the website to see if it classifies 'News Feed' as a proper noun—it does) and bemoan the lack of effort that goes into some status updates. However, I very rarely tell people on Facebook about an error in their status update, because I know not everyone will appreciate the correction. I think it's a shameful indictment of our society that those who care about upholding a language are seen as the bad guys. Because I care about making sense, I am seen as analogous to someone from a racist, dictatorial regime. I often joke "If there are Grammar Nazis, does that mean that there are Grammar Stalinists?" You see, I do not mean to oppress the people I correct. I merely wish to teach them something. I'd like to think of myself as a 'Grammar Defender'. Is correcting spelling, grammar and punctuation an action of condescension? I think that differs from Grammar Nazi to Grammar Nazi. On one end of the spectrum, you have those who correct you in private. At the other end, you have those who vociferously decry the offending speaker/writer as an irredeemable simpleton. 

I still remember a moment from my Year 11 Visual Arts class. My teacher, Miss Kalianiotis, had finished marking some homework exercises, and was angry at the fact that a bunch of 16 and 17 year-olds could not differentiate between 'your' and 'you're', as well as 'their', 'there' and 'they're'. She grabbed a whiteboard marker and began explaining the correct usage of each word on the board. Most students were laughing. They could not believe they were being taught Year 1 material in Year 11. I didn't laugh, because I knew that those who were laughing were the exact same students who butchered the language in the homework. I was sad. Appalled. Disgusted. A Year 11 teacher actually had to devote time in class to going over such fundamentals of English. This is the reason why secondary level English curricula in Australia should not lose sight of teaching aspects of grammar. Too many high school teachers just assume that everyone 'gets it'. 

The sad truth is that a lot of people simply don't care about upholding proper literacy. This is why some people yell at me when I correct their mistakes. They don't like being told they're wrong, but ironically, they are more than happy to commit linguistic atrocities so carelessly. One thing that irks me intensely is the following school of thought, most commonly adopted by Generation Y: "Why should spelling matter? This is the Internet, not school." I'll tell you why it matters. It matters because the written word is one of the main currencies of civilisation. It's what separates us from other species. We rely on it to communicate, and ill communication can cause a lot more than you can foresee. As Orwell opined in his essay Politics and the English Language: "But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation even among people who should and do know better." Another thing that puzzles me is why someone would think a mistake matters less if it's on the Internet. What you publish on the Internet is seen by more people than what you write in a secretive diary. Is it really so difficult to type 'your' instead of 'ur'? You should use the former. Not only is it correct and nicer-looking, but it makes you look like a learned individual. Let me set something straight. I will not judge your morality if you misuse the English language. However, I will judge your intelligence. I assume that your potential employers will, as well (unless they're spellbound by your manipulative use of business jargon).

Being a Grammar Nazi comes with a burdensome reputation. People often incorrectly assume that my knowledge is exceptionally profound, merely because I type words as they should be when I type on the Internet. People ask me to proofread their essays, which I don't mind doing as long as they're grateful and willing to receive honest criticism. Still, I get the impression that many people 'use' me for my abilities. These abilities, I should add, are not the result of any intense indoctrination as a child. I merely listened to my teachers in primary school, did the homework they set, and it naturally sunk in. I've loved reading ever since I could pick up a book—reading helps, too. I respect the English language for two reasons. 1. It allows for fluid, coherent communication, and 2. It's just right. I don't see any reason not to respect it, and you shouldn't either. Please, do not be ashamed to type correctly due to the fear of being labelled a 'nerd'. I have reclaimed that word, and wear it as a badge of honour: 'word nerd', to be precise. I do not claim to be a supreme authority on the language, either. If a linguistics student were to read this blog entry, he/she could probably identify several grammatical errors that are completely oblivious to me. Thank you for reading this. If anything, I hope my words will echo in your mind the next time you begin to type a status update on Facebook. 

P.S. There is a lot of debate about whether 'grammar' should be capitalised in the context of 'Grammar Nazi'. I capitalise it, because I view 'Grammar Nazi' as a title unto itself, and not just as a type of Nazi.

Also, if you'd like to know more about my interest in words and the English language, check out an earlier blog I wrote, entitled The Walking Dictionary.

Review: 50/50

Director: 

Jonathan Levine

Writer: 

Will Reiser

Stars:

 Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Seth Rogen and Anna Kendrick

'50/50' is a rare breed of film. It could have been written as a morose, over-sentimental drama concocted to milk tears from an audience, or it could have been moulded as a farcical lowbrow romp with no regard for the reality that is cancer. Thankfully, the film does not belong to either category. Instead, director Levine deftly blends humour and pathos to create what I believe is one of the most refreshing films of the past decade. 

'50/50' stars Joseph Gordon-Levitt as Adam, a 27 year-old who is diagnosed with a rare type of spinal cancer. The film's title alludes to Adam's chance of overcoming the illness. Adam is almost indifferent to the news upon first receiving it. He believes that all will be fine, eventually. As the film progresses, he realises the gravity of his condition and comes to terms with the prospect that death, after all, is a possibility. Adam is not alone in his struggle. He is kept level-headed by his best friend Kyle (Seth Rogen), who is responsible for most of the film's laughs (of which there are plenty). It becomes apparent that Kyle is using Adam's cancer to attract sympathy from women with whom he hopes to sleep with. Kyle also wants Adam to a find a woman of his own, after discovering that Adam's girlfriend, Rachael (Bryce Dallas Howard), considers his cancer too burdensome. As part of his treatment, Adam undergoes psychotherapy at the hands of Katherine (Anna Kendrick), who is altruistic though vastly inexperienced. Scenes involving Adam and Katherine are often awkward (not because they are bad actors) but also very tender and endearing. Adam is hesitant about breaking the news to his parents. He feels that his mother (Anjelica Huston) will panic too much. Besides, she already has to cope with her husband, who has Alzheimer's. Adam does tell his mother, but doesn't warm to her smothering ways. 

The film is loosely based on writer Will Reiser's own experience with cancer, where he was helped by a close friend: none other than Rogen himself. The film seamlessly shifts between moments of hilarity and tenderness. The shift is not forceful; the film does not toy with our emotions by using any cheap ploys or gimmicks. I will admit that I shed a few tears during the film: not because I was emotionally manipulated, but because I cared for the characters so much. Gordon-Levitt's performance probably won't be nominated for an Oscar, which is a shame because I think it deserves one. The film's trailer breaks down Adam's illness using a slightly altered variation of Kübler-Ross' 'Five Stages of Grief'. This is accurate as we see Adam display a myriad of emotions. As mentioned before, he accepts the grim news almost indifferently. This is his defence mechanism; his denial. There's a powerful scene towards the end of the film involving Adam and Kyle's car. I won't say what happens, but this is the pinnacle of Adam's frustration: his painful acceptance, expressed wearily through the confession "I just want it to be over. I'm so fucking tired of being sick."

Seth Rogen is the one constant throughout the film. From start to finish, he exudes this rare kind of buffoonery that springs from empathy rather than silliness. He knows his best friend is sick, and he figures that being miserly around him would do no help. On the night before Adam's major operation, Kyle does not want to bring it up with Adam. He would rather live in the moment and make the most of it. Philip Baker Hall and Matt Frewer play two older friends that Adam converses with at his chemotherapy sessions. Their performances, especially Hall's, add charm to the film, as we've all known people like them. They have grown accustomed to their conditions, and even poke fun at the illness as a way of coping. As Frewer's character remarks about the name of Adam's condition: "The more syllables, the worse it is."

Anna Kendrick was very impressive as Katherine, Adam's psychotherapist. I've only seen her in one other film: Jason Reitman's 'Up in the Air'. Others may know her as Jessica from the 'Twilight' films. She was great in Reitman's film and she is flawless here. Her character could easily have been a clichéd mess if played by a less-talented actress. Kendrick portrays Katherine with enough timidity to come off as naive and inexperienced, but also with enough enthusiasm to suggest that her and Adam could transcend their doctor-patient relationship. 

What's essential to understand about '50/50' is that it is not a movie about cancer. It is a movie about commitment and those who stick by us in trying times. It's about appreciating being alive and not taking our lives for granted. I was deeply moved by this film. I cannot fathom how anyone could dislike it. I would go as far as to say that, if you dislike '50/50', you are an inherently bad person. It has the power to please even the most grim cynic. 

5/5 stars.

Celebrity Fixation or: Why I Want to Meet Neil Finn

Are you desperate to meet a particular celebrity, but assume it will never happen and depress yourself over it? I’m going through that phase right now. I’ve decided that I really want to meet Neil Finn. I want to go up to the man, shake his hand, and tell him how much of an impact his music has had on my growth and development as a person. Even if it’s ten seconds. I want the man to know I exist because I admire him so much. It’s not one of those creepy obsessions. It’s not like I have a shrine devoted to Neil Finn. But when I listen to one of his songs, I feel like I know him. I’ve spent so many cumulative hours listening to his work. I’ve seen him perform live, as part of the Pajama Club (his latest side project). He was great that night. I was awestruck that I was in the same room as him. But once that show was over, I went back to regular life. I heard a few people who went to that gig saw him before it began, as he was entering the building. Oh how I envied them!

I often worry what I’d do if I actually got to meet him. I mean, when you have an opportunity in front of you that doesn’t come ‘round too often, you overthink the situation and are prone to stuffing it up. For example, earlier this year, I walked past Nathan Hindmarsh an hour before he was set to play against Manly. For the uninitiated, Nathan Hindmarsh is the captain of the NRL team I support, the Parramatta Eels. It took me a moment to actually realise it was him. When I did, I gave him a pat on the back and said “It’s really him!” He was posing for a photo with some fans while I did this, by the way. He gave me a puzzled look as if to say “Are you alright, mate?” It was terribly embarrassing and I couldn’t erase it from my mind for the rest of the night.

So, yeah, it would be great to meet Neil Finn one day, just so I could tell him that his music has been a gift to me, and to many others. It has been the soundtrack of many melancholic nights, as well as many happy ones. I’m sure he’s heard this all before, but fandom is a complex notion. There are just some people who you admire so much that you feel like you NEED to meet them before you die.

So...I Wrote a Poem About Unrequited Love

I cannot monopolise your feelings

Or cameo in your dreams

I’ll never sit with you and talk freely

Between coffee and Arnott’s Creams.

Because you don’t know the private struggle:

The thoughts that flail about

In the mind of the unloved man

Who stares blankly into space

And forgets as best as he can.

There’s always that craving;

That lust for supple skin

There is no desire as intense

No feeling that is akin.

I need that recognition;

Tell me that I matter.

Create a second groove in my couch

Before my self-esteem falls to tatters.

You’ll never know the feeling

Of wanting what you can’t get.

Kiss me now:

Hard;

With passion;

Because it’s better to try

Than to regret.

Ten Obscure Films That You Must See

The following is a list of ten films that were not made for mainstream audiences, but should be seen by more people. They were most likely granted a limited release, and probably appeal to particular niches of society. The majority of these are independent or art house films. They are in no particular order.


1. IN THE COMPANY OF MEN (1997)
Directed by: Neil LaBute
Starring: Aaron Eckhart, Matt Malloy and Stacy Edwards
U.S. box office gross: $2,804,473





Here is a wicked film that toys with your emotions. The premise is that two misogynists (Eckhart and Malloy) devise a plan whereby they will seduce a lonely female co-worker only to shatter her feelings by breaking up with her. Things get interesting when one of men develops feelings for the woman. The two leads show impeccable comic timing, and Stacy Edwards is easy to empathise with as the vulnerable prey of Eckhart and Malloy.


2. SUBURBIA (1996)
Directed by: Richard Linklater
Starring: Giovanni Ribisi, Steve Zahn and Jayce Bartok
U.S. box office gross: $656,747





Based on a play by Eric Bogosian, the film's premise is simple: a group of slackers philosophically converse on the corner of a convenience store whilst waiting for their friend who has 'made it' as a rock star to arrive. I use the term 'philosophically' loosely; they talk about a whole range of things, but it's generally pretty powerful stuff. And not all of their discussion takes place on that corner; they move around the neighbourhood, but that corner is their second home, where most of the discussion takes place. The rock star friend doesn't arrive at the film's conclusion, instead he and his publicist join the slackers fairly early in the film. This is very positive for the film, as his inclusion shakes things up.

The convenience store is run by a Pakistani couple who frequently challenge the slackers about their lives. "Don't you have lives to live? Why choose this particular corner? Don't you realise that you are wasting your lives? Get off my property! You are all drunken and stupid!" Those aren't the exact lines spoken, but you get the drift. The film touches on issues such as consumerism, racism, freedom of expression, fame, the monotony of life, the effects of drugs and alcoholism. Yes, the film basically consists of plenty of talk, but that's what makes the film as excellent as it is. The characters are so real, and it's likely that you will empathise with at least one of them. The film is so tragic, in that it shows us the dark side of life, but isn't that what we need to see as an audience, in an era where Hollywood seems to sugarcoat their films with happy endings? You see, the reality is that not everything in life will go your way, that some people just 'exist', and make nothing of their lives, that there are people who are more well-off than you. 'SubUrbia' opens our eyes to the harsh brutality that transpires everyday in our world, that we may not be aware of. 


3. BAD BOY BUBBY (1993)
Directed by: Rolf de Heer
Starring: Nicholas Hope, Claire Benito and Ralph Cotterill
Australian box office gross: $808,789





A twisted character study of a 35 year-old man who is confined to his home by his overly protective mother. One day he escapes and sets out on a perilous adventure. The outside world is one big dangerous labyrinth for Bubby. He is not aware of regular social conventions, and he is mentally retarded. Nicholas Hope's portrayal as Bubby is one of the most intriguing performances I have ever seen. It's a brave role to embody, and he did it justice. One of the great Australian films, and not for the casual film viewer: this one's a real thought-provoker. 


4. ME AND YOU AND EVERYONE WE KNOW (2005)
Directed by: Miranda July
Starring: John Hawkes, Miranda July and Miles Thompson
U.S. box office gross: $3,885,134





I often call Miranda July my favourite hipster, a term which she would undoubtedly detest. But there's this innate quirkiness to her that makes her films so sweet. The characters in this film are so strongly developed, and they are quite diverse. Only July would make one of the focal characters a shoe salesman. What I noticed about this film is how quiet it is. It's quite a relaxing watch. You don't have to keep up with plot twists or fast-paced action, because there is none to be seen. You can just sit back and watch lives unfold before your eyes. Was speechless during the credits; ending was intensely beautiful.

5. THE SQUID AND THE WHALE (2005)
Directed by: Noah Baumbach
Starring: Owen Kline, Jeff Daniels and Laura Linney
U.S. box office gross: $7,372,734




Semi-autobiographical story based on the experiences of director Baumbach and his brother coping with their parents' divorce in the 1980s Brooklyn. This film isn't sugar-coated. Baumbach makes use of a bleak colour palette to symbolise the feeling of isolation. All of the performances are genuine and heartfelt. I particularly liked Jeff Daniels' performance, as he broke out of his typical role as a rubber-faced funny man and took on a much weightier character. Jesse Eisenberg is also marvellous here, and it's likely that this is the role that laid the platform for his stardom. 


6. DEAD END (2003)
Directed by: Jean-Baptiste Andrea and Fabrice Canepa
Starring: Ray Wise, Lin Shaye and Mick Cain
U.K. box office gross: £106,801





Claustrophobic horror that plays on our most intense fear: the unknown. This film only needs a few characters and one main setting to make it work. I praise it most for its originality; I've seen very few horror films that are as inventive as this one. Is partially let down by the ending, in my opinion, but still very much worth seeing. 


7. GHOST WORLD (2001)
Directed by: Terry Zwigoff
Starring: Steve Buscemi, Thora Birch and Scarlett Johansson
U.S. box office gross: $6,217,849





If 'Hipster' was a film genre, this would be its most acclaimed feature. But do not fear! This film doesn't try to be pretentious. It knows that its lead characters are eccentric, and uses this as the source of many jokes. Can remember laughing to the point of tears while watching this - the wit is razor-sharp. Birch shows facets of her performance as Jane Burnham in American Beauty, but here she is allowed to inject more of herself into the film. Steve Buscemi never disappoints, but here he was especially effective playing Seymour. I often tell people that I empathise with Seymour more than any other character in the history of film. He is just so vulnerable here, and I ached for him on numerous occasions in the film.

8. HARD CANDY (2005)
Directed by: David Slade
Starring: Patrick Wilson, Ellen Page and Sandra Oh
U.S. box office gross: $1,024,640 




I cannot believe that Ellen Page was only 17 or 18 during the filming of Hard Candy. The film is dialogue-heavy, and not only does she remember her lines, but she delivers them with conviction. Page plays a 14 year-old who lures a 32 year-old man into baring his darkest confessions to her after suspecting that he is a paedophile. The film is extremely graphic and is difficult to watch at times. Page becomes so absorbed in her role that I actually grew afraid of her, despite her natural innocence. Page and Wilson virtually carry the whole film, which isn't surprising since there are only five cast members listed in the film's credits. A gripping film that will etch itself in your mind.


9. THE WEATHER MAN (2005)
Directed by: Gore Verbinski
Starring: Nicolas Cage, Hope Davis and Nicholas Hoult
U.S. box office gross: $12,482,775






I've watched this film a few times. It's one of those films that improves with repeat viewings. The colour palette is even bleaker here than in The Squid and the Whale, helped immensely by the fact that it's always snowing, raining or overcast. Dave Spritz (Nicolas Cage) is an enigmatic character. Throughout the film, he tries to prove himself as both a family man and a businessman, but luck never seems to come his way. People launch fast food at him as they pass him in the street (a hilarious running gag). He is divorced from his wife and is jealous of her new boyfriend. Michael Caine's performance is pitch-perfect. He play's Cage's father and delivers his lines with cold apathy, which is more effective than it sounds. There are brief moments of sunshine in this film, and they feel rewarding, too. The film manages to be touching without being overly sentimental. Oh, and who said Nicolas Cage can't act?


10. CATFISH (2010)
Directed by: Henry Joost and Ariel Schulman
Starring: Melody C. Roscher, Ariel Schulman and Yaniv Schulman
U.S. box office gross: $3,237,343





Documentary about a man who is filmed by his brother and friend as he develops a friendship with a girl over Facebook. I will not delve into the plot too much, because the less you know, the more rewarding the film is. I enjoyed how the film dealt with the theme of obsession; of a preoccupation holding your life hostage. The film's ending will either shock you or bore you, but either way, you most likely won't see it coming. It just HAPPENS, as though it is nothing out of the ordinary. Questions have been raised about the accuracy of the documentary. That is, if it is even a documentary, or merely a staged documentary. You can leave that up to yourself, although I'd like to think it's real.