Monday 26 November 2012

'Skyfall' - Movie Review




James Bond has a background - and it’s one Sean Connery can be proud of! I always assumed Bond was spawned in Hugh Hefner’s Playboy Mansion and was found one day ordering a martini at the poolside bar... shaken not stirred. Not only does this movie create a background for Bond but it continues to draw similarities to Chris Nolan’s Batman trilogy. Nolan went and got a bloke who could play a grittier and darker Batman and the Bond franchise followed in snagging Craig. And thank goodness they did because the two franchises really needed a spark of life! Nolan played on the Bruce Wayne orphan childhood, and now we discover that Bond was an orphan too. And if that isn't enough, in the final instalment of the The Dark Knight Rises we see a broken down Batman who has to prove that he still has it... and if we are to go off the 9,000 references to Bond’s age and digression then it's safe to say that Skyfall does the same.




Did Ian Fleming write from the grave to inform the Bond franchise that they needed to make Skyfall more British for the 50th anniversary? And did the ladies write in to inform the franchise that there needs to be more topless Daniel Craig? In the first half of the film all we seem to get is pomp and circumstance and a topless bloke. Also if that’s the body of someone who has ‘lost a step’ then Lord (and ladies) have mercy. But it wasn’t the countless topless shots which annoyed me most, it was that stupid little British Bulldog desk thingy!

This movie is more British than Winston Churchill himself. 

The plot is this... James Bond chases a baddie through Turkey (wasn't Taken 2 set in Turkey for a chase too?), fails to stop the bad guy and finds himself in a pickle. Meanwhile the government is cleaning house within MI6 and we are introduced to the extremely young duo of Q and Money Penny (both fine performances!).

Q. He looks like a student from Hogwarts.


Q: What did you expect, an exploding pen?






Bond eventually resurfaces and seeks revenge, as he always does. Things take a twist and a turn and the villain seems to be after someone other than Bond... and you can take it from there.

Can I ask though, what's the point of the first half of the movie? I guess I'm asking because in screenwriting class last semester we kept being drilled with the question,

"Could you cut the first half of your script and not be missing anything key?"

Apart from the trademark Bond entrance, which felt like a rush and a half, I feel we can safely say yes. The first half seemed only to echo the question of whether Bond is over the hill. Target audience: senior citizens.

They say a Bond movie should be judged by its villain, and if that's the case, then the movie is decent. Casino Royale, which was the best of the Daniel Craig era, had a terrific villain, while Quantum of Solace had no villain but rather a whinging midget. Thus when the obsessive and slightly maniacal Silva (Bardem) enters the fray the story really picks up. Bardem's role as a disgruntled ex-agent echoes GoldenEye's 006, doesn’t it? This villain is softly spoken and laid back which only adds to his umph! We get the sense that he’s maniacal but he acts like he’s the kind of bloke you’d expect to be wearing a straw hat and a Hawaiian shirt to work on casual Friday. And like the Joker (another Batman similarity!) it all centres around his plan to get caught... oh but the suspense is thrilling!

They like exotic looking ladies for 'Bond girls' eh?
What was astonishing though was how quickly the Bond girl left the scene. Did he even shag her? Oh yes, the shower. Tick that one off the list – god forbid Bond doesn’t get laid! That would almost be as bad as how they’ve subjected women over the years. But here’s my curve ball, was M the real Bond girl? She does feature in the movie from start to finish... another sign of a senior citizen target audience.

The Julian Assange shot
Let’s get back to Bardem's performance. I liked it; he almost looked like Julian Assange - and had a complex similar to Assange! Although his entrance is a lot better than his exit (not Assange, he's still waiting for his exit).

[as Bond is tied to a chair, an elevator lowers in front of him, and Silva appears and walks toward him]
Raoul Silva: Hello James, welcome. Do you like the island? My grandmother had an island when I was a boy. Nothing to boast of. You could walk along it in an hour. But for us it was paradise. One summer, we came for a visit and discovered the whole place had become infested with rats. They came on a fishing boat and gorged on the coconut. So how do you get rats off an island? My grandmother showed me. You put an oil drum in a pit and hinge open the lid. Then you coat the lid in the coconut. The rats come for the coconut and plink, plink, plink, plink, plink, plink, plink; they fall into the trap. Then what do you do? Throw it in the ocean? Burn it? No. You just leave it. And then one by one...
[mimics rat munching sound]

Raoul Silva: They start eating each other until there are only two left. The two survivors. Then what do you do? Kill them? No. You release them into the trees. But they will not eat coconut anymore. Now they will only eat rat. You have changed their nature. The two survivors, this is what she made us.
 
So if we are to judge a Bond film by the villain then this is a success. 

Ah, the leg touching...

Sam Mendes is a strange choice for director. He's famous in my book for American Beauty and Revolutionary Road. Both are domestic dramas set in the suburbs of a disillusioned America... so I'm left wondering how they thought this would translate to 007?? Yes yes, he did Jarhead and Road to Perdition (which Craig stars in) but they still aren't in the same field as "Bond, James Bond". However after saying all that I do think Mendes makes the leap in fine style... and he still has the traditional Bond screenwriters in Neal Purvis and Robert Wade. Also don't forget that in Craig he has a legit actor who is much more than a warm (British) body in a suit. There are still a lot of traditional flashy shots and scenes which seem to take place just for grandiosity but at the end of the day the acting seems to be improving in each Bond movie.

So, does M's increased role go down well? I'm sure most blokes wanted to see supermodels in skimpy dresses rather than M in dreary oldschool suits... but would you rather compromise and have Dench in lingerie? Think on it ;)

Overall there's a lot of cheesy one-liners to go along with the loveable Bond wit. There's also enough nostalgia and British patriotism to make you think the Empire is making a comeback. Most importantly though there is enough action to sink your teeth into, and an Aston Martin to please the senses.

It's decent... though I was expecting it to tie in with the last two movies (did things come to a close at the end of Quantum?). And part of me does feel like they hit a six on Casino Royale and have been hitting singles and fours ever since.

7/10. 

Daniel Craig better shave or he'll lose his place on Grandma's fridge!

Thursday 22 November 2012

Published work.


Macquarie University has published two pieces of my work this semester through websites started by the English and Modern History departments.

Modern History: https://makinghistoryatmacquarie.wordpress.com/2012/11/19/a-reformation-from-above/

This is a nonacademic piece I wrote to go along with my research essay on the Henrician Reformation. I relate the research I've done on the Reformation under Henry VIII to productions such as The Tudors and Hilary Mantel's award winning novels on the Henrician Reformation. There are also other fantastic articles written on topics ranging from the Vietnam War, to Bonhoeffer and the Confessing Church in Germany, to the Space Race and questioning historical narratives. All the pieces are written for a casual, nonacademic audience. Enjoy.

English: http://thequarryjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/C.Wood_.pdf
http://thequarryjournal.com/?s=cameron+wood

This is my final short story for my writing degree at Macquarie University. The theme was creation and chaos and the word limit was 3,000w. There are heaps of other great short stories, poems, nonfiction and scripts on the website too. I'd suggest some of my favourites but I'm sure they are all good ;)



Wednesday 21 November 2012

'The Master' - Movie Review


Troubling & Provocative - two words we could use to describe Joaquin Phoenix over the past number of years (see I'm Still Here and make up your mind about what he was doing). But they are also the two words which spring to mind when I think about The Master.

It's hard to know what to think of this film. I squeamed and shuffled uneasily in my seat, but I was also absolutely entrenched in the troublesome lives of Freddie Quill (Joaquin Phoenix) and Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffman). I felt as if I was reading one of those novels where you know something shocking is coming but you are so invested that you can't stop turning the page.

The Master follows the life of Freddie Quill (Joaquin Phoenix) as he returns home from the War in the Pacific. At first you think Freddie is your typical WWII veteran who has issues and can't adapt to post-war life. Soon though you realise that Freddie was probably just as screwed up entering the war as he is after. And so it begs the question, what support was there available for a man such as Freddie (other than pills)?

After a drunk tirade in what seems to be the-middle-of-nowhere Freddie runs away and eventually hops onto a boat. The boat is captained by Lancaster Dodd  and we begin to follow the unlikely friendship of Freddie and Dodd. Dodd takes a fancy to Freddie, likely because Freddie is a drunk, unstable and gullible man. Freddie soon becomes a willing test subject for Dodd’s psychological studies and this is when you realise that Dodd is inspired by L Ron Hubbard and Scientology. The charismatic and smooth talking Dodd has also created his own cult and is going about gaining converts and financial backers. Yet by the end of all the twists and turns we are left wondering who is more screwed up, the drunkard and homeless Freddie or the educated and soon to be wealthy cult leader?

The start of the film sets the tone - it's bizarre. We all know from war films of the last century that soldiers act lewdly due to what they’ve experienced (Freddie reminds me in some ways of Travis Bickle (Robert DeNiro) in Taxi Driver). If Freddie's not fornicating with a sand castle in the shape of a naked woman, he’s found responding to ink blot tests with "pussy" and"cock" remarks – and believe it or not it only gets more in-your-face from there.

Phoenix is truly incredible as Freddie, and like Mickey Rourke in The Wrestler I wonder if Phoenix’s time in the wilderness resonates with him playing this character. Phoenix is convincing and not for one moment did I think Freddie's extreme behaviour was out of character. There's something to love in Freddie beneath all the crap and it keeps us watching. I don't know about you, but I kept wanting and willing him to clean himself up and leave Dodd. And the ending is really left open and wonderfully done. It's truly fitting.

The relationship between Phoenix and Hoffman is incredible - I can understand why they're both pulling in award nominations. They are brilliant actors who want to play life's weirder cases. They also aren't afraid of looking ugly! Hoffman's ability to consume himself with Dodd and The Cause blew me away and I couldn't work out what Hoffman's Dodd truly believed. Was Dodd obsessed with Freddie? Was it all about Dodd getting something purely selfish out of Freddie? Did Dodd drink his own cool-aid? Did Dodd separate himself from The Cause?

DODD: If we are not helping him, then it is we who are failing him.

What is there not to love about Hoffman? Even his physique improves his roles! But it is the way in which he's able to snap which does it in this film. How many actors can whisper and hum like a cat and then a split second later snap and yell like a mad man? Usually audiences don't buy it, they see the acting in it. Does he put a foot wrong all movie? I'd have a hard time pointing it out. He's the kind of actor that makes a director look good.

Paul Thomas Anderson directs and writes this much anticipated movie. He said he was heavily influenced by a documentary produced in 1947, Let There Be Light... that I didn't know! I thought this was Scientology through and through, and while everyone involved in the film was denying  Scientology's hand in it at first, Anderson did come around to admit that Hubbard's Scientology influenced the film. I reckon Anderson denied it because he didn't want people thinking it was a Scientology 101 film, and I walked away thinking more about the relationship between Freddie and Dodd than Scientology. There's so little action and so much dialogue in Anderson's script and yet my eyes are always glued to the screen. The camera angles! Did you notice how we are always looking up at Dodd like Freddie would have?

The movie left me wondering about cults and how they are formed. For example, the scene with John More made me think about brainwashing and delusion.

Dodd: Man is not an animal. We are not a part of the ANIMAL kingdom.


It’s a truly fascinating state of mind and outlook. The whole cult and philosophy really played on my mind and I was waiting the whole movie for Dodd to fall from grace! When his son says, He's making all this up as he goes along... you don't see that? I was expecting everything to come crashing down... but it doesn't!

Amy Adams and the whole female cast does nothing to bring about normalcy to the story. They are just as abnormal, just as warped and just as bizarre. Adams once again hands in a stellar performance as Dodd’s wife. In many ways I think she has the whole ‘deranged and yet pitiful housewife’ role down pat. Her ability to do dramas has me comparing her to Kate Winslett and Kate Blanchett, pretty good company!

I like the time period in which it takes place... post-war America was very conservative and all about hard work and the nuclear family. This movie both encapsulates the conservative nuclear family and yet flips it up on its head. It calls into question the welfare state and the assistance the troubled receive. Individual drive and motive also presents itself and I'm left wondering what kind of thoughts there are out there.

This is an uncomfortable movie, yet I'm willing to say I enjoyed it thoroughly and actually would like to see it again.

10/10.

Monday 19 November 2012

'Moneyball' - Movie Review


"ADAPT OR DIE"


Who’s Fabio??”  - If you watch Moneyball  just to hear this line (which almost made me piss myself) I guarantee you'll walk away with a smile on your face!

So let’s say you’re an avid sports fan who enjoys a sports flick but you have just one complaint - what would that complaint be? 

If you can answer this question I'd say you are a sports fan. And if you can't? Well then you probably call Rollerball your favourite sports movie. 

The answer to the question is that sport movies are just like modern political parties – they seek to catch all with cliche, repetitive stuff. Moneyball has shades of this (it's an underdog story, it features a team in disrepute, it has a rousing 'one for the gipper' scene, a cocky troublemaker and a hard nosed underdog protagonist) but it also bridges a gap between what sports movies are and what they can be.

So what is Moneyball then? Well as Bard Pitt comments, it's centred around the question of "what's a winner, what's a loser?" It's the story of the Oakland Athletics and GM Billy Beane's reinvention of baseball. The issue which exists is that Major League Baseball doesn't have a salary cap and so fat cats like the Yankees can rob poorer teams of their talent. So instead of trying to play the money game Beane seeks to play the numbers game. First things first he hires Peter Brand (Jonah Hill) to be his assistant and then they go about finding cheap players with defects who'll fit the statistical bill for what Beane and Brand believe is needed to get a victory. Unconventional film huh? Since when is a movie based on the relationship between a GM (Pitt) and his assistant (Hill)? And since when is a successful sports movie about what's happening off the pitch rather than on the pitch?

My guess is only established screenwriters like Aaron Sorkin get to sit down, write this screenplay and think, “I’m going to make some money!” And I'd say that after all the directing issues they had (I believe they went through three directors before they got to Bennett?) this movie really did come down to the script. The directing is fine but it isn't outstanding and it really is about the script - which smells of Sorkin's wit and intelligence.


So the movie starts at the end of the 2001 season when Beane’s team has been knocked out of the playoffs by the Yankees. It’s been a good season for the Athletics but they now stand to lose their three best players to the big clubs in the offseason - so the question is, how do they rebuild and improve if this is the way things work? Watch and see.

 
The acting is refreshing... and surprising. Well actually it's only Jonah Hill who surprised me. I can't say Pitt, Wright or Hoffman surprised me as they are at the top of the game but I almost didn’t recognize Hill! I don't think he used the word fuck once the whole movie (right?). I mean after 87 expletives in Superbad I can't help but be a little shocked by him in this. I also had him pegged for certain type casting after The 40 Year Old Virgin, Knocked Up, Superbad and Get Him To The Greek. Does this mean there's hope for his past costar (and type cast teen) Michael Cera? Maybe! Actually no, there is no hope for Cera. Hill is convincing and  loveable as the socially awkward Brand and the character’s confusion at the start helps us out as we attempt to wrap our minds around his science and statistics and the day-to-day life of a MLB GM. Brand and Beane's relationship soon takes centre stage and we keep watching to see if they will pull it off. It was Brand's entrance that really captured me though - that early scene in Cleveland where Brand is introduced and we are in turn introduced to the passion he possesses for statistics rather than baseball itself - yeah, that was like bait on the end of a hook.

Not your typical Jonah Hill
I found it interesting that the movie was based closely off the book and that the actors received feedback from the people they portrayed. Stephen Bishop, who plays the veteran slugger David Justice, actually played Major League ball with the real David Justice. There was an authenticity which remained for the entirety of the movie – perhaps because they didn’t pander to the usual sport film narrative?

My Dad asked me when I showed him the movie, "Does that guy really pitch like that? Is that even allowed??" I told him that when Bradford pitched for the Red Soxs I remember watching him and he certainly did pitch like that. The authenticity of this film is fantastic!
Brad Pitt plays Beane like a boss. Relaxed and cool yet simmering with a burning passion - "yeah", he nailed it. I have come to not only respect Pitt but also admire his work. When I was younger I disliked him - yes, I was jealous of the attention he got from the ladies. Pitt’s career speaks for itself these days, Se7en, Fight Club, Snatch, Ocean’s, Troy (how can he even look good in a skirt?!), Babel, Burn After Reading, The Assassination of Jesse James (my favourite Pitt performance), Inglourious Basterds, Benjamin Button (which I enjoyed a lot more than Fitzgerald’s short story), The Tree of Life and now Moneyball. Pitt reminds me of Philip Seymour Hoffman (who also stars in Moneyball) as neither actor fits a mold. They do such drastically different roles and bring vastly different characters to life. As Beane, Pitt plays a gritty man who lives and breathes baseball. "How can you not be romantic about baseball?" Beane sums it up at the end to his dear assistant. All we see in Beane (other than moments with his daughter) is a workaholic who wants to change the game. At first though I wondered why we needed the flashbacks of Beane’s younger days but soon I realised that it gave us more insight into the man and what makes him tick.

Philip Seymour Hoffman does it again. HE DOES IT AGAIN. He's taken another role where he plays second violin. I think in Hoffman we find a man who is after creating art rather than a legacy and a mantelpiece. He plays the Athletics’s coach, Art Howe, who is awaiting a new contract and the big(ger) bucks. He's oppositional to Beane's statistics game but by the time we see him sitting in the dug out and calling on Hatteburg to pinch hit, you know he's done the job. I think someone else could've played this role but it's in the passive aggressive arguments between Beane and Howe that we see Hoffman's brilliance. It's subtle but it's Hoffman at his best.

It's interesting to note that many people who don't know or like baseball, or even sports movies, can enjoy this one, as Pitt reiterated, "it isn't really a baseball film at all." Even At The Movies host David Stratton reiterated this idea,

DAVID: Well, I'm not terribly into sports movies, obviously, because I'm not terribly into sport really so I must admit I came to see this with some misgivings because - and it turned out I didn't understand what they were talking about half the time, but luckily this is a sports movie which doesn't have too much sport on screen.

Bennett Miller directs this movie with real precision. The way he shoots the flashbacks and sets up scenes without giving the audience a mouthful of exposition is brave and well done. For example, when Beane goes to visit his daughter we aren’t informed that he is divorced (nor given any real family history except that we notice a ring on his wedding-ring finger) and so when he shows up at the house we have to read between the lines and listen carefully. I also thought the way he shot the claustrophobic, bland and down and out clubhouse was ingenious as it made us feel the weight of Beane's experiment and the club's position. Compare this also to the wide shots of Beane standing as a lone figure in an empty stadium and you really start to see why Miller must be a man going places. But how come it's taken this long for him to get back behind the camera after his Oscar winning Capote (2005)??

One issue query I have with the film is about the daughter - I'm not sure I felt her impact. The car scene at the end is lovely but I'm just not sure I felt the importance she is meant to have. I'm not saying it's better with her... or am I? I don't know, I just didn't feel it (maybe we can chalk this one up to the fact that I don't have children?).

The more I think about Moneyball the more I like it. I could make a case that the ending felt a little underdone but that could be because we are so used to seeing a shiny trophy at the end of a sports movie. I enjoyed the Boston scene and I think Miller really came through with this scene. Fenway Park is almost magical and the camera work really produces the grand aura compared to Oakland. A lot was riding on the ending and it was classy.


9/10

Sunday 4 November 2012

'Lawless' - Movie Review

Lawless



I have a new saying: If a director can make Shia Labeouf stomachable then you know the movie is going to be great. 

Lawless is not just another gangster movie set in prohibition America. For one it isn't set in Capone's Chicago or mobster infested New York City, instead it's set in rural Virginia. That alone should raise an eyebrow. Secondly it isn't just another shoot 'em up with tommy guns then spray a one liner at 'em for kicks and giggles.  

Lawless is instead about the Bondurant boys becoming the champions of the bootlegging trade and beating down the big boys who want to run things in VA. The head of the Bondurant clan is Forrest (Tom Hardy) who wants to keep control and do things his way... if Forrest had a theme song today then it'd be Sinatra's 'I Did It My Way'. Meanwhile his younger brother, aka 'the perennial underdog', Jack (Shia Lebeouf) wants to take the operation big time and replicate the ways of the city slickers. While this is all going down there are corrupt politicians (led by Charlie Rakes (Guy Pearce)) who are moving into VA and trying to straighten the bootleggers out. Of course this means violence ensues, and like any southern movie it's republican through and through... stick it to the big over reaching government like Jesse James did and do things your way.  It's a drawn out movie with twists, turns and enough violence to please Bret Easton Ellis. *Ellis wrote probably the most graphic novel I've ever read, American Psycho

The Bondurant boys - just by looking at them you can tell a lot about who they are and what each wants.
Alright, so I need to now confess that I'm biased when it comes to reviewing this because Nick Cave wrote the screenplay... and I'm a Nick Cave fanboy. He's a fantastic (albeit slightly weird) Aussie artist who has also written the screenplay for The Proposition  - which is what I'd call the Aussie version of Lawless. Both movies take violence to the next level, both play on national folklore, both are masculine movies which reflect the grittier side of life, and they both take you on a trip into a whole other reality. 

The acting is decent and exciting. A mate told me that she reckons Shia Lebeouf plays the same old role he always does... I think that's a bit harsh. Yes, he plays the underdog who has to convince everyone of his worth. Yes, he's still the slick rick who is obsessed with material gain. Yes, you still roll your eyes a bit and wish he'd grow up... BUT (and there needs to be a but) he also plays the role well and draws us in. By the end I also thought I saw him move like Forrest. I don't know if I was seeing things but it looked like he nailed the physical characteristics and traits. So let's hop off the Hate Shia Bandwagon - he was alright. 

I'm trying to find the words to describe Tom Hardy's performance... well how about this, he's British! I've never seen someone nail an accent and a look like that. *Hugh Lawrie is pretty good as Dr. House but I don't care much for House. Interesting to note that Hardy also played Bane in the recent Batman flick, and a mumbling, bumbling rock in Warrior, so at the start of Lawless I wondered if he just enjoys pissing people off with almost inaudible voices. The woman sitting in front of me almost killed me by asking, "What did he say?!" to the bloke next to her every minute or so.

Forrest, a wrecking machine.
Hardy was stellar - he's becoming a 'must see' for me. It wasn't just his voice either, I also loved his grunting and mumbling! Vocal ability aside though, I thought he really seized the moment. He was the most intriguing character and I was constantly waiting to see what he would do next. The 'Bondurant legend' played on Hardy's character too - and the way Cave planned the ending left a wide smirk on my face! Forrest's relationship with the gorgeous yet damaged Maggie Beauford (Jessica Chastain) symbolized the whole movie... it was drawn out and intense. Chastain nails this role and I reckon the female cast was terrific for a very blokey movie. You just kind of wait to see if Forrest and Maggie will shack up, just like you wait to see what will happen to the Bondurant boys. And it's that line from Maggie which I love, "You just gonna keep watching me?" 

Charlie Rakes, bow-tie and all!
Guy Pearce - haha. Love the one dimensional bad guy when it's done like this (it isn't poor writing or the lack of ability to develop a character, its done on purpose). He's extremely corrupt (not that the Bondurant boys ride the white horse!), he's extremely violent, he's extremely creepy, and he's extremely OCD. The best way to explain Pearce's character role is that he intensifies things. I also enjoyed Pearce's take on the Chicago accent, and yes hes another Brit! Mostly I love how he can't drop the "Nance" comment made about him, it's the perfect word to use for him though. 

The costumes, sets and setting (it was filmed in Georgia) impressed me.Then chuck in the country/blues/folk music and I was sold (I have to admit, I had been listening to the soundtrack prior to watching the movie). How about Gary Oldman's one memorable scene to set the tone at the start? What a ripper! He didn't play a huge role in the film but that scene of him using the tommy gun was perfect. It's those scenes of action (also see the pig scene at the very start) which make it for me. I remember in screenwriting class being lectured on the idea that if you can do something without using dialogue then you should go ahead and do it.

How's this for a look?
 You know the funny thing? The scene which made me squirm in my seat wasn't one of the gory murder scenes but the church scene. I wasn't completely sure if it was needed but it was visually captivating... and once again they did it with almost no dialogue. The church service was something else (I've never seen such a service) and it had me feeling Jack's discomfort... and how funny is it when Forrest returns the boot to Jack! Watch it, you'll see what I'm talking about. 

*SPOILER ALERT*

What's there to complain about? Some will hate that Forrest doesn't die in the shoot out. The ending isn't quite conventional and I'm not sure if the very last scene is needed... but its very Nick Cave. 

The only other critique I have is that the whole thing is very drawn out... you even question if some scenes are needed. 

Really though you just need to sit back and enjoy the ride. Try and not guess what's coming next and don't expect to comprehend every line... It's like Jesse James in that sense. I like that Hollywood has evolved to the point where accents and even foreign languages can be used freely.

My last note is that I kind of snigger at the fact that this True Grit meets Jesse James of the Depression is written by an Aussie (based on a book by one of the Bondaurant boys) and the majority of the cast is Aussie and British!

Charlie Rakes:You fucking hicks are a sideshow onto yourselves.
[laughter continues]
Charlie Rakes:Sheriff, do you have any idea what a Thompson submachine gun does to a mortal?

8/10.