Worth Watching:

• Howl (2010), Ron Epstein & Jeffrey Friedman – James Franco is one of my top 2 most interesting actors at the moment. In this he contributes to a brilliantly creative invocation of time and place. A place where Allen Ginsberg’s poem “Howl” was ultra controversial. The film utilises a bold, three part structure and some insane visually exhilarating animation – two big gambles that definitely pay off. A reflexive examination of the creative process as well as an engaging period piece. Definitely one of the most original new releases you will see this year.

• 10 Years Before Merdeka (2007), Fahmi Reza – Indie Malaysian doco featuring an incredible British punk soundtrack. Captures the “general feeling of liberation in the air” that prevailed in the years leading up to Malaysian independence. Eisenstein influenced kinetic editing, combined with the aforementioned soundtrack lend the film an intensely fast pace which works strangely well.

• To Be and to Have (2002), Nicolas Philibert – French ‘fly on the wall’ documentary highlighting the value of a great and caring teacher. The kind of person I was lucky enough to encounter in my education, but who are ultimately far too rare (I only encountered one). Reminiscent of Apted’s Up series this manages to be extremely funny, but equally enlightening.

• Touching the Void (2003), Kevin Macdonald – This is a deeply psychological film. A glimpse into the psyche that possesses one to seek out immense adventure, to cut the supporting rope on another and to survive against all odds. The film is driven excellently by very honest participants and re-enactments that manage not to grate.

• The Beaver (2011), Jodie Foster – Given the concept, this was going to either be sheer brilliance, or a train wreck. I think it is the former. Depression is dealt with intelligently and with much thought. A man uses a beaver puppet to disassociate himself from his disease. The husband and wife relationship evolves with real nuance, and just when I thought it had painted itself into a corner, it swerves brilliantly to a satisfying ending. A subplot involving teen romance would have ruined the film in lesser hands, but here it enhances it greatly.

• Don’t Look Back (1967), D.A. Pennebaker – Classic Dylan doco reads like a beat film, in part a beatnik hunt for the elusive Donovan. Captures the hysteria that surrounded this greatest of recording artists during the 60s and the press desire to mould him into a message toting messianic figure. Closes on this brilliant scene:

• Persuasion (1995), Roger Michell – Wasn’t sure if Austen’s family drama and study of classism would transfer to the screen. But the language translates beautifully and the Cinderella character of Anne Elliot gives a classic narrative thread. Also there are occasional flashes of real style in the shooting of this which was a pleasant surprise. A toning down of the classism in the source novel and an excellent performance from Ciaran Hinds as Capt Wentworth help this to overcome a final third which perhaps shears too much narrative detail.

• Hot Fuzz (2007), Edgar Wright – Yarp, this is very funny. Many mates had hyped this right up for me, but it meets expectations. Pleasingly features an abundance of the silliness I have been lamenting as lacking in contemporary film. Pegg and Frost are a good double act, and it is always nice to see Timothy Dalton on screen. All in all, a delightfully bloody Brit comedy.

• Captain America (2011), Joe Johnston – I loved the shit our of this film. Making it a period piece was a bold call which really paid off. Featuring Tony Stark’s dad is some Marvel crossover which was not wholly annoying (quite the opposite). The wartime action is helped along by an engaging protagonist, quality wartime action and a great supporting cast featuring Tommy Lee Jones, Hugo Weaving and Hayley Atwell as the sassy broad.

• Cowboys and Aliens (2011), Jon Favreau – At its heart, this is a really good, well made Western and the aliens are for the most part interestingly incorporated. There are fantastic, perfectly unsubtle performances all round, from the likes of Daniel Craig, Olivia Wilde, Harrison Ford and Sam Rockwell. Helps to ensure this overcomes the odd cringeworthy plot twist, and the bloody horrific portrayal of Native Americans.

• Red Dog (2011), Kriv Stenders – This Aussie flick is based on a novel, sorta based on a true story. The love story running through it is a little lacklustre, due to a frankly poor performance by Rachael Taylor. But this delivers two of the most brutal emotional punches to the gut you will see this year (just ask my girlfriend who spent most of the film blubbering). Atmosphere of outback Australia is brilliantly drawn through scenery, cracking soundtrack and some really nice performances from a great supporting cast.

• His Mother’s Voice (1997), Dennis Tupicoff – This animated doco short is simple, yet crushing. The voiceover comes from a mother whose son was shot and killed. She relates the night it occurred, whilst highly stylised comic book and noir influenced animations are onscreen. Once her tale finishes, the exact story is told again, but with ‘life drawing’ style animations onscreen. This is a harrowing film, but it is really important to watch. The intense emotion is invoked not by the filmmaker being manipulative, but by the simple expression of the most basic human emotions. The use of animation forces the viewer to focus on the voice and the tale it is relating, whilst repeating the same story reminds one of the impact a single event can have. Unfortunately I cannot find a link to the whole film online. But if you go to http://www.dennistupicoff.com then click films, His Mother’s Voice then you can play some clips. If you ever get the chance to watch the whole thing, make sure you do.

• Monrak Transistor (2001), Pen-Ek Ratanaruang – Engaging Thai film which cycles through genres – starts out as a teen coming of age comedy, then elements of the musical, a heart rending drama and finally thriller. The performances throughout mean this shifting of tone is enjoyable rather than off-putting. Whilst the central romance and story of love lost occasionally gets obscured, when it is focused on the film succeeds.

• Waltz with Bashir (2008), Ari Folman – Generally considered the first feature length animated doco, this is more an exploration of the nature of memory than an examination of a specific war. The visual aesthetic is incredible, and the dynamic filming style enhances the animation. The film ends with the mostly silent showing of live action stills, showing the stark horrors of war that have already been animated for the audience. This is widely available and both interesting and powerful. Here’s the trailer:

Not Worth Watching:

• Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 (2011), David Yates – The most cynical moneymaking exercise in film history funnily enough feels like half a film. Visually uninspired, bad dialogue, deeply average (with plenty of dashes of bad) acting and bland battle scenes to top it all off. What’s the point of having magic if it brings no nuance or excitement? I was hoping for quality, big budget spectacle film. All I got was the budget.

• Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011), Rupert Wyatt – I could tell this was attempting to make statements regarding the animal testing and the like but they’re not made very well. There are a couple of terrible caricature characters including Draco Malfoy as ‘pure evil’ in an abysmally acted role, and the head of the big pharma company. The relationship of the main couple is woefully underdrawn as well. On the plus side the effects are utterly incredible, some of the best ever seen. But effects don’t make a film.

• 15 (2003), Roystan Tan – A Singaporean gangster film which focuses on the homoeroticism of gang culture. Shame what is such an intensely interesting idea gets drowned out in the excessive, distracting ‘MTV’ style and an early desperation for a hip aesthetic. Episodic narrative is at times confronting with its suicide themes, and occasionally interesting, but more often than not cannot overcome the weight of the shitty acting and sledgehammer subtle political commentary.

• The Lincoln Lawyer (2011), Brad Furman – I generally try and treat films and their literary sources as entirely separate entities. But when you take Michael Connelly’s cracking thriller of a novel and turn it into something as tepid as this, it heightens my disappointment. McConaughey brings none of the novel’s Micky Haller’s life and humour to the screen and Ryan Phillipe’s attempts at sinister fall woefully flat. Finds its feet in the last half an hour, but too late.

• Limitless (2011), Neil Burger – Wow, what a disappointment. This ‘thriller’ is utterly listless and not at all gripping. The story arc feels all out of whack. Too much time devoted to unnecessary exposition and not enough to establishing the protagonists romance with the Abby Cornish character. Symptomatic of an overall lack of heart. And it closes on an ill-advised coda which wraps things up way too easily.

If you only have time to watch one His Mother’s Voice

Avoid at all costs Limitless

The Socceroos kick off their World Cup qualifying campaign tomorrow night when they tackle Thailand in Brisvegas. So I decided to run my eye over the squad selected by Holger Osieck for this very important game. This squad will also travel to Saudi Arabia to play the second qualifier four days later. The squad (in alphabetical order) is:

Alex Brosque (Scott McDonald originally named, but ruled out with injury)
Tim Cahill
Nathan Coe
Luke DeVere
Brett Emerton
Adam Federici
Brett Holman
Mile Jedinak
Josh Kennedy
Neil Kilkenny
Robbie Kruse
Matt McKay
Mark Milligan
Lucas Neill
Sasa Ognenovski
Adam Sarota
Mark Schwarzer
Matthew Spiranovic
James Troisi
Carl Valeri
Luke Wilkshire
Rhys Williams
Michael Zullo

There are really no surprises in the squad. Some mention has been made of the fact that there was no place for Vince Grella or Marco Bresciano. I was unsure if they were retired or no longer putting their hands up for selection. However media reports this week have stated that they are both now back in the mix, with Osieck suggesting they may be called up for the next batch of games. At least in the case of Grella, I think his time has come and gone as a Socceroo anyway. He was a force through one of our golden ages, but let’s face it, it was apparent to anyone that he was behind the pace and a liability during South Africa 2010.

So the real interest will surround not the omissions from the squad, but rather who actually plays. Here are my thoughts on what may happen (bear in mind this is what I think will occur, not necessarily my own personal views).

I’m willing to go out on a limb here and say Mark Schwarzer will start in goals. The kid has talent. In all seriousness though, I don’t think there is any doubt that Schwarzer is our number one guy. He has been a stalwart in goals for a long time now, and is currently locked in a back and forth battle with Brett Emerton for the honour of being the Socceroos second most capped player. He is not perfect – he has been guilty of misjudging crosses perhaps more often then he should. But no keeper is perfect. And Schwarzer’s record of keeping the Aussies in big games is phenomenal. The backups for the #1 shirt selected for this qualifier are Adam Federici and Nathan Coe. The Aussie production line of keepers continues unabated, and every fan has their opinion on who should be the next in line (Mitch Langerak and Brad Jones are two other names often mentioned). For me personally, Federici is the guy. He is first choice at his club, playing at a pretty high level overseas. He is assured, young and has all the physical tools to play many games for the Socceroos. I am not sure of the pecking order between the two backup keepers in Osieck’s mind, and I daresay that neither will be needed. I should make the disclaimer here that I have seen very little of Nathan Coe, so am not entirely sure of what he brings to the table.

Many of the doubts and issues surrounding the Socceroos squad centre on our back four. Probably all those in the mix have had doubts raised concerning their tactical nous, fitness or just ability. Luke Wilkshere will be the starting right back. After bursting onto the scene around the time of the 2006 World Cup, he has established himself as one of the first players picked. He runs hard, gets forward a lot and is able to put in crosses which often show a lot of class. Wilkshere has had a couple of quieter games of late. I don’t think that there is any suggestion his spot is in imminent danger but he perhaps needs to re-establish his stranglehold on the spot. This is especially because on the bench is a young bloke by the name of Rhys Williams, who looks to be the future of the Socceroos (the excellent Four Four Two Australia magazine recently predicted he will one day captain his country). In my opinion, it is only a matter of time before Williams demands selection in the starting side. I think he will start from the bench for the time being, providing fantastic utility value. One of the positions Williams excels at is right back, so it may be the case that Wilkshere eventually gives way. But given the fact he is still a very valuable player, coupled with the fact Williams plays in the centre of defence, central midfield and right midfield, he may well establish his place elsewhere across the park.

In the centre of defence, I would be very surprised if Lucas Neill and Sasa Ognenevoski do not start in Brisbane. Neill is the captain, and in my opinion ‘The Ogre’ is our most important player. He was a towering force at the Asian Cup – I think he was our best player throughout the tournament. The late bloomer, Sasa, is continuing to excel at an exceedingly high level in Asia and has quickly become an integral part of the Socceroos setup. On the other hand, Neill is becoming an increasingly divisive player amongst fans of the game in Australia. Heading into the 2006 World Cup, he was a player with only a moderate profile. His performances throughout that tournament though were exceptional, and established him as one of the Socceroos top players. It has to be said though that he has been exposed at times over the last couple of years. Neill has a tendency to dive in and make rash challenges, especially inside the box. This is obviously a liability in important, one off matches. Another massive personal gripe of mine is his tendency to stand there, belligerently waving his arms around when an opposition player springs the offside trap. By stopping and yelling at the assistant in these cases, Neill allows the opposition attack to build, or even worse for a shot to occur. The final reason that Neill is ‘on the nose’ with some amongst the Australian football community is his actions following the end of his last few contracts. There is a perception that Neill is all about money (he is often cruelly referred to online as Luca$h Neil. From the outset let me make it plain that I don’t think there is anything wrong with sportsmen changing clubs for money. At the end of the day, this is their job and they need to provide for their family. There is this strange discrepancy in society where a player changing clubs just for money is a scumbag. But if I changed jobs in my working life and got a whopping pay rise, all my mates would congratulate me. Where is the difference? I do have some issue with Neill’s conduct in these transfer sagas, based on being a massive Socceroos fan. My concern is that the relatively long absences he has spent not playing, in order to get a better payday, have impacted on his ability to perform at his best for the Socceroos. Also, his decision to sign for Al-Jazira and play in the UAE Pro-League means that Neill will now be playing week in week out in a substandard competition. Substandard in the sense that Neill could, without a doubt, still be playing in a reasonable European league. But I am thankful that Neill is back playing, and hopefully can approach his best form. One major positive to come out of recent games for the Roos has been the form of Matthew Spiranovic. This youngster has long been touted as the next big thing as far as central defenders go for Australia. And of late, he has started to live up to the hype he has carried for a number of years. Look for Spiranovic to get some game time if there are any injury issues to our main two, or if Osieck looks to ease their load somewhat with two games in quick succession.

Without a doubt the one position that has given Socceroo coaches the most headaches over reason years is that of left back. Scott Chipperfield was all class in that role, but is no longer on the scene. David Carney has been the man for quite some time, but many people myself included, have never felt that he is the solution. Yes he can score the odd belter of a left foot goal, but being a left back is about much more than that. Football is a team sport, but it is an unfortunate fact that much of the blame for the loss in the Asian Cup final can be attributed to a horrible piece of defending by Carney. As a cross came in, Carney inexplicably left his man and headed to the goalmouth, seemingly to act as a postman (this idiotic ploy has been seen too often in Socceroos games, most commonly by Lucas Neil). At any rate, Carney is currently returning from injury and clubless so will not be appearing. So it looks as though Michael Zullo will be the man against the Thais. This is an exciting prospect for Socceroos fans. Zullo set the A-League alight as a young player, and it is excellent to see him making a fist of the early part of his overseas career. Zullo is an exhilarating attacking player, and can play higher up the park as well as across the back four. But he also has promise as a classic, overlapping wing back. He shows the ability to get forward and support the left midfielder, whilst also the nous to track back and defend well in one on one situations. Along with the aforementioned Rhys Williams, additional cover across the back four will come from Luke DeVere and Mark Milligan. The latter is seemingly back in favour after a pretty horrific 2007 Asian Cup and club issues put his international career on hold. Look for DeVere to get some game time over the two games to get his maiden international cap.

It is always harder to guess how the midfield will set up. I suspect Osieck will play two up front, meaning a four man midfield. The tradition of late has been to play two screening midfielders in the form of Carl Valeri and Mile Jedinek. It is possible that we will see just one of these players deployed in Brisbane, given that we are at home against an opponent ranked far below us. These two players are regarded very similarly, so it would be difficult to know who drops out. I would suggest that based on recent form, especially the Asian Cup, that Mile Jedinek would retain his spot. He is a very solid screening type player, who probably shades Valeri in the areas of getting forward and distribution. Valeri is perhaps slightly more adept at the defensive aspects of the game, and never stops, appearing to be one of the fitter Aussie guys. Unfortunately both players have a tendency to foul too much, and unnecessarily, a facet of their games that can hopefully be weeded out.

Assuming that Osieck elects to play just the one holding midfielder, then I think the starting midfield will also consist of Brett Emerton, Brett Holman and Matt McKay. Holman can be expected to start centrally, in the hole so to speak but also tracking back with his work ethic being one of his major strengths. Holman has overcome a lot of negativity from fans regarding his place in the side. Some, admittedly myself included, long felt that he was undeserving of his place, having the ability to run around a whole lot, but very little else. However his inspirational performances at South Africa 2010 proved that at the moment, he is one of our most important players. Whilst his distribution is occasionally lacking, his ability to spot and execute runs, brings a dynamism to the Roos midfield that they otherwise do not possess. And even Holman’s most ardent critic could not have any issue with the effort and heart he puts into his performances in the green and gold.

I don’t think it is too hyperbolic to state that Brett Emerton is a Socceroo great. Whilst the performances of Matt McKay in the Asian Cup left him somewhat on the outer, I think Emmo still has a lot to contribute to the Socceroos cause, and should start a lot more games than he doesn’t. Emerton is probably the best crosser of the ball in the Aussie side. I keep saying this about players, but Emerton is one fit dude. Commentators love to talk about how big his engine is. For a long time he has been the Socceroos fittest player and he is still right up there. This gives him an excellent ability to track back and cover his man when need be. The fact that Emerton has a reasonable amount of experience playing in the back four also means that once he gets there, he is able to execute his tackles well and also intercept a lot of passes. Emerton will start on the right, in front of Luke Wilkshere, which will rekindle what has been a very successful partnership for the Socceroos. These two players have a real understanding of each other’s games, and when players can link as well as these two do, it is a major plus. Look for lots of nice interplay between the two of them. Emerton to find Wilkshere overlapping, Wilkshere looking to release Emerton further up the park and all that kind of jazz. The importance of partnerships such as this highlights the need to establish consistent selections through these positions, so that players can get to know each other’s styles intimately. Hopefully the Wilkshere/Emerton duo will see a lot of game time, and hopefully we can unearth a similar combination down the left.

The man who I think will play a major role in this desired left side combination is Matt McKay. Over the last 18 months, the performances and associated profile of McKay has skyrocketed. Osieck’s refreshing willingness to give A-League players a fair go has resulted in the Brisbane Roar captain (who will leave to take up a contract with Scottish champions Rangers after these qualifiers) to cement his place in the squad. Along with Ognenovski who I have already mentioned, McKay was one of our standout players at January’s Asian Cup. The nerve jangling quarter final against Iraq was sealed by a brilliant, early, floating cross delivered to perfection by McKay (and finished emphatically by Harry Kewell). His ability to burst into the box with impeccable timing is also a major boost, reminiscent of Tim Cahill in that way. The one major flaw I have seen in McKay’s game, both for the Socceroos and in the A-League, is his finishing. After making these excellent, bursting runs into the box, McKay just does not seem comfortable finishing the opportunities. More than any other aspect of the game, striking is a confidence thing (just ask Scott McDonald). Natural strikers have an inherent bravado and almost arrogance that makes them confident in their ability to score in any game. Obviously if McKay is not a natural striker than this cannot be forced. But he needs to practice it a hell of a lot, pick his favourite spots to put the ball and finish it. I make it sound so easy. But I don’t want to dwell on that. I think McKay will play a massive role throughout this qualifying campaign. He is still relatively inexperienced as far as Socceroo caps go, but I look forward to him building his confidence in the team surrounds. This can only be a good thing, because as evidenced by his ability to lead the Roar to the title last year, McKay is an excellent leader.

There is some real excitement amongst the backup midfielders in this Socceroos squad, and the players chosen give Osieck a lot of scope to change things up when all is not going to plan. I am a big fan of Neil Kilkenny, the Bristol City midfielder. He is an extremely gifted and intelligent footballer, who I think can be a big point of difference throughout this campaign. He is the best distributor of the ball in the squad, and coming on late will let him split the gaps in the defence which is what he is best at. Some of his Socceroo performances have been a little below his best. But I personally really want Osieck to persevere with him because we do not have another midfielder like him. Plus the more opportunity he has to play with the likes of Holman and McKay, the better he will get at reading their runs which will make the Socceroos midfield far more dangerous. The other options for Osieck off the bench come in the form of whippets James Troisi and Adam Sarota. These guys are quick, young, skilful and incomplete. I don’t think they are ready to play 90 minutes in a big, must-win qualifier. But late in games, these are the kind of players you want to bring on to terrorise tiring defenders. It is a nice mix the coach has gotten himself on the bench.

The other obvious contender for a place in midfield is a bloke called Tim Cahill. But given the fact that Scott McDonald has recently been ruled out (Alex Brosque comes in), I think that Cahill will start upfront. I much prefer Cahill as a midfielder. There is much hype in relation to him as an attacker given the fact that he scores a lot of goals from midfield for Everton. But the fact of the matter is that a lot of these goals are derived from the very fact that he does play in midfield. He is able to make blistering runs from deep to get on the end of crosses, and he possesses one of the deadlier headers in world football. Deep down, I think that Osieck would have started McDonald against Thailand. But with the Middlesbrough man out injured I think he will go with Cahill. And whilst I would prefer to see Cahill in midfield, given the sheer quality of guys that will line up through the centre, I am happy to see him starting further up the park. And I think that if you are going to play Cahill up front, the ideal is to have him playing alongside someone who he can run off. And that man is Jesus. For me personally, it is exciting to see Josh Kennedy back in the mix. The tall attacker is in exceptional form for Nagoya Grampus, scoring almost at will. I think Kennedy always should be the Socceroos first choice, starting striker assuming we are playing two up front. He has a very good scoring record for the Socceroos and poses a constant threat to opposition defences. The Socceroos are without a doubt a much better side with the big guy from Beechworth High leading the line. The fear with two such adept headers of the ball starting is that the instructions will be to hoick the ball long for them. Hopefully this will not be the case, and I think that Osieck is too smart a manager to fall into that particular trap. Kennedy’s feet are vastly underrated. And without suggesting that he is the same calibre of player as Mark Viduka, he can perform a similar role for the Socceroos. He can hold the ball up, and wait for reinforcements in the form of Cahill, and the overlapping midfielders to arrive. Look for the much improved, and ever improving Robbie Kruse to get a reasonable amount of game time in the two matches, with Brosque providing further backup.

So there are my thoughts on the squad for tomorrow night’s game. Sorry it ended up being far more longwinded than I had intended. Thanks if you read the whole thing. Make sure you get out and watch the game. Personally I am going to take my gorgeous girl out for a lovely Ethiopian meal, and then hit up the ever classy Tradies Club to watch the game. Enjoy it!

As many of you would know, I am a massive football fan. I think that for everyone in that same boat, World Cups provide some of our greatest footballing memories. My first World Cup memory is of Robbie Baggio blazing his penalty way over the bar at USA ’94 (no doubt I saw more of that one, but that is the memory which sticks out). I remember my mate Painey, who was a much bigger football nut than me at the time, waking me up ultra early on a school excursion to catch glimpses of France ’98 in a Canberra caravan park. I watched a whole bunch of Korea Japan ’02, trying to avoid high school study and the woeful Channel 9 coverage in equal measure. Of course Germany ’06 will always hold a special place in my heart, and those of every Socceroo fan my age. The first time we saw our nation on world sports’ grandest stage, and I rode every high and low. Timmy Cahill’s last gasp goals, Zelko’s blunder, and of course that exit at the hands of Italy. I recall going to work the next day devastated, and not being able to watch the rest of the World Cup, because it was utterly ruined for me.

But my favourite World Cup memory or rather memories are those that arise from South Africa 2010. The Socceroos were there again. And once again I rode the highs and lows. The disaster that was the Germany game, Kewell’s sending off, Holman’s strike (seen whilst wearing my Carle #10 jersey) and the ultimate, somewhat unfortunate exit. This time I was able to keep watching. And I watched a vast majority of that World Cup, most of it from the World Cup bed me and my girlfriend had set up in front of the television. There is something about the dog-tired mornings at work, and the fact that you know you will do it all again the next night which lets you know how much you love the game. In three years time I hope to add some more amazing World Cup memories by attending the World Cup in Brazil. Brazil is in many ways the spiritual home of the world game, and the opportunity to be there live, is one I am not keen to give up. I briefly met Les Murray before the last World Cup, and mentioned how I wish I could be in South Africa seeing it live. He wholeheartedly recommended I go to the World Cup in Brazil, because if there is any place to see a World Cup, that is the place. It will take a lot of saving and planning, but hopefully I will make enough sacrifices between now and them to make something that truly is a dream, a reality.

So I thought that it would be a good idea to start chronicling the long journey to the 2014 World Cup in Brazil, hence the title of this piece. However, the title also refers to the Asian qualifying draw which took place a week and a half ago. This is the draw for the third round of Asian qualifying, with Australia and the other top nations not appearing in the first two rounds. Hopefully this will be the first of many draws that the Socceroos will be part of during the rather long road to Brazil. With Australia only having qualified for three World Cups (including the last two) there are some general misconceptions surrounding the qualifying process. Foremost among them in my opinion is that now we are qualifying through Asia, we should make it easily every time. This is definitely not the case. There are some extremely high quality teams lying between us and Brazil and if we fall behind early in qualifying then it will be hard to make up the ground. Exacerbating this is a problem which is probably more acute for Australia than any other nation in the qualifiers, balancing club and country. While all of these qualifiers will fall on FIFA dates, issues with overseas clubs could ultimately lead to occasionally weaker Australian squads, and enhanced numbers of A-League players playing a part.

The draw utilised the ‘pot’ system, which is designed to ensure that the best teams are not forced to play one another, and knock each other out in the early rounds. As such it was impossible for Australia to face Japan or South Korea in this round of qualifiers. Despite this there was some quality teams littered through the draw. Iraq, who are always up for a game against the Socceroos and whose style of play matches up really well against us. Also the dangerous North Korea who somehow ended up in the lowest pot, despite the fact they qualified for last year’s showpiece in South Africa. They have a very defensive style of play and are hard to break down and this, coupled with the gruelling culture shock and travel of the away trip to Pyongyang makes them another team I was keen for us to avoid. Taking into account the away leg, Iran is another team that the team would have been hoping to avoid. Another hard slog of a trip with the intimidating atmosphere of the Azadi Stadium stadium, filled to the brim in Tehran awaiting you. Luckily for us we did manage to avoid these three opponents. However the three teams that await us definitely still pose some troubles. I have an admittedly weak knowledge of Asian football but with that in mind, here are my thoughts on the three opponents that Australia had been drawn to face.

Saudi Arabia

FIFA Ranking: 92

World Cup Pedigree: Qualified for finals 1994 (round of 16), 1998 (group stage), 2002 (group stage) and 2006 (group stage).

Round 2 Form: 8-0 aggregate defeat of Hong Kong

Head to Head Record: Played 3, Australia 1, Saudi Arabia 1, Draw 1

As three time champions, and three time runners up in the Asian Cup the Saudis have a footballing heritage as rich as any in all of Asia. However, they are similar to Iran in that their recent years have not been as successful. These years have coincided with a general trend that has seen East Asia dominate the West. In fact their current FIFA ranking of 92 is the lowest in their history. Despite this, on paper they seem to pose the biggest threat to the Socceroos in this group. After failing to qualify for the 2010 World Cup after qualifying for the previous four, there will be intense pressure on the Saudis to do better this time. This could manifest itself in two ways. The team could respond positively and play above expectation. Or they could falter badly. A poor early result against either Thailand or Oman will ratchet the pressure on this team right up. I think it is hard to read too much into their two-leg drubbing of minnows Hong Kong in round 2 qualifying. Except maybe to highlight the fact that they are able to rack up some goals against inferior opposition. I think that ultimately they will look to get some sort of result against the Socceroos at home, which will put them on track to move through. These will be interesting matchups with the two countries not having clashed since Australia joined the Asian confederation. A look at the small gap in rankings between the Saudis and the other two sides in the group shows that finishing in the top two is by no means a certainty for them.

Thailand

FIFA Ranking: 119

World Cup Pedigree: Never qualified for the finals

Round 2 Form: 3-2 aggregate defeat of Palestine

Head to Head Record: Australia 3, Thailand 0, Draw 0

The Green and Gold Army will be happy with this one. Is there a more ideal away trip than this? The bargain airfares and idyllic surrounds should ensure a good Aussie contingent for the away trip. They will be confronted with an interesting game as well. The Thais only just managed to scrape past Palestine in round 2. With all due respect to Palestine (it is fantastic just to see a nation such as Palestine involved, and doing pretty well in World Cup qualifying), that does not smack of a team ready to strike the fear into any of the other teams in this group. Despite, or perhaps because of this, the Thai coach has come out with some very confident remarks since the draw. He has said they will go into the games against the Socceroos with a measure of confidence, based around the fact we are ageing and slow, whilst they have some genuine pace. Whilst I can’t make any informed statements on the pace of the Thai team, I acknowledge that pace in defence is definitely not the strong point of the Socceroos and it will be very interesting to see the Thais attempt to exploit it. The Aussies will take a confidence from their last meeting which was a 4-0 drubbing of the Thais in the 2007 Asian Cup finals. Ultimately finding consistency will be the key for Thailand if they harbour hopes of advancing to the next round.

Oman

FIFA Ranking: 107

World Cup Pedigree: Never qualified for the finals

Round 2 Form: 2-0 first leg defeat of Myanmar, second leg abandoned.

Head to Head Record: Australia 2, Oman 0, Draw 1

Since moving into Asia, I think there has been a tendency on the part of the Australian football community to underestimate the ability of Gulf nations. But the performances of countries such as Bahrain and Kuwait in previous qualifying campaigns for both Asian and World Cups would, I should hope, have changed that. I was there in person when Kuwait managed to beat an A-League based Socceroos squad 1-0 in Canberra. We have also confronted Oman three times since joining the confederation, for two hard fought, one goal victories by full-strength Socceroos squads and a draw at the 2007 Asian Cup. Basically the lesson is that no team, playing for their country and higher honours, can be underestimated at this level. And these results of the last five years will definitely give Oman a lot of confidence when facing the Aussies. It has to be remembered that the countries we have competed against are already into the swing of qualifying and will rise to the occasion against the Socceroos. It is also worth noting that Oman are only ranked 15 places lower than the Saudi Arabia side. That, coupled with the quality such as their keeper Ali Al-Habsi who plies his trade successfully in the English Premier League, should make the Omanis a team not to be taken lightly. I have a gut feeling that this team represents a part of the footballing world on the rise somewhat, and that this team could well snaffle second place in the group from the Saudis. They will know that that any points gained against the Socceroos will go a long way towards advancing this ambition. And they will fancy themselves to pick some up.

In summary, this is a draw that could have been plenty worse for the Socceroos. With very little knowledge or research to back up these assumptions, I’m going to back the Aussies to finish first, Oman to come in second, Saudi Arabia third and the Thais in fourth. It is inconceivable that the Socceroos could not do enough to do enough to gain the top two finish they require to advance to the next stage. However inconceivable things happen in sport all the time. Not only that, just getting through is not enough. Fans will want to see Osieck’s team continue to play the more attractive style of play which has been seen under the German who has been a real revelation in the job. The heat will be on a number of players from the get-go as well. Harry Kewell, the most unfairly maligned player in all of Australia, will need to be at his brilliant best to silence the haters. For me at least, Lucas Neill has to show that he still has enough in the tank to be a force throughout this qualifying campaign. His lack of pace and tendency for rash challenges (especially in the box), along with the continued rise of the Ogre mean that questions will be asked about his place in the team should his form not be at an extremely high standard. It may come to a point that being captain is not enough to save his place in the side.

That’s a whole bunch of unknowns. What I do know is that I am very excited for this coming World Cup journey. Hopefully involving getting to see a couple of games live and seeing the Socceroos excel, and march to their third straight World Cup finals. I am sure you will enjoy the ride as much as me.

Worth Watching:

• True Grit (1969), Henry Hathaway – Portis’ novel is an American classic, but definitely not a pulp Western, the kind of tale John Wayne usually trades in. The film combines the atmosphere of Portis’ novel with that of a typical Wayne flick. The older, grizzled Wayne certainly embodies the role of Rooster Cogburn. Some stilted, overacting (Glen Campbell is pretty woeful) is balanced out by some good turns, most notably a very young Robert Duvall. Like the book, this is personal story set in the West, rather than a sweeping examination of the frontier, and it works quite enjoyably.

• Star Trek (2009), J.J Abrams – My first experience of Star Trek was a good one. Abrams is a good enough director to keep the epic visuals and time-travel story which both threaten to overwhelm, under control. This space melodrama also shows that Chris Pine has a growing affinity for quality, big budget action pieces such as this.

• 127 Hours (2010), Danny Boyle – Making a film about one guy stuck under a rock, where pretty much everyone knows what happens presents some obvious problems. Boyle innovatively uses editing and sound to overcome these. The frenetic editing should be distracting and take away from the human story but it only enhances it. The soundtrack is exceptional throughout, especially during the notorious amputation scene (the nerve ‘jangling’ will stay with me). Film also builds tension expertly, in the lead up to the film’s two main set pieces. A bold and brilliant film.

• Inside Job (2010), Charles Ferguson – The tale of the economic crisis, told in language it is possible to understand. This film will make you really fucking angry. It illustrates the sheer greed of the financial sector and how nothing has changed. 30 million people became unemployed so that these executives could get $100 million bonuses. This, and many other instances in this film make you realise that the system is fundamentally broken, mainly because of it’s increasing disconnect from the society it ‘serves.’ This is an enjoyable and incendiary film, well made and driven by an excellent interviewer.

• Tangled (2010), Nathan Greno & Byron Howard – An update of Rapunzel seems risky fare in this day and age. But this turns out to be everything Disney do well (great sense of fun, brilliant animal characters) with some nice updates (lush CG visuals and cool, self-aware attitude). You can see John Lasseter’s influence here, and hopefully he can lead a feature film revival over at the House of Mouse.

• The Blue Mansion (2009), Glen Goei – Wonderful generic mishmash which combines comedy, family drama, thriller and ghost story into something always entertaining. A man awakes one day to find he is dead and gets to see his family implode following the aftermath of his passing. Also finishes on a powerful twist that shocks, but doesn’t feel at all cheap. Here’s a not very good trailer (the actual film is a lot more intelligent than this makes out):

• Kung Fu Panda 2 (2011), Jennifer Yuh Nelson – If it isn’t Pixar, computer animation has gotten a bit of a bad wrap in recent years. Some justified, some not. This is an example of a well-made, fun and interesting film from another source (Dreamworks). The film is powered by an original story that riffs on Chinese mythology and a funny script brought to life by one of the better voice casts assembled.

• Potong Saga (2009), Ho Yuhang – Part of 15malaysia, a short film project. This is a hilarious short about circumcision and Islamic banking featuring Namewee, a Malaysian hip-hop artist who seems a natural. Witty, a little over the top and a lot of laughs to be had in its engagement with Malaysian social issues, and just slapstick silliness. Watch it here:

Not Worth Watching:

• How to Train Your Dragon (2010), Chris Sanders & Dean DeBlois – Starts with a witty opening about the perils of growing up viking. But this attitude gives way to a fairly bland bag of clichés. The guy gets the girl, dragons and humans learn to live together and the son gains his father’s respect. All a bit yawn-inducing.

• The Next Three Days (2010), Paul Haggis – This starts slowly, very slowly. It threatens to explode into an excellent fast paced thriller once the central prison-break premise is eventually revealed. Unfortunately though, the film’s most interesting character (played by Liam Neeson) disappears as quickly as he arrives and the slow pace ensures this never really rises above tepid midday movie standard.

• The Fighter (2010), David O. Russell – This was massively well received, especially in the States, but it’s a very strange film tonally. The main example is Christian Bale who looks the part as a crack addict, but his character is played strangely for laughs. Add in the troupe of sisters also comedically drawn, some bland direction and the overall aesthetic just doesn’t work. The emotively told redemption of Bale’s character & title fight, as well as top performances from Amy Adams & Marky Mark throughout, can’t save this one.

• Man of Aran (1934), Robert J. Flaherty – Flaherty is generally considered the father of feature length documentary. This film is moderately interesting, til you know the background to it, at which point it becomes meaningless. It is constructed with doco images, but is no reflection of reality – subjects were auditioned, they weren’t actually a family, and the islanders had abandoned the style of fishing the film is at pains to illustrate over 50 years before, so most of the dramatic highpoints were staged. Manipulative.

If you only have time to watch one 127 Hours

Avoid at all costs Man of Aran

Leslie Nielson passed away on the 28th of November last year, aged 84 following a career which lasted well over 50 years. As a form of tribute, I took a look at two films featuring him at work.

The Naked Gun (1988) is probably Nielson’s most iconic film. It sees him reprise the role of Lieutenant Frank Drebin who he played in the short-lived (but hilarious) TV series Police Squad! (1982). Just like the series, this is a deeply silly film, but in a very good way. It is hilarious, and it shows that comedy can be brilliantly made and silly, without being cringe-worthy, or crass. Unfortunately there has been a decline in this style of film-making over recent years and I think Nielsen recognises the value of these type of movies. I think that possibly explains some of the role choices he made in his later years, featuring in films such as Scary Movie 3 (2003), Superhero Movie (2008) and Stan Helsing (2009). These type of films are currently the ones continuing the legacy of The Naked Gun, but unfortunately doing it in a generally crass and unfunny way. I think Nielsen was aiming to recapture some of the silliness seen in this film, and bring it to a whole new audience by appearing in these films.

It’s easy to be dismissive of the spoof film, given the output over the last decade. But a film such as The Naked Gun shows how witty and downright hilarious this sub-genre can be. In fact I can’t remember the last time I laughed as much as this. It is not economical with the joke rate, the gags come one straight after another, or even multiple onscreen at the same time. The parody elements of the film, and its beautiful distinct lack of subtlety are laid bare in the opening scene. A spoof on James Bond films, it sees Nielsen’s Frank Drebin taking out a boardroom of master villains (and what a crew they are, including Yasser Arafat, Gaddafi and Ayatollah Khomeini among others). From there, it really does not let up for it’s snappy 90-odd minute duration. Most of the film is a hilarious spoof on the crime film genre. Frank Drebin is a hilariously deluded cop who seems not to quite grasp the world around him. The faux voiceover and police dialogue that Nielsen delivers, enhances the mock noir stylings of the film, which are also boosted by some cracking Double Indemnity (1944) references. The film refuses to trade in one kind of joke. Instead it bombards the viewer with witty wordplay, over the top slapstick, parody and visual gags, all of which work well. The film is a little more risqué then I recall as well. It features the line “nice beaver”, one of the best wee jokes ever committed to film and a condom joke which is hands down the stupidest joke I have ever seen.

The performances in this are all really good. O.J. Simpson features in a moderate supporting role and shows a surprising adroitness for physical slapstick. As Drebin’s love interest, Priscilla Presley is also surprisingly good, handling the comedic and more ‘straight’ elements of her role with equal aplomb. Nielsen is the film’s focal point and star though. He plays the character of Frank Drebin brilliantly. Despite the character’s silliness he plays it pretty straight and the film is much funnier as a result. Definitely preferable than if he had of overplayed it, which would be a definite temptation in a role such as this. You can see that like the film more generally, Nielsen’s performance was quite influential. I see a lot of Will Ferrel in Frank Drebin.

This is a cavalcade of smile-inducing stupidity. I don’t like to hoist my opinions on others because reactions to films are such a personal thing. But I don’t really see how anyone could not enjoy this. It’s one of the most joyous film viewing experiences I have had in a long time. The best way I can describe it is that it gave me the same kind of joyous contentment I get when watching Buster Keaton films (but with more belly laughs). Go watch it.

Verdict: Longneck of Melbourne Bitter

Whilst most of Nielson’s fame can be attributed to his days as a snowy haired comic from the 80s and 90s, his career began much earlier than that. Probably the most well-remembered of these early roles is as Commander John Adams in The Forbidden Planet (1956). This early sci-fi classic is famously based on Shakespeare’s The Tempest. Whilst there are some obvious plot similarities, I think it draws more on the works of Freud than Shakespeare’s play. However if you are unfamiliar with, or simply don’t care for either of the above, you will still get something out of this film.

The main thing you might get out of it are the incredible special effects, which I think hold up even today. An early example of this is the crew disappearing as their ship enters hyperdrive. I find it strange that the film is not openly talked about as a highpoint of effects wizardry today, because the effects are clearly technologically advanced and surely ultra-influential. The giant creatures of the subconscious are rendered using some innovative light effects and to see Nielson and his men’s gunfire bouncing off these semi-visible beings is a sight to behold. These massive beings create a real sense of danger for the men who have flown on a reconnaissance mission to a far-off planet, where many years before an envoy from Earth was presumed lost. The tale takes place in a future where humans have conquered and colonised outer space. When they arrive, this platoon of men led by Nielsen’s commander find the only survivors of the earlier expedition are the strange Dr Morbius, played by Walter Pidgeon, and his smokin’ hot daughter Alta, played by Anne Francis. They are of course supported by undoubtedly the film’s most iconic character, Robbie the Robot. Morbius is strangely unhappy to see newcomers from his home planet, whilst Captain Adams is insistent that they have a job to do and are not going anywhere. Things become more complicated when Alta captures the eye of pretty much all the men on the planet and starts encouraging them not too subtly (not exactly helped by one unscrupulous crew member who tells the naïve Alta she needs to kiss to maintain peak physical condition). The secrets that Morbius is so keen to hide are slowly revealed, placing Adams’ and his crew in profound danger. Can they escape the planet in time? You will have to watch, for once I’m not going to spoil things for you. The film works best when engaging (or I guess possibly creating) sci-fi conventions, rather than focusing on the underdrawn romance that is bubbling along.

It is quite strange seeing Nielson as a strapping, clean-cut young man when so used to seeing him under such different circumstances. The film though, orbits around his performance and it is really very good, proving he is not a mere clown but a man capable of carrying much weightier material. On this evidence it is a shame that he did not get the opportunity to do so more often. It is clearly no coincidence that his character shares a name with the second president of the United States, and in many ways the actor manages to convey the gravitas and upright standing that role is meant to encompass. He is a brave leader, respected by his men and not afraid to make the tough decisions. Reading that description back it is not a role I would have credited Leslie Nielson with being able to pull off, but I was wrong. Narratively the film juggles a number of somewhat strange, disparate subtexts. The enemy here is not hideous aliens or comets, but man’s subconscious and the horrors it brings; surely suggestive of some of the horrors man perpetuated in the 20th century, both against his fellow human beings and his planet. Then there are also the occasional hanging homage to Christianity, such as when one of the crew exclaims sincerely that “the Lord sure made some beautiful worlds.” Like many films, these subtexts can be ignored or explored as much as a particular viewer is willing. But they are piled on, with themes of overt environmentalism and even incest popping up. Possibly just as innovative and interesting to a modern audience as the special effects, is the film’s somewhat trippy soundtrack. It was rendered using pretty much solely electronic means, groundbreaking at the time, and produces a wondrous array of buzzes, beeps and screeches that enhance the action and enhances the feeling of a dangerous, deep space environment. In fact technically the film is generally pretty incredible. The set-design brilliantly evokes a far-off, otherworldliness, as well as some large-scale, subterranean, industrial lairs which put the hidden hideouts of any James Bond (or Austin Powers) villain to shame.

Whilst this film does hold some of the trappings many sci-fi films of this vintage do for viewers of this era, cheesy dialogue chief among them, The Forbidden Planet easily rises above them. The film’s conclusion does risk drowning in a sea of Freudian jargon, but manages to stay afloat so to speak. In the end what we are left with is an expertly (and ahead of its time) cautionary tale about the danger humanity poses to itself and anything else that may or may not exist in the universe.

Verdict: Pint of Kilkenny

Progress: 36/1001

After recently seeing Lars Von Trier’s incredible film Dogville (2003) I was keen to check out the sequel Manderlay (2005). However whilst reading about the film online I discovered the story of John C. Reilly. Reilly is probably best known recently for his involvement in silly comedies such as the Will Ferrell vehicles Talladega Nights (2006) and Step Brothers (2008) and has also appeared in the more serious fare such as The Thin Red Line (1998) and Magnolia (1999). The story went that whilst filming on the set of Manderlay, Reilly, a vegetarian, became aware of the fact that a donkey was set to be slaughtered for the purposes of the film. As a result, Reilly refused to work further on the film and stormed off the European set in protest. A little further reading cast doubt on the veracity of this story. The donkey was killed, but it was doubtful that it was the reason Reilly walked off set. In fact he never even made it on set, the reason appearing to be his part had been cut to be so small, it was not worth the trip to Europe to complete filming. The script that Reilly was sent did feature the donkey slaughter so it may have contributed to his decision to abandon the venture. When pressed on the slaughter of the donkey, Von Trier’s response was essentially that the donkey was old, and was going to die anyway.

I have been vegetarian for a few years now and have recently transitioned to a vegan lifestyle. Wherever possible I try and restrict the ways in which my life adversely affects the lives of animals, leading to their mistreatment and/or death. I no longer purchase leather and choose products not tested on animals wherever possible. So is it hypocritical of me not to apply these philosophical tenets to my passion of watching and writing about film? There are a reasonable number of vegetarians who wear a leather belt and shoes to work and I have always found this strange and somewhat hypocritical. I also feel that the way the industry is currently structured, there is a fundamental hypocrisy in eating a vegetarian, not vegan diet (I do not mean for this to be derisory toward vegetarians. The shift to a vegan diet for me has been a tough one and one I have had to think over deeply. If everyone on earth went vegetarian I would be a happy man). But am I any different? Many films, especially of an older era where animal rights was not an issue so central to the public consciousness, feature shocking acts of animal cruelty. Two films on the 1001 list which I have seen, but not yet blogged on fall into this boat. The Sergei Eisenstein silent classic Strike (1924) features the brutal slaughter of a cow intercut with other images toward the close of the film. Francis Ford Coppola’s Vietnam War-set adaptation of Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness, Apocalypse Now (1979) features an even more shocking and inhumane example of animal cruelty when the local population brutally slaughters a water buffalo with machetes. Like Eisenstein, Coppola cuts this image with others. But the slaughter is still shown unflinchingly, from a stationary camera. The viewer sees the machetes scythe deep into the flesh of the buffalo, exposing its flesh as it slumps to its death. It is truly a confronting scene and one I struggled to watch.

Even between these two examples I feel I can draw distinctions. When Coppola was making his film animal rights were much more of a notable issue. The American Humane Society had begun issuing it’s “no animals were harmed” end credit to films as far back as 1940. Apocalypse Now unsurprisingly did not receive such a stamp , rather receiving an “unacceptable” rating from the society. Whatever the case, Coppola certainly understood that by filming the graphic slaughter, he was ignoring the notion of animal rights for some notion of artistic glory. The slaughter does not even add much to the end product of the film from memory, contributing to the overall vagueness and ‘otherworldliness’ of this world controlled by Marlon Brando’s Kurtz that Martin Sheen’s Marlowe now finds himself in. I am doubting highly that in 1920’s Russia, Eisenstein had a body such as the Humane Society for him to appease. For some reason I think that his is less of a crime so to speak, but this may just be ignorance on my part. Thinking that just because animals rights, in general and in the sphere of cinema, was less of an issue early in 20th century than later on when Coppola was making his film. No doubt Eisenstein was aware that the cow he was killing was a living, breathing, feeling entity just like him. I also feel that the slaughter adds more to his film than Coppola’s does. But should this be a consideration at all? Probably not. A question easier for me to answer is will I watch these films again? Yes I will, and I will watch any films on the 1001 list that I become aware feature examples of mistreatment. I have set my task to watch and write about them all and I intend on completing that task (however slowly). Perhaps to remain ‘true’ to my moral standpoint on the treatment of animals though I need to address and draw attention to these scenes, however briefly.

Will I put money in the pockets of film producers who should and do know better though? No, I will do my best not to. One of the instances that prompted me to write this piece was that not too long ago me and my (also vegan) girlfriend were looking for a film to catch at the cinemas. When we came to Water for Elephants (2011), a film I was none too fussed about seeing, my partner informed me she refused to see it because she had read about the manner in which the main elephant used in the film had been trained prior to filming. I will not see Water for Elephants*** and I wish I had not seen The Hangover 2 (2011) (recently serious questions have been raised regarding the treatment of the ‘drug dealing monkey’ in that film… plus it was shit). In a funny way, at least in my head, money comes into it. If I was to go and see a current film release I know featured questionable treatment of animals then I would feel like I was directly funding their abuse. I don’t think Sergei Eisenstein is cashing too many cheques because of me watching Strike. Even hiring a DVD such as Manderlay would seem like less of a direct endorsement, or at least provision of financial benefit than attending a cinematic release. And does, or should intention come into it. If a movie depicts the slaughter of an animal to promote a cause I believe in, does that make it different to one that mistreats animals for the sake of ‘entertainment’. There are numerous scenes of animal slaughter in Fast Food Nation (2006), however this film presents an anti-big business and fast food sentiment that I agree with. Conversely a film such as Jackass 3D (2010) which I have raised my issues with previously, in my view is unacceptable as animals are mistreated horribly for some sick notion of humour.*** So for me, whether rightly or wrongly a spade is not necessarily a spade. Intention and notions of my personal financial endorsement come into it.

I would be interested as always to hear your thoughts on this one. Am I just taking my vego-political correctness too far, or not far enough? Or would it be hypocritical of me to see a film where I am well aware that an animal has been slaughtered to supposedly ‘enhance’ the experience. By viewing a film such as Manderlay, or Water for Elephants would I be like that strange breed of vegetarians who find eating meat abhorrent but wear a leather belt and shoes to work.

***Note: It is worth mentioning that both of these films received positive endorsements from the American Humane Society. Water for Elephants received an “outstanding” rating. However this rating refers only to events on-set, and is in no way an endorsement of the prior training of the animals. Jackass 3D received an “acceptable” rating because not all of the scenes were able to be monitored by the Humane Society, however no animals were harmed in those they did monitor. Quite amazingly (given that there has never been anything really raised about it) it turns out a lot of the Jackass stunts are actually faked. There is a massive database of American Humane Society ratings for films that you can find here: http://www.americanhumanefilmtv.org/movie-review-archives/

Worth Watching:

•  A Return to Reason (1923), Man Ray – Early French avant-garde short is an awesome cacophony of images. What look like micro-organisms, street lights, carousels, nails, springs, breasts and more. I’ll be fucked if I know what it means, if anything, but it’s cool to look at. Check it out:

• Hot Tub Time Machine (2010), Steve Pink – This film has a really nice, heartfelt spirit that is missing from most recent comedies. Great performances by the core cast, and the notion of a second opportunity to do things differently if you had your time over held my interest. And I laughed in this a hell of a lot, which is a good thing for a comedy.

• Sanctum (2011), Alister Grierson – This Aussie cave diving flick was much maligned on release. The most cliché ridden script in recent memory, and the visuals losing their impact on a smaller, 2D screen doesn’t help. So why worth a watch? Because it’s an incredibly intense, full on genre piece. I started getting a bit uneasy physically, so well is the claustrophobia conveyed. From about the half hour point, this had me utterly gripped, helped by some really nice performances from the Australian cast members. However the film does leave a couple of questions unanswered. Like, why the fuck would anyone go cave diving? And what accent is Hornblower going for exactly?

• Allonsanfan (1973), Paolo & Vittorio Taviani – Initially this looks like a cheap BBC Shakespeare adaptation. But things pick up once the action escapes the shoddy internal sets. The tale of a revolutionary released from jail who has to choose between revolution and his family. An interesting, thought provoking film about how hard it is to escape the past and the dangers of standing for nothing.

• X-Men: First Class (2011), Matthew Vaughan – I’m a fan of sequels, prequels and most any other ‘el’ you can think of. Not so sure about this ‘reboot’ fad that is going on. But if they’re all going to be this good, sign me up. Definitely the best Saturday night popcorn flick I’ve seen this year. Michael Fassbender as Magneto is obscenely good, and the evolving relationship between him and James McAvoy’s Charles Xavier is intriguing.

• Alias Season 1 (2001), J.J Abrams – This was the series that kick-started TV wunderkid (now just wunderkid) Abrams’ career. This is a globetrotting spy series that keeps the action coming and the characters always intriguing. It helps that it is brought to life by a pretty darn fine cast headed by Jennifer Garner and Bradley Cooper. A silly and occasionally convoluted mix of James Bond and Indiana Jones, that is always ultra entertaining.

• Shakespeare Behind Bars (2005), Hank Rogerson & Jilann Spitzmiller – This is an incredible and dense doco which chronicles a Shakespeare group in an American prison. Introduces the (at times brilliant) players at work, before gradually unveiling their heinous crimes, making you reappraise judgement. The felons are intelligent and bursting with philosophy, best seen when they summarise The Tempest in their own words. This film is the most truthful piece you could hope to see.

• Seven Up! (1964), Paul Almond – Based on this, the seminal sociological doco series is seminal for a reason. Beautifully shot as it is, this is essentially a ‘talking heads’ TV. piece. The innocence, but already engrained differences between the youngsters sets the basis for the rest of the series.

• 7+7 Up (1970), Michael Apted – Despite a change in director, this is more of the (good) same. Seven years on and the contrasting rebelliousness and conformity of teenage years are laid bare. Some have changed immeasurably in seven years, whereas there is a suspicion some will never change.

• State of Play (2009), Kevin Macdonald – Investigative journalists, politicians and high conspiracy, all pretty standard thriller plot points. Featuring Russell Crowe, Rachel McAdams, Helen Mirren and Ben Affleck in major roles just shows the power of a decent (more than decent) cast as this positively races by enjoyably. An outstanding supporting cast doesn’t hurt either.

• Tree of Life (2011), Terrence Malick – This was my most anticipated film of the year. Having seen it, I find the mixed response it has received utterly incomprehensible. The most ambitious mainstream cinema release I can recall is also the most beautiful. A poem about the cosmos God has created and an individual’s place in it. About the way one can choose to live their life by nature or by grace. Whilst this does feature Brad Pitt and dinosaurs, it ain’t a popcorn film. But I urge you to see it with an open mind and let the images wash over you. Then go back and see it a second time like I intend to.

• Oranges and Sunshine (2010), Jim Loach – This is a crushing film about family. A portrayal of yet another example of the Aus and British governments colluding in the heinous betrayal of children. Also yet another example of the depth of talent in Aussie acting. The smallest supporting roles are brilliantly, and emotively shown. But it is Weaving who ‘stars’ delivering a powerful turn that I’d be willing to bet will be as good as any this year.

 Not Worth Watching:

• The Hearts of Age (1934), Orson Welles & William Vance – Orson Welles’ first film is the first of his I haven’t loved. In fact I was bored by it. This out there piece prominently features a tolling bell, and hideous demons. To me, this does not show any of the characteristics that would make Welles the greatest director in history. Maybe I just don’t get it. Take a look and let me know if I’m being harsh:

• Number, Please (1920), Hal Roach & Fred C. Newmeyer – This stars Harold Lloyd who is considered the third pillar of silent comedy along with Keaton & Chaplin. This is a beautifully shot, traditional love triangle. But a lot of it is similar to the aforementioned two comedians, only they do it better. Also, Lloyd’s everyman character lacks any distinctiveness. Pace too slow to generate laughs.

• Jennifer’s Body (2009), Karyn Kusama – “Is that the stupid Megan Fox lesbian movie” my girlfriend accused when I bought this home. “But, but…” I spluttered “It’s written by the same person who wrote Juno” was my defence. Script starts really well, quite funny, but then the horror shift kicks in, and Megan Fox’s sheer lack of acting ability take over. Forgoes any semblance of classical vampire mythology for overt sexuality – a vampire who needs to get her tits out before attacking. Only a very small target audience, easily titillated 14 year old boys, will come out of this one satisfied.

• The Hangover Part II (2011), Todd Phillips – I enjoyed this more than the first one (but I really didn’t like that). But it takes Hollywood unoriginality to absurd new heights. It’s literally the exact same script as the first one. So unoriginal, yep there’s a ladyboy joke. And am I the only one who finds Zach Galifinakis’ character incredibly annoying rather than hilarious?

• Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen (2009), Michael Bay – The critical community, and my girlfriend, all agreed this film was a heinous crime against cinema. They were all right. A woeful script is brought to life by woeful performances. The most mind-numbingly dumb film I’ve ever seen (transformers humping legs, transformer testicles???). Racist & sexist to boot. This is a movie so bad, Megan Fox’s performance isn’t even close to the worst thing in it.

• Bridesmaids (2011), Paul Feig – Sold as a female The Hangover, this starts pretty lacklustre. And while it improves in patches, it still feels like a film which consists of jokes rejected from Will Ferrell and better Judd Apatow films. Good performances from Melissa McCarthy and Chris O’Dowd can’t save this one.

If you only have time to watch one Tree of Life

Avoid at all costs Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

Stanley Kubrick is one of the most heralded directors in history, and he made two classic war, or more accurately anti-war films. Interestingly, they focused on two of the major conflicts of the 20th century, but ones separated by approximately 50 years – World War I and the Vietnam War.

Both of these films feature stark, two act narratives. The first, Paths of Glory (1957), opens on the battlefields of France in 1926, before switching into courtroom drama mode in the second half. The narrative concerns a platoon led by Colonel Dax being ordered into a suicidal mission by his superiors. These superiors are motivated not by the prospects of the battle being a success, or its effect on the overall war effort, but rather on the fame that victory will bring them. Despite knowing the chances of victory are pretty much zero and the pleadings of Dax, the men are sent into battle and basically annihilated. The scenes of trench warfare here are brilliant. Kubrick takes a side-on view of the men as they run through the mud, barbed wire, shit and dead bodies of no-man’s land in a spectacular tracking shot, as good as anything of Kubrick’s I have seen. The fact that the film is black and white enhances the atmosphere of these sequences greatly, rather than inhibiting them in any way. But these shots, and indeed the narrative are subservient to the message. The disconnect between the men on the frontline, and the commanders sitting far away in a castle is a reoccurring theme throughout the film, one also explored in Peter Weir’s Gallipoli (1981). These commanders seem content in their professed knowledge that “naturally men will have to be killed” – just as long as it’s not them of course. These are all pertinent questions as well. Who decides when it is ok for a young man or woman’s life to be sacrificed? How can another quantify what risk is worth taking with another’s life? The other major suggestion Kubrick makes through the film’s first half relates to the futility of war. Especially one where as we’re told, victories are measured in hundreds of yards and losses in hundreds of thousands (of troops).

The second part of this film is essentially a courtroom drama. After the disastrous offensive, several of Dax’s men are charged with cowardice by his superiors. In harrowing scenes three men are chosen, essentially at random, to face the charges as representatives of the supposedly inherently cowardly group. The fact that these three men are eventually sentenced to death, is a clear statement on the folly of the death penalty, applicable equally to both military and civilian life. Whilst as a piece of pure filmic enjoyment these scenes (especially early on) definitely lag behind the first half they work as a vehicle to evoke the script’s concerns. Following the three men’s condemning the film again takes another tonal shift, becoming a tense piece with the hour of execution fast approaching. I was genuinely unsure as to whether or not they would be executed. I mean it seemed they would, but this is a Hollywood film so surely the hero Dax would be able to pull it off. The plight of the condemned men, with their horrible emotional rollercoaster is brilliantly conveyed here. The repeated and committed efforts of Dax to alert his commanders to the downright stupidity of the whole situation also enhances hopes that the men will be spared. “There are times when I’m ashamed to be part of the human race, and this is one of them” he pleads whilst denouncing the inhumane and unfair nature of the military court (Guantanamo Bay anyone?). The attitude of the military hierarchy when they state that the executions will be a good “tonic for morale” are a scary premonition to the attitudes depicted in Errol Morris’ much later non-fiction film The Thin Blue Line (1988). I won’t ruin the outcome of all this for you, but I encourage you to check it out. Hopefully you find it as tense and difficult to pick as I did (I’m pretty confident you will).

The narrative is anchored by two pretty exceptional performances. Kirk Douglas – he of the imperious hair – gives a similarly imperious performance in this film. His moral guardian character is a man forced to, and happy to make the tough calls. When he slips into lawyer mode in the film’s second half, he fights just as doggedly as his character does on the battlefield. The early portraits painted of the men in this film are of cowardice and backstabbing. Douglas’ Colonel Dax sweeps this away when he bravely leads his men over the troops on their suicide mission. The character is summed up best by one of his slimy superiors who toward the end of the film labels him an “idealist” like it’s the worse possible insult and states that he “pities” him. The other standout performance is Ralph Meeker in the stoic supporting role of Corporal Paris. Actually if anything he probably outdoes Douglas, tactfully but emotionally presenting the rollercoaster emotions of a condemned man. The scene where he breaks down in front of a former commander, overwhelmed with pain with the lot he has drawn is extremely affecting, as is his former colleague’s response. Meeker is able to realistically convey his character’s equal measures of nobility and vulnerability in an exceptional acting display

Some criticism has been made of the film’s ending. But I think it works exceptionally well, and rather than a sense of sentimentality detractors claim is there, I think it leaves the viewer with food for thought. The scene shows Dax’s platoon boozing in a bar. A scared German girl is paraded on stage, at which point the drunk men scream horrible abuses at her. She is then forced against her will to sing a song. When her song kicks in, the men stop their abuses and begin to hum and sing along. Finally the film cuts to an outside shot which shows Dax watching on, and being informed that his 701st contingent has been ordered back to the front immediately, at which point he asks to give the men a few more minutes of peace. This sequence raises a multitude of issues for me. Firstly the way the innocent woman is abused by the men looking to let off some steam. How are soldiers to use their spare time in war? Because they are fighting for a just cause (lets assume they are), is that a licence to booze and shag as they please? How are we to treat innocent parties caught up in the war, the wives and children of the evil forces we are battling?

Also I don’t think the soldiers humming along is sentimental, I think it represents the one moment of peace they experience throughout the whole film. This was one of many points throughout the film that I thought of the Australian men my age and even younger fighting wars abroad as I write. Feelings concerning the validity of these wars are irrelevant in these considerations. The film merely makes me wonder whether or not these men (boys?) ever get their moments of peace. And I wonder how quickly and brutally that moment of peace is snapped away from them – just as it is in the film when the men are ordered back to the frontline, with the film closing to the same marching type music it opened with, symbolising that nothing has really changed for these men. One measure of a great work of art is its timelessness. And 53 years after its release, this film made me more emotional and thoughtful regarding my country’s current war efforts than any film of the last ten years, and a vast majority of newscasts during that time.

This, distinctly anti-war film, raises a number of interesting issues in its running time. It is not merely offering the blanket suggestion that all wars are evil and they should never occur, rather it is a more nuanced wartime universe that prevails. Like all great ‘message’ films it also works fantastically as an enjoyable, engaging piece besides the message.

Verdict: Pint of Kilkenny

Probably the more well known of these two films is Full Metal Jacket (1987). The Vietnam conflict was also a more obvious one in which to ground an anti-war narrative. However despite being a much more confrontational film, the message takes a bit of a back seat in this one.

And confrontational is the key here, if anything the film is too confrontational. The first act follows a group of new soldiers as they undergo their training (indoctrination?). Their hair is shaved brutally and uncaringly whilst their rather over the top (real-life) drill-sergeant delights in calling them maggots and continually reminding them that they are worthless bits of scum. This somewhat caricature of a character provides such quotable nuggets of dialogue as “I will gouge out your eyeballs and skullfuck you”. The character throughout this sequence, except for maybe his very last involvement, is played for strange laughs. The stated goal of this brutal physical and psychological training is to turn these impressionable young men into “weapons” who will be “praying for war”. I watched this, and took my notes long before the ADFA scandal broke, but this is an interesting insight into a military training institution. I hope that things are rather different in our country and in this day and age. And although I doubt threats of skullfucking are made too regularly, it is apparent that there are still issues with the way that young men (and women) are converted into the weapons that war requires.

A very young, puppy-fat clad, Vincent D’Onofrio is extremely engaging through these early scenes as the woefully out of his depth Gomer Pyle. Being a physical specimen who is not cut out for the rigours of Army training sees Pyle come in for horrific, confronting treatment at the hands of both the trainers and his peers. His faults see him viciously cut out of the cult-like atmosphere within the training regiment. The last sequences involving Pyle disappointingly see him lose the engaging quality he earlier displayed. Instead he resorts to ‘Jack Nicholson in the Shining-lite’ overacting. And D’Onofrio is not a good enough actor to pull it off. Or perhaps more to the point, this part of the film jars badly with what has preceded it. This is meant to be a war message film, not a horror one and what should be the film’s emotional tipping point instead sees it lose its way. That said this scene, huge spoiler alert is shot with some real Kubrickian style. The killing of the major by Pyle comes in slow-mo with blood splattering toward the camera. Pyle’s suicide that immediately follows is graphic, with blood and brain matter splattering over the toilet. Perhaps a suggestion that it is another young life simply flushed down the loo for no good reason?

Halfway through the film, action shifts to Vietnam, a place populated by American soldiers and “these people” as the Vietnamese are disparagingly referred to. Narratively the film loses its way during this second, battlefield half. This is intentional on Kubrick’s part, perhaps a comment on the perceived futility of the Vietnam War, a sense of going round and round and never making any coherent progress. But there are other ways to convey this rather then making this half of the film have essentially no coherent narrative thread. It starts off well, taking an interesting approach to telling this kind of story. Joker, one of the marines seen in the early training scenes is now working as a military journalist in Vietnam. Here he is permitted to tell two kinds of stories. Ones that wins hearts and minds, or ones about the Americans winning the war. There are some pertinent statements here on the manner in which bureaucracy runs propaganda campaigns.

The switch for Joker to the battleground comes in an expertly shot and disturbing helicopter sequence. The stark imagery of the Vietnamese countryside being crossed by behemoth American choppers is contrasted with the horrific actions of an American soldier who shoots fleeing peasants from above as they desperately run for safety. The film’s inherent quotability continues through the second part of the film, mainly to highlight the utter disrespect and arrogance on the part of the Americans. “Inside every Gook is an American.” There are also horrific images that for me were way too pertinent. American soldiers comically posing with corpses of Vietnamese killed in battle. Similar images have recently surfaced from America’s conflict in Afghanistan with quotes from the soldiers involved dismissing the Afghani people as mere savages. Shamefully, it appears some things have still not changed. Throughout this part of the film, Kubrick repeatedly uses the technique of having the soldiers talk directly to the camera, making it feel as though they are talking directly to the viewer. This is especially affecting and successful when Kubrick establishes the camera they are talking directly to, as the point of view of two soldiers who have just been gunned down. Making what is said all the more eerie and arresting. Unfortunately Joker suddenly seems to stop being a journalist meaning that interesting journo-centric dynamic is lost. Rather it’s just one meaningless battle out of context after another.

The closing couple of scenes however are among the film’s most brilliant and affecting. A Vietnamese female sniper begs to be shot, and Joker grapples with the conundrum of whether he should grant her wish or not. Then the soldiers march away singing the Mickey Mouse troop song. Who’s the leader of the troop? Mickey Mouse.

Verdict: Stubby of Reschs

Progress: 34/1001

Worth Watching:

• Babies (2010), Thomas Balmes – Babies do funny shit all the time, and there is plenty of that here. But Balmes also taps into more than that, simply juxtaposing the first months of four kids from all over the world. This is boldly done without a voiceover which succeeds in letting the images highlight differences around the world themselves.

• The Tramp (1915), Charlie Chaplin – A fast paced Chaplin short that sees the Little Tramp in heroic mode. Real, classical slapstick but featuring some really action packed (and humorous) set pieces. This is a classic early work from probably the most famous of the silent comedians.

• Excellent Cadavers (1976), Francesco Rosi – Much of this Italian film is pedestrian police procedural fare. But the film’s ability to convey the very tense, violent atmosphere that reigned in Italy at that time makes it worth a look. Take the time to briefly Wikipedia what was happening in 70s Italy first though, and it will definitely enhance your viewing enjoyment.

• Mediterraneo (1991), Gabriele Salvatores – Hilarious Italian comedy featuring a ragtag bunch of soldiers marooned on an island during WWII. A film that touches on history, poetry and art; but with broad humour that will make almost everyone laugh. A war film where the soldiers sit out the war, and their mission involves smoking weed and making love to whores.

• Mephisto (1981), Istvan Szabo – Klaus Maria Brandauer delivers a performance as good as any you are likely to see. The film chronicles his character as he struggles to balance his lust for fame with his disgust of Nazi ideology. A slight narrative of one man’s journey with a powerhouse performance driving it.

• Thor (2011), Kenneth Branagh– The Shakespearean’s take on a comic-book film was either going to be something pretty out there and special, or spectacularly bad. Whilst not overly special it is definitely interesting. This visually arresting film is better when earthbound rather than when trading in confusing pop-mythology. Well served by a fantastic cast, including Summer Bay’s own Chris Hemsworth (who is actually pretty good).

• The Last Man on Earth (1964), Ubaldo Ragana & Sidney Salkow – This is based on the classic sci-fi/horror novel I Am Legend. Best when focusing on Vincent Price’s almost silent performance rather than the long stretches of abysmal flashbacks which dominate the middle third. Voiceover not great but given the accurate title, it’s hard to drive the narrative otherwise. Elicits much emotion, but strangely not much tension. A fine ending, better than the book’s, gets this over the line.

• Che: Part One – The Argentine (2008), Steven Soderbergh – Amazing that the same director behind the Oceans films delivers this epic. Benicio Del Toro delivers a towering performance. The back and forth structure works nicely to illuminate the rebel fighter and politician aspects of Guevara’s life. Ambition such as this two-parter should be encouraged.

• Herakles (1962), Werner Herzog – Crazyarse Werner’s first ever film is a weird gem rocking some Eisentein-esque editing. Splices together some cool bodybuilding footage to a jazzy soundtrack with occasionally quite confronting doco footage infused with Greek mythology. Hard to explain, so I suggest you watch it here (couldn’t find one with subtitles, but this one has the necessary info in the first comment under the video).

• Barney’s Version (2010), Richard J. Lewis – For the most part this is a really enjoyable tale of one man’s life, a life both fucked up and immediately relatable to all of ours. That man is played by the always excellent Paul Giamatti, ably supported by Dustin Hoffman who is having great fun here. The final third is something else entirely, delivering the most emotionally affecting film experience I’ve had in a very long time. Sobering, uplifting and unmissable.

• Machete (2010), Robert Rodriguez – One of the most ultra-violent mainstream films of recent years, including an insane bit with a human intestine. This sees Rodriguez at the very top of his game and it feels like he has been building towards this exploitation flick for some time. Michelle Rodriguez is excellent, Steven Seagal clearly revels in hamming it up while Robert De Niro is great in a small role. And of course no one but the weathered face of Danny Trejo could bring Machete to life.

• The Stolen Children (1992), Gianni Amelio – Child abuse themes make this heavy going, and this is enhanced by the incredible performance by the young female lead. Whilst the narrative is predictable, it is delivered so powerfully that this is a must-see.

• The Pink Panther (1963), Blake Edwards – This humours high farce starts off with an extremely amusing animated credits sequence. The plot toys with crime film conventions expertly and the slapstick, when it works, works very well. An action packed comedy with a cracking Harry Mancini soundtrack, this is always better when Sellers is onscreen.

• The Cook (1918), Roscoe Arbuckle – Arbuckle is an incredibly gifted physical comedian, and at times this is as much sporting performance as it is film. He and Keaton make a fantastic comedy double act. This is one of my favourite silent comedy shorts that I’ve seen, featuring a couple of classic scenes, including the hilarious spaghetti eating one.

• Dogville (2003), Lars von Trier – The Danish auteur is controversial for both his provocative films and statements (see the Nazi scandal that erupted at this years Cannes festival). This is a bold film, featuring a single set that is essentially a theatre stage and it won’t be to everyone’s tastes. This is a formidable performance piece that features Nicole Kidman as a defenceless woman taken advantage of in the worst possible way and builds to an incredible ending. A fable of the exploitation that made America ‘great’.

Not Worth Watching:

• Fast Food Nation (2006), Richard Linklater – As a fan of the book I really wanted to like this (it’s a bold choice to attempt to adapt the book into a fictional film). Starts well, nailing the banal corporate bullshit that dominates the industry. But then is undone by an overly ambitious narrative structure, and dialogue that sounds as if it has been lifted straight from its non-fiction source. In the end it’s all a bit obvious and slipshod, with really good work by Kinnear undermined by some of the acting in smaller roles.

• Source Code (2011), Duncan Jones- The ‘Groundhog Day’ structure is always a risk because it can result in repetitive tedium. Performances are mixed. Jake Gyllenhal & Michelle Monaghan are very good whilst Jeffrey Wright and Vera Famiga really let the team down. The intrigue the film aims for is just not intriguing enough, and the twists delivered at the end verge into the incomprehensible.

• Precautions Against Fanatics (1969), Werner Herzog – This mockumentary short is supposedly an “Elaborate on-camera practical joke.” I don’t get it. Weird, bad, inexplicable.

If you only have time to watch one Barney’s Version

Avoid at all costs Fast Food Nation

In football the El Clasico occurs when Spain’s two biggest and most successful clubs, Real Madrid and Barcelona, battle it out. Generally this will occur twice a season, home and away league matches. Over the last few weeks though, football fans have been treated to a veritable spate of Clasicos, with the clubs meeting four times, in three different competitions between 16 April 2011 and 4 May 2011. I was keen to check out all four of these games, and thought I would write this piece to chronicle my rambling thoughts throughout (it gets progressively more longwinded, as I only decided to write it during the 3rd game).

First up a disclaimer. I’m a run of the mill, SBS raised Barcelona apologist. I think they play the beautiful game, in a beautiful manner. I am not a fan of Real Madrid generally. And especially not this Real Madrid. Jose Mourinho is without question the best manager and best tactician in world football. But I don’t think this is a good thing for the world game. His game is based on defence and counter attack. Clogging up the midfield with holding midfielders has unfortunately become the norm. Then you have Cristiano Ronaldo. Possibly the only person more smug and a bigger poser in world football than Mourinho himself. Just look at the way he stands and does a ‘hero’ pose before every free kick. So from that base, here is my attempt at a balanced view of the four recent El Clasicos we have just been treated to.

Before getting into these games, here is a seriously inspired and beautiful look at what happened last time. Well worth taking the couple of minutes to check out:

This first of the games reminded me of Spain’s opening game of the 2010 World Cup against Switzerland. Spain dominated the play, passed the ball around beautifully and it was surely only a matter of time til they pulled the trigger and won comfortably. But Spain forgot that to win you actually have to kick the ball in the back of the net. And that is what Barcelona did here. They dominated the game. But didn’t pull the trigger. They went ahead from the penalty spot in the second half, but then allowed a 10-man Madrid to level it up from the spot also. Madrid almost stole the victory in the last 10 minutes when they came over the top of Guardiola’s men. The way in which Mourinho set up his team when needing a win, in the league and at home was mind-boggling. And a strange tactical error from the one who considers himself the “special one”. For some reason Mourinho’s men looked a whole lot better once they went behind, mainly because they started to actually play some football. Throughout the match Madrid were able to frustrate Barcelona off their usual game. In fact this is true of all of these games. Put simply Barcelona at times got caught up in Madrid’s garbage. The treatment of the referee by both teams in all four of these games was nothing short of disgraceful and it started right here. Even the littlest foul had scores of players from both teams running to the referee in order to provide their considered opinion on what had just transpired. This consisted of half the dudes telling the referee that it was the worst tackle in the history of world football and should be a red card, and the other half telling the referee it was the worst dive in the history of world football and should be a red card. This wasn’t the best of these four games but did set the tone for all of them.

Next up was the Copa Del Ray final. I love a good cup final. Some of my earliest footballing memories were my parents letting me stay up late and watch the FA Cup final on TV. The various cups around the world struggle these days due to the, rightly or wrongly, immense importance placed on other competitions. The Copa Del Ray final was an extremely good game. No one would argue against the statement that Barca had dominated the first meeting, and it was assumed that they would do the same again. Madrid would come out, set up defensive and it would be déjà vu. Nope. Ozil started on the right for Madrid which was a positive sign. But it wasn’t just the fact that this extremely exciting attacking midfielder got a gig. Madrid shocked and completely rattled Barcelona by pushing up the park, pressuring the ball hard. The Catalan giants usually perfect passing game was far from it. Madrid were totally dominant in this half of football. They made Barcelona, look quite frankly average. The first time I have seen Barca made to look like that, at least in the Guardiola reign. Yes, they have been beaten. But not dominated. Inter beat them in last season’s Champion’s League semi-finals. But it was by sitting back and absorbing pressure, then hitting on the counter. Not playing this kind of wonderful football. Then after half time, Mourinho pulls one of his patented tactical shifts. To by quite honest though this was an inexplicable one. Madrid came out and sat back. They did not attack, they did not pressure the ball. All they did was allow Barcelona play their natural game. Barcelona dominated the second half just as Madrid dominated the first. After a lacklustre first half, Pedro, one of the lesser lights of the Barca team, had a brilliant second half. His incisive runs from the left gave them a directness that is often missing from their game. Even the most ardent of Madrid fans would surely admit that they only won because of their captain Iker Casillas. The keeper pulled off three utterly phenomenal stops to single-handedly keep his team in it. Casillas, from the outside, seems like one of the few beacons of class in the current Madrid setup, and he could hold his head up high. It was more of the same in extra time. Barcelona controlling the game, but with both teams clearly tiring. Finally Madrid managed to execute one of their counters, and Ronaldo won the game with a clinical header after a nice bit of work by Di Maria down the left flank.

For the first time in this series of matchups Madrid now had all the momentum. Not just because of the victory but also due to their dominant first half in the cup final. Next came probably the most controversial of the games. Mourinho at home, again sets up his stall. Three, count em three holding midfielders. Urgh. This highlights an issue in UEFA competitions – the away goals rule. Teams are so petrified of conceding at home that they give up their home advantage and set up ultra-defensive. The notion behind the away goals rule is to preserve home ground equality, by lessening the need for extra time after the second leg, thereby giving the team playing at home second a greater advantage. But I think it actually erodes home ground advantage. The solution? Probably worthy of an article itself. But perhaps if neither team can manage to dominate over 180 minutes, then maybe it should be straight to penalties. Back to this game. I think some of the reaction to this game has been over the top. The first half saw two extremely disappointing pieces of play-acting by Barcelona players. Both Pedro and Sergio Busquets went down clutching at their head, with no and minimal contact to their heads respectively. Simulation is hands down the biggest blight on the game of football. These two examples were bad, but not the worst examples you will see. We saw an example of just how prevalent it is in the game’s second half when big bad Pepe from Real went down writhing in agony from minimal contact from Javier Mascherano. In my opinion, both Barcelona players were fouled. I think much of the issue seems to come from people thinking Barcelona players should be ‘classier’ than that. And there is possibly some merit to that. But I do not think this kind of behaviour is systematic within the club. In my opinion though, judging by these games, what was systematic was Madrid’s constant attempts to kick Barca off the park. Mourinho can bleat all he wants about the unfair red cards, and at times he may have a point (with the cards, not the downright idiotic conspiracy theories). But in this game, every Madrid player was happy to kick a Barca guy just after he had dished off the ball. Barcelona played a lot of possession football in the first half which got the Madrid fans in a tizzy. But it is very hard to play creatively and unlock the defence when the opposition manager plays with three holding midfielders.

Mourinho came out more attacking in the second half. Adebayor came on, and they had the better of the first 15 minutes attacking wise, until their tilt was cruelled by yet another red card. Should it have been a red card? In my opinion no. Pepe got the ball, and didn’t get too much of Alves. There is a but though, and it’s a big one. Anytime you go flying into a tackle, with a high foot, studs up and lunge at another player you risk two things. Extremely serious injury to your opponent, and a red card. You can see Pepe actually kicks out at Alves a little at the end to try and get him, but does not. A harsh red card, but one I do not blame the ref for giving. I also do not think that the referee gave too much thought to Barcelona’s good deed sponsorship of UNICEF before wielding the card. Those kind of tackles are extremely dangerous and should be stamped out of the game. I think it was a foul and a yellow. Mr Messi has rightfully gotten a lot of credit for Barcelona’s late win. The first goal though was brilliantly set up by the substitute Ibrahim Afellay who burned Marcello down the right and delivered a pinpoint ball. An astute substitution by Guardiola to put Afellay on for the tired looking Pedro. Give absolutely all the credit for the second goal to Messi though. Was a special piece of play. Mourinho’s stunned mullet face afterwards was classic. The fact that Barca managed to pull off a victory without Andreas Iniesta, a player absolutely key to their style of play and in my opinion an essential pick in any world XI, was a testament to their competitiveness, and goes some way to nullifying criticism of the team for being content to just pass the ball around and lacking any killer instinct.

As I’ve already mentioned, the fallout from this game was to be quite honest, hysterical. A lot of the criticisms directed at Barcelona’s players were justified. But they also in many cases were made more because it was Barca players rather than balanced comments justified by the actions that took place on the field. Mourinho’s comments after the game were laughable paranoia. The commentators on the coverage I was watching predicted as soon as Pepe was sent, that Mourinho was going to ensure that this issue dominated the post-game analysis. Unfortunately they were right, although I do not think they could’ve guessed the level to which he made that happen. There was also a quite strange backlash against the Barcelona style of play that it appeared had been brewing for some time. There is definitely a certain smugness on the part of some football observers toward how Barcelona play the game. But just because you like it, doesn’t make you an elitist, it just means you like that style of play. If you prefer a quicker, slightly more direct and athletic EPL style of play then that is equally as valid. And when it is played very well, such as Man U did at times against Chelsea over the weekend, then it is just as wonderful to watch as Barca’s possession based passing game. But some of the criticism was just stupid. If I here one more ignorant Brit say that all Barcelona do is pass the ball around, from side to side all game, then I may scream. And after screaming I would show them the two goals they scored in this game, two more direct, stunning goals to completely refute them.

The fourth and final game was perhaps not quite as eagerly expected as the ones that preceded it. Partly due to the fact it appeared in some ways a fait accompli (not something I believed), and also due to Mourinho being suspended from the touchlines. This was not helped either by the sodden pitch that greeted the players at the Camp Nou. Given Madrid needed to score at the very least 2 goals many predicted that Mourinho would set the team out for all out attack. Obviously he was not going to be able to send out the team in the same way as in the preceding game. However I did not buy into the suggestion it would be all out attack. It was important for them not to concede again. If Madrid conceded then they need to score 3 away to progress. On the other hand, if Madrid score early than it would be quite understandable to see Barca get the shakes. The team named was somewhat more attacking. Higuain and Kaka both started (the latter replaced Ozil which sort of cancelled each other out), and a front 4 of sorts was employed. The first quarter of the match was pretty tame, however the influence of the returning Andreas Iniesta was plain to see and he was definitely the pick of the players during the first 45. If Mr Mourinho wants to know why he has so many players sent off only needs to look at Ricardo Carvalho’s first half performance. A bunch of unnecessary fouls which continued unabated after he had picked up a yellow. Messi grew into the game with a couple of good chances late in the half. Madrid had very few chances, and those came early in the when half they pressed well, but they faded out of it quickly. Casillas again saved the day for Madrid, including one cracking save off a Messi shot after the Argentine had been set up by David Villa. Villa was much better in the two Champions League fixtures than the preceding two games. Getting more involved and setting play up, despite clearly not being in the kind of goal-scoring touch that has made him a huge star. When Barcelona amped things up in the last 15 mins of the half, Madrid just could not go with them. Barcelona tore them to shreds, not passing for no reason like some muppets suggest, just holding the ball until the game opens up for the defence splitting pass.

I can understand some frustration by Real during this game. Some calls did not going their way. Not on the big fouls, but some harsh calls on pretty minor challenges from their players. The deadlock was broken by, aside from Messi’s 2nd goal in the preceding game, the standout piece of play over the four games. Iniesta gets the ball on the right hand side of the field and tracks left. He stops, props and delivers one of the best passes you will ever see, 25-odd metres straight to the feet of Pedro who made no mistake. Despite eventually levelling the game, the attacking stars Madrid needed to shine, just never threatened enough. Higuain was very average. Why not Adebayor? He was impressive every time he came on throughout these games (aside from the need to foul like a tool incessantly), but he was left to warm the bench yet again. Perhaps the style of play they intended to play would not have suited him, but that was not apparent to me watching the game. And Kaka was so disappointing. After basically not getting on the field at all over the first three games, I was excited to see him finally get a go. But he was abysmal, nowhere to be seen. It will be interesting to see if Kaka stays at Madrid beyond this season.

Something one of the ESPN commentators said during the third game I thought was quite insightful. As is clear to most, Mourinho tactically sends out this Madrid team the same as he did with Inter last year. But the commentator made the point that for all Madrid’s exceptional players, they don’t have the excellent counter attackers that Inter did. Namely, in my opinion Mourinho was able to harness the talents of Samuel Eto’o and Diego Milito to deadly effect for Inter in this style of game. One only has to look at the bench Madrid carried into most of these games to glance deep into their mentality. Attacking talent the likes of Kaka, Ozil (most of the time), Higuain, Adebayor, and Benzema spent a vast majority of time sitting on the pine. Yet Diarra and the central defender Pepe are sent out constantly as midfielders. I’m not really in a position outwit the best manager in the world when it comes to tactics. But as a casual observer, by far the best and most dangerous that Madrid looked over these games was the first half of the Copa Del Ray. They attacked, they pressed high and they got the ball to an attacking midfielder (Ozil) in space over and over. I would have loved to see how these games panned out if Mourinho had of taken that approach in all the games.

On the whole, these games were probably not the works of footballing ‘art’ that we were all hoping for. But for me, the theatre of them pretty much made up for that. The managers trying to balance the differing expectations in each of the matches. The league match which Madrid definitely needed to win, whilst Barca were probably not as fussed about. The one off cup match for the historic, but admittedly third priority Copa Del Ray. And finally the two leg Champion’s League semi-final which both clubs desperately wanted (and needed to win). All in all, twas great to get the opportunity to watch these two teams