Dean Spanley will make the producers of Botox an absolute fortune; those who see it will have a crinkled brow throughout while trying to understand what the hell it is actually about…

An excellent form of compensation for newly-acquired wrinkles is watching the magic between the stellar cast. Sam Neill, Peter O’Toole, Jeremy Northam and Bryan Brown click together in a wonderful meshing of masterful acting and gleeful nuances.

A co-production between New Zealand and the UK, fledgling director Toa Fraser has bravely taken on an adaptation of the 1936 classic book “My Talks with Dean Spanley” by Lord Dunsany. This ambitious film kneads together the fantastical and ye olde English society.

Set in 1904 England, the story centres on the gradual interlocking of past and present lives shared by the four leads. O’Toole plays Fisk Snr, a cantankerous and selfish old man and Northam plays his son, Fisk Jnr, who visits him every Thursday. On one particular visit, father and son attend a talk given by a visiting swami on the ‘transmigration of souls’, or reincarnation.

Fisk Jnr is fascinated to see an Anglican church Dean (Sam Neill) in attendance and asks him to dinner in order to discover why. The Dean is only enticed by the promise that his favourite tipple, Imperial Tokay, a very rare wine produced by the Hungarian royal family, will be provided for his consumption.

Enter Bryan Brown’s character, Wrather, a courier of sorts who somehow manages to acquire the liquor on more than one occasion.

Over the ensuing dinners, Spanley’s past life is slowly revealed under the spell of his favourite elixir. An incredible connection is discovered that brings around a great emotional catharsis to all involved.

Bryan Brown’s over-the-top Aussie accent shatters the reserved manner of the other characters and the wicked gleam in his eyes is enhanced with every close up.

Sam Neill is his usual calm self, letting loose only when he escapes to his Tokay-inspired reveries.

Peter O’Toole is one of those rare actors who can spellbind you with his eyes, no matter how rheumy. The confidence and ease with which he embraces his character is a sounding board for the other three thespians.

So, if you want to see the magnificent Peter O’Toole parry with Northam, Brown and Neill, prepare to be rather bemused but quite contented with the ending. 

Sanne` Mestrom Things Fall Down, Sometimes We Look up

Brown Council Runaway

Chalkhorse

94 Cooper St, Surry Hills, NSW, Australia

5-21 February 2009

On at Chalkhorse this month is, what at first glance appear to be, two extremely dissimilar bodies of work. Brown Council’s Video installation Runaway, 2008, a videoed performance of women, running, but not getting anywhere, is reminiscent of a familiar dream sequence.

Sanne Mestrom’s exhibition Things Fall Down Then We Look Up, is a room full of seemingly unrelated, randomly placed objects and wall text. While Brown Council’s Runaway is hauntingly familiar, Mestroms’s work imbues a sense of enstrangement.

Brown Council, a video/performance art collaboration, formed in 2005 by Kate Blackmore, Fran Barrett, Kelly Doley and Diana Smith, is known for appropriating images, actions and sounds from film, art history and theatre.

In Runaway, the four members of Brown Council, each perform the same image of a running figure in a repeated sequence, which builds over time, set to a dramatic soundtrack and backlit -  there is a sense of action and suspense.  

The inclusion of drawn fake boobs on the performers t-shirts, who are running but not getting anywhere, while being squirted with fake blood, is a parody of the familiar film narrative, a female in jeopardy.

The most powerful element in Runaway, and what subverts the known language of film, is the adjustment of the camera angle and therefore the repositioning of the viewer. The camera faces the women straight on, no longer is the story told from the position of the protagonist or chaser, who often represents the male gaze. The viewer instead is placed in the position of the destination that the women desire, but are doomed never to arrive.

In Runaway, Brown Council enters into the well-worn but sadly still relevant discourse of feminist film theory. The device of shifting the position of the viewer unexpectedly creates a link between Brown Council’s video installation and the work by Sanne` Mestrom who also repositions the viewer in relation to perception.

Sanne` Mestrom’s multi-disciplinary practice involves photography, painting, sculpture and installation. Things Fall Down, Sometimes We Look up, uses all of these artistic devices to question perception and to evoke a sense of uncertainty or enstrangement in the viewer.

Enstrangement is when we are familiar with something, we no longer really ‘see’ it, instead we ‘recognise’ rather than actually seeing. The theory is that the purpose of art is to enstrange, making us see things in a new way and to prolong the act of looking / perception.

What at first seems to be a simple collection of everyday objects, such as a brick or piece of framed plywood, on closer inspection evolves. With the help of the room sheet, these objects are revealed as a bronze sculpture of a brick and a very convincing watercolour of a piece of plywood.

Intriguing, is that the viewer is lured into looking in the first place at works that seem deceptively simple. Sadly it is the quality of the artist’s skill of replication that could easily lead the viewer to miss the point of this exhibition.

Things Fall Down, Sometimes We Look up, questions the act of looking itself… all is not what is seems, and engagement with these works directs the viewer to question themselves in relation to the work and the world.

Now don’t get me wrong dear readers… j’adore fashion! I live it, breathe it, read it, watch it, buy way too much of it and evidently write about my beloved la mode. 

But to me fashion should be an individual expression. Sure, stylistas, ain’t nothing wrong with becoming inspired; recreating, reinventing and revisiting fashion is after all cyclical. However, I believe you should be able to take a look and make it your own. Fashion speaks volumes so it pays to have something unique to say!

The most recent 09 Spring/Summer Ready to Wear collections in NY showed off some ineffable style. Stunning offerings from the likes of BCBG Max Azria, Erin Fetherston and Mick Jaggers girl L’wren Scotts collection were to quote Rachel Zoe…D.I.E!! But it’s when we mere fashion mortals take it from the runway to the real way that things can go, oh so wrong!

Faux Pas numero uno…the Gladiator sandal.

If I see one more pair of these fucking shoes my head will literally fall off. I swear to god I feel like I am constantly on the set of Ben Hur. Instead of being surrounded by strapping Charlton Hestons and sexy Roman Goddesses in elegant toga wraps… I am tortured by many short, scantily clad wanna-be Gladiator Girls sporting the look!  Clearly its time to buy a mirror and know your fashion limits. Granted these shoes are cool, for now, but they only look decent on the long legged models of our species – sorry!  We can blame Miss Moss for this one. Just because she can rock the look doesn’t mean every tina, dale and haute couture loving harriette should follow suit. Step away from the sandal sister!

Faux Pas numero duo…Shit catchers.

Whatever happened to the classic pant? Where is the sharp tailoring of a slim line, cigarette cut or the ridiculously chic, flared, high waister à la Brigitte Bardot circa 1970s?  Coco and YSL are not just rolling over in their grave, they’re overlocking! Modern stylists have added the longest crotch possible making a wearer look like they have shat themselves. The baggy effluent of fabric that trails behind a wearer seems more apt for nappy wearers than fashion heads. Furthermore it seems a lot of the time the pants have had a massive argument with the shoes – not sure if even the best divorce lawyer could get them to see eye to eye. It’s a style that’s seems to be spreading like fashion wildfire…every label from Tsubi to Gucci is producing it and it must be stopped. Out vile weed!

Faux pas numero tres…The Boho boo-boo

Boho chic/hippy luxe/glam rock is a killer look and an integral part of my own label. Just because it’s a smoking look doesn’t mean we should slap it on from head to toe. Just like our Aussie icon Vegemite it should be enjoyed sparingly. I went to a Rock Magazine party recently and there was Boho fashion road kill a plenty. 

Vintage rock tee – check.

Black leather leggings – check.

Black gladiator heels – ahhh – check.

Straw trilby hat – check.

Bangle stack-check.

Rings on every finger – check.

Boho boo-boo – check, check check!

Chicks thinking that a complete combination of the above gives them some style cred… get wise. You look like a dress up doll pastiche. Hello Barbie BoHo…

Less sheep, more creativity. 

How and when did you come up with the concept of LAB?

I came up with the concept for LAB about 18 months ago. Living in London you’re surrounded with great street art all the time. I had been buying art for a good few years, particularly limited edition prints. I’d done a little screen printing myself and knew enough to put together a website, so after a few beers and a chat with my good friend Morgan we came up with the idea to produce prints ourselves. Morgan knew this guy called “French Danny”. He’s a 50 something, Gauloise-smoking French guy who’s worked as a fine art screen printer for the best part of 30 years. Between the three of us we had all the ingredients for LAB

Do you get many artists approaching you to be added to your site?

We get about 5 or 6 emails every week from artists looking for information about working with us. We try to write back to the majority of them with encouragement, but sometimes it’s difficult. We regularly get submissions of classically styled oil on canvas artwork - I’m not sure whether these people have actually checked out our website, but regardless it’s really good to see new talent.

How do you choose which artists to show?

We choose artists whose work we like. When I lived in Europe I spent a lot of time photographing street art and anytime I found a piece that really caught my imagination I would try to contact the artist. More often than not it takes me a long time to eventually discover the identity of the artist. A couple of months ago I was chatting to a lady from Madrid at one of our shows and I was telling her about a couple of really cool pieces of street art in Madrid, but I didn’t know the artist’s name, but described the work. She knew exactly who I was talking about and even gave me the email address of the guy. Little by little the pieces of the puzzle come together.

Are you an artist yourself? What is your background?

When I was younger I spent a lot of time painting oil on canvas, but then I discovered girls and cars (and) I stopped. Since then I’ve concentrated on photography and some web design. I struggled for about 6 months to make our website. I’m pretty pleased with the results and we’re always getting compliments from people about our site. I get huge artistic enjoyment from working with our artists.

You’re launching in Australia? When is that going to happen?

The launch in Australia will be in late February. Before moving to Sydney I had been in contact with a good few Australian artists, so we will hopefully launch here with some home grown talent.

Why do you think street art is so popular?

Street art is popular because it catches the mood of the people. There is nothing better than walking around a corner, looking up and seeing a great piece of art on public display. Banksy is the king of this technique and we were lucky enough to live in London for the majority of his rise to fame. Street art is popular because people can relate to it.

Do you think ‘graffiti’ should be banned as it is in most places?

The term graffiti is used a little too loosely. Graffiti is used for everything from train tagging to installations by Os Gemeos. For me, if the motivation for doing the work is creative rather than just destructive, then I’m all for it.

What’s unique about your site? How do you differentiate from other sites that sell similar artwork?

There are a couple of main differences between us and other sites. We don’t just sell artwork, we produce the artwork. Every print that is for sale on our site has been screen printed by us. We work with the artists from conception of the piece through to selecting the paper and finally quality controlling each piece before signing and stamping them.

When I set out to design our site I really wanted to break the mould of all the typical gallery sites. The majority are designed with the objective of being easily updatable rather than creative. The LAB site is definitely about creating something fun for people to browse through rather than looking through an Athena catalogue of 500 pieces of art. It will a long time before the LAB website has a filter by “colour theme” or “art has flowers in the background” option!

This is probably a very daggy question but most of the artists have strange names. Do you have any idea how they come up with them? ‘Superoboturbo’? ‘Oh Death’? Is this normal in this world?

Hmm, good question! You know, I’ve never thought to ask the guys how they came up with their names. I know a couple of them that produce mainly street art are concerned that by using their real names (this) would make them easy targets for the police. One of our artists “The Krah” has a number of identities, email addresses and bank accounts in the Cayman Islands to keep people off the scent. We generally meet in a darkened pub and exchange brief cases with artwork and cash.

What makes a good street artist?

Banksy reckons the holy grail of being a good street artist is taking less time to make the artwork than it takes to look at it. Art that makes me think about my surroundings is good street art. I also really appreciate the effort some artists make in gaining access to the perfect location.

Do you have any Australian artists on your books?

At the moment I’m working with three Australian artists. There is some great talent out there. So watch this space!

NBA Franchise Catch-up

If you’re even a mildly-serious hoops fan, you’d surely agree with me that the golden era of the NBA was the 80s to early 90s. Close your eyes for a moment and it’s easy to drift back to a time when Spud Webb was winning dunk comps, Craig Ehlo was repeatedly made a fool of by a rampant Michael Jordan, and Kurt Rambis was being clotheslined by the ghoulish Kevin McHale 

So if, like me, you’ve let your attention slip in the last few years as the decade-long Carfino/Woods dynasty was usurped by a cashed up Fox Sports, you might be surprised to learn that there are a few new teams out there, some of which have stupid names and others which you’ve never heard of.

Why not begin with the Charlotte Bobcats? You mean Larry Johnson and the Hornets aren’t around anymore? That’s right! But they still exist as the New Orleans Hornets. So the Bobcats moved into Charlotte instead and that city was finally blessed with one of those lame sporting logos with an animal all stretched out so it looks tough/fast. You know the ones.

But back to the Hornets. Can’t New Orleans just call themselves the Jazz like they used to in the 70s? No, because that’s what Utah are now and you don’t want to make The Mailman angry. So what about when Hurricane Katrina hit and New Orleans was all trashed? Oh, they just moved the team to Oklahoma for two years and called them the Oklahoma City Hornets. Pity all the kids who rushed out to get Chris Paul jerseys only to have the team moved back to Louisiana after two seasons.

Well, I guess that’s the end of pro ball in Oklahoma city for a while. Unless … hang on … the Seattle Supersonics owner had a dispute with the city of Seattle and the Sonics now don’t exist? What about Shawn Kemp and Gary Peyton? Irrelevant - they both retired years ago. Ahh. So, what happened to that franchise? Well, it relocated to … Oklahoma City and called itself the Thunder. Why would anyone bother supporting one of these teams? Cause it’s pretty much just a matter of time until some oil billionaire buys you out and you have to move to Calgary to see your team play.

But there’s no need to be cynical, because if there’s one thing you can set your watch by it’s the Vancouver Grizzlies, shoring up the place of basketball in Canada, playing with panache, entertaining crowds of … sorry? Yeah, they don’t exist anymore either. In 2001 their license was just bought by some guy in Memphis (that’s apparently how easy it is) and off they went to another city.

If all that makes your head spin, don’t despair. The history of basketball in the US is littered with examples of teams dying, relocating or changing names. Pittsburgh Ironmen, anyone? Sheboygan Redskins? Fort Wayne Pistons? So put your feet up and embrace the changes. Enjoy watching fine athletes in all their glory, running the court on a fast break and finishing with a menacing dunk.

If only Kevin McHale was there to stop them …

There’s a classic philosophical thought experiment called the ‘brain in a vat’ theory which proposes that you’re really just a brain floating in a tank and are hooked up to a computer which simulates all your experiences. Therefore, it says, there’s no way of knowing conclusively whether you are actually yourself, with a brain inside a skull connected to a body, or whether you’re just a brain in a vat being manipulated by outside forces. From your point of view, the experiences you have could be produced either way.

Throw in a bit of modern technology to this theory and apply it on a massive scale and you get something called the Simulation Argument, first proposed by a philosopher at Oxford University called Nick Bostrom.

In a theory that at first appears either moronic or just way too sci-fi, Bostrom argues that it’s almost a mathematical certainty that we are living in someone else’s computer simulation. He claims that once computing power reaches a certain level (in any civilisation, not just ours), advanced people could run simulations of, for instance, their own evolutionary history which would involve the creation of millions of fully-developed virtual people, as part of which you and I are included.

Bostrom reaches the conclusion that it’s almost certain we’re living in a computer simulation through some old-fashioned probability theory. At least one of these propositions must be true, he says:

1. Almost all civilisations at our level of development become extinct before becoming technologically mature.

2. The fraction of technologically mature civilisations that are interested in creating ancestor simulations is almost zero.

3. You are almost certainly living in a computer simulation.

So, if the first proposition is false, then a large proportion of civilisations become technologically mature at some point. If the second is false then a large proportion of civilisations run “ancestor simulations”. Therefore, if you reach the (presumably likely) conclusion that the first two statements are false then the only position you are left with is to accept the third proposition as true.

As part of this argument, the humans involved in the simulation would have no idea whether or not they’re actually real people or just computer circuitry. This prompts all sorts of questions about how one should behave within a computer simulation - do the designers of the simulation reward certain types of behaviour or not? Is there any meaning to life at all if we have no control over it? Will the designers of the simulation just shut the whole thing down before we get to the point where we can make our own simulations on the same scale? Are they themselves living in a simulation?

Or maybe they just want us to be nice to people and to try to lead interesting lives. That’s not too much to ask, is it?

 …

Hello? Can anyone hear me? 

Hey man, I just … I can’t function in the morning without my morning coffee. I really fuckin love the coffees they make at Single Origin man. Single Origin FTW!! I mean, that guy – he’s so crazy! But I reckon he’s good for business, right? Yeah, LOLz man! I dunno anyway … what? Yeah ahh shit that’s shit’s out of control. Have you heard it? Ahh nah man the other one, from that night with all those dudes hanging around … Yeah at the time dude, you were all like fuckin eyes popping and loving it you couldn’t even fuckin talk! LOLz yeah dood! … So you got the one with the fixed fuckin gears man? Yeah fuck it’s hard to ride brah but it’s fuckin sweet and the babes keep on checking that shit out! I still can’t brake and I ran into a junkie on Crown! LOLz man! NAGL man!! … Hey man you got any more of those. Is that shit from the same guy as last week? Ahh man I don’t know about that shit, hey. It was alright brah, but I dunno if I can pay that shit again. Nah man my olds stopped sending me that money and shit’s getting hard man. LOLz fuck you dood, it ain’t like that! … I can’t even fuckin hear you man. Eh? Aww brah let’s just take this shit outside and do it there. Haha! yeah fuckin bad boy, whatever man! Nah just have it all, it’s better like that. … Dood what’s in that shit? I can’t see properly man. Ahh shit nah it’s making me feel fuckin weird man. What is it? What the fuck’s in that shit? Ahh man I need to get out of here. Man … where are you man? … hey dood you know where I am? I can’t see properly. I dunno. Maybe a hospital man … LO … nah man … it’s weird. Ha … ahh fuck. … can you help me? Nah fuck man. Ahh shit. Nah it’s fucked up. I can’t do this shit anymore … ahh fuck. … are you a nurse? I dunno what it was … yeah all of it … ahh fuck. Help me … can you call my parents? Fuck … nah mum I don’t know man. *sob* I’m sorry … nah I need to keep that place. Just give me some more money or something … fuck I’m sorry. Yeah I promise. All good mum. All good.

Hey man, I just … I can’t function in the morning without my morning coffee. I really fuckin love the coffees they make at Single Origin man …

How many times can I use the term “nu-metal”?

In the way that T-Pain’s forays into autotune spawned a million flagrant abominations involving the software, is Weezy’s “Prom Queen” going to usher in a new era of nu-metal? I certainly hope not, my face has already bore ample expressions of disgust owing to the first wave of nu-metal. NB: Rage Against the Machine are exempt in this context as they were (once) great and not only had the thoroughly sick voice and searing lyrics of Zack de la Rocha going for them, but also the erectionary guitar of Tom Morello and pop-riveted rhythm section of Brad Wilk and Tim Commerford. They are also exempt because they obviously chronologically predate the abortive first wave of nu-metal.

Back to Weezy chanelling Linkin Park… is this an attempt to branch out to the few remaining white middle-class suburban teenagers who aren’t into hip-hop and only like music with guitars? Is this Weezy trying to 180 it like Kanye? Is he midway through a scaled-up version of Joaquin Phoenix’s rap career hoax?

For anyone that doesn’t remember the veritable sardine casserole that was nu-metal, here is the tracklisting for a compilation I bought when I was 15. It was put out by Loud Records and is called “Loud Rocks”. As the genius title alludes to, it’s a bunch of “rock”, nu-metal and “other” bands “teaming up” with Loud artists and “giving them the rock treatment”. I bought it with youthfully high expectations but they were obliterated to death pretty quickly.

01. System of a Down & Wu-Tang Clan “Shame”

02. Sugar Ray & Tha Alkaholiks “Make Room”
03. Static-X & dead prez “Hip Hop”
04. Endo & Xzibit “Los Angeles Times”
05. Everlast & Mobb Deep “Shook Ones Pt II”
06. Tom Morello & Chad Smith & Wu-Tang Clan “Wu-Tang Clan Ain’t Nothing Ta Fuck Wit”
07. Crazy Town & The Alkaholiks “Only When I’m Drunk”

08. Sevendust & Xzibit “What U See Is What U Get”
09. Grunge is Dead & M.O.P “How Bout Some Hardcore”

10. Ozzy Osborne & Tommy Iommi “For Heaven’s Sake 2000”
11. Shootyz Groove & Big Pun “Caribbean Connection”

12. Sick of it All & Mobb Deep “Survival of the Fittest”

13. Incubus & Big Pun “Still not a Player”

Surely none of this needs to be relived. Especially not in the reverse context of hip-hop acts veering towards the tinny/compressed guitar direction (compared to tinny/compressed guitar acts trying to incorporate rap musics into their struggle).

Given the “cooling-off time” of recyclable trends is getting noticeably shorter, the threat of nu-metal sinking it’s teeth back in sometime soon is a legitimate one, especially with the star power of Lil’ Wayne behind it. All that needs to happen is the Neptunes to make a Mudvayne-esque beat for the Clipse, or Kanye to change his emotion from “heartbroken melancholy” to “barely contained anger” and BAM it’s on. “Welcome to Hearbreak” sounded like a Linkin Park track anyway so maybe the wheels are actually already in motion.

There’s also Brokencyde but I don’t know if they’re actually a real thing, so am hesitant to throw them into the socio-analytical breakdown just yet. Can anyone confirm or deny them being an art-school prank a la Test Icicles? Can anyone confirm that Test Icicles were an art-school prank?

The worst part about “Prom Queen” is that it’s nu-metal with autotune. So rather than the devil you know versus the devil you don’t, we are now staring down the barrel of two separate devils, both of whom we are reasonably familiar with by this stage. It’s hard to say if one devil will fade away soon and offer some respite, but we do know that once the think break arrives, the whole thing will have gone full-scale pandemic.  

What is needed is some NME bands to “save rock ‘n’ roll” again. During the mire of Papa Roach and their milieux, NME declared on a week to week basis that The Strokes, the White Stripes, The Vines, Interpol, The Hives, The Datsuns, The Cooper Temple Clause, The Distillers, The Von Bondies and countless others were all saving or about to save rock ‘n’ roll. Kings of Leon were also part of said crusade but I feel that their transcendence to Coldplay-status puts them outside of rock ‘n’ roll saviour contention. Is there any pop-punk charting at the moment?

While I’m here, who is in charge of not letting Lil’ Wayne be photographed holding an Emily the Strange Epiphone SG? Because they’re not really excelling at their job.

a) Epiphone. Surely the dollars on hand would have stretched to Gibson? I bet Lil’ Wayne doesn’t drive a Honda Jazz, so why go with this guitar?

b) Emily the Strange. It’s aimed at teenage girls isn’t it? Or uni student girls in Flaming Lips t-shirts? Or Jamie Lee Curtis in Freaky Friday? [RHETORICAL QUESTIONS]

Why is Lil’ Wayne wielding a piece of low-cost, forgotten alternateen history?

Reunited after 11 years, Kate Winslet and Leonardo DiCaprio remind us why they made history together in Titanic…

Oscar-winning director Sam Mendes’s latest film Revolutionary Road confronts and challenges our preconditioned sensibilities and notions of relationships, social status and personal dreams. It strips your ideals and beliefs to their core and makes you question your life’s direction and the motivation behind your choices.

Set in Connecticut in the 1950s, Winslet and DiCaprio star as April and Frank Wheeler, children of a generation determined to do something ‘special’ with their lives. Seven years after they meet, however, they are married and living in the suburbs with two kids, suffocating in a life they once scoffed at.

Frank works at the same company his father did which makes him hate the job even more. April, still lamenting the demise of her acting career, is both mentally and emotionally sinking in her cookie-cutter role as wife, mother and homemaker.

In a last ditch attempt to shake their lives up, she devises a plan for the family to move to Paris. While he takes some cajoling at first, Frank quickly comes around to the idea and robustly jumps on the bandwagon. It’s full steam ahead for a short while until fear, doubt and mistrust start to wobble the wheels of their Paris cart. With their relationship already on tenterhooks, the steady disintegration of their dreams forces both Frank and April to reconsider their future. 

Based on Richard Yates’s 1961 novel of the same name, Mendes (who won an Oscar for Best Director - American Beauty in 1999) is a master at honing in on the complex trivialities that compress suburban life. Mendes deftly capitalizes on the acting prowess (and the previous celluloid union) of his stars Winslet and DiCaprio. Supported by notables such as Kathy Bates and Michael Shannon (who is magnificent as her psychiatrically-disturbed son, John) this solid cast carries the challenge of elucidating Yates’s vision in sublime style.

Cinematographer Roger Deakins lovingly focuses on the actors’ faces to catch every nuance and reactionary tick. At the top of his game, Deakins has received seven Oscar nominations as Director of Photography including film greats such as The Shawshank Redemption, Fargo, O Brother Where Art Thou and No Country For Old Men.

Partnered with Sam Mendes, Kate Winslet, Leonardo DiCaprio and Kathy Bates, this movie is a powerhouse of elite talent.

Prepare for Revolutionary Road to pave the way at the Oscar nominations on the same day as its Australian release.

Revolutionary Road is released on January 22 2009.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a movie that will warm the cockles of your heart as well as showcase Pitt’s versatility as an actor. Based on a short story of the same name by iconic writer F. Scott Fitzgerald (of The Great Gatsby fame) this elegant film shines through the mediocrity to surprise and entertain. The film’s messages of acceptance, unconditional love and determination are not shoved down our throats but massaged onto our psyche with velvet gloves.

When Pitt’s character is born into a wealthy New Orleans family his baby body has the skin of an old man. His horrified father panics and dumps the ‘baby’ on the doorstep of an old-peoples home. God-loving and kind-hearted Queenie, the proprietor, scoops him up and adopts him as her son, naming him Benjamin. Not given long to live by a doctor, Benjamin defies the odds and keeps growing younger.

Cate Blanchett stars as Daisy who meets Benjamin as a child while visiting her grandmother at the retirement home. Benjamin instantly falls in love with Daisy and watches from afar as she grows into a beautiful woman. There is a celluloid sigh of appreciation when Daisy and Benjamin finally meet in the middle at relatively the same age. After a few years of bliss they can no longer ignore the fact that they are aging in opposite directions.

It is not just the leads who enchant this film. The supporting characters add great depth, humour and grace. Queenie (played by Taraji P. Henson who has been nominated for a Screen Actors Guild Award for her role) the elderly boarders in the retirement home and the tugboat captain (played by Eddie Izard) are especially endearing.

Yes, the film runs for nearly three hours but you are so immersed in Benjamin’s story that the time flitters away. The costumes are lush and the colour, smell and heat of New Orleans radiate from the screen. The makeup, wigs and prosthetics used to transform Pitt through all stages in life is state-of-the-art, as is the cinematic magic used to transplant Pitt’s head onto a stooped and withered body.

Known for films such as Se7en, Fight Club, Alien 3 and Panic Room, director David Fincher’s first foray into a softer kind of movie is a resounding success. He skillfully weaves close ups with sweeping vistas to create a smorgasbord of visual delights. In his third collaboration with Pitt he shows the audience yet another facet of the actor’s prowess.

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button is a genuinely feel-good film that you will walk away from with a wide smile and light heart. You may even dare to brave the three-hour running time once more.