Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 19 February 2013

Many have already compared Beautiful Creatures to the Twilight franchise and it’s not hard to see why. It’s based on a successful four-book series, comes with supernatural themes and features a pair of star crossed lovers still in high school. I was chatting with a cinema manager last week who had sent promotional emails to all those who bought tickets to the midnight screenings of the final Twilight flick. The target audience is obvious.

One key difference is that this film is told from the perspective of the male lead. Ethan Wate (Ehrenreich) comes from the small town of Gatlin, South Carolina and he has one major goal in life – to get the hell out of there. He’s submitted applications for ever college that’s at least 1,000 miles away. Nothing happens in Gatlin and there’s nothing tying him down. His mother recently passed away and he doesn’t have much of a connection with his father.

For the past few months, Ethan has been having trouble sleeping. It’s not because he’s been studying or out partying. Ethan has been having strange dreams about a mysterious young woman dressed in black. Her identity is soon revealed when she turns up in class on the first day of a new school year. Her name is Lena Duchannes (Englert) and she resides in an old, secluded mansion that residents are too fearful to go near.

To cut to the chase, Lena is a “caster”. She and her fellow family members have magical powers. Some use their powers for good. Others use them for evil. It’s not really a choice though. When a female caster celebrates her 16^th birthday, she will look up into the moon (hopefully there are no clouds around) and a higher power will determine whether she belongs on the “light” side or the “dark” side. For Lena, that milestone birthday is only a few weeks away.

The citizens of Gatlin don’t like the fact there are casters living in their town. Lena’s classmates are quick to ridicule her at school. The mother of one of the students (Thompson) is even trying to drum up support to get her expelled. I didn’t really understand this part of their story. When you’re a regular human trying to battle a smart, supernatural being, I don’t know how you expect to gain the upper hand. Will picketing really do anything?

Anyway, the one person who isn’t worried… is Ethan. He’s drawn to Lena and the two quickly fall in love. What’s going to happen though? Can these two be together? How can they fit into society? What will happen on Lena’s 16^th birthday, especially if she is taken over to the dark side?

There’s a solid, interesting story buried in here but I don’t think it’s been particularly well told by writer-director Richard LaGravenese (Freedom Writers). We rush through the background of the characters with the focus more on building the lovey-dovey relationship between Ethan and Lena. This isn’t any surprise given it’s marketed at the young adult crowd… but those looking for more substance will be disappointed.

I was also puzzled by the film’s visual style. I’ve no qualms with the Deep South setting (there are some fun accents too) but the “witchcraft” is illustrated through a mix of bizarre, unconvincing special effects. That’s not to say the film doesn’t have positives. While I wish some of the supporting players had more exposure, I enjoyed the lead performances of newcomers Alden Ehrenreich and Alice Englert. They’re far for engaging and charismatic than Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart from the Twilight stuff (although that’s not too hard to be honest).

It seems this will be the only novel in the Caster Chronicles series to make it to the big screen. It debuted last weekend in the United States with a terribly disappointing take of just $8.9m. It’s a shame because, despite my misgivings, the broad premise is intriguing. I guess if I want to know what happens next, I’ll have to do it the old fashioned way and read the book.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 28 January 2013

Politics is the art of compromise.  In pursuit of a greater good, there are times when you have to lie and there are times when you have to manipulate.  It’s a delicate balancing act and the trick is to not get caught.  You only have to follow the news or social media to see the way a politician is attacked when they break an election promise or become involved in a cover up.

The story in Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln is more than 150 years old but its message is just as relevant in today’s age.  It is set in January 1865 and follows President Lincoln’s attempt to pass the 13^th Amendment to the United States Constitution.  The amendment would fulfil two of Lincoln’s highly sought after goals.  It would abolish slavery and in the process, put an end to the bloody civil war between the north and south, which had now run for close to 4 years.

President Lincoln had already obtained the necessary two-thirds majority in the Senate.  His next, more challenging task was to obtain a two-thirds majority in the House of Representatives.  Given that his Republican party controlled just 56% of the seats, Lincoln knew that he’d have to convince at least 20 Democrats to vote against their own party’s position.

Some of his closest advisors though it to be an impossible task but the softly-spoken Lincoln had a plan.  He knew that some of the Democratic Congressmen has lost in the recent election and they would have to vacate their seats following the upcoming inauguration.  Lincoln wasn’t prepared to bribe these guys… but the promise of a cushy, high-profile job might be just enough to swing their vote.

History tells us that President Lincoln pulled off the improbable and obtained the votes required.  It was one of the most important pieces of legislation in the history of the United States.  I realise this subject matter is a little dry and like Zero Dark Thirty, we know how the story ends, but this is still interesting to watch.  It highlights that the tactics of politicians today really aren’t that different from those of yesteryear.

Much has been said about the terrific performance of Daniel Day-Lewis (My Left Foot, There Will Be Blood) and he’s on the verge of becoming the first man in history to win three Oscars for best actor.  His portrayal of President Lincoln is based on fact but still may surprise some.  He wasn’t a confident orator and he didn’t have a loud, authoritative voice.  You could even say he was a shy man.

The remaining cast is a who’s who of Hollywood and includes everyone from 31-year-old Joseph Gordon Levitt (The Dark Knight Rises) to 87-year-old Hal Holbrook (Into The Wild).  You’ll probably get a laugh out of their hair styles – both on top of their head and below their chin.  The standout amongst the supporting players is Tommy Lee Jones as a Republican congressman with very strong views.  The moral dilemmas asked of his character make him just as intriguing, if not more so, than President Lincoln.

The production values are superb and the film has been recognised with 12 Academy Award nominations – more than any other film this year.  It’s also reeled in $167m so far at the U.S. box-office which is pretty damn impressive given it’s a political, period-piece drama.  A few plot developments seem forced (such as an early scene where Lincoln talks to a husband and wife about a toll booth) but for the most part, this is a solid, nicely-paced film from Spielberg and screenwriter Tony Kushner (Angels In America).

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 13 February 2013

Nicholas Sparks has written 17 books of which 8 have now been adapted into a feature film. That’s not a bad strike rate. It pushes him past JK Rowling (with her 7 Harry Potter novels) with the added advantage that all of his stories are original and not part of a long running series.

I use the term “original” rather loosely. One could argue that many of Sparks’ cinematic adaptations cover familiar territory. In The Lucky One, released in April last year and starring Zac Efron and Taylor Schilling, we followed a troubled young man who fell in love with a woman taunted an obsessive ex-husband.

In Safe Haven, we’re following a grieving young man who has fallen in love with a woman who has fled from her abusive husband. The guy’s name is Alex (Duhamel) and he’s struggling to raise two kids after his wife passed away due to cancer. The girl’s name is Katie (Hough) and she’s on the run from the authorities after stabbing her husband with a knife.

A connection between the two leading characters is essential in any romantic drama and I like the pairing of Julianne Hough (Rock Of Ages) and Josh Duhamel (Transformers). The dialogue they share is a little clunky but it’s hard not to feel sympathy for both characters given their recent run of bad fortune.

Unfortunately, the film suffers with a distracting, not-so-believable subplot involving a cyborg-like police detective (Lyons) who is trying to locate Katie following her husband’s stabbing. We cross back to this side story every few minutes in an obvious attempt to add a little intrigue to the main show.

The real problem though… is the ending. The laughs during the preview screening and the post-film discussions with friends in foyer confirmed I was not alone with my thinking. I’d love to explain my thoughts in this review but I’m burdened with the mantra that I like to keep things “spoiler free”. If you do see the movie though, you’ll know exactly what plot development I’m referring to.

The Valentine’s Day release date is no coincidence and I’m sure the Nicholas Sparks fan base will propel the film to a healthy box-office take. The success of his earlier adaptations has proven there’s an audience for these formulaic romantic genres. I just wish they were more adventurous.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 26 January 2013

Once upon a time, there was a boy called Hansel and a girl called Gretel.  Wandering through the woods, they came across a house made of candy and gingerbread.  What they didn’t know… was that house belonged to an evil witch who liked to cook and eat small children.  Hansel and Gretel had the last laugh though.  They shoved the witch into the oven and she burned to death.

The entirety of this German fairy tale is covered before the opening credits even begin in Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters.  It sets the stage from which writer-director Tommy Wirkola has tried to create an 80 minute epilogue to this famous story.

It turns out that Hansel and Gretel weren’t satisfied with the death of just one witch.  Now that they’ve grown up (and look like Jeremy Renner and Gemma Arterton), they want to rid the whole world of these villainous creatures by “setting their ass on fire”.  Oh, and get paid handsomely in the process.  It’s a creative but still dangerous way to make a living.

For their latest assignment, they’re been brought in by the mayor of a small town who is worried about the number of children who has recently gone missing.  Hansel and Gretel will have to battle more than the witches responsible though.  The local sheriff (Stormare) isn’t happy that this authority is being trumped.  He’d like to continue his evidence free, Crucible-like strategy and pick women at random to burn at the stake.

We’ve seen a few attempts over the past year to revive a simple fairy tale and transform it into a big screen action-adventure.  I preferred the more intricate story in Snow White & The Huntsman over Mirror Mirror but both films showed that such an adaptation can appeal to audiences.  A sequel is planned for Huntsman given its success at the international box-office.

There’ll be no such sequel to Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters.  This movie is terrible.  There’s graphic violence, coarse language and even a splash of nudity.  It’s all been included to help sell this film to the young adult crowd.  If you like the thought of a giant troll stamping on a man’s face and squashing it into a million gooey pieces, make sure you buy a ticket to opening weekend.

I’ve got no issue with the inclusion of violence, language and breasts… but the film’s problem is that this all seems more important that actually telling a story.  The forgettable premise revolves around some ancient legend that will allow the witches to become immune to the effects of fire.  Famke Janssen plays the “lead” witch but she’s not particularly scary or threatening.

There’s also a lack of witty banter between the characters.  If you’re going to create such a silly story, why not make it funny?  For the record, the dropping of an unexpected f-bomb does not count as humour.  Don’t expect any romance either.  They’ve cast Jeremy Renner and Gemma Arterton (both easy on the eye) but keep in mind that their characters are brother and sister.  Part of me thinks they'd have been better casting Jason Statham and Milla Jovovich given the film's theme of action first, plot second.

It’s certainly not for kids… and I’ve got doubts about whether Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters is fit for anyone else.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 03 February 2013

West Of Memphis is the first documentary to be released in Brisbane cinemas in 2013 and it’s a damn good one. Those who have seen any of the films in the Paradise Lost trilogy will already be familiar with the subject matter. For everyone else… get ready to have your eyes opened.

On 5 May 1993, three 8-year-old boys were murdered in West Memphis, Arkansas. They went missing after school and their bodies were subsequently found in a shallow creek. A month later, three young men were arrested for the crime – 18-year-old Damien Echols, 17-year-old Jessie Misskelley, and 16-year-old Jason Baldwin. They became known as the West Memphis Three.

As you’d expect, this was a high profile case. The fact that police believed the murders to be part of a Satanic ritual, based on wounds found on the bodies, only heightened the public’s interest. Despite pleading otherwise, all three men were found guilty of the crime. Misskelly and Baldwin were sentenced to life in prison. Echols was sentenced to death by lethal injection.

Two years later, an Emmy Award winning documentary entitled Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills raised concerns about the way in which the case had been handled by the police. Evidence had been mishandled, confessions had been coerced, and leads had not been fully investigated. Could it be possible that these three men were innocent?

West Of Memphis runs for just under two a half hours, lengthy for a big screen documentary, but there’s a good reason for that – there’s so much material to cover! The film chronicles the crime and then follows the pursuit of these three men to clear their name. They had help from some powerful people, moved by the original documentary, but you’ll be left shaking your head at the rigidity of the Arkansas legal system and the inability of the authorities to admit they made mistakes.

Academy Award winning director Peter Jackson (The Lord Of The Rings) and his wife, Fran Walsh, have long shown an interest in the West Memphis Three. They paid for their own private investigators to re-examine existing evidence and perform additional forensic testing. They were also responsible for putting up the money for this film. This is a story they want heard by as many people as possible.

Impressed by her work on the 2006 documentary Deliver Us From Evil, an alarming look at child abuse within the Catholic Church, Jackson brought in Amy J. Berg to direct to West Of Memphis. I remember being blown away by the revelations in Deliver Us From Evil and I’ve never been able to shake its disturbing content. You can expect a similar reaction here. West Of Memphis isn’t afraid to show us the graphic nature of the crime and more importantly, it isn’t afraid to point fingers at those whose actions deserve to be questioned.

It’s kind of funny that that we have a genre of film known as “horror” that is supposed to provide frights and scares. Seldom does it do so. Films in the Saw and Paranormal Activity franchises rely on the same tricks again and again. We all know it’s not real. If you want to a truly horrifying film-going experience, check out West Of Memphis. It will leave you stunned.