Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 28 May 2012

You can forget the classic literary works of William Shakespare, Charles Dickens and Jane Austen.  They’ve been “done to death” on the big screen.  The time has come for us to take self-help books and bring them to life through the magic of cinema.  Hopefully someone picks up the rights to Internet For Dummies but in the meantime, we’ll have to make do with What To Expect When You’re Expecting.

The film is “based” on the widely read pregnancy guide from Heidi Murkoff, first published back in 1984.  The book has no narrative.  Rather, it contains a series of questions and answers on what a woman can expect while going through each month of the pregnancy.  Don’t ask me how but screenwriters Shauna Cross and Heather Hach have crafted a series of fictional characters from the book’s pages for the purposes of the movie.

Jules (Diaz) is the host of a reality television show who is trying to maintain her work life throughout the pregnancy.  Wendy (Banks) is the owner of a baby store and has a mood swing every hour.  Rosie’s (Kendrick) pregnancy was an accident and she’s not sure what to do about it.  Skyler (Deckler) is happy-go-lucky despite the fact she’s having twins.  Holly (Lopez) is the only woman who isn’t pregnant but that’s because she’s on the verge of adopting a baby from a third world country.

There’s one reason you should see this film and that’s Ms Elizabeth Banks.  She’s as over-the-top as everyone else in this ensemble but she has a fun, endearing personality that won me over.  There’s a great scene late in the film where she tries to explain the “wonders” of pregnancy to a sizeable audience at a baby convention.

As for everyone else, I wasn’t impressed.  It’s like watching a dumber version of Sex & The City (and yes, I am a fan of the TV show, not the movies).  These women have nothing that interesting to offer and their husbands are just as dull.  The most ridiculous characters are a group of men (led by Chris Rock) who walk their babies in the park and are forever complaining.  The highlight of their day is when their bump into their hunky, well-travelled friend and salivate over his bachelor lifestyle.  It’s so silly.

Worst of all, the writers have tried to weave in a few moments of unexpected drama into what is largely a comedy.  It doesn’t work and these particular scenes are far too rushed.  They needed to be developed in much more detail (to give the audience a chance to feel some kind of emotion) or scrapped all together.

We all know that I’m not the target audience for such a film so take my opinion for what it’s worth.  What To Expect When You’re Expecting is pretty much what I expected.  In other words, it’s not good.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 08 May 2012

In the late 18^th Century, the well-groomed Barnabas Collins (Depp) lived a happy life.  He was at the helm of a thriving seafood company, took up residence in a lavish mansion with more than 200 rooms, and was madly in love with a beautiful young woman.

One person was not happy with this scenario.  A vindictive witch by the name of Angelique Bouchard (Green) had tried hard to win Barnabas’s affections without success.  Fuelled by jealousy, she turned him into a vampire and had him locked in an iron coffin buried deep beneath the ground.

We leapfrog to the year 1972 and having spent almost two centuries locked up, Barnabas’s coffin is uncovered by a construction crew.  He’s grateful to his saviours but as you imagine, he’s a little hungry and so drinks every last ounce of blood from their bodies.

Barnabas would like to slide back into his previous lifestyle but it won’t be that easy.  For starters, he has to grabble with all the modern technology.  We’re talking about everything from cars and paved roads to music and record players.  Further, his once profitable seafood enterprise has seen its market share stolen by a new player – Angel Bay Seafood.

Barnabas’s problems don’t end there.  It turns out the witch Angelique is still alive.  She hasn’t aged a day and despite her bitterness, her heart still yearns for Barnabas.  She again tries to seduce him but Barnabas isn’t about to make the same mistakes this time around…

Perhaps my expectations were misaligned but I was disappointed by Dark Shadows.  The lure of director Tim Burton and a half-decent trailer had me thinking this would be a sharp, witty black comedy.  Sadly, that wasn’t the case.  There were only a handful of genuine laughs… and that puts it on a par with Scary Movie 3.

The film gets too bogged down with lengthy dialogue-driven sequences.  Knowing that Burton is sitting in the director’s chair, you keep thinking they’re going to lead up to something clever but that’s rarely the case.  Instead, we're left with dumb jokes highlighted by a scene where Barnabas pulls out the back of the television set and tries to comprehend how there are small people inside.  It was like watching Mel Brooks’ awful 1995 comedy Dracula: Dead And Loving It.

The screenplay doesn’t help his cause but Johnny Depp’s isn’t too bad as Barnabas Collins.  We’ve seen this melancholic persona from him many times before but he still gives his character a little flavour.  It’s a shame the rest of the talented cast are so underutilised.  Michelle Pfeiffer, Jackie Earle Haley, Helena Bonham-Carter and Chloe Grace Moretz are pushed too far into the background and contribute little to the overall story.  Deserving of praise are the gifted set decorators and make up artists who have helped bring this world to life.

I confess to not having seen any of the 1960s television series on which the film is based.  Perhaps it may explain some of the gaps in the story such as how Barnabas developed hypnotic powers and how he can’t see himself in the mirror.  I’m also unclear about the “ghost” in the film and what purpose she serves.  It felt like we were only given part of the story.

I’ve only seen two decent Tim Burton flicks over the past decade (Big Fish, Corpse Bride) and his strike rate has not improved with Dark Shadows.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 20 May 2012

It’s hard to watch this film and NOT think about Robert Pattison as the sparkly vampire from the Twilight franchise.  It’s the role that he will always be most known for.  I’m stating the obvious here… but the tricky part for Pattinson is trying build on that popularity and forging a long-term career as a serious actor.  Can he dispel the naysayers?

Bel Ami is an important diversion for Pattinson as it’s the first time he’s played a not-so-nice character.  The story is set in Paris in the late 19^th Century and when we first meet the young Georges Duroy (Pattinson), he’s just returned from a lengthy stint with the French army in Algeria.  He has no money to his name and is in desperate need of employment.

Despite his current predicaments, Duroy still has lofty ambitions.  He wants to weave his way into high society and become a man of wealth and influence.  After bumping into an old military friend, Duroy is invited to a small dinner party where he receives a piece of advice that will forever shape his life.  The secret to success is not building relationships with successful businessmen.  Rather, Duroy should befriend their wives and mistresses – the people behind the scenes who hold the real “power”.

It’s a mantra by which Duroy subsequently lives his life.  He hones his skills and uses his good looks to seduce a series of married women.  It helps land him a job as a journalist with a leading Parisian newspaper.  They want him to write about his experiences during the war in Algeria to help influence public sentiment and start a backlash against the government.

Duroy is an intriguing individual.  I won’t spoil too much but he is prepared to squash a lot of people in his ascension up the social ladder.  There’s nothing wrong with having a little ambition but can his actions be justified?  Will you think they are acceptable under the rationale that we live in a “dog eat dog” world?  Or will you see him as a borderline-psychopath who shows no consideration to anyone but himself?

It’s an interesting premise but sadly, Bel Ami is a film that underachieves.  I found it a continual struggle to understand the mindset of each character.  The way in which Madeleine Forestier (Thurman) was so easily charmed by Georges was particularly puzzling given her intelligence and some of her comments early on.

Further, the film’s political themes are not explored in enough depth.  There is a move to unseat the government due to their involvement in the war but this element of the story, whilst important, plays second fiddle to Georges Duroy and his womanising.

If we look past the final Twilight film, Robert Pattinson will next be seen in Cosmopolis -  a David Cronenberg thriller about a day in the life of a 28-year-old billionaire asset manager living in New York City.  Now that sounds like a film I’d rather see.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 07 May 2012

Trishna is a rather different adaptation of Thomas Hardy’s famous novel Tess of the d'Urbervilles.  Instead of being set in 19^th century England, writer-director Michael Winterbottom (Welcome To Sarajevo) has shifted the story to 21^st century India.

As our title character, Trishna (Pinto) is a young woman who still lives at home with her parents.  They come from a poor village in Rajasthan with her father working long hours as a delivery driver to help pay the bills and put food on the table.  When her father is badly injured in a car accident, Trishna realises that she must find employment to help her struggling family.

In a chance encounter at a party, she is befriended by a man named Jay (Ahmed).  He is comes from a completely different upbringing – one of wealth and privilege.  Smitten by the beautiful Trishna, Jay uses his influence and gets her a job at a posh hotel that he currently managing for his father.  It’s his not-so-subtle way of getting close to Trishna with the hopes of seducing her.

His plan works perfectly.  The two become quite close and eventually move to Mumbai.  After a nice set up, it is at this point where the film enters its darker, more confusing chapter.  Jay goes through a strange character transformation and becomes very controlling of Trishna.  It leads to a rushed series of events that confuse rather than enlighten. 

There are some beautiful images of India but it’s the muddled storyline that lets the film down.  It’s a gutsy adaptation from Winterbottom but it feels like he’s trying too hard to fit Thomas Hardy’s novel into a modern day setting, particularly in the later stages.  You don’t get a clear sense of each character’s mindset and it lessens the film’s emotional impact.  Some of their actions are downright strange.

I admire Michael Winterbottom as a filmmaker but sadly, Trishna is not one of his works that I’ll be adding to my DVD collection anytime soon.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 14 May 2012

When on Twitter, I’m generally polite and do everything possible to avoid conflict.  For that reason, you’ll never see me talking about politics and religion.  It’s not that I don’t have an opinion.  It’s just that we live in a world of political correctness where things can easily be misinterpreted.  I’d rather have a friendly debate with someone in person than “have it out” while protected by the walls of cyberspace.

Perhaps it’s for this reason that I enjoy the comedic style of Sacha Baron Cohen.  He’s the exact opposite in the sense that he’s doing everything possible to shock and offend.  There’s seemingly no topic too sensitive for him to mock.  He’s thrown the handbook on political correctness out the window and you know what?  It’s refreshing.

He played a dim-witted Kazakhstani journalist in Borat and a gay Austrian fashion designer in Bruno.  This time around, Cohen has moved himself higher up society’s hierarchy and plays an oppressive dictator from the North African country of Wadiya.  His name is Admiral General Aladeen and those found disagreeing with his opinions are likely to find themselves executed.

Aladeen is your stereotypical dictator (if there is such a thing).  He hates the United Nations and has a secret factory that develops nuclear weapons.  He lives in a ridiculously lavish palace adorned with paintings and statues.  He despises women and laughs at their efforts to gain equality.  He has a huge army at his disposal and they’re all prepared to die to protect their revered leader.

Threatened with financial sanctions imposed by the international community, Aladeen goes on the front foot and accepts an offer to speak at the United Nations headquarters in New York City.  What he doesn’t realise is that it’s an elaborate conspiracy concocted by his right-hand man, Tamir (Kingsley), to have him removed from power.  Tamir arranges for Aladeen to be taken captive by an overly patriotic American torture expert (Reilly) and brings in a hapless body douple so that no one is the wiser.

The real Aladeen manages to escape but with his beard now shaven, he is unrecognisable to all who knew him.  He needs to find a way to reclaim his identity, sneak back into the heavily guarded hotel and deliver another passionate speech in defence of his dictatorship.  He will be helped by a naive organic food store owner (Faris) who has no idea what she’s getting herself into.

If you’re not a fan of Cohen’s comedy, you’re entitled to that opinion and you should do everything necessary to avoid The Dictator.  I know quite a few people who would be appalled by the jokes regarding the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the 1972 Munich Olympic Games massacre.  There’s even a reference to 14-year-old boys which… yeah… I probably won’t say anything more about that.

It’s easy to forget that Borat was nominated for best adapted screenplay at the 2007 Academy Awards.  It highlights that whilst Cohen’s humour is crass, there is often an intelligent, underlying subtext.  That’s again the case here but admittedly to a lesser extent than Borat and Bruno.  There’s a terrific monologue from Cohen late in the movie which is provides the clear high point.  It’s just a shame we didn’t see more of this.

The topic is rife for a spoof and it’s obvious the script has been inspired by the likes of Muammar Gaddafi and Kim Jong-Il (to whom the film is dedicated).  While acknowledging that some of the film’s individual scenes are quite funny, the overarching story needed work.  Anna Faris’s character is too stupid and the scheme involving Ben Kingsley and the oil companies required more development.

The Dictator is amusing but it had the potential for so much more.  If you disagree, you can argue with me on Twitter.  Hang on.  Better not.