Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 28 March 2012

I went to the cinemas last night and hoped to see a great movie.

The Lorax, from the trailer, well it looked kind of groovy.

It’s set in a beautiful place where everyone seems happy.

They don’t realise they’re being controlled by a rather nasty chappie.

He’s erected huge metal walls that line the city’s borders.

No one may leave as per his very strict orders.

A young lad named Ted has managed to sneak out however.

Sliding past the guards and hidden cameras, he is actually quite clever.

Ted’s trying to impress a girl and solve a puzzling mystery.

It seems the city has never planted any trees in its short history.

His journey takes him to a shabby looking house in a desolate location.

It’s home to a lonely stranger who isn’t too keen on visitation.

His name is the Once-ler and he has an important story to share.

Once upon a time, he had dreams of becoming a successful millionaire.

He cut down every tree in the forest and used them for his own financial gain.

But when it was all said and done, all he was left with was pain.

So who is this furry Lorax that is mentioned in the film’s title?

Voiced by Danny Devito, his character isn’t all that vital.

I’ve been disappointed with so many animated films over the past year.

They’re lacking in terms of adventure – of that I’m quite clear.

I realise Dr Seuss’s beloved novel has been extremely well read.

But the simplicity of this story left me scratching my head.

There are only a few laughs and the characters aren’t that exciting.

I much preferred Kung Fu Panda will all its action and fighting.

I confess that the huge U.S. box-office has left me somewhat confused.

Perhaps I’m off the mark and the reality is that others will be more enthused.

The well-rounded cast includes Zac Efron, Taylor Swift and Betty White.

I’d love to say how amazing they are but meh, they’re only all right.

The Lorax is the fourth feature film to have come from a Dr Seuss book.

The Grinch Who Stole Christmas is my favourite and is well worth a look.

If you disagree with my opinion then I’m more than happy to discuss.

I’m sticking by my grading however – which I can now reveal is a C plus.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 21 March 2012

Put simply, The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel is an intertwined group of short stories about some elderly British folk who go on a holiday to India.  They’re all there for different reasons.  Muriel (Smith) needs a medical operation, Graham (Wilkinson) has gone in search of an old friend, Evelyn (Dench) is looking for fresh start, Madge (Imrie) seeks a wealthy husband, Norman (Pickup) is after romance and Douglas (Nighy) and Jean (Wilton) are simply on a holiday.

They’re all in for a surprise as the hotel looks nothing like the brochure.  It’s filthy!  Jean guests walks into their bedroom to find a flock of birds has made a home there.  Coupled with the fact that there are no other guests and the hotel is on the verge on financial ruin, it looks like being the trip from hell.

It takes a little while for them to size up the situation but in the end, they decide to make the most of it.  Well, that’s everyone except for Jean who refuses to leave the comfort of her hotel.  The rest discover some of India’s wonderful sights and interact with a few of the locals.  It gives them all a fresh perspective on what is a very interesting part of the world.

The film’s biggest asset is its stellar cast.  Bill Nighy, Judi Dench, Tom Wilkinson, Celia Imrie, Ronald Pickup and Penelope Wilton are all very good.  They don’t have the strongest of scripts to work with but they all generate the charm necessary to win the affections of the audience.

I haven’t mentioned Maggie Smith yet… but that’s because I wanted to single her out.  The 77-year-old was my pick of the cast as a politically incorrect woman who is slowly won over by the country’s culture.  You always know that’s going to happen but it’s the humour that Smith brings to the character that makes her so endearing.

Despite the strong performances, the film does feel stuffy with its forced, predictable storyline.  There’s not a lot of depth to any of the characters (most could be described as stereotypes) and the plot meanders along with few surprises.  I was also disappointed that we didn’t get to see more of the Indian landscape.  The characters talk about their amazing experiences but too much time is spent within the confines of the dingy hotel.

The forced ending didn’t win me over either.  I’ve nothing against happy, feel-good finales but considering the complicated lead up, it’s hard to believe some of the subplots resolve themselves so neatly.  It’s clear that director John Madden (Shakespeare In Love) wants us to leave the cinema with a smile on our face.  I personally think he’s tried a little too hard.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 28 March 2012

Clash Of The Titans (released back in 2010) made $493m at the worldwide box-office.  Let’s just pause for a moment and think about that statistic.  It gives hope to any budding filmmaker.  You can have a weak plot, dreadful dialogue and terrible accents… and yet still make a hugely successful motion picture. 

It didn’t have much to improve on but lo and behold, this is one of those rare instances where the sequel is better than the original.  It’s not a film I’d recommend too highly but Wrath Of The Titans has enough positive qualities to satisfy those hungry for a slice of big-screen action.

For those that remember, the last film ended with our hero Perseus (Worthington) defeating an evil sea monster known as the Kraken.  It’s a fact we’re reminded of several times during this sequel.  Instead of going on to bigger and better things, Perseus decided to “retire” from his job as a heroic half-god.  He now lives a simple life as a fisherman with his 10-year-old son.

Unfortunately, Perseus' services will be required once again.  His father, Zeus (Neeson), has been taken captive by the villainous Hades (Fiennes) who wants to steal his power and provide it to the dangerous Kronos.  With the world on the brink of destruction, Perseus joins forces with a few key allies and descends into the depths of hell in search of his father.

The first film got too bogged down in Greek mythology and so they've made the story simpler (perhaps too much so) this time around.  For me, the clear highlight was watching our heroes navigate their way through the labyrinth that protects the underworld city of Tartarus.  It's a great sequence.  They are led there by the almost unrecognisable Bill Nighy (Love Actually) who gives the best performance as a fallen god with a quirky sense of humour.

I should be doing all I can to support home grown talent but Australian Sam Worthington doesn’t feel right in this role.  Maybe it’s his accent.  Maybe it’s his unattractive mullet.  He’s just too “blokey” to be playing such a god-like person and it is painful watching him deliver some of his clichéd lines.  Ralph Fiennes, Liam Neeson and Rosamund Pike won’t be winning any awards either but they appear far more relaxed.

This leads me to the conclusion that Wrath Of The Titans is at its most entertaining when the characters give up on the dull dialogue and simply let the action do the talking.  Director Jonathan Liebesman (World Invasion: Battle LA) deserves credit for the well choreographed fight sequences that make good use of both sound and visual effects.

Those who enjoy action?  Buy a ticket.  Those in search of a captivating story?  Look elsewhere.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 14 March 2012

I wasn’t a huge fan when I first saw it… but Terry Gilliam’s Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas is a film that I have now watched many times.  It was adapted from Hunter S. Thompson’s autobiographical novel and followed two guys on a drug-fuelled bender in Las Vegas.  It helped inspire a part of my own recent holiday in the United States.  Travelling with two friends, we hired a convertible in Los Angeles, pulled down the roof and set off for the glittering lights of Vegas.

When the film was released back in 1998, Thompson released another book – The Rum Diary.  He’d written it back in the 1960s but wasn’t able to find a publisher at the time.  The story is based on his own experiences whilst trying to forge a career as a journalist in San Juan, Puerto Rico in 1960.  It’s a lot tamer than Fear And Loathing but fans of Hunter S. Thompson will be keen to see it.

The central character is named Paul Kemp (once again played by Johnny Depp) and he has accepted a position as a sports reporter for a struggling newspaper.  Kemp’s initial excitement quickly wears off.  He learns that he was the only applicant for the position and that the company is likely to go bust before the year is out.  It’s an organisation filled with tired writers who are well past their prime.

On his first day at the paper, Kemp meets Hal Sanderson (Eckhart), a wealthy businessman with a stunning beach-side home and a gorgeous girlfriend (Heard).  Sanderson is particularly friendly – not because he’s a nice guy but rather, because he has ulterior motives.  He needs Kemp and his journalistic skills to help promote a multi-million dollar business proposal.

It’s all a huge learning curve for Kemp.  There’s a lot of dodgy stuff going on in San Juan and he’s not quite sure what to do about it.  Part of him wants to publish stories in the paper, against the wishes of his boss (Jenkins), highlighting the heavy American influence within the country.  And the other part of him?  Well, he wants to be drinking rum, partying hard and seducing beautiful women.

The Rum Diary is a little too long at 120 minutes but it’s still nice to something new from the creative mind of Hunter S. Thompson (who passed away back in 2005).  Johnny Depp is great but Michael Rispoli (Kick-Ass) turns in the film’s best performance as the newspaper’s jaded photographer.

The film’s biggest weakness seems to be its screenplay.  For the most part, it’s just plodding along with the occasional dash of humour.  Perhaps I’d set the bar too high after Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas but I was expecting something with a bit more of an edge.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 21 March 2012

I should start with a disclaimer – please note that Matthew Toomey has not read the books.  It seems everyone else has (well, at least judging from Twitter) but alas, I haven’t been able to squeeze them into my hectic schedule.  Do not despair however.  I took a well-read fan with me to the Brisbane premiere to make sure that I covered both perspectives.  Funnily enough, we both wound up with the same conclusion.

Now that the Harry Potter and Twilight franchises have reached their conclusion, The Hunger Games is trying to fill the void and become “the next big thing” in the teen movie market.  It certainly has the potential to do so and I’m a big fan of the concept.

If you haven’t seen the trailer (which has been shown before every movie in the past 3 months), the story revolves around a futuristic world that consists of 12 districts and a controlling capital city.  Every year, the poor districts are ordered by the wealthy Capitol to choose one boy and one girl for the annual Hunger Games.

As you’ll see from the opening scenes, this is not a competition you want to be selected for.  The 24 teenagers chosen are placed inside a life-like arena and they must fight to the death.  Only one can be left standing at the end.  Every moment is televised and the public can watch and place bets from the comfort of their homes.  To further spice things up, generous sponsors and cunning game controllers have the power to influence the result by changing the conditions inside the arena.  It’s like a deadly version of The Truman Show.

The central character in The Hunger Games is a strong-willed 16-year-old named Katniss Everdeen (Lawrence).  The name of her younger sister was drawn from the dreaded glass bowl but Katniss has made the ultimate sacrifice and volunteered to take her place.  She will be joined by Peeta Mellark (Hutcherson) as the two representatives from the coal mining District 12.

On arrival at the Capitol, the competitors go through a rigorous training and grooming program in preparation for the Games.  This isn’t because the organiser’s are nice.  Rather, it’s because they want to turn the games into a huge spectacle that captivates those in the Capitol and instils fear amongst those in the districts.  The competitors even appear on a talk show where they try to promote their skills and help lure sponsors.

The opening half of this film is the most interesting.  It wastes no time getting started and you’ll be quickly immersed into this strange world.  There are some terrific conversation-driven pieces that explain the purpose of the Hunger Games and the best strategy to be adopted by those competing.  There’s a particularly good scene where Jennifer Lawrence and Josh Hutcherson sit on the window ledge and open up about their worries.

You’ll also be struck by the sets, make up and costume design.  Director Gary Ross (Pleasantville, Seabiscuit) has worked closely with author Suzanne Collins to bring this story to life.  From the décor in the luxurious apartments to the little curls at the end of Wes Bentley’s beard, this is a film with a strong visual footprint.

As we all know, the problem with any book adaptation is trying to work out how to condense all the material into the running length of a feature film.  The approach adopted by screenwriting team in this instance seems to be an aggressive one – they’ve tried to cover as much as possible.  I’m not sure it works and it felt like we were rushing through several key scenes (particularly the ending) to squeeze it all in.

My other major qualm was with the downplaying of the violence.  You’ll see a quick shot of someone getting stabbed but the camera then pulls away as if not to confront the audience.  I realise this is unavoidable (to ensure an M rating in Australia) but I have to say it.  It lessens the film’s emotional impact and you don’t get a strong enough sense of the brutal nature of the competition (which I believe comes through in the novel).

It’s far from perfect but The Hunger Games is still a good film with a well chosen cast.  I’m very excited about the prospects of this series going forward.  A few subplots are deliberately left unresolved to generate interest in the next film.  For those who won’t be able to wait that long (such as myself), a trip to the bookstore will be necessary.