Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 12 July 2011

A film that still receives a lot of airtime is Steven Spielberg’s Catch Me If You Can.  It has aged well.  If you haven’t had the chance to see it, please add it to your bucket list.  It tells the true story of Frank Abagnale Jr, a compulsive con-artist (played by Leonardo DiCaprio) who used his charm to manipulate almost anyone.  He masqueraded as a pilot, a lecturer, a doctor and even a lawyer.

The movie could easily have been a serious drama but Spielberg chose a different tact and wove it into a light-hearted comedy.  It was as if he was doing his own subtle “con” of the audience.  He stole millions of dollars and countless lives at risk and yet, somehow, the film makes us like Frank Abagnale Jr.  We laugh at his crazy escapades and we smile as he continually evades the authorities.

I’m describing I Love You Phillip Morris as an inferior version of Catch Me If You Can.  It’s trying to tell a similar story in a similar vein but it just doesn’t work.  First and foremost, Jim Carrey is hard to take seriously in the leading role.  He has a silly look and accent that doesn’t fit the role.  It’s hard to believe that someone so goofy could have pulled all this off.

He plays Steven Russell (Carrey), a public menace with no moral fibre.  To help pay for his swanky lifestyle, he would deliberately involve himself in accidents and claim compensation through his insurance company.  He fell down an escalator in a shopping centre.  He slipped on some liquid in a supermarket.

The authorities finally caught on to his schemes and he was sentenced to a short term in prison.  Did he learn his lesson?  Nope.  On being released, Russell picked up where he left off.  He posed as a Chief Financial Officer for a major corporation and stole large sums of money by fudging the books.  The guy was a compulsive liar and pathological imposter.

If you’re wondering who the Phillip Morris is in this story, it has nothing to do with the cigarette company (many people asked this question when I told them about the film).  It turns out Phillip Morris (played by Ewan McGregor) was the love of Russell’s life.  The two met in prison and part of Russell’s motivation to cheat and steal was so that he could provide a wealthy life for them both.

Even if you can overlook Jim Carrey’s limitations, I still don’t think there’s much to like about I Love You Phillip Morris.  The film score and soundtrack is distracting and the continual narration (provided by Carrey) is unnecessary.  None of the supporting cast stand out and Ewan McGregor is wasted in weak role.

It’s taken almost two a half years for this film to reach Australian cinemas (it premiere at the Sundance Film Festival in January 2009) and having now seen it, I’m surprised it didn’t go straight to video.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 21 June 2011

In the last Kung Fu Panda flick, Po (Black) mastered the art of kung fu and defeated an evil snow leopard.  This time around, there’s a new adversary – a peacock named Shen (Oldman).  He has plans for world domination and so goes on a bizarre mission to eliminate our cuddly panda and rid the world of kung fu.

It’s going to be a challenging assignment for Po and the other members of the Furious Five.  He sums it up when he asks “how can kung fu stop something that stops kung fu?”  To find the answers, Po takes the advice of Master Shifu (Hoffman) and goes in search of inner peace.

There’s another element to this story and that’s Po’s quest to learn the identity of his parents.  Not longer after he was born, Po was left in a crate near the back of a noodle restaurant.  He was found by a loveable goose named Mr. Ping (my favourite character in the movie) and raised as his own.  Po wants to know what happened to his family and why he was abandoned.

I really enjoyed the first film but I felt a tad underwhelmed by this sequel.  It focuses too heavily on flashy action sequences and lacks the amusing banter that I remember fondly from the original.  Part of my love for Kung Fu Panda was the character development of the relationship between Po and Master Shifu.  Sadly, we don’t get that this time around and Master Shifu has been strangely shoved into the background.

I also believe that too much screen time has been devoted to the new enemy.  I’m sorry but a nasty peacock voiced by Gary Oldman just doesn’t do it for me.  I didn’t find Shen threatening or intimidating at all.  The way he kept escaping with nonchalant ease was tiring.  It’s like watching Dr Claw in an episode of Inspector Gadget.  I realise this is an animated family flick but I wish the writers had of come up with something a little more suspenseful.

Turning to the positives… the quality of animation is top-notch once again.  The 3D effects are superfluous but that seems to be the case with every animated flick these days (and I don’t want to sound like a broken record).  Jack Black charms the audience as Po and he has enough one-liners to keep you chuckling.

Tracking well behind the original film at the box-office in the United States, perhaps this is a franchise with a limited shelf life.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 28 June 2011

There are many different ways to make a movie.  Never has that been more evident when you look at this week’s cinema releases in Australia.  The big drawcards will be Transformers: Dark Of The Moon and Mr Popper’s Penguins – two Hollywood blockbusters making the most of their special effects budget.  We also have Terrence Malick’s The Tree Of Life – a fragmented film with no traditional narrative and very little dialogue.

The fourth and final movie out this week is The Trip.  It started out as a 6-episode television series in the UK.  It followed comedians Steve Coogan and Rob Brydon as they went on a road trip to sample the country’s finest restaurants.  Most of it revolved around them eating food, making jokes and doing impressions.

It’s a series that hasn’t gone directly to our own television screens here in Australia.  Rather, it’s taken a slight detour and found itself in our local cinemas.  Director Michael Winterbottom trimmed just over an hour from the series and wove the remaining footage into a 107 minute feature film.  Catching me off guard was the lack of a closing credit sequence.  The movie ended, the lights came on and it was suddenly time to go home.

Judging from the audience’s reaction at my preview, The Trip is light and easy to watch.  It won’t blow you away but you’re likely to leave the theatre in a better mood than when you arrived.  Coogan and Brydon are two gifted comedians who work very well alongside each other.  Much of their dialogue was improvised – a fact that you’ll pick up from the very start.

Whilst I’m giving the film a mild recommendation, I admit that it lacks substance.  These two guys may be funny but there’s only so long that you can watch them do imitations of famous actors.  I can see this working as a television series (where you only watch 30 minutes at a time) but it feels a little repetitive when watching it for two hours.

There’s also a weak subplot involving Coogan and his quest to find a decent acting role.  His agent in the United States has landed him the starring gig in a new television series but Coogan isn’t sure that he wants to leave his home in London.  This storyline is woefully underdeveloped and I found it hard to sympathise with Coogan as he mulled over his decision in the final scenes.

I will say this to the film’s credit – it made me want to eat!  Seeing inside these restaurants and watching Coogan and Brydon devour these beautifully presented meals left me salivating.  If you are going to check this out with friends over the weekend, I’d suggest that dinner reservations may also be required.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 19 June 2011

It is a great honour for any director to have their film selected for the official competition at the Cannes Film Festival.  Roughly 20 movies are shortlisted each year and they are judged by a jury of high-profile actors and filmmakers.  The winner takes the Festival’s most lucrative prize – the Palme d’Or (or Golden Palm).

Not since Baz Luhrmann’s Moulin Rouge has an Australian film been chosen as part of the official selection.  The ten year drought was broken this year with Julia Leigh’s Sleeping Beauty earning a starting spot in the line up.  The achievement is even more impressive considering the film marks Leigh’s directorial debut.  Those on the selection committee were clearly impressed.

Unfortunately, I was not.  Sleeping Beauty is a tiring, emotionless experience.  I can best describe it as a film that is “all style and no substance”.  You’d be hard pressed to find anyone who could fault the beautiful set direction and the distinctive cinematography.  The lack of dialogue and music will also keep your attention focused.

My problem with the movie is that I don’t know what it’s trying to say.  It feels like it wants to be some kind of classy, plot-driven porno in the same vein as Stanley Kubrick’s Eyes Wide Shut.  I kept waiting for something interesting to happen but that moment never presented itself.  The closing credits started rolling, murmurs were heard from those around me and I left the cinema with a bewildered look on my face.

It centres on a young university student named Lucy (Browning) who is struggling to make ends meet.  She accepts a job with a secretive escort agency that specialises in fulfilling people’s fetishes and fantasies.  Lucy’s not quite sure what she’s got herself into but getting paid $250 an hour is an opportunity too attractive to pass up.

For her first assignment, Lucy turns up a lavish mansion, changes into revealing white lingerie and then serves drinks to a group of elderly, well-dressed men.  As this goes on, other scantily clothed women walk around and sit on the floor for “decorative purposes”.  It’s just the start of a series of very bizarre events.

What’s the point though?  Is this supposed to open my eyes to a mysterious world that is kept from public view?  Am I meant to feel sorry for this sweet, innocent girl and the way in which she has been corrupted?  Should I be shocked and aroused by all the nudity?  I don’t know the answer.

The strange plot and equally strange direction makes it hard to feel anything for these characters.  There are only so many times I can watch Lucy photocopy papers in an office or clean tables in a café.  Perhaps the most confusing element is her sick friend and the numerous times she visits his house.

I can remember a cinema owner once telling me that no matter how much I dislike a movie, there’s always someone out there who will like it.  He’s right and I always try to reflect that in my reviews by identifying the target audience.  I’m sorry but I’m not sure what to say in the case of Sleeping Beauty.  As a critic, consider me both deflated and defeated.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 25 June 2011

Terrence Malick.  Hearing that name in any sentence fills me with intrigue.  It’s not because he’s one of the world’s most highly regarded directors (having made The Thin Red Line, Days Of Heaven and Badlands).  Rather, it’s because he’s such a recluse.  He doesn’t turn up at premieres, he doesn’t turn up on talk shows and he doesn’t turn up at award ceremonies.  His last public interview was in 1973.

I’ve heard that he’s shy but perhaps it’s part of a grand plan.  A friend summed it up best when he said “privacy is the new celebrity”.  Knowing so little about Malick only heightens our interest in his movies.  When you throw in the fact that he filmed The Tree Of Life in 2008 and then spent close to three years in the editing room, it’s no surprise that the buzz was electric when it premiered at the Cannes Film Festival last month.

It’s at this point of the review that I need to throw out a warning.  Yes, the film won the top prize at Cannes and yes, the film stars Brad Pitt and Sean Penn.  HOWEVER, do not under any circumstances think that this is a movie for the mainstream public.  Many will be dissatisfied because (1) there is no coherent plot, and (2) Brad Pitt couldn’t be any less sexy.  I hope cinemas are adopting a “no refunds” policy or else there could be a sudden rush to the exit at about the 30 minute mark.

I saw The Tree Of Life with two learned friends and we debated it for a solid hour afterwards over dinner.  This statement alone makes it a very unique film-going experience.  How often does a movie come along with the power to generate so much discussion?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but for what it’s worth (and it may not be much), let me add my two cents through this review.  The Tree Of Life is a film without a traditional narrative.  Instead of telling us a conventional story, Malick has provided a series of fragmented scenes to leave us reflecting on our life, our own loves and our own stories.

We are prompted through striking imagery, a beautiful soundtrack and strong religious overtones.  There’s one lengthy sequence where we go back to the beginning of time and see how the world was created.  Not a single word is spoken during this part – it’s just music and visuals.  There are other scenes shot in a modern day setting that show a middle aged man (Penn) looking lost as he goes about the monotony of his daily routine.

The crux of the film is set in 1950s Texas and loosely centres on a boy (McCracken) growing up under the guidance of his strict father (Pitt) and his nurturing mother (Chastain).  There are moments when he rebels against his parents and gets into trouble.  There are other moments where he shows a softer side and is there to support his two younger brothers.

Whilst it’s wonderful to see a filmmaker trying to pull off such an ambitious project, I confess to being disappointed by The Tree Of Life.  There are some touching scenes between father and son but the rest of the film felt too heavy-handed.  Did we need the endless number of shots looking up at the sun?  Did we need the random quotes that were whispered by the actors?  Did we need to go back to an age when dinosaurs existed?

Cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki recently revealed that the first cut of the film was 8 hours long.  He said Malick was working on a 6 hour version that will be released soon.  I don’t know if I should be excited or terrified.  This 2 hour version was exhausting enough but perhaps a longer version might help the “story” flow a little better.

Based on other reviews I’ve read, it looks like The Tree Of Life will feature in many top 10 lists at year end.  Not mine though.  Perhaps I just didn’t get it.  I really wish I could ask Terrence Malick a few questions.  Does anyone have his phone number?