Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 06 October 2010

Liz (Roberts) is going through a premature midlife crisis.  I’m using the term “premature” because I don’t think midlife kicks in until you’re around 40.  Liz is just 32.  She seems to have a successful career as a writer but things aren’t working out when it comes to love.  She’s made the decision to split from her husband (Crudup) and find a way of “rediscovering” herself.

Her plan is to go on a year long holiday and visit three key locations.  She makes new friends in Italy and enjoys some tasty pizza and pasta.  She goes to an ashram in India and tries to cleanse her mind.  She will be given a new perspective on life by a friendly guru in Indonesia.  Will Liz be a changed person by the end of her journey?  More importantly, will she find a new love?

The film is based on the memoir of Elizabeth Gilbert which was first published in 2006.  The book became an instant bestseller and I’m sure many people will be keen to see this film adaptation.  I found it interesting to read that Julia Roberts chose not to meet the real Liz Gilbert before shooting the movie.  She wanted to put her own mark on the character and didn’t want to get caught in the trap of imitating her.

Maybe I wasn’t in the mood but I found this movie to be an exhausting experience.  There’s too much eating, too much praying and too much loving.  I should have known given the title.  Watching Julia Roberts sit in a café eating pasta just didn’t do it for me.  I struggled to relate to her tired, forlorn character.  Things picked up in the final scenes but it wasn’t worth the overly long running time of 133 minutes.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 27 September 2010

Do you like a challenge?  If so, you should see this movie and try to identify the Australian actors who have leant their voices to its characters.  There are more than 15 by my count.  I guess the casting agents had a thing for Aussies.  Then again, maybe it was just for convenience given the film was shot at Fox Studios in Sydney.

That’s not the end of the local connection.  Australia company Animal Logic was behind the incredibly detailed animation that you’ll see on the screen.  They rose to prominence in 2006 with Happy Feet and this latest effort will only further enhance their reputation.  I don’t even want to guess how many man-hours it took to create some of these scenes.

Unfortunately, my love for the animation doesn’t extend to the direction and storyline.  I found certain elements of the plot difficult to understand.  How does “moon blinking” work?  What’s with the metal flecks machine thingy?  I also had trouble keeping up with all the characters.  Did we really need so many of them?  It’s hard to tell who’s fighting who in certain fight sequences.

Given my grievances as a 33-year-old adult, I’m not convinced this film will engage its target audience.  It’ll be a struggle to maintain kids’ short attention spans.  I’ve also concerns about the marketability of these animals.  Are owls exciting enough to warrant their own movie?   They didn’t do it for me.  I had a lot more fun earlier in the year watching talking toys and fire-breathing dragons.

To quickly encapsulate the story, it’s about a group of good owls who are trying to stop a group of bad owls from taking over their world.  That’s about all I took away from it.  I haven’t read Kathryn Lasky’s novel but I’m guessing this is yet another case where something was lost in translation.

The film opened in the United States last weekend with a poor box-office take of $16.3m.  Considering the film’s $100m budget, I suspect this will be the first… and last time we see the owls of Ga’Hoole on the big screen.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 02 October 2010

We live in a time when major movie studios are as conservative as ever.  They’re sticking to sequels, remakes and anything else which is easy to market.  It’s not that I dislike big Hollywood fare.  My problem is that when I tick off my scorecard, there’s always one box that remains blank – originality.

That’s not the case here.  Whether you like it or not, Buried is a film that will stick in your memory.  I couldn’t wait to start talking to people about it.  I’m hoping many of my friends get to see it because we’ll have some fun discussions after.

So what’s so special about the movie?  Well, it’s set entirely within a coffin.  You heard me right.  There are no flashbacks or dream sequences.  For 95 minutes, you will see nothing but the happenings within this wooden box buried under the ground.

The guy in the coffin is Paul Conroy (Reynolds), a contract truck driver working in Iraq.  The last thing he can remember is his team being ambushed by a group of insurgents.  He quickly realises the gravity of the situation.  The air supply will only last a few more hours and he’s got to find a way out.  It’s not a hopeless situation however.  There are a few objects in the box which he may be able to use.  They include a torch, a lighter, a knife and a mobile phone.

This premise will get you thinking.  How would you react in a similar situation?  Could you maintain your composure?  What would you do to try to escape the coffin?  The key element here is the mobile phone.  You could call someone for help but how can you tell them where you are?  Maybe someone could track the phone using GPS but how easy will it be to pinpoint a precise location given it is Iraq?

We soon learn that there’s a reason why Paul has been left the mobile phone.  He gets a call from his kidnappers.  They promise to let him go but only if he pays a $5m ransom.  Now what does he do?  Should he spend his time trying to find someone who can pay the ransom for him?  Will they really let him go if it is paid?  Or should he stick to his original focus of finding a way out.  The clock is ticking…

I don’t think I’ve ever raised so many questions in a single review but again, that’s the fun of this film.  It will keep your attention right until the very end.  I throw in one caveat however.  There’s no way that anyone could last more than two hours in an air-tight coffin.  That’s the consensus I’ve reached after talking to a few people (who gave me some strange looks when I first asked the question).

If you can get past that nagging plot hole, you’re going to enjoy this impressive feature from Spanish director Rodrigo Cortes.  There are only so many camera angles you can use in a coffin and yet Cortes finds a way to keep things suspenseful.  The lack of lighting and the enhanced sounds also add to the tension.  It may leave some audience members feeling just as claustrophobic as Paul Conroy – the film’s one and only character.

Buried is only getting a limited release in Australia but I hope that astute filmgoers make time to check it out.  It’ll be worth it.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 22 September 2010

Having taken in $5.5m at the Australia box-office, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo has been one of this year’s big success stories.  I realise that it’s based on a best-selling novel but it’s still an impressive total considering that it’s Swedish.  It’s actually the highest grossing foreign language film in this country since Hero in 2004.

For fans of the original movie, the good news is that you’ve only had to wait 6 months for this sequel.  You can find out what’s next in store for the journalist Mikael Blomkvist and computer hacker Lisbeth Salander.  The bad news is that this film is somewhat of a let down (which I seem to say 95% of the time when reviewing sequels).  It’ll be interesting to see if this instalment is as successful at the box-office.

The film begins with Blomkvist on the verge of publishing a huge story in his Millenium magazine.  A budding journalist has put together a well researched article on the sex-trafficking industry.  Just prior to publication, the journalist and his girlfriend are shot dead in their apartment.  The article named some very powerful officials and Blomkvist believes that one of them may be behind the killings.

The police think otherwise.  The murder weapon was left at the scene and it contains fingerprints belonging to… Lisbeth Salander!  She becomes the prime suspect and the hunt is on to find her.  Blomkvist doesn’t believe that Salander is the killer but he can’t work out how her fingerprints ended up on the gun.  He’d love to be able to ask Salander but she disappeared over a year ago and he hasn’t heard from her since.

What’s missing from this film is the great interaction between Blomkvist and Salander.  I realise that screenwriter Jonas Frykberg has to remain faithful to Stieg Larsson’s novel but it’s disappointing that they spend so little time together in this film.  We follow both of their stories but it’s just not the same.  I was also a little disappointed with the performance from Noomi Rapace.  I’m hoping she’ll earn an Oscar nomination for her role in Dragon Tattoo but she didn’t seem to have the same spark this time around.

Whilst it’s not as memorable as the original, I’ve always got time for a well-written thriller.  There are plenty of characters involved and you’ll be cheering (on the inside) for Blomkvist as he fits the pieces of the puzzle together.  He’s such a likeable hero with his mild-mannered demeanour.

I dare say that we won’t be waiting long for the final film in this trilogy – The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet’s Nest.  No release date has been set in Australia but the film is complete and has already been released in a few other countries.  I hope it’s a fitting finale.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 29 September 2010

For many years, Tim (Rudd) has been working hard on the 6^th floor of his private equity firm.  He’s been biding his time, waiting for an opportunity to earn a promotion and move up to the lucrative 7^th floor.  His chance has now arrived.  He’s impressed the big boss (Greenwood) with a creative idea to earn the trust of a wealthy Swiss businessman.  It’s earned Tim an invite to a special dinner that the boss is hosting.

This is no ordinary dinner however.  Instead of bringing a bottle of wine or some appetisers, all the guests are asked to bring along an “idiot”.  The reason is solely for entertainment.  The other guests will laugh and mock these lower-class individuals (who won’t be in on the joke).  The biggest idiot will be awarded a special trophy at the end of the night.

I had a problem with this film and it stems from this strange storyline.  Is this supposed to be a farcical comedy or is it supposed to be a black comedy?  As you may have detected from my plot overview, the characters behind this dinner are quite sinister.  It is one thing to laugh at another’s misfortune but to set up such an elaborate sham is cruel.

I hoped this would be a dark comedy.  The premise reminded me of a brilliant 1997 film called In The Company Of Men which was directed by Neil LaBute.  It was about two guys looking for show their dominance over the female race.  They picked the most innocent woman they could find and set up an elaborate plan to crush her heart  It was a powerful film but very difficult to watch.  It’s why I can still remember it so vividly today.

Unfortunately, director Jay Roach (Meet The Parents) has gone with a much softer option with Dinner For Schmucks.  The “schmuck” that Tim has chosen is a random guy he ran into (literally) on the street.  His name is Barry (Carell) and he works as a taxidermist (mounting dead animals for display).  His favourite animal is the mouse and he’s got plenty of them stuffed at home.  He calls them his “mouse-terpieces”.

Barry is a complete nightmare.  He’s like the friend you just get rid of.  He comes across as well-intentioned but everything Barry’s involved with becomes a disaster.  Tim’s current girlfriend now hates him and his ex-girlfriend is now stalking him.  Is it all worth it?  Has he gone too far in order to earn this promotion?  I think we all know the answer to that question.

You can tell from the film’s tone that everything will work out in the end.  Trust me, I’m not giving much away there.  I didn’t like Steve Carell as Barry.  It’s hard to feel sorry for someone who seems to instigate so many of his own problems.  Paul Rudd isn’t any better.  The best characters are those who are supporting.  Jemaine Clement provides most of the highlights as a performance artist with an insatiable sex drive.

If you see this film as a simple farce, you’ll probably have some fun.  Even I had to laugh at a great scene where Tim has brunch with the Swiss businessman.  It’s not enough though to warrant a positive review.