Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 14 May 2010

If those comments inspire more rage from the pro-Torino camp, I now have something new to retaliate with.  I speak of Harry Brown.  It’s the film that Gran Torino should have been.  It has a likeable “hero”, a more probable ending and it paints a realistic, yet gloomy picture of the slums in London.  This is the first full length feature from English director Daniel Barber (one of his short films earned an Oscar nomination in 2007) and he’s a guy I’ll be following in the near future.

The title character is an elderly gentleman living in a rundown housing estate in East London.  It’s a depressing place.  Across from his building is a tunnel where a gang of teenagers congregate and deal drugs.  Harry sees them every day from his window.  These kids do all of this in plain sight.  It’s as if the police don’t even care.  Nothing is being done to stop them.

That’s about to change.  Harry’s best friend, a fellow pensioner named Leonard, tries to stand up to the gang after months of continual harassment.  They beat Leonard and then stab him to death with a huge knife.  Two police detectives are investigating the crime but they’re not having much luck.  All the gang members are keeping quiet and there were no other eye-witnesses.

Harry knows what happened though.  The time has come for this ex-marine to dish out his own brand of vigilante justice.  As the saying goes – one should fear the man who has nothing to lose.

He may be 77 years of age but Michael Caine is as good as he’s ever been.  Over the past decade, he’s delivered a string of memorable performances in films including Last Orders, Children Of Men, The Prestige and the new Batman movies.  He’s a class act and I never get tired of hearing his familiar British accent.

Caine’s performance is key to the success of this movie.  He does a wonderful job playing the tired, worn out Harry.  You’ll find yourself cheering for him right up to the final scenes (despite the illegality of almost everything he does).  I certainly was.

Things get a little far-fetched at the end but I’m still keen to recommend this film… particularly to those who disliked Gran Torino.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 03 May 2010

It’s a simple plot which centres on Jim (Cowell) and his girlfriend of more than three years, Alice (Strahovski).  They’re out at dinner one night and Jim pulls a ring from his pocket.  Alice starts to get excited.  Is this going to be the moment she’s been waiting for?  The answer is no.  It turns out Jim’s gift is just a “commitment ring” and Alice isn’t happy.  She gets something else off her chest.  Not once in all their time together has he ever said “I love you”.

Alice breaks it off with Jim and starts planning a permanent move to London.  Jim knows his time his short and that he’ll do anything to get her back.  His best friend Blake (Helliar) isn’t much help though.  There’s a dumb scene in the film where he hires an older-looking prostitute to help Jim get “back in the game”.  I guess I didn’t find this as funny as some.

When Jim gets his best advice is from an American guy named Charlie (Dinklage) who he meets in rather unusual circumstances.  They agree that Jim should write a love letter to Alice and express his true feelings.  Will it work?  Can Alice’s heart be won back?

I do my best to support Australian cinema but I didn’t like this movie.  I didn’t mind the opening but it degenerates with each passing minute.  The jokes are silly and it reminded me in many ways of a cheesy American sitcom.  The only thing missing was a laugh track in the background.  I kept hoping the film would be redeemed by a great ending but alas, it was not to be.

It’s Peter Helliar’s first screenplay and I give him credit for getting this off the ground.  As filmmakers in this country will tell you, it’s tough finding the financiers to bring local scripts to life.  That said, I didn’t think much of the writing here.  There are some sub-plots (such as Alice’s friendship with her boss) that go nowhere.

The best scenes in the film revolve around the great Peter Dinklage.  He’s a gifted actor who many will remember from films including The Station Agent and Death At A Funeral.  A friend of mine summed it up best when he said he cared more about Dinklage than the two leads.  That’s spot on.  He’s the film’s only interesting character.

There’s an audience for romantic comedies in Australia.  That’s the only way I explain how the god-awful The Bounty Hunter with Jennifer Aniston and Gerard Butler recently made $5m here.  Will we support a locally made rom-com?  We’ll find out from this Thursday.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 11 May 2010

Letters To Juliet is a romantic comedy which revolves around this tradition.  Sophie (Seyfried) is an American girl on holidays in Verona with her boyfriend (Bernal).  Whilst visiting Juliet’s House, she sees an Italian lady remove the love letters from the wall and put them in a basket.  Sophie then follows her to find out what becomes of them.

In turns out there are a group of ladies who prepare a handwritten response to each letter.  They’ve been doing it for years.  I’m not sure if this happens in real life but I’ll go along with it for the purposes of the movie.  When her boyfriend ducks off to the countryside on a wine tasting trip for a few days, Sophie decides to help these women out and write a few romantic replies of her own.

She will find herself caught up in an epic love story.  50 years ago, a woman named Claire wrote a letter and left it behind a loose brick in the wall.  She professed her love for a man known as Lorenzo Bartolini.  Sophie has stumbled on the letter and wants to know what happened to these two people.  Half a century has since passed but did they end up together?

The answer is no.  I won’t go into too many more details (the plot is rather convoluted) but Sophie manages to track down Claire who is now living in London with her grandson, Charlie (Egan).  Both Claire and Charlie fly to Verona to meet Sophie and they end up going on a road trip across Italy to find out what happened to Lorenzo.

I didn’t like this movie.  It all felt too contrived.  They check the phone book and find more than 70 guys in the area named Lorenzo Bartolini.  Instead of saving time by giving each one of them a phone call, Sophie, Claire and Charlie drive back and forth across northern Italy visiting them one-by-one.  It’s an annoying plot device which covers the fact that there isn’t much to this story.

Sophie falls in love in Charlie in the process and this leaves her re-evaluating her current relationship.  Should she ditch her boyfriend and fly into Charlie’s waiting arms?  I was hoping she wouldn’t.  I hated Charlie.  I found him to be incredibly annoying.  I put it down to a combination of the dreadful dialogue and Christopher Egan’s over-the-top performance.  I’m telling you – Sophie could have done a lot better if you ask me.

Some might like Letters To Juliet for its beautiful scenery and Vanessa Redgrave’s nice performance but this is one romantic comedy that I have no intention of subjecting myself to again.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 28 April 2010

That’s not the case here.  I liked the premise of Iron Man 2 and whilst it won’t be winning Academy Awards, the screenplay is all you could ask for from an action film.

When we’re reintroduced to Tony Stark (Downey Jr), he’s defending himself in front of a Senate hearing.  The U.S. military want him to hand over the technology for his iron man suits.  They can then use them to booster their defence force and become an even bigger military power.

Stark wants none of this.  He likes having the power and proudly proclaims that he’s “privatised world peace.”  He doesn’t want to see the technology abused by the government.  It’s a sound argument but there is a flip side.  Stark’s flamboyance is growing and many are concerned that his ego clouds his judgement.  Yes, he’s saving the world now but what happens if he has a change of heart?  What happens if a rival creates similar technology?

That situation is about to present itself.  A Russian scientist named Ivan Vanko (Rourke) has created his own iron man suit and attacks Stark while in Monte Carlo.  Stark narrowly escapes with his life and Vanko is sent to prison.  It’s certainly a wake up call.  But that’s not the last we’ll see of Vanko.  Justin Hammer, a big-name weapons manufacturer, is keen to harness and profit from this amazing technology.  He busts Vanko out of jail and sets him to work on developing an even better iron man suit.  They forge an uneasy partnership which can only end badly…

Similar in ways to the last two Batman movies, I like the exploration between good and evil.  Sometimes there’s a fine line that separates them.  I always come back to the great quote from The Dark Knight – “you can either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain”.  That’s the case here and whilst Stark’s antics are quite humorous, he’s not your stereotypical type hero.  He makes his fair share of mistakes.

There’s a lot more to the plot which I haven’t gone into.  Scarlett Johansson pops up with an interesting role as Stark’s new assistant.  As promised at the end of the last film, Samuel L. Jackson enters the story as a mysterious individual who helps Stark in a time of need.

Don Cheadle has replaced Terrence Howard in the role of James Rhodes and if you listen to his first piece of dialogue, you’ll pick up on a subtle reference regarding this.  I had to smile.  My pick of the cast though was Sam Rockwell as the money hungry Justin Hammer.  He’ll get under your skin with his overly suave demeanour.

My major grievance came at the very end.  I liked the plot development throughout but as I should have expected, it turns into your stock-standard action finale.  There’s lot of noise, fast paced editing and visual effects.  It’s not always easy to see what’s going on.  I do smirk at the way in avoids showing the loss of life which would have ordinarily occurred.  But they, that’s an action film for you.

I stayed for the entirety of the end credits and suggest you do the same.  You’ll see a quick glimpse of what’s to come to the next instalment.  I guess then next film is dependent on the financial success of this one but given the hype, I expect Iron Man 2 to fly into the box-office stratosphere this weekend.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 10 May 2010

The story begins in the late 12^th Century with King John (Isaac) appointed to the English throne following the death of his father.  The power has quickly overwhelmed him.  Persuaded by his new advisor, King John demands that taxes be raised.  Those who do not pay will see their houses burned to the ground.

It turns out King John’s advisor has an ulterior motive.  His name is Godfrey and his loyalties lie elsewhere.  Hiding behind the King’s mandate, he uses his soldiers to obliterate townships across England.  His plan is to incite a civil war and leave the country open to attack from the French army.

A man by the name of Robin Longstride (Crowe) will stand between Godfrey and his ambitious goals.  You could call him an accidental hero.  After returning from battle in France, Robin goes to the small northern town of Nottingham to fulfil the last wish of a dead solider.  He asked that his sword be returned to his estranged father (Sydow).

With no home of his own, Robin is welcomed into the family of the late soldier.  His eyes are then opened to the oppression suffered by the townsfolk.  Despite all their hard work, their money is taken by the King and their food is taken by the Church.  The time has come to unite the people of England and fight for equality.

It’s hard not to compare this film with Gladiator.  Both movies are set in long-ago times.  Both movies are directed by Ridley Scott.  Both movies star Russell Crowe.  Unfortunately, Robin Hood can’t match Gladiator in terms of its passion and excitement.  It’s slow to start and things don’t start to get interesting until the second hour.  The momentum achieved is then lost with a rushed, clichéd conclusion.

There are some good performances amongst the cast.  The wonderful Max von Sydow shines as Sir Walter Loxley, the father of the slain soldier.  He’s such a great character to listen to.  Cate Blanchett is also nice as the feisty Marion Loxley, Robin’s developing love interest.

I can’t say the same for Russell Crowe.  I admire him as an actor but his monotone demeanour doesn’t work here.  There’s no life in the character at all.  The supporting players (such as King John and his influential mother) offer up more interesting dialogue and storylines.

With no expense spared on sets and costumes, Robin Hood ticks many boxes in its quest to be an epic blockbuster.  The direction of the action scenes late in the film was a little haphazard but on the whole, this is a well made production.