Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 24 March 2008

Detective Johnson:   Mr. Toomey, as you would have heard, there was a murder in your apartment building a few nights ago.  We’d like to ask you a few questions.

Matthew Toomey:     No worries.  Fire away.

Detective Johnson:   Where were you on the night of March 24 at around 9:00pm?

Matthew Toomey:     Um, ah, I was actually at the movies.

Detective Johnson:   What was the movie?  Where did you see it?

Matthew Toomey:     It was, ah, um, ah, um, the Hannah Montana 3D movie.  I saw it at the Birch Carroll & Coyle Cinemas at Indooroopilly.

Detective Johnson:   Hmmm, ok.  And who did you see it with?  Is there anyone who can verify that you were at the cinemas?

Matthew Toomey:     Ah, look, I know this is going to sound bad, but I actually saw it on my own.

Detective Johnson:   So you’re telling me that you gave up a Monday night and went alone to see a film marketed at 12-year-old girls?  Do you really expect me to believe this?

Matthew Toomey:     Well it is the truth, I swear.  There were just 4 of us in the cinema and I sat in the second back row to be as inconspicuous as possible.  I didn’t really want to attract attention to myself.

Detective Johnson:   But why were you watching that movie in the first place?  You’re sounding a little suspicious.

Matthew Toomey:     Well, you see, I’m actually a part-time film critic.  I have a website where you can see all my reviews and I also do a segment on 2 radio programs.  I missed the free press screening and so had to pay to see it like everyone else.  Trust me - this is the last film I’d pay to see.  I just went because I had to.

Detective Johnson:   Ok then.  I’ll look into that.  So do you remember who sold you the ticket at the cinema?  Can they confirm your whereabouts at 9:00pm?

Matthew Toomey:     No, I can’t remember, sorry.  I was trying to avoid eye contact with the cashier.  It was embarrassing enough asking for the ticket.  I do remember trying to get a student discount with my Australian Film Institute Membership card but she wouldn’t let me since it was a 3D movie and there was no concession rate.  I had to pay a ridiculous $16.50.  Those cinemas are such a rip off and they really…

Detective Johnson:   All right, calm down Mr. Toomey.  If you really where there and you did see the movie, tell me a bit about it.

Matthew Toomey:     Well, Miley Cyrus in the daughter of country singer Billy Ray Cyrus.  She stars in some Disney TV show in America called Hannah Montana.  The show is about a girl who lives a double life.  She’s a normal school girl by day and music star by night.  The movie has nothing really to do with the TV show.  It’s just a bunch of songs that Miley sung at a huge concert somewhere in the U.S.  You can see thousands of screaming kids in the audience.  I guess she’s pretty big over there.  I’d never heard of her until I saw the movie.  The cool twist to the film was that they shot it in 3D.  So you get special glasses to watch the movie with and it does look pretty neat.  If you’re a Miley Cyrus or Hannah Montana fan, I reckon you’d like it.  I can’t see it appealing to anyone else.  You do believe me now, right?  I can show you my 3D glasses if you’d like?

Detective Johnson:   Nah, that’s ok.  Your story is so horribly embarrassing that I’m thinking that it must be true.  I’ll see if the cinemas can confirm your presence on their security cameras.  Look, I’ll give you my card.  If you have anything else you’d like to tell me, please give me a call.  I’ll be in touch.

Matthew Toomey:     Thanks Detective.  Sorry I wasn’t able to be more help.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 11 March 2008

The President of the United States is in Spain for a world summit to help stop terrorism.  His first appearance is in an enclosed piazza where he will be introduced by the Mayor in front of thousands of people.  As the President steps to the podium, he is shot twice in the stomach.  The crowd flees in panic and the Secret Service agents start an immediate search for the assassin.  Minutes later, a bomb is detonated from beneath the main stage.  This was a carefully orchestrated attack.

On face value, this is a sub-par Hollywood thriller.  The plot is ridiculous and the more you think about it, the less sense it makes.  There were way too many coincidences for my liking and I’d be hopeful that the real Secret Service could do a better job of protecting the President.  There are also some sub-lots (such as a request for the President to retaliate) which have no purpose.  Let’s not forget the sappy dialogue (particularly near the end) which left many audience members at my screening laughing openly.

What saves the film from being a complete disaster is the way it has been told by writer Barry Levy.  As the poster promises, we see the film from the “vantage point” of 8 different people.  This will frustrate some viewers but I like the audacious style.  You may think it sounds boring to be watching the same event over and over again but it’s not like that.  It only increases the suspense.  Each new perspective reveals fresh pieces of the puzzle.  Some of the twists (as unbelievable as they were) did catch me off guard.  I also liked the car chase sequence.

From my vantage point in the 3^rd back row of Cinema 8 in the Myer Centre, I sized up the evidence and declared that the film was worthy of a B-.  Did other people see it differently?  What about that couple sitting in the front row because they turned up late?  Were they wooed by the big-name cast?  Did they believe that the story was possible?  I guess you’ll have to ask them.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 23 March 2008

My favourite film of 2004 was Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind.  It was written by Charlie Kaufman (Being John Malkovich, Adaptation) and was directed by Frenchman Michel Gondry.  If you haven’t seen it, then it’s your own loss.  It’s one of the most original and beautiful films ever made.  It won the Oscar for best original screenplay and is currently ranked 51^st in the Internet Movie Database’s best films of all time (as voted by the public).

If I could, I’d use my next 500 words to go into more detail on my Eternal Sunshine is such a great movie.  Instead, I have a more difficult task.  Be Kind Rewind is the latest film from Michel Gondry and it is… what’s the word I’m looking for… horrendous.  I cannot believe how bad this film is.  How did such a creative and innovative director come up with such rubbish???

The nonsensical storyline goes as follows.  Elroy Fletcher (Glover) operates a video store called Be Kind Rewind out of a rundown building in New York.  Elroy is behind the times and has never caught on to the DVD era.  He only has VHS tapes.  Suffice to say, his customer base is very small and he’s not making much money (especially since his rental charge is only $1 per tape).

When Elroy goes on holidays, he leaves his son Mike (Def) in charge.  I don’t know why he bothered since there are next-to-no customers.  The person who seems to spend the most amount of time in the store is Mike’s best friend, Jerry (Black).  They’re both morons.  You’ll pick this up pretty quickly once you’ve been introduced to them.

Jerry inadvertently magnetises his brain when he tries to sabotage an electrical power station (for god knows what reason).  When he walks into the video store, his magnetic field erases the contents from every video in the store.  Mike realises this pretty quickly when the customers start returning their tapes and complaining that there’s nothing on them.  Things don’t look good.

Instead of buying new copies or dubbing DVDs, Mike and Jerry decide to reshoot every movie.  Their first effort is Ghostbusters.  Using an old video camera and any useful prop they can find, Mike, Jerry and a few friends star in a 20 minute rip-off of the original film.  They get good feedback from the customer and so they decide to do more.  They end up reshooting an array of films including Rush Hour 2, Driving Miss Daisy and Robocop.

Almost overnight, Be Kind Rewind becomes a sensation.  People are coming from across the city to see the latest creations of Mike and Jerry.  The cash register is filling up with money and it looks like they’ve saved the video store from extinction.

This film is a mess.  It seems to take forever to get to the part where they start shooting the spoof movies - why was the introduction so long?  Danny Glover’s character goes on a bizarre trip to scout out other video stores – what was the point of this?  Every customer seems to love Mike and Jerry’s movies – how could this possibly be true?

By biggest grievance with Be Kind Rewind is that it is too convoluted.  I know it’s only meant to be a comedy but surely something could have been written that was more plausible than this?  I thought that maybe it was an inside joke in that Gondry has made a film with lots of plot holes to mirror those films being made by Mike and Jerry.  Even if that’s the case, I still want my money back.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 07 March 2008

When I was in grade 9 at high school (back in 1991), I had a choice of studying either history or geography.  I chose geography.  History sounded boring.  What as the point of learning about all these ancient people and events and then having to sit exams about them?  Geography felt more relevant and topical.

Funnily enough, my appreciation for movies has also developed my appreciation for history.  Last November, I saw Elizabeth: The Golden Age starring Cate Blanchett.  Whilst I wasn’t a huge fan of the film, it raised my interested in the subject matter.  I did a lot of internet research after I saw the movie to find out more about Queen Elizabeth and her 45 year reign as England’s monarch.  They were turbulent times.

For those who have seen the two Elizabeth movies, The Other Boleyn Girl is best described as a prequel.  It looks at the relationship between her father, King Henry VIII (played by Eric Bana) and her mother, Anne Boleyn (played by Natalie Portman).

Henry VIII ascended the throne in 1509 but came under increasing pressure from the public when his wife, Catherine, could not provide a male heir.  It was suggested to the King that he take on a mistress.  Thomas Boleyn (Rylance) put forward both of his daughters, Anne and Mary (Johansson) as suitable candidates.

This may sound like a strange proposition but it was a sign of the times.  It was considered to be an honour to be the mistress of the King and Thomas thought that it would provide wealth and stability for his family.  Anne relished the opportunity.  She used her intelligence, beauty and charm to win the King’s favour.  Mary was reluctant on the other hand.  She preferred a simple life in the country and wasn’t too keen on fame and fortune.

Those familiar with the story will know how it ends.  I won’t reveal it for those less knowledgeable of 16^th Century English history (like me).  Like a great Shakespearean tragedy, there’s love, greed and betrayal.

I was sceptical about the film going into the cinema because of the casting of Australian Eric Bana (Chopper) and Americans Natalie Portman (Closer) and Scarlett Johansson (Lost In Translation).  Couldn’t they have found some English actors to play these roles?  It looked to me like the producers were casting some big name Hollywood stars to boost its exposure and box-office takings.

With the luxury of hindsight, I can safely say that all the performances are solid.  Writer Peter Morgan (The Queen) and director Justin Chadwick have done a great job in distinguishing each member of the cast.  There are a lot of characters but the story is easy to follow – that’s not an easy achievement.  The standout for me was Natalie Portman and her emotionally energetic performance.  She’s fantastic.  Also worth a mention are the great costumes from Academy Award winner Sandy Powell (Shakespeare In Love, The Aviator).

There’s a lot more this story and I’m sure a few people will be disappointed that certain details have been omitted to squash the film into its 115 minute running time.  It didn’t bother me though and I liked what I saw on screen.  If you’re looking for more detail, you can read the novel from Philippa Gregory (with the same title) on which the film is based.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 15 March 2008

Andy (Hoffman) and Hank (Hawke) are two brothers with money problems.  Andy is the payroll clerk at a large real estate agency and has been stealing cash to fuel his drug addiction.  He has just learned that the business is to be audited by the IRS and that if they find that money missing, he’ll be in huge trouble.

Hank works at the same real estate agency.  I guess it’s not a high paying position as he owes a substantial amount to his ex-wife for rent and child support.  It seems that every day, his ex-wife (who lives in the same apartment building) is nagging him for the cash.

Andy comes up with a hair-brained scheme to solve their financial dilemmas.  Their elderly parents (played by Finney and Harris) own a small jewellery store in a shopping complex.  They plan to rob the store, sell the jewels and make out with roughly $600,000.  Andy justifies the crime by saying that the insurance policy will cover his parents’ losses.

It’s a stupid plan and neither has the courage to go through with it.  Andy comes up with a lame excuse to avoid involvement in the actual theft.  He says that he was involved in a recent real estate deal in the area and that someone might recognise him.  He wants Hank to do it alone.  Hank doesn’t think he has the guts to pull it off and so asks a dodgy friend named Bobby to help out.  Hank will drive the get away car while Bobby performs the robbery.

As you can expect, it all goes terribly wrong for Andy and Hank.  It turns out that their mother, Nanette, is the only one working in the store on the morning of the crime.  She is filling in for someone.  As Bobby prepares to leave the store with his stolen back of jewels, Nanette takes a gun from under the cash register and shoots him.  He then responds by shooting Nanette.

The tagline from the film’s poster says it all – “no one was supposed to get hurt”.  This was meant to be a quick and easy grab for cash.  Andy has already lined up a crooked dealer to help offload the stolen jewels.  Now they’re in a position where their mother is in hospital fighting for her life, a trail of evidence threatens to expose them and oh yes, their money problems are even bigger.  What are they going to do?

My friend described this film best when he used the term “depressing”.  It’s the perfect word.  This is a grim story for which there cannot be a happy ending.  You aren’t going to leave the cinema with a warm, fuzzy feeling.

It’s still a great movie though.  The reason it is so depressing is because it is so believable.  I could see this kind of thing happening.  This isn’t like your normal heist flick where every detail has been carefully planned and some incredible detective puts all the pieces together to solve the crime.  Andy and Hank are just two stupid guys doing some really stupid things to get their lives back on track.  I almost felt sorry for them.

Academy Award winning director Sidney Lumet (12 Angry Men, Dog Day Afternoon, Network) is 83 years of age.  You’d think he’d want to sit back and enjoy his retirement.  I guess he just loves making movies.  He’s done a great job here and I do like the film’s style.  We start by seeing the crime itself and then we take flashbacks to see how it came about.  It’s creative storytelling.

Before The Devil Knows Your Dead received a terrific response from the public and from critics when it premiered at last year’s Toronto Film Festival.  The fact that it’s a small, low-budget film saw it get lost amongst the bigger releases during the recent awards season.  I like the movie and I like the title.