Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 09 November 2007

I wasn’t expecting much walking into the cinema but Rogue turned out to be pretty decent movie.  You have to understand my reluctance.  An Australian film about a monster crocodile didn’t exactly wet my appetite.  It looked like one of the formulaic, unrealistic thrillers that emanate from Hollywood (only made on a smaller budget).

I should have had faith in the director, Greg McLean.  McLean made one of the scariest films ever made – 2005’s Wolf Creek.  It was the story of three backpackers who were kidnapped by a vicious psychopath in the Australian outback.  Unlike most other Australian flicks, it made an impact in the international marketplace.  It took in more than $16m in the United States, more than any other Australian film in the past 5 years.

Rogue isn’t as good as Wolf Creek but it still provides a few thrills.  The opening half-hour sees us introduced to characters.  They are all aboard a small boat which is taking them on a tour of a river in the Northern Territory.  As the tour guide, Kate (Mitchell) tells them all about the vicious salt-water crocodiles that swim in these waters.  Some are worried but Kate tells them that they have nothing to fear – they won’t attack anything as big as their boat.

Guess what?  She’s wrong.  The boat is smashed from underneath by an extremely large crocodile.  It starts taking on water and they crash into a small rocky island in the middle of the river.  This leaves them stranded.  The boat can’t be fixed, the radio isn’t working and flares were washed away.  They can’t even sit tight and wait to be rescued.  The tide is rising and within a few hours, the island will be completely underwater.  They’re going to have to find a way to get to the river bank without being eaten first.

With the scenario established, it’s now time to see who lives and who dies.  It’s not as predictable as you might think.  The fate of several characters did not pan out as I’d expected.  I say this as positive because when it comes to this type of movie, the most important think is to keep the audience on their toes (that’s if you can overlook the implausible scenario and cheesy dialogue).

There are a few notable actors amongst the cast.  They include Radha Mitchell (Finding Neverland), Sam Worthington (Gettin’ Square) and Michael Vartan (One Hour Photo).  John Jarratt (who starred in Wolf Creek) is almost unrecognisable as one of the tourists aboard the boat.  They won’t be wining any awards for their performances but they will help boost the film’s profile both in Australia and abroad.

Look, you won’t be blown away by this movie but if you like a bit of suspense, there should be just enough to satisfy.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 30 October 2007

History was never my strong suit at school and before seeing this film, I didn’t know much about the life of Jesse James.  The name of the movie told me something though - he was killed by the “coward” Robert Ford.  It’s an interesting title, isn’t it?  It makes it very clear what the filmmakers (at the very least) think of Robert Ford.  Furthermore, of the 2,244 movies I’ve critiqued on my website to date, none have a longer title.

If you think this is an action-packed robbery movie, think again.  Whilst Jesse James was one of history’s most famous outlaws, you only get to see him “at work” in the opening half hour.  James and his crew rob a train in Missouri.  It’s an unsuccessful operation and they get very little cash from the people on board.  Following the heist, the state authorities put out an arrest warrant for Jesse James and offer a reward for anyone who can help find him.

The next hours (yes, it’s a long one) are spent watching Jesse evade his potential captors.  He kept on the move and confided in no one.  He was worried about the police but even more worried by his friends – would they sell him out for the reward money.  No one could be trusted and the self-doubt started to take its toll.

Robert Ford was the man who would kill James.  He was a member of his gang and just 20 years of age.  Ford had idolised Jesse growing up and had read all about him in the papers and in books.  It’s hard to believe that he was the man who pulled the trigger.  This film focuses on Ford as much as it does James.  We see things from both perspectives in the lead-up to the assassination on April 3, 1882.

To be honest, I found it all rather boring and tedious.  Not a lot happens and not much is said for the 160 minute duration.  I also had trouble following who was who and what their relationship was with other characters.  Perhaps I should have been paying more attention.  The cinematography and soft music score make it a beautiful-looking film but there isn’t enough substance.

It may be a legendary American tale but an Australian is sitting in the director’s seat.  It has been written and directed by 40-year-old Andrew Dominik.  This is only his second film after having made the much loved Chopper in 2000.  There’s a similarity in both stories in that Dominik is trying to take a real-life “bad guy” and show him in a different light.

I liked Casey Affleck’s performance most as Robert Ford.  Brad Pitt didn’t quite do it for me as Jesse James.  I was surprised to learn that he won best actor at the recent Venice Film Festival.  I’m confident that it won’t be replicated at next year’s Oscars.

The best part of this film is its ending.  We find out what happens to Robert Ford in the aftermath of Jesse James’s death.  It gave me a few things to think about.  Whether you’re prepared to sit through the first two and a half hours of this film to get to this finale, is up to you.   

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 07 November 2007

This isn’t my kind of movie.  It’s a G-rated Disney flick that panders to the audience and makes no sense at all.  It’s predictable, formulaic, cliché-ridden, etc, etc, etc.  That said, I respect the film for what it offers.  There’s a market for this type of movie and judging from the box-office returns, a lot of people have liked it.

It centres on an ageing football named Joe Kingman (Johnson) who is the star quarterback for the Boston Rebels.  The most important person in Joe’s world is himself.  He loves watching himself on television has pictures of himself on the walls of his luxury apartment.  I wouldn’t call him arrogant but I don’t think he’s someone I’d be friends with.

Out of the blue, an 8-year-old girl turns up at his doorstep and proclaims to be his daughter.  Her name is Peyton (Pettis) and after some quick background checks, Joe realises that she’s telling the truth.  He didn’t even know he had a daughter.  Young Peyton tells Joe that her mother has gone on an overseas trip and that he has to look after her for a month.

This doesn’t sit well with Joe who is trying to focus for the upcoming play-offs.  He’s trying to win a championship ring for the first time.  He takes her in however and over the next month, his world will be turned upside down.  She maybe a handful to take care of but Joe learns a valuable lesson in the process.

I’m sure there are quite a few viewers who will find this funny and entertaining.  It’s squarely aimed at a family audience.  The jokes are easy to get and the story is easy to follow.  There may not be any realism but you can always rely on the excuse that “this is only a movie”.

I found it to be pretty standard in that there are no real surprises and you get what you expect.  If you’ve seen the trailers/ads and liked the look of it, you’ll probably enjoy it.  So whilst I was bored to death by most of film, I’ll cut it some slack given that I’m not part of the target demographic.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 28 October 2007

At the start of the year, I remember seeing trailers for a new film called Grindhouse.  It was interesting experiment.  Directors Quentin Tarantino (Pulp Fiction) and Robert Rodriguez (From Dusk Till Dawn) each made a 90 minute movie and they were shown back-to-back (complete with fake movie trailers in between).

Both films were a tribute to “grindhouse cinema”.  In the 1970s, a style of filmmaking was born where studios made really cheap B-grade movies and showed them largely in drive-in movie theatres.  They attracted young audiences by throwing in heaps of sex, nudity, violence, horror and drug use.  The genre died out in the early 1980s with the arrival of home video.

Anyway, Grindhouse failed to set the box-office alight when released in the United States back in April.  The decision was then made to split the films up when distributing them overseas.  This was due to concerns that international audiences had no concept of grindhouse cinema and that they’d struggle to sit through a 191 minute movie.

Death Proof is the first of the two films to be released in Australia and we’ve been waiting a long time for it.  Given that it is being shown as a separate movie, roughly 20 minutes worth of additional footage has been included.  The general consensus from the U.S. was that Quentin Tarantino’s Death Proof was the better of the two movies and perhaps this is why it is being shown in Australia first.  At the date of this review, no release date has been set for Robert Rodriguez’s film, Planet Terror.

After seeing Death Proof in a packed cinema, I can say it is an insanely crazy movie.  A loud round of applause was given after the abrupt (and incredibly violent) final scene.  In terms of its style, I’ve seen nothing like this all year.  It certainly looks like a B-grade flick – the film reel jumps in certain places, the editing looks poor and there are often scratches on the screen.  You’ll pick all this up in the first few minutes.  You’d think it actually was a film from the 1970s (except for the fact that characters use mobile phones and iPods).

What elevates the film above its genre is the smartly written dialogue and cool plot.  The story centres on a stunt-man named Mike (played by Kurt Russell).  He loves killing women.  He finds a target, waits until they’re on the open road and then smashes his car into them at high speed.  Mike always survives because he’s driving a special stunt-man car with many safety features.  The women are not so lucky.  He can get away with his crimes because a car accident looks exactly like that – an accident.

Despite what you might think, this isn’t a non-stop, blood-thirsty, action fest.  Most of the film is spent listening to people engage in conversation.  It’s reminiscent of other Tarantino films including Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown.  Listening to the chit-chat adds to the film’s suspense.  You know something bad is about to happen – it’s just a matter of when.  I do think that a little too much time is spent though on these conversational pieces and that the film would be better served if 10 or so minutes were cut.

It all ends with a great finale which has to be seen on a big-screen.  The adrenalin-pumping car chase sequence left me on the edge of my seat.  Don’t ask me how but the film has escaped an R rating in Australia.  It’s rated MA (for 15 year-olds and above) but be warned – those adverse to graphic violence might be best to stay home.  For the rest, sit back and enjoy the ride!

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 04 November 2007

A successful painter (Auteuil) from Paris has returned to his childhood home in the French countryside.  It’s allowed him to get away from his wife, who is looking to divorce him.  He is also hoping that the beauty and serenity of the area will help him get over his “painter’s block”.  He’s looking for inspiration.

There is a small vegetable garden at the home which has become overrun with weeds.  The painter hires a gardener to plant some new crops and bring it back to its former glory.  When the gardener arrives on the first day, memories come flooding back.  It turns out that they were good friends at school and haven’t seen each other in roughly 40 years.

Three times a week, the gardener pays a visit to the painter to help look after the growing vegetables.  Each time, the pair reflect on their past and talk as if they’d been best friends for ever.  They may have different backgrounds and different personalities but being in each other’s company has given them both something to feel happy about.

Conversations With My Gardener is a simple film about the power of friendship.  Much of the film is spent listening to these two guys talk about a range of simple things.  There’s the baker from the village who just died.  There’s the painter’s daughter who is marrying a man old enough to be her father.  There’s the annual 3-day trip to Nice that the painter takes with his wife each year.

I think this is one of the finest French films of the year and two touching performances are turned in by Daniel Auteuil (Hidden) and Jean-Pierre Darroussin (A Very Long Engagement).  A benchmark I often use at the cinema is how many times I look at my watch during the movie.  The enjoyed the interaction between these two characters and I can happily report that I looked at my watch just twice (that’s a lot less than normal).  It meets the definition of a “feel good” movie.

I understand that this film won’t be for everyone.  There’s no violence, no horror, no sex and no nudity.  What it does have though… is my recommendation (for what it’s worth).