Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 17 April 2007

At the top of my reviews, I always list the director, writer and stars of the film.  It’s the easiest part of my reviews as it requires no thought – I simply grab the info from the Internet Movie Database.  I’ve run into a problem however with Paris, je t’aime as its structure is unlike any mainstream film that I’ve seen before.  It has 22 directors, 23 writers and 44 actors.

If you’re wondering how this can be, it’s because Paris, je t’aime is a compilation of short films which have been put together by some of the world’s most recognisable directors.  They were each given 5 minutes to tell a love story set in Paris.  This helps explain the English translation of the title which is Paris, I Love You.

As there are twenty different stories, there’s no point trying to provide a plot description.  This makes it a rather interesting movie-going experience because instead of seeing one big film, it feels like you’re seeing twenty tiny films.  For this reason, there aren’t the lulls that you’d expect in your usual two-hour flick.  The cast, the story and the style are always changing and this should keep your attention.

As you’d expect however, some tales are more interesting than others.  If you see the movies with others, you can debate which were the most enjoyable on the way home from the theatre.  It should come as no surprise that my favourite stories were those from my favourite directors.  These would be the scenes directed by Ethan and Joel Coen (Fargo), Gus Van Sant (Elephant), Tom Twyker (Run Lola Run) and Alexander Payne (Sideways).  Payne’s film (which appears at the very end) was my favourite.

The most recognisable members of the cast would be Steve Buscemi, Juliette Binoche, Willem Dafoe, Nick Nolte, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Elijah Wood, Natalie Portman and Gena Rowlands.  There are plenty of other familiar faces and those that see plenty of movies, will easily spot them.  If you’re planning on seeing this film because you’re a fan of a certain actor, keep in mind that you won’t be seeing too much of them!

I went to Paris three years ago but now having seen Paris, je t’aime, I realise that there are some amazing places within the city that I haven’t experienced.  It makes me want to go back.  Collectively, the filmmakers have done a great job at capturing Paris’s beauty and spirit.

Whilst I liked the concept of this movie, too many of its stories weren’t to my liking.  I’d give some an A grading but others a C grading.  It makes it a hard film to review as a whole.  My overriding thought is that if I went to a short film festival (and there are plenty of them on during the year), I think I’d see a more exciting and original range of films.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 04 April 2007

The Namesake begins in India in the late 1970s.  Ashoke Ganguli (Khan), a man in his mid-twenties, talks to an elderly gentleman on a train.  He his told that he shouldn’t use books to learn about the world – he needs to travel and see it for himself.  At that moment, the train derails and most of the passengers are killed.  Ashoke survives.

Thinking it is an omen, Ashoke travels to New York and finds a successful job.  The United States provides far more opportunities than those available to him back home.  The only thing left to do is to find a wife.  After spending two years aboard, he returns home so that his parents can find him a suitable bride.

He marries Ashima (Tabu) and the two return to New York.  It’s a difficult transition for Ashima as she is leaving her family behind and speaks very little English.  Her quiet nature makes it even more difficult for her to make new friends and settle in.

The film gradually pans into the future.  Ashoke and Ashima have two children, a boy named Gogol (Penn) and a daughter named Sonia (Nair).  As they graduate from high school and make their own way into the world, Ashoke and Ashima have trouble letting go.  They love their children deeply and will miss their company at home.  They also worry that their children have become “Americanized” and won’t respect their Indian heritage.

The Namesake is a simply story which has been beautifully presented by Indian born director Mira Nair (Vanity Fair, Monsoon Wedding).  Through her lens, Nair has captured the culture of both India and the United States.  They are different in many ways but the emotions that come with belonging to a family are the same.

The film provides moments of happiness and sadness.  Such is life and a large percentage of audience members will be able to relate to elements of the story.  The screenplay, written by Sooni Taraporevala, is based on the popular novel by Jhumpa Lahiri.  I haven’t read Lahiri’s book but I’d very much like to after having seen this movie.

The touching story is enhanced thanks to the quality of the cast.  As the two parents, Irfan Khan and Tabu are fantastic.  Their performances aren’t “flashy” but they are very effective.  You can always sense the apprehensions and insecurities in their characters.  For those looking for name recognition, two cast members you may know are Kal Penn (Harold & Kumar Go To White Castle) who plays Gogol and Australian Jacinda Barrett (Poseidon) who features briefly as his girlfriend.

I knew very little about The Namesake before seeing it and perhaps this is why I liked it so much.  It was a very enjoyable surprise.  I won’t build it up any further in the hope that you too will enjoy it as much as I did.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 12 April 2007

Bob Lee Swagger (Wahlberg) lives in a secluded mountain cabin.  His only companion is his trusty dog.  It’s a life that he enjoys – alone and away from the troubles of world.  It hasn’t always been this way however.  A few years ago, Swagger served his country proudly as an elite marksman in the U.S. military.  However, after his superiors deserted him during an undercover mission, Swagger decided that he’d had enough of the “system”.

At his isolated hideaway, Swagger is approached by Colonel Isaac Johnson (Glover).  Johnson informs Swagger that an attempt will be made to assassinate the President.  Intelligence suggests that he will be shot with a rifle from over a mile away at a major outdoor function.  They don’t know who is behind the plot but it is rumoured to be someone “on the inside”.  Given his experience as a long-distance marksman, Johnson wants Swagger’s guidance to help prevent it from happening.  Swagger will scout out the locations and identify where the gunman could position himself.

It turns out that Swagger has been set up.  A shot is indeed taken at the President but those behind the plot are the same people who have brought Swagger to the scene.  They plan on killing him and saying that he was the man responsible.  Swagger manages to escape (as you’d expect) and what follows is a lengthy game of cat and mouse.  There’s one mouse and about 10,000 cats on his tail.  The odds are not good.

I like the idea of the film but didn’t enjoy what I saw on screen.  Last week, I wrote a column on commonly used movie clichés.  As I sat watching Shooter, I could tick many of them off as the film progressed.  In the very opening scene, Swagger’s army partner shows him a photo of his “loved one” back home.  Sure enough, he’s dead within the next few minutes.

That’s not all.  To make this far-fetched storyline work, there are a million events that fall perfectly into place.  In reality, Swagger should have been killed on at least 10 different occasions during the movie.  Somehow, those shooting at him can never hit him (despite the fact that they too are trained gunman) and there always seems to be an escape route.  Also hard to believe is the help that Swagger receives from a two people inside the FBI.  I’d hate to think that the real FBI had such slack security.

This is the fourth film I have seen from director Antoine Fuqua.  His most high profile film prior to this was Training Day.  Released in 2001, it was very popular and won Denzel Washington an Oscar for best actor (I don’t know how).  I see this film as being similar.  It starts out with a half decent premise but reaches a point where the logic has no meaning.  I am not a fan of his style or the scripts that he chooses.  You may see things differently.

The only positive endorsement I have is that of Mark Wahlberg’s performance.  He was the best cast member in The Departed and he solidifies my high opinion of him with another top showing here.  His character is injured early in the film and you can feel the pain and the suffering that he is going through to stay alive and elude his pursuers.  He may have started his career as an underwear model but this guy can act.  If only he’d had a better script in this instance.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 01 April 2007

In 1984, the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles started their adventures in comic books.  In 1987, they were part of a cartoon television series which ran for 10 years.  In 1990, their first feature film became a box-office smash and two sequels followed.  Suffice to say, they were very popular with younger audiences and plenty of money was made by their creators.

Having not been seen (at least by me) since the mid 1990s, the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles are back with a new movie.  They have been reinvented to capture the attention of today’s kids.  Fans of the original cartoon and movies might also be interested in seeing what this is about.

In this film, simply titled TMNT, the Ninja Turtles appear to have gone into semi-retirement.  Leonardo has gone AWOL and Donatello and Michelangelo aren’t doing much.  The only turtle still keeping the peace upworld is Raphael.  Despite the wishes of Master Splinter, he has been sneaking out at night and capturing the bad guys.  He wears a mask to conceal his identity and has become known as the Nightwatcher.

Some strange events then start occurring in the city.  They are strange because (a) they are out of the ordinary and (b) I didn’t really understand them.  My best interpretation is as follows.  A group of nasty monsters were released into the world 3000 years ago.  I’m not sure where they’ve been since that time but they have now congregated in New York City.  They aren’t a threat however as they have been captured by a mysterious army.  Was this army good or bad?  I don’t know.

Somehow, the Ninja Turtles have been caught up in the mayhem.  The focus of their exploits however is on a rivalry that has developed between Leonardo and Raphael.  They have different ideals and I really liked this darker aspect to the story.  They feature in a great battle sequence atop of high rise roof.  Donatallo and Michelangelo may as well have not even been in the film – they’re hardly seen.

The original movies were live-action but this new instalment has been made with computer generated animation.  The reasons given by the producers are that live action would have been too expensive and that computer animation gave more flexibility.  I have to agree.  I enjoyed the look of the characters and the city backdrop.

Despite the confusing storyline, TMNT should give younger moviegoers value for money.  If enough of them go to see it, then I’m sure the green light will be given for another sequel.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 07 April 2007

Have you seen Alfred Hitchcock’s Rear Window?  If so, the following plot device will sound very familiar.

One year ago, Kale (LaBeouf) and his father were involved in a car accident on the way home from a fishing trip.  Kale survived but his father did not.  The resulting trauma saw his grades slip at school and culminated with Kale punching a teacher in the face.  The assault saw him appear before a judge.  Despite his previous convictions (which aren’t detailed), Kale gets off lightly.  He is sentenced to three months of home detention.

Kale cannot leave his house during this time.  To make sure that is the case, an electronic device is locked to his ankle.  If he strays more than 100 feet from the kitchen (where the central transponder is located), it will set off an alarm and the police will be on the way.  The time at home won’t be as easy as Kale first thinks.  Spending every minute at home can be very, very boring.

After an overly long introduction (which sets up the above premise), the film enters its “thriller” phase.  Kale starts using binoculars to spy on the neighbouring houses.  At first, his attention is drawn to the cute girl next door (Roemer) but it soon changes to the strange man in the next house over.  His name is Mr. Turner (Morse).

Having spent so much time watching television, Kale knows that police are looking for leads in the case of a missing woman.  The car she was last seen in matches the car that appears in Mr. Turner’s garage.  There’s also a small dent in the front left corner of the car – just as the police described.  Is Mr. Turner the kidnapper?  Kale sets up his video camera, uses his binoculars and spends almost every moment looking through the windows of Mr. Turner’s house.  Can he find a clue?

I didn’t mind the film in places but Disturbia didn’t create the thrills I was expecting.  Why?  Because I never believed it.  Some scenes left me shaking my head.  The characters do not behave like normal people and the events do not unfold like they would in real life.  It makes you appreciate how good Alfred Hitchcock’s Rear Window was.

I won’t elaborate too much for fear of ruining the ending but here are a few examples.  There’s one scene where Kale gets his hands on both the current and original plans of Mr. Turner’s house.  How is this possible?  There’s another scene where Kaleb spots something incredibly miniscule on his video camera.  How did he do this?  I know “it’s just a movie” but I’m still annoyed.

Now speaking positively, I enjoyed Shia LaBoeuf (Holes) in the leading role.  He came across as a regular, normal teenager – not the kind of stereotypical teenagers we see in so many movies.  I don’t know if that makes sense but there’s something about his mannerisms and the way he speaks which makes him look like he’s not even acting.  There is talk that LaBoeuf will be cast as Harrison Ford’s son in the new Indiana Jones movie.  I hope he does as it’d be a great break-out role.

Let me finish up by saying that I saw this film at an advance screening with almost no prior knowledge of the storyline.  For this reason, I had no idea where the film would head and how it would end.  Having seen the trailer subsequently, I am horrified by how much of the story it gives away.  I say this every few months but if you’re going to create a thriller, what’s the bloody point of revealing the plot twists beforehand?  If you’re thinking about seeing Disturbia, I strongly urge that you don’t download the trailer first.