Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 21 November 2005

A religious father who is out of touch with his family.  A depressed mother with a secret she will not share.  A confused son in search of something to believe in.  A quiet daughter with a talent waiting to be discovered.  We see these four people under a very close microscope in Bee Season.  It may have the credentials on paper but unfortunately, this film is confusing, annoying and disappointing.

Why is it confusing?  The film has a very strong religious focus and I really don’t understand the point to it all.  People are questioning their faith but so what?  What am I supposed to take away from this?  There’s a scene late in the film where the daughter has an epileptic-like fit on reading an ancient religious document.  It came completely out of left field and I found it more humorous than serious.

Why is it annoying?  The film sees the daughter battle through the heats and make it to the national finals of the spelling bee championship.  She’s a gifted speller but the competitions are boring and the ending to the final is pathetic.  Why would she be given such an easy word?  Spelling bees should be exciting and suspenseful and if you want proof, check out the documentary Spellbound (which was my 3^rd favourite film of 2003).

Why is it disappointing?  The film is based on a novel (written by Myla Goldberg) and with a strong cast, I was expecting a strong drama.  There is a great debut performance from youngster Flora Cross and I loved the confidence she shows when adjusting the microphone on the podium during the competitions.  Aside from Ms Cross however, I have very little to rave about.  Richard Gere and Juliette Binoche are trying too hard and the continually changing storylines prevents us from really getting to know these characters.

A bee minus seems an appropriate grade given the title but that would be too generous.  A C+ it is.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 14 November 2005

Everyone in Hollywood knows the importance of winning an Oscar.  Films which are nominated get increased exposure which results in an increased box-office.  For the cast and crew who are nominated, it’s almost certainly going to lead to more high-profile roles and bigger pay cheques.

For this reason, getting a film nominated at the Academy Awards has become an art form.  Studios have set marketing strategies in place and spend millions on very specific campaigns.  One consistence though is that the film must be released at the very end of the year (in the United States).  They think, and it’s turned out to be true, that Academy voters have short mind-spans.  If you release a film in December (close to when the votes are lodged), it’s going to be a lot easier to remember than a film released back in January.  Did you know that the last four films to win the best picture Oscar were released in December?

I point this out because the Oscar season is almost upon us.  Action blockbusters take a back seat as the studios churn out their “quality” releases.  They’ve been sitting on them for close to 12 months.  Finally we get to see them and remember just how good movies can be.

The Constant Gardener is the first major entrant in this year’s Oscar race.  It should come as no surprise given the reputation of Fernando Meirelles, the film’s director.  In 2002 Meirelles made City Of God - a film about two boys growing up in Rio De Janeiro.  Despite having subtitles (which is a turnoff for so many), the film was nominated for four Academy Awards and is ranked by the public at the Internet Movie Database as one of the top 20 films of all time.  I’m not sure I’d rank it so highly but I’ll tell you that it’s a damn good film.

Meirelles’ follow-up is based on the novel John le Carre and is set in Northern Kenya.  Justin Quayle (Fiennes), an English diplomat, has just learned his wife, Tessa (Weisz), has been killed in a car accident.  He suspects foul play and knew that his wife was working on a secret investigation that she didn’t want to involve him in.  Despite the authorities believing it to be an “open and shut” case, Justin goes on a determined search for the truth.  The deeper he digs, the darker it is getting…

The tension builds as the film progresses and we see Ralph Fiennes go from a shy, awkward man into a passionate, unrelenting individual who is prepared to take on any risk.  It’s a top performance from Fiennes but I feel guilty in singling him out from the rest of the cast because they really all are very good.

It’s also a very topical film.  There are some parts to the story which I wouldn’t ordinarily believe but having seen documentaries such as The Corporation and Enron: The Smartest In The Room, I’m not surprised at all.  It’s remarkable how people can distance themselves from a problem and feel less responsible.  You’ll note that I haven’t gone into much detail and I hope I’ve created enough intrigue to get you off your butt and into the movie theatre.

Throw in some wonderful panoramic shots of Kenya and a snazzy African soundtrack and you have everything that a great drama should be.  The Constant Gardener is one of the year’s finest and if it’s a sign of the upcoming Oscar releases, please bring them on!

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 18 November 2005

Jim Winters (LaPaglia) is a widowed father with two teenage sons, Gabe (Stanford) and Pete (Webber).  It’s been a while since his wife passed away but the family has never really come to grips with what happened.  They are each coping with the loss in a different way and Jim is feeling become more and more isolated from his sons and their upbringing.

The monotonous existence they all share is abruptly changed when Gabe tells everyone that he’s moving out of home.  It’s just something he must do – he has to go out there and find his place in the world.  Jim isn’t prepared for this and arguments ensue.  Matters are further complicated for Jim when he starts becoming friendly with Molly Ripkin (Janney), a single woman who is house-sitting in the neighbourhood.  Does he have the heart to give love a second chance?

Winter Solstice is one of those quiet, sleepy films that you might watch when channel surfing late one night.  It has a recognisable cast and a simple storyline that’s easy to go along with.  It’s like a Hallmark Channel movie only with a little more quality.

For those that don’t understand the title reference, the winter solstice is the shortest day of the year – from that day for the next six months, the sun always rises earlier of a morning and sets later in the evening.  It’s a turning point just as it is Jim, Gabe and Pete.

Winter Solstice screened at the Brisbane International Film Festival and I wasn’t expecting it to get a release in this country but with Australian Anthony LaPaglia (Without A Trace) is the leading role it may attract some viewers.  It’s a nice character study but filmgoers who like movies with more action and substance should try something else.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 14 November 2005

There is a woman.  She has a 6-year-old daughter.  They board a plane.  They plane takes off.  The mother falls asleep.  When she wakes up, her daughter is not there.  She looks around the plane.  The flight attendants start searching.  There is simply no trace of her.  The mother starts freaking out.  An air marshall keeps her calm.  A flight attendant checks the passenger manifest.  The daughter was never on the plane.  No one ever saw her.

It’s a suspenseful premise and it’s all very Hitchcock like.  A girl goes missing at 36,000 feet above sea level.  How can this possibly happen?  I was very intrigued and having the film set in such an enclosed space only increased the suspense.  Jodie Foster’s performance as the mother is gripping and you sense the confusion that is raging through her mind.

What follows is the single worst ending to a film you will see in 2005.  I can’t possibly imagine that Jodie Foster signed on to appear in this film after having first read this dismal excuse for a script.  People have different tastes and like different movies but how can anyone like this?  The plot holes are so obvious that a 10-year-old could pick them out.  It’s as if the screenwriters came up with the story then didn’t know how to end it.  So instead of scrapping the idea, they tried to “pull a swifty” on the audience.

I’ll remember Flightplan for a long time because it sets a benchmark for lunacy that I can compare other dodgy endings to.   Over.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 15 November 2005

This would have to be one of the quickest follow-up sequels ever made.  Saw was released in Australia less than a year ago (December 2, 2004) and it’s been a profitable twelve months for Australian creators Leigh Whannell and James Wan.  The original film cost close to $1m and its total worldwide box-office takings were roughly $100m.  If I were in their shoes, I’d be churning out Saw 3, Saw 4 and Saw 5 as quickly as I could my pay cheque.  They’re on winning formula and they should be milking it for all its worth.

Given that it was no so long ago, you may remember the premise.  There is a serial killer named Jigsaw who kidnaps his victims and puts them in a life or situation.  If they want to live, they will have to pass a test (which often involves mutilation).  There is a method behind Jigsaw’s madness.  He selects those people who have no appreciation for their own life.  By putting them through a horrifying ordeal, he hopes to change their perceptions.

In Saw 2, police detective Eric Matthews (Whalberg) comes face-to-face with the elusive Jigsaw.  He cannot arrest him however.  Jigsaw has kidnapped his son, Daniel, and will only let him live if Eric is prepared to play another of Jigsaw’s games.

Meanwhile, Daniel awakes to find himself locked in a house with five people he has never met.  They are given a message on an audio tape which tells them they have been exposed to a deadly nerve agent.  The only way to they can survive is to find an antidote and several have been hidden around the house.  The clock is ticking however.  They have less than two hours to solve the riddles of the house or it will be too late.

Just like the original, Saw 2 is extremely violent and gruesome.  It’s on a par with Wolf Creek but don’t ask me why Wolf Creek was rated R and yet Saw 2 escapes with a mere MA rating.  No matter where you see it, there’ll be some shocked squeals from the audience.  This is part of its appeal though – few horror films go this far and lovers of the genre will be more than satisfied.

The first film was something different, something fresh.  Now, I’m watching a film which reminds me too much of the original.  It’s like a remake – the same idea with just a few new (and not so new) ways of killing people.  The level of suspense isn’t the same.  In its defence, I’ll state under oath that the ending of Saw 2 is much better.

Now where did I put that Saw 3 script…