Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 18 September 2005

Only a dozen or so documentaries are released in Australian cinemas each year.  This comes as no surprise considering they usually struggle at the box-office and have trouble finding an audience.  Those that are selected for release here usually come with a flood of positive reviews and a few awards already under their belt.  Since huge marketing budgets can’t be afforded, good word of mouth is the best thing a releasing studio can hope for.

Murderball fits this methodology perfectly.  It won the audience award for best documentary at the lucrative Sundance Film Festival back in January 2005.  It was shown at several film festivals across Australia (including our own here in Brisbane) where the response from both the public and the critics was also very strong.  All evidence suggests it is a very good film and now having seen it, I couldn’t agree more.

The film follows the path of the American wheel-chair rugby team and their quest to earn the gold medal at the 2004 Paralympic Games in Athens, Greece.  The sport was once known as “murderball” but it made the sport hard to market and hence the more friendly title.  The U.S. team had won every wheel-chair rugby competition until the 2002 World Championships where they were upset by Canada.  This created a fierce rivalry which grew fiercer as the 2004 Games approached...

Despite the title, the film’s focus isn’t on the sport of wheel-chair rugby.  It’s about paraplegics who have overcome much adversity.  The filmmakers have selected six members from the U.S. team and profile their stories.  We see how they came to be disabled, the horrors they went through with their recovery and their realisation that they could still live an equally fulfilling life.

It’s a difficult subject to approach but it’s done in a straight-forward, informative manner.  I learned much about paraplegics which I didn’t otherwise know.  There’s a particularly funny story involving a patient, a nurse and a sponge-bath.  The humour is balanced with scenes of emotion and confrontation.  I sensed that the film itself played a small part in each athlete’s own mental rehabilitation.

At a nicely packaged 85 minutes, Murderball is an interesting film which finishes with an ironic twist.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 08 September 2005

I know nothing about art.  Last year, I went to the Louvre in Paris and saw the Mona Lisa for the first time.  I was there in a 100% tourist capacity.  I could now tell everyone that I’d seen the Mona Lisa, like it was some sort of achievement.  Bluntly, I wasn’t there to marvel at this most famous work of art.  I have no idea what’s even special about it and what differentiates it from the thousands of other paintings that were on display.  Even if an expert tried to explain it, I wouldn’t understand.

This analogy is relevant if I’m any hope of explaining by love for Gus Van Sant’s new film, Last Days.  Inspired by the death of Kurt Cobain, this film follows a young rock musician named Blake (played by Michael Pitt) in the final days of his life.  Blake hardly utters a decipherable word throughout the film and many scenes are just him walking silently through the house and in the surrounding forestry.

As a result, many people will see Last Days as the most boringly pointless film ever made.  You’d be hard pressed to find another film this year with less dialogue and less action.  So why did I like it?  When you see 200 odd films each year, you develop a dull familiarity which makes it hard to stay interested.  Most movies follow the same predictable formulas and pan out exactly as you’d expect.  For me, Last Days had me hypnotised.  I found it fascinating to be watching a simple person go about his life whilst knowing that he will soon die.  He doesn’t know this of course but I do.

Last Days is the final in a trilogy of films from director Gus Van Sant (My Own Private Idaho, Good Will Hunting) on the subject of young people and death.  In 2002’s Gerry (which was hardly seen in Australia), Matt Damon and Casey Affleck were two individuals who became hopelessly lost in a desert.  2003’s Elephant (which won the Palm D’Or at the Cannes Film Festival) looked a high school shooting spree in a similar vein that which happened at Columbine High School.  Elephant was my second favourite film of last year and a true masterpiece.  Each film explores a different cause of death.  Sometimes it is brought about from being careless, sometimes it is completely random and unexpected, sometimes it is can consume you.

In the leading role, Michael Pitt gives a tremendous performance.  It can’t have been easy replicating the same mannerisms and mumblings for each take.  Pitt is developing a strong resume in the world of independent cinema.  It’s as if he’s deliberately trying to shun main-stream Hollywood by taking on roles in films such as Hedwig & The Angry Inch, Bully and The Dreamers.  I respect any actor who is not tempted by the lure of Hollywood blockbusters but instead looks for “meatier” roles in low-budget independent films (where the scripts are written before the actors sign on the dotted line).  Michael Pitt fits this mould.

I’ve done my best to explain why this is one of my favourite films of 2005.  It’s become a cliché but it actually one of those films that you’ll love or hate.  The Courier Mail critic Des Patridge gave it his lowest rating of a single star.  At The Movies host Margaret Pomeranz awarded it her highest rating of five stars.  It’s not often that you see a film which leaves critics so divided.  If you don’t get it, then don’t worry.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 12 September 2005

The film was truly awful and during the later stages, my mind turned to how best to describe it in my review.  Without being completely distasteful (which I often am), I thought about another film from director Rob Cohen, The Fast & The Furious.

I’m not a huge action fan but I enjoyed Furious.  The stunts were pretty cool and there was a half-interesting storyline.  There was an undercover cop, a gang of street racers and some rough and ready romance.  It’s the kind of film I could easily watch again and would recommend it to most people.

Stealth, on the other hand, doesn’t even have the basic structure a movie.  There’s no script and some of the action sequences look like they’ve been put together by a 7-year-old on an etch-a-sketch.  What you see on screen is special effects gone mad.  You see planes zipping around the sky but it all happens so fast and so stupidly, that there’s no hope of finding any sanity amongst it all.

The “plot” concerns a group of three elite pilots who have been introduced to their latest team member.  The quirk is that the new addition isn’t real – it’s a robotic plane with super-intelligence that can fly without human control.  Unfortunately, the Americans who designed it, failed to test it properly.  It’s been rushed into operation and goes off and causes a nuclear bomb to detonate in some country near Russia with an unpronounceable name.

It seems the only people who can save the day are the three real pilots (played by Josh Lucas, Jessica Biel and Jamie Foxx).  They go in search of the rogue plane and try to bring it back under their control.  In doing so, they blow up a hell of a lot of people in North Korea but that’s ok, because North Korea is bad, right?  And by creating a fictitious enemy, it takes the focus away from the fact that it’s the American military and its corruption and arrogance that is the real enemy.

Ok, I know I’m being disrespectful now so I apologise.  It’s hard not to get fired up by a clichéd ridden piece of tripe.  Fans of Jessica Biel (The Rules Of Attraction) might enjoy the film.  They somehow manage to weave in a scene where she goes to Thailand for a holiday and wanders around near a waterfall in a revealing bikini for a few minutes.  Doesn’t have much context but neither does anything else in the film.

Late in the film, there are two cameos from Australians Richard Roxburgh (Moulin Rouge) and John Waters.  This struck me as strange but I learned later that the film was made here in Australia at Fox Studios in Sydney.  What a waste of resources.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 04 September 2005

Your background will influence what you make of the second cinematic adaptation of Charlie & The Chocolate Factory.  I’d spoken with several people who liked the film and have read many positive reviews from both within Australia and abroad.  Unfortunately, I see Tim Burton’s version Charlie & The Chocolate Factory as an undeniable failure.  Perhaps my love for the original film (with Gene Wilder in the leading role) and my high expectations of this new film contributed to this viewpoint.

For those who haven’t been exposed to author Roald Dahl’s world, the reclusive Willy Wonka has announced to the world that he will give five children the chance to tour his chocolate factory.  It will be an historic event as no one has set foot in the factory for years.  To select the lucky kids, Wonka has hidden five precious golden tickets in his candy bars.  Wonka’s marketing team must be thrilled because the announcement left the kids of the world emptying their piggy-banks and buying and piece of Wonka candy they can get their hands on.

Charlie Bucket is a young Londoner who live is a dilapidated house with his parents and grandparents.  His father works at a toothpaste factory and their meagre income provides little more than cabbage soup each night for dinner.  The only candy bar that Charlie sees each year is the one he gets on his birthday.  With four golden tickets already claimed, Charlie finds some money in the street, walks into the nearest candy store and purchases one Wonka bar.  The unthinkable becomes reality – inside is the last golden ticket!

Tim Burton is a fantastic director who tackles unconventional material and appreciates the talent of Johnny Depp.  In all, they have worked together on three previous films (Edward Scissorhands, Ed Wood and Sleepy Hollow).  This time though, their collaboration has come to nought.

Speaking firstly of Johnny Depp, his portrayal of Willy Wonka (which many say is an imitation of Michael Jackson) did not sit well with me.  In the original film, Gene Wilder has a strange quirkiness about him that was almost scary.  Johnny Depp, perhaps trying to differentiate himself from Wilder, looks like a childish, dim-wit.  It all starts badly for Depp with a silly introduction and song on the steps of the factory.  He manages a few funny lines towards the end of the film but generally, his attempts at humour left a confused look on my face.

Now to Tim Burton and I was surprised by his heavy reliance on special effects.  Everything looks fake and plastic.  What’s with Augustus Gloop?  He looks computer generated but I guess not since there’s an actor listed in the credits.  Worst of all are the Oompa-Loopas.  Or should I say Oompa-Loopa.  There’s just one actor who plays the Oompa-Loompas (Deep Roy) and Burton has used CGI effects to multiply him.  It’s almost as annoying as their songs (which again I think are inferior to the first film).

I see this film having more appeal to kids than adults but why has the focus been taken away from Charlie?  Played nicely by Freddie Highmore, Charlie is hardly seen in the middle stages of the film.  The focus is on Johnny Depp and how many strange looks he can give.  As I’ve said though, others may see this differently and may enjoy Burton’s different spin on Dahl’s famous tale.  I did not.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 10 September 2005

Will Stronghold (Angarano) is starting his freshman year at Sky High, the school where kids with super-powers learn how to harness their ability and use it to benefit mankind.  There’s a lot of expectation on Will because he’s the son of the world’s two leading superheros, The Commander (Russell) and Jetstream (Preston).  Unfortunately for Will, he hasn’t developed any powers yet and hasn’t had the guts to tell his parents.

It doesn’t take long for Will to make his first “mortal enemy”.  Fellow student Warren Peace is determined to make Will’s school life a difficult experience.  You see, Warren’s dad is a super-villain and was defeated and put into jail by Will’s parents.  When the two face off in a cafeteria brawl, Will’s dream comes true – he develops super-human strength and manages to defend himself.  The end result though is a trip to the detention room.

Will’s best friend is Layla (Danielle Panabaker) but he is oblivious to the fact she has a huge crush on him.  It goes from bad to worse for Layla when Will falls for Gwen, an older student and head of the Homecoming Dance committee.  The two start spending all their time together and Layla has to take a back seat.  Things are about to change however with evil forces planning on destroying Sky High and Will’s parents in the process.  It’s up to Will to save the day.

I’ve heard this film compared to The Incredibles and that’s a fair description.  It’s a film which looks at superheroes in a more personal, comedic light.  Sky High is cute but it’s in no way as entertaining as The Incredibles, which was one of the most smartly written animated films ever made.  There are some gaping holes in the Sky High story but it’s designed for kids and I like the overall premise so I’m prepared to give it some slack.

There’s a good performance in the film from Michael Angarano (Lords Of Dogtown) who plays Will Stronghold.  He has a sheepish look that fits the character perfectly.  The star power comes from Kurt Russell and Kelly Preston but the script doesn’t give them much to work with - their dialogue is fairly plain and rigid.

It’s just good enough for kids to enjoy this school holidays.