Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 12 January 2007

Chris Gardner (Will Smith) is a man who can’t catch a break.  He’s struggling to make ends meet as a salesman and can’t find enough time to spend with his wife (Thandie Newton) and young son, Christopher (Jaden Smith).  That sentence greatly simplifies the many obstacles that are thrown in front of him.  Just when you think it can’t get any worse for Chris, a new challenge arises.

If he continued on his downward spiral, then I doubt Chris’s story would have made for a marketable motion picture.  We want to see people overcoming adversity and in that regard, The Pursuit of Happyness delivers.

After getting the idea from a stranger in the street, Chris wants to become a stockbroker.  He thinks it will give him the respect and the financial security that will make him “happy”.  The firm of Dean Witter accepts 20 interns every year for its six month training program.  At the end, just one is selected for full time employment.  He may lack a graduate degree but it’s not going to stop Chris from trying.  He must have that job.

I haven’t been a huge fan of Will Smith in the past but I think his great performance is critical to this film.  He acts like a regular guy and I had much compassion for him and his situation.  If I didn’t like him, then I wouldn’t have cared less.  This may sound a little mushy but it does make you appreciate the things you take for granted.

Smith’s passionate portrayal helped me overlook some of the film’s misgivings.  It may be based on a true story but there were elements I found hard to believe.  Given his lack of money, why didn’t he first look for a regular job (e.g. cleaner, pizza delivery guy)?  Not once did I see him at a job agency.  His wife leaves him early in the film and doesn’t return.  What happened to her?  Didn’t she care for her son?  Will wins new clients as part of his internship with apparent ease.  What was his secret and how did he do it working less than the standard number of hours?

The incorrectly spelt title and the casting of Will Smith may have you thinking this is a light-hearted movie going experience.  That couldn’t be further from the truth.  It’s one of the darker, more depressing dramas I’ve seen of late.  It deserves to be recommended but just make sure you know what you’re in for.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 27 December 2006

Princess Diana’s death on 31 August 1997 shocked people around the world.  Most all of us can remember where we were on hearing the news.  The magnitude of the event and the effect it would have on the people of Great Britain could never have been predicted.  A sea of flowers was placed outside the gates of Buckingham Palace and her home at Kensington Palace.  People slept in the streets so that could watch the funeral procession.  London came to standstill.

One year earlier, Diana had divorced Prince Charles.  Whilst it seemed to be a mutual decision, the majority of the public took the side of Princess Diana.  The feeling was that she had been caught up in the royal “institution” and cast aside because she didn’t fit their mould.  Charles’ rumoured affair with Camilla Parker Bowles did further harm to the royal family’s image.

Stephen Frears’ film looks the actions of Queen Elizabeth and other members of the Royal Family in the week following Princess Diana’s death.  In her 45 year reign, the Queen had never come under such scrutiny from the British people.  She did not release a statement, she did not lower the flags to half mast and she did not make an appearance to comfort the mourners.  Newspaper headlines were scathing of her decisions and one survey suggested that one in four citizens were in favour of abolishing the monarchy.

If we believe what the film tells us, the Queen’s savour was the newly elected British Prime Minister, Tony Blair.  Mr Blair had gauged the mood of the public and felt that the Royal Family’s actions, whilst in line with protocol, were incorrect.  He nervously pressured the Queen into bowing to the public’s demands.  History tells us that she did.  On 5 September 1997, the Queen left her summer holiday home at Balmoral, travelled to Buckingham Palace, paid her respects and gave a live broadcast to the nation at 6pm.

In my eyes, the film does not take a stance on whether the Queen’s initial decision to ignore the public was right and wrong.  It does however give us plenty to think about.  We get to see the events unfold from the Queen’s perspective and it’s quite different from what you might think.  She has been brought up to believe in the importance of protocol and it’s hard for her to fathom why she should do anything considering Diana was no longer a member of the Royal Family.  For instance, the flags weren’t lowered to half mast even after the death of her own father in 1952 (who was King at the time).

If you’re wondering how writer Peter Morgan came up with the script, the film’s website tells us that it has been based on “extensive interviews, devoted research, discreet sources and informed imagination.”  Given that the Queen is such a private person, I’d like to how exactly how much of the story is based on fact as opposed to “informed imagination”.  It may not be as accurate as a portrayal as we are led to believe.  That said, the Queen’s private secretary has invited a few of the filmmakers over for lunch early next year so there’s an implication that it has her Majesty’s approval.

What makes the film so compelling are the terrific performances turned in by Helen Mirren as Queen Elizabeth II and Michael Sheen as Tony Blair.  I’ve seen the film twice and I’m finding it hard to remember what their real-life counterparts look and sound like.  Their posture, voice and demeanour are just as I would imagine.  Mirren has been declared a certainty to win the best actress Oscar in March next year but I’d like to see Sheen rewarded with a nomination for best supporting actor.  They’re equally good.

The film’s re-enacted drama feels a little overdramatised at times (I still don’t understand the significance of the stag subplot) but director Frears maintained my interest by including actual news footage.  We get to listen to the BBC news reports and hear the actual interviews from members of the public who were critical of the Queen.  It gives the film a heightened sense of reality and believability.

I must bow and remove my hat to The Queen.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 04 January 2007

Not since The Triplets of Bellville (released here in 2004), have I seen such a distinctive animated film.  Created using a new 3D-style of computer animation, it looks very different from the more traditional animated flicks produced by Pixar and Dreamworks.  As a further positive, this film takes us into a new fantasy world filled with heroes and villains.  That’s right, it doesn’t involve talking animals!

Arthur (Highmore) lives with his grandmother (Farrow) in an old house in a small town.  He puts on a brave face but he wishes he could be with his parents who are off finding work.  To help pass the time, Arthur reads the detailed journals which were written by his grandfather.  They tell the story of his many adventures to places around the globe.  Sadly, Arthur’s grandfather mysteriously disappeared a few years ago.

To make matters worse, the bank intends to sell the house to a wealthy property developer.  Arthur and his grandmother have just 48 hours to come up with money to buy the house themselves.  The situation looks hopeless.

Arthur’s grandfather had written and spoken about a treasure he had hidden in the yard.  The only problem was that he’d forgotten where he’d buried it.  Arthur thinks that if he could find it, there still might be time to save the house.

In one of his books, Arthur’s grandfather had written about the Minimoys.  These tiny people live just below the surface in a world that we never knew existed.  Given their location, Arthur thinks that they may have seen where the treasure is buried.  Using a secret formula and a special telescope, Arthur shrinks himself (to a size smaller than an ant), slips down a hole in the ground and goes in search of treasure.

Arthur And The Invisibles is a very busy film.  Let’s a lot going on and it’s sometimes hard to keep up with the pace.  It kept my attention for a solid 90 minutes which is a testament to the well-written screenplay.  Perhaps too much time is spent above surface (as opposed to below in the world of the Minimoys) but if a planned sequel does go ahead, we’ll get to see a lot more of this beautiful fantasy world.

Despite being made in France, the film has been created for an English speaking audience.  Freddie Highmore (Finding Neverland) and Mia Farrow (Rosemary’s Baby) have been cast in the leading roles and help create the film’s fun, relaxed atmosphere.  A large list of Hollywood stars have leant their voices to the animated characters and they include Madonna, Robert DeNiro, Chazz Palminteri, Hary Keitel and David Bowie.

With an $80m budget, I’d have to think this is the largest animated flick to be made outside of the United States.  It’s nice to see a fresh approach and it looks like the money has been well spent.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 21 December 2006

Blood Diamond is a Hollywood-style action flick set against the backdrop of a very serious subject matter.  This may sound like a contradiction but the film’s method is effective.  I enjoyed the heart-pumping adventure scenes whilst also learning much about an issue I didn’t previously know about.

A “blood diamond” is one which has been illegally smuggled out of a country at war.  They are sold to foreigners and the proceeds used to pay for weapons (which only add to the war’s ferocity).  Human rights organisations have tried to ban such diamonds but it’s been very difficult given the cunning methods used by those involved.

The African country of Sierra Leone was at civil war throughout the 1990s.  To fund the war, militia were exporting a glut of blood diamonds.  It is here where director Ed Zwick’s film is set.  Writer Charles Leavitt’s story is one of fiction but it highlights the many real problems that the people of Sierra Leone faced during this unstable time.

Danny Archer (DiCaprio) is a Zimbabwean diamond smuggler working in Sierra Leone.  Whilst spending a brief period of time in prison, Archer meets a fisherman named Solomon Vandy (Hounsou) who has found an elusive pink diamond (thought to be “priceless”).  Vandy cleverly buried the diamond before he was captured but it’s going to be a hazardous journey to get past the armed fighters and return to its location.

Archer knows this is the opportunity of a lifetime.  He must have that diamond.  The problem is that Vandy has no intention of sharing it with him.  Things change when Vandy is released from prison and cannot find his wife and two children.  Overcome with worry and grief, he thinks they have been taken to a refugee camp.  Archer promises to use his contacts to find Vandy’s family if, in return, he agrees to split the proceeds from the sale of the diamond 50-50.  An uneasy partnership has been formed.

Complicating the situation is the arrival of Maddy Bowen (Connolly), an American journalist looking to write an exclusive on the diamond smuggling industry.  Archer senses that her journalistic connections will be needed and so gives her tit-bits of insider information to feed her story.

We are now in a position where Archer, Vandy and Bowen are working together but will different objectives.  Archer wants wealth and the freedom to escape this war-torn country.  Vandy wants his family and the chance to give them a better life.  Bowen wants fame and the power to make people stand up and listen.  Will they betray each other to achieve their goals?  The question will be asked.

I’ve said this before but Leonardo DiCaprio is the actor of my generation.  No role is too difficult and the broadness of his resume is a testament to that fact.  DiCaprio gives an incredibly passionate performance in Blood Diamond and his South African accent is remarkably precise.  Djimon Hounsou and Jennifer Connelly are also terrific.  It may feel clichéd at times (thanks to the endless number of close shaves) but they make the story and its characters believable.  You will understand what drives them.

Given the difficulty, the movie was not able to shot in Sierra Leone.  Most scenes were filmed in South Africa and Mozambique.  The beauty of the undulating landscape has been captured by Portuguese cinematographer Eduardo Serra (Girl With Peal Earring).  It’s backed by a dominant music score from James Newton Howard (The Village).  It all adds up to a film that you have to see on a big screen (or at the very least with a home surround sound system).

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 01 January 2007

Every year, thousands of penguins go through a very unusual mating ritual.  Once the egg has been laid, the father keeps it between his legs whilst the mother goes on a long march in search of food.  When the female returns, she can find her mate amongst the masses by making a unique “squawking” sound.  It’s hard to believe but yes, each penguin couple makes their own distinctive noise.  Those that saw the Academy Award winning documentary March Of The Penguins (released back in March) will probably know this already.

This fact is the basis for writer-director George Miller’s new animated flick, Happy Feet.  In the film, the fun-loving penguins attract each other by signing songs.  You’ll hear the cast sing classics from artists such as The Beach Boys, Elvis Presley, Frank Sinatra and Kiss.  It undoubtedly features one of the biggest movie soundtracks of the year.

Unfortunately for a young penguin named Mumble (voiced by Elijah Wood) he cannot sing.  His voice sends shivers down the spine of anyone within earshot.  The one thing he does know how to do is tap dance.  Dancing is a new concept the army of penguins and Mumble’s strange foot movements only further alienate him from his family and friends.

After becoming lost in the arctic ice, Mumble meets a posse of new penguins led by Ramon (voiced by Robin Williams).  They come from a different penguin community and have strange Latino accents.  They think Mumble’s dance moves are “so accidentally cool” and they welcome him into their group.

Whilst telling us to appreciate each other’s differences, the film also has an environmental message.  The survival of the penguins is in jeopardy given the lack of fish (their food source) in the nearby ocean.  Mumble suspects that the large creatures in their machines, which they call the “aliens”, have been taken them.  He goes on a dangerous journey to learn the truth and to prove to the others that he is right.

As I say every week, I am tiring quickly of animated films with talking animals.  There have been so many of late and I think they tread over the same material.  It does feel a little familiar but there’s still a lot to like about Happy Feet.  Robin Williams is particularly funny.  Both adults and children will get a kick out of his character’s bold personality.  The quality of animation is also excellent.

The ending is a little strange.  It’s very abrupt and I’m not sure whether the introduction of the human element fits in with the context of the film.  Then again, I’m not a writer and the producers of the film shouldn’t be complaining given its stellar performance at the international box-office.  It’s the favourite to win the best animated film Oscar at the upcoming Academy Awards.

As my last review for the 2006 year, I can only hope for a little more originality in next year’s crop of animated features.