Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 19 May 2007

Death Of A President is not your ordinary movie.  It is a fictitious documentary which chronicles the assassination of George W. Bush on October 19, 2007.  How about that for a unique movie idea?

This premise alone has caused controversy.  There has also been heated debate about the images of George W. Bush which were used in the film.  Special effects created the scene where he is shot.  So yes, you do actually see the real President Bush take two bullets to the chest.  Some viewers will be a little freaked out.

The incident occurred at a hotel in Chicago.  Bush has stepped out into the street to meet with members of the public following a meeting with business leaders.  The shots came from the 20^th floor of a neighbouring high rise building and paranoia ensued.  The President was pushed into his limo and rushed immediately to the hospital.  He would be pronounced dead within hours.

The first half of the film looks at the lead up to the shooting.  We hear interviews from various people and their perspective on how the day unfolded.  The Secret Service talk about the problems they had with protestors who tried to disrupt the President’s motorcade.  Bush’s speech writer talks about how calm the President was en route to the meeting.  When you mix these interviews with documentary-like footage, you’ll appreciate why the film feels more “real” than a usual Hollywood blockbuster.

The film’s second half focuses on the resulting investigation and the people responsible.  I found this element of the story more interesting.  Given the circumstances, this is not a crime that can remain unsolved.  The public need someone to be made accountable to give them closure.  As a result, the methods by which suspects were examined and evidence obtained were not out of your standard textbook.

Death Of A President certainly grabbed my attention but it didn’t provide any startling revelations.  In the hours following the President’s death, the first major suspect was identified as being from Syria.  The media seized on this and soon enough, every person with links to Syria was under scrutiny.  Like other incidents we’ve seen of late, the actions of one can cause great harm to their country or religion.  People love to generalise.  It’s a valid point but as I indicated earlier, my eyes were already open to this problem in today’s society.

I’m not sure how many people are going to be keen to see a film like this.  There are enough problems in the world as it is and so to create a new, fictitious one might be too much for some to swallow.  The choice is yours.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 13 May 2007

I’m a big fan of poker and play regularly with my friends.  I am also a big fan of director Curtis Hanson (L.A. Confidential, Wonder Boys).  Sadly, the combination of these two ingredients has resulted in a less than stellar outcome.

Lucky You is the story of Huck Cheever (Bana), a poker player living in Vegas.  He may have talent playing reading other players but his boldness is his weakness.  As a result, he hasn’t a cent in the bank and very few assets.  The amount of time he spends gambling is also a hindrance to his social life.  He can never keep a girlfriend and he has few friends outside of the casino.

Making life tougher for Huck is the fact that his dad is a poker champion.  L.C. Cheever (Duvall) has won two world championships and is a legend in poker circles.  The fact that he’s hasn’t achieved the greatness of his father has been difficult for Huck to deal with.  His efforts to impress his father on the poker tables always have always ended in disaster.

At a get-together, Huck meets Billie (Barrymore), a wanna-be singer who has come to Las Vegas to find work.  She lands a gig at a small club and the two celebrate by hitting the poker tables.  It’s a fun night as Huck teaches Billie the art of playing Texas Hold’em poker.  Their relationship soon deteriorates however as Billie realises the troubles that come with dating an unsuccessful professional gambler.

The film is littered with cameos from real life poker players.  There’s Daniel Negrano, Doyle Brunson, Johnny Chan and Phil Hellmuth.  I could list a dozen more but they’ll mean very little to those who don’t play.  Strangely though, these poker players don’t say anything nor are they identified by name.  I’d have liked to have seen them integrated more into the story.

For non-poker fans, you should be warned that there’s a lot of poker playing in the film.  Close to half the film is spent sitting at a poker table watching cards being dealt, chips being spilled and players being analysed.  Whilst these scenes are somewhat suspenseful, the rest of the film felt flat.  The character development felt rushed and underdone.  I was also confused by some of the supporting characters (such as Huck’s gambling buddies) and their significance in the film.

Despite the limitations in the story, director Curtis Hanson has still made a good-looking film.  Through the lens, he shows us the glamorous and not-so-glamorous parts of Las Vegas.  I also think he’s done a great job picking up familiar poker sounds.  I love the noise of poker chips being shuffled and cards being dealt.

At just over two hours in duration, Lucky You is an average movie with a few redeeming qualities.  You can gamble if you wish but it may be in your best interests to keep your wallet in your pocket.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 15 May 2007

There are brilliant movies, there are great movies, there are good movies, there are average movies, there are bad movies, there are terrible movies, there are disgraceful movies and then there is Norbit.

My goodness, this film was awful.  I saw it at a critic’s screening in a small theatrette.  Of the 9 people in attendance, 4 had left by the half-way mark.  That’s a 44% walk-out ratio.  I have no statistics to verify this but I dare say that few other films could match it in that regard.

The plot, which is thinner than a single sheet of one-ply toilet paper, centres on a dweeb named Norbit (Murphy).  As a baby, he was left by his parents at a Chinese restaurant / orphanage and was raised by Mr Wong (also Murphy).

After going through Norbit’s background in a drawn-out opening sequence, the film then takes us into the current time.  Norbit is married to Rasputia (Murphy again), an overweight woman who looks heavier than a gorilla.  I know it’s not politically correct to say that but the joke is used in the film.  I just wanted to give an indication of how low this “comedy” goes.

Rasputia is constantly demanding attention and the useless Norbit reluctantly provides it.  The situation changes however when Kate (Newton) arrives on the scene.  Norbit and Kate were once best friends at the orphanage but Kate left when just a young girl – she was fostered out to a family.  She has now returned home to buy and run the orphanage which gave her so much happiness as a child.

There are other characters in this mess.  Rasputia has three brothers who run the town like the mob.  They’d like to get their hands on the orphanage so that they can open a strip club.  Two pimps keep popping up but I’m not really sure what purpose they serve.

What was Eddie Murphy thinking when he signed on to do this film?  He has just earned his first Academy Award nomination (for Dreamgirls) and yet he has followed it with what might be his worst ever movie.  Shouldn’t an Oscar nom help get you better roles?  I’m confused.  Murphy’s three roles, body suits and strange voices did not entertain me in the slightest.  It’s like The Nutty Professor, only without a script.

In its opening weekend in the United States, Norbit made $34.2m.  Given the average ticket price, I’d estimate that roughly 3,000,000 people saw this film in its first three days.  That thought sickens me more than the film itself.

I like to give every movie a fair chance but Norbit doesn’t deserve it.  If you liked it, please don't tell me.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 02 May 2007

It often takes time for a play or musical to make the transition from the stage to the big screen.  That is not the case with The History Boys.  Capitalising on its popularity in both the UK and the United States, a cinematic version has already been made.  This movie features the entire original cast from when the play first debuted in London in May 2004.

Set in a middle-class school in Sheffield in the year 1983, the film follows a group of final year students and their quest to earn at place at either Cambridge or Oxford, the two most prestigious universities in the country.  Their two history teachers are Hector (Griffiths) and Mrs. Lintott (Tour).  They may have differing styles but they are well regarded.  Both are doing their utmost to give their students every chance at a successful life.

The Headmaster (Merrison) is concerned however.  He is worried that the school’s reputation will suffer if these students aren’t accepted into a top-class university.  Looking to give them a little “polish”, he employs a young teacher from Cambridge named Mr. Irwin (Moore).  Irwin’s focus is on making the class stand out.  He wants them to think outside of the square, for better or worse.

I really enjoyed watching this film.  Whilst my plot description may sound simplistic, there’s a lot of grey in the story.  It’s as if there’s something to like and dislike about each character.  It doesn’t happen often but I didn’t look at my watch once throughout the movie.  To use a metaphor, I was glued to the screen.

The movie has been written and directed by the same two people responsible for the play – Alan Bennett and Nicholas Hytner.  At times, I did feel like I was watching a video-taped version of the play as opposed to a free-flowing film.  Some of the discussions between the students in the classroom felt over rehearsed and unnatural.  Still, I enjoyed the intelligent dialogue.  Some insightful conversations are shared between characters on issues such as education, history, religion and sexuality.

Top performances are turned in from most of the cast.  I’d expect nothing less given that they had all performed for months at the Lyttelton Theatre in London.  As the two experienced educators, Richard Griffiths and Frances de la Tour are fantastic.  They bring depth and originality to their characters.  The same can’t be said of Clive Merrison as the Headmaster who was too one-sided.

There were a few elements to the story I’d have liked to have been explored further but on the whole, The History Boys has plenty to offer.  The early scenes provide plenty of laughs and the later scenes give you much to think about.  If given the chance, I’d love to see the stage play.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 14 May 2007

In 1969, a letter was received by the San Francisco Chronicle, the San Francisco Examiner and the Vallejo Times-Herald.  The writer identified himself as a murderer and gave specific details of murders that he had committed in the past year.  He also included three ciphers and demanded that they be published in each newspaper.  You can find them at http://www.zodiackiller.com/Letters.html.  They were soon decoded but his identity was not revealed.

Over the coming months, he would send more cryptic letters and codes to the Chronicle.  He called himself the Zodiac and claimed to be responsible for many more killings.  These letters and the resulting publicity turned him into one of history’s most infamous serial killers.

Based on actual events, David Fincher’s film chronicles the murders and then follows the hunt for the person responsible.  Detectives Toschi (Ruffalo) and Armstrong (Edwards) were in charge of the investigation but it was not an easy assignment.  The Zodiac left no fingerprints or any other key clues.  To make matters even more difficult, thousands of leads were being phoned in by the paranoid public and copycat killers were surfacing.  It became almost impossible to separate fact from fiction.

At the San Francisco Chronicle, Paul Avery (Downey Jr) was covering the story.  He wrote regular articles on the case and these attracted the attention of the Zodiac.  Helping Avery was the newspaper’s cartoonist – a young man named Robert Greysmith (Gyllenhaal).  A keen code breaker, Greysmith was fascinated with the case.

There were a number of suspects but sufficient evidence could not be found to lay charges.  The killings stopped and interest faded away.  The one man who never gave up was Greysmith.  He would not stop until he could find the Zodiac and look him in the eye.  In the early 1990s, he wrote a book on the case and it from this source on which James Vanderbilt’s screenplay is based.

Zodiac is a gripping film.  I’ve seen serial killer movies before but I don’t think I’ve seen one that felt as “real” from an investigatory point of view.  I was riveted by the investigation and the way in which the pieces of the puzzle fitted together.  It isn’t like your standard Hollywood thriller where the lead detective has some crazy brainwave and all is wrapped up in a few days.  This film is spread over many years and you see the strain that it causes on those connected with it.  The film’s tagline says it best – “There's more than one way to lose your life to a killer.”

It may be over two and a half hours in length but there’s seldom a dull moment.  The film has a quick tempo and credit goes to director David Fincher (Fight Club, Seven).  All the actors have been well cast with particularly strong performances turned in by Mark Ruffalo (Just Like Heaven) and Jake Gyllenhaal (Brokeback Mountain).  I also liked the setting and the way in which Fincher’s lens captures the streets of San Francisco on a rainy night.  The 1970s costumes are equally memorable.

I’ve been crying out for some good movies over the past few months.  There’s been nothing at all to get excited about… until now.  So if you’re looking for me to recommend something, then Zodiac is my answer.