Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 03 March 2007

Hot Fuzz is a spoof in disguise.  It makes fun of American action films but it also has a half-decent plot.  If you get too caught up in the story, you may miss some of the references (some subtle and some not-so-subtle) to other classic flicks.

Many people have been waiting for this film with eager anticipation.  In 2004, Simon Pegg wrote and starred in Shaun Of The Dead.  Best described as a “zombie satire”, it developed cult status.  I wasn’t a big fan of it when I first saw it but it’s the kind of film that grows on you with each viewing.  Pegg and co-star Nick Frost were a terrific comedy duo.  They kept coming up with side-splitting jokes in life-threatening situations.

Hot Fuzz is Simon Pegg’s follow up.  He wrote the script with friend Edgar Wright (who is the film’s director) and has gotten Nick Frost back as his side kick.  Given Pegg’s increased profile, a few notable English actors feature in supporting roles.  They include Jim Broadbent, Steve Coogan, Timothy Dalton, Martin Freeman and Bill Nighy.

The story begins in London where Sergeant Nicholas Angel (Pegg) is regarded as the best in the police force.  Unfortunately, the fact that he’s so good is making the other officers around him look bad.  The Chief Inspector (Nighy) has decided to take action to remedy the situation.  He’s reassigning Angel to the small country town of Sandford.  With its tiny population, Sandford is “the safest village in the country”.  There hasn’t been a murder in over 20 years.

Angel is not happy with his new appointment.  His lack of enthusiasm is further dampened when he meets Sandford’s current police force.  Led by Inspector Frank Butterman (Broadbent), they give new meaning to the word lazy.  They turn a blind eye to pretty much everything.

When two citizens are found in a car crash with their heads missing, Angel suspects foul play.  His thoughts fall on deaf ears however – everyone else thinks it was an unfortunate accident.  When more people turn up dead however, Angel knows that something is amiss.  With the help of his dim-witted partner (Frost), Angel goes in search of answers.

Like Shaun Of The Dead, there are plenty of “laugh out loud” moments to be had in Hot Fuzz.  I also enjoyed the film’s overall comedic tone - it’s funny even when the cast aren’t cracking one-liners.  Just watching the anguished look on Pegg’s face throughout the entire film was enough for me.  He’s the only serious person in a town of loonies.

If you’re a fan of Shaun Of The Dead, I strongly recommend that you see this.  If you never got the chance to Shaun Of The Dead, then I strongly recommend that you see both.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 25 February 2007

Eisenheim (Norton) is a talented magician working in Vienna in the early 20^th century.  Word has spread of his masterful illusions and he performs in front of a packed theatre every evening.  No one can understand how he pulls off his tricks.  Some think that he has supernatural powers.  The mystery only adds to his popularity.

The show has attracted the attention of Vienna’s Crown Prince Leopold (Sewell).  Leopold is unhappy with Eisenheim’s “celebrity status” and intends to diminish his notoriety by exposing his secrets.  Helping in his task is Inspector Uhl (Giamatti), an amateur magician and close friend of Leopold.

Unexpectedly drawn into the saga is Leopold’s fiancé, Sophie (Biel).  Eisenheim and Sophie were once childhood sweethearts but they haven’t seen each other since they were kids.  Now, in Vienna, fate has reunited them.  Leopold is furious on learning of their romantic history wants Eisenheim arrested (for whatever reason Inspector Uhl can think of).

The Illusionist is a very intriguing movie.  The story had grabbed me within ten minutes and I was incredibly interested to know what would happen next.  Edward Norton (Primal Fear) and Paul Giamatti (Sideways) deliver two strong performances and the interaction between them is great.  Uhl subtly presses for information and Eisenheim subtly offers nothing.  Each is playing their own game.

The look of the film is also superb.  This is not a story that could be told in the modern era and so we are transported back to early 1900s thanks to impressive sets and costumes.  Also noticeable is an overall lack of colour.  It gives the film an old-style look and has earned cinematographer Dick Pope an Academy Award nomination.

After setting the stage so beautifully, the film flops in its final moments.  The explanation of the mysteries is too rushed and there were some other questions which weren’t satisfactorily answered.  I can’t say any more without giving too much away.  It’s a shame given that 95% of the film is very enjoyable.

It’s strange that we’ve had two films about magicians released in the past three months.  Last November, we were treated to The Prestige with Christian Bale and Hugh Jackman.  They share a few similarities but for the most part, they are very different films.  The Prestige gets my vote as the better but both films provide decent entertainment.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 03 March 2007

“Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities. Truth isn't.”  A reference to this Mark Twain quote is made during the Man Of The Year.  It’s ironic because this work of fiction is simply impossible to believe.  Every new event seemed illogical and the further the film went, the more frustrating it became.

Tom Dobbs (Williams) is a comedian with a popular talk-show on television.  It is similar in style to such shows as Real Time With Bill Maher and The Daily Show With Jon Stewart.  A presidential election is imminent and Dobbs uses his show to criticise both the Republican and Democratic candidates.  He’s sick of “party politics” and the many lobbyists who donate large sums of money to these candidates for something in return.

An audience member at one of Tom’s shows suggests that he run for president as an independent.  The idea takes off and soon enough, Tom is on the ballot.  It reminded me of when Ross Perot ran and received 19% of the popular vote in the 1992 election (against George Bush and Bill Clinton).

Helping Tom with his campaign is manager, Jack Menken (Walken).  Jack suggests that Tom simply be himself.  Don’t try to get too serious or too political.  Instead, just try to be funny – something that the other candidates cannot offer.  They knew that Tom had no chance of winning the election.  Early polls confirmed that fact.  The purpose of his campaign was to send a message to the two major candidates and their massive fundraising teams.

It all goes pear-shaped when Tom actually wins.  Despite exit-polls giving him zero chance, the computerised voting system declares him a narrow winner.  How you may ask?  There is a glitch in the vote counting software.  The only person who suspects the irregularity is computer programmer Elenaor Green (Linney).  She tries to tell her bosses that there’s a problem but they ignore her – they don’t want the public to know that the computer program is faulty as it will reduce the company’s stock price.

How is it that no one in the entire planet can put two and two together?  With every poll showing that Dobbs had no chance, you’d think someone would be suss.  The plot further disintegrates when Elenaor goes in search of Tom to tell him the truth.  What happens then?  They fall in love.

One of my all-time favourite political comedies is Wag The Dog, released in 1997.  In Dog, the current president becomes involved in a sex-scandal with an under-aged girl just days before the election.  With the help of a Hollywood producer, his team create a fictitious war in Albania to keep the scandal off the front page of the papers.  It was an incredibly witty comedy which earned an Academy Award nomination for best screenplay and best actor (Dustin Hoffman).  I could watch it over and over again.

This may sound hard to believe but Man Of The Year is written and directed by Barry Levinson, the same man who directed as Wag The Dog.  The fact that I love Wag The Dog so much makes Man Of The Year even more disappointing.  I’d given up on it by the half-way mark.  It may be trying to make a point about the American political system but it needed a lot more realism.  I’d like to think that Mark Twain would agree.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 23 February 2007

Less than four months, Flags Of Fathers was released in Australian cinemas.  Focusing on a small group of marines, it showed how U.S. troops took control of the Japanese island of Iwo Jima near the end of World War II.  Clint Eastwood’s film highlighted the difficulty of the battle and the uncertainty with which the vulnerable soldiers fought.  I really enjoyed it.

Letters From Iwo Jima tells the same story but from the opposite perspective.  Also directed by Clint Eastwood, it looks at how the Japanese soldiers prepared for combat and how they did their best to repel the advancing U.S. military.

Eastwood’s concept of making two films from differing standpoints is masterful.  The young soldiers on both sides are fighting because they believe in honouring and protecting their country.  These soldiers didn’t start the war nor do they have no personal grievances against the men they are firing at.  You will understand both the U.S. and Japanese perspectives and it may lead you to wonder why they’re even fighting at all.

Letters From Iwo Jima follows several characters but the two most focal are Saigo (Ninomiya), an unmotivated solider who knows that he will be killed, and General Kuribayashi (Watanabe), the passionate strategist chosen to lead the operation.  Things look promising early for the Japanese but the situation deteriorates with each passing day.  Unlike the Americans, they have no navy ships or air force planes to help defend the island.  It is a battle that cannot be won.

Most critics have been in agreement that Letters From Iwo Jima is superior to Flags Of Our Fathers.  Iwo Jima won the Golden Globe for best foreign language film and has been nominated for best picture at the Oscars.  Flags has been largely ignored this award season.

I think both films are great and find it hard to separate them.  I enjoyed Flags more for its narrative (particularly the story regarding the heroes being exploited back home) but I enjoyed Iwo Jima more for the sense of pointlessness and hopelessness that it creates.  Someone suggested taking the best scenes from both films and turning it into one giant movie.  I’m not sure if it would work but I’d like to see how it would turn out.

Ten years ago, Clint Eastwood was known as one of Hollywood’s greatest actors.  Now, he is known as one of Hollywood’s greatest directors.  He can make a damn good movie.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 01 March 2007

Is this an impeccably well put together film?  Yes.  Is it an interesting film?  No.  Perhaps I’ve been jaded by the hype.  It’s been touted as the Oscar front-runner for almost a year.  So whilst it deserves an above average grading (B+), I can’t help but focus on my feeling of disappointment.  I expected more.

Before it became a movie, Dreamgirls was a Broadway musical.  Directed by the late Michael Bennett, it debuted in 1981 and went on to win 6 Tony Awards.  Academy Award winning writer Bill Condon (Gods And Monsters) has long been a fan of the show.  After DreamWorks and Paramount secured the rights to the story, Condon adapted it for the big screen.  Once you’ve seen it, you’ll understand the effort and passion that Condon has put into his pet project.

The story revolves around three African-American singers trying to break into the music business in the late 1960s.  They are known as The Dreamettes and consist of Effie (Hudson), Deena (Knowles) and Lorrell (Rose).  Their chance arrives when an ex-car salesman, Curtis (Foxx), hears their tune and wants to act as the group’s agent.  He lands their first major gig, as a support act for popular artist James Early (Murphy), and the ball is rolling…

The film then moves into the 1970s.  The Dreamettes (now known as The Dreams) make it to the big time but they also learn how ruthless the music industry can be.  Friendships are betrayed and relationships are shattered.  If you think it’s hard getting to the top, wait until you see how hard it is to stay there!

I wasn’t around in the era when great Hollywood musicals were produced every year.  I am a fan however of modern day musicals such as Chicago and Moulin Rouge.  I struggled to enjoy Dreamgirls as I didn’t find the songs particularly memorable.  I’ve also seen this kind of story before (not done as a musical of course) and it didn’t offer any new insight.  If I was around in the 1980s and saw the original stage version, perhaps I’d see it differently.

As difficult as it was to get excited about, I do have to praise writer-director Bill Condon.  With pin-point editing, dazzling lighting and awesome cinematography, he’s made the film look as good it as possibly could.  He uses the benefits of cinema (such as having multiple takes) and creates a visual feast that could not be achieved on stage.

I never thought I’d say this but an American Idol contestant is a chance at winning an Academy Award.  In her first cinematic role, Jennifer Hudson plays Effie (Hudson) and does a terrific job.  She is the pick of the cast and the highlight of the film for me was watching her fervently sing “And I Am Telling You I’m Not Going”.  Hudson is currently the Oscar front runner for best supporting actress.  Eddie Murphy and Danny Glover are also great in what must be their best roles in years.

Yes, there’s a lot to like about Dreamgirls but this wasn’t the memorable musical experience I anticipated.