Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 26 January 2007

As an actor, you always hope that there’ll be one role that people will remember you for.   For Forrest Whitaker, it will be his portrayal of Ugandan dictator Idi Amin in The Last King Of Scotland.   Whitaker has won almost every critics award to date and he’s a short priced favourite to claim the upcoming Academy Award for best actor.

With the help of the British government, Idi Amin staged a coup and became the new Ugandan president in 1971.  He promised to bring freedom and prosperity to his country.  As the famous saying goes however “absolute power corrupts absolutely”.  Amin and his army killed those considered a threat to his government.   An estimated 300,000 people were slaughtered during his 8 year reign.

With the basic facts out the way, it’s worth point out that The Last King Of Scotland isn’t a history lesson.  In fact, the story doesn’t even centre on Amin.  It is told from the perspective of Nicholas Garrigan (McAvoy), a Scottish doctor who travelled to Uganda to give his life a purpose.  He was looking for adventure but also the chance to help the poverty stricken people of the third world society.

When Amin sprains his wrist in a car accident, Garrigan is asked to treat his injury.  The two bond quickly and Amin asks Garrigan to become his personal doctor.  He will live at the president’s home and is promised the chance to set up a medical network for the Ugandan people.  It’s an offer Garrigan can’t refuse.

Amin’s dictatorship soon grew and the world turned against him.  Journalists published savage articles about the human rights atrocities he was responsible for.  Garrigan was oblivious to this however.  He was living a well-to-do life and the President always treated him as a close adviser.  He felt these stories about Amin couldn’t possibly be true.  Or could they?

Whitaker’s performance is superb but equally deserving of praise is James McAvoy.  It’s a shame that he has been overlooked in this busy award season.  His charisma makes the film more upbeat and there are some light-hearted scenes between Whitaker and McAvoy early on.  The film becomes much darker in the final half hour and it was this element of the story that interested me most.  Now that he knew the truth, what was Garrigan going to do?

I am quickly becoming a fan of Scottish director Kevin Macdonald.  His last film was the documentary Touching The Void (which made my top 10 list in 2004).  In both films he has created interest and intrigue.  There is rarely a dull moment and the story is always building.  I have to make mention of the fantastic 70s sets and costumes.  It felt like I was looking at footage actually taken from that era.  Just wait till you see James McAvoy’s outfits.

Inspired by actual events and based on the novel written by Giles Foden (who makes a cameo in the film), The Last King Of Scotland deserves a strong recommendation.  It’s a very engaging tale.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 14 January 2007

A young girl named Carmen (Gil) has travelled with her mother (Baquero) to a small village in northern Spain.  Carmen’s pregnant mother recently remarried and they have made the trip so that she can be with her new husband.  His name is Vidal (Lopez) and he is a captain within the Spanish military.  Vidal and his battalion have been posted to the village to stop a rising guerrilla resistance.  The year is 1944 and the resistance are trying to undermine the rule of the country’s leader, Franco.

Carmen does not like her new “father”.  He is not the warm and loving man she hoped for.  He is instead, a dictator – a man who does things his own way with little thought for others.  Carmen is not alone in her assessment of Captain Vidal.  Many of Vidal’s servants are equally unappreciative and have been stealing food and medical supplies to give to the guerrilla resistance.  He is a nasty man.

Just outside of the village is an old labyrinth built of stone.  Carmen is warned not to go in because she may become lost within its myriad of small passageways.  One evening however, she is lured there a mysterious fairy who appears at the end of her bed.  There is a descending staircase in the middle of the labyrinth and at the bottom, Carmen meets a strange looking creature who has some information for her.

This creature tells Carmen that she is the lost princess of a secret underworld.  This world has waited for her return but before she can do so, Carmen must complete three magical tasks.  The creature gives Carmen a book with instructions and then sends her back to the human world.

By this point, you may be asking the question – what kind of film is this?  To use an expression taken from others who have seen it, it’s best described as an adult fairy tale.  It’s unlike anything I’ve seen before.  Incredibly violent in places, be warned that this is not a film for young children.  Its MA rating here in Australia should tell you that.  You should also know that it’s been filmed in Spanish and therefore includes English subtitles.

So is the mystical world that Carmen visits real or is it something in her imagination?  If you want the answer, you’ll have to see it for yourself.  The story that writer-director Guillermo del Toro (Mimic) has crafted is creepy yet fascinating.  It’ll keep you off balance and continually wondering what will happen next.

The film itself is a visual feast that proves you don’t need an abundance of special effects to create a fantasy world.  Reportedly made for just $5m, the efforts of the set decorators and make-up artists are superb.  Highlighting their work is a scene in which Carmen confronts a pale creature with no eyes.

Pan’s Labyrinth has developed a cult following in recent months.  Many critics have included in their 10 best films of 2006 and the National Society of Film Critics in the U.S. recently awarded it their best film of the year honour (the last two winners were Capote and Million Dollar Baby).  The public are equally captivated by the film and it is currently ranked 139^th on the Internet Movie Database’s list of the best films of all time.

It’s not a film for everyone but many will fall in love with it.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 21 January 2007

A terrorist act has been committed in New Orleans.  A ferry carrying hundreds of people has exploded and there appear to be few survivors.  As part of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tabacco and Firearms, Doug Carlin (Washington) has been called in to help investigate.  Within hours, he knows it has been caused by a very powerful bomb which was on-board the doomed ferry.

Whilst at the crime scene, Doug gets a call from a friend at the morgue.  There, he will find the body of a young woman with burns similar to those who were caught up in the explosion.  What puzzles Doug is the fact that this woman, identified as Claire Kuchever, was found before the ferry exploded.  How can this be?  Is she somehow linked with the people who committed the terrorist act?  Will it help the investigative team track down the people behind it?

Doug’s uncanny ability to profile a profile a crime scene has caught the attention of Agent Andrew Pryzwarra (Kilmer).  He represents a secret government organisation which has new technology it will use for the first time.  They can look back 4 days in time and focus their invisible cameras on any part of New Orleans.  Their cameras can go both indoors and outdoors.  They are effectively, looking back in time.  Doug doesn’t understand how this is possible but goes along with it given the urgency of the situation.

Doug’s job is to tell them where to point their cameras.  What would the people who committed this terrible act be doing in the days leading up the event?  Where can they be found?  His first stop is the home of Claire Kuchever and an unimaginable investigation has begun…

I didn’t know what to expect with Deja Vu.  Director Tony Scott is great at creating fast-paced action as evidenced by his recent films, Domino, Man On Fire and Spy Game.  However, his films don’t always have the strongest of storylines.  Half way through Deja Vu, I was very impressed.  An interesting premise had been created and I was curious to know how it would end.  Sadly, the final hour was a huge let down.  Without giving too much away, the plot twists lacked credibility and I kept wondering how certain events were possible.

It’s a good performance from Denzel Washington.  His confident yet laid-back attitude suits the role of Doug Carlin.  He doesn’t always pick the right roles but Washington is a likeable actor who can give most all films a boost.

This should have been better.

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: 20 January 2007

I am a big fan of the Oscars for two reasons.  Firstly, it honours the best films, actors and craftsmen.  Whilst I don’t always agree with the Academy’s choices (such is film criticism), their names will be forever etched in the record books.  Secondly, I win money.  I’ve gambled on the Oscars for the past 12 years and have come away with a very tidy profit.  They aren’t too difficult to predict if you study the form and know how the voters think.

For Your Consideration is a comedy which centres around a fictitious movie called Home For Purim.  Whilst in production, whispers circulated that three of its stars could possibly receive Oscar nominations.  To use an industry term, there was “Oscar buzz”.

The cast members try to act nonchalant but they are secretly praying for a nomination.  They want the recognition.  Working behind the scenes are the star’s agents and the film’s marketers.  They try to generate the positive publicity that could see their client’s wishes come true.

It’s a great idea for a movie but For Your Consideration is dreadfully poor.  The entire cast act like bumbling idiots and the jokes are repeated over and over again.  Worst of all, it doesn’t make any sense.  The movie they are making, Home For Purim, looks dreadful.  How could it be receiving any acclaim?  Why do the hosts of an Entertainment Tonight like show come out to interview the cast and then get nothing worth showing?  How does no one know what the internet is???

The film has been written and directed by Christopher Guest.  Ironically enough, Guest plays the director of Home For Purim in the film.  I’m a fan of Guest and his “mockmentary” style of filmmaking.  His last two films, Best In Show and A Mighty Wind, should definitely be seen.  Unfortunately, he flounders here.  There’s not enough material to make this work.

If you’ve seen previous Christopher Guest films, you’ll recognise most of the cast.  They include Catherine O’Hara, Eugene Levy, Jennifer Coolidge, Harry Shearer, Bob Balaban and Parker Posey.  I hope they aren’t getting their hopes up because they won’t be receiving any Oscar nominations for real.  This film simply isn’t good enough.