Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 14 May 2012

When on Twitter, I’m generally polite and do everything possible to avoid conflict.  For that reason, you’ll never see me talking about politics and religion.  It’s not that I don’t have an opinion.  It’s just that we live in a world of political correctness where things can easily be misinterpreted.  I’d rather have a friendly debate with someone in person than “have it out” while protected by the walls of cyberspace.

Perhaps it’s for this reason that I enjoy the comedic style of Sacha Baron Cohen.  He’s the exact opposite in the sense that he’s doing everything possible to shock and offend.  There’s seemingly no topic too sensitive for him to mock.  He’s thrown the handbook on political correctness out the window and you know what?  It’s refreshing.

He played a dim-witted Kazakhstani journalist in Borat and a gay Austrian fashion designer in Bruno.  This time around, Cohen has moved himself higher up society’s hierarchy and plays an oppressive dictator from the North African country of Wadiya.  His name is Admiral General Aladeen and those found disagreeing with his opinions are likely to find themselves executed.

Aladeen is your stereotypical dictator (if there is such a thing).  He hates the United Nations and has a secret factory that develops nuclear weapons.  He lives in a ridiculously lavish palace adorned with paintings and statues.  He despises women and laughs at their efforts to gain equality.  He has a huge army at his disposal and they’re all prepared to die to protect their revered leader.

Threatened with financial sanctions imposed by the international community, Aladeen goes on the front foot and accepts an offer to speak at the United Nations headquarters in New York City.  What he doesn’t realise is that it’s an elaborate conspiracy concocted by his right-hand man, Tamir (Kingsley), to have him removed from power.  Tamir arranges for Aladeen to be taken captive by an overly patriotic American torture expert (Reilly) and brings in a hapless body douple so that no one is the wiser.

The real Aladeen manages to escape but with his beard now shaven, he is unrecognisable to all who knew him.  He needs to find a way to reclaim his identity, sneak back into the heavily guarded hotel and deliver another passionate speech in defence of his dictatorship.  He will be helped by a naive organic food store owner (Faris) who has no idea what she’s getting herself into.

If you’re not a fan of Cohen’s comedy, you’re entitled to that opinion and you should do everything necessary to avoid The Dictator.  I know quite a few people who would be appalled by the jokes regarding the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the 1972 Munich Olympic Games massacre.  There’s even a reference to 14-year-old boys which… yeah… I probably won’t say anything more about that.

It’s easy to forget that Borat was nominated for best adapted screenplay at the 2007 Academy Awards.  It highlights that whilst Cohen’s humour is crass, there is often an intelligent, underlying subtext.  That’s again the case here but admittedly to a lesser extent than Borat and Bruno.  There’s a terrific monologue from Cohen late in the movie which is provides the clear high point.  It’s just a shame we didn’t see more of this.

The topic is rife for a spoof and it’s obvious the script has been inspired by the likes of Muammar Gaddafi and Kim Jong-Il (to whom the film is dedicated).  While acknowledging that some of the film’s individual scenes are quite funny, the overarching story needed work.  Anna Faris’s character is too stupid and the scheme involving Ben Kingsley and the oil companies required more development.

The Dictator is amusing but it had the potential for so much more.  If you disagree, you can argue with me on Twitter.  Hang on.  Better not.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 25 April 2012

So many of us love to travel but how many of us fully weigh up all the risks before setting foot in another country?  I’m spending 4 days in North Korea in November and I confess that part of the attraction is that it will take me out of my comfort zone.  I’m not sure what to expect.

Wish You Were Here centres on four Australians who have gone on a week long holiday to a beachside resort in Cambodia.  Steph (Palmer) has booked the trip with her new boyfriend, Jeremy (Starr) and she has coerced her older sister, Alice (Price), and her husband, Dave (Edgerton), to join them.

What should have been a fun adventure has turned into a nightmare.  After a big night of partying and drinking, they wake up the following morning to learn that Jeremy is missing.  Days pass and panic starts to set in.  Did he meet with foul play?  Dave, Alice and Teresa alert the local authorities but no one seems to have any information of value which could lead to Jeremy’s whereabouts.

The crux of this film is set in Australia in the aftermath of the holiday.  In fact, when we first meet Dave and Alice, we see them arriving back home and trying to move on with their lives.  We only learn about their time in Cambodia through a series of flashbacks.

It’s clear from the opening scenes that Dave is withholding information.  He knows something about “that night” that he’s keeping from his wife and the authorities.  Writers Kieran Darcy-Smith and Felicity Price have therefore chosen to tell the story in a fragmented manner to create an element of intrigue.  If the story were told chronologically, we’d know everything from the outset and it would play out like a drama.  By keeping important details from the audience, it turns the film into a mystery.

The performances are solid and I enjoyed the interaction between Felicity Price and Joel Edgerton as they try to come to grips with the situation.  You can appreciate the difficult spot in which they’ve found themselves and understand the logic behind their actions.

That said, I wasn’t convinced by the way in which the story has been told.  Showing the events in such a disjointed order left me confused and I was often unsure whether we were watching scenes in Australia or Cambodia.  I’d also question why certain scenes (such as the one involving Joel Edgerton walking aimlessly at sunrise) are shown so early in the film.  They take the gloss off some of the twists that occur later in the film as you’ll know they’re coming.

While there’s just enough in the lead-up to hold your attention, the film suffers with a short, rushed finale.  It doesn’t offer enough in the way of closure and I wasn’t sure what to take away from it.  I can’t say too much but I’d warn audience members not to set their expectations too high.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 08 May 2012

In the late 18^th Century, the well-groomed Barnabas Collins (Depp) lived a happy life.  He was at the helm of a thriving seafood company, took up residence in a lavish mansion with more than 200 rooms, and was madly in love with a beautiful young woman.

One person was not happy with this scenario.  A vindictive witch by the name of Angelique Bouchard (Green) had tried hard to win Barnabas’s affections without success.  Fuelled by jealousy, she turned him into a vampire and had him locked in an iron coffin buried deep beneath the ground.

We leapfrog to the year 1972 and having spent almost two centuries locked up, Barnabas’s coffin is uncovered by a construction crew.  He’s grateful to his saviours but as you imagine, he’s a little hungry and so drinks every last ounce of blood from their bodies.

Barnabas would like to slide back into his previous lifestyle but it won’t be that easy.  For starters, he has to grabble with all the modern technology.  We’re talking about everything from cars and paved roads to music and record players.  Further, his once profitable seafood enterprise has seen its market share stolen by a new player – Angel Bay Seafood.

Barnabas’s problems don’t end there.  It turns out the witch Angelique is still alive.  She hasn’t aged a day and despite her bitterness, her heart still yearns for Barnabas.  She again tries to seduce him but Barnabas isn’t about to make the same mistakes this time around…

Perhaps my expectations were misaligned but I was disappointed by Dark Shadows.  The lure of director Tim Burton and a half-decent trailer had me thinking this would be a sharp, witty black comedy.  Sadly, that wasn’t the case.  There were only a handful of genuine laughs… and that puts it on a par with Scary Movie 3.

The film gets too bogged down with lengthy dialogue-driven sequences.  Knowing that Burton is sitting in the director’s chair, you keep thinking they’re going to lead up to something clever but that’s rarely the case.  Instead, we're left with dumb jokes highlighted by a scene where Barnabas pulls out the back of the television set and tries to comprehend how there are small people inside.  It was like watching Mel Brooks’ awful 1995 comedy Dracula: Dead And Loving It.

The screenplay doesn’t help his cause but Johnny Depp’s isn’t too bad as Barnabas Collins.  We’ve seen this melancholic persona from him many times before but he still gives his character a little flavour.  It’s a shame the rest of the talented cast are so underutilised.  Michelle Pfeiffer, Jackie Earle Haley, Helena Bonham-Carter and Chloe Grace Moretz are pushed too far into the background and contribute little to the overall story.  Deserving of praise are the gifted set decorators and make up artists who have helped bring this world to life.

I confess to not having seen any of the 1960s television series on which the film is based.  Perhaps it may explain some of the gaps in the story such as how Barnabas developed hypnotic powers and how he can’t see himself in the mirror.  I’m also unclear about the “ghost” in the film and what purpose she serves.  It felt like we were only given part of the story.

I’ve only seen two decent Tim Burton flicks over the past decade (Big Fish, Corpse Bride) and his strike rate has not improved with Dark Shadows.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 24 April 2012

I admit to being to having doubts before seeing The Avengers.  I liked the idea of bringing all these superheroes together but how was writer-director Joss Whedon (Serenity) going to pull this off with so many leading characters?  Would they all get enough screen time?  Would there be any room for a plot?  Would the action sequences take precedence over character development?

I guess you could say I went through some kind of metamorphosis at the Brisbane premiere last Friday night.  My scepticism was gone within half-an-hour and had been replaced with a serious dose of enthusiasm.  As the closing credits started to roll, I couldn’t wait to collect my mobile phone from security and spread the word – The Avengers is f%#$ing awesome!

Those new to these characters should check out the earlier Marvel films before seeing The Avengers.  I still think you’ll be entertained but you may struggle with the backstory.  For example, the film doesn’t go into the torrid past between Thor and his malicious brother, Loki.  Nor does it detail Captain America and his whereabouts for the past 70 years.

Those that recall last year’s Captain America: The First Avenger will remember a glowing blue cube known as the “Tesseract” that everyone wanted to get their hands on.  The Avengers begins in the underground headquarters of the Strategic Homeland Intervention, Enforecement and Logistics Division (SHIELD) with director Nick Fury (Jackson) trying to unlock the Tesseract’s secrets.  He believes it has the capability to create a limitless source of energy for the planet.

That in itself throws up a few interesting discussion points.  SHIELD appears to be a well-intentioned organisation but can those in charge handle the responsibility of such a powerful object?  How will they ensure that it is used for good instead of evil?  The line between these two extremes is often very blurry, a fact confirmed by a series of unexpected plot developments.

These questions soon become secondary to something far more important.  For those that remember, last year’s Thor concluded with the hateful Loki (Hiddleston) becoming trapped on Earth following a fight with his brother.  Loki is unable to return home but he his intent to on quenching his thirst for power.  He steals the Tesseract and through a series of well-articulated monologues, reveals his plans on harnessing its force and giving the humans what they truly desire – to be controlled.

Our four familiar superheroes, collectively known as The Avengers, will have to team up for the first time to stop Loki before it’s too late.  Can they work together though?  Iron Man (Downey Jr) is accustomed to being centre stage and doesn’t like sharing the spotlight.  Bruce Banner (Ruffalo) is now trying to live a normal life and would rather not reinvigorate his Hulk persona.  Captain America (Evans) is still trying to come to grips with the 21^st Century and isn’t sure of his place.  Thor (Hemsworth) faces a conflict in that he would rather try to talk sense into his brother than fight him once again.

The Avengers is an unrelenting ride that will hold your attention all the way through.  I still don’t know how they squeezed so much material into the two and a half hour running time.  Put simply, it’s one of the best superhero movies ever and excels in terms of three key genres – action, comedy and suspense.  The friction between the four leads also adds a nice dash of drama.

Robert Downey Jr is at his comedic best as Iron Man (as expected) but I was surprised by the number of genuine laugh-out-loud moments provided by the remainder of the cast.  It’s Chris Hemsworth who gets the best line in the film – a reference to his relationship with his brother.  I generally gravitate more towards darker superhero flicks (such as Batman Begins) but the light-hearted style adopted by writers Joss Whedon and Zak Penn suits this situation and these characters.

The story culminates with an exciting action finale that has been skilfully directed by Whedon.  Loki is a great villain (part of me kind of liked him) and he puts everyone to the test.  Oh, make sure you hang around for the end credits.  In true Marvel style, there’s a quick peek at what’s in store for the next instalment. Bring. It. On.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 07 May 2012

Trishna is a rather different adaptation of Thomas Hardy’s famous novel Tess of the d'Urbervilles.  Instead of being set in 19^th century England, writer-director Michael Winterbottom (Welcome To Sarajevo) has shifted the story to 21^st century India.

As our title character, Trishna (Pinto) is a young woman who still lives at home with her parents.  They come from a poor village in Rajasthan with her father working long hours as a delivery driver to help pay the bills and put food on the table.  When her father is badly injured in a car accident, Trishna realises that she must find employment to help her struggling family.

In a chance encounter at a party, she is befriended by a man named Jay (Ahmed).  He is comes from a completely different upbringing – one of wealth and privilege.  Smitten by the beautiful Trishna, Jay uses his influence and gets her a job at a posh hotel that he currently managing for his father.  It’s his not-so-subtle way of getting close to Trishna with the hopes of seducing her.

His plan works perfectly.  The two become quite close and eventually move to Mumbai.  After a nice set up, it is at this point where the film enters its darker, more confusing chapter.  Jay goes through a strange character transformation and becomes very controlling of Trishna.  It leads to a rushed series of events that confuse rather than enlighten. 

There are some beautiful images of India but it’s the muddled storyline that lets the film down.  It’s a gutsy adaptation from Winterbottom but it feels like he’s trying too hard to fit Thomas Hardy’s novel into a modern day setting, particularly in the later stages.  You don’t get a clear sense of each character’s mindset and it lessens the film’s emotional impact.  Some of their actions are downright strange.

I admire Michael Winterbottom as a filmmaker but sadly, Trishna is not one of his works that I’ll be adding to my DVD collection anytime soon.