Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 24 July 2011

For as long as she can remember, 15-year-old Hanna (Ronan) has lived with her father (Bana) in a world of total isolation.  They reside in a tiny wooden shack hidden away in a snow-covered forest just below the Arctic Circle.  She’s never interacted with another human being and she’s never even heard music.  Her limited knowledge of the outside world has come exclusively from her father and a small number of books.

The film’s opening scene shows us that Hanna is no ordinary girl.  She stalks an unsuspecting deer and then kills it using a simple bow and arrow.  It’s all part of her father’s plan to transform her into the ultimate assassin.  Hanna is put through a gruelling training regime each day in freezing cold conditions and has developed into a ruthless young girl who is incredibly fast on her feet.

It’s a curious introduction that takes an equally curious twist.  Hanna is given a transmitter by her father and she flicks the activation switch.  The time has come.  Her father packs his things and walks out the front door.  He tells her that they’ll rendezvous at an abandoned amusement park in Berlin.  Between now and then, she’s on her own and must complete her mission.

The transmitter instantly grabs the attention of CIA Agent Marissa Wiegler (Blanchett).  She’s been waiting for this day for a long time.  She tells her superiors that the situation must be contained and a fully-armed team is immediately dispatched to the transmitter’s location.  On arrival, they find the young Hanna and take her into custody.  She doesn’t even put up a fight.

I won’t divulge too much more at this stage.  Hanna is an intriguing action-thriller that’s best described as a cross between Run Lola Run and The Bourne Identity.  You won’t be 100% sure about what was going on but that’s why it will so easily hold your attention.  Who are the good guys?  Who are the bad guys?  It’s not as simple as black and white.

Saoirse Ronan (Atonement, The Lovely Bones) is one of the finest young actors working today and she impresses once again with this challenging role.  Hanna is finally getting a chance to see the world but she’s finding it hard to reconcile.  She meets some very friendly people (such a nice family who she travels with) but also some very nasty people (such as those out to hurt her).  This contrast is humorously illustrated in a scene where she meets an attractive boy for the first time.

The film is certainly a departure from director Joe Wright who is better known for his period romances Pride & Prejudice and Atonement.  He has quickly adapted himself to the action genre and made a wise move in selecting The Chemical Brothers to put together a funky film score.  I don’t know how long it took to shoot some of the scenes but Saoirse Ronan must have been exhausted by the end of it.  She does so much running!

The film’s weakness is its finale.  When you see all the pieces of the puzzle fitted together, the result is underwhelming.  My first comment to a friend on leaving the theatre was that I liked the film’s style but it “needed more plot”.  I also have question marks about the relevance of an incompetent attack team employed by Agent Wiegler (led by Tom Hollander) to track down Hanna.  Too goofy for my liking.

Yes, this could have been better but Hanna should be seen for its attempt to bring style back to this well trodden genre.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 12 July 2011

We’re done.  It took 19 hours and 38 minutes but finally, the Harry Potter series has come to a close on the big screen.  It has become the most profitable franchise in cinematic history.  The previous films pulled in over $6.3 billion from theatres across the globe.  This final movie could be the most profitable yet – taking advantage of the 3D format and higher ticket prices.

If you haven’t been following the series until now, you can forget about this film.  It’ll be hard to keep up with the many sub-plots and the wide array of characters.  To be honest, I don’t think I’ve seen a movie with so many recognisable names.  Were there any notable British actors who didn’t have a role?  Hugh Grant should be asking his agent some serious questions.

If you’ve seen the earlier movies and read J.K. Rowling’s novels, you should have a strong vibe of what to expect.  Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows: Part 2 is an action packed finale that sees Harry (Radcliffe) face off against Lord Voldemort (Fiennes) in one final duel.  Will good finally triumph over evil?

To sum up my thoughts using the most simplest of terminology – I’m fine with this film.  It’s not the best in the series but it’s a worthy enough conclusion.  I had the same thoughts when I read the final book a few years ago.  It certainly delivers more action than previous instalments.  There’s too much going on during some of the battle sequences (it’s hard to keep up at times) but you’ll still be glued to screen.

In contrast, the character interaction was underdone.  There are some interesting players in this mix (such as Severus Snape and Draco Malfoy) but not enough time is spent resolving their mindset.  Scenes involving Ron and Hermione (who are absent throughout much of the film) also appear to have been shelved to help squeeze everything into two hours.  The pick of the cast is Maggie Smith who, as Professor McGonagall, makes the most of her limited screen time with a few scene stealing moments.

The expected emotional impact of the film was also a little disappointing.  I hate to draw comparisons with other movies but I didn’t feel the same tinge of sadness as I did towards the end of The Lord Of The Rings trilogy.  Perhaps there was too much action.  The closest this film gets to something deeper, more meaningful is a touching exchange between Harry and the late Professor Dumbledore.  It was the highlight of the film for me.

It’s a grim, bleak film for the most part but Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows: Part 2 should satisfy the large majority of Harry Potter fans.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 20 July 2011

Things begin with Larry Crowne (Hanks) getting called into a meeting at work.  He thinks he’s going to receive the employee of the month award.  Instead, he is fired.  The company is downsizing and Larry has been earmarked for retention given his lack of a college education.  His days stocking shelves and pushing trolleys at U-Mart have come to an end.

Unable to find another job and struggling to meet his mortgage repayments, Larry makes the curious decision to enrol at a community college.  The reason I use the term “curious” is because Larry doesn’t have any idea what he’s doing.  He picks a subject on speeches and another on economics.  Why?  Well, because of advice from a complete stranger.  Go figure. 

Perhaps we can call it fate because these classes with change Larry’s life.  They improve his knowledge base and self-confidence but more importantly, he makes new friends.  One of them is a young woman who invites Larry to be part of her scooter riding “gang”.  My first thought was that they were out to take advantage of him but not so.  They actually have a soft spot for Larry and his nerdish mannerisms (as hard as that is to believe).

The film’s romantic angle comes with the arrival of Mercedes Tainot (Roberts), Larry’s unenthusiastic speech teacher.  The film doesn’t delve too deeply into her past but we know she’s unhappy.  She’s trapped in a loveless marriage to a man (Cranston) who sits at home and downloads internet porn all day. 

It’s nice to see good things happening to good people and I’m sure some will watch Larry Crowne with a smile on their face.  It’s a clean, sweet, innocent film that I could safely take my mother to see.  It wasn’t for me however.  It felt like I was being smothered with “feel good” moments.  Everything about the story and its characters is too far detached from reality.

Having been poorly received by both the critics (judging from Rotten Tomatoes) and the public (judging from the Internet Movie Database), I know I’m not alone with my negative thoughts.  This film is too simplistic and I think many were expecting much more.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 12 July 2011

A film that still receives a lot of airtime is Steven Spielberg’s Catch Me If You Can.  It has aged well.  If you haven’t had the chance to see it, please add it to your bucket list.  It tells the true story of Frank Abagnale Jr, a compulsive con-artist (played by Leonardo DiCaprio) who used his charm to manipulate almost anyone.  He masqueraded as a pilot, a lecturer, a doctor and even a lawyer.

The movie could easily have been a serious drama but Spielberg chose a different tact and wove it into a light-hearted comedy.  It was as if he was doing his own subtle “con” of the audience.  He stole millions of dollars and countless lives at risk and yet, somehow, the film makes us like Frank Abagnale Jr.  We laugh at his crazy escapades and we smile as he continually evades the authorities.

I’m describing I Love You Phillip Morris as an inferior version of Catch Me If You Can.  It’s trying to tell a similar story in a similar vein but it just doesn’t work.  First and foremost, Jim Carrey is hard to take seriously in the leading role.  He has a silly look and accent that doesn’t fit the role.  It’s hard to believe that someone so goofy could have pulled all this off.

He plays Steven Russell (Carrey), a public menace with no moral fibre.  To help pay for his swanky lifestyle, he would deliberately involve himself in accidents and claim compensation through his insurance company.  He fell down an escalator in a shopping centre.  He slipped on some liquid in a supermarket.

The authorities finally caught on to his schemes and he was sentenced to a short term in prison.  Did he learn his lesson?  Nope.  On being released, Russell picked up where he left off.  He posed as a Chief Financial Officer for a major corporation and stole large sums of money by fudging the books.  The guy was a compulsive liar and pathological imposter.

If you’re wondering who the Phillip Morris is in this story, it has nothing to do with the cigarette company (many people asked this question when I told them about the film).  It turns out Phillip Morris (played by Ewan McGregor) was the love of Russell’s life.  The two met in prison and part of Russell’s motivation to cheat and steal was so that he could provide a wealthy life for them both.

Even if you can overlook Jim Carrey’s limitations, I still don’t think there’s much to like about I Love You Phillip Morris.  The film score and soundtrack is distracting and the continual narration (provided by Carrey) is unnecessary.  None of the supporting cast stand out and Ewan McGregor is wasted in weak role.

It’s taken almost two a half years for this film to reach Australian cinemas (it premiere at the Sundance Film Festival in January 2009) and having now seen it, I’m surprised it didn’t go straight to video.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 15 July 2011

The French are usually reliable when it comes to romantic comedies but Beautiful Lies is not a film I’d cite as an example.  It’s as if they’ve borrowed from the American model and tried to come up with something too crazy and convoluted.  That said, I should at least be thankful that there’s no toilet humour.

The woman occupying centre stage is a young hairdresser named Emilie (Tautou) who runs her own hair salon.  I’m not sure how the business makes any money based on its strange staff but we’ll save that question for another time.

The guy trying to earn her affections is Jean (Bouajila), a handyman who has been employed to do a few odd jobs.  It appears the only reason he’s working there is so that he can perve on Emilie.  This is quickly confirmed when we learn he was once a translator and he can speak many languages.  He could certainly do better than this small, low paying job.

Jean writes an anonymous love letter to Emilie but it doesn’t make much of an impact.  She thinks it’s from a creepy old man and chucks it straight in the bin.  Later that day, she digs it out.  It’s not because she’s had a change of heart.  Rather, she wants to copy the letter and send it to her mother.

Before you start scratching your head, it turns out that Emilie’s mother (Baye) has been in the doldrums since separating from her husband four years ago.  Emilie thinks that by sending her an anonymous love letter, it might get her out of the house and kick start her self confidence.

It’s not the brightest of ideas and it quickly goes pear shaped.  The mother goes back to her gloomy self when no further letters arrive and so Emilie continues the charade by sending more letters.  It’s obvious no thought went into the idea.  This get even sillier when Emilie coaxes Jean into taking her mother on a date and pretending that it was he who wrote the letters.

How could this possibly end well?  Writer-director Pierre Salvador tries to come up with a neat, happy ending but it doesn’t work.  I hated all of these people.  Emilie is selfish and has little appreciation for those around her.  Jean is a love-sick fool with no direction in life.  The mother seems to have a distinct lack of social skills.  It’s pretty hard to enjoy a romantic comedy when there isn’t a single likeable character.

It’s a shame to see the beautiful Audrey Tautou (Amelie, The Da Vinci Code) wasted on such an uninteresting role.  I could say the same for Nathalie Baye (Tell No One, Catch Me If You Can) who must have been instructed to overplay the part as much as possible.  She’s incredibly annoying.

It’s been a slow year in Australia so far in terms of quality foreign language films and Beautiful Lies continues that trend.  Hopefully there’ll be some better stuff in the months to follow.