Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 18 April 2011

You can read my interview with director Kenneth Branagh or check out the podcast by clicking here.

The story of Thor spans several million light years.  It begins in the distant world of Asgard, ruled by the wise King Odin (Hopkins).  After many years on the throne, Odin has decided to pass the mantle to his eldest son, Thor (Hemsworth).

It’s clear that Thor is not ready for the responsibility.  Looking to assert his “manhood”, he hastily declares war against the neighbouring realm of Jotunheim.  Thor may have incredible strength but he and his small army are no match for the nasty inhabitants of this icy planet.  Bruised and broken, they are lucky to escape.

Disappointed with his son’s actions, Odin strips Thor of his power and banishes him to the planet Earth.  Not until he has proven himself worthy will he be able to return home.  Quietly happy with these events is Odin’s younger son, Loki (Hiddleston).  He has always lived in his older brother’s shadow but he now sees this as an opportunity to take the crown for himself.

Thor’s arrival on Earth creates quite a stir.  He is discovered by a team of scientists headed by the experienced Professor Andrews (Skasgard) and the inquisitive Jane Foster (Portman).  They’re not sure what to make of Thor’s strange stories and unusual mannerisms but they sense something magical about him.  If he really is from a far away galaxy, his knowledge would be invaluable to their research.

They’re not alone with that line of thinking.  A government agency has also become aware of Thor’s arrival but they’re more interested in the mysterious hammer that he has brought with him.  It’s lodged itself atop a small rock and despite all their efforts, they cannot move it.  It reminded me of King Arthur and his famous sword in the stone.

There are quite a few characters in the mix but my reaction throughout much of Thor was apathetic.  It’s not a horrible film but it’s one that doesn’t want to take any chances.  It has been crafted from the familiar PG-mould used by many other comic books adaptations over the past decade.  It wants to impress with dazzling special effects rather than through an emotive, captivating story.  There’s clearly an audience for this film but I don’t think I’m part of it.

The performances in Thor aren’t too bad.  The dialogue is expectedly cheesy (particularly from those in Thor’s small army) but I had a soft spot for Natalie Portman, Stellan Skarsgard and Kat Dennings.  They inject the film with much-needed humour.  Australian Chris Hemsworth also deserves credit.  He takes his shirt off when required (sure to please many) and taps into Thor’s rough, arrogant nature.  It’s just a shame I didn’t care more about his character (a fault of the screenplay).

I confess to becoming tired of comic book films.  They offer few surprises and continually reiterate the same themes.  There are exceptions however.  I’ve enjoyed the darker undertones contained within the rebooted Batman series.  The Dark Knight highlighted the fine line that often exists between good and evil.  Christian Bale also captured the torturous nature of being a hero through his strong performance.

The ushers will probably be cleaning up around you but make you stay all the way through the lengthy end credit sequence.  You’ll get a sneak peak at The Avengers, the 2012 Joss Whedon film that brings together Thor, Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk and Captain America.  Now that looks interesting!

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 06 April 2011

I’ve reviewed a lot of movies over the past two decades but I’m not sure I’ve seen one filmed on the Chukotka Peninsula, the easternmost tip of Russia.  The average temperature during summer is a “balmy” 6^oC.  In winter, the average is a ridiculously low -19^oC.  How anyone can endure those conditions is a mystery to me.

It’s clear that director Alexi Popogrebsky enjoys a challenge.  He’s always been fascinated by polar conditions and so he decided to write a story set in such a location.  It features just two people - Pavel (Dobrygin) and Sergei (Puskepalis).  They work at a meteorological station in this incredibly isolated part of the world.

Their job couldn’t be more boring.  They simply read the weather instruments and then radio the results through to their head office.  That’s about it.  To help pass the time, Sergei goes ice fishing and Pavel plays video games.  There isn’t much more they can do.  There’s no internet, no television and no mobile phone coverage.

You might think that these guys would share some interesting conversations to pass the time but not so.  They’re as different as chalk and cheese.  Sergei goes about his day in a strict, disciplined manner.  He’s been doing it for years and has never made a mistake.  Pavel is less enthusiastic.  It’s a summer job for him and he can’t wait to get back to home.  His disinterest is obvious.

The uneasy relationship between the two deteriorates further after Pavel fails to pass on an important radio message.  Instead of admitting to the mistake, Pavel tries to cover it up.  It sets off a series of events that will develop into something far more serious…

I’ve not convinced there’s enough material to drag this story out into two hours but the film is to be admired for its setting.  Popogrebsky and his crew spent three months shooting the film at an actual weather station in middle of nowhere.  The nearest town was a five hour ride by caterpillar transporter – the only means of transportation.  If you think the actors look tired and forlorn, that’s probably because they were!

I realise the lack of action will be a turn-off for some filmgoers but it’s nice to see this small, unconventional Russian film getting a release in Australia.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 13 April 2011

“What is your favourite scary movie?”  It’s a famous line from the original Scream and that same question is asked repeatedly of the cast in this latest instalment.  My answer would include films such as Psycho and The Shining.  I’d even include the first two Scream flicks.  Unfortunately, Scream 4 would not rate a mention.

It’s a shame because the movie starts with a few good laughs.  Those who’ve seen the previous films in the series will know they always begin with someone being brutally killed.  I won’t give too much away but the creative introduction to Scream 4 is likely to leave you with a wry smile on your face.

From that point on, the only emotion I felt was disappointment.  It was nice to see Neve Campbell, Courteney Cox and David Arquette once again but the new characters are all so boring.  There’s a bunch of dumb girls, two unlikeable films nerds and a dreary ex-boyfriend.   Maybe I’m getting too old but I found the likes of Skeet Ulrich, Matthew Lillard and Rose McGowan (from the original) far more entertaining and charismatic.

The premise revolves around two copycat killers slaying unsuspecting victims in the small town of Woodsboro.  The killings coincide with the return of Sidney Prescott (Campbell).  Having survived the three previous massacres, Sidney is in Woodsboro promoting her “tell all” book.  She’s also catching up with her old friends, Gale Weathers (Cox) and Dewey Riley (Arquette).

The film tries to follow in the mould of its predecessors by making numerous references to sequels and the rules of horror films.  There’s a key scene where the two film geeks try to explain to Sidney and Gale how these rules have changed over time.  I’ve watched my fair share of horror films but I was not convinced by them or their confusing arguments.  They’re too smart for their own good.

My biggest grievance is that the movie lacks suspense when required.  The early films in the Scream franchise showed how to successfully blend the comedy and thriller genres.  Some moments left you chuckling whilst others left you squirming and clenching.  I can’t say the same here.  Maybe it’s because I didn’t like these characters but the growing death toll and uninspired ending did nothing to get my blood pumping.

As a footnote, this my 3,000th grading of a movie for my Film Pie website and a big thanks to everyone who reads my reviews on a regular basis or tunes in on 612ABC, Logan 101.1FM or ABC Southern Queensland.  Here's a photo of me at the Scream 4 premiere celebrating the milestone.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 05 April 2011

Sucker Punch is what you’d get if you mixed Mulholland Drive, Showgirls and Tomb Raider and then turned it into a music video.  It’s an audacious effort from director Zack Snyder but unfortunately, it doesn’t work.  It’s actually quite boring.

The film begins with a lengthy musical montage.  We see a teenage girl (Browning) being locked up in a mental asylum by her vindictive step-father.  He wants to make sure she never gets out.  He has bribed the doctors and asked them to perform a lobotomy.

As the doctor gets ready to insert his scalpel, the film completely changes.  The girl now finds herself as a prisoner in a brothel.  In five days time, a wealthy guy known as the “High Roller” will be coming to collect her.  She realises that her only chance of survival is to escape.  It won’t be easy given the tight security but she will helped by four new friends and her show-stopping dancing ability.

This is a strange movie and the early reports from the United States suggest that it isn’t sitting too well with audiences.  Shot on a budget of roughly $80m, the film has pulled in just $29.8m over its first 10 days.  It slipped a staggering 68% during its second weekend – a clear sign of poor word of mouth.

I feel somewhat harsh in criticising the film because at least it’s trying to be something different.  As evidenced by 300 and Watchmen, Zack Snyder is continuing to push his own distinctive style of filmmaking – heavy on special effects, music and lengthy slow-motion sequences.  Dialogue is not in his repertoire.  He’d prefer to let the visuals do the talking.

Sadly, that technique doesn’t work here.  I was intrigued by the opening but as the film progressed, I realised that there wasn’t much to the story at all.  I felt like I was just watching fantasy sequence after fantasy sequence.  It’s hard to engage with the characters and connect with the story when you’ve no idea what’s going on.  I wish I could have video taped the audience’s puzzled facial expressions at the preview screening.

It’s worth mentioning that the two leading actresses in this film are both Australian – Emily Browning (A Series Of Unfortunate Events) and Abbie Cornish (Bright Star).  Both look stunning on screen but it’s a shame that the screenplay doesn’t require more of them.  I could say the same for the whole cast – particularly Jon Hamm (Mad Men) in a ridiculously tiny role.

Sucker Punch is too much style, not enough substance.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 12 April 2011

Graeme (Pegg) and Clive (Frost) are two nerds from England who are on holidays in the United States.  They attend a comic book convention and then take their RV on a road trip to visit the location of some famous UFO sightings.  Their list of sites includes Area 51 in Nevada and Roswell in New Mexico.

Lo and behold, they discover a real alien on their adventure.  His name is Paul (voiced by Seth Rogen) and he recently escaped from a secret government facility.  He’s trying to get to a certain location where he can be rescued by his compatriots from a far away planet.

It takes a little while for the reality of situation to sink in by Graeme and Clive agree to help Paul on his journey.  Not only can he speak English but he has a dry, sarcastic sense of humour.  He has a few cool superpowers too.  Also joining them on the adventure is a young, religious woman named Ruth (Wigg) who they meet at a caravan park.  She has somewhat of an “epiphany” on meeting Paul and it leaves her questioning her lifelong beliefs.

Simon Pegg and Nick Frost are a talented duo and they’ve made some great films together.  The first two films that come to mind are Shaun Of The Dead and Hot Fuzz (which Pegg also co-wrote).  They belong in the DVD collections of anyone who enjoys a witty English spoof.

Whilst there are a few laughs to be watching Paul, I consider it to be a much weaker comedy.  It’s the kind of film where you’d say that the best jokes are used in the trailer.  I was also disappointed with the way they used the same gags over and over again (such as Ruth’s compulsive swearing).  More could have been made of this premise but the film was a little too silly, too lowbrow for my tastes.

It’s strange in that the best material seems to have been saved for the supporting cast members.  Blythe Danner’s appearance late in the film gives it a much needed kick.  Also making the most of their screen time are Jane Lynch (Glee) and Jeffrey Tambor (The Larry Sanders Show).  You’re likely to find yourself smiling when you spot Steven Spielberg’s quick cameo.

Directed by the usually reliable Greg Mottola (Superbad, Adventureland), Paul fell short of my expectations.