Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 19 September 2008

Eagle Eye is a suspenseful thriller in which two ordinary people find themselves caught up in a major terrorist operation within the United States.  It all begins when Jerry Shaw (LaBeouf) opens the front door of his apartment and learns that he has a delivery.  In his living room are bags of dangerous chemicals and cartons filled with high-powered weaponry.

As he tries to comprehend what exactly is going on, Jerry receives a phone call.  The female voice at the other end tells him that the FBI will be arriving at his apartment within the next minute to arrest him.  Sure enough, the voice is right and he is taken into custody.  Jerry still has no idea what is going on.  He tries to explain to the FBI Agent Thomas Morgan (Thornton) that he’s been set up but as you’d expect, Morgan doesn’t believe him.

Granted his right to a telephone call, Jerry tries to find someone who can help him but on the other end of the line is the same female voice that warned him earlier.  She simply tells him to lie down on the ground.  An instant later, a crane smashes through the window.  A neon sign across the street tells Jerry to jump from the window and with no other options, he does so.

While all this is going on, a single mother named Rachel Holloman (Monaghan) receives a strange phone call whilst out with her friends at a bar.  A female voice tells her that she must do exactly what she is told or else her son’s life will be in danger.  Rachel realises the gravity of the situation when a current image of her son (who is aboard a train travelling on a school excursion) is flashed up on a television screen across the street.

Rachel is told that there is a car parked around the corner with the keys in the ignition.  She is given instructions as to where she must drive.  When Rachel gets there, she finds Jerry Shaw.  He’s just jumped out of the FBI office window and is looking to escape.  These two have never met before but have been brought together for an unknown reason.  They are given further instructions and told to continue or else there will be consequences…

Who is this voice on the phone?  How is it that their every move is being watched?  Why are strange events happening around them?  Why have they in particular been dragged into this plan?  These questions will be answered and for the most part, Eagle Eye is a decent thriller.  It won’t win any awards for its realism but it is both gripping and suspenseful.  It certainly held my attention for its two hour duration.

The film has been directed by D.J. Caruso, the guy responsible for last year’s popular teen thriller, Disturbia.  Shia LaBeouf (Transformers) and Michelle Monaghan (The Heartbreak Kid) have been well cast and make a strong combination.  They are two rising stars who should help boost the box-office.  I was also a fan of the supporting cast with notables including Billy Bob Thornton, Michael Chiklis and Rosario Dawson.

Eagle Eye tries to make a few political points but above all else, it’s a film which has been made to entertain.  It delivers on most counts and to use a popular term, it is best described as a “popcorn movie”.  Sit back and enjoy the ride.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 07 September 2008

This is going to be a strange review.  I don’t really want to talk about the contents of the film.  I’d rather have a discussion about how it came to be made.

In 1997, director Michael Haneke made a film called Funny Games.  It was a low-budget German film that generated a great deal of discussion when it premiered at the Cannes Film Festival.  It told a sadistic story of two young guys who tortured a family staying at their isolated holiday home.  This was more than just your normal “slasher” film.  Haneke was trying to make a point about how violence is used exploitatively in American cinema.  Not a lot of people saw the movie and it didn’t get a big release in the United States (surprise, surprise).

Since then, Haneke has gone on to make some very good movies.  He peaked in 2005 with a film called Hidden.  I awarded it my highest-grading and in my review, I described it as “two hours of increasing, unrelenting suspense”.  It was the story of a French couple who are sent videotapes of themselves.  Someone is watching them and taping them but they don’t know who.  It’s a film which makes you feel uneasy.  If you haven’t seen it, I strongly urge you to do so.

Now, 10 years after he made Funny Games, Haneke has decided to make it again.  He has brought in a new cast and made it in the English language.  The film is almost identical to the German version.  Haneke hoped that it would open the film up to a wider audience so that more could appreciate the messages contained within.

This reminds me of when director Gus Van Sant remade Psycho back in 1998.  With a few small exceptions, it was a precise remake of the original Alfred Hitchcock film.  I didn’t like it but it was an interesting experiment.  It proved that there are certain intangible elements of a film that can’t be recreated.  Despite the fact it was the same story and it was shot exactly the same way, it was nowhere near as suspenseful as the original Psycho.

The new version of Funny Games takes this concept even further.  Not only is it an exact remake, it’s also been made by the same director!  I have to ask myself, how could Michael Haneke do this?  Surely a director would have so many great ideas for new movies.  Why would he want to go back and waste his time making a mirror-image of an earlier film?  I’m perplexed.

The irony is that this new film has been a financial failure.  It was made for an estimated $15m and took in just $1.3m at the U.S. box-office.  People didn’t want to see the first movie and it should come as no surprise that they didn’t want to see this one either.  Is Haneke a misunderstood genius or a foolish filmmaker?  It’s a debate that I won’t continue in this forum.

As for the movie that I’m here to review, I don’t have a lot of compliments.  I like what he’s trying to do and the way that he teases the audience but not always showing them what is happening.  It helps build the suspense.  In contrast, the plot is farcical.   The two bad guys (played here by Michael Pitt and Brady Corbett) and are also over-the-top with their blasé mannerisms.  It’s almost laughable.

Are you one of the few who are going to take the time to see this film when it is release?  Or are you like the majority and simply won’t care?

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 09 September 2008

I heard someone describe this film as “Bridget Jones for teenagers” and I think it’s an apt description.  Young girls will soak this up.  They’ll enjoy watching the film’s hapless heroine try to win the heart of the hottest guy at school.  It’s nothing new but there are a few fun elements to the story.  They help elevate it above what we’d normally expect from a teen-orientated romantic comedy.

The tale is based on the novels written by Louise Rennison.  The film’s catchy title is adapted from one of her book titles – “Angus, Thongs and Full-Frontal Snogging”.  The producers decided to change the title for the movie as they were worried that the term “full-frontal” might be a little too explicit.  I’m not sure I agree but there you have it.

The central character is Georgia Nicolson (Groome).  She’s a 14-year-old living in Eastbourne, a large coastal town in England.  She’s going through all the trials and tribulations that you’d expect at that age.  She’s starting to rebel against her parents, she’s starting to worry about her appearance and she’s starting to feel the effects of peer-pressure.  Oh, and yes, she’s started to become interested in boys.

The guy she’s after is a newcomer to the school.  His name is Robbie (Johnson).  Georgia will face stiff competition however.  It’s not just her that has their eyes on him.  Her best friend Jas (Tomlinson) has set her own sights on Robbie’s brother.  Nothing goes as planned of course.  Georgia’s mother tries to help by giving her a copy of “Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus” but it only further adds to her problems.

Angus, Thongs and Perfect Snogging (I still like saying that title) left be both giggling and cringing.  Georgia’s immaturity keeps landing her into some ridiculous situations.  The dialogue is very stiff but Georgia is a cool, likeable character.  Some of the trendy phrases she uses with her friends are still stuck in my head.  She learns some valuable lessons that many younger audience members will be able to relate to.

I don’t think this film will be for everyone but it should win over its target audience.  It’s another feather in the cap of director Gurinder Chadha (Bend It Like Beckham).  She has a knack for creating feel-good cinema.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 02 September 2008

Ray (Farrell) and Ken (Gleeson) are two hit-men who are have fled London after a botched job.  Their boss has put them up in a hotel in Bruges, a small city in Belgium.  He’s booked the room for two weeks and has told them to sit tight.  He’ll call them shortly with further instructions.

To pass the time, these two guys go sightseeing.  Bruges is a beautiful city and there are a lot of old-style buildings to see.  In the centre of town you can find the Church of Our Lady.  It was a built in the 13^th Century and has a 122m high tower that visitors can climb.  The views are amazing.

Wait a minute.  Is this a movie we’re watching or is it a travel show?  These thoughts were running through my mind during the first half of the film.  Don’t worry.  There is a purpose to these early scenes.  By following Ray and Ken around the streets of Bruges, we learn a lot about them.  They’re polar opposites and you’ll have a few laughs over their differing opinions on the city of Bruges.

The film moves in a different direction when their boss finally calls from London.  He has instructions that will have a significant impact on their “holiday”.  I won’t say anything else because that’s unfair on writer-director Martin McDonagh.  Whilst his film is a little rough around the edges, I like how McDonagh keeps a few details from the audience.  These characters are not as straight forward as you might think and you’ll have to keep watching to find out more.

Both Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson give strong performances.  They share some great scenes and their long, argumentative conversations were certainly a highlight.  In contrast, the plot is pretty thin.  I was looking for more substance and there were elements to the plot (which I can’t go into) which felt over-the-top.  The final scene is worth hanging around for though.

In Bruges is rated MA and deserves that rating for its strong violence.  For the most part, the film is a crowd pleaser but there are a few brief moments which will bother some moviegoers.  Heed the warning.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 08 September 2008

It was only a few weeks ago that I was writing about an amazing foreign language animated film called Persepolis.  Well, guess what?  I’ve seen another great foreign language animated film!  It’s as if we’re creating a new genre!  The film is called Waltz With Bashir.  It won’t be rivalling The Dark Knight in terms of ticket sales but it is worthy of your time if you love quality cinema.

The film is based around the war between Israel and Lebanon which took place in 1982.  After years of being bombed by the Lebanese, the Israeli government sent in their military.  The plan was to seize control of the 40km security zone across the border.  This would prevent the Lebanese from launching missiles which could reach Israeli soil.

It wasn’t widely known but the Israeli Defence Minister, Ariel Sharon (who would later become the Israeli Prime Minister), had another plan.  He pushed his troops further into Lebanon in an attempt to occupy Beirut, the capital city.  He believed that if he could take control of the country and appoint a new President, they would no longer be a threat to Israel.

Director Ari Folman was an Israeli solider during that war.  This film is his way of showing people the atrocities that took place.  This may sound strange but the film is kind of like a documentary.  Foleman obtained interviews with friends who fought alongside him in Beirut as well as others who were involved.  These interviews make up most of the script.

Foleman then shot the film on video and had a team of animators transform it into what you see on screen.  It took a month to draw just 4 minutes worth of animation.  It sounds similar to the techniques used by director Richard Linklater when he made A Scanner Darkly in 2006. 

Don’t let me put you off by thinking this a boring history lesson.  There’s an interesting story being told against the backdrop of the Lebanon War.  It centres around Foleman today and how he is struggling to remember the events from 25 years ago.  His suppressed memories are jolted by an old friend who tells him about a strange dream.  This starts Foleman on his quest to find out what part he actually played in the horrific war.

Waltz With Bashir took four years to make but it was well worth the effort.