Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 04 December 2007

The tale of Beowulf comes from a lengthy poem written approximately 1,000 years ago.  No one knows who wrote it.  It is set in Scandinavia in the 5^th and 6^th centuries and has been the subject of much scrutiny by historians.  How much of the story and its characters are real?  Is it all a simple fable?  We’ll never know for sure.

After having been made into a poor live-action movie in 1999 (starring Christopher Lambert), Beowulf has been brought back to the screen in animation form by director Robert Zemeckis (Forrest Gump).

I think I’m correct in calling this film “animated” but it’s not so clear cut.  The film has been made using a “performance capture” technique.  The way it works is that real actors have thousands of digital sensors attached to their face and body.  Every movement is captured by a computer and these movements are then used to create the animated characters that we see in the film.  This same method was used to bring Gollum to life in The Lord Of The Rings movies.

Getting back to the story, Beowulf (Winstone) is a brave English warrior who has travelled to a Denmark in search of fame and fortune.  The King (Hopkins) has offered a reward to any man who can kill the evil monster named Grendel that is terrorising his kingdom.  Beowulf is successful in his task and in return, the King gives him a valuable golden horn.

It turns out that there’s one more evil being that will need to be slain – Grendel’s mother.  When Beowulf finds her in a cave high atop the nearby mountains, he is seduced by her incredible beauty.  She offers Beowulf a deal – she will make him “the greatest king who ever lived” if he will sleep with her and give her a son.  Beowulf accepts the offer but will regret it for the rest of his life…

I thought this film took a little while to get going but once the stage was set, I enjoyed it a lot.  It reminded me of a Shakespearean tragedy – it’s easy to follow and you sense that trouble lurks around every corner.

There’s a great group of actors amongst the cast also.  Some look exactly like they do in real life (such as Angelina Jolie and Anthony Hopkins) but others look different (such as Ray Winstone as Beowulf).  Seeing them in quasi-animated form gives the film a distinctive look.  I like this style and it suits the legendary nature of the story.  I don’t think this could have worked as a live action movie (as verified by the 1999 film discussed above).

The film is showing in selected cinemas in a 3-D format.  I know a lot of people wait until movies are released on DVD before watching them but here’s one reason to make a trip to the cinema.  Whilst I only saw the film in 2-D, I’m told the 3-D version is incredible from a visual perspective.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 21 November 2007

Eddie Cantrow (Ben Stiller) is a 40-year-old guy who has never been married.  He’s not phased by that fact and likes his job working as the manager of a sporting goods store.  His dad (Jerry Stiller) and best friend (Corddry) see things differently however.  They keep telling Eddie that he’s missing out on so much by not having a wife.

In a strange sequence of events, Eddie meets Lila (Akerman), a young woman who works as an environmental researcher.  The two hit it off right away and start spending a lot of time together.  Things couldn’t be better… until Lila gets some bad news – they want her to relocate to Holland for work.  The only way of preventing the move is for her to get married.  So, after 6 weeks together, Eddie and Lila take the plunge and head to Mexico for their honeymoon.

It turns out that Lila is the “bride from hell”.  She has a series of annoying habits and was not entirely honest about her past and her work.  Eddie quickly realises that he shouldn’t have gotten married so soon.  To further complicate matters, he meets a girl named Miranda (Monaghan) who is also staying at the beach-side resort.  They have much in common and enjoy each other’s sense of humour.  Eddie suddenly feels guilty.  This is not because he’s ignoring his sunburnt wife in the hotel room but because he isn’t being honest with Miranda and telling him that he’s married and on his honeymoon.

This could have been funny but the screenplay is not well written.  I expected much better from Peter and Bobby Farrelly, the guys responsible for such comedic classics as There’s Something About Mary and Shallow Hal.  The Heatbreak Kid is actually a remake of a 1972 Neil Simon film of the same title which stared Charles Grodin and Cybill Shepherd.

My big problem with this film was that I didn’t understand the Lila character.  As I’ve alluded to earlier, she reveals a few things about herself that Eddie would have preferred to know before they were married.  Did she do this deliberately?  This is what’s never made clear.  How then, can I see her as the villain?  Why should I be cheering for Eddie to hook up with the new girl when I’m thinking that Lila is an innocent pawn?  Isn’t it just as much Eddie’s fault for rushing into this relationship?

My issues with the farcical storyline prevented me from enjoying the film’s attempted humour.  Some of the key jokes aren’t too bad.  They’re crude but I liked that – they caught me off guard.  A scene near the end of the film involving a jellyfish sting was the standout.  It will undoubtedly get an audience reaction in every cinema in which this movie is shown.

The jokes and style are similar to that of There’s Something About Mary but in the end, The Heartbreak Kid is a vastly inferior film.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 04 December 2007

Seinfeld is one of my all-time favourite television shows.  Creators Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld took ordinary situations and made them hilariously funny.  The final show (which aired in 1998) was the 3^rd most watched series finale in U.S. television history.

Considering his success, it’s strange that Jerry Seinfeld hasn’t featured in a movie or television series since Seinfeld wrapped up.  That nine year stretch has been broken with the arrival of Bee Movie – an animated film written by Jerry Seinfeld in which he also voices the leading character.

It tells the story of Barry B. Benson (Seinfeld), a bee who has just graduated from college and is about to start his first job.  His excitement turns to despair when he realises that once he picks a job, he must stick with it for the rest of his life.  It’s just the way things are in the bee world.  Everyone works hard and there’s no time for any leisure.

Determined to break the mould, Barry goes outside the hive in search of adventure.  He winds up on the window sill of a young florist named Vanessa (Zellweger).  After Vanessa saves him from a certain death, Barry thinks it appropriate to thank her.  He flies up to her in the kitchen and says just that.  As you’d expect, Vanessa is stunned.  Who’d have thought that bees could talk?

Barry soon realises that not everyone in the human race is so nice.  He learns that bees are being farmed by humans with the resulting honey sold in supermarkets.  Furious that they are stealing their only source of food, Barry decides to sue the human race.

Bee Movie was not as funny as I thought it might be.  The storyline is far-fetched (you should have gathered that already) and this limits the opportunities to slip in a good joke.  You can only take this “bee concept” so far.  It can’t compete with the superbly written Ratatouille, the best animated film of 2007.

Is it still worth a look?  I think it is.  There’s some fun celebrity cameos and a few moments to chuckle over.  You’ll have to wait until the very end of the film for the best joke – a scene in which a mosquito (voiced by Chris Rock) describes why he’s perfect to become a lawyer.  The animation is also top-notch – the characters look cute and will grab the attention of the younger audience.

My mixed feelings for Bee Movie make it the ideal film to award my passing grade… a B.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 15 November 2007

I just saw Inland Empire.  But did I really see it?  Maybe I just imagined it.  How do I know?  What if it was all just a dream?  Then how would I be writing this review right now?  But maybe I’m not writing this review right now?  But then how would you be reading this review right now?  Maybe you’re dreaming?  How do you know for sure?  Maybe you’re hallucinating?  How do you know for sure?  Maybe you’re part of a world where rabbits talk and appear in television sitcoms?  How do you know for sure?

Confused?  I hope so.  I’m trying to recreate the experience of watching Inland Empire.  Nothing makes sense.  People appear and disappear.  The leading character (played by Laura Dern) looks different in almost every scene.  Her name is always changing – is it Nikki or Sue?  I understood the first half hour but beyond that, I have absolutely no idea what this film is about or what it is trying to say.  To make matters worse – it’s three mind-numbing hours long!

It begins with an actress (Dern) scoring a leading role in a major new movie.  On the first day of shooting, she finds out that the film is actually a “remake”.  The original film was never released though because it was never completed.  Both the male and female lead were murdered during production.  Apparently they were warned by some Polish gypsy that the film was “cursed”.

So what else is in this movie?  There are some strange musical numbers involving a group of prostitutes.  There is a girl who watches TV and cries.  There are people with blurred faces.  There is a woman with an ice-pick stuck in her stomach.  There are mysterious locations that change a lot.  There are explained flashes of light.  There are scenes with subtitles.  There is no order in the way that events unfold.  Oh yeah, and there’s the walking, talking rabbits.

Writer-director David Lynch’s last major film was Muholland Dr.  It was my favourite film of 2002.  It was similarly creative in terms of its structure but I was able to follow the story and the loved the challenge of trying to figure it all out.  Inland Empire goes too far.  It’s overly random and there isn’t enough plot.  I liked this comment from critic Margaret Pomeranz on the most recent episode of At The Movies – “I believe that he just made this up as he went along and it shows.  It's like it's a wank.”

I’m not as harsh as Margaret and I think Lynch deserves a little credit for his artistry.  In a world where so many movies feel the same, Lynch has come up with something that people will remember (for better or worse).  He has also conjured a brilliant performance from Laura Dern, one of Hollywood’s most underrated actresses.

When it comes down to the crunch however, how can I possibly recommend this?  Do you really want to give up three hours (plus trailers) of your life to watch something that you have no chance of understanding?  I could think of better alternatives.  Unless of course this is all a dream…

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 26 November 2007

I’ve been waiting to see Into The Wild for a while.  The trailer looked great and the combination of rising star Emile Hirsch (The Emperor’s Club) with director Sean Penn (The Pledge) was an attractive proposition.  Early reviews from the Toronto Film Festival were positive and many believed it had a legitimate shot at earning some Oscar nominations.

Into The Wild tells the true story of Christopher McCandless.  After graduating from an Atlanta college in 1990, Chris decided to go on an “adventure”.  He gave the balance of his bank account to charity and set off on a trek across the United States and Canada.  His goal was to make it to Alaska.  Why did he do this?  I’m not entirely sure but I think he wanted to escape his problems at home and live his life at his fullest.

I think now is the right time to break the bad news – I passionately disliked this film.  Within 15 minutes it was “rubbing me up the wrong way”.  My first reason is that I did not like or understand the Chris McCandless character.  Quite frankly, I think he was an idiot.  My second, and most important reason, is that the film wanted me to like him.  This has been debated on various internet forums and some people will disagree with this statement.  I am giving my honest opinion however and it cannot be changed.  I refuse to feel sympathy for a smart-ass who thinks he has the answers to everything.

When he set out on his journey, Chris got rid of all his identification and changed his name to Alexander Supertramp.  He didn’t tell anyone what he was doing or where he was going.  His parents (played by Marcia Gay Harden and William Hurt) and his sister (played by Jena Malone) didn’t know what had happened to him.  Not once did he contact them during his trip.  Police were called in but they had no luck locating him.  Now Chris may not have liked his parents but that’s a pretty cruel thing to do them, is it not?

Over the next two years en route to Alaska, Chris met an assortment of people.  These tales (some more interesting than others) make up much of the film’s narrative.  They didn’t improve my liking for Chris McCandless.  He rambles on with a bunch of philosophical garbage and these new found friends lap it up like he’s a saint.  We’re talking about a kid with next-to-no real life experience.  Can I ask one question – why does he give away all his money at the start of the film and then get a low paying job at a global food giant (Burger King) to pay for supplies?  Now that’s experiencing “nature”!

The only decent part in the film come at the very end when Chris stays at the home of an elderly gentleman named Ron (Holbrook).  Veteran actor Hal Holbrook is being touted as an Oscar contender for his brief but beautiful performance.  The scene where he says goodbye to Chris (before he heads off on the final part of his journey) feels true and honest.       

Sean Penn’s direction didn’t win me over either.  I think this is the worst film he’s done.  He’s split the story into meaningless “chapters” and uses the same techniques over and over again.  What’s the point of including the journal extracts from Chris’s diary and splashing them all over the screen?

Most moviegoers have liked Into The Wild but I’m sticking to my position and supporting the minority.