Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 17 January 2008

I’ve been looking forward to this film for a long time.  When the teaser trailer was first released 6 months ago, I was intrigued.  It gave away very little of the story (which is unusual) and it didn’t even tell us what the film was called (which is unheard of).  A second trailer released a few months later revealed the title but not much else in terms of plot detail.

It’s a bold marketing strategy.  There’s a risk that viewers will be turned away because they have no idea what the film is about.  Alternatively, it might be a huge success because it stands out and will get people talking.

The person getting all the credit for Cloverfield is J.J. Abrams, the man who developed the Lost television show.  There’s a similarity in both productions in that they conceal information from the audience and take their time to provide answers to interesting questions.  I like Abrams’ style.

Now then, how do I describe this movie?  It’s Godzilla meets the Blair Witch Project.  As soon as it begins, you’ll realise this isn’t your ordinary action blockbuster.  We are told that the footage we are about to see came from a video camera which was discovered in Central Park in New York City.  The tape starts playing…

It begins at a party.  A young guy named Rob is going to live in Japan and his friends have put together a surprise farewell bash.  Heaps of people are there and they all seem to be having a good time.  One of Rob’s best friends, Hud, is capturing the party with a video camera so that Rob can take it with him to remember them all by.

Out of nowhere, the ground starts to shake and a loud roar is heard.  They head up onto the roof of the apartment block to see what’s going on.  No one can believe what they’re seeing - a giant monster is destroying New York City!  It is knocking down buildings and killing any human in its path.  As Rob and his party guests try to flee the city, Hud keeps the camera rolling.  His justification is that “people are gonna want to know how it all went down”.

As you might already have gathered, it is from this video camera that we see the entire movie.  It’s a terrific idea – it feels like we’re there and in the moment.  We get a true sense of the confusion and panic that has gripped New York City.  The camera is constantly shaking and whilst we don’t always see things clearly, we sense the tension from the noises in the background and the fear in people’s voices.  I was on the edge of my seat.

My appreciation for the film’s original style will not be shared by all.  I’m sure there’ll be plenty of viewers frustrated by the shocking camerawork and the lack of detail regarding the monster itself.  My response to that is that we’ve seen Godzilla-type movies done many times before.  Instead of rehashing an old formula, the filmmakers have tried to do something new.  Still, it’s up to you as to whether you want to see it.

I have a few qualms about some parts of the story such as how they were able to evacuate the city so easily and why there weren’t more dead bodies everywhere.  I’m also a little curious as to how Rob was able to keep his camera so steady (given his nerves) and how it was always switched on at the perfect time.

The good news is that these negatives don’t even come close to outweighing the positives.  The hype has been justified.  Cloverfield is cool.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 11 January 2008

Most people who get recurrent work in the film world have talent.  Without it, they’d be replaced as quickly as you’ve read this sentence.  There are thousands of hopefuls knocking on the door who are waiting for their opportunity to break though.  As good as these regular actors / writers / directors are, there is an upper echelon who have achieved greatness.  When a group of these folk get to together to make a movie, you can be pretty confident that it’s going to be “damn great”.

A perfect example is American Gangster.  It is directed by Ridley Scott, the man who helmed such films as Blade Runner, Gladiator, Black Hawk Down.  It is written by Steven Zaillian, the man who came up with the script for films such as Schindler’s List, A Civil Action and Gangs Of New York.  It stars Denzel Washington and Russell Crowe, two likeable actors with 3 Academy Award wins and 8 Academy Award nominations between them.  Therefore, it should come as no surprise to hear me say that American Gangster is “damn great”.

It’s set in New York in the late 1960s and two stories are told concurrently.  The first is of Frank Lucas (Washington).  Mafia heavyweights have been selling large quantities of drugs on streets of Harlem.  Frank knows that these drugs are of low quality and with all the middlemen involved, the price is too high.  There’s money to be made.

Through a few contacts in South East Asia, Frank finds a creative way to import 100% pure heroin from South East Asia.  He and his crew are now selling a product called “Blue Magic” that offers “twice the quality for half the price”.  Soon enough, Frank is the new big boy in town.  He has a lot of money and a lot of power.  Success has its price however.  Frank’s sudden rise to fame has ruffled some feathers within the corrupt police force and the New York Mafia.

The second story is of Richie Roberts (Crowe).  Richie is a New Jersey police detective with little going for him.  His partner is a habitual drug user and his wife is about to divorce him.  On top of this, his ethical “do things by the book” style has alienated him from his dishonest work colleagues.  It would seem that he has few friends.

Richie is asked by his boss to assemble a team and set up a new Drug Enforcement Agency.  Their job is to identify the major drug suppliers and dealers and come up with enough evidence to prosecute them.  It’s an almost impossible task.  In Richie’s own words, “if you stop bringing dope into this country about 100,000 people and going to be out of a job.”

As you can see, this puts Frank and Richie on a collision course.  It may sound like a simple good vs. evil story but there’s more to it than that.  It’s interesting to watch each side and the way they go about achieving their objectives.  It reminded me of the 1995 film, Heat (directed by Michael Mann and starring Al Pacino and Robert DeNiro).  The tension builds as you wait for the moment where the two leading characters will come face-to-face.  Washington and Crowe are great throughout and yes, their confrontation in the film’s finale is worth the wait.

Based on actual events, American Gangster is a two and a half hour journey that will keep you engrossed.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 13 January 2008

When we’re introduced to Charlie Wilson (Hanks) at the start of the film, we see him as a womanising U.S. senator from Texas who doesn’t really do much.  It’s the early 1980s and someone says it best when they describe Charlie’s greatest achievement as “being re-elected five times”.

Charlie Wilson is approached by Joanne Herring (Roberts), an extremely wealthy woman with an interest in human rights.  She pleads with Charlie to do something about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.  Over 130,000 Soviet soldiers have taken control of the country and the Afghans have no weapons with which to fight back.  Thousands of citizens have fled into neighbouring Pakistan.

Joanne realises that Charlie is a member of a number of parliamentary committees and can use his influence to get something done.  Charlie realises that Joanne has both money and influence – two elements that will be very useful in getting himself re-elected once again.  He agrees to go to Pakistan, meet with the Prime Minister and see the problem for himself.

It is an eye opening experience for Charlie.  He returns to the United States and is determined to get something he done.  He meets with the FBI agent responsible for the war in Afghanistan, Gust Avrakotos (Hoffman).  With the help of a few others, they develop a strategy of secretly providing weapons to the Afghans without the Soviets knowing.  All that remains is to find a way of getting government funding for their plan…

This may sound hard to believe but Charlie Wilson’s War is (a) based on a true story, and (b) a comedy.  It is based on the novel by George Crile, a long time producer on the television show 60 Minutes.  This could easily have been a deep political drama but writer Aaron Sorkin (A Few Good Men, The American President) and director Mike Nichols (The Graduate, Catch-22) have turned in into a light-hearted farce, filled with intelligent one-liners.  I like their approach and the casting of Academy Award winners Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts and Philip Seymour Hoffman will further help lure an audience.

I admit to being a little “iffy” about some of the political messages that the film is trying to get across.  Be warned – the finale may not sit well with everyone.  I have an issue with how the Americans and Soviets are portrayed.  I don’t think it was a simple as the film made out and was offended by a particular scene involving Soviet pilots in the air.  Did Sorkin and Nichols include this scene for a reason?  Are they deliberately trying to be controversial to get people to talk about it?  I don’t know.

Still, I enjoyed the story being told in Charlie Wilson’s War and it’s refreshing to see an intelligent comedy which looks how wars are funded and the way the U.S. political system really works.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 03 January 2008

Dave (Lee) is a wannabe songwriter who just can’t come up with a hit.  To make matters worse, he’s just lost his regular day job as an advertising consultant.  Did I also mention that Dave recently got dumped by his girlfriend because he wasn’t ready to settle down and start a family?  You should be getting the picture that Dave is down on his luck and due for a life change.

That’s where Alvin, Simon and Theodore come in.  Three talking chipmunks find their way into Dave’s house.  He finds them rummaging through his pantries and leaving a large mess.  He’s just about to get rid of them when he realises… they can talk!  He shakes his head of a little but it doesn’t change anything.  It’s not a dream.

When Dave hears Alvin, Simon and Theodore’s high pitched singing voices, it gives him an idea.  With his lyrics and their unique vocal cords, he might be able to come up with a new sound that will revolutionise the music industry.  They could be the first animals to make a hit record.

Dave’s judgement is right and soon enough, Alvin & The Chipmunks are sitting atop the music charts.  It’s not all smooth sailing though.  The Chipmunks are looking for a father figure but Dave’s still not sure he’s ready for such a commitment.  Further, a high profile music executive (Cross) is looking to take control of the band and milk as much money from them as possible.

The idea of Alvin & The Chipmunks was created by Ross Bagdasrian in 1958.  Many “chipmunk” albums have been released over the years for better or worse.  There have also been many animated television shows and movies based around them.  Now, we’ve got a live action movie (well, the chipmunks are computer generated).

Alvin & The Chipmunks is a fun family movie which is pretty easy to follow.  Its strong showing at the box-office shows that its been very popular with kids.  I don’t think its anything special but I guess it’s because I’m not in the target demographic.  There were plenty of laughs in my cinema so I’m strongly recommending this for parents looking to entertain their kids over the school holidays.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 13 January 2008

Ever since she was a young girl, Jane (Heigl) has loved weddings.  She keeps newspaper clippings of wedding photos and reports.  She has attended the ceremonies and receptions of her many friends.  Plus, as the title reveals, she has been a bridesmaid at 27 different weddings.  Jane has kept every one of her bridesmaid dresses and they are stuffed into a cupboard in her New York apartment.

Now the thing is, Jane has never been married herself.  How is it that someone as nice and good looking as Jane can’t find a boyfriend?  It’s a good question which has been bugging me for months (since I first saw the trailer).  It turns out that she spends so much time helping others that she doesn’t have time to focus on her own life.  Further, she does have a crush on someone but it’s her boss, George (Burns).  Jane has never had the guts to reveal her true feelings for fear of ruining her career.

Her busy lifestyle is turned on its head when her youngster sister, Tess (Akerman), comes to stay with her for a few weeks.  Tess is a model who is in between assignments.  Jane asks Tess to come along to a work function but it turns out to be a bad idea.  Tess and George are introduced and… end up spending the night together.

Within weeks, Tess and George are engaged to be married and Jane has been asked to help plan it.  Jane doesn’t know what to do.  She’s planning the wedding for a man she’s hopelessly in love with but unfortunately, she’s not the bride.  What’s she going to do?  To further complicate the situation, Jane is being pursued by a very determined writer named Kevin (Marsden).  All he wants is a chance but Jane is too busy to oblige.

I do have issues with the film’s premise.  When you break it down, it’s all a bit too far-fetched and nothing like this could ever happen in reality.  Well, maybe it could and I’m just a non-romantic.  Jane somehow goes to two weddings in one night by shuttling back and forth in a taxi.  Who would do this and how does she go undetected?  When George meets Tess, he “pops the question” seemingly within a week.  How could someone as sensible as George do something so hasty and not realise that Tess is such a ditz?

If you’re prepared to go along with the story (and I did my best to do so), then 27 Dresses is an entertaining romantic comedy.  The key is the performance of star Katherine Heigl (Knocked Up).  She shares some great scenes in particular with James Marsden (Enchanted) where they open up about their thoughts on marriage and weddings.  There’s something about her facial expressions and the way she delivers her lines that makes her both real and likeable.  That’s more than I can say for the female lead in pretty much every other romantic comedy I see.

It follows a familiar formula and satisfies the definition of a “chick flick” but 27 Dresses is still good fun.