Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 24 April 2007

I’ve been a big fan of the last two Spider-Man movies.  Still, I saw Spider-Man 3 with a degree of scepticism.  I was worried that the best material had already been used and that this new instalment would be both predictable and unoriginal.

I need not have been concerned because Spider-Man 3 is just as good as the previous two films.  There are a few things I’d have done differently but on the whole, it created both suspense and emotion.  Crucially however, it keeps its sense a humour.  I’m not a fan of super-hero movies that take themselves too seriously.

In this new film, Spidey (aka Peter Parker) will have to battle more than one villain.  Picking up from where the second film left off, Peter’s old friend Harry Osborn (Franco) is looking for revenge.  Harry believes that Spider-Man is responsible for his father’s death and he wants to settle the score.  Peter tries to convince Harry that it was not his fault but Harry isn’t listening.

As this goes on, Peter learns that the man arrested for his own father’s murder is innocent.  The real killer is Flint Marko (Church) and he was recently escaped from prison.  Just has Harry reacted to his father’s death, Peter’s strongest urge is also that of revenge.  Peter’s mother (Harris) warns him to “let it go” but Peter can’t help himself – he wants Marko brought to justice.  A darker side of Spidey is emerging…

As Peter tries to keep his emotions in check, his relationship with girlfriend Mary-Jane Watson (Dunst) starts to suffer.  They never seem to find any time to spend together.  Peter is always off saving the world and Mary-Jane is trying to make a career as an actress.  In the brief moments that they do see each other, the excitable Peter can’t help but talk about how much fun he has as Spider-Man.  Mary-Jane struggles to get a word in.

There’s a lot more to tell and a few more enemies that Spider-Man will have to confront but I’ll keep tight-lipped from this point on.  I liked the unexpected plot twists and the focus of the story was forever changing.  This is not a film where you can predict the ending within the first 5 minutes.

There’s an interesting “interlude” about two-thirds of the way through the film where Peter takes on a new personality.  The action-packed drama stops for about 15 minutes and we are treated to an amusing sequence where Peter plays “the bad boy”.  Some might be critical of this plot deviation but I enjoyed the break from the main storyline.  It’s one of my favourite parts of the film.

If the film has a downside, it’s the overuse of visual effects.  There is a fight sequence early in the film between Peter and Harry where they fly atop the city at night.  The camera angle seems to be changing every tenth of a second, there was little lighting and the characters moved very quickly.  As a result, I had trouble figuring out what was going on.  The screen was a giant blur.

As the first big Hollywood blockbuster to be released in 2007, I’m more than happy with Spider-Man 3.  It’ll make big money at the box-office but more importantly, it’s actually worth seeing.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 12 April 2007

Bob Lee Swagger (Wahlberg) lives in a secluded mountain cabin.  His only companion is his trusty dog.  It’s a life that he enjoys – alone and away from the troubles of world.  It hasn’t always been this way however.  A few years ago, Swagger served his country proudly as an elite marksman in the U.S. military.  However, after his superiors deserted him during an undercover mission, Swagger decided that he’d had enough of the “system”.

At his isolated hideaway, Swagger is approached by Colonel Isaac Johnson (Glover).  Johnson informs Swagger that an attempt will be made to assassinate the President.  Intelligence suggests that he will be shot with a rifle from over a mile away at a major outdoor function.  They don’t know who is behind the plot but it is rumoured to be someone “on the inside”.  Given his experience as a long-distance marksman, Johnson wants Swagger’s guidance to help prevent it from happening.  Swagger will scout out the locations and identify where the gunman could position himself.

It turns out that Swagger has been set up.  A shot is indeed taken at the President but those behind the plot are the same people who have brought Swagger to the scene.  They plan on killing him and saying that he was the man responsible.  Swagger manages to escape (as you’d expect) and what follows is a lengthy game of cat and mouse.  There’s one mouse and about 10,000 cats on his tail.  The odds are not good.

I like the idea of the film but didn’t enjoy what I saw on screen.  Last week, I wrote a column on commonly used movie clichés.  As I sat watching Shooter, I could tick many of them off as the film progressed.  In the very opening scene, Swagger’s army partner shows him a photo of his “loved one” back home.  Sure enough, he’s dead within the next few minutes.

That’s not all.  To make this far-fetched storyline work, there are a million events that fall perfectly into place.  In reality, Swagger should have been killed on at least 10 different occasions during the movie.  Somehow, those shooting at him can never hit him (despite the fact that they too are trained gunman) and there always seems to be an escape route.  Also hard to believe is the help that Swagger receives from a two people inside the FBI.  I’d hate to think that the real FBI had such slack security.

This is the fourth film I have seen from director Antoine Fuqua.  His most high profile film prior to this was Training Day.  Released in 2001, it was very popular and won Denzel Washington an Oscar for best actor (I don’t know how).  I see this film as being similar.  It starts out with a half decent premise but reaches a point where the logic has no meaning.  I am not a fan of his style or the scripts that he chooses.  You may see things differently.

The only positive endorsement I have is that of Mark Wahlberg’s performance.  He was the best cast member in The Departed and he solidifies my high opinion of him with another top showing here.  His character is injured early in the film and you can feel the pain and the suffering that he is going through to stay alive and elude his pursuers.  He may have started his career as an underwear model but this guy can act.  If only he’d had a better script in this instance.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 20 April 2007

Maybe I’m hard to please but I’m tired of these Chinese movies that all feel the same.  They are set in ancient times, have lavish costumes and sets, feature the same actors and include plenty of martial arts sequences.  I speak of films such as Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon, Hero, House Of Flying Daggers and Fearless.  These movies all look great on the big screen but the increasing lack of originality has left me somewhat disinterested.  Why can’t I see a film set in modern day China?

Curse Of The Golden Flower is set in 10^th Century.  Emperor Ping (Chow) and Empress Phoenix (Gong) rule the land from their lavish Imperial Palace.  They have two sons – Jai and Yu.  The first person in line to the thrown however is the Crown Prince Wan, the Emperor’s son from a former marriage.

What follows is reminiscent of a Shakespearean tragedy.  The family disintegrates with a mix of lies, betrayal and sabotage.  Some act out of love and honour whilst others are in search of wealth and power.  The myriad of storylines left me confused at times but I won’t reveal anything else for those who wish to see the film for themselves (and who are prepared to pay closer attention than I did).

The last film I saw from director Yimou Zhang was House Of Flying Daggers.  It was a beautiful film visually and I have no choice but to make the same statement here.  Curse Of The Golden Flower looks incredible.  It was filmed at the Forbidden City which tourists can visit in Beijing, China.  Just wait till you see the rainbow of colours inside.  The costumes also deserve a mention as they were recently honoured with an Academy Award nomination.

As I eluded to earlier, the story being told in Flower didn’t excite me.  I had trouble following the events and much of it felt repetitive.  Why did I have to watch the Empress drink her medicine so many times?  Too much time is wasted in the lead-up to the dramatic finale.  Put simply – it’s a two hour snooze fest with glimpses of promise.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 07 April 2007

Have you seen Alfred Hitchcock’s Rear Window?  If so, the following plot device will sound very familiar.

One year ago, Kale (LaBeouf) and his father were involved in a car accident on the way home from a fishing trip.  Kale survived but his father did not.  The resulting trauma saw his grades slip at school and culminated with Kale punching a teacher in the face.  The assault saw him appear before a judge.  Despite his previous convictions (which aren’t detailed), Kale gets off lightly.  He is sentenced to three months of home detention.

Kale cannot leave his house during this time.  To make sure that is the case, an electronic device is locked to his ankle.  If he strays more than 100 feet from the kitchen (where the central transponder is located), it will set off an alarm and the police will be on the way.  The time at home won’t be as easy as Kale first thinks.  Spending every minute at home can be very, very boring.

After an overly long introduction (which sets up the above premise), the film enters its “thriller” phase.  Kale starts using binoculars to spy on the neighbouring houses.  At first, his attention is drawn to the cute girl next door (Roemer) but it soon changes to the strange man in the next house over.  His name is Mr. Turner (Morse).

Having spent so much time watching television, Kale knows that police are looking for leads in the case of a missing woman.  The car she was last seen in matches the car that appears in Mr. Turner’s garage.  There’s also a small dent in the front left corner of the car – just as the police described.  Is Mr. Turner the kidnapper?  Kale sets up his video camera, uses his binoculars and spends almost every moment looking through the windows of Mr. Turner’s house.  Can he find a clue?

I didn’t mind the film in places but Disturbia didn’t create the thrills I was expecting.  Why?  Because I never believed it.  Some scenes left me shaking my head.  The characters do not behave like normal people and the events do not unfold like they would in real life.  It makes you appreciate how good Alfred Hitchcock’s Rear Window was.

I won’t elaborate too much for fear of ruining the ending but here are a few examples.  There’s one scene where Kale gets his hands on both the current and original plans of Mr. Turner’s house.  How is this possible?  There’s another scene where Kaleb spots something incredibly miniscule on his video camera.  How did he do this?  I know “it’s just a movie” but I’m still annoyed.

Now speaking positively, I enjoyed Shia LaBoeuf (Holes) in the leading role.  He came across as a regular, normal teenager – not the kind of stereotypical teenagers we see in so many movies.  I don’t know if that makes sense but there’s something about his mannerisms and the way he speaks which makes him look like he’s not even acting.  There is talk that LaBoeuf will be cast as Harrison Ford’s son in the new Indiana Jones movie.  I hope he does as it’d be a great break-out role.

Let me finish up by saying that I saw this film at an advance screening with almost no prior knowledge of the storyline.  For this reason, I had no idea where the film would head and how it would end.  Having seen the trailer subsequently, I am horrified by how much of the story it gives away.  I say this every few months but if you’re going to create a thriller, what’s the bloody point of revealing the plot twists beforehand?  If you’re thinking about seeing Disturbia, I strongly urge that you don’t download the trailer first.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 17 April 2007

At the top of my reviews, I always list the director, writer and stars of the film.  It’s the easiest part of my reviews as it requires no thought – I simply grab the info from the Internet Movie Database.  I’ve run into a problem however with Paris, je t’aime as its structure is unlike any mainstream film that I’ve seen before.  It has 22 directors, 23 writers and 44 actors.

If you’re wondering how this can be, it’s because Paris, je t’aime is a compilation of short films which have been put together by some of the world’s most recognisable directors.  They were each given 5 minutes to tell a love story set in Paris.  This helps explain the English translation of the title which is Paris, I Love You.

As there are twenty different stories, there’s no point trying to provide a plot description.  This makes it a rather interesting movie-going experience because instead of seeing one big film, it feels like you’re seeing twenty tiny films.  For this reason, there aren’t the lulls that you’d expect in your usual two-hour flick.  The cast, the story and the style are always changing and this should keep your attention.

As you’d expect however, some tales are more interesting than others.  If you see the movies with others, you can debate which were the most enjoyable on the way home from the theatre.  It should come as no surprise that my favourite stories were those from my favourite directors.  These would be the scenes directed by Ethan and Joel Coen (Fargo), Gus Van Sant (Elephant), Tom Twyker (Run Lola Run) and Alexander Payne (Sideways).  Payne’s film (which appears at the very end) was my favourite.

The most recognisable members of the cast would be Steve Buscemi, Juliette Binoche, Willem Dafoe, Nick Nolte, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Elijah Wood, Natalie Portman and Gena Rowlands.  There are plenty of other familiar faces and those that see plenty of movies, will easily spot them.  If you’re planning on seeing this film because you’re a fan of a certain actor, keep in mind that you won’t be seeing too much of them!

I went to Paris three years ago but now having seen Paris, je t’aime, I realise that there are some amazing places within the city that I haven’t experienced.  It makes me want to go back.  Collectively, the filmmakers have done a great job at capturing Paris’s beauty and spirit.

Whilst I liked the concept of this movie, too many of its stories weren’t to my liking.  I’d give some an A grading but others a C grading.  It makes it a hard film to review as a whole.  My overriding thought is that if I went to a short film festival (and there are plenty of them on during the year), I think I’d see a more exciting and original range of films.