Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 02 September 2006

Apparently, Silent Hill is based on a computer game.  I haven’t heard of it.  I haven’t played it.  If this film is anything to go by, then I won’t be buying the game version anytime soon.  I’d only be confused and irritated.

I’m not really sure what this film is about.  This doesn’t mean it’s cool in a Mulholland Drive kind of way.  Rather, it had we wanting to walk out of the theatre.  It begins with a mother, Rose (Mitchell), and her daughter, Sharon, driving to a ghost town called Silent Hill.  Sharon has been having bizarre hallucinations about this place and Rose thinks that visiting it for real might help cure her.

When they get there however, things start getting spooky.  The town is covered with smoke and there are strange ghostly creatures that attack them.  When they try to leave, they find the roads have been cut-off.  They are trapped and must fight for their lives.  Trying to help locate them is Rose’s husband, Christopher (Bean), but he too is up against some supernatural elements.

Well, that’s my interpretation of events.  If I’ve gotten it wrong, then they should have done a better job helping me understand.  I’m surprised to know that it was written by Roger Avary, a filmmaker I admire for his screenplays of Pulp Fiction and The Rules Of Attraction.  This is not one of his better efforts.

Australian Rhada Mitchell stars in a role that only requires her to look frightened and scream out her daughter’s name repeatedly.  At the preview screening I attended, the audience’s reaction said it all.  They laughed when they weren’t supposed to (mostly at the cheesy dialogue) and looked as equally confused as I was.  Few would have had positive words to say afterwards.

There are a few different theories about the ending on internet forums but after two hours of this nonsense, I couldn’t be bothered reading them.  Please don’t make a sequel.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 24 August 2006

The first thing that grabbed me about Fearless is that it has been advertised as “Jet Li’s final martial arts epic”.  Does anyone know why?  Li has been making martial arts movies in China since 1979 and he rocketed to fame around the world with his role in Lethal Weapon 4.  He has since starred in Romeo Must Die, Kiss Of The Dragon, The One, Hero, Cradle 2 The Grave and Unleashed.  I’m not the biggest martial arts fan but I know that Li is damn good at what he does.

In the early 20^th Century, China was losing its identity.  It had lost several wars and foreigners were starting to take control.  Morale was low amongst its citizens.  Throughout this, a martial artist by the name of Huo Yuanjia became renowned as the top fighter in China.  In competition, he defeated the best the rest of the world had to offer and his spirit helped inspire the people of China.

This story, which I’m sure is part truth and part legend, is the basis for Fearless.  It’s a well told story – filled with life lessons and some beautifully choreographed action sequences.  Li plays Yuanjia and does a fine job.  He starts out as a reckless, cocky individual but you see him transform into a more mature, purposeful fighter by film’s end.

Hong Kong born director Ronny Wu has done a great job and you can see his love of martial arts.  Assisting Wu was special martial arts director Yuen Wo Ping who worked on films including Kung Fu Hustle, Kill Bill and The Matrix Trilogy.  The cool cinematography doesn’t offer anything you haven’t seen before (especially if you’ve seen such films as Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon and Hero) but it’s fun to watch nevertheless.  Wu and writer Chris Chow have found a nice balance between story and action.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 02 September 2006

The Book Of Revelation will be one of the more controversial releases of 2006.  Daniel (Long) is a dancer who is kidnapped by three masked women.  They chain him to a warehouse floor and sexually abuse him for roughly two weeks.  This is graphically shown in the film and hence it’s R rating here in Australia.

The three women eventually release Daniel but the experience leaves him a changed man.  He wants to find the women who did this to him but this will prove almost impossible since he never saw their faces.  Why is it that he wants to find them?  He never reported what happened to the police.  Does he want to get revenge and see them brought to justice?  Or was he strangely turned on by the experience and wants to know more about these women?

As curiously erotic as the film sounds, I was bored from the outset.  The dialogue, particularly at the start of the film, is incredibly stiff.  When I saw this film at the Brisbane International Film Festival, director Ana Kokkinos was asked why the conversations were so short on words and her response was that she was trying to show how isolated the characters were.  Well if that’s the case, then Kokkinos has overdone it.

Another annoying element of the film is that Daniel has a girlfriend who we meet at the start of the film.  If you think you can recognise either the eyes or the voice of one of the masked women then you’re spot on - it’s the same actress who plays the girlfriend.  Couldn’t they afford another actor?  I was extremely frustrated because it gives the impression that the girlfriend is involved when in fact she’s not.

The original novel, written by Rupert Thomson in 1999, is set in Amsterdam.  Given that it’s been put together by an Australian production team, Melbourne becomes the new setting.  It’ll be interesting to see how the film is received by Aussie audiences when released this week.  The French film Irreversible was almost banned in this country because an explicit scene in which a man raped a woman.  Is this film different because of the gender reversal?  Is it easier to watch a man getting raped by a woman on screen?  If you see it with friends, it’ll certainly provide some post-movie discussions.

Kokkinos last major film was 1998’s Head On with Alex Dimitriades.  It too was controversial but the plot and its characters were more intriguing.  Tom Long deserves a pat on the back for taking on the gutsy leading role but that’s as far my admiration goes for The Book Of Revelation.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 20 August 2006

Smoking is bad for you.  Few people will dispute this fact.  I have never smoked myself but what if I wanted to?  I could have a shorter life than I would otherwise but I’m mature enough to know the risks and the ultimate choice is mine.  It’s my life and I’ll do what I want with it.

This logic is behind the great new film, Thank You For Smoking.  Nick Naylor (Eckhart) is a lobbyist for the tobacco industry.  In other words, he gets paid to promote smoking.  When asked how he can live with himself, Naylor responds with the fact that everyone is entitled to a defence.  There are many outspoken critics of smoking and so why shouldn’t the industry be allowed to fight back?

Given the restrictions on tobacco advertising, Nick’s latest plan is to get smoking back on the big screen.  He travels to Hollywood with his son, Joey (Bright), and meets with super-agent Jeff Megall (Lowe) to talk business.  Jeff has a futuristic sci-fi movie in production with Brad Pitt and Catherine Zeta-Jones and for a mere $25m, he can ensure they “light up” after a steamy sex scene.

Thank You For Smoking boasts a big cast and there are many inter-related storylines.  Polly (Bello) and Bobby (David Koechner) are advocates for the alcohol and gun industries and Nick meets with them weekly to discuss ideas.  Heather Holloway (Holmes) is a young journalist who is looking to grill Nick for information to expose him in a newspaper article.  Senator Finistirre (Macy) is a strong anti-smoking campaigner and is trying to pass legislation requiring poison pictures to be included on packaging.  “The Captain” (Duvall) is one of the most powerful men in the tobacco industry and uses his money to protect his interests.

It’s a remarkably interesting film that makes you think about the “spin” that is generated by both sides to get their point across.  We are often slaves to the media and if you take something away from this movie, it’s that you don’t have to share the same opinions of others.  We all have our own brains and we all have our own interests.

If you’re not yet sold, you need to see this film for the top-notch performance of Aaron Eckhart.  He’s the perfect person to play Nick Naylor and it’s his best role since I first saw him in 1997’s In The Company Of Men.  He somehow manages to make his character both likeable and dislikeable at the same time.

Based on the novel by Christopher Buckley, this creative film has been written and directed by 29-year-old Jason Reitman.  Jason is newcomer in the industry but he comes from a strong form line.  His father, Ivan, directed such comedy classics as Stripes, Ghost Busters and Kindergarten Cop.  Smoking tries to squeeze in a little too much into its 90 minutes (a few storylines are under-explored) but the end result is a smart flick which I’d love to see again.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 26 August 2006

A few months ago, I went to a seminar where the guest speaker was Nigel Marsh.  In 2005, Marsh wrote a book called “Fat, Forty & Fired” and if you haven’t read it then I highly recommend it.  It is based on his actual life and he recounts the lessons he learned when at age 40, he was sacked from his high profile, yet stressful job.  He took a year of work and spent the time training to be a long distance swimmer, curbing his obsession with alcohol and most importantly, getting closer to his wife and four children.  I have been told that the book is being developed for film.  I wish I’d bought the rights first because it could be a great film!

Marsh’s speech was inspiring and there was something he said that I remember vividly.  He has met many rich, successful people through his job and through his public speaking tours.  What he has learned is that “rich people are no happier than you or me.”  We often think that money will make life easier but take it from a man who knows – it’s not true.

I took a similar feeling away from the aptly titled Friends With Money.  The film observes four women and the relationships they share both within their friendship group and with their loved ones.  Franny (Cusack) is incredibly wealthy, doesn’t work and lives a simple life with her husband (Germann).  Jane (McDormand) is a frazzled fashion designer who is continually critical of others and struggles to find any joy in life.  Christine (Keener) is a writer who thinks her husband (Isaacs) doesn’t show enough interest in her.  Olivia (Aniston) is the only one without money and is depressed by the thought that she doesn’t have boyfriend or a job that offers any fulfilment.

The conversations in the film are exquisite to listen to.  These four women talk about everything from manners and etiquette to love and sex.  When the film ended, I sat in my seat wishing I could I watched more.  I was interested in these characters and would have loved to have seen what ultimately became of them.  It’s not often I see a film these days where I wish it could have gone longer (especially with my short attention span).

If you’re looked for the best female actors working in Hollywood, you’d be hard pressed to find a better quartet than Catherine Keener, Frances McDormand, Joan Cusack and Jennifer Aniston.  Friends With Money is a low budget production and so you have to assume that all four actors took substantial pay cuts for the chance to work together.  They shine thanks to the work of 46-year-old writer-director, Nicole Holofcener (Lovely & Amazing).  It’s tough enough writing good, realistic dialogue for one character let alone four but Holofcener has pulled it off.

This isn’t a film with universal appeal and the notion of four well-to-do women evaluating their lives won’t be a turn on for all.  Others might wonder how these four women became friends in the first place.  It struck a cord with me however and I think many people, wealthy or not, will feel the same way.