Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 18 December 2003

Love Actually is one of those films where there are many characters and many storylines with a common link.  I’m a huge fan of this technique having adored Paul Thomas Anderson’s Boogie Nights and Magnolia, and Robert Altman’s Short Cuts and Gosford Park.  First time director Richard Curtis appears well out of his depth with this material.  It’s as if he’s shot six separate movies, sliced them into random pieces, mixed them in a blender and shoved the results in a film can.

There’s no flow or continuity.  One minute the film is trying to be a hilarious laugh-out loud comedy, the next minute it’s a tear-jerking drama, the next minute it’s a sentimental feel-good flick.  The film continues in this silly loop with unrelenting annoyance.  Some of the stories aren’t even resolved – they’re just left hanging.

I believe passionately in my criticisms but I sense I was the minority at my sold-out preview screening.  Audience members giggled with glee but this only added to awful taste in my mouth.  Just because there’s a cool soundtrack, unexpected cameos, big names stars and Christmas cheer doesn’t mean it’s a worthy film to see.  It’s missing the key ingredient – a plot.  A little style wouldn’t hurt either.

Let me quickly sum up the story as I must compulsorily do in any review.  Billy (Nighy) is an aging rock-star who’s releasing a tacky Christmas single in the hope of getting one last number one hit.  Jamie (Firth) has just caught his wife in bed with his brother and has gone to his French villa to escape and write a novel.  Daniel’s (Neeson) wife has just passed away and he’s left dealing with a complicated step-son.  Juliet (Knightley) has just married the man of her dreams only to find his best friend complicate the blissful matrimony.  Sarah (Linney) has had a crush on a much younger man at work for over two years and is looking for the courage to ask him out.  Harry (Rickman) is being slowly seduced by his secretary at work although waiting at home are three kids and his wife Karen (Thompson).  Oh and yes, Hugh Grant is an eligible bachelor who also happens to be the Prime Minister.  There’s other sub-plots too but if you blink (as I did), you’re likely to miss them.

Bill Nighy’s portrayal of the rock-star is the pick of the bunch.  He’s funny in every scene.  Rowan Atkinson makes a nice cameo too at a department store.  But for the rest of this talented cast, they have nothing to work with.  The dialogue is horribly laboured and I couldn’t care whether these spoilt brats fell in love or not.  These characters have no human qualities whatsoever.  Never could I believe that the English would make a film so riddled with American stereotypes.

Love may be all around us but it wasn’t coming from me in that theatre.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 07 December 2003

There’s been a dozen or so horror releases this year with most telling tall tales of crazy serial killers or other ludicrous happenings.  If your memory needs refreshing then take the time to recall such duds as Final Destination 2, Darkness Falls, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Freddy Vs. Jason.  An unusual choice to screen at this year’s Brisbane International Film Festival, Cabin Fever is a surprisingly original and scary release which comes with my recommendation.

Three guys and two girls rent a cabin in the woods for the holidays.  For Jeff (Kern) and Marcy (Vincent), they’re hoping for some great times spent in the bedroom.  For Paul (Strong), he’s hoping to finally win the heart of best friend Karen (Ladd) who has been chasing for many years.  For Bert (DeBello), it’s just another to get drunk and talk smutty.

On their very first night, a horrific figure arrives on the doorstep.  He face is covered in blood and his skin his peeling.  He says that he is sick and pleads for medical assistance but there’s no phone in the cabin and no mobile phone signal in the isolated area.  The kids panic.  They don’t want to be infected and don’t plan on asking any more questions about his condition.  When the man tries to steal their car, they attack with baseball bats and after catching fire, the man flees screaming into the wilderness.

Horrified by the experience, their first option is to leave but since the car was damaged in the mayhem, there’ll be no such opportunity.  They wait out the night, hope the man doesn’t return and go in search of help at first light.  But just was the man infected with and has it been passed on to them?  Their real enemy doesn’t have a physical form but its left them petrified nevertheless.

The story has parallels with the English drama 28 Days Later which debuted here last September.  Cabin Fever differs in that it’s aimed largely at teenagers and was produced in America.  Sure there are limitations and like any horror film, there are those moments where you question the stupid decisions made by the characters.  Still, I found it plausible in most places and for sure it’s one of the better teen horror flicks of late.

Rider Strong (no that’s not a porn name) was the pick of the performance.  I’m a big fan of actors who underplay rather than overplay their roles and Strong is a good example.  This should open some doors for him as it also should for 30-year-old director Eli Roth who is already filming his next film.

Excitingly, the film was shot for just $1.5m.  That’s a pitiful amount of money by Hollywood standards but it only adds to the time honoured theory that you don’t need a lot of moolah to make a great motion picture.  All you need is an interesting script and some enthusiastic people to work with.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 15 December 2003

Hogan’s film begins with a very short introduction.  Wendy (Hurd-Wood) and her two brothers, John and Michael, love having fun and telling stories.  Wendy is the eldest and her father has decided that all this nonsense has to stop.  It’s time to grow up.

With her parents away, she is visited on her window ledge by a flying boy.  Peter Pan (Sumpter) promises to take her away to Neverland – a place where she doesn’t have to grow up.  She can meet new people, go on amazing adventures and “never have to worry about grown-up things again.”  Wendy, John and Michael are soon wisked away by Peter to enjoy this new world of freedom.

The subject of the adventure on Neverland is the notorious Captain Hook (Isaacs).  Pan once sliced off his hand in a dramatic sword battle and it has been replaced with a metal hook – hence the name.  With Pan enjoying himself with his new friends (particularly Wendy), Hook sees the distraction as a weakness.  Revenge will be bittersweet for Captain Hook and his band of merry pirates…

The first hour of Peter Pan is the most disappointing.  The editing is inconsistent and at times it’s hard to discern what is actually going on in the scene.  It also feels rushed in that there are many fast-paced action scenes without sufficient time to introduce their purpose.  For example, I didn’t know why Wendy was so keen to leave her home for Neverland.  Surely this couldn’t all be because of one tiny argument with her father?  You’d never think such poor editing would come from three time Academy Award winning editor Michael Kahn (Saving Private Ryan) but I’m sure he’s not entirely at fault.  He can only work with the footage that has already been shot.

The music score is too sweet and the art direction rather ordinary.  There are many scenes shot in a forest but it looks so much like a tiny film set.  Is there any logistical reason why they wouldn’t shoot outdoors?  The colourings too seem askew and on more that one occasion I was questioning the strength of the lighting too.  I very much enjoyed P.J. Hogan’s last two released features, Muriel’s Wedding and My Best Friends Wedding but this isn’t up to his high standards and I do hope that he sees that.

Working with a young cast will invariably have its problems and yes, they are exposed here.  Rachel Hurd-Wood is great as Wendy but Jeremy Sumpter is too rigid in the delivery of his lines and the supporting cast are even worse.  Jason Isaacs doesn’t do much for me either as Captain Hook.  Compare his performance with that of Dustin Hoffman’s in 1991’s Hook and you’ll see where I’m coming from.

Having not yet been released anywhere else but Australia, it’ll be interesting to see over the coming weeks whether Peter Pan finds an audience.  There’s a great trailer (beautifully using the music of Coldplay) but word will spread fast if audiences share my criticisms.  It’s disheartening but the truth can’t be hidden.  This isn’t up to scratch.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 04 December 2003

Weir begins with a bang.  On the open waters, Captain Jack Aubrey (Crowe) and his English crew are suddenly fired upon by a much larger French vessel.  They survive only by sheer luck when a fog rolls in enabling them to disappear into the mist.  Much damaged has been sustained and the loyal crew expect Jack to give the order to return to Portsmouth.  Instead, he asks them to repair at sea and to prepare a counter-attack against the enemy.  Lucky Jack’s heart lies with his country and he will fight for it at any cost.

The ship’s surgeon and close friend Stephen Maturin (Bettany) voices his criticism of the decision.  He thinks it foolish to risk the lives of the young men aboard when the enemy is so much more powerful.  Stephen believes Jack’s pride is affecting his judgement and he does not see the risks for what they are.  It is time for important decisions to be made.

You can see where the $135m was spent when you look at the immaculate attention to detail.  The costumes and make-up applied to the crew are the work of only the very best.  The visual effects are flawless and you’ll never once question the realism of what appears in front of your eyes.  I was most impressed with the quality of sound and how the smallest of background noises still stick in my mind.  Nothing is ever second rate for Peter Weir and if you’ve seen any of his previous works, such as The Truman Show, Dead Poets Society or Gallipoli, you’ll know this already.

When you break it down, there aren’t a lot of specific action scenes.  There are only two major battles in total.  The attraction to the film is watching the sense of bonding amongst the crew and marvelling the work of a master tactictioner outcrafting a much larger opponent.  Who doesn’t love rooting for underdog?

Russell Crowe’s performance is superb (as expected) but don’t overlook the equally impressive Paul Bettany.  He can transform his voice and appearance with apparent ease.  It can’t possibly be the same guy we saw in A Knight’s Tale and A Beautiful Mind?  Let’s hope Academy voters feel the same way.  It’s a strong younger cast too with Weir uncovering some new stars who couldn’t have started their careers any better.

This is action at its very finest.  The kind of movie where you get caught up in the adventure and where the world outside the cinema is completely forgotten.  It’s great stuff.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 11 December 2003

His relationship with his wife has followed the same path.  Bob is ensnared in a marriage where they stay together not by love but routine.  His wife’s biggest concern right now is finding the right shade of red to carpet Bob’s study.  She even sends a Fed-Ex box full of samples to his hotel in Tokyo, complete with her recommendations, to hasten his decision.

Charlotte (Johansson) is an intelligent young woman who sees no life in front of her.  She has just graduated from Yale with a degree in psychology but doesn’t know how it will serve her.  She’s tried writing but hates the stuff she writes.  She’s tried photography but knows she’s a petty amateur.

Charlotte’s trip to Japan has turned into little more than a sight-seeing expedition.  Her husband, John (Ribisi), is in Tokyo on business and she tagged along in the hope of rekindling their own waning marriage.  Instead, he’s never at the hotel and Charlotte escapes the depression of the hotel room by acting the tourist around town.

Bob and Charlotte don’t know what they are looking for by they will soon find it in each other.  They bump into each other at the hotel’s bar and their unspoken similarities help form a much needed friendship.  Soon, they are spending every moment possible together and their personal problems are quickly being forgotten.  They both know their stay in Tokyo is short but this brief, fleeting moment of pleasure reminds them of a long lost feeling – happiness.

Lost In Translation is the second feature film of female director Sofia Coppola who made The Virgin Suicides in 1999.  On paper she is a rookie but when you look at the beautiful control with which she commands her camera, you’ll see she is the equal of her father, Francis Ford Coppola (director of The Godfather trilogy).  Sofia has not chosen the film’s setting by accident and produces some wonderful panoramic shots of the colourful city.  I also loved the way the cinematography tended to focus heavily on each character’s eyes.  They say you can tell a lot by one’s eye movement and I particularly like Sofia’s style in letting the body movements do most of talking.  A fine example is a scene the two share together on Bob’s bed.

I couldn’t ask for two more well chosen cast members than Bill Murray and Scarlett Johansson.  I have adored Murray’s comedic antics since I was a kid in films like Ghostbusters, Caddyshack and Groundhog Day.  Only now though is he finding critical acclaim with quirkier, more meaningful comedies such as this and 1998’s Rushmore.  If any actor is overdue for an Oscar nomination it is Murray and his unwaveringly lethargic performance as Bob Harris deserves to break the drought.  Johansson, on the other hand, is a rising starlet who you may recall from The Horse Whisperer and the brilliant Ghost World.  She is simply gorgeous in this film and her distinctively raspy voice will define her own performances in years to come.

Lost In Translation is a touching mixture of romance, drama and comedy set against the backdrop of a truly unique culture.  Undoubtedly, something for everyone.