Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 20 October 2010

The original Paranormal Activity wasn’t an overnight sensation.  It first screened back in October 2007 at the Screamfest Film Festival.  Dreamworks picked up the film in 2008 for the relatively cheap price of $350,000 and planned a direct to DVD release.

That strategy soon changed.  There was talk of a big-budget remake but in the end, Paramount Pictures (who had bought the rights from Dreamworks) decided to give it a small release in cinemas.   It opened on 25 September 2009 in just 12 theatres.  It took in a mere $77,000 over its first weekend.

Word of mouth began to spread.  By the end of week 5, it had risen to the top of the U.S. box-office with a weekend gross of $21.1m.  By the end of week 8, it was being shown on 2,712 different screens.  By the end of week 14, it had finished up with total takings of $107.7m.  Some were calling it the most profitable movie ever made (in terms of return on investment).

I’m making reference to these facts because Paramount has gone with a very different strategy for the release of Paranormal Activity 2.  There have been no preview screenings (not even for critics) anywhere in the world.  I was told by the studio that they wanted to “avoid any plot leaks”.  I’m often suspicious when films are not previewed (they’re often bad) but went along with their justification.

This brings us to where we are now.  Tonight, I went along to the first screening of Paranormal Activity 2 on opening night here in Australia.  I knew that to get the most out of a film like this, I needed to (1) see it at night and (2) see it in a packed cinema.  I’d ticked both boxes.  That said, I was somewhat annoyed by the young crowd who had fun laughing / making stupid noises at inappropriate times.  I’ve experienced similar reactions at other horror films.  Apparently, today’s teenagers think it’s “cool” to disrupt the suspense.

I’m not here to sound like an angry old man however.  I’m here to critique this movie.  My verdict is mixed.  There are a few “jump out of your seat” moments but when you break it down, it’s just a simple rehash of the original.  My high expectations couldn’t be met this time around.  I wanted something more.

I won’t reveal too much about the premise because yes, I agree that the less you know the better.  If you’ve seen the trailer, you’ll know it centres on a family living in a large mansion.  They come home one afternoon to find the home ransacked.  Nothing appears to have been stolen but almost every piece of furniture has been upturned.  Worried about his family’s safety, the father organises the installation of 7 security cameras around the house.  It is these cameras (along with a handheld camera owned by the daughter) that provide the images we see on screen.

Whilst Paranormal Activity 2 isn’t as suspenseful as I’d hoped, I still admire its style.  It’s hard not to feel a slight tingle down your spine when you’re watching these grainy images on screen with no soundtrack.  You know something’s going to happen but you have to sit in your seat and impatiently wait for it.  It’s a lot scarier than the recent wave of slasher remakes (ala A Nightmare On Elm Street and Friday The 13^th).

Will we see more in the Paranormal Activity series?  I suspect so.  It’s a cheap franchise that is almost guaranteed to make money.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 10 October 2010

It all began with a girl.  At least that’s what this film will have us believe.  Mark Zuckerberg (Eisenberg) was a 19-year-old college student at Harvard.  To put it simply – he was a nerd.  He had few male friends and even fewer female ones.  His inability to interact socially hampered his chances of getting into an exclusive Harvard club.  It was all he’d think about.  Mark’s current girlfriend (Mara) couldn’t take any more of this obsession and his other neurotic tendencies.  So, she broke up with him.

Mark didn’t take it too well.  That night, he went home and hacked into the databases of the major fraternities on campus.  He downloaded the ID photo of every female and put them on a website he created called “Facemash”.  The site would the pull up the image of two random girls and the user could vote on who was the hottest.  It was so popular that the crashed the Harvard servers.

Mark was put on academic probation for his exploits but he didn’t care.  What mattered was that he was now being talked about on campus.  People knew the name Mark Zuckerberg… and he loved it!

Financed by his best friend Eduardo (Garfield), Mark started a friendlier website called “The Facebook”.  Harvard students could upload information about themselves and it was designed to help people get to know each other.  It proved to be incredibly popular.  Within months, the site was being used in colleges all across America.  We all know what happens next.

As the tagline notes, “you don’t get to 500 million friends without making a few enemies.”  Whilst the film chronicles the creation of Facebook, its focus is on two separate lawsuits that were brought against Mark Zuckerberg.  The first was from three Harvard students who claimed that Mark had stolen their idea.  The second was from best friend Eduardo who found himself out of favour as the company expanded.

The Social Network is an interesting film for a few reasons.  Firstly, we get to see how Facebook came into existence.  This is a website that, in the space of a few years, has significantly changed the way people interact.  I’m convinced that some parts of this story have been embellished for theatrical effect but it’s still engrossing.  It has inspired me to do more reading about the subject matter.  The big question is – are these characters really like the way they are portrayed in the movie?

Secondly, Mark Zuckerberg is an intriguing individual.  I’m curious to know how people will judge him after seeing the film.  Is he a sociopath or is he just misunderstood?  I once met a best-selling author who left me a prophetic quote - “I’ve met a lot of rich people and I can assure you that they’re no happier than you and I.”  I’ve never forgotten that.  Mark Zuckerberg is the youngest billionaire in the world but let me ask the question – is he happier than you and I?  The final scene of the film should give you the answer.

Finally, you must see this film to witness the skilful direction of David Fincher (Seven, Fight Club).  He’s one of the best directors working today.  You’ll be watching in awe as Fincher weaves the scenes of this film together.  There’s never a dull moment.  He cuts back-and-forth between the modern day setting (the lawsuits) and events as they unfolded (back in 2004). Screenwriter Aaron Sorkin (Charlie Wilson’s War, The American President) also deserves kudos for his sharp dialogue.

How good is Fincher’s trickery when it comes to visual effects?  A few years ago, he brought to life a much older looking Brad Pitt in The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button.  This time around, he’s baffling us with a set of twins.  Two different actors played the role but he’s used the same face on both characters.  Don’t ask me how but I didn’t even realise until I sat down to write this review.

There’s been a lot of hype regarding The Social Network and many believe it is in line for numerous Academy Award nominations.  It’s a fantastic film but I’m not convinced it will earn the best picture prize.  Will older Academy members really vote for a movie about a sociopathic nerd?  We’ll soon see.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 18 October 2010

In 2001, Matt Damon and Ben Affleck helped produce a reality television show in the United States called Project Greenlight.  It was a contest to find the best screenplay and then turn it into a movie.  More than 7,000 scripts were submitted.  It’s sure proof of just how many people are looking to break into the industry.

The show came to Australia in 2005 with similar intentions.  The judges sifted through more than 1,200 entries and it came down to a choice between two.  Who would take the $1,000,000 prize?  Unfortunately for Richard Gray, it was not his time.  His screenplay for Summer Coda finished as the unlucky runner-up.  It was Solo (written by Morgan O’Neill) that won the cash.

Ah, but hindsight is a wonderful thing.  Over the past few years, Gray has worked hard to get this film off the ground.  Government funding wasn’t forthcoming and so he went in search of private investors.  The pieces of the puzzle finally came together.  He had a more refined script.  He had a better cast.  He had the latest technology.  Most importantly, he had the money.

Summer Coda begins as a road movie.  Heidi (Rachael Taylor) has returned to Australia from the United States following the death of her estranged father.  She’s not sure if she wants to attend the funeral but she’s made the trip anyway.  It’s a chance to close this chapter of her life.

With next-to-no cash, Heidi hitches a ride to her father’s country home.  The guy who picks her up is Michael (Dimitriades), the owner of an orange orchard in Mildura.  Very little conversation is shared between the two.  You get the sense that both have a lot on their mind.  They’re keeping their cards close to their chest.

Things open up in the second half of the film however.  Following the funeral, Heidi spends a few days with Michael on his orchard.  The picking season has just begun and the place has been brought to life by a small team of back-packers looking to make some money.  They work hard during the day and then spend the night drinking and socialising.

It took me a little while to warm to the story but once I got to know these two characters, I really enjoyed this film.  It seems that Heidi has fallen in love with Michael and his relaxing lifestyle but how long can it last?  Heidi knows she must return to the U.S. in a few days.  Will this be a similar summer romance?  Or is it something a lot deeper?

What struck me most about Summer Coda were its visuals.  I’ve never harnessed a desire to visit Mildura but that’s changed thanks to the beautiful cinematography of Greg De Marigny.  It’s hard to believe that it wasn’t shot using traditional 35mm film.  Instead, Richard Gray has used the latest in digital technology to create a film which looks very impressive on the big screen.

A few characters seem unnecessary (such as Jackie Weaver) and I wasn’t convinced by the ending but on the whole, Summer Coda is a nice Aussie drama.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 06 October 2010

Liz (Roberts) is going through a premature midlife crisis.  I’m using the term “premature” because I don’t think midlife kicks in until you’re around 40.  Liz is just 32.  She seems to have a successful career as a writer but things aren’t working out when it comes to love.  She’s made the decision to split from her husband (Crudup) and find a way of “rediscovering” herself.

Her plan is to go on a year long holiday and visit three key locations.  She makes new friends in Italy and enjoys some tasty pizza and pasta.  She goes to an ashram in India and tries to cleanse her mind.  She will be given a new perspective on life by a friendly guru in Indonesia.  Will Liz be a changed person by the end of her journey?  More importantly, will she find a new love?

The film is based on the memoir of Elizabeth Gilbert which was first published in 2006.  The book became an instant bestseller and I’m sure many people will be keen to see this film adaptation.  I found it interesting to read that Julia Roberts chose not to meet the real Liz Gilbert before shooting the movie.  She wanted to put her own mark on the character and didn’t want to get caught in the trap of imitating her.

Maybe I wasn’t in the mood but I found this movie to be an exhausting experience.  There’s too much eating, too much praying and too much loving.  I should have known given the title.  Watching Julia Roberts sit in a café eating pasta just didn’t do it for me.  I struggled to relate to her tired, forlorn character.  Things picked up in the final scenes but it wasn’t worth the overly long running time of 133 minutes.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 12 October 2010

I can’t remember much at all about the first three Resident Evil movies.  This is either a sign that (1) I’m getting too old, or (2) the films deserved to be forgotten.  I’m pretty sure it’s the later.  According to my review archive, none of them received my endorsement.  I guess that’ll come as no big surprise.  If you are a fan of the series, there’s no need to read any further.  You and I have very different tastes.

For those still reading (and I hope that makes up the majority of the population), I can reveal the sad truth - this is one of the worst films of the year.  I’ve seen computer games with more realistic special effects.  Director Paul W.S. Anderson has tried to jump on the 3D bandwagon but the effects do nothing (except take an extra few dollars from your wallet).

The “plot” centres on our hero Alice (Jovovich) breaking into the well guarded fortress of the Umbrella Corporation.  She’s out to get revenge on those who created the nasty virus which turned everyone into flesh eating zombies.  Alice is up against more than a hundred armed men but yes, she manages to kill them all.  However, the ultimate bad guy (Roberts) gets away.  Damn.

Alice then goes in search of a secret place known as Arcadia.  If the rumours are true, it’s a safe haven for humans not affected by the virus.  It will provide shelter and food.  En route, she meets a small group of survivors who are also seeking refuge.  They’ve bailed themselves up in a prison in Los Angeles and can’t escape due to the army of zombies waiting outside the walls.  What will they do? 

I’ve used this analogy before but it’s as if they made this script up as they went along.  A character can seemingly kill an endless number of zombies and yet they leave themselves open to the simplest of attacks.  I know that such action films aren’t supposed to be realistic but it’s hard to feel any tension when the story is so silly.  Some scenes are laughable.  Springing to mind is a ridiculous moment when Alice jumps off the prison roof whilst being chased by a million zombies.  Oh, and the scene is in slow motion too for “dramatic effect”.

Maybe that’s the point?  Director Paul W.S. Anderson (Death Race) just wanted to have fun with some big explosions and a high body count.  Even so, how many more Resident Evil films are they going to make?  Hopefully the answer is zero.