Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 29 December 2005

In 1968, comedy writer Mel Brooks wrote and directed his first motion picture, The Producers.  Starring Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder, it won Brooks an Academy Award for best original screenplay.  In 2001, Brooks turned his famous film into a Broadway musical.  It went on to win twelve Tony Awards, more than any other musical in history.  The musical spread around the world and you may have seen it here in Brisbane in early 2005 (starring Reg Livermore and Bert Newton).

Having gone from the screen to the stage, The Producers now returns to screen.  You could call it a remake of the film but this version has been heavily influenced by the musical version.  For starters, the new movie has been directed by Susan Stroman, an acclaimed theatre director and choreographer.  Further, the film stars Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick - the two actors who starred in the musical’s first run on Broadway.  The most obvious difference though is that this film is a musical.  If you’ve seen the 1968 film, you will remember that it is not.

If you’re new to the story, the comedic mayhem begins when nerdy accountant Leo Bloom (Broderick) first meets struggling theatre producer Max Bialystock (Lane).  Leo suggests that more money could be made from a flop than a hit, if you knew that it would fail from the very beginning.  This idea fascinates Max who desperately needs the cash.  They start the partnership of Bialystock & Bloom and go in search of a guaranteed failure.

They find it in the form a script from German born Frank Liebkind (Ferrell).  It is titled “Springtime For Hitler” and is a fluffy musical which glorifies the life of Adolf Hitler.  How could this not be a spectacular failure?  The wheels have been set in motion and their actions now turn to finding a cast and some rich suckers to finance it.

I haven’t seen the any previous adaptations of this story whether they be on stage on screen.  It’s a funny story but as a musical being shown on a big screen, it doesn’t quite work.  I am reminded of two brilliant musicals we have been treated to in recent years – Moulin Rogue and Chicago.  These films were musicals but utilised the benefits available to the film medium, such as editing.  They were incredibly stylish and there would be no way to recreate the visuals in a live stage show.

The Producers on the other hand, is very ordinary from a visual perspective.  It’s as if a few video cameras were used to film one of the live shows and this footage has been used to make a movie.  I know this is not the case but it’s how it looks.  I’d much rather have seen the stage musical than the movie musical.

The film does have a few high points with the performance of Will Ferrell an obvious standout.  With a crazy German accent and range of insane quotes, I chuckled almost every time I saw him.  Comedy is often overlooked by the Academy but I’m hoping they honour Ferrell with a supporting actor nomination. He’s the best part of the film.  As for the rest, I’ve mixed feelings.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 25 December 2005

One of my favourite foreign language films of 2003 was The Spanish Apartment.  I saw it first at the Brisbane International Film Festival (where it finished first in the audience vote) and had to see it again when it was released to the public in cinemas.  If you haven’t seen the film, it was the story of a 25-year-old French student who went to Spain to study for a year.  He stayed in an apartment with five other students who each came from a different country.  It was a great advertisement for anyone who has thought of working or studying overseas.  Some great times can be had.

Russian Dolls is the sequel to The Spanish Apartment and catches up with the housemates five years later.  They are in Russia for the wedding of William (Bishop), the funny yet politically incorrect brother of Wendy (Reilly).  William is marrying a Russian ballet dancer who he met whilst working backstage at a show.

The focus is not on William though but rather our star from the first film, Xavier (Duris), and his trials and tribulations with the female race.  Now working as a writer, Xavier has fine-tuned his craft at seducing beautiful women but is yet to find a woman he loves.

The opening is slow and messy but things improve greatly with the re-introduction of Wendy.  Roman Duris (The Beat My Heart Skipped) and Kelly Reilly (Mrs Henderson Presents) share some wonderful conversations on life, love and romance.  These characters are far more interesting than those we see in the standard romantic dramas from the States.  Writer-director Cedric Klapisch has done it again.

Just like The Spanish Apartment, a variety of languages are spoken.  Some scenes are in English but the remainder are in Russian, French, Spanish or Italian.  You might also see a few familiar tourist sights with the film spread across England, France and Russia.  It all adds up to a great example of “world cinema”.

If you’ve seen and loved The Spanish Apartment, this is one film I won’t have to convince you to see.  If you never had the chance to see it, I’d recommend you rent it over the Christmas holidays and then get to the cinemas to see this entertainingly meaningful follow-up.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 27 December 2005

It’s the Christmas school holidays and an avalanche of family orientated films are currently screening in cinemas.  There’s Harry Potter & The Goblet Of Fire, The Lion, The Witch & The Wardrobe, Cheaper By The Dozen 2, Chicken Little and Valiant.  I make reference to these films because I believe them to be superior to Nanny McPhee, which arrives late in the summer season.

Many will use the same reference but it’s hard not to classify the film as a modern day version of Mary Poppins without the songs.  Cedric Brown is a single father with seven troublesome kids to take care of.  Every nanny he hires ends up quitting.  Along comes Nanny McPhee.  She’s a rather ugly looking lady but her magical powers ensure that all children behave just as she would like.

There’s a catch to using the services of Nanny McPhee.  When the children need her but don’t want her, she will stay.  When the children don’t need her but want her, she must leave.  In other words, when the kids grow to appreciate her, then it’s time to move on to the next family.  Are you picking up on the Mary Poppins similarities yet?

Emma Thompson stars as Nanny McPhee and also wrote the screenplay, based on the Nurse Matilda novels of Christianna Brand.  Thompson is no stranger to scriptwriting having won a deserved Oscar in 1996 for adapting Sense & Sensibility.  I’m not critical of her performance here but rather the blandness of the whole film.  Harry Potter and The Chronicles Of Narnia have far more substance and adventure.  Ok, so they had a much bigger budget to work with but Nanny McPhee is dull.

The only point of interest for me was the appearance of 80-year-old Angela Lansbury (Murder She Wrote), who hasn’t been seen in cinemas since the early 1980s.  She has a fun role and the performance matches it.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 21 December 2005

Dick works at a massive IT company which has just gone bankrupt.  On the day it declared bankruptcy, Dick was promoted to Vice President of Communications and set-up by his boss to be the fall guy.  On the same day, Dick’s wife Jane quit her job at a travel agency thinking that her husband’s promotion would afford her the chance to stay home and look after the kids.

So Dick and Jane no longer have a job.  All their savings (including their pension plan) was invested in company stock which is now worth nothing.  It’s a carbon-copy of the Enron bankruptcy which occurred in 2003.  Believe it or not, there are no employment opportunities out there for either of them (seems strange) and their luxury house has plummeted in value (seems very strange).

Dick and Jane now turn to a life of crime.  They start robbing their neighbours, convenience stores and restaurants.  They use the proceeds to help pay off their mortgage and buy a new car.  I know this is supposed to be a comedy but isn’t this a little distasteful?  Should I feel sorry for a couple who are robbing people who are worse off than they are?  Jim Carrey waves his arms in the air and tries to make us laugh by acting crazy.  Trust me, it’s not funny.

There’s more to this story but I won’t go any further.  I stop not because it gets any better but because I don’t want to spoil it for those who wish to see it.  The ending is hopeless and the short running time (just 90 minutes) suggests that much was left on the cutting room floor.  Jim Carrey is one of my favourite actors but if I ever get the chance to meet him, I’ve love to ask him straight out whether he liked the finished product of Fun With Dick And Jane.  I think it’s the worst film he’s done.

This is the worst film I’ve seen all year.  I was insulted by the entire lack of logic, sense and plausibility.  If you think you’ll have fun with Dick and Jane, think again.  All they want is your money.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 27 December 2005

With German planes bombing from overhead, London is not a safe to be.  To keep her four children safe, Mrs Pevensie has sent Peter, Susan, Edmund and Lucy to live with an elderly professor on a large country estate.

Playing a game of hide and seek, Lucy finds a huge wooden cupboard in an empty room.  It looks like an ideal hiding place.  Lucy opens the door, steps inside and slowly walks towards the back.  The problem is that there is no back to the cupboard – it leads to a snow filled land known as Narnia!

After convincing the others that the cupboard is for real, all four enter the world of Narnia.  They soon learn that their presence has not gone unnoticed.  Narnia has been controlled for a hundred years by the evil White Witch (Swinton) but there is a prophecy which foretells that four humans will destroy her reign.

Peter, Susan, Edmund and Lucy do not want to be involved in this war but they are forced into combat when the White Witch kidnaps Edmund.  With the help of two talkative badgers, they are introduced to a lion named Aslan and the army he has assembled to take on the White Witch.  Can they stop the Witch before she stops them?

I can best describe The Lion, The Witch & The Wardrobe as The Lord Of The Rings for children.  It’s an epic story set in a world of fantasy and filled with an assortment of strange creatures.  The similarities don’t end there.  Like Rings, the Wardrobe was filmed in New Zealand, was directed by a New Zealand born director, Andrew Adamson (Shrek), and is being released in Australia on Boxing Day.  At a cost of roughly $180m, it’s another huge boost for the New Zealand film industry.

The film has been marketed as a family motion picture and is rated PG here in Australia.  By keeping it to a PG rating, the violence has been toned down and you will see few deaths in the main battle sequences.  This annoyed me and the death of one certain character could have been made much more suspenseful.  I know we don’t want to disturb small children but surely C.S. Lewis’ book contained more graphic detail.

My favourite of the cast was 10-year-old Georgie Henley as Lucy.  She has an adorable smile and a natural charm.  That said, all four children have been well chosen and give admirable performances, even if their dialogue is a bit stiff at times.  The most recognisable names amongst the cast are those you won’t see on screen.  Liam Neeson, Ray Winstone and Rupert Everett voice three of Aslan’s animal inhabitants.

With its superb visual effects and overall grandeur, The Lion, The Witch & The Wardrobe will lure big crowds over the Christmas holidays.  It’s not as exciting as I’d hoped but it’s definitely worth a look.