Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 30 October 2005

Ben (Phillips), Liz (Magrath) and Christy (Morassi) have set off on a road trip across Australia.  They started in Broome, Western Australia and heading towards tropical North Queensland.  Ben is an Aussie but Liz and Christy are two English backpackers looking to have fun and looking to see the Great Outback.

One of their first stops is Wolf Creek, home to a giant meteorite crater.  They leave the car and embark on a 3-hour trek to see this landmark first hand.  On returning, they find their car won’t start.  Thankfully, a tow-truck driver named Mick (Jarratt) spots them on his way home and offers them assistance.  He’ll tow their vehicle back to his place where he replace a broken coil.  Our three travellers spend the night camped outside Mick’s isolated residence.

When Liz wakes up, she finds herself locked in a room with her hands and feet tied.  How did she get here?  Where are the others?  How long has she been here?  What is in store for her?  The answers will be revealed but it’s going to be a terrifying experience…

The film opens with a statement that Wolf Creek is based on a true story.  I believe that story to be that of Ivan Milat, the man convicted of killing several backpackers in New South Wales in the early 1990s.  Others see a similarity to the mysterious disappearance of Englishman Peter Falconio in 2001.  So much so, that the prosecutors in the Falconio case (which is currently before the judge) asked for the release of the film to be delayed.

You must understand that this film has been rated R in Australia for its “high level realistic violence”.   Some viewers have been critical and say that the filmmakers are using the tasteless violence as entertainment.  I strongly disagree here and I think the reason that people are so disturbed, including myself, is because the film has been exceptionally well made.  It sets up a great premise and director Greg McLean artfully uses his camera to maximise the suspense.  There isn’t any more violence than in your normal flick – what is different is that this looks real!  People will be affected and that’s the design of the film.  So if this isn’t you cup of tea, don’t see it.  I’ve warned you.

A couple of weeks ago, the nominations were announced for the Australian Film Institute Awards (to be held in late November).  I’m happy to say that Wolf Creek has been nominated for seven awards in total including best director and best original screenplay.  The cinematography of Will Gibson also received a very deserved nomination.  If it didn’t involve a crazy serial killer, I’d call the film a great advertisement for checking out central Australia.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 19 October 2005

I’ll never forget the moment when Emma Thompson won an Oscar back in 1997 for her adapted screenplay of Jane Austen’s Sense & Sensibility (a long time favourite of mine).  She thanked the producer of the film, Sydney Pollack, “for asking all the right questions – like, why couldn’t these women go out and get a job?”  For those familiar with the world of Jane Austen, you have to laugh at Pollack’s perspective.

Pride & Prejudice introduces us to Mr & Mrs Bennett (played by Donald Sutherland and Brenda Blethyn) and their five daughters.  Unfortunately for the Bennett sisters, they’ve been born into an era where the word “career” has no meaning.  Their purpose is to find the best, mostly wealthy bachelor available and never let go.  There was nothing more important than one’s reputation and social standing in 19^th Century England.

It is at a ball when the second eldest daughter, Elizabeth (Knightley) first catches a glimpse of a bored looking gentleman named Mr. Darcy (MacFadyen).  Inquiring about him, Lizzy is told that “miserable he may be, but poor he most certainly is not”.  The two exchange glances, some quick banter but Lizzy is unable coax him onto the dancefloor.  His cards are being kept very close to his chest.

Their introduction sparks a flirtation which spans over many months.  Fate keeps bringing them together but fate also finds a way of breaking them apart.  Truths are concealed, misinterpretations are made and time is never in their favour.  It all plays out like a great Shakespearean romance.  If you love you comedy mixed with tragedy and eloquent dialogue, you’ll find this film for you.

Unless of course… you’ve already seen the BBC’s 310 minute mini-series which was first screened here in Australia in 1996.  It featured Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth in the leading roles and whilst I have never seen it myself, I’m yet to meet someone who speaks badly of it.  Those expecting a replica of the BBC version should prepare for disappointment.  This cinematic version clocks in at just 127 minutes and from what I’ve been told, provides a different spin on the characters and their personas.

Keira Knightley hasn’t impressed me as actress until now.  She brings strength to Elizabeth Bennett whilst delicately showing her inner insecurities.  My pick of the cast has to be Brenda Blethyn (Secrets & Lies) who plays the mother, Mrs. Bennett.  She’s incredibly annoying and you’ll just want to punch her sometimes but her over-anxiety provided many laughs and reminded me so much of people I know.

I usually don’t advise that people read the book after seeing the movie but Pride & Prejudice may be a rare exception.  The film does feel rushed at times (particularly towards the end) and so a reading of Jane Austen’s novel will probably fill in many of the gaps.  It is a classic story.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 30 October 2005

Doom isn’t the first computer game to have been made into a feature-length motion picture.  So devoid of ideas are they in Hollywood, we’ve had Super Mario Brothers, Street Fighter, Wing Commander, Double Dragon, Mortal Kombat, Resident Evil, Final Fantasy and Tomb Raider.  Most struggle at the box-office but if you are a fan, don’t worry because there’s even more on the way.  A cinematic version of Halo, one of the most popular games of the moment, is set for release in 2007.

In Doom, Sarge (The Rock) informs his small team of soliders that their leave has been cancelled.  There’s been an incident at a science research facility on Mars and they have been called in to rescue six missing scientists and to secure the area.  As they enter the darkened tunnels of the building, they realise that this is no ordinary mission.  They find the mutilated bodies of some of the scientists and can’t explain what caused such butchery.

The pieces will soon be put together and the answer is an all too familiar one in the world of science fiction.  The scientists were experimenting with genetic mutation and were altering the number of chromosomes found within the human body.  Lo and behold, the experiments went bad and now there are some crazy creatures on the loose.  Isn’t this just Resident Evil all over again?

The film has been rated MA in Australia and it’s worth knowing if you’re thinking of seeing it.  There are some particularly gruesome scenes which generated some laughs and some groans at the screening I attended.  There’s a sizeable amount of coarse language also.

Doom isn’t a film I’d watch a second time but there are few moments in the final half-hour of the film which I did enjoy.  It’s can’t elaborate because I don’t want to give away the ending but let’s just say the final fate of one character in particular was unexpected (and the screenwriters had a good sense of humour about it).

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 16 October 2005

Director Judy Irving doesn’t describe her film as a documentary but rather as a non-fiction feature.  It’s an apt term because it doesn’t have the feel of a documentary.  It has a very likeable lead actor and a supporting cast of birds who will melt any heart.

The Wild Parrots Of Telegraph Hill is the story of Mark Bittner and a flock of cherry-headed conures.  Somewhat of a bum, Mark had drifted through life with no job and little money.  Living in a small shack in San Francisco, he slowly became captivated by a small group of birds which lived in the trees outside.

As the flock grew in size, so did Mark’s interest.  He was soon feeding them on a daily basis and caring for them when they became sick.  There were close to 50 in all but Mark could identify each one and had given them all a name.  He didn’t like to think of himself as “eccentric” but there wasn’t really a better word to describe him.

Mark was never an expert in birds but the relationship he had with them gave him the chance to study what few others have had a chance to.  Filmmaker Judy Irving met Mark and over a period of four and half years, realised the potential in this story.  She took hours of footage and the end result is a touching film which has earned the chance to be seen across the globe.  Mark Bittner is currently in Australia and is helping promote the film by coming along to special screenings.

Mark’s story is great but it’s no comparison to that of the birds themselves.  When you see them and how they live, you’ll learn that their emotions are a mirror image of those of a human being.  They get involved in relationships, they cheat on each other, they have fights, they feel sympathy and they have a need for companionship.  They are captivating creatures and I had a soft spot for one particular bird named Connor.

At a compact 83 minutes, The Wild Parrots Of Telegraph Hill is a G-rated crowd pleaser.  A surprising twist makes for the perfect ending and should leave you smiling as you walk out the door.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 28 October 2005

Be careful because the title can be misleading.  Released just a few days before Halloween, I was expecting some “scare the pants off you” horror flick in a similar vein to The Exorcist.  Instead, I got a legal drama and seeing Laura Linney again as a lawyer had me thinking back to the excellent Primal Fear.

Based on a true story, Father Moore (Wilkinson) finds himself being charged with negligent homicide.  Told by way of flashbacks, we learn how Father Moore came to be in this position.  The family of young college student named Emily Rose had come to him as a last resort.  Once a vibrant, happy girl, Emily now experiences continual hallucinations and epileptic-like seizures.  Doctors have been unable to help her and so the Rose family have gone in search of a “spiritual” answer.

Father Moore didn’t believe in the supernatural but that quickly changed on meeting Emily Rose.  After seeing her condition and the way she spoke, he believed she had been possessed by a satanic demon.  An exorcism was attempted without success and not long after, Emily died of self-inflicted injuries and malnutrition.  Non-believers see her death as a direct result of Father Moore’s “treatment” and hence he finds himself before a judge and jury.

I’m not sure how I stand on the subject matter but I like courtroom setting and I enjoyed seeing this story unfold.  Emily’s story is compelling and I’m sure many people who see it, will ask themselves the question as to whether they believe in ghosts, demons and other supernatural phenomena.  What also keeps the film interesting are the lingering questions about Father Moore – is he telling the full story and will he be found guilty?

Laura Linney plays Erin Bruner, a gun defence attorney who initially took on the case to improve her public image.  As the trial progresses though, she finds herself increasingly caught up with the emotion of the case and it becomes her own personal battle to find the truth and seek justice.  Linney is my favourite actress of the moment and she rarely turns in a bad performance.  If I’m ever on trial for murder, I’d be extremely tempted to hire her – she’s a very convincing lawyer!

The film has its weaknesses however and I do question the obvious one-sidedness to the story.  There’s an obvious message here at that is that we need to believe what happened to Emily is true.  You get the feeling the screenwriters have overused their cosmetic brush and that the real story wasn’t as straight forward.  The prosecuting lawyer, played by Campbell Scott, is an unlikeable character and is always making stupid remarks.  When you put him alongside Laura Linney, you know who people will be cheering for.

Another query I had was how this case came to be in the first place?  Emily’s family, who for some strange reason we don’t hear much from, appear to support Father Moore.  Who had the unequivocal evidence in the first place that Moore was guilty?  The mystery of Emily Rose continues…