Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 25 July 2006

The surprise story of the 2005 cinematic calendar in the United States was March Of The Penguins.  It earned an incredible $75m at the box-office and won the Oscar for best documentary feature.  If you like movie trivia, you’ll be interested to know that this was the first time in history that the best documentary winner made more money than the best picture winner (Crash made just $54m).  Is it a sign of the times?

March Of The Penguins looks at the unusual mating ritual of the emperor penguin.  It will be an eye-opening experience for those learning of it for the first time.  Once you’ve seen it, you’ll have to agree that few other animals go through such an arduous experience to reproduce.  Both the male and female will suffer and it’s hard to believe they go through this experience every year!

This documentary has been put together by French director Luc Jacquet who had initially planned to release the film as a television movie.  Such was the quality of footage however, that the chance was taken to produce a full length motion picture and distribute it world-wide.  The crew battled Antarctic temperatures of -20^oC and winds which exceeded 150 km/h.  They finished with 120 hours of footage shot over the course of one year.  The best 85 minutes is what you will get to see.

The English version of the film has been narrated by Morgan Freeman and I have qualms about what he has to say.  The narrative is overdramatised and continual references are made to the “many” penguins and babies who don’t survive.  You’d think that with all the dangers mentioned, that hardly any would make it through but from information provided to me, I can reveal that roughly 74% of penguin chicks survive from the time they are conceived until the time they take their first swim in the ocean.

The quality of footage is remarkable but its feels repetitive when watching it for 85 minutes.  All we really see is a mixture of wide panoramic shots and some close-ups of the penguins protecting their young.  Research on the internet has told me a lot more about the lives of emperor penguins and I’m disappointed that more information isn’t included in the movie.  In my honest opinion, the story is told far too simply.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 20 July 2006

Luc (Do) lives in Sydney with his 11-year-old sister, Anne (Saggers).  Their mother passed away several years ago and Luc has been struggling to look after both Anne and himself.  His main problem is that he can’t find a job.  As a result, Centrelink is cutting back his dole payments and social services officer Alison Berry (Karvan) is threatening to place Anne is a foster home.

If I’m supposed to feel sympathetic towards Luc, the filmmakers have not done a good job.  There’s a scene early in the film where Luc goes for a job interview as a car salesman at a Holden dealership (note the product placement).  He is completely out of his depth and it’s no surprise that he doesn’t get the position.  I feel that Luc could have gotten a job and fixed his life is he simply aimed a little lower.  I think Peter Costello might also have qualms with Luc’s story given Australia’s record low unemployment levels.

Economics aside, Luc and his rugby league playing friends see an advertisement for an upcoming competition.  It is called the Holden Cup (note more product placement) and first prize is a new Holden ute.  They decide to enter the competition with the hopes of winning the ute and using the proceeds from its sale to get their lives back on track.   In the words of commentator Matthew Johns, it’s “fairytale stuff”.

It culminates with a grand final showdown against a team of NRL legends.  Luc’s team will battle Bradley Clyde, Gary Larson, Cliff Lyons, Rod Wishart and Brett Kenny to decide the champion.

Footy Legends is a film which doesn’t know what it wants to be.  It moves back-and-forth between the genres of light-hearted comedy and emotional drama.  As is the case with many other sporting flicks, the football sequences are hard to believe.  Take the first game for example.  They look completely outclassed and yet they score a try in the final seconds to draw the game.

I feel guilty knocking a low-budget Australian film and whilst I do my best to support the Australian film industry, I can’t recommend Footy Legends.  After the preview screening I attended, I overheard an elderly couple talking.  The husband said to his wife “well I’m glad that was a free one”.  My sentiments exactly.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 25 July 2006

Newlyweds Carl (Dillon) and Molly (Hudson) are ready to relax.  The wedding is behind them and they plan on spending some quality time together in the quiet of their own home.  It’s time to start building a life together and do the things that married couples do.

There’s one problem though and his name is Randy Dupree (Wilson).  Dupree was Carl’s best man and the two have been close friends for many years.  In the days following the wedding, Carl discovered that Dupree had been sleeping in a bar because he’d lost his job, his car and his apartment for taking time off to attend to the wedding.

Feeling sympathetic, Carl lets Dupree move in.  Molly doesn’t like the idea but Carl promises that it will only be for a few days.  It’s just until Dupree can find a job and get back on his feet.  As you’d expect, it’s a recipe for disaster.  Dupree’s is deficient in household etiquette and the longer he stays, the more he gets on the nerves of both Carl and Molly.

What happens next is surprising.  Relationships in the house change but not in the way you might think.  This is where the film loses its credibility.  At the start of the film, Dupree appears to be a jealous of Carl.  He doesn’t want him spending time with Molly and this is why he moves in - to break them up.  He’s clearly lying about why he was fired from work and the fact that he shows no effort to get a new job tells me that he has an ulterior motive.

Why then does his personality change in the later stages of the film?  We are made to feel sorry for him but I don’t know why.  They should have just kept him as a lazy goofball instead of transforming him into a compassionate intellectual.

It’s a thin storyline but there are a few jokes worth chuckling over if you take the time to see it.  Michael Douglas makes an appearance as Molly’s father to boost the film’s star power.  It’s not his best role but it’s nice to hear his always recognisable voice.  This is his first time we’ve seen him on the big screen in Australia since The In-Laws was released in 2003.

Owen Wilson has been on a role with his comedic performances in Wedding Crashers, Starsky & Hutch and The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou.  He’s been due for a failure and sadly, I think this is it.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 18 July 2006

In most “cop” movies, razor sharp detectives solve crimes and capture criminals with enthusiastic fervour.  This is not the case in 16 Blocks.  Police officer Jack Mosley (Willis) is a tired, forlorn figure who has no passion whatsoever.  He mumbles when he speaks, he walks with a limp and he goes about his day as if every task is a laborious chore.  Jack was once a high profile cop but those days are long behind him.

At his precinct, Jack has little respect.  He’s continually given dead-end assignments by his boss and the latest sees him escorting a petty criminal from his jail cell to the courthouse.  The prisoner’s name is Eddie Bunker (Def) and he is required as a witness at a separate court hearing.

On leaving the station, Jack learns that Eddie is no ordinary person and that this is no ordinary assignment.  In two hours time, Eddie is scheduled to testify against Frank Nugent (Morse), Jack’s former partner and one of the most corrupt police officers in the force.  If you can connect the dots, you’ll realise where this is heading.  Frank has no intention of letting Eddie speak and will use his goons to ensure Jack’s passenger never reaches his destination.

There is one flaw in Frank’s plan and his name is Jack Mosley.  Awoken from years of slumber, Jack takes a surprising stand against the corruption which has engulfed his profession.  He will put his life on the line to get Eddie to the courthouse on time.

Bruce Willis has been well cast in a role which makes good use of his raspy voice.  His sickly appearance and lack of interest made me appreciate my own life a little more.  The weakest link is actor David Morse (The Green Mile) who has nothing to work with as the stereotypical bad guy.  His character is always popping up at the right time and speaks with thoughtless confidence.

It’s a moderately interesting premise but when you break it down, 16 Blocks is a stock-standard thriller which takes few chances.  Every time Jack and Eddie find themselves trapped with seemingly no way of escaping, they find a way out.  If you think it’s possible to “make your own luck”, you might believe their story.  If you don’t, you’ll be frustrated by the many close shaves.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 24 July 2006

Not far from Chicago, there is a small house made entirely of glass.  If you’re worried about privacy then you need not fear.  The house is built over a lake in a secluded part of a forest.

Alex Wyler (Reeves) has just rented the house and on his first day, he reads a letter which has been left for him.  It’s from Kate Forster (Bullock), the previous owner of the house, and she asks that her mail be forwarded to her new address.  This may sound simple but there’s a complication which creates the premise for the movie.  Alex is living in 2004.  Kate is living in 2006.  The two can only communicate by sending letters to each other through the lake house’s “magic” letter box.  It transports the mail back and forth in time.

Two months ago, I went through a personality profiling exercise.  It confirmed what I already knew in that I make decisions based on facts instead of my beliefs.  I like logic and make decisions using an analytic and detailed approach.  I find it hard to believe in something without evidence to support it.

It should therefore come as no surprise that I found The Lake House extremely frustrating.  My qualm is not with the premise of time travel as I understand the film is one of fantasy.  My issues are with how Alex and Kate act.  It will be painfully clear to everyone in the cinema what they need to do.  Just think for a moment.  Kate is living two years in the future.  Why doesn’t Kate just track down Alex in the year 2006?  How is it that neither of them can think of this?  While they’re at it, Kate should have given Alex some winning lottery numbers so that once together, they could live in style!   

Director Alejandro Agresti has done nothing to improve the weak story.  There are a handful of scenes where Reeves and Bullock speak as if they were having a conversation face-to-face.  It’s a silly illusion because such chats aren’t possible given their circumstances.  Did they write one sentence, stuff it in the mailbox, then wait for a response?  I don’t buy it.

For Sandra Bullock and Keanu Reeves, it’s the time they’ve been paired since 1994’s Speed.  I’ve been critical of them both over the past few years but their performances in The Lake House are lovely.  Alex and Kate are likeable characters and despite the ludicrous storyline, most will be cheering for this softly spoken couple to get together in the end.

As a footnote, you might be interested to know that the house was built specially for the film.  The crew couldn’t find a house that suited their needs and so constructed their own along the shore of Maple Lake in Illinois.  It looks great but it doesn’t change my opinion of what is a very mediocre romantic drama.