Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 04 September 2005

Your background will influence what you make of the second cinematic adaptation of Charlie & The Chocolate Factory.  I’d spoken with several people who liked the film and have read many positive reviews from both within Australia and abroad.  Unfortunately, I see Tim Burton’s version Charlie & The Chocolate Factory as an undeniable failure.  Perhaps my love for the original film (with Gene Wilder in the leading role) and my high expectations of this new film contributed to this viewpoint.

For those who haven’t been exposed to author Roald Dahl’s world, the reclusive Willy Wonka has announced to the world that he will give five children the chance to tour his chocolate factory.  It will be an historic event as no one has set foot in the factory for years.  To select the lucky kids, Wonka has hidden five precious golden tickets in his candy bars.  Wonka’s marketing team must be thrilled because the announcement left the kids of the world emptying their piggy-banks and buying and piece of Wonka candy they can get their hands on.

Charlie Bucket is a young Londoner who live is a dilapidated house with his parents and grandparents.  His father works at a toothpaste factory and their meagre income provides little more than cabbage soup each night for dinner.  The only candy bar that Charlie sees each year is the one he gets on his birthday.  With four golden tickets already claimed, Charlie finds some money in the street, walks into the nearest candy store and purchases one Wonka bar.  The unthinkable becomes reality – inside is the last golden ticket!

Tim Burton is a fantastic director who tackles unconventional material and appreciates the talent of Johnny Depp.  In all, they have worked together on three previous films (Edward Scissorhands, Ed Wood and Sleepy Hollow).  This time though, their collaboration has come to nought.

Speaking firstly of Johnny Depp, his portrayal of Willy Wonka (which many say is an imitation of Michael Jackson) did not sit well with me.  In the original film, Gene Wilder has a strange quirkiness about him that was almost scary.  Johnny Depp, perhaps trying to differentiate himself from Wilder, looks like a childish, dim-wit.  It all starts badly for Depp with a silly introduction and song on the steps of the factory.  He manages a few funny lines towards the end of the film but generally, his attempts at humour left a confused look on my face.

Now to Tim Burton and I was surprised by his heavy reliance on special effects.  Everything looks fake and plastic.  What’s with Augustus Gloop?  He looks computer generated but I guess not since there’s an actor listed in the credits.  Worst of all are the Oompa-Loopas.  Or should I say Oompa-Loopa.  There’s just one actor who plays the Oompa-Loompas (Deep Roy) and Burton has used CGI effects to multiply him.  It’s almost as annoying as their songs (which again I think are inferior to the first film).

I see this film having more appeal to kids than adults but why has the focus been taken away from Charlie?  Played nicely by Freddie Highmore, Charlie is hardly seen in the middle stages of the film.  The focus is on Johnny Depp and how many strange looks he can give.  As I’ve said though, others may see this differently and may enjoy Burton’s different spin on Dahl’s famous tale.  I did not.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 26 August 2005

A simple college application will change the life of lecturer Louise Harrington (Linney).  The year’s admissions are already being processed at Columbia University but Louise stumbles across an opened submission in her office.  The name on the front is F. Scott Feinstadt.

It’s an unusual name and one you wouldn’t come across too often.  For Louise however, it’s a name which sets off a flood of long forgotten memories.  F. Scott Feinstadt was a boyfriend of Louise back when she was teenager.  Tragically though, he was killed and Louise was left with the pain that comes with a departed loved one.  How is it then that someone has the exact same name and just so happens to have come into Louise’s path?  Is it destiny?  Overcome with a wave of differing emotions, Louise calls and sets up an immediate interview with F. Scott (Grace).

When he arrives, the Laura starts thinking that this is no coincidence.  This cocky teenager looks and acts exactly the same as the F. Scott which Louise remembers from 20 years ago.  Her best friend Missy (Harden) confirms that she’s not hallucinating – she too sees the remarkable similarity.

Having not had a relationship since her divorce several years ago, Louise finds herself drawn to the new F. Scott and he reciprocates her feelings.  There’s some great scenes where they open up about themselves and share their interests and desires.  Louise though, does not give up the big secret.  She wants to keep the illusion alive that this some reincarnated version of long lost love.  

I enjoyed the film a lot but could see myself being very cynical if not in the best of moods.  It’s a romantic fantasy that could be seen either as a sweet mystery and a silly farce.  What drew me into the film were the great performances from Topher Grace (In Good Company) and especially Laura Linney (Primal Fear).  You sense the bond between them but also the uncomfortableness that comes with such an unexpected romance.

There’s some comedy too amongst the romance with a hilariously unexpected revelation coming from Louise’s ex-husband (played by Gabriel Byrne).  It created a noticeable stir at my screening and woke those who were dosing off after a long day.  You’ll know the scene when you see it, trust me.

I caught P.S. as one of the showcase films at this year’s Brisbane International Film Festival.  It wasn’t just the great cast but also the lure of an up-and-coming director which helped secure my attendance.  Writer/director Dylan Kidd made 2002’s Roger Dodger, a small film about a naive teenager who is taken for a wild night on the town by his womanising uncle.  Having now seen two Kidd films, I realise he’s a smart writer.  His characters are intelligent and they speak with great wit.  He’s a subtler version of Woody Allen.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 01 September 2005

Every couple of months, there’s a new hot male or female who is being touted as Hollywood’s latest star.  Their faces are splashed across magazine covers, fan clubs appear everywhere on the internet and you can’t go a week without hearing their name in some context.  That is until… the next hot thing comes along.  Not long after, you will forget they even exist.  Such is life and such is our fickle admiration for movie stars.  We love new stars but when they saturate the media, we tire quickly and look for something else to leach onto.

In ten years time I may have egg on my face but I declare that Canadian-born Rachel McAdams will get past this hurdle and will become a long-term starlet of the screen.  She created a huge buzz in Wedding Crashers but showed she’s not just a pretty face with great performances in The Notebook and Mean Girls.  I see talent and I really hope she does make the right script choices to keep her career on track.

Truth be told, Red Eye isn’t the greatest of films.  For Rachel McAdams though, it’s the chance to try the thriller genre for the first time.  To call the screenplay formulaic is an understatement.  There’s enough substance to keep you awake but not a single thrill comes as a surprise.  It’s like so many thrillers of late – trying too hard with too many plot twists.  Simple is best.

The story sees Lisa (McAdams) on board an airplane.  Sitting next to her is Jackson Rippner (Murphy), a young guy who seems friendly.  When the plane takes off however, Jackson shows his true colours.  He is part of a terrorist unit who plans to assassinate a high-profile guest at the hotel at which Lisa works.  They will kill Lisa’s father if she does not call the hotel office and use her sway as manager to have this guest transferred to a different room.  You see, the different room has a view of the ocean which gives the terrorists a perfect shot from their boat.

She’s terrified at first and through her tears, struggles to put a sentence together.  She then puts her thinking cap on and tries to find away out of this.  Lisa doesn’t want her father to die but doesn’t want to sacrifice the guest and his family to do so.  Does she manage to pull it off with a number of close shaves and a great sense of timing?  I’ll leave it to your own imagination from here.

Red Eye is directed by horror maestro Wes Craven (Scream, A Nightmare On Elm Street).  Few directors have as much experience in the genre and you’ll see it on show here.  The climax looks great as the camera moves around the house showing us only what he wants us to see.  You know something is going to happen but the camera teases us by making us wait and throwing in the occasional “red herring”.  It’s not a new technique but Craven has a near-perfect sense of timing.

Not a memorable film but all you need remember is the name Rachel McAdams.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 22 August 2005

Much has been made of the war in Iraq but Turtles Can Fly approaches the subject matter from an unexpected angle.  Set just before the war commences, it’s the story of a group of kids who live in a small own near in the Iraqi-Turkish border.  They are led by Satellite (Ebrahim), a boy with technological expertise.  He his helping set up a satellite dish so that the town elders can tune into CNN or the Fox News Channel (god forbid).   They want news of the pending war and they aren’t getting it on Iraqi television.

We’ve seen the war from our perspective, now here’s the chance to see it from the eyes of children living in Iraq.  Satellite and his posse of children earn a small amount of money by removing land mines from the local farmland.  You wouldn’t think that they’d live in such a hostile country when you look at the affectionate enthusiasm these children have.

Things change for Satellite when an armless boy named Pashow (Feysal) and his sister Agrin (Latif) arrive in town.  Pashow starts making predictions about the war which are become eerily true.  Satellite sees Pashow as a threat to his leadership and stance in the community.  Ironically though, he has developed a crush on Pashow’s sister.  He is discovering new feelings and his priorities are soon changing…

I am told it is the first major film to be filmed in Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein.  This is great to see but it doesn’t impact my review in anyway.  Regardless of the circumstances of how it came to be, this a superb film with a big heart.  The children give tender performances which are exemplified by a scene towards the end where Satellite tries to rescue a blind baby from a field full of land mines.   

On his website, director Bahman Ghobadi dedicates his film to “all the innocent children of the world – the casualties of the policies of dictators and fascists.”  It’s apt way of passing on the message behind Turtles Can Fly.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 28 August 2005

Based on a true story, Lords Of Dogtown is about three teenagers who in the late 1970s, helped make skateboarding famous.  There was a similarly themed documentary made several years ago called Dogtown And The Z-Boys which I haven’t seen but it’s on my list of films to catch up on.  I was never really interested in this film and writer Stacy Peralta hasn’t done anything to change this.

Don’t think I’m not being objective though.  Even if you are interested in skateboarding, the film is  a confusing mess that doesn’t know what it wants to be.  It starts off with skateboarding, skateboarding and more skateboarding.  The kids all seem to have a different background and some strange parents but this wasn’t explored too much.  The film changes then when a drugged-up manager (played by Heath Ledger) starts entering them in tournaments.

The concluding parts of the film are rushed and don’t offer much.  As the three get older, they slowly drift apart.  Tony (Rasuk) finds stardom and develops an big ego.  Jay (Hirsch) starts hanging out with gangs, does drugs and shaves his head.  Stacy (Robinson) stays pretty much the same.  They are all reunited in a scene at the end with the help of another young skater named Sid (Angarano).  I guess this is supposed to be the feel good ending but felt indifferent.  So little time was spent developing the rift between the three leading characters, it seemed strange to have such a big, significant reconciliation.

The film is directed by Catherine Hardwicke who made a film last year I enjoyed a lot – Thirteen starring Evan Rachel Wood.  Lords Of Dogtown has a similar look with quick editing and many scenes shot with a moving hand-held camera.  It’s overdone here to the point where it’s hard to see what’s going on.  This detracts from the skateboarding itself (the essence of the film) and only highlights the fact they’ve used stunt doubles throughout.

Those who enjoy the sport will find plenty to like about the film.  Unlike any other sporting films though, this fails to connect with those who do not.