Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 28 November 2005

We all know Steve Martin as a great actor but you might be surprised to hear some of this other achievements in life.  He started out as a stand-up comedian and won back-to-back Grammy Awards in 1977 and 1978 in the category of best comedy recording.  He plays the banjo and won another Grammy in 2001 in the category of best country instrumental performance for appearing in the Earl Scruggs and Friends video for "Foggy Mountain Breakdown”.  He collects art and is a trustee at the Los Angeles Museum Of Art.

In 2000, Steve Martin published his first fiction novel.  Entitled Shopgirl, it was the story of a quiet young lady who worked at a plush department in Los Angeles.  After being single for some time, she finds herself being pursued by two possible suitors.  One is an elderly millionaire who can give her anything with a price-tag but cannot give her a life-long commitment.  The other is a free-spirited musician who needs lessons in maturity and has hardly a cent to his name.

The novel has now been brought to the screen with Claire Danes (Romeo & Juliet), Jason Schwartzman (Rushmore) and Steve Martin in the three roles.  The last time I can recall Steve Martin appearing in a drama was in David Mamet’s brilliant The Spanish Prisoner.  His role in Shopgirl gives Martin the opportunity to be subtle and mysterious.  It’s a pleasant change from his recent garbage comedies including Cheaper By The Dozen and Bringing Down The House.

The film starts a little slowly but there’s intrigue as Ray (Martin) begins to court the willing Mirabelle (Danes).  Sadly however, the film doesn’t progress past this point.  The story loses momentum and we are left with several musical interludes where we watch the characters go about their business to the backdrop of a soft piano melody.  It may sound nice if you’re sitting on a balcony overlooking the city with a glass of red wine.  It doesn’t sound as nice if you’re sitting in a movie theatre getting restless from an over-abundance of reflective scenes.

I have respect for the talented cast but Shopgirl is a tiring romantic drama that never generates much passion or interest.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 18 November 2005

Jim Winters (LaPaglia) is a widowed father with two teenage sons, Gabe (Stanford) and Pete (Webber).  It’s been a while since his wife passed away but the family has never really come to grips with what happened.  They are each coping with the loss in a different way and Jim is feeling become more and more isolated from his sons and their upbringing.

The monotonous existence they all share is abruptly changed when Gabe tells everyone that he’s moving out of home.  It’s just something he must do – he has to go out there and find his place in the world.  Jim isn’t prepared for this and arguments ensue.  Matters are further complicated for Jim when he starts becoming friendly with Molly Ripkin (Janney), a single woman who is house-sitting in the neighbourhood.  Does he have the heart to give love a second chance?

Winter Solstice is one of those quiet, sleepy films that you might watch when channel surfing late one night.  It has a recognisable cast and a simple storyline that’s easy to go along with.  It’s like a Hallmark Channel movie only with a little more quality.

For those that don’t understand the title reference, the winter solstice is the shortest day of the year – from that day for the next six months, the sun always rises earlier of a morning and sets later in the evening.  It’s a turning point just as it is Jim, Gabe and Pete.

Winter Solstice screened at the Brisbane International Film Festival and I wasn’t expecting it to get a release in this country but with Australian Anthony LaPaglia (Without A Trace) is the leading role it may attract some viewers.  It’s a nice character study but filmgoers who like movies with more action and substance should try something else.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 27 November 2005

It’s Harry Potter’s fourth year at Hogwarts.  Instead of having to study and attend classes (which are seldom seen), it would seem the school’s focus is on the special Tri-wizard Tournament.  Three schools are competing and those who wish to take on the difficult tasks have placed their names inside the goblet of fire.

The Goblet has narrowed the field down to three and Headmaster Dumbledore (Gambon) reads the names to the students – Victor Crum, Fleur Delacour and Cedric Diggory.  But wait, there’s more!  Harry Potter’s (Radcliffe) name is read out which comes as a great shock since he never put him name in the Goblet and is below the required age of 17.  Something is suspicious but Dumbledore and his loyal teachers have accepted the decision that Harry should compete.

When not competing or preparing for the Tournament, Harry and his two close friends, Ron (Grint) and Hermione (Watson), are discovering new feelings.  Harry’s developed his first crush on fellow student Cho Chang and both Ron and Hermione are struggling to hide their own feelings for each other.  Their newly found puberty provides the humour of the film and the cute performances of Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint and Emma Watson show they’re acting abilities are progressing nicely.

If you’ve read Harry Potter & The Goblet Of Fire, you’ll remember it exceeded 600 pages.  How can you squash so much material into a three hour film?  The answer is with great difficulty.  Screenwriter Steve Cloves (who adapted the three previous novels) has been forced to rush much of the plot and leave out several interesting subplots.  Some characters, such as Malfoy, Severus Snape and Minerva McGonagall, are hardly seen.  If it wasn’t for the rapid rate at which the younger cast members are aging, I’d almost prefer to see the book split into two separate films.

A new director is at the helm with Mike Newell (Four Weddings & A Funeral) taking on the important responsibility.  There is a heavy reliance on visual effects (as expected) but Newell has choreographed some very suspenseful action sequences.  All three tournament contests look fantastic but once again, I only wish there was more time to show more.

As has been well documented, this new Harry Potter film is the darkest yet and has earned an M-rating here in Australia.  It’s a valid classification and even I was surprised by how disturbingly graphic some scenes were.  When you see Harry’s confrontation with the talkative Lord Voldemort (Fiennes), you’ll agree.

I’ve read all six Harry Potter books released to date and whilst she’s no Mark Twain, author J.K. Rowling has a knack for capturing her readers.  Her books are difficult to put down and I’ve had many late nights reading on in eager anticipation.  The Harry Potter movies have given us the opportunity to visualise her work but without the depth and detail offered by the novels, it’s harder to become engrossed and harder to be enthralled.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 15 November 2005

This would have to be one of the quickest follow-up sequels ever made.  Saw was released in Australia less than a year ago (December 2, 2004) and it’s been a profitable twelve months for Australian creators Leigh Whannell and James Wan.  The original film cost close to $1m and its total worldwide box-office takings were roughly $100m.  If I were in their shoes, I’d be churning out Saw 3, Saw 4 and Saw 5 as quickly as I could my pay cheque.  They’re on winning formula and they should be milking it for all its worth.

Given that it was no so long ago, you may remember the premise.  There is a serial killer named Jigsaw who kidnaps his victims and puts them in a life or situation.  If they want to live, they will have to pass a test (which often involves mutilation).  There is a method behind Jigsaw’s madness.  He selects those people who have no appreciation for their own life.  By putting them through a horrifying ordeal, he hopes to change their perceptions.

In Saw 2, police detective Eric Matthews (Whalberg) comes face-to-face with the elusive Jigsaw.  He cannot arrest him however.  Jigsaw has kidnapped his son, Daniel, and will only let him live if Eric is prepared to play another of Jigsaw’s games.

Meanwhile, Daniel awakes to find himself locked in a house with five people he has never met.  They are given a message on an audio tape which tells them they have been exposed to a deadly nerve agent.  The only way to they can survive is to find an antidote and several have been hidden around the house.  The clock is ticking however.  They have less than two hours to solve the riddles of the house or it will be too late.

Just like the original, Saw 2 is extremely violent and gruesome.  It’s on a par with Wolf Creek but don’t ask me why Wolf Creek was rated R and yet Saw 2 escapes with a mere MA rating.  No matter where you see it, there’ll be some shocked squeals from the audience.  This is part of its appeal though – few horror films go this far and lovers of the genre will be more than satisfied.

The first film was something different, something fresh.  Now, I’m watching a film which reminds me too much of the original.  It’s like a remake – the same idea with just a few new (and not so new) ways of killing people.  The level of suspense isn’t the same.  In its defence, I’ll state under oath that the ending of Saw 2 is much better.

Now where did I put that Saw 3 script…

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 21 November 2005

A religious father who is out of touch with his family.  A depressed mother with a secret she will not share.  A confused son in search of something to believe in.  A quiet daughter with a talent waiting to be discovered.  We see these four people under a very close microscope in Bee Season.  It may have the credentials on paper but unfortunately, this film is confusing, annoying and disappointing.

Why is it confusing?  The film has a very strong religious focus and I really don’t understand the point to it all.  People are questioning their faith but so what?  What am I supposed to take away from this?  There’s a scene late in the film where the daughter has an epileptic-like fit on reading an ancient religious document.  It came completely out of left field and I found it more humorous than serious.

Why is it annoying?  The film sees the daughter battle through the heats and make it to the national finals of the spelling bee championship.  She’s a gifted speller but the competitions are boring and the ending to the final is pathetic.  Why would she be given such an easy word?  Spelling bees should be exciting and suspenseful and if you want proof, check out the documentary Spellbound (which was my 3^rd favourite film of 2003).

Why is it disappointing?  The film is based on a novel (written by Myla Goldberg) and with a strong cast, I was expecting a strong drama.  There is a great debut performance from youngster Flora Cross and I loved the confidence she shows when adjusting the microphone on the podium during the competitions.  Aside from Ms Cross however, I have very little to rave about.  Richard Gere and Juliette Binoche are trying too hard and the continually changing storylines prevents us from really getting to know these characters.

A bee minus seems an appropriate grade given the title but that would be too generous.  A C+ it is.