Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 20 June 2004

In 1985, friends Joe Simpson and Simon Yates tried to scale one of the highest mountains in Peru – the 21,000 foot Siula Grande.  Others had attempted the climb previously but were unsuccessful.  This only added to the attraction of the mountain for these two young English climbers.  Their adventure has become a commonly told tale in mountaineering circles.  Now, the story has been magically brought to life by Academy Award winning filmmaker Kevin Macdonald, and the two men themselves.

Touching The Void is an unconventional film in that it is part film and part documentary.  It is narrated by both the real Joe Simpson and Simon Yates who often appear on screen.  There is also the visual element – two actors, Nicholas Aaron and Brendan Mackey, play the younger Simpson and Yates as we watch the journey unfold.

Why this story is special is how amazingly against the odds their survival was.  Just after starting their decent, Simpson fell and his leg was badly broken.  You’ll cringe when you hear Simpson describe this horrible moment.  At that altitude, such an event is usually a death sentence.  It’s tough enough scaling the walls of rock and ice with two legs let alone one.

We obviously know that both live to tell the tale but how they did so, I will leave for you to discover.  This story sounds very similar to a film I saw a few years ago called Vertical Limit which starred Chris O’Donnell.  I wrote that film off as being commercialised and unrealistic.  I’d think the same here too but that’s what makes it so special – this actually did happen and we’re hearing a first hand account of it all!

Partially funded by the National Geographic Channel, Touching The Void is beautifully filmed.  There’s no bogus locations either – Macdonald and his crew went back to the actual Siula Grande to shoot the entire recreation of events.  I know nothing of the two actors who play Simpson and Yates but they do such a fantastic job that you’ll think you’re watching the real thing.  You feel right there with them.

Few films are this interesting and Touching The Void won the BAFTA Award earlier this year for best British film.  The other nominees were Cold Mountain, Girl With A Pearl Earring, In This World and Love Actually.  There’s some food for thought and another endorsement of just how good this film is.  Dazzling stuff.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 07 June 2004

I think I finally put my finger on it.  When it comes to romantic comedies, I suffer from Attention Deficit Disorder.  After 20 minutes, I was looking around, rolling my eyes, glancing at my watch and wishing I knew how long the film had to go.  Raising Helen is not a terrible film by any means but how can one sit through something when you know exactly how’s it going to end?  Some like this predictability but sadly I do not.

Allow me to set the scene.  Young twenty something Helen Harris (Hudson) has her “dream” job.  She works as an agent at an exclusive modelling studio and from what I saw, there isn’t a single person in the business who doesn’t thinks she’s the best.  Each night she attends exclusive parties and if lucky, drags some beautiful male model back to her snazzy New York apartment.

One afternoon, Helen is dining with her friends at a swanky restaurant (Sex And The City style) and gets a life changing call.  Her sister Lindsay and her husband Paul were killed in a car accident.  At the reading of the will, Helen is in for a further shock.  She has been left custody of their three children, Audrey, Henry and Sarah.  This infuriates Helen’s other sister, Jenny (Cusack), who has children of her own and think she’s a much better mother.  Helen is reluctant herself but decides to follow Lindsay’s wishes and takes on the responsibility.

You know where this is going, don’t you?  Helen tries her best but it becomes very overwhelming.  She loses her job, has to move to a cheaper apartment and has no social life.  Boohoo.  Luckily for her, she finds a new love – the principal of the local Luthern school, Pastor Dan Parker (Corbett).  He’s great with kids and together they overcome many hurdles.  There’s more to it than this and I haven’t given it all away but you get the picture.

Kate Hudson is at her sweetest but she can be so much better.  Three years ago she earned a well deserved Academy Award nomination in Almost Famous and there you’ll find Hudson at her best.  John Corbett is trying to capitalise on his new found stardom (following My Big Fat Greek Wedding) but strikes out.  Is there really chemistry there?  They look more like fun friends than a romantic couple.

Director Garry Marshall has the romantic comedy down pat.  Marshall films include The Princess Diaries, Runaway Bride, The Other Sister, Pretty Woman and Beaches.  If you like what I speak of, this film is for you.  If not, forget it.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 17 June 2004

Shrek was a smash hit and Shrek 2 is proving an even bigger smash hit.  But I’ll stand out from the laughing crowd and proclaim at the sequel does not come close to matching the originality and hilarity of the original.

When we last left the story, Shrek (Myers) defeated a fire breathing dragon, rescued Princess Fiona (Diaz) looked to be living happily ever after.  To open Shrek 2, we are treated to a boring musical montage of the happy couple living it up on their honeymoon.  On their return, they are given an invitation.  The King (Cleese) and Queen (Andrews) have asked Princess Fiona to bring her new husband to the palace so the whole Kingdom of Far Far Away can rejoice.

Unfortunately for the King and Queen, they expected Princess Fiona to marry the adoring Prince Charming (Everett) which would also break the spell and turn her back into a beautiful lady.  Now, they find her married to an ogre and looking much like one herself.  Their fury is matched by the Fairy Godmother (Saunders) who is the mother to the now upset Prince Charming.  She demands that the King do something to “take care of” this hideous ogre so that the Prince can claim his rightful place alongside Fiona.

Once again, nothing is left to the unknown which much of the trailer giving away the above plot development and a few more which I won’t spoil.  How can one be excited when knowing what’s going to happen next?  Can’t trailer-makers leave a little more to the imagination?  I’ve had this gripe about so many recent films/trailers but I’ll keep yammering on until someone listens.

Once quality I remember about Shrek was how the different layers of humour allowed both kids and adults to be equally entertained.  Shrek 2 is aimed at a younger audience with little for adults to be enthused about.  I chuckled two or three times but did find other audience members laughing much more.  It could just be me.

The quality of animation is incredible and it’s one of the most realistic animations I’ve seen.  Well chosen were new cast members John Cleese, Julie Andrews and Antonio Banderas (as a feisty feline).  It’d be one of the biggest Hollywood casts of the year and kind of shame you don’t see them for real on the big screen.  I’m not sure why but every major actor wants a big animated release credit on their resume.  Can’t be the best money but maybe it’s something to show their kids (as opposed to their usual films which are littered with sex, language and violence).

The rumour going around is that there’s a Shrek 3 and a Shrek 4 in the works.  I’d suspect this to be true considering how much money the first two films have reaped worldwide.  Dreamworks now has my $10 from Shrek 2 and whilst I can’t take it back, I’ll think twice before shelling over more to see future instalments.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 05 June 2004

The Punisher is an extraordinarily violent film and excluding The Passion Of The Christ, I’d have to go back to Blade 2 (2002) to recall an equally brutal motion picture.  How these films escape with an MA rating is beyond me whilst films with a sexual theme such as Y Tu Mama Tambien get the highest R-rating and others like Ken Park get banned completely.

Ratings issues aside, I was surprised to find The Punisher is a half decent flick to watch.  It is based on a comic book (unknown to myself) and in the film’s opening we are introduced to our “hero”, Frank Castle (Jane).  As an undercover detective, Castle has just retired after completing his final drug sting.  Unfortunately, the son of an underworld king, Howard Saint (Travola), was inadvertently killed in this bust and he wants revenge against the man who killed him.

Howard Saint’s wife (Harring) wants more than just an “eye for an eye”.  Saint’s henchman, led by Quentin Glass (Patton), destroy Castle’s entire family at a family reunion in Porto Rico.  Castle’s wife, son, father, mother and everyone else you can think of are shot in cold blood.  Glass leaves Castle himself for dead on a fiery boat ramp but destiny finds a way to allow him to live.  With the shoe on the other foot, Castle now looks for revenge himself.  He wants to destroy Saint’s money laundering empire and every member of his own family.

There’s some pretty inventive ways to die in The Punisher.  They produced plenty of laughs from the audience.  A few key lines are a bit too corny but on the whole, the screenplay was pretty good.  It had that comic book feel and I didn’t expect some of the early developments.  I’m not sure if this film will lead to sequels (like so many other superheroes) but the door is open for one and the edgier material may lure the attention of a different audience.

John Travolta is good (for a change) as is leading man Tom Jane (in his biggest role to date).  There are a few cast members you’ll recognise and one I’m sure is Rebecca Romijn-Stamos who provides eye candy as a new love interest of Castle.  I guess this leads to my major quib with the film in that it loses its way in the final half hour.  Castle’s quest for venegence is more like the quest of a psychopath.  My sympathy started to fade.

If you call it “entertainment”, there’s plenty of it for lovers of action.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 10 June 2004

There was only 12 months between the release of the first and second films but this time we’ve had to wait a little longer for our trip to Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry.  With a new director at the helm the third Harry Potter film doesn’t disappoint.  The depth of the story is evident on screen and it’s a clear cut-above most other family releases.  Instead of yammering about a weak screenplay (as I usually do), I can praise the exciting storytelling and debate what subplots and characters have been left from the film.

After a much anticipated build up, I was unexpectedly disappointed by the opening half hour.  The traditional scenes of Harry at the Dursley home were rushed and the subsequent reintroductions to the key characters were a little boring.  The introduction of David Thewlis and Professor Lupin provides the kick start to the adventure and it never lets up.  Whether you’ve read the novel or not, you’re sure to be enchanted.

On arrival back at Hogwarts for his third year of school, Harry once again finds himself the unwilling centre of attention.  A notorious criminal, Sirius Black (Oldman), has become the first person to escape from the impenetrable Azkaban Prison.  Twelve years ago, Black helped the evil Lord Voldemort to kill Harry’s parents and many suspect he will come after Harry to settle unfinished business.  The school is now closely guarded by foul creatures known as Dementors.  As writer J.K. Rowling so perfectly phrases it – “get too near a Dementor and every good feeling, every happy memory, will be sucked out of you”.  They will not rest until they have found Sirius Black and drained his soul completely from him.

Those that have read the third book will know the fate of these characters but for those that haven’t, I won’t reveal the enjoyable twists which follow.  I think many viewers will fall into the former category.  Over 200 million copies of Rowling’s books have now been sold worldwide and the series has become the most widely read of the modern era.  Let’s not forget the success of the first two films either which grossed more than $1.8b worldwide.  When you analyse this big picture, it all comes back to amazing storytelling.  There’s something about the mystical world of Harry Potter that has ensnared both kids and adults alike (myself included).

I admired the performance of young stars Daniel Radcliffe (as Harry) and Emma Watson (as Hermione).  Radcliffe has improved dramatically over the three films and contrary to what others believe, I see a long and successful film career ahead.  This may not be just in front of the camera.  In interviews, Radcliffe has astutely expressed an appreciation for the works of director Alfonso Cuaron (A Little Princess, Y Tu Mama Tambien) and you can’t help but be impressed by a 14-year-old saying that.

Some cast members do fall by the wayside in Azkaban.  Alan Rickman and Maggie Smith are seldom seen and Emma Thompson’s new role as Professor Trelawney is overdone.  Michael Gambon tries his best to replace the late Richard Harris as Professor Dumbledore but he doesn’t quite have the same vagueness and secrecy.

I admit to expecting a little more from director Cuaron haven’t been such a huge fan of his last film, Y Tu Mama Tambien.  I liked how he kept his camera continually on the move but I did hope for something a little more adventurous.  You can’t fault most his crew with composer John Williams delivering another fantastic film score and three time Academy Award winning production designer Stuart Craig immaculately crafting each hall and corridor at Hogwarts.

It’s thumbs up for all three films in the Harry Potter series and already filming has commenced on the next movie, Harry Potter & The Goblet Of Fire.  Slated for a November 2005 release, it will feature another new director in Mike Newell (Four Weddings & A Funeral).  I’ll see there you there on opening night.