Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 03 May 2004

Paris, France, 1968.  Almost every evening, film-buff Matthew (Pitt) leaves his small hotel room and walks to the nearby movie theatre to take in a night’s entertainment.  Somewhat of a loner, the theatre provides the American-born Matthew a world of escape.

One afternoon though, the theatre is closed.  A swarm of students are outside conducting a demonstration rally against the French government while the police look on.  Under direction from the government, the cinema’s curator had been removed of his post and the cinema closed.  This was just the tip of the iceberg and it is a true story that France was brought to its knees in May 1968 as a result of these student riots.

Matthew had never really made any friends in Paris but spots a fellow filmgoer outside the closed theatre and shyly introduces himself.  Her name is Isabelle (Green) and is always accompanied by her twin brother, Theo (Garrel).  With no movies to attend, the three walk around town, talk movies and for Matthew, it’s the greatest night of his life.  But it’s only just beginning…

The next day he is invited to dinner with Isabelle and Theo and on the next, he is invited to move in with them.  With their parents away on a holiday, Matthew, Isabelle and Theo have the lavish house to themselves for a whole month.

To say there is a sexual tension between all three is an understatement.  You should expect nothing less from director Bernardo Bertolucci who made the explicit The Last Tango In Paris in 1972 won an Oscar for The Last Emperor in 1987.  The film comes from the novel by Gilbert Adair which I only finished reading a few weeks ago.  The novel is very different but the expected sex and nudity does come through on screen.  You’re unlikely to see so much of it in another film this year.

But the purpose of this film isn’t to push the boundaries of cinema.  It’s a story about three people who become consumed by each other and create world that seems fine to them but frowned upon by outsiders.  The performances from stars Michael Pitt, Eva Green and Louis Garrell are all very good and their personalities match what I’d expect having read the novel.  Pitt is creating quite an impressive arthouse resume having appeared in the well received Hedwing And The Angry Inch, Bully and Changing Lanes.

The film takes a little while to develop and the ending is a touch weak but the body of The Dreamers will take you away from the monotony of life and into a crazy sexual odyssey.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 25 April 2004

Elephant will leave you talking.  There’s a fair chance you won’t see another film like it.  Does this mean it’s the must see movie of the year?  Not necessarily.

On April 20, 1999, two teenage students went on shooting rampage at Columbine High School in the small town of Littleton, Colorado.  In all, 13 students were killed and a further 25 were injured.  As expected, the event sparked a media frenzy.  Everyone had an opinion as to why these kids had done what they had done.  Some blamed violent video movies and video games.  Some blamed gun control.  Some blamed bullying in schools.  Some blamed the parents.  Some blamed everyone.

Filmmaker Michael Moore used the shootings as the basis for his award winning and universally praised documentary, Bowling For Columbine.  Elephant is not a retelling of the Columbine story.  Rather, it is a fictional story of two teenagers, Alex (Frost) and Eric (Duelen), who also go on a similar high school killing spree.

Last year, Elephant claimed one of the highest honours in film – the top prize (known as the Palm D’or) at the Cannes Film Festival.  I have a huge respect for this award as it is voted upon by a select jury of film aficionados.  Previous winners of the Palm D’or include The Pianist, Dancer In The Dark, Secrets & Lies and Pulp Fiction.  Despite the acclaim, you won’t be seeing Elephant at many cinemas in Australia.  The film is receiving a very small release and this can be attributed to its distinctive art-house style.

What do I mean by this?  Well, the film is shot very much like a documentary.  The camera follows a group of selected students around the school in the hours leading up to the shootings.  They are just going about their day like it is any other day.  There are scenes that run for several minutes and are nothing more than kids walking up and down the school corridors.  It may sound boring on paper but I found that director Gus Van Sant’s style enhanced my liking for the characters.  These are just ordinary people and knowing their pending fate left a chilling feeling in my stomach.

Also impressive about Elephant is its conscious decision not to imply a singular reason for the tragedy.  I enjoy such films as they allow us to think about the film rather than letting the film think for us.  This approach by Gus Van Sant has not gone unnoticed and controversy has surrounded it since its Cannes premiere.  Only recently I saw the usually likable Andrew Warne of Foxtel’s Showtime Movie News describing his disgust for film’s cold blooded finale.

There isn’t a familiar name amongst the cast with the performances largely improvised.  The casting crew auditioned over 3,000 teenagers in the Portland area for the leading roles and those selected were encouraged to use their own experiences at school to shape their characters.  These unproven actors do an incredible job and it’s great to see Gus Vant Sant being rewarded for taking the risk with such an alternative concept.

An inspiration to Van Sant was a BBC documentary on school violence shot filmed in 1989 by late Alan Clarke.  It was also called Elephant and Van Sant’s own use of the title serves as a tribute.  Clarke’s use of the title came from his saying that the problem is as easy to ignore as an elephant in a living room.  An appropriate phrase indeed and I similarly urge you not to ignore this film at any cost.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 29 April 2004

Miranda Grey (Berry) is an expert psychiatrist but her latest case has left her dumfounded.  For months, Chloe Sava (Cruz) has had continual hallucinations and now she’s claiming to have had visions of the devil.  Miranda tries to gain her trust but as Chloe accurately phrases it “how can you trust someone when they think you’re crazy.”

After her Friday afternoon appointment with Chloe, Miranda heads home in a driving rainstorm.  Crossing an old bridge, she suddenly sees a girl standing in the middle of the road.  Miranda swerves to avoid her but crashes the car into a tree beside the road.  In a state of shock, Miranda notices the girl is still standing aimlessly in the middle of the road.  She approaches her to see if she’s ok.

This is the last thing Miranda can remember.  Three days have now passed and she finds herself in a locked cell within the same mental hospital at which she works.  Her friend and co-worker Pete Graham (Downey Jr) has been assigned to Miranda’s case and comes to speak with her.  Miranda wants to know how she got there and Pete informs her with the news that she killed her husband in cold blood.

Miranda can’t believe it and wants answers.  Was it this girl she saw who did it?  Her mind is a mess and she is having visions and hallucinations of her own.  She’s not sure who to believe, who to trust, and whether she has become crazy herself.

Gothika feels like it has been stretched out to make it last the standard 90 minutes.  After the first 45 minutes, I knew what the mystery was and became impatient waiting for it all to resolve itself.  There’s an expected twist which didn’t do a lot to satisfy me either.  All a bit far fetched as are the reactions from some people.  A comment I make about so many thrillers is that the story seems incorrectly based around the conclusion rather than vice versa.  This annoys me.

Frankly, I’m glad this film has finally come and gone.  It was supposed to be released in Australia last December and then in mid March.  Both times the release date was changed.  As a result, I’ve seen the trailer far too many times and can now rest a little easier knowing I don’t have to see it again.  I probably won’t see the actual film again either.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 18 April 2004

            “How happy is the blameless vestal’s lot!

            The world forgetting, by the world forgot.

            Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind!

            Each pray’r accepted, and each wish resign’d.”

               - Alexander Pope (1688 – 1744)

Walking alone the coastline on a chilly February morning, Joel Barish’s (Carrey) eyes are drawn by an orange shape in the distance.  Moving closer, he passes a cute young girl (Winslet) with blue hair wearing a bright tangerine jacket.  They meet again on the train ride home and she boldly introduces herself as Clementine.  That very night, the two share an intimate evening picnic on an ice covered lake before returning home at dawn in each other’s arms.  When you first fall in love, everything is perfect until the day…

…you want to forget you ever met.  Their relationship has soured and the last time they spoke, Clementine stormed out following an accusation of infidelity.  Several days have passed, and Joel goes looking for Clementine with a fleeting thought of reconciliation.  He finds her but Clementine has no memory of Joel.  She underwent an experimental medical technique for the “focused erasure of troubled memories” and now has no recollection whatsoever of their time together.

In an emotive haze of rashness, Joel decides to square the ledger by undergoing the same procedure.  He meets with Dr. Howard Mierzwiak (Wilkinson) and is introduced to his team – Stan (Ruffalo), Patrick (Wood) and Mary (Dunst).  Under a strong anaesthetic, the operation begins encouragingly with the later memories of the relationship wiped away.  But as the brighter, earlier memories come back, Jim realises he doesn’t want to forget Clementine.  In an unconscious state, his only chance is to let his mind fight back against a machine determined to erase it.

Would writer Charlie Kaufman please stand up and take a bow.  He’s the best writer in the business today!  In 1999, he wrote the insanely original Being John Malkovich which told the story of a quirky officer worker who found a portal behind a filing cabinet which took you inside the mind of John Malkovich.  It was my favourite film of that year.  Two years ago, he crafted the Academy Award winning Adaptation which blurred truth and fiction like never as he himself (played by Nicolas Cage) struggled to adapt a boring novel about orchards.  My simple descriptions of these films doesn’t even scratch the surface.  There’s no way to sum up Kaufman’s deeply intricate screenplays in a single sentence.  Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind is no exception.

Perfectly complimenting Kaufman’s script is the direction of Michael Gondry.  Gondry is as original as a director as Kaufman is a writer.  It was Gondry who invented the film technique allowing several cameras to take pictures at the same time around somebody (as used in The Matrix).  He began his career making music videos and television commercials but his work here will see him feature a lot more on the big screen.  Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind is one optical illusion after the other as Gondry uses seamless special effects to lure the audience into an unthinkable world.  I also liked his timing of the opening credits.  Not to be overlooked are the spot-on performances of Kate Winslet and an unusually serious Jim Carrey.

What an amazing film.  Once you’ve seen it, there’s no way you’ll forget it.  Unless of course you pay a visit to Dr. Howard Mierzwiak…

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 26 April 2004

Looking back upon my initial review for Kill Bill: Volume One, I see it as the better of the two films.  Sure the martial arts scenes were competitive but at least there was some action.  There are few fight scenes in Kill Bill: Volume Two and even they are an anticlimax.  Especially that grand finale when Uma gets to “kill Bill”.  During the close credits, there are a few glimpses back at what the first film had to offer.  They serve as a reminder to the audience of what film one offered and what film two didn’t.

What I praised about the initial flick was director Quentin Tarantino’s style.  But the flair which dazzled me then doesn’t seem as impressive now.  Perhaps because I’ve seen it once before.  I fear retribution for making these statements because clearing the film has a following.  On the Internet Movie Database, the public has already ranked it within the top 250 of all time.  I am very much a Tarantino fan and thought I would feel the same way but alas, I do not.

The film picks up where the last one left off.  There’s a lengthy introduction first though to show us why and how Beatrix Kiddo (Thurman) was slain in the wedding chapel by Bill (Carradine) and the rest of the Deadly Viper Assassination Squad.  The next stop for Beatrix is Budd (Madsen) follwed by Elle (Hannah) and then Bill.  Tarantino likes casting “washed up” actors in his films with Carradine, Hannah and Madsen clearly fit into that category.  They do give good performances and I loved the slow talking style of Carradine and friend Esteban Vihaio (played by Esteban Vihaio).

I believe the conclusion to be limp.  Is there something Tarantino is trying to say?  I was looking for a big bang of a finish but instead found little more than a long winded conversation.  Not sure why.  As I’ve said, others love the film so maybe they can tell me where I have gone wrong with my thinking.  But as it currently stands, I can’t find a strong enough reason to recommend Kill Bill: Volume Two.