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.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 30 May 2004

There’s a great discussion in Super Size Me which compares society’s opinions of cigarette smoking and obesity.  These days, we look down upon smokers with distaste.  There are continually ads on television warning people of the risks, we have banned smoking in almost every public place, and lobby groups have successfully sued tobacco companies for incredibly large amounts.

Conversely, we care little about obesity.  Our consumption of fast food has sky rocketed in recent years and the advertising is targeted towards getting children hooked at a young age.  Research currently shows that 37% of America’s children and 67% of America’s adults are overweight.  Similar trends are developing across the globe.

If you look at these two issues objectively, you’ll see there isn’t much of a difference.  Obesity is now the 2^nd most leading cause of preventable death in America and statistics show that it will pass smoking in the near future.  I can criticise someone for smoking but if I criticise someone for being fat, then I’m considered a politically incorrect asshole.  Strange, isn’t it?

The point of Super Size Me is to further raise publicity awareness about obesity and look at how giant corporations (specifically McDonalds) are doing everything they can to make sure you keep eating their foods.  Director Morgan Spurlock thought of the idea when two girls unsuccessfully tried to sue McDonalds as the cause of their obesity.  To prove the effects that fast food can have on the human body, he decided to eat nothing but McDonalds food for a whole month!  If it wasn’t on the menu, he couldn’t touch it.  And, if they offered to “super size” his meal, he had to say “yes”.

This documentary features a mixture of footage.  Part is video footage of Spurlock’s experiment and the analysis of specialists who monitor his body stats throughout the month.  The other part of the film features interviews from a variety of others (including people of the street) weighing into the debate over the effects of fast food.  Super Size Me has been compared to Michael Moore’s Bowling For Columbine but I do not believe it to be in the same league.  It is good film but it doesn’t have the style Columbine.  Further, Super Size Me repeats a lot of information I already knew whereas Columbine looked at problems swept deeper under the carpet.

Still, it’s amazing viewing and more interesting the standard Hollywood comedy.  At my packed out screening, there were many gasps and shocked reactions from the audience.  This can only be a good thing.  Some will criticise the film for being too one sided but unfortunately that’s the way it has to be.  McDonalds and other fast food corporations have had their say on many occasions.  This is just a right of reply.

As a footnote, I bumped into both Morgan Spurlock and his girlfriend (who appears in the film) today at the AFL game between Brisbane and Melbourne.  It was nice to see him take the time to talk to us and he’s told me that he’s a big fan of the AFL having watched in on ESPN back in the States.  Spurlock is making a few appearances at screenings around the country to help promote his film.

If you need further convincing, I’ll close with some more facts that show how big this problem has become and how far we have to go before it can be solved…

·       Each day, 1 in 4 Americans visits a fast food restaurant.

·       French fries are the most eaten vegetable in America.

·       You would have to walk for seven hours straight to burn off a Super Sized Coke, fry and Big Mac.

·       One in every three children born in the year 2000 will develop diabetes in their lifetime.  Diabetes will cut 17-27 years off your life.

·       Only seven items on McDonald's entire menu contain no sugar.

·       McDonald's distributes more toys per year than Toys-R-Us.

·       Before most children can speak they can recognize McDonald's.

·       Most nutritionists recommend not eating fast food more than once a month.

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: 28 May 2004

The Day After Tomorrow is a film I had hoped to enjoy but sadly it is riddled with too many faults and inconsistencies.   The concept revolves around global warming.  The polar icecaps have melted, the earth’s magnetic field has been disrupted and now the world’s weather has gone haywire.  There are twisters, tornados, hail storms, tidal waves, howling winds and freezing temperatures.  The film has been promoted for many months now and so I’m sure you’ve seen the advertisements to picture the above destruction.

Unfortunately, there’s not a lot of story to go against this backdrop.  Watching that tidal wave sweep through New York City was fun but special effects alone do not make a movie.  There’s a few characters that the screenwriters try to develop but they don’t succeed.  It feels as if the film has been shortened and much of the character development has been left on the cutting room floor.  If you want proof, look at how lamentably short and unemotional the finale is.

This lack of emotion may be the film’s biggest undoing.  Thousands of people are killed but you wouldn’t know it.  The film veers away from the disturbing elements of the story to focus on the more uplifting tales.  The central story is that of a father (Quaid) going in search of his lost son (Gyllenhaal) in New York City.  There’s also a nurse (Ward) caring for a sick child, an aging meteorologist (Holm) seeing his predictions come to fruition, an adventurer (Sanders) sticking by his partner of 20 years, and a girl (Rossum) finding love in an unpredictable place.  Unfortunately, the conclusions to these secondary subplots are rushed.  I’m not even what sure what became of Ian Holm.  Will we see more on a director’s cut?

The other problem with the screenplay is its general phoniness.  In one scene, we see a twister set itself perfectly on the landmark Hollywood sign as a helicopter just happens to fly past and film it for a live television audience.  That’s just the tip of the melted iceberg (so to speak).  The overdramatic dialogue which engulfs the film’s two hours is just too fake.  Was there a single line which was improvised?

When you look at director Roland Emmerich’s resume, you’ll see that this isn’t the first time he’s produced a superficial blockbuster.  Anyone remember Godzilla and Mel Gibson’s The Patriot?  Emmerich is given a world of talent to work with but it he can’t deliver.  Wasted are the talents of the underappreciated Dennis Quaid (Frequency) and rising star Jake Gyllenhaal (Donnie Darko).

I guess what it boils down to is the question – will I remember this film the day after tomorrow?  The correct answer is no.

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.