Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 09 July 2008

Salute is an Australian documentary about a guy called Peter Norman.  Do you know who he is?  I didn’t have a clue before I saw this movie.  My friends hadn’t heard of him either.

Peter Norman was arguably Australia’s greatest ever sprinter.  He won the 200m title at the Australian Championship for five consecutive years between 1966 and 1970. The most impressive statistic for me that Norman still holds the Australian record of 20.06 seconds for 200m.  It has stood for almost 40 years.

Norman set the record in the 200m final at the 1968 Olympics in Mexico City.  It won him the silver medal.  Two African American athletes filled the other placings  – Tommie Smith won the gold and John Carlos won the bronze.

It’s not the race that is most remembered from this day but rather the victory ceremony which followed.  As Smith and Carlos stood on the victory podium, they bowed their heads and raised a clenched fist into the air.  Each was wearing a black glove.  Norman stood with his head raised but wore a white badge on his green and gold jacket which said “Olympic Project for Human Rights”. 

Smith, Carlos and Norman were making their voices heard.  They wanted to highlight the racial oppression that was taking place across the globe.  Norman said after the race that “every man is born equal and should be treated that way.”

Their actions caused a massive uproar.  All three athletes were harassed by officials and by the media for using the Olympics to promote their “political” message.  Smith and Carlos were expelled from the Games and Norman received a reprimand from Australia’s Olympic administration.  Their persecution did not end there.  The rest of their lives would be forever shaped by the events of October 16, 1968.

I have three reasons to recommend this film.  Firstly, it is interesting.  As someone who hasn’t heard this story before, I was fascinated.  It’s the kind of documentary that made me want to do more research on leaving the theatre.  I needed to find out more about the people involved.

Secondly, it is thought provoking.  Did their actions make a difference?  Has the world changed in terms of racial discrimination over the past 40 years?  Do the Olympics really promote equality and friendship?  The biggest question for me was why hadn’t I heard of Peter Norman before despite all of his achievements?  It’s puzzling that he wasn’t included as part of the major festivities at the 2000 Sydney Olympics.

Finally, the film is relevant.  In the past few months, we’ve seen people protesting against the upcoming Olympics in Beijing because of China’s occupation of Tibet.  Some people agree with the protests and others do not.  In a way, it’s similar situation to that which we saw in 1968.  Will we see further Tibetan protests when the Games kick off in August?  What action will the International Olympic Committee take?  How will we see these events in 40 years time?

Salute has been put together by Matthew Norman, the nephew of Peter.  It includes a mix of archival footage and current day interviews.  You’ll hear the thoughts of Peter Norman, Tommie Smith and John Carlos in their own words.  I love a good documentary and this film will show you why.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 03 July 2008

There have been some recent articles on the internet about the “bankability” of actor Will Smith.  Since 2002, he has appeared in 8 movies.  Every one of those films made more than $135m in the United States.  Trust me, that’s an impressive credit to put on one’s resume.  It tells the big Hollywood studios that if you want a movie to be a financial success, you should give Will Smith a call.

I’m sure Hancock will make plenty of money.  How could it not?  That said, I’m glad I didn’t contribute to the box-office total by having to pay for my ticket.  This film is horrendous.  It’s the worst thing that Will Smith has done since the forgettable Wild Wild West in 1999.

When you look at the overall premise, you’ll see that the movie had potential.  Will Smith plays John Hancock, a resident of Los Angeles who has super powers.  He can fly, he has incredible strength and he cannot be killed.  He uses his abilities to help capture bad guys and rescue citizens from perilous situations.

The problem is that Hancock isn’t exactly a “textbook” superhero.  He often has a bottle of alcohol in his hands and he dresses like a hobo.  He’s also an expert at damaging property.  We see him end a police chase at the start of the film but in doing so, Hancock causes $9m worth of damage to roads and buildings.  It has many people wondering if Hancock is a benefit or detriment to the community.

Fate introduces Hancock to Ray Embrey (Bateman), a public relations consultant who thinks he can improve Hancock’s image.  Ray’s strategy for is for Hancock to serve time in jail for his wrongdoings.  Once a few weeks have passed, the public will miss not having him around to “save the day” and will want to see him released.  The new and improved Hancock will then return to a hero’s welcome and all the past will be forgotten.  However, it doesn’t quite work out that way…

It may sound interesting on paper but this movie keeps finding ways to disappoint.  I don’t know what my biggest criticism is so I’ll just list them in a random order.  To start with, it’s very predictable.  You always know what’s going to happen next and despite the nature of the material, it’s surprising to see how unadventurous the screenplay is.

Whilst we’re talking about the script, it takes itself too seriously.  There are some mildly amusing jokes in the first half-hour but after that, they dry up quickly.  Why weren’t there more funny one-liners?  What was with all the melodrama at the end?  The wrong approach was taken to the subject material.  To quickly comment on the ending – it’s dumb.  No further remarks are necessary.

None of the performances are impressive.  Will Smith is his usual self.  Charlize Theron has a very limited role and it made me wonder why this Academy Award winning actress would take on such a part.

Most of the big blockbuster releases in 2008 have been decent but if there’s one film you should avoid like the plague, it’s Hancock.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 05 July 2008

Three months ago, a baseball-sized orb came down through the atmosphere and landed in the bedroom of a young boy named Josh (Myers).  He told his mum (Banks) that it came from outer space but she didn’t believe him of course.

Now, the rightful owners of the orb have come to get it back.  Their alien spaceship lands near the Statue of Liberty but its arrival is very inconspicuous.  Why?  Because the spaceship is in the shape of a human being.  It can walk and talk as a regular person would.  Tiny aliens can be found living inside of this robot-like ship.  For some unexplained reason, the aliens speak English and look like a miniature version of normal humans.  Their leader is simply known as Captain (Murphy).

The aliens have come to Earth to steal the water from our oceans.  They need the salt to help replenish the dwindling resources of their own planet.  The orb has the power to suck up all our water and transport it back to their alien world.

In his quest to complete the mission, the Captain realises that Earthlings aren’t the inferior species that he thought them to be.  He realises that they have powerful feelings and some fun forms of entertainment.  Can he go through with the mission and risk destroying the planet?

When I saw Meet Dave, I was expecting a film will a little more intelligence.  I assumed it was a silly adult comedy.  Now that I’ve seen it, I can best describe it as a kids flick.  The storyline is basic and there aren’t too many parts to the film which require deep thought. 

Eddie Murphy is one of my least favourite actors but I’ll be honest and say that he’s not too bad in this movie.  He’s the right choice for the role and he comes across well.  Unfortunately, he’s let down by a script which is full of plot holes and unanswered questions.  It’s ridiculous.  The ending is the worst part – a rushed mess that still befuddles me.  It’s as if the writers just went home and gave up.  That’s what I’m going to do too.  End of review.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 30 June 2008

You may be familiar with the names Anthony Hayes and Brendan Cowell.  Hayes is a 30-year-old actor from Brisbane who has been in the business for over 20 years.  He won the Australian Film Institute (AFI) Award for best supporting actor in both 2005 and 2006 for his performances in Look Both Ways and Suburban Mayhem.  Cowell is a 31-year-old from Cronulla who was nominated for three Silver Logies for his work in the television series Love My Way.  He was also nominated for an AFI Award last year for his great performance in the film Noise.

These two guys met in 1999 and became great friends.  Unhappy with the lack of good scripts being offered up in the Australian marketplace, they decided to start their own production company.  In 2002, the made a short film entitled New Skin which won an award at the Sydney Film Festival.  Ten Empty is their first full-length feature film.  Together, Cowell and Hayes wrote the script and helped secure $1.4m in funding from a variety of sources.

You might enjoy the film but you’re unlikely to walk out with a smile on your face.  It’s depressing.  It’s about a family going through some dark times.  Elliot Christie (Frederiksen) is a 29-year-old who has been living in Sydney for a number of years and has made a half-decent life for himself.  He has returned to his home in Adelaide for a few days for the christening of his newly born half-brother.

It’s a trip that he is making reluctantly.  There are issues that Elliot does not want to have to deal with.  Following the death of his mother many years ago, Elliot’s father (Morrell) started a relationship with his mother’s sister (Bell).  They are now married and this has created unease between Elliot and his father.  Furthermore, Elliot’s younger brother, Brett (Budge), has become a recluse.  He locks himself in his room and doesn’t speak to anyone.

Elliot’s return home brings these problems into the open.  There will be many conflicts and a great deal of soul-searching.  Can this broken family find a way to heal old wounds and move forward?

I think the emotions of the film are a little over-done but for the most part, I liked Ten Empty.  I felt there was a “realness” to the characters and the relationships they have with each other.  There’s also a distinctive Australian flavour to the movie which makes it feel even closer to home.  It will resonate with some audience members more than others.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 05 July 2008

For her entire life, Sophie (Seyfried) has been raised by her mother, Donna (Streep), on a picturesque Greek island.  Donna has run a small resort on the island for close to 20 years and Sophie has always been there to help out.  The time has come though for Sophie to leave the nest.  She has met the man of her dreams (Cooper) and they are to be married.  A beautiful wedding has been planned.

Sophie has felt however that a part of her life has been missing.  She has never met her father and doesn’t even know who he is.  Her mother has kept the story a close secret.  Sophie would have loved for her dad to be able to walk her down the aisle at the wedding ceremony.

Sophie wants the truth and has come up with a plan.  After finding one of her mother’s old diaries, she learns that Donna was sleeping with three different men around the time that she conceived.  Without her mother’s knowledge, Sophie has tracked down these guys and sent them wedding invitations.  They are Sam Carmichael (Brosnan), Harry Bright (Firth) and Bill Austin (Skasgard).  Believe it or not, they have all accepted the invitation!  Sophie’s hoping that when they show up, she’ll be able to find out who her father is.

Ah, but it won’t be that easy.  The arrival of these three gentlemen sends the wedding preparations into complete chaos.  No one seems to know what is going on.  Old secrets will be revealed and new secrets will be created.  It’s a well-written story and I’m not going to reveal the twists for those yet to see it.

This film is based on the musical of the same name.  Mamma Mia! debuted on London’s West End in 1999 and became a smash-hit.  It has been performed in many countries including here in Australia.  Between 2001 and 2005, it was seen in Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide.  I’ve never seen the live musical myself but I’ve been told by many people that it was fantastic.

Now I see why.  This cinematic adaptation is a blast.  I thought it started out a little slowly but I quickly warmed to the silly story, the terrific performances and the memorable ABBA songs.  I’ve never really been an ABBA fan but now I have a few of their songs firmly implanted in my brain.  I just can’t get them out of my head!

The director of the film is Phyllida Lloyd and the writer is Catherine Johnson.  These two women were responsible for the creation of the original musical in the late 1990s.  It’s great to see that they were given the opportunity to make the movie version.  Lloyd described it as “the most challenging project of my career”.  For those familiar with the musical, there are a few changes.  Small alterations have been made to the order of songs, the dialogue and the locations.  I think the film is a little disjointed at times (jumping from character to character) but for the most part, Lloyd and Johnson have done a superb job.  The set and costume designers also deserve praise.

Most of the cast are fantastic.  Meryl Streep had been a long-time fan of the musical and had always wanted to play Donna if it was turned into a movie.  Streep got her wish and she’s wonderful.  Also a standout was Christine Baranski (Chicago) who plays Tanya, one of Donna’s best friends.  The scene where she sings “Does Your Mother Know” on the beach is one of the film’s high points.

Do I like this film?  I do, I do, I do, I do, I do.