Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 24 February 2008

Two guys find out they only have a few months to live.  They’d never met before but became friends after sharing the same room at the hospital.  Between them, they put together a “bucket list” – a list of things they want to do before they kick the bucket.  With a new lease on life, they begin their quest to tick as many things off the list as possible.

That pretty much sums up The Bucket List.  It may sound like a sad film but The Bucket List is better described as a feel good movie.  Once these guys come to the realisation that there isn’t long left in their lives, they use their time wisely.  Each passing day seems to have more and more value.  They do some fun, crazy things together.  There’s plenty of food for thought and I’m sure it’ll have many thinking about what they’d do in the same situation.

Given that the film will reduce most audience members to tears, I feel a little guilty in heavily criticising it.  I liked the film’s spirit but I hated the farcical storyline.  At times, it felt like I was watching a cheesy American sitcom where all the characters are phony and the situations they find themselves in are ludicrous.

To provide a little more background information, Carter (Freeman) is a mechanic who has worked hard for 45 years.  For as long as he has been married, he’s put his wife and kids first.  There are a lot of things he’d like to have done but never really got around to it.  Edward (Nicholson) is a multi-millionaire who has a lot of investments.  He has the reputation for being a hard-nosed businessman and doesn’t seem to have many true friends.  He never married and lives alone.  As you can tell, these guys are an odd couple.  They’d never have been friends outside of these circumstances.

Cater and Edward go on a trip around the world and see places like the Great Pyramids in Egypt and the Great Wall of China.  They fly in Edward’s private plane and are accompanied by an assistant (Hayes) who organises everything for them.  I guess if you’re going to go out in style, it helps to have plenty of money.  This is another reason why I think this story is too hard to believe.  Couldn’t these characters have been a little more realistic?  Maybe I’m being too picky.

Seeing The Bucket List again is not something I’ll be putting on my own bucket list.  Life’s just too short.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 11 February 2008

I like the idea behind this film.  David Rice (Christensen) is a “Jumper”.  From a young age, he’s realised that he can teleport to anywhere on the planet.  He just thinks about where he wants to go and he’s there in an instant.  Pretty cool, huh?  It certainly saves on travel costs.

He may have a tremendous gift but he seems to have very few friends.  He lives alone and doesn’t let anyone know of his power.  I guess he doesn’t want to attract any attention to himself – it’d kind of be hard to explain.

What’s interesting about David is that he’s not what I expected.  He doesn’t use his ability to save people and improve the world.  There’s a scene where he’s watching a natural disaster unfold on his television.  I was waiting for him to teleport to the scene and rescue a bunch of people.  Instead, he just sits on the couch.

If you’re catching my drift, you’ll see that David is rather selfish.  He’s always got plenty of money and isn’t afraid to flash it around.  You see, it’s pretty easy to rob a bank when you can teleport directly into the locked safe.

David’s easy-going life is about to come to an abrupt halt.  The Paladins are a secret organisation who have made it their mission to identify and kill Jumpers.  They believe that Jumpers are freaks of nature and will eventually destroy the world.  A leading Paladin named Roland (Jackson) has identified David Rice as a Jumper and is closing in on his target.

Drawn into the battle are David’s father (Rooker) and girlfriend (Bilson).  Jumpers are very difficult to catch (as you’d expect) and Roland plans to use them as bait.  As events unfold, David realises he isn’t the only Jumper on the planet.  He will team up with a Jumper named Griffin (Bell) in the fight against the Paladins.

It’s a shame this film is only 88 minutes long.  There are a lot of subplots and I think some of them are underdeveloped.  I’d like to have known a lot more about the history of the Jumpers and the Paladins.  How many of them are there?  How have they gone undetected from the general public for so long?  I also wanted to know more about David’s mother (played by Diane Lane) and his upbringing.  I’d easily pay to see a sequel.

I have a lot of respect for director Doug Liman as a director.  His films usually involve a young cast and are fun to watch.  Liman’s credits include Go, The Bourne Identity and Mr. & Mrs. Smith.  Jumper is an easy film to watch and an easy film to follow.  I particularly liked the special effects in relation to the “jumping”.  The camera shudders and there’s a whooshing-type noise.  By the end of the film, it was happening that often that I almost believed it was real.

Whilst it’s well made and stylish, Jumper isn’t without its flaws.  I do not rate Hayden Christensen (Shattered Glass) as an actor.  He speaks too slowly and every word out of his mouth feels rehearsed.  In contrast, co-stars Samuel L. Jackson (Snakes On A Plane) and Jamie Bell (Billy Elliot) are terrific.  I liked Jackson’s intensity and Bell’s spontaneity.

There are a few plot holes.  I don’t know why the general public don’t freak out when people start disappearing in front of their very eyes.  I don’t know how David can sit and have lunch on top of the Sphinx in Egypt and not get noticed.  A tighter script would have won Jumper a few more positive comments but as it is, it’s still worth recommending.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 20 February 2008

One of my top 10 movies of 2006 was The Squid And The Whale.  It starred Laura Linney and Jeff Daniels and was the story of one very messed up family.  It was black comedy at its finest – extremely funny but uncomfortable to watch at the same time.  Writer-director Noah Baumbach deservedly received an Academy Award nomination for his original screenplay.

Margot At The Wedding is his follow up and the subject matter is very similar.  Pauline (Leigh) and Margot (Kidman) are sisters who haven’t spoken for a number of years.  Pauline has extended the olive branch to Margot and asked her to come to her wedding.  She is to marry Malcolm (Black), an unemployed artist who specialises in writing letters to the editor.

Every character in this film has deep, psychological issues.  When I looked at them on screen, I chuckled and thought to myself “these people are nuts”.  At the same time though, I realised that I knew people with similar personality traits.  These people will keep you on your toes whether you like them or not.  Noah Baumbach has developed a knack for creating flawed, yet interesting, characters.

Pauline and Malcolm may be about to get married but you wouldn’t think it when you see them interact with each other.  It’s a strange relationship at best.  It left me wondering how they met in the first place.  Margot has an equally perplexing relationship with her teenage son (Paris) who looks more like a girl than a boy.  They are very open with each other to a point where it’s kind of creepy.

I really enjoyed the start of the film but Margot At The Wedding couldn’t maintain its opening pace.  Once the character introductions were out of the way, nothing much seemed to happen.  I was expecting some major confrontations between certain characters but they never eventuated.  It all kind of fizzled out with a weak ending.  Maybe there was some hidden message that I missed.

The performances are decent and it’s good to see Nicole Kidman is a “meatier” role.  Her careeer has stalled following her Academy Award win for The Hours in 2003.  Her selection of films (The Invasion, Bewitched, The Stepford Wives) has left many scratching their heads.  Margot At The Wedding gives Kidman a chance to play a character (albeit an unlikeable one) with depth.

There are a few good jokes and a few eye-opening surprises but there’s just not enough material to make this movie last the distance.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 07 February 2008

Dan Burns (Carell) gives advice to people in a newspaper column.  They write in with their problems and Dan does his best to give them a solution.  The column is called “Dan In Real Life”.  Dan’s hoping it’ll be picked up for syndication and published in more high profile newspapers.

Dan may be great at fixing other people’s problems but he’ll terrible at solving his own.  Four years ago, his wife passed away and life has been a battle ever since.  He has been left to raise his three daughters on his own and that’s not easy.  Two of them are in their teenage years and they don’t like to listen to their “know-it-all” dad.  It’s creating a lot of tension in the household.

Each year, Dan’s parents (Wiest and Mahoney) host a week long get-together for their extended family. Everyone gets to catch up and they play a bunch of fun games.  It’s kind of like a longer version of Christmas.  I don’t really understand why they do it but it has become a family tradition.

It is here where the majority of the film is set.  Over the next week, Dan’s already problematic life will be turned upside down.  He will face a barrage of questions from his inquisitive brothers and sisters.  How is he coping?  How are things with the kids?  How’s his column going?  How’s his love life?  Dan’s finding the “holiday” rather claustrophobic.

After escaping the house one morning, Dan ends up in a bookstore and becomes involved in a humorous conversation with a woman named Marie (Binoche).  She thinks Dan works at the store and asks that he recommend a good book.  They share a few laughs, go for coffee and then exchange phone numbers.  Have things finally turned around for Dan?  Has he found love for a second time?  It won’t be as easy as you think…   

I never really liked this film and for the first hour, I couldn’t figure out why.  Then a realisation swept over me – it’s because I don’t like Steve Carell (The 40-Year-Old Virgin, Evan Almighty).  Carell may be one of the most popular comedians working today but I find him very one-dimensional.  I feel like I’m watching the same character every time I see him.  In Dan In Real Life, I was frustrated by his neurotic behaviour and had trouble believing his “love at first sight” experience with Marie.

There are glimpses of promise in this film.  I liked the moral dilemmas that certain characters had to face up to.  Should they do what is best for them or should they do what is best for others?  They often surprised me with their answers.  These interesting moments are ruined with an array of silly jokes (e.g. the shower scene with Dan and Marie) and hard-to-believe plot developments (e.g. the fate of Mitch’s character).

Dan In Real Life is a film which is trying to be different but unfortunately, it tries too hard.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 15 February 2008

The Diving Bell & The Butterfly is both beautiful and tragic.  It sounds like a contradiction but I don’t know how else to describe it.  Writer Ron Harwood (The Pianist) and director Julian Schnabel (Before Night Falls) have taken an incredibly depressing story and have used it to inspire us – to make us appreciate the value of life.

On December 8, 1995, 43-year-old French journalist Jean-Dominique Bauby (Almalric) suffered a stroke and fell into a coma.  When he awoke several weeks later, he found himself lying in a hospital bed and paralysed from head to toe.  The doctor described his condition as being called “locked-in syndrome”.  Despite being conscious, Jean-Dominique could not move or speak.  He was effectively trapped in his own body.

Ask yourself the question – could you live like this or would you rather die?  I think I know what most people will say.  When Jean-Dominique’s family and friends come to visit, he just has to sit there and watch them talk.  He cannot tell them what he feels.  He cannot reach out to touch them.  He cannot even smile at them.

What if I were to tell you that this film is based on Jean-Dominique’s own words?  Would you believe me?  How could it be possible?  With the help of a speech-therapist named Henriette (Croze), Jean-Dominique developed a system of communication using the only part of his body which he had control over – his left eye.  Henriette would read out letters of the alphabet and Jean-Dominique would blink when she said the letter he wanted.  Ever so slowly, he could spell out words, sentences, paragraphs.  He could finally tell people what was going through his mind.

In 1997, his reflections on life were published in a novel called The Diving Bell & The Butterfly.  According to the internet, the book was 144 pages long.  Just think about that for a moment.  Every word in that book was written by a translator based on the blinks of a paralysed man.  I am in awe of Jean-Dominique Bauby.

The story is amazing but the way in which it has brought to the screen is equally brilliant.  For the first half of the film, we see everything through Jean-Dominique’s eyes.  All we do is look straight ahead and listen to whoever is standing there.  It’s frustrating to watch but this is exactly how Jean-Dominique would have felt.

In the second half of the film, we take a step back.  With Jean-Dominique able to communicate, the film takes on more colour and more emotion.  We reflect back on some of his most treasured memories.  There are some particularly touching scenes involving Jean-Dominique and his elderly father (played brilliantly by Max von Sydow).

The Diving Bell & The Butterfly has been nominated for four Academy Awards including best director and best adapted screenplay.  I never cry in movies but my eyes were moist by the end of this one.  It’s a film to remember.