Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 01 February 2008

Five women and one guy haven’t gotten together and formed a book club.  They’re not too keen on the idea of reading a whole bunch of new novels so they’re focusing on what they’ve already familiar with – the works of Jane Austen.  They agree to meet up once a month and have an in-depth discussion on the plot and characters from a nominated book.

These six people are strange, to say the least.  The most annoying would have be a young teacher named Prudie.  She doesn’t know anyone else in the club and at their first meeting, she manages to irritate everyone with her pretentiousness.  Maybe this was the intention of the writer (this film is based on a book) or maybe they’ve just heightened her personality.  Either way, she drove me insane.  I don’t understand why the others in the club didn’t kick her out.

If you’re a Jane Austen devotee, you’re likely to enjoy this film a lot more.  You’ll appreciate the conversations the members of the book club share and will understand when they talk about the characters in each Austen novel.  I haven’t read any of the books (and can’t remember too much about the movies) so I found their book club meetings rather dull.  I was much more interested in what was happening to them outside of these meetings.

Prudie (Blunt) is an emotional wreck and is considering having an affair with a student from her school.  Sylvia (Brenneman) and her husband have recently divorced after a 20 year marriage and Jocelyn (Bello) is trying to set her up with Grigg (Dancy), the sole male member of the book club.  Allegra (Grace) is Sylvia’s daughter and is trying find meaning in her own current relationship.  Bernadette (Baker) has been married six times and is on the hunt for husband number 7.  Yep, there’s a lot happening.

As I’ve alluded to earlier, I found much of the story hard to believe.  Every event seems over-exaggerated and every emotion seems over-played.  For example, there’s a very brief scene where Prudie has a visit from her eccentric mother (a cameo from Vanessa Redgrave).  The scene is included so that we can have sympathy for Prudie and understand why behaves the way she does.   Why though is the mother character so nutty?  I found it laughable.

My gripes should count for very little when it comes to The Jane Austen Book Club.  I’m pretty confident that writer-director Robin Swicord wasn’t aiming her film at a 30-year-old guy who has never read a Jane Austen novel.  Let’s label it a “chick flick” and leave it at that.  I know plenty of people who will enjoy it… just not me.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 13 January 2008

When we’re introduced to Charlie Wilson (Hanks) at the start of the film, we see him as a womanising U.S. senator from Texas who doesn’t really do much.  It’s the early 1980s and someone says it best when they describe Charlie’s greatest achievement as “being re-elected five times”.

Charlie Wilson is approached by Joanne Herring (Roberts), an extremely wealthy woman with an interest in human rights.  She pleads with Charlie to do something about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.  Over 130,000 Soviet soldiers have taken control of the country and the Afghans have no weapons with which to fight back.  Thousands of citizens have fled into neighbouring Pakistan.

Joanne realises that Charlie is a member of a number of parliamentary committees and can use his influence to get something done.  Charlie realises that Joanne has both money and influence – two elements that will be very useful in getting himself re-elected once again.  He agrees to go to Pakistan, meet with the Prime Minister and see the problem for himself.

It is an eye opening experience for Charlie.  He returns to the United States and is determined to get something he done.  He meets with the FBI agent responsible for the war in Afghanistan, Gust Avrakotos (Hoffman).  With the help of a few others, they develop a strategy of secretly providing weapons to the Afghans without the Soviets knowing.  All that remains is to find a way of getting government funding for their plan…

This may sound hard to believe but Charlie Wilson’s War is (a) based on a true story, and (b) a comedy.  It is based on the novel by George Crile, a long time producer on the television show 60 Minutes.  This could easily have been a deep political drama but writer Aaron Sorkin (A Few Good Men, The American President) and director Mike Nichols (The Graduate, Catch-22) have turned in into a light-hearted farce, filled with intelligent one-liners.  I like their approach and the casting of Academy Award winners Tom Hanks, Julia Roberts and Philip Seymour Hoffman will further help lure an audience.

I admit to being a little “iffy” about some of the political messages that the film is trying to get across.  Be warned – the finale may not sit well with everyone.  I have an issue with how the Americans and Soviets are portrayed.  I don’t think it was a simple as the film made out and was offended by a particular scene involving Soviet pilots in the air.  Did Sorkin and Nichols include this scene for a reason?  Are they deliberately trying to be controversial to get people to talk about it?  I don’t know.

Still, I enjoyed the story being told in Charlie Wilson’s War and it’s refreshing to see an intelligent comedy which looks how wars are funded and the way the U.S. political system really works.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 27 January 2008

Sweeney Todd has received a lot of good reviews and its fair share of rewards to date.  Its highest honour was winning the best comedy or musical film category at the recent Golden Globe Awards.  Maybe I’ve fallen victim to over-hype because yes, I did like the film but no, I didn’t love the film.

Many years ago, Benjamin Barker (Depp) lived a wonderful life.  He was married to a beautiful woman and together, they had a lovely young daughter.  He also had a reputation as being the finest barber in London.  His success would be short-lived.  The powerful Judge Turpin (Rickman) wanted Barker’s wife as his own.  Turpin framed Barker for a crime he didn’t commit and gave him a lengthy sentence behind bars.

Now, 15 years later, Benjamin Barker has been released from prison.  He is a changed man, both by name and by nature.  Going by the name Sweeney Todd, he seeks news of what became of his wife and child.  He learns all he needs to know from Mrs. Lovett (Carter), the lady who now resides in his old home in Fleet Street.  His wife passed away and his daughter has been raised by Judge Turpin.  Turpin never lets her out of the house for fear that she will meet another man and fall in love.

Sweeney Todd is out for revenge.  He wants his daughter back and wants Turpin punished for his actions.  He rents the vacant loft above Mrs. Lovett’s pie shop and re-establishes his barber shop.  Having created some good publicity, Todd knows that the customers will come.  How could they resist the opportunity to receive “the closest shave in London”?  It’s only a matter of time before Judge Turpin himself takes up the offer.  Todd’s razor sharp blades are waiting…

The advertising for the film has been a little misleading in that some viewers don’t realise this is a musical.  It’s based on the Tony Award winning musical written by Stephen Sondheim which debuted on Broadway back in 1979.  It’s hard to imagine Johnny Depp actually singing in a movie but he does a great job.  His voice is rough and raspy but he hits the right notes.

Johnny Depp and director Tim Burton have worked on a lot of films together.  Few partnerships in Hollywood have been as successful.  Their creations include Charlie & The Chocolate Factory, Sleepy Hollow, Ed Wood and Edward Scissorhands.  Sweeney Todd is typical of them both in that it is unconventional.  Don’t think this is a light-hearted musical in the same realm as last year’s Hairspray.  This film is dark, creepy and violent.  I don’t think I’ve ever seen a musical with so much blood.

My negativity towards the film relates to the story as opposed to the quality acting and direction.  I haven’t seen a theatrical version of Sweeney Todd before but I always knew where the story was going.  I was hoping for a few more unexpected twists and turns.  The middle section of the film was too drawn out and the final act felt too rushed.  After waiting so long for a big finish, I could believe how quickly the film ended.

Depp has earned an Academy Award nomination for his role but the film was overlooked in most categories.  Its other nominations are for best costume design and best art direction.  Lovers of this film (and there are plenty of them) will be outraged that the film has received such little recognition from the Academy.  I’m not too fussed.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 13 January 2008

Ever since she was a young girl, Jane (Heigl) has loved weddings.  She keeps newspaper clippings of wedding photos and reports.  She has attended the ceremonies and receptions of her many friends.  Plus, as the title reveals, she has been a bridesmaid at 27 different weddings.  Jane has kept every one of her bridesmaid dresses and they are stuffed into a cupboard in her New York apartment.

Now the thing is, Jane has never been married herself.  How is it that someone as nice and good looking as Jane can’t find a boyfriend?  It’s a good question which has been bugging me for months (since I first saw the trailer).  It turns out that she spends so much time helping others that she doesn’t have time to focus on her own life.  Further, she does have a crush on someone but it’s her boss, George (Burns).  Jane has never had the guts to reveal her true feelings for fear of ruining her career.

Her busy lifestyle is turned on its head when her youngster sister, Tess (Akerman), comes to stay with her for a few weeks.  Tess is a model who is in between assignments.  Jane asks Tess to come along to a work function but it turns out to be a bad idea.  Tess and George are introduced and… end up spending the night together.

Within weeks, Tess and George are engaged to be married and Jane has been asked to help plan it.  Jane doesn’t know what to do.  She’s planning the wedding for a man she’s hopelessly in love with but unfortunately, she’s not the bride.  What’s she going to do?  To further complicate the situation, Jane is being pursued by a very determined writer named Kevin (Marsden).  All he wants is a chance but Jane is too busy to oblige.

I do have issues with the film’s premise.  When you break it down, it’s all a bit too far-fetched and nothing like this could ever happen in reality.  Well, maybe it could and I’m just a non-romantic.  Jane somehow goes to two weddings in one night by shuttling back and forth in a taxi.  Who would do this and how does she go undetected?  When George meets Tess, he “pops the question” seemingly within a week.  How could someone as sensible as George do something so hasty and not realise that Tess is such a ditz?

If you’re prepared to go along with the story (and I did my best to do so), then 27 Dresses is an entertaining romantic comedy.  The key is the performance of star Katherine Heigl (Knocked Up).  She shares some great scenes in particular with James Marsden (Enchanted) where they open up about their thoughts on marriage and weddings.  There’s something about her facial expressions and the way she delivers her lines that makes her both real and likeable.  That’s more than I can say for the female lead in pretty much every other romantic comedy I see.

It follows a familiar formula and satisfies the definition of a “chick flick” but 27 Dresses is still good fun.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 17 January 2008

I’ve been looking forward to this film for a long time.  When the teaser trailer was first released 6 months ago, I was intrigued.  It gave away very little of the story (which is unusual) and it didn’t even tell us what the film was called (which is unheard of).  A second trailer released a few months later revealed the title but not much else in terms of plot detail.

It’s a bold marketing strategy.  There’s a risk that viewers will be turned away because they have no idea what the film is about.  Alternatively, it might be a huge success because it stands out and will get people talking.

The person getting all the credit for Cloverfield is J.J. Abrams, the man who developed the Lost television show.  There’s a similarity in both productions in that they conceal information from the audience and take their time to provide answers to interesting questions.  I like Abrams’ style.

Now then, how do I describe this movie?  It’s Godzilla meets the Blair Witch Project.  As soon as it begins, you’ll realise this isn’t your ordinary action blockbuster.  We are told that the footage we are about to see came from a video camera which was discovered in Central Park in New York City.  The tape starts playing…

It begins at a party.  A young guy named Rob is going to live in Japan and his friends have put together a surprise farewell bash.  Heaps of people are there and they all seem to be having a good time.  One of Rob’s best friends, Hud, is capturing the party with a video camera so that Rob can take it with him to remember them all by.

Out of nowhere, the ground starts to shake and a loud roar is heard.  They head up onto the roof of the apartment block to see what’s going on.  No one can believe what they’re seeing - a giant monster is destroying New York City!  It is knocking down buildings and killing any human in its path.  As Rob and his party guests try to flee the city, Hud keeps the camera rolling.  His justification is that “people are gonna want to know how it all went down”.

As you might already have gathered, it is from this video camera that we see the entire movie.  It’s a terrific idea – it feels like we’re there and in the moment.  We get a true sense of the confusion and panic that has gripped New York City.  The camera is constantly shaking and whilst we don’t always see things clearly, we sense the tension from the noises in the background and the fear in people’s voices.  I was on the edge of my seat.

My appreciation for the film’s original style will not be shared by all.  I’m sure there’ll be plenty of viewers frustrated by the shocking camerawork and the lack of detail regarding the monster itself.  My response to that is that we’ve seen Godzilla-type movies done many times before.  Instead of rehashing an old formula, the filmmakers have tried to do something new.  Still, it’s up to you as to whether you want to see it.

I have a few qualms about some parts of the story such as how they were able to evacuate the city so easily and why there weren’t more dead bodies everywhere.  I’m also a little curious as to how Rob was able to keep his camera so steady (given his nerves) and how it was always switched on at the perfect time.

The good news is that these negatives don’t even come close to outweighing the positives.  The hype has been justified.  Cloverfield is cool.