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.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 05 February 2008

Six weeks ago, I reviewed No Country For Old Men.  In recognising it as my 2^nd favourite film of 2007, I made sure to throw in an important disclaimer – “you’ll either love it or hate it”.  Why?  Well, that’s because of the ending.  It didn’t provide the “closure” that some moviegoers expect.  As frustrating as this may sound, No Country’s finale was appreciated my many film lovers.  It received 8 Academy Award nominations.

There Will Be Blood is a similarly challenging movie.  Its strange ending has generated just as much discussion (if not more) than that in No Country.  If you go and see this film on my recommendation, there’s a likelihood that you will think I am insane.  All I know for sure is my own opinion - this is a unique, stylish and demanding cinematic experience.

The film has been written and directed by Paul Thomas Anderson.  It’s a fact worth pointing out early in this review because I need to disclose my bias.  Paul Thomas Anderson has been my favourite director for many years.  His brilliant works include Boogie Nights, Magnolia and Punch Drunk Love.  If he made a movie which was nothing more than a blank screen for three hours, I would applaud his artistry.  He can do no wrong in my eyes.

There Will Be Blood is based on the novel Oil! written by Upton Sinclair.  It is the fictional story of Daniel Plainview (Lewis), an ambitious man who created an enormous fortune as an oil tycoon in the early part of the 20^th Century.  With unwavering determination and steely confidence, Daniel always got the best of every deal.  He wasn’t out to win friends – all he wanted was wealth and power.  This ruthless attitude was the secret of his success.

Daniel Plainview would be the most interesting character I’ve seen in a movie in a long time.  Throughout the whole film, I was studying his actions, his expressions and his demeanour with the hope of understanding what was going through his mind.  Every time I saw a glimpse of goodness, it was destroyed by a moment of greedy self-obsession.  In this leading role, Daniel Day Lewis (My Left Foot) gives the performance of the year.  He will win the Oscar for best actor.  There is no doubt.

There are several people that Daniel interacts with in the film but the most interesting is that of a young preacher named Eli (played by Paul Dano).  Eli is the leader of a small religious congregation and disapproves of the way that Daniel does business.  What’s interesting that these two characters are very similar – they are both in search of power as a means of gaining respect.  Each time they clash, there is a battle of words to see who can gain the upper hand.  It’s riveting to watch.

This is a different kind of movie for Paul Thomas Anderson.  Instead of having a huge ensemble cast (as was the case in Magnolia and Boogie Nights), the focus is one individual.  That said, the film has Anderson’s fingerprints all over it.  I savoured his use of music (Jonny Greenwood provided the film score) and the stylish way in which he captures each scene with his moving camera lens.  Cinematographer Robery Elswit (Good Night, and Good Luck) also deserves much praise.

Like No Country For Old Men, There Will Be Blood has earned 8 Academy Award nominations including nods for best picture and best director.  This must be really annoying those movie folk who like neat endings.  Now that I’m running low on superlative adjectives, it’s time for you to stop reading and start heading to the cinema.  Go on, take a chance!

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: 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: 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.