Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 26 November 2007

I’ve been waiting to see Into The Wild for a while.  The trailer looked great and the combination of rising star Emile Hirsch (The Emperor’s Club) with director Sean Penn (The Pledge) was an attractive proposition.  Early reviews from the Toronto Film Festival were positive and many believed it had a legitimate shot at earning some Oscar nominations.

Into The Wild tells the true story of Christopher McCandless.  After graduating from an Atlanta college in 1990, Chris decided to go on an “adventure”.  He gave the balance of his bank account to charity and set off on a trek across the United States and Canada.  His goal was to make it to Alaska.  Why did he do this?  I’m not entirely sure but I think he wanted to escape his problems at home and live his life at his fullest.

I think now is the right time to break the bad news – I passionately disliked this film.  Within 15 minutes it was “rubbing me up the wrong way”.  My first reason is that I did not like or understand the Chris McCandless character.  Quite frankly, I think he was an idiot.  My second, and most important reason, is that the film wanted me to like him.  This has been debated on various internet forums and some people will disagree with this statement.  I am giving my honest opinion however and it cannot be changed.  I refuse to feel sympathy for a smart-ass who thinks he has the answers to everything.

When he set out on his journey, Chris got rid of all his identification and changed his name to Alexander Supertramp.  He didn’t tell anyone what he was doing or where he was going.  His parents (played by Marcia Gay Harden and William Hurt) and his sister (played by Jena Malone) didn’t know what had happened to him.  Not once did he contact them during his trip.  Police were called in but they had no luck locating him.  Now Chris may not have liked his parents but that’s a pretty cruel thing to do them, is it not?

Over the next two years en route to Alaska, Chris met an assortment of people.  These tales (some more interesting than others) make up much of the film’s narrative.  They didn’t improve my liking for Chris McCandless.  He rambles on with a bunch of philosophical garbage and these new found friends lap it up like he’s a saint.  We’re talking about a kid with next-to-no real life experience.  Can I ask one question – why does he give away all his money at the start of the film and then get a low paying job at a global food giant (Burger King) to pay for supplies?  Now that’s experiencing “nature”!

The only decent part in the film come at the very end when Chris stays at the home of an elderly gentleman named Ron (Holbrook).  Veteran actor Hal Holbrook is being touted as an Oscar contender for his brief but beautiful performance.  The scene where he says goodbye to Chris (before he heads off on the final part of his journey) feels true and honest.       

Sean Penn’s direction didn’t win me over either.  I think this is the worst film he’s done.  He’s split the story into meaningless “chapters” and uses the same techniques over and over again.  What’s the point of including the journal extracts from Chris’s diary and splashing them all over the screen?

Most moviegoers have liked Into The Wild but I’m sticking to my position and supporting the minority.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 11 November 2007

Elizabeth was regarded one of the best films of 1998.  It was nominated for seven Academy Awards including best picture (which it lost to Shakespeare In Love).  It told the story of Queen Elizabeth’s ascension to the English throne in the mid 16^th Century.  She was just 25 years old at the time.  Many Catholics despised Elizabeth as she was England’s first Protestant queen.  Others disliked the fact that she was unmarried and refused to produce an heir.  They were turbulent times but Elizabeth held firm and defeated her adversaries.

Elizabeth: The Golden Age takes us forward a few decades.  Time has passed and new enemies have emerged.  Elizabeth’s cousin, Mary, Queen Of Scots, is plotting to take the throne.  Her Catholic supporters believe that she is true Queen and that Elizabeth must be assassinated.

Believe it or not, there are bigger worries for Elizabeth.  Spain has assembled a huge army and they are preparing to attack.  The advice from her aides is that England will not have the military strength to defeat Spain.  The strain of the situation is taking its toll on Elizabeth.  She is struggling to find hope.

It’s a fascinating period of history but Shekhar Kapur’s film makes it all look rather boring.  The story doesn’t flow – it’s as if we’re watching fragments only.  It’s not often I say this but I think this movie should have been up to an hour longer.  Not enough time is spent on Mary, Queen Of Scots nor the Spanish invasion.

Instead of focusing on the juicy stuff, the film gets bogged down looking at Elizabeth’s friendship/ relationship with explorer Walter Raleigh.  Caught in the middle is one of her long-time confidants, Elizabeth Throckmorton, who also has an interest in Raleigh.  Yawn.

No effort has been spared in transporting us back a few centuries.  The costumes and set decoration all look superb.  The performances are also solid – Cate Blanchett displays her talent by going through a variety of mood swings.  It’s also nice to see young Australian actress Abbie Cornish (Somersault) getting her chance to shine in a big-time movie.

The best part of the film is the action packed final half hour.  Just make sure you stay awake for it.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 21 November 2007

Eddie Cantrow (Ben Stiller) is a 40-year-old guy who has never been married.  He’s not phased by that fact and likes his job working as the manager of a sporting goods store.  His dad (Jerry Stiller) and best friend (Corddry) see things differently however.  They keep telling Eddie that he’s missing out on so much by not having a wife.

In a strange sequence of events, Eddie meets Lila (Akerman), a young woman who works as an environmental researcher.  The two hit it off right away and start spending a lot of time together.  Things couldn’t be better… until Lila gets some bad news – they want her to relocate to Holland for work.  The only way of preventing the move is for her to get married.  So, after 6 weeks together, Eddie and Lila take the plunge and head to Mexico for their honeymoon.

It turns out that Lila is the “bride from hell”.  She has a series of annoying habits and was not entirely honest about her past and her work.  Eddie quickly realises that he shouldn’t have gotten married so soon.  To further complicate matters, he meets a girl named Miranda (Monaghan) who is also staying at the beach-side resort.  They have much in common and enjoy each other’s sense of humour.  Eddie suddenly feels guilty.  This is not because he’s ignoring his sunburnt wife in the hotel room but because he isn’t being honest with Miranda and telling him that he’s married and on his honeymoon.

This could have been funny but the screenplay is not well written.  I expected much better from Peter and Bobby Farrelly, the guys responsible for such comedic classics as There’s Something About Mary and Shallow Hal.  The Heatbreak Kid is actually a remake of a 1972 Neil Simon film of the same title which stared Charles Grodin and Cybill Shepherd.

My big problem with this film was that I didn’t understand the Lila character.  As I’ve alluded to earlier, she reveals a few things about herself that Eddie would have preferred to know before they were married.  Did she do this deliberately?  This is what’s never made clear.  How then, can I see her as the villain?  Why should I be cheering for Eddie to hook up with the new girl when I’m thinking that Lila is an innocent pawn?  Isn’t it just as much Eddie’s fault for rushing into this relationship?

My issues with the farcical storyline prevented me from enjoying the film’s attempted humour.  Some of the key jokes aren’t too bad.  They’re crude but I liked that – they caught me off guard.  A scene near the end of the film involving a jellyfish sting was the standout.  It will undoubtedly get an audience reaction in every cinema in which this movie is shown.

The jokes and style are similar to that of There’s Something About Mary but in the end, The Heartbreak Kid is a vastly inferior film.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 09 November 2007

I wasn’t expecting much walking into the cinema but Rogue turned out to be pretty decent movie.  You have to understand my reluctance.  An Australian film about a monster crocodile didn’t exactly wet my appetite.  It looked like one of the formulaic, unrealistic thrillers that emanate from Hollywood (only made on a smaller budget).

I should have had faith in the director, Greg McLean.  McLean made one of the scariest films ever made – 2005’s Wolf Creek.  It was the story of three backpackers who were kidnapped by a vicious psychopath in the Australian outback.  Unlike most other Australian flicks, it made an impact in the international marketplace.  It took in more than $16m in the United States, more than any other Australian film in the past 5 years.

Rogue isn’t as good as Wolf Creek but it still provides a few thrills.  The opening half-hour sees us introduced to characters.  They are all aboard a small boat which is taking them on a tour of a river in the Northern Territory.  As the tour guide, Kate (Mitchell) tells them all about the vicious salt-water crocodiles that swim in these waters.  Some are worried but Kate tells them that they have nothing to fear – they won’t attack anything as big as their boat.

Guess what?  She’s wrong.  The boat is smashed from underneath by an extremely large crocodile.  It starts taking on water and they crash into a small rocky island in the middle of the river.  This leaves them stranded.  The boat can’t be fixed, the radio isn’t working and flares were washed away.  They can’t even sit tight and wait to be rescued.  The tide is rising and within a few hours, the island will be completely underwater.  They’re going to have to find a way to get to the river bank without being eaten first.

With the scenario established, it’s now time to see who lives and who dies.  It’s not as predictable as you might think.  The fate of several characters did not pan out as I’d expected.  I say this as positive because when it comes to this type of movie, the most important think is to keep the audience on their toes (that’s if you can overlook the implausible scenario and cheesy dialogue).

There are a few notable actors amongst the cast.  They include Radha Mitchell (Finding Neverland), Sam Worthington (Gettin’ Square) and Michael Vartan (One Hour Photo).  John Jarratt (who starred in Wolf Creek) is almost unrecognisable as one of the tourists aboard the boat.  They won’t be wining any awards for their performances but they will help boost the film’s profile both in Australia and abroad.

Look, you won’t be blown away by this movie but if you like a bit of suspense, there should be just enough to satisfy.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 15 November 2007

I just saw Inland Empire.  But did I really see it?  Maybe I just imagined it.  How do I know?  What if it was all just a dream?  Then how would I be writing this review right now?  But maybe I’m not writing this review right now?  But then how would you be reading this review right now?  Maybe you’re dreaming?  How do you know for sure?  Maybe you’re hallucinating?  How do you know for sure?  Maybe you’re part of a world where rabbits talk and appear in television sitcoms?  How do you know for sure?

Confused?  I hope so.  I’m trying to recreate the experience of watching Inland Empire.  Nothing makes sense.  People appear and disappear.  The leading character (played by Laura Dern) looks different in almost every scene.  Her name is always changing – is it Nikki or Sue?  I understood the first half hour but beyond that, I have absolutely no idea what this film is about or what it is trying to say.  To make matters worse – it’s three mind-numbing hours long!

It begins with an actress (Dern) scoring a leading role in a major new movie.  On the first day of shooting, she finds out that the film is actually a “remake”.  The original film was never released though because it was never completed.  Both the male and female lead were murdered during production.  Apparently they were warned by some Polish gypsy that the film was “cursed”.

So what else is in this movie?  There are some strange musical numbers involving a group of prostitutes.  There is a girl who watches TV and cries.  There are people with blurred faces.  There is a woman with an ice-pick stuck in her stomach.  There are mysterious locations that change a lot.  There are explained flashes of light.  There are scenes with subtitles.  There is no order in the way that events unfold.  Oh yeah, and there’s the walking, talking rabbits.

Writer-director David Lynch’s last major film was Muholland Dr.  It was my favourite film of 2002.  It was similarly creative in terms of its structure but I was able to follow the story and the loved the challenge of trying to figure it all out.  Inland Empire goes too far.  It’s overly random and there isn’t enough plot.  I liked this comment from critic Margaret Pomeranz on the most recent episode of At The Movies – “I believe that he just made this up as he went along and it shows.  It's like it's a wank.”

I’m not as harsh as Margaret and I think Lynch deserves a little credit for his artistry.  In a world where so many movies feel the same, Lynch has come up with something that people will remember (for better or worse).  He has also conjured a brilliant performance from Laura Dern, one of Hollywood’s most underrated actresses.

When it comes down to the crunch however, how can I possibly recommend this?  Do you really want to give up three hours (plus trailers) of your life to watch something that you have no chance of understanding?  I could think of better alternatives.  Unless of course this is all a dream…