Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 16 August 2007

Michael Moore is probably the most well-known documentary filmmaker in the world.  His last two films, Bowling For Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11, struck a cord with audiences.  Whether you agreed with him or not, Moore’s movies generated much discussion in the media and in the general public.

In the three years since the release of Fahrenheit 9/11, Moore has been working on Sicko, a documentary which looks at the weaknesses in the U.S. health care system.  Through his website, he asked people for their own “health care horror stories”.  Moore received over 25,000 emails in the first week.  Their tales helped create much of the material for this film.

The point Michael Moore is making in this film is that the health care system in the United States is fundamentally flawed.  It is completely privatised and this creates two major problems.  Firstly, there are many low income families who cannot afford health cover.  Current estimates show that 45 million people are not insured.  Secondly, for those that are covered, they often have to battle with their insurance companies to get their medical expenses paid.  Why?  Because insurance companies are owned by shareholders and it is in their best interests to deny as many claims as possible to increase profit.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) ranks the United States in 37^th place when comparing the world’s health systems.  It’s an interesting statistic when you consider that the United States is regarded as one of the world’s richest and most powerful nations.  To find out why other countries are better, Moore heads overseas.  He interviews people in France (ranked 1^st), the United Kingdom (ranked 18^th) and Canada (ranked 30^th).  It makes the U.S. system look even worse.

Whilst I agree that the U.S. health system has major problems, I have a few qualms with how Moore has presented his argument.  In the three countries that he visits, he focuses heavily on the positives and opposed to the negatives.  As I indicated above, Canada is only ranked 30^th by the WHO and yet you’d think it was in the top 10 judging from the people Moore spoke to.  Perhaps he should have focused more on France.  I’m curious as to why it is ranked number 1.

It’s not perfect but Sicko is still a very potent movie-going experience.  Some of the scenes will leave you laughing with shock.  I particularly enjoyed a clip with George W. Bush where he speaks to a woman who has three jobs.  Moore has a great knack for taking hundreds of hours worth of footage and picking just the right material to get his message across.  His films are never boring and this is no exception.

Incidentally, the Australian health care system is ranked 32^nd which doesn’t put it too far ahead of the United States.  Based on what I’ve heard on the news for the past decade, it sounds like there’s more than enough material for an Australian documentary in the same mould.  We don’t have the exact same problems as the Americans but we do have plenty of issues.  It such a film was made, I’d certainly pay to see it.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 27 July 2007

As I handed over my $8.50 and look at the ticket stub, the realisation sunk in.  After waiting 18 years, my favourite television show had made it to the big screen.  Walking into the packed theatre, I knew that others shared the same opinion.  There were excited murmurings and the occasional squeal as the opening credits started to roll.

It’s pointless describing the storyline because that is not why people will see this movie.  People will go because they want to laugh and be entertained.  If you’re a Simpsons fan, you’ll know exactly what type of humour is going to be offered.  Matt Groening and his writing team are experts at creating jokes at the expenses of others.  Over the 18 year run of the television show, there are very few places and people that haven’t poked fun at.

With so much hype, can this film possibly live up to expectations?  For the most part it does.  The opening half-hour is terrific.  Many regular characters are seen (although most only get a line or two) and there are plenty of “laugh out loud” moments.  I also enjoyed the jokes made about the movie itself.  The very first scene (which involves Itchy & Scratchy) is a perfect example.

Just like the television shows, a few big name celebrities make guest appearances.  I won’t spoil them but one I will mention is Albert Brooks.  Devout fans will remember Brooks’ voice from earlier Simpsons episodes – he played Hank Scorpio (one of my all-time favourite characters), Brad Goodman and Jacques (the bowling instructor who seduced Marge way back in the first season).  It’s great having him in the film.

Interestingly, the movie isn’t made using the same techniques as those on the smaller screen.  There’s a lot more computer animation and this has allowed scenes to be shot with increased detail.  In one particular scene, almost every resident of Springfield can be seen and made out.  Regardless of whether it was done by hand or with a computer, it must have taken a long time to put together.  Further enhancing the production, a blockbuster-like film score has been provided by top composer Hans Zimmer.

On its opening day in Australia, The Simpsons Movie took in the highest first-day total for an animated feature.  That’s not bad considering that it’s not even school holidays.  I’m expecting it to make a lot of money given its cross-generational appeal.  I wonder if it’ll be the adults dragging the kids to see it as opposed to the other way around.

My only criticism is that the film struggles to maintain its high standards in the final half-hour.  The film focuses a little too much on the bizarre plot.  Still, make sure you stay for the majority of the end credits.  I know you’ll want to get away from the annoying teenagers who have talked throughout the whole movie but there are a few more jokes to be enjoyed.

I’ll be up front and say that The Simpsons has defined me as a person.  My own sense of humour has evolved largely from watching it on television.  I can recite hundreds of lines and can remember almost every episode.  It’s amazing how many times I’ve been in a situation and then thought of a similar moment from the show.  Whilst this isn’t the “best movie ever” (in the words of the Comic Book Guy), it’s still pretty damn good.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 09 August 2007

John McClane (Willis) is an expert at foiling terrorist attacks.  He did it in 1988 in a high-rise building, in 1990 at an airport and in 1995 across New York City.  It’s hard to believe that with all his success and publicity, he hasn’t found himself a better place in life.  At the start of Die Hard 4.0, we find out that the now divorced John McClane is still working as a simple detective.  Did he turn down promotion opportunities?  Did he not cash in by selling his life story?  I guess we’ll never know.

In this instalment, McClane is asked to pick up a young computer nerd named Matthew Farrell (Long) and take him to FBI headquarters for interrogation.  The FBI’s computer system was recently hacked and they believe that Farrell may have been involved.  As they prepare to leave Farrell’s apartment, both are fired upon.  High-powered machine rifle blow holes in the side of the building.  A computer explodes and the place catches on fire.  Somehow, both McClane and Farrell survive.  I’m not sure about the fate of the others in the apartment block since we never see them.  I guess they just slept through it.

As the regroup from their near death experience, the city is thrown into complete chaos.  The traffic control centre is hacked and all lights are changed to green.  This creates carnage on the roads and all the streets become clogged.  Next, the stock market computer systems crash and a massive sell-off of shares results.  Further troubles arise when the cell-phone network goes offline.

In turns out that another terrorist organisation is at work.  For what I believe are strange motives, Thomas Gabriel (Olyphant) wants to bring the country to a standstill.  He and his computer hacking team have cracked every major system in the United States.  He wants to prove to the world that it is possible and steal a lot of money in the process.  Still, I’m not sure what he planned to do with the billions of dollars he planned to take.

Anyway, it’s up to John McClane to save the day… again.  The police and the FBI are incapable of tracking Gabriel down and so the task has fallen upon McClane and his new sidekick Farrell.  The serious-faced McClane does the shooting whilst the easy-going Farrell does the hacking.  Their differences create much of the film’s humour.

The plot is riddled with holes and clichés but that’s what we’ve come to expect from such films.  In that regard, it’s no different from other action flicks.  You’d don’t see a movie like this for its intricate plot and deep characterisation.

Instead, people will watch Die Hard 4.0 because they’re expecting a light-hearted adventure ride.  On that count, the film lives up to expectations.  There are some pretty intense action sequences and the two leading characters get themselves out of some impossible-to-believe situations.  Credit must go to the director, the visual effects team and the stunt guys.

You won’t be screaming with excitement but I think you’ll have a good time.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 20 July 2007

Answering a knock at the door, Linda (Bullock) sees a police officer standing on her porch.  He tells her that her husband was involved in a car accident and was killed instantly.  It happened the day before but the police had trouble identifying the body and hence, the next of kin.  Linda goes into shock.  Her mother comes over to comfort her.  She picks up her two daughters from school and tells them the bad news.  As she goes to bed that night, she realises that her life is forever changed.  Or is it?

When she awakes the next morning, she goes downstairs and finds her husband, Jim (McMahon), making breakfast and going about his day like he ordinarily would.  What’s going on here?  Was his death just a vivid dream?  Or was it some kind of premonition?

It was at this point where I gave up on the film.  I watched the rest of it knowing exactly what would happen.  I think everyone in the cinema knew but for some unknown reason, Sandra Bullock’s character couldn’t put the pieces together.  It was very frustrating.  If I’m going to watch a suspense thriller, I’d at least like to be kept guessing.  How could such a major film have such a thin plot???

Premonition deserves my lowest grading.  I’ve seen B-grade straight-to-video releases that are more interesting and entertaining.  I can’t believe I spent $8.50 on it at the cinemas (thank goodness I had a discount card).  Rotten Tomatoes, a film website which collects reviews from major critics across the world, found that it received 12 positive reviews and 138 negative reviews.  It’s comforting that I find myself in the majority.

I try to be positive person but films like Premonition depress me.  The good news is that my memory of the film is quickly fading and I’m off to see another film tonight.  It can only be better.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 03 August 2007

Willy Beachum (Gosling) is one of the best prosecutors in the legal profession.  He’s young, popular and successful.  His 97% conviction rate speaks for itself.  Willy has decided that it’s time to take his career a step further.  He’s landed a highly paid job at a very lucrative criminal law firm.  Instead of putting criminals behind bars, he’ll now be keeping trying to keep them on the streets.

With just weeks left at his old job, a case lands on his desk.  Willy is reluctant to take on any new work but this looks too easy to pass up.  The accused has confessed to the crime and there’s both motive and a murder weapon.  It’ll be one more conviction to notch up on his belt.

The man on trial is Ted Crawford (Hopkins).  Ted shot his wife (Davidtz) on discovering that she was having an affair.  We know he is guilty because we see the crime take place in the opening scenes of the film.  Everyone involved in the case knows that he’s guilty, but Ted has a few cards up his sleeve to convince the jury otherwise.

In turns out that the officer who arrested Ted was the one having an affair with his wife.  This makes the confession gained from that office inadmissible.  Further, forensics show that the gun found at the scene had never been fired.  With details of the trial being broadcast in the media, it’s turned into a nightmare for Willy Beachum.  He’s losing an unloseable case.  With his reputation in tatters and his new job prospects in jeopardy, Willy must figure this out…

I love a good who-done-it thriller.  You watch intently for clues and you try to put the pieces of the puzzle together.  I’m happy to report that the ending does make sense (for the most part) and that I did pick it with about half-an-hour to go.  You may not care but I walked out with a proud look on my face.

The performance of Ryan Gosling is impressive.  After earning his first Academy Award nomination earlier this year for Half Nelson, Gosling again shows that he breath life into his characters.  I loved his arrogance early in the film and the way he speaks in a cool, nonchalant tone.  You’ll see his personality change as his life begins to unravel.

The film suffers with the inclusion of some unnecessary sub-plots.  Willy has a girlfriend named Nikki (Pike) who works at the new firm he is going to.  There’s a strange scene where they first meet (although I assume this isn’t a first meeting from what happens after) and she continues to pop in and out of the story with no real purpose.  A lengthy scene where they share Thanksgiving dinner with her family is a good example.  Perhaps the plot isn’t deep enough to drag it out to the full two hours.

My first reaction on walking out of the cinema was that that Fracture was an enjoyable movie going experience.  The more I thought about it afterwards though, the more possible flaws I saw in the story.  Perhaps it’s best not to keep thinking about.  It held my attention for the most part and that’s better than a lot of other films screening at the moment.