Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 04 June 2007

Released early in 2006, Hostel didn’t set the box-office alight but it made significant noise in the film community.  It was touted as one of the most gruesome films ever made and on that count, it delivered.

If you didn’t see it, it was the story of a group of backpackers who end up a Slovakian hostel.  It turned out that the hostel was a front for a crazy enterprise in which wealthy business paid large sums of money to kill people.  The backpackers were drugged, tied up and then killed in horrific fashion.  I think the picture of the chainsaw on the poster said enough.

Hostel: Part 2 is more of the same.  It’s a textbook sequel – offering nothing new with a storyline very similar to the original.  This time around, the victims are three girls – Beth (Graham), Whitney (Phillips) and Lorna (Matarazzo).  They were originally travelling to the Czech Republic but have gone to Slovakia on the advice of a female model.  The fact that the model has been stalking them should be enough to rouse anyone’s suspicious but it appears that Beth, Whitney and Lorna are none the wiser.

If you’re seeing this film for its horror, you’ve got a while to wait.  It’s not until the 45 minute mark where we get to see inside the abandoned buildings and its maze of torture chambers.  The first half is spent entirely on filler and unnecessary introductions.  It offers nothing and has only been included so that the film can be stretched into 93 minutes.

Once the “action” begins, you’ll need to brace yourself for some shocking images.  The Motion Picture Association of America said it described the film as containing “sadistic scenes of torture and bloody violence”.  I’ve become desensitised to movie violence but a couple of scenes in Hostel: Part 2 did leave a lump in my throat.  As was the case with the Saw series, the envelope keeps getting pushed further.

I’d recommend the film for horror buffs if not for a pathetically weak ending.  It feels rushed and provides so suspense.  It’s as if they needed to remove the entire first half of the film and expand the second half.  I also didn’t believe the events that unfolded in the finale and found that way too many questions were left unanswered.

With clichéd ridden dialogue delivered by actors who have no sense of spontaneity, Hostel: Part 2 is a waste.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 19 May 2007

Death Of A President is not your ordinary movie.  It is a fictitious documentary which chronicles the assassination of George W. Bush on October 19, 2007.  How about that for a unique movie idea?

This premise alone has caused controversy.  There has also been heated debate about the images of George W. Bush which were used in the film.  Special effects created the scene where he is shot.  So yes, you do actually see the real President Bush take two bullets to the chest.  Some viewers will be a little freaked out.

The incident occurred at a hotel in Chicago.  Bush has stepped out into the street to meet with members of the public following a meeting with business leaders.  The shots came from the 20^th floor of a neighbouring high rise building and paranoia ensued.  The President was pushed into his limo and rushed immediately to the hospital.  He would be pronounced dead within hours.

The first half of the film looks at the lead up to the shooting.  We hear interviews from various people and their perspective on how the day unfolded.  The Secret Service talk about the problems they had with protestors who tried to disrupt the President’s motorcade.  Bush’s speech writer talks about how calm the President was en route to the meeting.  When you mix these interviews with documentary-like footage, you’ll appreciate why the film feels more “real” than a usual Hollywood blockbuster.

The film’s second half focuses on the resulting investigation and the people responsible.  I found this element of the story more interesting.  Given the circumstances, this is not a crime that can remain unsolved.  The public need someone to be made accountable to give them closure.  As a result, the methods by which suspects were examined and evidence obtained were not out of your standard textbook.

Death Of A President certainly grabbed my attention but it didn’t provide any startling revelations.  In the hours following the President’s death, the first major suspect was identified as being from Syria.  The media seized on this and soon enough, every person with links to Syria was under scrutiny.  Like other incidents we’ve seen of late, the actions of one can cause great harm to their country or religion.  People love to generalise.  It’s a valid point but as I indicated earlier, my eyes were already open to this problem in today’s society.

I’m not sure how many people are going to be keen to see a film like this.  There are enough problems in the world as it is and so to create a new, fictitious one might be too much for some to swallow.  The choice is yours.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 28 May 2007

Last week, I was watching bits and pieces from the first Pirates movie, The Curse Of The Black Pearl.  I liked it when I first saw it in 2003 and I still like it now.  Johnny Depp was hilarious and it was great to see Geoffrey Rush as a villain.  It was a fun, swashbuckling adventure that took a different spin on the pirate movie genre (if such a genre exists).

About a third of the way through this film, Pirates Of The Caribbean: At World’s End, I knew that my interest in this series had finished.  The “fun” was gone and I was left to endure an overly-complicated story that provided next-to-no laughs for close to three hours.

If you remember of the finale of the second film, Captain Jack Sparrow (Depp) was eaten by a monster and taken from the world of the living.  A group of familiar faces, all with differing motives, have set sail for the end of the world in an attempt to rescue him.

Once rescued, Jack and his crew prepare themselves for battle.  The influential Lord Beckett (Hollander) is intent on eliminating every pirate in existence.  He has assembled a huge army and a large fleet of heavily armed boats.  The leading pirates of the world know they must put their differences behind them and unite as one to defeat Lord Beckett.  It’s going to be one hell of a fight.

There is so much betrayal in this film that I couldn’t keep up.  The characters seem to be switching their allegiances every half hour.  This happened to a lesser extent in the first two films but it’s taken too far here.  It’s become too convoluted.

The best part of every film in the series has been Johnny Depp.  He was nominated for an Oscar for Black Pearl and he has transformed Jack Sparrow into one of cinema’s most memorable characters.  He tries hard but I don’t think Depp is as funny in At World’s End.  It’s as if all his best material was used in the earlier movies.  There’s a few laughs but not as many as you might expect.  I also think that the writers have made a mistake in waiting 30 minutes to reintroduce his character here.

I alluded to it earlier but I cannot pass without making specific reference to this film’s length.  It is 168 minutes.  I may not be a high profile filmmaker but surely the film’s story could have been told in a shorter, simpler manner.  When I think of great Hollywood epics, such as Lord Of The Rings and Titanic, it makes me realise how flimsy this plot is in comparison.

Regardless of my criticisms, At World’s End is going to make a LOT of money.  I suspect it will rake in more money than any other film in 2007.  People are going to turn out in droves to see it.  My only advice therefore is to take a pillow.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 15 May 2007

There are brilliant movies, there are great movies, there are good movies, there are average movies, there are bad movies, there are terrible movies, there are disgraceful movies and then there is Norbit.

My goodness, this film was awful.  I saw it at a critic’s screening in a small theatrette.  Of the 9 people in attendance, 4 had left by the half-way mark.  That’s a 44% walk-out ratio.  I have no statistics to verify this but I dare say that few other films could match it in that regard.

The plot, which is thinner than a single sheet of one-ply toilet paper, centres on a dweeb named Norbit (Murphy).  As a baby, he was left by his parents at a Chinese restaurant / orphanage and was raised by Mr Wong (also Murphy).

After going through Norbit’s background in a drawn-out opening sequence, the film then takes us into the current time.  Norbit is married to Rasputia (Murphy again), an overweight woman who looks heavier than a gorilla.  I know it’s not politically correct to say that but the joke is used in the film.  I just wanted to give an indication of how low this “comedy” goes.

Rasputia is constantly demanding attention and the useless Norbit reluctantly provides it.  The situation changes however when Kate (Newton) arrives on the scene.  Norbit and Kate were once best friends at the orphanage but Kate left when just a young girl – she was fostered out to a family.  She has now returned home to buy and run the orphanage which gave her so much happiness as a child.

There are other characters in this mess.  Rasputia has three brothers who run the town like the mob.  They’d like to get their hands on the orphanage so that they can open a strip club.  Two pimps keep popping up but I’m not really sure what purpose they serve.

What was Eddie Murphy thinking when he signed on to do this film?  He has just earned his first Academy Award nomination (for Dreamgirls) and yet he has followed it with what might be his worst ever movie.  Shouldn’t an Oscar nom help get you better roles?  I’m confused.  Murphy’s three roles, body suits and strange voices did not entertain me in the slightest.  It’s like The Nutty Professor, only without a script.

In its opening weekend in the United States, Norbit made $34.2m.  Given the average ticket price, I’d estimate that roughly 3,000,000 people saw this film in its first three days.  That thought sickens me more than the film itself.

I like to give every movie a fair chance but Norbit doesn’t deserve it.  If you liked it, please don't tell me.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 22 May 2007

"Sunday, the FBI successfully concluded an investigation to end a serious breach in the security of the United States. The arrest of Robert Hanssen for espionage should remind every American that our nation, our free society, is an international target in a dangerous world.”

The above statement, read by U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft on 20 February 2001, is the opening scene of Breach.  Those already familiar with the tale will know that Hanssen was guilty of selling top-secret government intelligence to the Russians over a 15 year period.  It is considered to be the greatest security breach in U.S. history.

Director Billy Ray’s film doesn’t show us how Hanssen got away with it for so long.  Rather, it focuses on how he was caught.  A large team of FBI agents were assigned to case.  They had been searching his car, tapping his phone, bugging his office and keeping him under constant surveillance.  Evidence was obtained but it wasn’t strong enough to guarantee a conviction.  To do so, they needed to physically see Hanssen handing over classified documents.

In Breach, Hanssen is played by Academy Award winning actor Chris Cooper.  Seeing him in this film has me convinced that he’s one of the best actors working today.  He may keep a low public profile but his performances in films such as American Beauty, Adaptation and Seabiscuit will secure him a long career in the movie business.

Heavily involved in the investigation was a young FBI employee named Eric O’Neill (played by Ryan Phillippe).  O’Neill was brought in as Hanssen’s assistant for an IT security division which had recently been established.  The FBI hoped that the two would become friends and that O’Neill could be used to gather incriminating evidence on his boss.

I had trouble buying this part of the story.  There’s a scene early in the film where Hanssen asks O’Neill to tell him 5 things about himself, with only 4 of them being truthful.  Hanssen spots the lie immediately.  If he’s so good at reading people, how does Hanssen not realise O’Neill true intentions?  Perhaps my criticism needs to be aimed at Ryan Phillippe.  He is too obvious with his awkward body language and fictitious stories.  If he were the real Eric O’Neill, the real Hanssen would have seen straight through him.

Despite this criticism, Breach is a very intriguing film.  I’m a big fan of spy thrillers and the fact that this is a true story makes it all the more compelling.  We get to peak inside the FBI and see how they cracked one of their biggest cases.  It was of interest to me and I’m sure it’ll be of interest to others.