Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 06 February 2007

Silence Of The Lambs is one of the great thrillers of all time.  It won the Academy Award for best picture, director, screenplay, actor and actress in 1992.  Only two other films, It Happened One Night and One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest, have achieved such an honour.

Hannibal Rising is a prequel to Silence Of The Lambs in that it looks at how Hannibal Lecter developed his evil nature and his love for human flesh.  Given the popularity of Lambs, I’m sure many people will want see this film out of curiosity.  It’s the same reason why they saw the previous two sequels – the below-average Hannibal in 2001 and the above-average Red Dragon in 2002.

I can best sum up my thoughts on Hannibal Rising in saying that it should have gone straight to video.  It has no big name stars and the storyline is very weak.  French actor Gaspard Ulliel (A Very Long Engagement) has been cast at the teenage Hannibal.  He tries to act cool and creepy but frankly, his performance was laughable.  There had to have been other actors who were more suitable.

The film begins in Lithuania where a young Hannibal witnesses the death of his parents in a World War II attack.  Not long after, his younger sister is slain by a group of Russian soldiers.  I’ll let you see for yourself how she is killed.

We then move eight years into the future and find Hannibal living with his widowed aunt (Li) in France.  Hannibal still has nightmares about his sister’s gruesome death and has decided to find and get revenge on the war criminals responsible.  His knowledge of both martial arts and the human anatomy will ensure that his enemies suffer as much as possible.

Director Peter Webber (Girl With Pearl Earring) has said that “you don’t have as much sympathy for Hannibal at the end as you do in the beginning, but you do understand why he ends up the way he does.”  I disagree.  I thought Hannibal’s transformation was ridiculous and his actions made little sense.  I couldn’t understand how he was always one step ahead of his opponents and how he always had the upper hand.

This story could have been told in ten minutes as a prelude to Red Dragon.  Instead, it’s dragged out into a two hour feature with little drama or suspense.  There are fleeting moments of tension but for the most part, it’s a dull snooze-fest.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 26 January 2007

As an actor, you always hope that there’ll be one role that people will remember you for.   For Forrest Whitaker, it will be his portrayal of Ugandan dictator Idi Amin in The Last King Of Scotland.   Whitaker has won almost every critics award to date and he’s a short priced favourite to claim the upcoming Academy Award for best actor.

With the help of the British government, Idi Amin staged a coup and became the new Ugandan president in 1971.  He promised to bring freedom and prosperity to his country.  As the famous saying goes however “absolute power corrupts absolutely”.  Amin and his army killed those considered a threat to his government.   An estimated 300,000 people were slaughtered during his 8 year reign.

With the basic facts out the way, it’s worth point out that The Last King Of Scotland isn’t a history lesson.  In fact, the story doesn’t even centre on Amin.  It is told from the perspective of Nicholas Garrigan (McAvoy), a Scottish doctor who travelled to Uganda to give his life a purpose.  He was looking for adventure but also the chance to help the poverty stricken people of the third world society.

When Amin sprains his wrist in a car accident, Garrigan is asked to treat his injury.  The two bond quickly and Amin asks Garrigan to become his personal doctor.  He will live at the president’s home and is promised the chance to set up a medical network for the Ugandan people.  It’s an offer Garrigan can’t refuse.

Amin’s dictatorship soon grew and the world turned against him.  Journalists published savage articles about the human rights atrocities he was responsible for.  Garrigan was oblivious to this however.  He was living a well-to-do life and the President always treated him as a close adviser.  He felt these stories about Amin couldn’t possibly be true.  Or could they?

Whitaker’s performance is superb but equally deserving of praise is James McAvoy.  It’s a shame that he has been overlooked in this busy award season.  His charisma makes the film more upbeat and there are some light-hearted scenes between Whitaker and McAvoy early on.  The film becomes much darker in the final half hour and it was this element of the story that interested me most.  Now that he knew the truth, what was Garrigan going to do?

I am quickly becoming a fan of Scottish director Kevin Macdonald.  His last film was the documentary Touching The Void (which made my top 10 list in 2004).  In both films he has created interest and intrigue.  There is rarely a dull moment and the story is always building.  I have to make mention of the fantastic 70s sets and costumes.  It felt like I was looking at footage actually taken from that era.  Just wait till you see James McAvoy’s outfits.

Inspired by actual events and based on the novel written by Giles Foden (who makes a cameo in the film), The Last King Of Scotland deserves a strong recommendation.  It’s a very engaging tale.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 02 February 2007

Harold Crick (Ferrell) is a very ordinary man.  He routinely goes about each day and never does anything unexpected.  Each day, he wakes up at the same time, brushes his teeth with the same number of strokes and catches the same bus to work.  It’s always the same.

That is until one morning when Harold wakes up and hears a voice in his head.  It’s the sound of someone narrating his life.  He doesn’t recognise the voice but it knows exactly who Harold is and what he’s thinking.  Not only is the voice annoying but it’s disrupting Harry’s life.  He can’t concentrate at work and his regimented lifestyle is being disrupted.

Harold’s worries escalate when the narrator hints at Harold’s “imminent death”.  Looking for an expert in storytelling, he finds a literary professor by the name of Jules Hilbert (Hoffman) who wants to help out.  Jules thinks that somehow, Harold must be a character in an unfinished novel.  Harold’s fate rests in the typing hands of its author.  There’s only one way he can saved – Harold must find this narrator and tell her to stop writing.

As Harold looks for answers, a romantic interest is introduced.  Her name is Ana Pascal (Gyllenhaal) and she runs a small bakery.  After a fiery introduction, the unlikely pair hit it off.  They share a dry sense of humour and are soon spending more time together.  How will it end though?  Is Harold’s narrator writing a comedy or a tragedy?

This bizarre idea for a movie reminded me of two great screenplays written by Charlie Kaufman - Being John Malkovich and Adaptation.  Both were masterpieces which blended fiction and reality in a way I could never have imagined.  Stranger Than Fiction deserves praise for its originality but it’s not the equal of Malkovich or Adaptation.  It doesn’t have enough momentum to keep me intrigued for two hours.  I almost wish they had of taken this strange concept further.

The characters within this tale are all peculiar.  Emma Thompson’s performance as the film’s chain-smoking narrator didn’t sit well with me.  I think she’s too over-the-top.  My favourite scenes in the film were those shared by Dustin Hoffman and Will Ferrell.  It will be interesting to see if Ferrell can use this film to move into more dramatic roles (as opposed to his usual comedies).

If you’re a cinemagoer who is looking for something different, Stranger Than Fiction delivers on most counts.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 21 January 2007

A terrorist act has been committed in New Orleans.  A ferry carrying hundreds of people has exploded and there appear to be few survivors.  As part of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tabacco and Firearms, Doug Carlin (Washington) has been called in to help investigate.  Within hours, he knows it has been caused by a very powerful bomb which was on-board the doomed ferry.

Whilst at the crime scene, Doug gets a call from a friend at the morgue.  There, he will find the body of a young woman with burns similar to those who were caught up in the explosion.  What puzzles Doug is the fact that this woman, identified as Claire Kuchever, was found before the ferry exploded.  How can this be?  Is she somehow linked with the people who committed the terrorist act?  Will it help the investigative team track down the people behind it?

Doug’s uncanny ability to profile a profile a crime scene has caught the attention of Agent Andrew Pryzwarra (Kilmer).  He represents a secret government organisation which has new technology it will use for the first time.  They can look back 4 days in time and focus their invisible cameras on any part of New Orleans.  Their cameras can go both indoors and outdoors.  They are effectively, looking back in time.  Doug doesn’t understand how this is possible but goes along with it given the urgency of the situation.

Doug’s job is to tell them where to point their cameras.  What would the people who committed this terrible act be doing in the days leading up the event?  Where can they be found?  His first stop is the home of Claire Kuchever and an unimaginable investigation has begun…

I didn’t know what to expect with Deja Vu.  Director Tony Scott is great at creating fast-paced action as evidenced by his recent films, Domino, Man On Fire and Spy Game.  However, his films don’t always have the strongest of storylines.  Half way through Deja Vu, I was very impressed.  An interesting premise had been created and I was curious to know how it would end.  Sadly, the final hour was a huge let down.  Without giving too much away, the plot twists lacked credibility and I kept wondering how certain events were possible.

It’s a good performance from Denzel Washington.  His confident yet laid-back attitude suits the role of Doug Carlin.  He doesn’t always pick the right roles but Washington is a likeable actor who can give most all films a boost.

This should have been better.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 31 January 2007

Writers Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer are the two most unoriginal writers in Hollywood.  Every movie they have made has been a spoof – a rip-off of more successful, more entertaining films.  Their credits include Spy Hard, Scary Movie and Date Movie.

I’ve seen some very funny spoofs (Flying High being my favourite) but Friedberg and Seltzer have completely run out of ideas.  I don’t think I could imagine a more humourless bunch of scenes than those I witnessed in Epic Movie.

The film takes off The Chronicles Of Narnia, Harry Potter, Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory, X-Men, Nacho Libre, The Da Vinci Code, Pirates Of The Caribbean and Snakes On A Plane.  It stars a bunch of no-name actors who are only starring in it because they can’t land a better role. 

Epic Movie provides no original laughs.  All it offers are silly re-enactments and impersonations.  Given the clichés that have riddled so many of Hollywood’s recent flicks, you’d have thought that they could have come up with something funnier.  I know everyone has a difference sense of humour but I’m struggling to think of anyone who would enjoy this.  The fact that it topped the U.S. box-office in its opening week is extremely concerning.

The Internet Movie Database informed me that this “epic movie” went for 86 minutes.  Thankfully for me, the credits were rolling after just 73 minutes.  What a joke.  How did I end up paying full price to see (a) a film that short, and (b) a film that awful?  Don’t make the same mistake I did.