Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 15 November 2005

This would have to be one of the quickest follow-up sequels ever made.  Saw was released in Australia less than a year ago (December 2, 2004) and it’s been a profitable twelve months for Australian creators Leigh Whannell and James Wan.  The original film cost close to $1m and its total worldwide box-office takings were roughly $100m.  If I were in their shoes, I’d be churning out Saw 3, Saw 4 and Saw 5 as quickly as I could my pay cheque.  They’re on winning formula and they should be milking it for all its worth.

Given that it was no so long ago, you may remember the premise.  There is a serial killer named Jigsaw who kidnaps his victims and puts them in a life or situation.  If they want to live, they will have to pass a test (which often involves mutilation).  There is a method behind Jigsaw’s madness.  He selects those people who have no appreciation for their own life.  By putting them through a horrifying ordeal, he hopes to change their perceptions.

In Saw 2, police detective Eric Matthews (Whalberg) comes face-to-face with the elusive Jigsaw.  He cannot arrest him however.  Jigsaw has kidnapped his son, Daniel, and will only let him live if Eric is prepared to play another of Jigsaw’s games.

Meanwhile, Daniel awakes to find himself locked in a house with five people he has never met.  They are given a message on an audio tape which tells them they have been exposed to a deadly nerve agent.  The only way to they can survive is to find an antidote and several have been hidden around the house.  The clock is ticking however.  They have less than two hours to solve the riddles of the house or it will be too late.

Just like the original, Saw 2 is extremely violent and gruesome.  It’s on a par with Wolf Creek but don’t ask me why Wolf Creek was rated R and yet Saw 2 escapes with a mere MA rating.  No matter where you see it, there’ll be some shocked squeals from the audience.  This is part of its appeal though – few horror films go this far and lovers of the genre will be more than satisfied.

The first film was something different, something fresh.  Now, I’m watching a film which reminds me too much of the original.  It’s like a remake – the same idea with just a few new (and not so new) ways of killing people.  The level of suspense isn’t the same.  In its defence, I’ll state under oath that the ending of Saw 2 is much better.

Now where did I put that Saw 3 script…

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 13 November 2005

It is a happy day for the Van Dort family.  They have arranged for their only son, Victor (Depp) to marry the only daughter of the supposedly wealthy Everglot family.  It is a not so happy day for the Everglots.  They are now penniless and are seeing their daughter, Victoria (Watson), marry the son of a fish merchant.

After a botched wedding rehersal, Victor starts to worry about himself and whether he’s worthy of the beautiful Victoria.  On the night before he is to be wed, he goes out into the woods to rehearse his vows.  Finally he perfects them but when he places the wedding ring on a think stick protruding from the ground, his life will change.  It wasn’t a stick after all – but the finger of a skeleton who now rises from the ground.  He has married a corpse (Bonham Carter).

Taken downstairs into the world of the dead, Victor finds himself falling in love with this corpse bride.  She’s sweet, charming and has a humorous group of deceased friends.  They soon learn though that their marriage was not legitimate.  How can one pledge to be together “to death do us part” when one is already dead?  The only way they can be truly together is if Victor too takes his life.  Is this a sacrifice he is prepared to make?

Tim Burton (Ed Wood, Batman, Edward Scissorhands, Big Fish) is a renowned director but few may know that he started out in the film industry as an animator.  His very first short film was narrated by the legendary Vincent Price.  In 1993, he wrote and produced his first full-length animated film, The Nightmare Before Christmas.

Corpse Bride is his second animated feature and is equally as good.  Kids will be enchanted by the unique-style of animation and the funny characters.  Adults will be surprised by the subtlety in the jokes, the richness of the story and the sheer quality of the whole production.  You might also have fun trying to recognise the voices amongst the large cast - it’s filled with Burton regulars such as Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter.

You have to appreciate the time and effort that it takes to put such animation together.  I am told that it took 28 separate shots to get the corpse bride to blink just once.  For this reason, the film clocks in at 76 minutes and it may be the shortest film you’ll see all year.  I have no problem with this.  It’s an ideal length for children and it doesn’t overstay its welcome.  My only question is why this wasn’t released during school holidays?

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 14 November 2005

Everyone in Hollywood knows the importance of winning an Oscar.  Films which are nominated get increased exposure which results in an increased box-office.  For the cast and crew who are nominated, it’s almost certainly going to lead to more high-profile roles and bigger pay cheques.

For this reason, getting a film nominated at the Academy Awards has become an art form.  Studios have set marketing strategies in place and spend millions on very specific campaigns.  One consistence though is that the film must be released at the very end of the year (in the United States).  They think, and it’s turned out to be true, that Academy voters have short mind-spans.  If you release a film in December (close to when the votes are lodged), it’s going to be a lot easier to remember than a film released back in January.  Did you know that the last four films to win the best picture Oscar were released in December?

I point this out because the Oscar season is almost upon us.  Action blockbusters take a back seat as the studios churn out their “quality” releases.  They’ve been sitting on them for close to 12 months.  Finally we get to see them and remember just how good movies can be.

The Constant Gardener is the first major entrant in this year’s Oscar race.  It should come as no surprise given the reputation of Fernando Meirelles, the film’s director.  In 2002 Meirelles made City Of God - a film about two boys growing up in Rio De Janeiro.  Despite having subtitles (which is a turnoff for so many), the film was nominated for four Academy Awards and is ranked by the public at the Internet Movie Database as one of the top 20 films of all time.  I’m not sure I’d rank it so highly but I’ll tell you that it’s a damn good film.

Meirelles’ follow-up is based on the novel John le Carre and is set in Northern Kenya.  Justin Quayle (Fiennes), an English diplomat, has just learned his wife, Tessa (Weisz), has been killed in a car accident.  He suspects foul play and knew that his wife was working on a secret investigation that she didn’t want to involve him in.  Despite the authorities believing it to be an “open and shut” case, Justin goes on a determined search for the truth.  The deeper he digs, the darker it is getting…

The tension builds as the film progresses and we see Ralph Fiennes go from a shy, awkward man into a passionate, unrelenting individual who is prepared to take on any risk.  It’s a top performance from Fiennes but I feel guilty in singling him out from the rest of the cast because they really all are very good.

It’s also a very topical film.  There are some parts to the story which I wouldn’t ordinarily believe but having seen documentaries such as The Corporation and Enron: The Smartest In The Room, I’m not surprised at all.  It’s remarkable how people can distance themselves from a problem and feel less responsible.  You’ll note that I haven’t gone into much detail and I hope I’ve created enough intrigue to get you off your butt and into the movie theatre.

Throw in some wonderful panoramic shots of Kenya and a snazzy African soundtrack and you have everything that a great drama should be.  The Constant Gardener is one of the year’s finest and if it’s a sign of the upcoming Oscar releases, please bring them on!

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 11 November 2005

An elderly lady has been shot dead in a convenience store robbery in Detroit, Michigan.  Her name was Evelyn Mercer (Flanagan) and she had a “saint-like” reputation in the community.  Evelyn took hundreds of troubled youths into her care and helped find them suitable foster homes.  She touched many people but there were four boys she deeply cared about – Bobby (Whalberg), Angel (Gibson), Jeremiah (Benjamin) and Jack (Hedlund).  Evelyn adopted them and raised them as her own.

It’s been a while since these four brothers left the Mercer house but they have returned on hearing word of Evelyn’s slaying.  When asked, Bobby tells police Lieutenant Green (Howard), an old friend, that he hasn’t returned for the funeral – he’s returned to find the people responsible and see that his own brand of justice is served upon them.

After some “forceful” sniffing around, their investigations lead them to Victor Sweet (Ejiofor), a wealthy businessman with friends in high places.   Why though would Victor be involved in a petty robbery and why would he want an old lady killed?  It doesn’t add up.  Victor knows Bobby and his brothers are on his tail.  He wants them taken care of before they get too close.

Four Brothers is predominantly an action film which its car chases and shoot-outs.  These scenes have been outstandingly put together by director director John Singleton (2 Fast 2 Furious, Shaft, Boyz In The Hood).  The reaction I had towards a violent gun-fest at the Mercer residence in the middle part of the film was simply “woah”.  It was loud and intense.

What I liked most about the film was the surprising depth to the characters.  You can sense the bond between these four brothers and the fact they are all looking out for each other.  Mark Whalberg (as Bobby) and Garrett Hedlund (as Jack) are particularly interesting.  I’m glad to say that this isn’t a film where $100,000,000 was spent on the action and $100 spent on the script.

There are a few confusing elements to the story (such as why Evelyn was killed and why Victor is as powerful as he is) but I think it’s a strong film in a genre I usually expect so little from.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 14 November 2005

There is a woman.  She has a 6-year-old daughter.  They board a plane.  They plane takes off.  The mother falls asleep.  When she wakes up, her daughter is not there.  She looks around the plane.  The flight attendants start searching.  There is simply no trace of her.  The mother starts freaking out.  An air marshall keeps her calm.  A flight attendant checks the passenger manifest.  The daughter was never on the plane.  No one ever saw her.

It’s a suspenseful premise and it’s all very Hitchcock like.  A girl goes missing at 36,000 feet above sea level.  How can this possibly happen?  I was very intrigued and having the film set in such an enclosed space only increased the suspense.  Jodie Foster’s performance as the mother is gripping and you sense the confusion that is raging through her mind.

What follows is the single worst ending to a film you will see in 2005.  I can’t possibly imagine that Jodie Foster signed on to appear in this film after having first read this dismal excuse for a script.  People have different tastes and like different movies but how can anyone like this?  The plot holes are so obvious that a 10-year-old could pick them out.  It’s as if the screenwriters came up with the story then didn’t know how to end it.  So instead of scrapping the idea, they tried to “pull a swifty” on the audience.

I’ll remember Flightplan for a long time because it sets a benchmark for lunacy that I can compare other dodgy endings to.   Over.