Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 06 November 2005

Most movies you simply watch.  Rare movies though, require you both think and watch.  Within five minutes I new that Stay fell into the later category.  Like Mulholland Drive, Donnie Darko or The Sixth Sense, you’ll be taken into a mysterious world that doesn’t make much sense.  The challenge is then presented – can you predict how it will end?

It begins with psychiatrist Sam Foster (McGregor) taking over from of a colleague who has gone on leave.  One of his new patients is Henry Letham (Gosling), a young man on the eve of his 21^st birthday.  Henry has been hearing voices and wants to kill himself.  It’s a case that Sam can’t seem to distance himself from – he wants to know more about Henry and will do whatever he can to prevent his death.

The key to any great mystery is the storyline and whether the ending supports that which precedes it.  I was guessing constantly throughout and now have seen how the film ends, I can endorse the entire 99 minutes.  It is for this reason that I won’t reveal any more about the plot.  Preconceptions will only ruin the experience.

Stay has a visual style which blew me away.  The film keeps slipping from location to location with a crafty camera technique that you have to see to appreciate.  It’s unlike anything I’ve seen before and is the culmination of work by the visual effects artists, the cinematographer, the film editor, the writer and the director.  It’ll blow your mind and only increase the mystery of Sam Foster and Henry Letham.

I’ve spoken to a few other people regarding the film’s interpretation and the significance of several scenes and characters.  Most agree on the overall premise but I think it would take several viewings to pick up most the meaningful references left by writer David Benioff (Troy, 25^th Hour) and director Marc Foster (Monster’s Ball, Finding Neverland).  I can’t wait to see it again!

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 30 October 2005

Doom isn’t the first computer game to have been made into a feature-length motion picture.  So devoid of ideas are they in Hollywood, we’ve had Super Mario Brothers, Street Fighter, Wing Commander, Double Dragon, Mortal Kombat, Resident Evil, Final Fantasy and Tomb Raider.  Most struggle at the box-office but if you are a fan, don’t worry because there’s even more on the way.  A cinematic version of Halo, one of the most popular games of the moment, is set for release in 2007.

In Doom, Sarge (The Rock) informs his small team of soliders that their leave has been cancelled.  There’s been an incident at a science research facility on Mars and they have been called in to rescue six missing scientists and to secure the area.  As they enter the darkened tunnels of the building, they realise that this is no ordinary mission.  They find the mutilated bodies of some of the scientists and can’t explain what caused such butchery.

The pieces will soon be put together and the answer is an all too familiar one in the world of science fiction.  The scientists were experimenting with genetic mutation and were altering the number of chromosomes found within the human body.  Lo and behold, the experiments went bad and now there are some crazy creatures on the loose.  Isn’t this just Resident Evil all over again?

The film has been rated MA in Australia and it’s worth knowing if you’re thinking of seeing it.  There are some particularly gruesome scenes which generated some laughs and some groans at the screening I attended.  There’s a sizeable amount of coarse language also.

Doom isn’t a film I’d watch a second time but there are few moments in the final half-hour of the film which I did enjoy.  It’s can’t elaborate because I don’t want to give away the ending but let’s just say the final fate of one character in particular was unexpected (and the screenwriters had a good sense of humour about it).

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 04 November 2005

Drew Baylor (Bloom) is about to kill himself.  He has reconfigured his exercise bike so that when he sits on it, a sharp knife will stab him in the something.  Why, you may ask?  You see, Drew had invented a revolutionary new shoe which looked set to make him millions.  The company he works put it into production only to see every single shoe recalled due to a major defect (which is never explained).  It is a “fiasco” and the head of the company, Phil DeVoss (Baldwin), tells Drew that he’s cost the firm close to one billion dollars.

I’m not sure whether Drew would have gone through with his suicide but the option is taken away when he gets a phone call from his sister, Heather (Greer).  She tells him that their father has died.  Drew’s parents are separated and his mother (Sarandon) can’t handle organising the funeral arrangements.  She has asked Drew to go to his dad’s home in Elizabethtown as the family’s representative.

On the plane, he unwillingly talks to Claire Colburn (Dunst), an overfriendly flight attendant who gives Drew her number.  Bored one night in Elizabethtown, he calls Claire and they share an epic telephone conversation which goes all night long.  Within a day, she’s spending the night at his hotel room and romance is blossoming.

That’ll do for my overview of the plot which was difficult to put together.  I had trouble following the storyline and found Orlando Bloom to be a very dislikeable character.  Director Cameron Crowe shows continual close-ups of Bloom’s face and he always has this strained, puzzled look.  I didn’t understand him at all.  Why doesn’t he have any friends?  Why is he such a loner?  Why is he the fall-guy for the problem at work?  Why am I supposed to care about him?

At no stage did I connect with this film.  It felt disjointed and I didn’t know what the focus of the story was supposed to be.  Are they trying to tell us to live each moment as if it were your last?  What’s with all the subplots?  Director Cameron Crowe (Almost Famous) is usually great at selecting a movie soundtrack but he’s gone over-the-top with Elizabethtown.  There are numerous musical montages that might mean something to him but they meant little to me.  The final 20 minutes was worst of all.

I’ve run out of energy to continue.  This film just sapped it right out of me.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 28 October 2005

Be careful because the title can be misleading.  Released just a few days before Halloween, I was expecting some “scare the pants off you” horror flick in a similar vein to The Exorcist.  Instead, I got a legal drama and seeing Laura Linney again as a lawyer had me thinking back to the excellent Primal Fear.

Based on a true story, Father Moore (Wilkinson) finds himself being charged with negligent homicide.  Told by way of flashbacks, we learn how Father Moore came to be in this position.  The family of young college student named Emily Rose had come to him as a last resort.  Once a vibrant, happy girl, Emily now experiences continual hallucinations and epileptic-like seizures.  Doctors have been unable to help her and so the Rose family have gone in search of a “spiritual” answer.

Father Moore didn’t believe in the supernatural but that quickly changed on meeting Emily Rose.  After seeing her condition and the way she spoke, he believed she had been possessed by a satanic demon.  An exorcism was attempted without success and not long after, Emily died of self-inflicted injuries and malnutrition.  Non-believers see her death as a direct result of Father Moore’s “treatment” and hence he finds himself before a judge and jury.

I’m not sure how I stand on the subject matter but I like courtroom setting and I enjoyed seeing this story unfold.  Emily’s story is compelling and I’m sure many people who see it, will ask themselves the question as to whether they believe in ghosts, demons and other supernatural phenomena.  What also keeps the film interesting are the lingering questions about Father Moore – is he telling the full story and will he be found guilty?

Laura Linney plays Erin Bruner, a gun defence attorney who initially took on the case to improve her public image.  As the trial progresses though, she finds herself increasingly caught up with the emotion of the case and it becomes her own personal battle to find the truth and seek justice.  Linney is my favourite actress of the moment and she rarely turns in a bad performance.  If I’m ever on trial for murder, I’d be extremely tempted to hire her – she’s a very convincing lawyer!

The film has its weaknesses however and I do question the obvious one-sidedness to the story.  There’s an obvious message here at that is that we need to believe what happened to Emily is true.  You get the feeling the screenwriters have overused their cosmetic brush and that the real story wasn’t as straight forward.  The prosecuting lawyer, played by Campbell Scott, is an unlikeable character and is always making stupid remarks.  When you put him alongside Laura Linney, you know who people will be cheering for.

Another query I had was how this case came to be in the first place?  Emily’s family, who for some strange reason we don’t hear much from, appear to support Father Moore.  Who had the unequivocal evidence in the first place that Moore was guilty?  The mystery of Emily Rose continues…

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 30 October 2005

Ben (Phillips), Liz (Magrath) and Christy (Morassi) have set off on a road trip across Australia.  They started in Broome, Western Australia and heading towards tropical North Queensland.  Ben is an Aussie but Liz and Christy are two English backpackers looking to have fun and looking to see the Great Outback.

One of their first stops is Wolf Creek, home to a giant meteorite crater.  They leave the car and embark on a 3-hour trek to see this landmark first hand.  On returning, they find their car won’t start.  Thankfully, a tow-truck driver named Mick (Jarratt) spots them on his way home and offers them assistance.  He’ll tow their vehicle back to his place where he replace a broken coil.  Our three travellers spend the night camped outside Mick’s isolated residence.

When Liz wakes up, she finds herself locked in a room with her hands and feet tied.  How did she get here?  Where are the others?  How long has she been here?  What is in store for her?  The answers will be revealed but it’s going to be a terrifying experience…

The film opens with a statement that Wolf Creek is based on a true story.  I believe that story to be that of Ivan Milat, the man convicted of killing several backpackers in New South Wales in the early 1990s.  Others see a similarity to the mysterious disappearance of Englishman Peter Falconio in 2001.  So much so, that the prosecutors in the Falconio case (which is currently before the judge) asked for the release of the film to be delayed.

You must understand that this film has been rated R in Australia for its “high level realistic violence”.   Some viewers have been critical and say that the filmmakers are using the tasteless violence as entertainment.  I strongly disagree here and I think the reason that people are so disturbed, including myself, is because the film has been exceptionally well made.  It sets up a great premise and director Greg McLean artfully uses his camera to maximise the suspense.  There isn’t any more violence than in your normal flick – what is different is that this looks real!  People will be affected and that’s the design of the film.  So if this isn’t you cup of tea, don’t see it.  I’ve warned you.

A couple of weeks ago, the nominations were announced for the Australian Film Institute Awards (to be held in late November).  I’m happy to say that Wolf Creek has been nominated for seven awards in total including best director and best original screenplay.  The cinematography of Will Gibson also received a very deserved nomination.  If it didn’t involve a crazy serial killer, I’d call the film a great advertisement for checking out central Australia.