Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 10 September 2005

Will Stronghold (Angarano) is starting his freshman year at Sky High, the school where kids with super-powers learn how to harness their ability and use it to benefit mankind.  There’s a lot of expectation on Will because he’s the son of the world’s two leading superheros, The Commander (Russell) and Jetstream (Preston).  Unfortunately for Will, he hasn’t developed any powers yet and hasn’t had the guts to tell his parents.

It doesn’t take long for Will to make his first “mortal enemy”.  Fellow student Warren Peace is determined to make Will’s school life a difficult experience.  You see, Warren’s dad is a super-villain and was defeated and put into jail by Will’s parents.  When the two face off in a cafeteria brawl, Will’s dream comes true – he develops super-human strength and manages to defend himself.  The end result though is a trip to the detention room.

Will’s best friend is Layla (Danielle Panabaker) but he is oblivious to the fact she has a huge crush on him.  It goes from bad to worse for Layla when Will falls for Gwen, an older student and head of the Homecoming Dance committee.  The two start spending all their time together and Layla has to take a back seat.  Things are about to change however with evil forces planning on destroying Sky High and Will’s parents in the process.  It’s up to Will to save the day.

I’ve heard this film compared to The Incredibles and that’s a fair description.  It’s a film which looks at superheroes in a more personal, comedic light.  Sky High is cute but it’s in no way as entertaining as The Incredibles, which was one of the most smartly written animated films ever made.  There are some gaping holes in the Sky High story but it’s designed for kids and I like the overall premise so I’m prepared to give it some slack.

There’s a good performance in the film from Michael Angarano (Lords Of Dogtown) who plays Will Stronghold.  He has a sheepish look that fits the character perfectly.  The star power comes from Kurt Russell and Kelly Preston but the script doesn’t give them much to work with - their dialogue is fairly plain and rigid.

It’s just good enough for kids to enjoy this school holidays.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 01 September 2005

Every couple of months, there’s a new hot male or female who is being touted as Hollywood’s latest star.  Their faces are splashed across magazine covers, fan clubs appear everywhere on the internet and you can’t go a week without hearing their name in some context.  That is until… the next hot thing comes along.  Not long after, you will forget they even exist.  Such is life and such is our fickle admiration for movie stars.  We love new stars but when they saturate the media, we tire quickly and look for something else to leach onto.

In ten years time I may have egg on my face but I declare that Canadian-born Rachel McAdams will get past this hurdle and will become a long-term starlet of the screen.  She created a huge buzz in Wedding Crashers but showed she’s not just a pretty face with great performances in The Notebook and Mean Girls.  I see talent and I really hope she does make the right script choices to keep her career on track.

Truth be told, Red Eye isn’t the greatest of films.  For Rachel McAdams though, it’s the chance to try the thriller genre for the first time.  To call the screenplay formulaic is an understatement.  There’s enough substance to keep you awake but not a single thrill comes as a surprise.  It’s like so many thrillers of late – trying too hard with too many plot twists.  Simple is best.

The story sees Lisa (McAdams) on board an airplane.  Sitting next to her is Jackson Rippner (Murphy), a young guy who seems friendly.  When the plane takes off however, Jackson shows his true colours.  He is part of a terrorist unit who plans to assassinate a high-profile guest at the hotel at which Lisa works.  They will kill Lisa’s father if she does not call the hotel office and use her sway as manager to have this guest transferred to a different room.  You see, the different room has a view of the ocean which gives the terrorists a perfect shot from their boat.

She’s terrified at first and through her tears, struggles to put a sentence together.  She then puts her thinking cap on and tries to find away out of this.  Lisa doesn’t want her father to die but doesn’t want to sacrifice the guest and his family to do so.  Does she manage to pull it off with a number of close shaves and a great sense of timing?  I’ll leave it to your own imagination from here.

Red Eye is directed by horror maestro Wes Craven (Scream, A Nightmare On Elm Street).  Few directors have as much experience in the genre and you’ll see it on show here.  The climax looks great as the camera moves around the house showing us only what he wants us to see.  You know something is going to happen but the camera teases us by making us wait and throwing in the occasional “red herring”.  It’s not a new technique but Craven has a near-perfect sense of timing.

Not a memorable film but all you need remember is the name Rachel McAdams.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 08 September 2005

I know nothing about art.  Last year, I went to the Louvre in Paris and saw the Mona Lisa for the first time.  I was there in a 100% tourist capacity.  I could now tell everyone that I’d seen the Mona Lisa, like it was some sort of achievement.  Bluntly, I wasn’t there to marvel at this most famous work of art.  I have no idea what’s even special about it and what differentiates it from the thousands of other paintings that were on display.  Even if an expert tried to explain it, I wouldn’t understand.

This analogy is relevant if I’m any hope of explaining by love for Gus Van Sant’s new film, Last Days.  Inspired by the death of Kurt Cobain, this film follows a young rock musician named Blake (played by Michael Pitt) in the final days of his life.  Blake hardly utters a decipherable word throughout the film and many scenes are just him walking silently through the house and in the surrounding forestry.

As a result, many people will see Last Days as the most boringly pointless film ever made.  You’d be hard pressed to find another film this year with less dialogue and less action.  So why did I like it?  When you see 200 odd films each year, you develop a dull familiarity which makes it hard to stay interested.  Most movies follow the same predictable formulas and pan out exactly as you’d expect.  For me, Last Days had me hypnotised.  I found it fascinating to be watching a simple person go about his life whilst knowing that he will soon die.  He doesn’t know this of course but I do.

Last Days is the final in a trilogy of films from director Gus Van Sant (My Own Private Idaho, Good Will Hunting) on the subject of young people and death.  In 2002’s Gerry (which was hardly seen in Australia), Matt Damon and Casey Affleck were two individuals who became hopelessly lost in a desert.  2003’s Elephant (which won the Palm D’Or at the Cannes Film Festival) looked a high school shooting spree in a similar vein that which happened at Columbine High School.  Elephant was my second favourite film of last year and a true masterpiece.  Each film explores a different cause of death.  Sometimes it is brought about from being careless, sometimes it is completely random and unexpected, sometimes it is can consume you.

In the leading role, Michael Pitt gives a tremendous performance.  It can’t have been easy replicating the same mannerisms and mumblings for each take.  Pitt is developing a strong resume in the world of independent cinema.  It’s as if he’s deliberately trying to shun main-stream Hollywood by taking on roles in films such as Hedwig & The Angry Inch, Bully and The Dreamers.  I respect any actor who is not tempted by the lure of Hollywood blockbusters but instead looks for “meatier” roles in low-budget independent films (where the scripts are written before the actors sign on the dotted line).  Michael Pitt fits this mould.

I’ve done my best to explain why this is one of my favourite films of 2005.  It’s become a cliché but it actually one of those films that you’ll love or hate.  The Courier Mail critic Des Patridge gave it his lowest rating of a single star.  At The Movies host Margaret Pomeranz awarded it her highest rating of five stars.  It’s not often that you see a film which leaves critics so divided.  If you don’t get it, then don’t worry.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 28 August 2005

Based on a true story, Lords Of Dogtown is about three teenagers who in the late 1970s, helped make skateboarding famous.  There was a similarly themed documentary made several years ago called Dogtown And The Z-Boys which I haven’t seen but it’s on my list of films to catch up on.  I was never really interested in this film and writer Stacy Peralta hasn’t done anything to change this.

Don’t think I’m not being objective though.  Even if you are interested in skateboarding, the film is  a confusing mess that doesn’t know what it wants to be.  It starts off with skateboarding, skateboarding and more skateboarding.  The kids all seem to have a different background and some strange parents but this wasn’t explored too much.  The film changes then when a drugged-up manager (played by Heath Ledger) starts entering them in tournaments.

The concluding parts of the film are rushed and don’t offer much.  As the three get older, they slowly drift apart.  Tony (Rasuk) finds stardom and develops an big ego.  Jay (Hirsch) starts hanging out with gangs, does drugs and shaves his head.  Stacy (Robinson) stays pretty much the same.  They are all reunited in a scene at the end with the help of another young skater named Sid (Angarano).  I guess this is supposed to be the feel good ending but felt indifferent.  So little time was spent developing the rift between the three leading characters, it seemed strange to have such a big, significant reconciliation.

The film is directed by Catherine Hardwicke who made a film last year I enjoyed a lot – Thirteen starring Evan Rachel Wood.  Lords Of Dogtown has a similar look with quick editing and many scenes shot with a moving hand-held camera.  It’s overdone here to the point where it’s hard to see what’s going on.  This detracts from the skateboarding itself (the essence of the film) and only highlights the fact they’ve used stunt doubles throughout.

Those who enjoy the sport will find plenty to like about the film.  Unlike any other sporting films though, this fails to connect with those who do not.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 04 September 2005

Your background will influence what you make of the second cinematic adaptation of Charlie & The Chocolate Factory.  I’d spoken with several people who liked the film and have read many positive reviews from both within Australia and abroad.  Unfortunately, I see Tim Burton’s version Charlie & The Chocolate Factory as an undeniable failure.  Perhaps my love for the original film (with Gene Wilder in the leading role) and my high expectations of this new film contributed to this viewpoint.

For those who haven’t been exposed to author Roald Dahl’s world, the reclusive Willy Wonka has announced to the world that he will give five children the chance to tour his chocolate factory.  It will be an historic event as no one has set foot in the factory for years.  To select the lucky kids, Wonka has hidden five precious golden tickets in his candy bars.  Wonka’s marketing team must be thrilled because the announcement left the kids of the world emptying their piggy-banks and buying and piece of Wonka candy they can get their hands on.

Charlie Bucket is a young Londoner who live is a dilapidated house with his parents and grandparents.  His father works at a toothpaste factory and their meagre income provides little more than cabbage soup each night for dinner.  The only candy bar that Charlie sees each year is the one he gets on his birthday.  With four golden tickets already claimed, Charlie finds some money in the street, walks into the nearest candy store and purchases one Wonka bar.  The unthinkable becomes reality – inside is the last golden ticket!

Tim Burton is a fantastic director who tackles unconventional material and appreciates the talent of Johnny Depp.  In all, they have worked together on three previous films (Edward Scissorhands, Ed Wood and Sleepy Hollow).  This time though, their collaboration has come to nought.

Speaking firstly of Johnny Depp, his portrayal of Willy Wonka (which many say is an imitation of Michael Jackson) did not sit well with me.  In the original film, Gene Wilder has a strange quirkiness about him that was almost scary.  Johnny Depp, perhaps trying to differentiate himself from Wilder, looks like a childish, dim-wit.  It all starts badly for Depp with a silly introduction and song on the steps of the factory.  He manages a few funny lines towards the end of the film but generally, his attempts at humour left a confused look on my face.

Now to Tim Burton and I was surprised by his heavy reliance on special effects.  Everything looks fake and plastic.  What’s with Augustus Gloop?  He looks computer generated but I guess not since there’s an actor listed in the credits.  Worst of all are the Oompa-Loopas.  Or should I say Oompa-Loopa.  There’s just one actor who plays the Oompa-Loompas (Deep Roy) and Burton has used CGI effects to multiply him.  It’s almost as annoying as their songs (which again I think are inferior to the first film).

I see this film having more appeal to kids than adults but why has the focus been taken away from Charlie?  Played nicely by Freddie Highmore, Charlie is hardly seen in the middle stages of the film.  The focus is on Johnny Depp and how many strange looks he can give.  As I’ve said though, others may see this differently and may enjoy Burton’s different spin on Dahl’s famous tale.  I did not.