Reviews

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 26 April 2004

Looking back upon my initial review for Kill Bill: Volume One, I see it as the better of the two films.  Sure the martial arts scenes were competitive but at least there was some action.  There are few fight scenes in Kill Bill: Volume Two and even they are an anticlimax.  Especially that grand finale when Uma gets to “kill Bill”.  During the close credits, there are a few glimpses back at what the first film had to offer.  They serve as a reminder to the audience of what film one offered and what film two didn’t.

What I praised about the initial flick was director Quentin Tarantino’s style.  But the flair which dazzled me then doesn’t seem as impressive now.  Perhaps because I’ve seen it once before.  I fear retribution for making these statements because clearing the film has a following.  On the Internet Movie Database, the public has already ranked it within the top 250 of all time.  I am very much a Tarantino fan and thought I would feel the same way but alas, I do not.

The film picks up where the last one left off.  There’s a lengthy introduction first though to show us why and how Beatrix Kiddo (Thurman) was slain in the wedding chapel by Bill (Carradine) and the rest of the Deadly Viper Assassination Squad.  The next stop for Beatrix is Budd (Madsen) follwed by Elle (Hannah) and then Bill.  Tarantino likes casting “washed up” actors in his films with Carradine, Hannah and Madsen clearly fit into that category.  They do give good performances and I loved the slow talking style of Carradine and friend Esteban Vihaio (played by Esteban Vihaio).

I believe the conclusion to be limp.  Is there something Tarantino is trying to say?  I was looking for a big bang of a finish but instead found little more than a long winded conversation.  Not sure why.  As I’ve said, others love the film so maybe they can tell me where I have gone wrong with my thinking.  But as it currently stands, I can’t find a strong enough reason to recommend Kill Bill: Volume Two.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 17 April 2004

I've been known to pick the twist in a thriller pretty early on in the film.  But never before can I claim to have picked the twist from the trailer.  Until now.

Taking Lives is a feeble attempt at a motion picture.  It doesn’t even try to keep its secrets hidden.  The serial killer plot appears to have been wrapped up after about an hour.  Does the director seriously think we’re all sitting in our seats going “well that’s over, let’s get out of here”?  You only have to look at your watch to know there’s a lot more to go.  In other words, the person who they thought was the killer, was not the killer.

I haven’t identified any names just in case you do want to see this film.  It all centres on a body being found at a construction sight.  Specially called by the police is an FBI agent named Illeana (Jolie) who immediately goes to the crime scene and miraculously puts together a perfect profile.  Within 24 hours, there’s a similar murder only this time there was a witness – a guy known as Costa (Hawke).

He provides a composite sketch and now they have a suspect.  Illeana’s “psychic” abilities enable her to pinpoint what this suspect has been doing.  For over 20 years, he has been killing people and assuming their identities.  If this sounds familiar, you should rent the Talented Mr. Ripley on video.  If you’ve already seen it, you need to see it again.  It’s a wonderful film and puts Taking Lives to shame.

There’s an ending to this mayhem which is dumb and stupid.  Again, I won’t go into details.  Not because I don’t want to spoil it, but rather because I couldn’t be stuffed wasting the effort.  These serial killer flicks are all the same.  What is our fascination with them?  There aren’t that many you know.

The performances don’t warrant a mention either.  Angelina Jolie now finds her career in a definite rut and she clearly needs guidance to choose better roles.  Viewers need to be wary of a few gruesome scenes but frankly, viewers need to be wary of the whole production.  The only lives that needed taking were those of the film’s creators.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 25 April 2004

Elephant will leave you talking.  There’s a fair chance you won’t see another film like it.  Does this mean it’s the must see movie of the year?  Not necessarily.

On April 20, 1999, two teenage students went on shooting rampage at Columbine High School in the small town of Littleton, Colorado.  In all, 13 students were killed and a further 25 were injured.  As expected, the event sparked a media frenzy.  Everyone had an opinion as to why these kids had done what they had done.  Some blamed violent video movies and video games.  Some blamed gun control.  Some blamed bullying in schools.  Some blamed the parents.  Some blamed everyone.

Filmmaker Michael Moore used the shootings as the basis for his award winning and universally praised documentary, Bowling For Columbine.  Elephant is not a retelling of the Columbine story.  Rather, it is a fictional story of two teenagers, Alex (Frost) and Eric (Duelen), who also go on a similar high school killing spree.

Last year, Elephant claimed one of the highest honours in film – the top prize (known as the Palm D’or) at the Cannes Film Festival.  I have a huge respect for this award as it is voted upon by a select jury of film aficionados.  Previous winners of the Palm D’or include The Pianist, Dancer In The Dark, Secrets & Lies and Pulp Fiction.  Despite the acclaim, you won’t be seeing Elephant at many cinemas in Australia.  The film is receiving a very small release and this can be attributed to its distinctive art-house style.

What do I mean by this?  Well, the film is shot very much like a documentary.  The camera follows a group of selected students around the school in the hours leading up to the shootings.  They are just going about their day like it is any other day.  There are scenes that run for several minutes and are nothing more than kids walking up and down the school corridors.  It may sound boring on paper but I found that director Gus Van Sant’s style enhanced my liking for the characters.  These are just ordinary people and knowing their pending fate left a chilling feeling in my stomach.

Also impressive about Elephant is its conscious decision not to imply a singular reason for the tragedy.  I enjoy such films as they allow us to think about the film rather than letting the film think for us.  This approach by Gus Van Sant has not gone unnoticed and controversy has surrounded it since its Cannes premiere.  Only recently I saw the usually likable Andrew Warne of Foxtel’s Showtime Movie News describing his disgust for film’s cold blooded finale.

There isn’t a familiar name amongst the cast with the performances largely improvised.  The casting crew auditioned over 3,000 teenagers in the Portland area for the leading roles and those selected were encouraged to use their own experiences at school to shape their characters.  These unproven actors do an incredible job and it’s great to see Gus Vant Sant being rewarded for taking the risk with such an alternative concept.

An inspiration to Van Sant was a BBC documentary on school violence shot filmed in 1989 by late Alan Clarke.  It was also called Elephant and Van Sant’s own use of the title serves as a tribute.  Clarke’s use of the title came from his saying that the problem is as easy to ignore as an elephant in a living room.  An appropriate phrase indeed and I similarly urge you not to ignore this film at any cost.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 14 April 2004

It’s my favourite film title of the year – Dirty Pretty Things.  It creates curiosity and a desire to know exactly what is both dirty and pretty.  You find out in the earlier stages of this film which is well directed by Stephen Frears (Dangerous Liaisons, High Fidelity) and craftily written by Stephen Knight, who earned an Academy Award nomination for his work.

Okwe (Ejiofor) is a Nigerian native trying to elude immigration officers in London.  He never sleeps, works numerous jobs and is looking to build a new life.  By night, Okwe works at the front desk of a posh hotel.  Trying to keep a low profile, the sly Okwe has been living at the apartment of one of the hotel’s maids, Senay (Tautou), who is also looking to avoid the authorities.

At work one evening, Okwe is asked to investigate a problem in Room 510.  The toilet is overflowing but it isn’t a run-of-the-mill incident.  The clog is being caused by a human heart.  Exactly how did a human heart end up in a hotel toilet?  There’s no sign of any other trouble in the room and so Okwe goes to hotel manager, Juan (Lopez), who thinks little of it.  Okwe finds himself is a difficult situation – he knows he needs to call the police but as an illegal immigrant, he’s putting his own head in a noose.  Is there a better way to resolve this situation?  Indeed there is.

Frears has assembled a strong cast to back the worthy screenplay.  I had never heard of Chiwetel Ejiofor before but I now know him as an English actor on the rise.  He works wonderfully with French actress Audrey Tautou who many will remember from the popular foreign comedy Amelie.

It’s a very interesting story filled with memorable characters with an ending sure to please.  It’s a gritty look into a world I know very little of and it brings to light many attention-grabbing issues.  Like any good thriller, you never know what’s going to happen next.  In a week when Harry Potter is dominating the Australian box-office and causing lengthy queues, here is an ideal alternative.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 18 April 2004

            “How happy is the blameless vestal’s lot!

            The world forgetting, by the world forgot.

            Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind!

            Each pray’r accepted, and each wish resign’d.”

               - Alexander Pope (1688 – 1744)

Walking alone the coastline on a chilly February morning, Joel Barish’s (Carrey) eyes are drawn by an orange shape in the distance.  Moving closer, he passes a cute young girl (Winslet) with blue hair wearing a bright tangerine jacket.  They meet again on the train ride home and she boldly introduces herself as Clementine.  That very night, the two share an intimate evening picnic on an ice covered lake before returning home at dawn in each other’s arms.  When you first fall in love, everything is perfect until the day…

…you want to forget you ever met.  Their relationship has soured and the last time they spoke, Clementine stormed out following an accusation of infidelity.  Several days have passed, and Joel goes looking for Clementine with a fleeting thought of reconciliation.  He finds her but Clementine has no memory of Joel.  She underwent an experimental medical technique for the “focused erasure of troubled memories” and now has no recollection whatsoever of their time together.

In an emotive haze of rashness, Joel decides to square the ledger by undergoing the same procedure.  He meets with Dr. Howard Mierzwiak (Wilkinson) and is introduced to his team – Stan (Ruffalo), Patrick (Wood) and Mary (Dunst).  Under a strong anaesthetic, the operation begins encouragingly with the later memories of the relationship wiped away.  But as the brighter, earlier memories come back, Jim realises he doesn’t want to forget Clementine.  In an unconscious state, his only chance is to let his mind fight back against a machine determined to erase it.

Would writer Charlie Kaufman please stand up and take a bow.  He’s the best writer in the business today!  In 1999, he wrote the insanely original Being John Malkovich which told the story of a quirky officer worker who found a portal behind a filing cabinet which took you inside the mind of John Malkovich.  It was my favourite film of that year.  Two years ago, he crafted the Academy Award winning Adaptation which blurred truth and fiction like never as he himself (played by Nicolas Cage) struggled to adapt a boring novel about orchards.  My simple descriptions of these films doesn’t even scratch the surface.  There’s no way to sum up Kaufman’s deeply intricate screenplays in a single sentence.  Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind is no exception.

Perfectly complimenting Kaufman’s script is the direction of Michael Gondry.  Gondry is as original as a director as Kaufman is a writer.  It was Gondry who invented the film technique allowing several cameras to take pictures at the same time around somebody (as used in The Matrix).  He began his career making music videos and television commercials but his work here will see him feature a lot more on the big screen.  Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind is one optical illusion after the other as Gondry uses seamless special effects to lure the audience into an unthinkable world.  I also liked his timing of the opening credits.  Not to be overlooked are the spot-on performances of Kate Winslet and an unusually serious Jim Carrey.

What an amazing film.  Once you’ve seen it, there’s no way you’ll forget it.  Unless of course you pay a visit to Dr. Howard Mierzwiak…