Reviews

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 25 February 2004

At Wellesley College, you will find some of the country’s smartest girls.  In the class of 1953/54, there’s Betty Warren (Dunst), Joan Brandwyn (Stiles), Giselle Levy (Gyllenhaal) and Connie Baker (Goodwin) who are all close friends.  In their dormitory of an evening, they study religiously and talk of men and marriage.  It’s a school rich in tradition and the conservative school board likes it that way.

And then along came Katherine Watson (Roberts).  I say this with trepidation and you may already see where I’m coming from.  Katherine is a young teacher with fresh insight, unique teaching methods and different views.  She doesn’t believe a woman’s sole purpose in life is to find a husband.  She believes a woman can also have a college education and a successful career.  Sure enough, the school board is rattled but the students adore her and she’s become the breath of fresh air so desperately needed at Wellesley.

Unfortunately this theme is forced down our throat in large doses.  There’s nothing subtle about the screenplay and it’s all a little too “preachy” to win my vote.  Rather than letting the story tell the message, the message seems to be telling the story.

Julia Roberts is fine in the leading role but too much attention is paid to her plight.  The supporting characters are seldom seen and any emotion we are to feel for them doesn’t come through.  Also hindering their performances is a hurried screenplay which has them changing personalities in the blink of an eye.  I won’t outline specifics here but the development and ultimate fate of Julia Stiles’ character is a very good example.

Katherine finds a love interest in Bill Dunbar (West), a teacher at the school and this does little more than increase the film’s running time.  It’s a trivial subplot when I would have preferred more focus on the two characters Katherine lives with – an aging teacher stuck in a world of routine (played by Marcia Gay Harden) and a teacher fired for a simple mistake but with an interesting past (played by Juliet Stevenson).

I know it’s unrelated to the actual film but I feel compelled to criticise the trailer that’s been showing in cinemas for the past few months.  I’ve seen it several times now and in hindsight, it gives away virtually every plot detail including the finale.  Why show a film’s final scene in the trailer?  Is there any need for this?  Perhaps this is why I found the conclusion so disappointingly brief.

When it comes down to the crunch, Mona Lisa Smile is still worth a look just to see some of Hollywood’s best actresses light up the screen.  Just enough to bring a “smile” to my face.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 14 February 2004

I’m a big fan of any true-to-life film which tells both sides of the story.  Examples which quickly come to mind are Quiz Show and The Insider.  I am now also a fan of director Billy Ray, the man responsible for Shattered Glass.  Too many adaptations are given a touch-up by the Hollywood cosmetic brush.  Looking at Glass, I’m sure there are a few scenes which didn’t quite happen the way the film leads us to believe but the overall package appears real, honest and truthful.

The New Republic is a leading American magazine.  On two occasions during the film it is pointed out to us that it’s “the official in-flight magazine of Air Force One”.  The magazine has a relatively small staff and one of those between 1996 and 1998 was Stephen Glass.  Glass was a rising young journalist and the talk of the town in media circles.  Not only did he write for The New Republic but he also published articles for George, Rolling Stone and Policy Review.

On May 18, 1998, Stephen Glass published an article entitled “Hack Heaven”.  It was a piece about how major computer companies were paying off hackers to stop targeting their sites.  A journalist for an online magazine, Adam Penenberg, read Glass’s article then started to research the facts himself to find out why he didn’t know about it first.  It turns out there was a good reason – the article was a complete hoax.

Penenberg approached Glass and The New Republic’s editor Chuck Lane with his claims and threatened to go public with the discovery.  Glass tried to cover his tracks by fabricating notes, creating dodgy websites and phone listings.  Lane initially stood by his man but soon he too was questioning Glass.  In the end, Glass was fired, Penenberg’s article published and a wave of media attention attracted.  A subsequent review of Glass’s previous works found over 20 articles were either partially or fully fabricated.  The illustrious career of this budding 25-year-old had come to an end.

Hayden Christensen (who we all know as Anakin from the new Star Wars movies) gives his best performance.  I like how he relies on repetitive sayings (such as “a million times”) and uses his charm to keep everyone under his spell.  Generating the most buzz is co-star Peter Sarsgaard who found himself nominated for a Golden Globe and only just missed a similar nod at the Oscars.  He brilliantly underplays his Chuck Lane character and isn’t the stereotypical angry boss.  His character always tries to look cool and composed on the outside but through Sarsgaard’s wonderful performance, we sense the lingering doubt and lack of self confidence that swarms his life.

For director Billy Ray, this is his first time behind the camera and he’ll have many more opportunities.  The film is set largely in a small office but he still creates tension and excitement as the story builds.  I also liked his introduction with Glass in the classroom along with the creative opening credits.  It’s exciting to think he did all of this on a budget of just $6m.

Stephen Glass is a very interesting character and once you’ve seen the movie you can check out the tonnes of great material on the internet.  You’ll find all his bogus articles along with some of the other false notes and websites he developed to cover his tracks.  To me, it’s simply fascinating that someone could deceive for so long and if you want to see how he did it, take two hours out of your day and try Shattered Glass.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 21 February 2004

A bad movie with a great soundtrack is still a bad movie.  There in lies the problem of One Perfect Day, a movie trying to cool but lets itself down with an incoherent screenplay.

Tommy (Spielman) is a pianist, violinist, musician and wannabe composer.  He’s studying in England and roams the streets with his microphone and mini-disc recorder looking for music and sounds to inspire him.  Back home in Australia, his girlfriend Alysse (Walsman) is waiting.  She’s a budding singer looking for a big break and may have found it when approached by a small-time music agent who wants to make her a star.

Tragedy will bring Tommy home when his sister Emma (Cornish), with whom he was very close, dies of a drug overdose in one of Melbourne’s leading nightclubs.  When he learns that it was his girlfriend who provided his sister the drugs, their relationship is all but over.  After the grieving period passes Tommy meets Trig (Phillips), an energetic raver who has a few contacts and sees promise.  Trig helps Tommy land a few gigs and at last, Tommy looks to have found the symphony he has been searching so long for.

I do hope my plot description is confusing as that was the lingering feeling I endured throughout.  There was little introduction to any of characters and I was unemotive towards their plight and eventual destiny.   Too many questions I was asking myself and director Paul Currie along with co-writer Chip Richards weren’t giving me the answers.

It’s always with reluctance that I dish out on an Aussie film.  We certainly have the talent to match it on the world stage but sadly that talent isn’t on display here.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 07 February 2004

The original Jeepers Creepers was relatively successful in America (grossing $37m) but few saw it when it was released in Australia in January 2002.  It opened weakly in 8^th spot on the charts and was swept away by a range of Oscar flicks, family pictures and other summer blockbusters.  I did catch it though on its opening weekend and was thoroughly surprised.  I called it an “an invigorating shot in the arm for the teen horror genre.”  So I was very much looking forward to this sequel but most everyone else I spoke to was saying “but I haven’t even seen the first Jeepers Creepers!”

Now, in hindsight, I can make an authoritative recommendation.  Pull $4 out of your wallet, head to the nearest video store and rent Jeepers Creepers.  Then, once you’ve enjoyed its original thrills and chills, take it back to the store and do no more.  There’s no need to queue up at the local multiplex for the sequel.  It simply isn’t worth seeing.

The story revolves around a rather grizzly looking creature (played by Jonathan Breck).  For 23 years it sleeps.  For 23 days it eats.  And this cycle has continued for over a thousand years.  We have reached day 23 in its latest feast and the creepers eyes are firmly fixed on a bus filled with school kids.  It fires a sharp object at the bus’s back wheel, disables it and then waits for nightfall.  It just so happens that all mobile phones are out of range and no one is picking up on the CB radio so they’re pretty much helpless.

There’s little much else to tell from here because you already know what to expect.  Some will be eaten and some will escape.  You wouldn’t think it but both films have been written by the same person – Victor Salva.  Jeepers Creepers seemed so new and inventive whereas Jeepers Creepers 2 seems so stale and clichéd.  Anyone know what went wrong?

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 15 February 2004

House Of Sand And Fog is an unconventional film in which there are two leading characters pitted against other but we are not required to take sides.  It comes to us from the acclaimed book by Andre Dubus III which I read only a few months ago.  I can’t recall seeing a film so truthfully resemble the novel from which it was adapted.

His government turned on him and Colonel Massoud Amir Behrani (Kinglsey) had no choice but to leave Iran and flee with his family to the United States.  The Colonel is a proud man and only his wife Nadi (Aghdashloo) knows that he works two jobs – one as a Council worker and one as a petrol station attendant.   The family rents an expensive apartment but Behrani knows they can no longer afford this.  Their savings are all but gone.

Kathy Nicolo (Connelly) is a troubled woman trapped in a world of depression.  Her family lives on the other side of the country and they don’t yet know that Kathy’s husband walked out on her 8 months ago.  She lives alone in the house her late father left her, struggles to pay her bills with a small cleaning job, and attends AA meetings to help fight her battle against the bottle.

On a Friday morning, a representative of the County Tax Office and two police offiers arrive on her doorstep.  She is to be evicted for an unpaid business tax fine of $500.  Kathy hasn’t been opening her mail and knows nothing of this.  It makes no sense to her since she doesn’t even own a business.  Police Officer Lester Bernham (Eldard) tells Kathy her best option will be to fight the matter with the County and gives her the phone number of an affordable lawyer.

The very next day, the house is bought at auction by Behrani for the bargain price of $45,000.  He has it immediately valued and realises it is worth four times what he paid for it.  It’s the investment opportunity of a lifetime and the profit he will make from the sale will boost the family savings and create a better life for his wife and son.

Kathy learns from her lawyer, Connie Walsh (Fisher), that the County had no right to take the house.  Unfortunately, the subsequent sale to Colonel Behrani is valid and the only way to keep fighting will be through a costly legal proceeding which could take months.  This isn’t acceptable to Kathy who wants the house back now.  She can’t even afford to stay in a hotel and is now sleeping in her car.  Behrani is approached by Connie Walsh who asks that he return the house for the original house but he has no plans to do so.  As he tells her “it is a matter of necessity for me and my family.”  Two people who have never met and done nothing wrong now find themselves pitted against each other.

It’s a gripping story of how a simple mistake can cause a chain reaction of despair.  Emotions have clouded reality and Behrani and Kathy will not stop their quest until the house is rightfully theirs.  Others too will be drawn into their tangled web and the ending itself may come as somewhat of a surprise.  For Russian director Vadim Perelman, this couldn’t be a more ideal screenplay from which to make his directorial debut.  Not a single scene is wasted.

Ben Kingsley has found himself included amongst the best actor nominees at this year’s Oscars as has actress Shohreh Aghdashloo in the supporting category.  Both work brilliantly off each other in a relationship full of complications.  For the talented Jennifer Connolly, it’s yet another chance to shine in an already impressive resume.

It’s a bit gloomy at times but through this fog, there’s a very worthy story being told.