Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 10 August 2006

Pete Garrison (Douglas) has had a long and distinguished career with the U.S. Secret Service.  He took a bullet for President Reagan in the early 1980s and he is known as one of the Service’s most respected and experienced agents.

After a fellow agent is murdered in his own home, Garrison receives information from a trusted source that the current President is to be assassinated.  When quizzed as to how, his source reveals that there is an “insider” within the Secret Service who is putting the plan in place.

Garrison takes the threat seriously and informs the upper echelon of the Secret Service.  An immediate investigation is launched by David Breckinridge (Sutherland) with every single agent who has access to the President forced to undertake a lie detector test.  No chances are being taken.

There is one man who fails the test.  It is Pete Garrison.  The man who has protected the President for his entire career now finds himself accused of wanting to kill him.  Unable to reveal why he failed the test (I’ll let you find out for yourself), Garrison now finds himself pitted against his fellow agents in a race against time to clear his name.

I love a good political thriller and whilst The Sentinel has far too many holes for my liking, it’s fun to watch the drama unfold and pieces of the puzzle fit together.  Both Michael Douglas and Kiefer Sutherland have been well cast and they have the right personalities for their characters.  The female presence in the film is boosted with the inclusion of Kim Basinger, as the President’s wife, and Eva Longoria (Desperate Housewives), as a newcomer within the Secret Service.

It’s familiar territory for director Clark Johnson who has worked on television series such as The Shield, The West Wing, Law & Order, Third Watch and Homicide.  He knows what the audience is looking for - an interesting mystery that wraps up with a nice, neat ending.  If that sounds like your kind of movie, you’ll be happy to know that Johnson and writer George Nolfi (Ocean’s Twelve) have delivered.  Those prepared to scrutinise the nitty-gritty details of the story will be less impressed.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 25 July 2006

Newlyweds Carl (Dillon) and Molly (Hudson) are ready to relax.  The wedding is behind them and they plan on spending some quality time together in the quiet of their own home.  It’s time to start building a life together and do the things that married couples do.

There’s one problem though and his name is Randy Dupree (Wilson).  Dupree was Carl’s best man and the two have been close friends for many years.  In the days following the wedding, Carl discovered that Dupree had been sleeping in a bar because he’d lost his job, his car and his apartment for taking time off to attend to the wedding.

Feeling sympathetic, Carl lets Dupree move in.  Molly doesn’t like the idea but Carl promises that it will only be for a few days.  It’s just until Dupree can find a job and get back on his feet.  As you’d expect, it’s a recipe for disaster.  Dupree’s is deficient in household etiquette and the longer he stays, the more he gets on the nerves of both Carl and Molly.

What happens next is surprising.  Relationships in the house change but not in the way you might think.  This is where the film loses its credibility.  At the start of the film, Dupree appears to be a jealous of Carl.  He doesn’t want him spending time with Molly and this is why he moves in - to break them up.  He’s clearly lying about why he was fired from work and the fact that he shows no effort to get a new job tells me that he has an ulterior motive.

Why then does his personality change in the later stages of the film?  We are made to feel sorry for him but I don’t know why.  They should have just kept him as a lazy goofball instead of transforming him into a compassionate intellectual.

It’s a thin storyline but there are a few jokes worth chuckling over if you take the time to see it.  Michael Douglas makes an appearance as Molly’s father to boost the film’s star power.  It’s not his best role but it’s nice to hear his always recognisable voice.  This is his first time we’ve seen him on the big screen in Australia since The In-Laws was released in 2003.

Owen Wilson has been on a role with his comedic performances in Wedding Crashers, Starsky & Hutch and The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou.  He’s been due for a failure and sadly, I think this is it.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 08 August 2006

I can remember exactly where I was when the events of September 11, 2001 took place.  I was at home working on my computer.  At roughly 10:45pm, I changed the channel on my television hoping to catch the late night news.  What I saw was the now famous image of the World Trade Centre on fire.  I was still glued to the screen 5 hours later.  It’s was the kind of event where you dare not look yet you cannot turn away.  All I wanted was information.  How did the terrorists do this?  How many people were killed?  What would the ramifications be?

Almost five years has passed since that evening and much has been said and written about that date.  We’ve heard about the heroes who saved many lives.  We’ve heard about the loved ones who sadly perished.  We’ve heard about the government’s lack of action prior to and during the event.  It’s a difficult subject for some but I’ve found it extremely interesting.

Now, for the first time, a major film has been based on the terrorist attack.  Don’t be fooled into thinking that a major Hollywood studio is trying to cash-in on the tragedy.  United 93 is a respectively made film which serves as a tribute to the brave people who boarded the fateful flight.

The opening scenes show a group of people going about their daily lives.  The only thing they have in common is that they are about to board United Flight 93.  In the back of our minds, we know these people will die and it is this lingering thought that gives the film its emotional power.  These people are ordinary.  There is nothing special about them.  They talk and act just like you and me.  It makes you realise that they could have been a friend, a family member or maybe even yourself.

Shot in real time, the film follows the passengers, the pilots, the stewards and the terrorists from the time just before boarding to the moment the plane crashes.  Their story is intermingled with the drama unfolding on the ground.  The first reaction at the National Air Traffic Control Centre is that the reported hijacking cannot be true.  As the truth and gravity of the situation starts in, panic and miscommunication engulfs the air traffic administrators and the U.S. military.

Writer-director Paul Greengrass doesn’t have an agenda and isn’t trying to force-feed a message to us.  He is simply showing the events as they happen and it’s up to us to take something away from it.  It’s reminiscent of Greengrass’s Bloody Sunday, an incredible film about the death of 13 protestors at a 1972 rally in Northern Island.  Some details will never be known but Greengrass has done his best to base the film on facts.  He has listened to the cockpit voice recorder and spoken to family members who received phone calls from those aboard the flight.

United 93 is a difficult film to watch.  The documentary-like style will make you think you are watching the real thing.  I walked out of the cinema with a stunned look.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 24 July 2006

Not far from Chicago, there is a small house made entirely of glass.  If you’re worried about privacy then you need not fear.  The house is built over a lake in a secluded part of a forest.

Alex Wyler (Reeves) has just rented the house and on his first day, he reads a letter which has been left for him.  It’s from Kate Forster (Bullock), the previous owner of the house, and she asks that her mail be forwarded to her new address.  This may sound simple but there’s a complication which creates the premise for the movie.  Alex is living in 2004.  Kate is living in 2006.  The two can only communicate by sending letters to each other through the lake house’s “magic” letter box.  It transports the mail back and forth in time.

Two months ago, I went through a personality profiling exercise.  It confirmed what I already knew in that I make decisions based on facts instead of my beliefs.  I like logic and make decisions using an analytic and detailed approach.  I find it hard to believe in something without evidence to support it.

It should therefore come as no surprise that I found The Lake House extremely frustrating.  My qualm is not with the premise of time travel as I understand the film is one of fantasy.  My issues are with how Alex and Kate act.  It will be painfully clear to everyone in the cinema what they need to do.  Just think for a moment.  Kate is living two years in the future.  Why doesn’t Kate just track down Alex in the year 2006?  How is it that neither of them can think of this?  While they’re at it, Kate should have given Alex some winning lottery numbers so that once together, they could live in style!   

Director Alejandro Agresti has done nothing to improve the weak story.  There are a handful of scenes where Reeves and Bullock speak as if they were having a conversation face-to-face.  It’s a silly illusion because such chats aren’t possible given their circumstances.  Did they write one sentence, stuff it in the mailbox, then wait for a response?  I don’t buy it.

For Sandra Bullock and Keanu Reeves, it’s the time they’ve been paired since 1994’s Speed.  I’ve been critical of them both over the past few years but their performances in The Lake House are lovely.  Alex and Kate are likeable characters and despite the ludicrous storyline, most will be cheering for this softly spoken couple to get together in the end.

As a footnote, you might be interested to know that the house was built specially for the film.  The crew couldn’t find a house that suited their needs and so constructed their own along the shore of Maple Lake in Illinois.  It looks great but it doesn’t change my opinion of what is a very mediocre romantic drama.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 25 July 2006

The surprise story of the 2005 cinematic calendar in the United States was March Of The Penguins.  It earned an incredible $75m at the box-office and won the Oscar for best documentary feature.  If you like movie trivia, you’ll be interested to know that this was the first time in history that the best documentary winner made more money than the best picture winner (Crash made just $54m).  Is it a sign of the times?

March Of The Penguins looks at the unusual mating ritual of the emperor penguin.  It will be an eye-opening experience for those learning of it for the first time.  Once you’ve seen it, you’ll have to agree that few other animals go through such an arduous experience to reproduce.  Both the male and female will suffer and it’s hard to believe they go through this experience every year!

This documentary has been put together by French director Luc Jacquet who had initially planned to release the film as a television movie.  Such was the quality of footage however, that the chance was taken to produce a full length motion picture and distribute it world-wide.  The crew battled Antarctic temperatures of -20^oC and winds which exceeded 150 km/h.  They finished with 120 hours of footage shot over the course of one year.  The best 85 minutes is what you will get to see.

The English version of the film has been narrated by Morgan Freeman and I have qualms about what he has to say.  The narrative is overdramatised and continual references are made to the “many” penguins and babies who don’t survive.  You’d think that with all the dangers mentioned, that hardly any would make it through but from information provided to me, I can reveal that roughly 74% of penguin chicks survive from the time they are conceived until the time they take their first swim in the ocean.

The quality of footage is remarkable but its feels repetitive when watching it for 85 minutes.  All we really see is a mixture of wide panoramic shots and some close-ups of the penguins protecting their young.  Research on the internet has told me a lot more about the lives of emperor penguins and I’m disappointed that more information isn’t included in the movie.  In my honest opinion, the story is told far too simply.