Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 20 September 2006

This year sure has produced some god awful comedies.  We’ve been “treated” to Little Man, The Benchwarmers, Big Momma’s House 2, My Super Ex Girlfriend, The Long Weekend, The Pink Panther and The Ringer.  Talladegda Nights joins that illustrious group and the battle for this year’s Razzie Awards has become even tighter.

Ricky Bobby (Ferrell) is America’s leading NASCAR driver.  He is also an idiot.  Living by the motto “if you’re not first, you’re last”, Ricky accepts nothing but victory in all aspects of his life.  He must always be the centre of attention and anyone who doesn’t think so doesn’t belong in Ricky’s world.

An arch rival is about to arrive on the scene.  Gay Frenchman Jean Girrard (Cohen) has come to America to dominate NASCAR racing.  Girrard wins their first head-to-head encounter after Ricky crashed on the final lap.  The incident left Ricky mentally scarred and it’s going to be a long journey back to the winners circle.

My last two paragraphs give the impression that there’s a semblance of a plot in this film.  I’m sorry but I can’t think of anyway to describe how incoherent it all feels.  Most of the side characters wander in and out of the story with no purpose (e.g. the grandfather, the wife).  Sacha Baron Cohen (aka Ali G) is as unfunny as I’ve ever seen him.  Nine out of every ten jokes generated no response from me and most of the patrons at my screening.

I’ve admired Will Ferrell in many of his previous works (Bewitched, Melinda & Melinda, Zoolander) but he’s dreadful here.  He’s trying hard to generate laughs with his character’s over-the-top arrogance but it wears thin very quickly.  I’d had enough after 10 minutes.  Others may not even last that long.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 10 September 2006

As expected, this film was awful.  I’d had enough after the 10 minute introduction which featured more special effects than actual live footage.  The special effects didn’t look any good either.  As per the closing credits, the cast included Jaime Pressly, Sarah Carter, Devon Aoki and Australia’s own Holly Valance.  Once you’ve seen the film, you’ll understand why I think their whole performances were computer generated.

Based on yet another computer game, DOA: Dead Or Alive sees 16 of the best fighters from around the globe face off in a major tournament.  It is held on a remote island and run by a man known as Donovan (Roberts).  First prize is $10m but for some strange reason, there’s no media coverage.  Surely Mr. Donovan could make plenty out of endorsements!

The three leading female competitors are Tina (Pressly), a strong wrestler, Christie (Valance), a seductive thief, and Kasumi (Aoki), a Japanese princess.  Don’t think there’s any realism to this story because the “moves” that these three women have defy belief.  My best analogy would be to call it as a cross between Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and a straight-to-video Jean-Claude Van Damme movie.

I like to give ever movie a fair chance but it’s hard to see DOA: Dead Or Alive having much appeal to anyone but fans of the computer game.  If you’re going along because you’ve seen the ads where the women are scantily clothed, think again.  There’s no nudity whatsoever.

Everyone I’ve spoken to about this movie has groaned at the mere mention of its name.  It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that there’s no substance.  I’ve seen it, confirmed that it stinks, and now that this review is complete, will never have to think of it again.  

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 18 September 2006

Tanzie and Ava Marchetta are rich teenage snobs.  Two years ago, they inherited their father’s wealthy cosmetics company after he passed away.  Continuing to live their life of luxury, these girls only look out for themselves and have no sense of reality.

As the spokespeople for Marchetta Cosmetics, Tanzie and Ava’s faces are plastered across billboards.  They attend Hollywood’s A-list get-togethers.  Their marketing team ensures their activities are covered on E! news.  Ava is about get engaged to a young heartthrob but the announcement is being delayed so that a big party can be thrown and the media can be informed.

Sadly, these poor unfortunate girls lack business savvy.  Their company has been struggling and so their appointed trustee, Tommy Katzenback (Spiner), suggests that they accept a take-over offer of $150m from rival Fabiella (Huston).  As the girls think over the offer, the company is stung by bad publicity.  A television journalist has reported that some of the cosmetics cause severe facial disfigurations.

This sends the share price falling and Fabiella is now only prepared to offer $60m for the company.  Boo hoo!  The girls will not stand for this and begin a mission to clear their tarnished image and get the company back to its full, profitable self.  It won’t be easy however because they accidentally burn down their house, give their car away and have their credit cards cut off (because the company can’t afford them???).

Given this film is purportedly based on the Hilton sisters, I’m surprised Tanzie and Ava didn’t release a sex video.  They could have easily clawed back their lost $90m and still kept their faces on every second page of every second tabloid magazine.  It would have made for a more interesting movie.  Instead, writers John Quaintance, Jessica O’Toole and Amy Rardin think that we’ll feel sorry for them.  Give me a break!!!  They deserve a bullet, not sympathy.

If, and that’s a big if, you can suspend your disbelief and go along with this farce of a storyline, you’ll be bored to tears by the plot developments.  Within 15 minutes, I knew exactly how the film would end and who would fall in love.  The remaining 82 minutes is jam-packed with filler material that belongs on the cutting room floor.  Outtakes are shown during the closing credits but they aren’t even close to being funny.

On the Internet Movie Database, a website I love to refer to, Material Girls has been ranked by the public as the 6^th worst movie of all time.  May it gather dust on video store shelves for many years to come!

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 02 September 2006

Apparently, Silent Hill is based on a computer game.  I haven’t heard of it.  I haven’t played it.  If this film is anything to go by, then I won’t be buying the game version anytime soon.  I’d only be confused and irritated.

I’m not really sure what this film is about.  This doesn’t mean it’s cool in a Mulholland Drive kind of way.  Rather, it had we wanting to walk out of the theatre.  It begins with a mother, Rose (Mitchell), and her daughter, Sharon, driving to a ghost town called Silent Hill.  Sharon has been having bizarre hallucinations about this place and Rose thinks that visiting it for real might help cure her.

When they get there however, things start getting spooky.  The town is covered with smoke and there are strange ghostly creatures that attack them.  When they try to leave, they find the roads have been cut-off.  They are trapped and must fight for their lives.  Trying to help locate them is Rose’s husband, Christopher (Bean), but he too is up against some supernatural elements.

Well, that’s my interpretation of events.  If I’ve gotten it wrong, then they should have done a better job helping me understand.  I’m surprised to know that it was written by Roger Avary, a filmmaker I admire for his screenplays of Pulp Fiction and The Rules Of Attraction.  This is not one of his better efforts.

Australian Rhada Mitchell stars in a role that only requires her to look frightened and scream out her daughter’s name repeatedly.  At the preview screening I attended, the audience’s reaction said it all.  They laughed when they weren’t supposed to (mostly at the cheesy dialogue) and looked as equally confused as I was.  Few would have had positive words to say afterwards.

There are a few different theories about the ending on internet forums but after two hours of this nonsense, I couldn’t be bothered reading them.  Please don’t make a sequel.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 14 September 2006

When you look at the people behind Nacho Libre, you should get a fair idea as to what to expect.  It has been written and directed by Jared Hess, the creator of the cult hit Napoleon Dynamite.  It stars Jack Black, the man we remember from School Of Rock and Shallow Hal.  It all adds up to an off-beat comedy that will be loved by some and loathed by others.

Nacho Libre gets its humour by creating a bizarre leading character and putting him in ridiculous scenario.  Ignacio (Black) is a friar who works at a monastery in Mexico.  He is looked down upon by the other monks and has been given the unwanted job of chef.  When you see the depressing dishes that Ignacio serves up, it’s a wonder that he’s kept the position for so long.

Ignacio has a secret however.  He has a love for wrestling.  He covertly watches the fights on television and fantasises that he might be a wrestler some day.  His dreams are about to be realised when he meets a poor young lad named Esqueleto (Jimenez) and they decide to enter a competition as a tag-team.  To disguise his identity, Ignacio wears a mask in the ring and goes by the name of Nacho.

Ignacio and Esqueleto are comprehensively flogged in all their fights but the crowd falls in love with them.  They are the ultimate underdog and they keep coming back week and week for more punishment.  Their appeal with the audience sees their share of the prizemoney increase and this creates opportunities for them both.  Ignacio can buy fresh fruit and vegetables for the orphans at the monastery.  Esqueleto can buy fashionable clothes and a hair brush.

Jack Black does his best to make the material as funny as possible.  It has its moments but the dry, sarcastic humour falls well below the level achieved in Napoleon Dynamite.  For every joke which produces a chuckle, there’s another which falls flat.  It doesn’t have the continual stream of hilarious scenes that you’d expect from a great comedy.