Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 13 May 2006

Sports betting is big business.  For some people, it’s the only reason they watch sport.  Two For The Money is a film which looks at the crazy world of football betting in the United States.

Brandon Lang (McConaughey) was once a footballer with professional aspirations.  That was until a crippling knee industry ended his short career.  Needing to find a job to care for his brother and mother, Brandon found work at a dial-up gambling service.  Gamblers would call up, pay a small fee, and get Brandon’s “exclusive” tips.

After a few rounds, Brandon’s advice was become more and more popular.  He was picking 80% of all winners but still making just $12 an hour.  That would change with a single phone call from Walter Abrams (Pacino).  Walter runs a huge tipping service in Manhattan which has a large sales team.  Customers call up and get the week’s football picks.  If they lose, they owe nothing.  If they win, they have to hand over a small percentage of their winnings.  As they tell their customers – you’re not handing over your money but rather the bookies money!

Walter employs Brandon and starts grooming him to be his protégé.  He changes Brandon’s name to John Anthony, buys him a new wardrobe and starts including him on his cable television show.  Brandon returns the favour for Water by simply picking winners.  As word spreads of this incredible tipster, Walter’s business takes off and the money starts rolling in.

Can you guess what happens next?  It doesn’t take an expert to figure it out and the film pans out in very predictable fashion.  If there is one surprise, it’s that the film isn’t very critical of the gambling industry.  It glazes over the problems associated with gambling and at times, I thought it promoted it.  How is it that a single tipster can have a success rate far superior to his competitors without any real inside information?  I didn’t buy it.

My other gripes with Two For The Money are its length and what it focuses on.  The film goes for just over two hours and many scenes are too long.  We didn’t need the long, drawn-out football matches at the end of the film where it feels like every touchdown in every film is shown.  The time would be better spent elsewhere.  For example, Brandon has a one-night stand with a girl named Alexandria (King) in a quick and strange sub-plot.  Why was this developed more?  Brandon gets a phone call from his estranged father at one point and yet this is never mentioned again.  Why was it even included?

My personal tip is that you should give this film a miss.  That advice is free of charge.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 29 April 2006

In Final Destination, a group of school students boarded a flight for Paris.  One of them freaked out after having a premonition that the plane would crash.  All of them were kicked off the flight and as it turns out, the plane did crash and all on board were killed.  You may have thought these students were lucky by “cheating death” but not so.  Death got his revenge and the surviving students were soon killed in a series of bizarre accidents.

It was a different plot but the same concept in Final Destination 2.  A young girl had a premonition of a massive car accident and intervened to save those involved.  They survived the day but not too many after.  With more freaky accidents, Death came and took them all one by one.

Nothing has changed in Final Destination 3.  This time around, a girl boards a rollercoaster and has a creepy feeling that it will go off the tracks, killing everyone.  She loses the plot and is taken off the ride by the attendant.  A few others disembark in the mayhem.  Lo and behold, the rollercoaster crashes and Death returns to claim those who escaped…

Having seen the first two films, I was left bored and frustrated by the third in the series.  It felt exactly the same.  There’s no originality and that you can do is sit there and wait for the next person to die.  The way each of them is killed is mildly interesting but that’s the only positive I have to say.  The dialogue was dreadful and some of the scenes between stars Mary Elizabeth Winstead (Sky High) and Ryan Merriman (The Deep End Of The Ocean) had me cringing with disgust.

With Final Destination 3 performing very well at the U.S. box-office, you have to think that another sequel will be put into production by New Line Cinema.  I hope I’m wrong.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 04 May 2006

On 18 September 2004, Dave Chappelle threw a street party in Brooklyn.  He invited some prominent African American artists to perform and gave tickets to people in the area and from his home in Ohio.  Both the lead-up and the concert itself were filmed a documentary crew led by director Michel Gondry and cinematographer Ellen Kuras.  Dave Chappelle’s Block Party is the end result.

For those who don’t know Dave Chappelle, he’s a 33-year-old comedian who got his start in the entertainment industry with small acting roles in films such as The Nutty Professor, Con Air and You’ve Got Mail.  His notoriety rocketed in 2003 when he started a television show on Comedy Central (seen here in Australia on the Comedy Channel) called Chappelle’s Show.  It’s a sketch show often filled with controversial jokes about the cultural differences in society.

I’m not sure what Chappelle’s motivation for making this film is but I’ll speculate and suggest that he just wanted to throw a big party.  The performers include Kanye West, Mos Def, Talib Kweli, Common, Dead Prez, Erykah Badu, Jill Scott, The Roots, Cody ChesnuTT, Big Daddy Kane, and The Fugees.  These names mean little to me but I’m sure they’ll gain the attention of some who will now think this is a must see film.

Considering that the music wasn’t a great attraction to me, I was hoping that a few laughs from Dave Chappelle would make the film worthwhile.  The comedy isn’t too bad but you wouldn’t call it outstanding.  The skits on Chappelle’s television show are funnier than what’s on offer here.

The most curious aspect of the film is that it has been directed by Michel Gondry, the same man who directed Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind (my favourite film of 2004).   This is Gondry’s first film since Eternal Sunshine and I’m surprised by his choice to shoot a documentary.  Based on his previous films and music videos, I believe Gondry is one of the world’s most talented and original filmmakers.  The documentary style doesn’t give him the chance to showcase his creativity.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 29 April 2006

Georges (Auteuil) and Anne (Binoche) are in their living room watching a video tape.  On the tape is a long, unedited shot of their house taken from across the street.  It was left at their front door in a plastic bag with no note.  The tape includes footage of Georges leaving for work and walking right past the camera.  Both he and his wife can’t believe that he didn’t see it.  They are also confused as to why it has been sent and who made it.  Is it a prank?

Their curiosity turns to anxiety when another tape is left at the front door.  It too has been left in a plastic bag at the front door.  On this tape is a long, unedited shot of the house in which Georges was raised as a child.  He now realises this is not a random act.  Someone is playing a carefully considered game over which he has no control.

A third tape arrives.  This time, it shows a street sign, an apartment building and a door with a number on it.  Georges follows the clues from the video and locates the door.  He knocks.  The door opens.  Standing in the doorway is a man he doesn’t immediately recognise.  Then, he does.

That’s about as much information as I’m willing to give.  I’d love to give you more but that would be spoiling a film which absolutely must be seen.  With five minutes, this film had grabbed me by the back of the neck and wasn’t letting go.  Hidden is two hours of increasing, unrelenting suspense.  You will analyse every conversation and scrutinise every facial expression with the hope of finding some hint as to who is behind the video tapes.  It’s the ultimate mind-boggler in the tradition of Reservoir Dogs and The Usual Suspects.

At this point, I will issue a strong warning.  The ending is open to interpretation and not all the questions will be answered.  If you are a moviegoer who likes everything wrapped up at the end, this film will feel pointless.  If you do take it on, I’ll offer some advice and that is to pay very close attention to who is in the final scene.  Intrigued yet? 

I saw Hidden with two friends and we were still discussing it the next day.  The more we thought about it, the more we appreciated the craftiness of writer-director Michael Haneke (The Piano Teacher).  In the film, someone is playing a game with Georges.  In the cinema, Haneke is playing a game with us.  He’s only showing us what he wants us to see.  It reminded me very much of David Lynch’s Mulholland Drive.

Haneke’s ability to create tension is what separates the film from your usual thriller.  There is no soundtrack and many scenes contain next-to-no dialogue.  He doesn’t want us to feel comfortable in the theatre and this is exemplified by a scene late in the film.  It is so shocking and so unexpected that people were literally screaming at the session I attended.

Hidden has been showered with awards including the best director prize at the 2005 Cannes Film Festival.  It also won best picture, best director and best actor at the European Film Awards (honouring the best of European cinema).  It’s remarkable!

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 03 May 2006

To date, we’ve seen Ethan Hunt (Cruise) survive two impossible missions.  Now, he’s ready for a third.  If he continues at this rate, I’ll be wondering if there even is such a thing as an “impossible mission”.

I speak jokingly of course.  When I thought about the film afterwards, I realised that it’s the insanely crazy situations that Tom Cruise manages to extricate himself from that gives it such appeal.  In Mission: Impossible 3, he dodges missiles from a fighter jet, jumps off a high-rise building and is electrocuted by live wires.  It won’t win awards for realism but there were certain scenes (the high-rise jump in particular) that gave me a genuine adrenalin rush.

The villain in this instalment is played by Academy Award winning actor Philip Seymour Hoffman (Capote).  He plays Owen Davian, a wealthy arms dealer with friends in the Middle East.  Davian’s illegal activities have attracted the attention of the Impossible Missions Force who want evidence against this slippery individual so that he can be bought to justice.

Hunt and his team (including Ving Rhames and Jonathan Rhys Meyers) have a range of gadgets at their disposal that would make James Bond jealous.  They go too far in my opinion and the best example is the “face making” machine used early in the film.  When speaking of dramatic action flicks, I see the Bourne Identity series as much more appealing.  The bad people are brought to justice with intelligent thinking rather than ridiculous gizmos.

My other gripe with the film is how serious it takes itself.  There’s no reality in the plot so I thought the writers would have taken the chance to throw in more humorous moments.  Not that I want to compare the film to the James Bond series (which has its own weaknesses), but at least Bond has a sense of humour.  The Ethan Hunt character is too full-on for my liking but I confess this is a matter of taste and others will feel differently.

Mission: Impossible 3 is the first major film directed by J.J. Abrams, the man who directed the first two episodes of the Lost television series.  He has also written a few screenplays including Joy Ride, Forever Young and Armageddon.  It’s a superb debut for Abrams who has made the most of a $150m budget.  It looks awesome on the big screen and credit also must go to stylish cinematographer Daniel Mindel (The Bourne Identity, Domino).

No member of the cast stands out but neither do any let the film down.  Cruise is his usual self and whilst I haven’t liked him in many of his recent films, his passionate personality suits the role.  Hoffman has a fun time as the villain but doesn’t have as much screen time or dialogue as I anticipated.  His character is very much underdeveloped.

Mission: Impossible 3 is easily the best film in the series to date.