Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 21 March 2004

It’s only March but Paycheck is now the third film to be released in 2004 on the concept of time travel (following Timeline and The Butterfly Effect).  The concept of the film is rather interesting – as one would expect given that it is adapted from a short story by science-fiction guru Philip K. Dick (Blade Runner, Minority Report).  It centres on reverse engineer Michael Jennings (played by Ben Affleck).  A reverse engineer is one who buys a competitors product, pulls it apart, figures out how it works, and then puts together a better and improved model.

Jennings’ employer is good friend James Rethrick (Eckhart) who knows the importance of confidentiality and security in his business.  At the end of each job, Jennings willingly submits himself to a medical procedure whereby his memory of the previous job is erased.  This way, Jennings cannot use the knowledge gained against the company.

Most jobs last only a few weeks but Rethrick approaches Jennings with a life changing opportunity.  The job will take 2-3 years to complete but the rewarding paycheck will be an eight figure sum.  Jennings thinks it over and realises he could lose three years of his life as a result but eventually, he accepts the lucrative offer.

The next thing Jennings will remember is sitting in the office of James Rethrick.  Three years has passed and he has no knowledge of it.  He heads to his investment broker for his paycheck only to discover he signed an agreement four weeks earlier to forgo his enormous salary.  Instead, he asked only to be given an envelope containing 20 random objects (ranging from a bullet to a paper clip).  This makes no sense to the furious Jennings who thinks he has been screwed over.  The situation immediately changes however when Jennings is brought in by the FBI for questioning and told a partner he worked with has been found murdered.  Exactly what is it Jennings did to put his life in such danger?

It’s enjoyable watching Affleck put the pieces of this puzzle together.  As I’ve hinted at, there’s a time travel element amongst this and Affleck’s action make you stop and think.  Unfortunately for us all, the screenplay slides away in the final half hour.  The intelligent Jennings is transformed into a James Bond rip-off.  He pulls out one miraculous escape after the other and eludes capture of the super villains who are intent to blow him up with big explosions and stuff.  I was a big fan of director John Woo’s Face/Off but his action stylings don’t fit here.  This is a thriller, not an action flick.

Not perfect but it’s a film worth keeping a little from your own pay cheque to see.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 19 March 2004

We all know what it is like to passionately believe in something.  When someone tries to tell us we are wrong, we don’t listen and wonder how stupid the other person must be.  We are unwilling take a step back and look at the bigger picture.  Watching Monster left me contemplating these beliefs.

Aileen and Selby are two of the most brilliant flawed characters I have seen on screen and I do not use the term “flawed” in a negative sense.  Aileen (played by Charlize Theron) once had dreams of becoming a great actress.  Now she is a struggling prostitute giving serious thought to taking her own life.  Selby (played by Christina Ricci) is a lonely teenager in search of love.  Her parents and friends can’t accept the fact she is a homosexual and she is looked upon with distaste.

The two meet in a bar and find a similarity in each other.  A quasi-relationship develops and for the first time in a long time, there’s a breath of fresh air in an otherwise stale life.  Both are then overcome by the new emotions and behave irrationally.  Aileen quits her prostituting job believing she’s get work as a veterinarian or lawyer.  Selby walks out on her family and believes she’ll walk into a life of wealth and privilege.

These actions are undeniably stupid but we must remember that these are dumb girls.  Screenwriter Patty Jenkins knows this and perfectly illustrates their stupidity.  You cringe watching their actions but deep down there is sympathy towards them as you know they are only following their broken hearts and misguided thoughts.

History tells us that Aileen murdered seven men in Florida between 1989 and 1990 and after being found guilty, was executed in 2002.  This isn’t a cheap serial killer flick where the clichéd good guy chases after the clichéd bad guy.  There is as I like to say “food for thought”.  What Aileen did was horribly wrong but when you look at her relationship with Selby and her upbringing as a child you see that no one person is solely responsible for such actions.  This directly contradicts the belief that many have in this world and I praise Monster for bringing these issues to the surface.  There are two sides to EVERY story.

The recent Academy Award win of Charlize Theron (best actress) is the perfect advertisement to attract an audience for the film’s Australian release.  Her performance is incredible.  The make-up and extra weight has Theron looking distinctly different but her nervous twitches and the crazy look in her eye left me in awe of her previously untapped talent.  I will not even try to get on my soap box and argue against the Academy (as I usually do) because they got it well and truly right.  My only disappointment is that more haven’t recognised the equally amazing performance of Christina Ricci.  The gifted 24-year-old now has over 35 film credits to her name and she is well overdue for greater recognition.

With some scenes guaranteed to shock, Monster is deserving of an MA rating but if you do pass the 15-year-old benchmark, this is one film you won’t want to miss.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 21 March 2004

We don’t get a lot of big name stars and directors here in Brisbane but I was fortunate enough to see a premiere screening of Love’s Brother with director Jan Sardi and stars Adam Garcia and Amelia Warner in attendance.  Following the movie was a short question & answer session but unfortunately there was not the time to ask the question burning in my mind.

There comes a point in almost every romantic film where you know whether or not the leading characters will end up together.  As a writer, how do you get past this?  How do you keep the story interesting when your audience knows how it will end?  I don’t know if there is an obvious answer to this question but I’d love to know what other more knowledgeable filmgoers think.

In the early 1950s in Australia, there were many Italian men but not enough Italian women.  The men sent letters and photos of themselves back home to try to convince the women of Italy to marry them and then come to Australia to live.  In Love’s Brother, Angelo (Ribisi) and Gino (Garcia) are two men of this time.  Gino already has an Australian girlfriend in Connie (De Santis) but Angelo is continually turned down.

In a moment of foolishness, Angelo sends a letter to a girl in Italy named Rosetta (Warner) but includes a photo of the better looking Gino.  Rosetta then accepts his invitation for marriage takes her vows in Italy and sets sail for Australia.  Now the day of her arrival has come and Angelo can no longer hide the guilt that has built inside him.  He confesses to Gino and his family that she will be expecting to meet not Angelo, but Gino!

For director Jan Sardi, Love’s Brother marks his first time in the director’s chair.  Sardi is a two-time Academy Award nominee having both written and produced the wonderful Australian film Shine.  He struggled for finance but has made the most of a small budget having employed the quality services of cinematographer Andrew Leslie (The Lord Of The Rings) and composer Stephen Warbeck (Shakespeare In Love).  It’s a beautiful looking picture.

Conversely, I question the casting of Giovanni Ribisi (Lost In Translation, Boiler Room).  His character is too creepy and his “Godfather” like accent was too over the top.  The screenplay asks us to feel sorry for him but his performance left me feeling anything but.  Adam Garcia (Coyote Ugly) and Amelia Warner (Quills) certainly outshone the more talented Ribisi.

Once you’ve seen the film, you’ll understand the comments I made at the start of this review.  The film reaches a point where the ending becomes very predictable and as a consequence, the final half-hour felt like a drawn-out affair.  Still, there are romantics amongst us who will soak such a flick… but not me.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 14 March 2004

For young teenagers, good looks and popularity are more important than ever.  Single mother Melanie (Hunter) is about to learn how much difficulty this can create.  As a recovering alcoholic, Melanie has been through her own dramas of late.  She has recently separated from her husband and pays the bills with a part-time job as a hairdresser.  It’s a battle but she’s trying hard to keep her children happy and her own life on track.

Her daughter, Tracy (Wood), has reached the delicate age of “thirteen” and is about to consumed by a world of appearances.  Tracy has natural good looks and gets great grades at school and has natural good looks but wants something more.  She wants attention and popularity.

The “coolest” girl in school is Evie (Reed) and Tracy slowly weaves her way into the friendship group.  Evie however is a manipulator and soon has Tracy at her ultimate disposal.  Tracy is shoplifting, smoking, and drinking.  She sneaks out at night to go partying and now has both a nipple and tongue ring.  Tracy and Evie have become inseparable.

At first, Melanie was approving of her daughter’s new friend but now she realises trouble in brewing.  Tracy won’t listen to her mother’s warnings and is using her disapproval for her mother’s new boyfriend as an excuse to be rebellious.  The relationship between mother and daughter is fast deteriorating and Melanie knows she must act fast or risk losing touch with her daughter forever.

During the opening half hour, I thought Thirteen was going to be another one of those preachy tales where the message dominates the story.  In hindsight, I know I am mistaken and can praise this flick as a gritty, realistic portrayal of how difficult life can be at a teenager.  The screenplay itself has been written by director Catherine Hardwicke and 16-year-old Nikki Reed (who stars as Evie).  Reed drew on her own experiences to craft the script and many of the events you see on screen mirror her own life story.  Knowing this only makes me appreciate her performance even more.  It can’t have been easy playing the “bad girl” but he comes through with a blistering performance.

Holly Hunter earned an Oscar nomination for her role and Evan Rachel Wood (as Tracy) can consider herself unlucky not to do so having already received a Golden Globe nomination.  Such raptures show I’m not alone in my praise for Thirteen and its wonderful performances.  There’s a lasting impression to be taken from this movie and those who relate to the story will take away even more.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 20 March 2004

If this film is a recreation of actual events, then I’m an 18^th Century playwright.  It centres on a horse race held in Saudi Arabia known as the Ocean Of Fire.  Competitors journey across the desert for hundreds of miles and the first man past the post is the winner.  It’s a treacherous adventure with many falling victim to either the elements or the sabotage of others.

The year in 1890 and Sheik Jazira oversees the annual competition.  For the first time, he has sent scouts to America to find a foreign competitor and Jazira has someone in mind – Frank Hopkins (Mortensen) and his horse Hidalgo.  The cowboy Hopkins accepts the invitation lured by the first prize of $100,000 and the chance to prove that Hidalgo is the best long distance runner the world has ever seen.

After a long-winded introduction involving American Indians (don’t ask why), Hopkins travels to Saudi Arabia and the race begins.  Writer John Fusco obviously felt the race wasn’t enough story in itself.  There’s a few confusing subplots including Hopkins’ romance with the Sheik’s daughter, a foiled kidnapping and a sabotage attempt of a pompous English mistress.  To call it all far-fetched is an understatement.

Viggo Mortensen has the title role and the marketers are hoping to cash in on his newfound popularity following The Lord Of The Rings.  Riding on horseback with a softly spoken demeanour may even have some audience members confusing him with Aragorn.  His performance doesn’t impress neither does that of the horse.  I’m dead serious.  Director Joe Johnston (Jumanji) loves zooming in on the horse when he gives one of those cheeky looks.  It’s cute the first time but frustrating for the other 15 times.  It’s also disappointing because Joe Johnston directed one of my favourite films of 1999, October Sky.

At a whopping 134 minutes, I couldn’t wait for Hidalgo to reach the finish line.  I couldn’t care less about the result.