Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 29 September 2003

Academy Award winner Angelina Jolie returns as Lara Croft, the computer game hero turned film character.  An earthquake in Greece has exposed an ancient ruin beneath the ocean surface and Lara is there to investigate.  She is set upon though by three Asian attackers who steal a mysteriously glowing orb and leave Lara for dead.  Luckily for Lara, she beats up a shark and has it help her return to the surface.  I was going to laugh at this horrible script twist but then I realised this was beyond bad and began to question the sanity of writer Dean Georgaris.  Seriously, you can’t expect for people to swallow that?  Great news folks because Georgaris is set to pen the script for the upcoming Mission: Impossible 3.  If the garbage served up in the second film is anything to go by, Georgaris will be in his element.

Anyway, back to the “story” and Lara then finds out why the orb is so valuable.  It contains a code which will lead the holder to the Cradle of Life.  It is here where Pandora’s Box has been kept hidden for over two thousand years.  In it is the secret of life but also the power to destroy mankind.  She is asked to recover the orb and uses old flame Terry Sheridan (Butler) to accompany her.  She tracks its location to Hong Kong and Nobel Prize winner Jonathan Reiss (Hinds) who has devious uses for the Box.  If this were an Austin Powers movie it would be funny, but sadly for all involved, this is serious.

The sound effects are over the top and completely out of sink.  The editing is weak and you can see the obvious cuts between the real footage and the special effects.  The effects themselves aren’t much better and the shark in Finding Nemo looked more realistic than the shark here.  The eerie setting of the finale also looked terribly fake.  I will emphasise again that there is nothing worth praising here.  Nothing.

Bah, I’m sick of typing away trying to come up with sentences strong enough to express my true regret at seeing this movie.  As long as you don’t see it, I can take pride that I’ve done my job.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 14 September 2003

The success that Depp referred to cannot be ignored.  Pirate movies have often tanked at the box-office.  Have you seen Cutthroat Island?  I didn’t think so.  On top of this, the film was inspired by a theme park ride of the same name at Disneyland.  This fact didn’t fill me with confidence.  Doubters have been left stunned by the amazing box-office success.  Outgrossing The Matrix: Reloaded, Pirates is the second biggest film of the year (behind Finding Nemo) and firmly placed in the top 20 of all time in the United States.  There’s always one film which comes from the woodwork each summer and this is it for 2003.

Jack Sparrow (Depp) is an eccentric pirate looking for a new boat to pillage and plunder.  He previously controlled a ship known as The Black Pearl but he was overthrown in a mutiny by the greedy Barbossa (Rush) and left for dead.  The local authorities then catch Sparrow stealing a docked ship and imprison him in a jail cell.  Not before he engages in a swashbuckling duel with petty blacksmith Will Turner (Bloom).

Turner is in love with the governor’s daughter, Elizabeth Swann (Knightly), and he will soon be given the chance to prove this when she is kidnapped by the pirates of The Black Pearl.  Reluctantly, Will strikes a deal with Sparrow and springs him from jail with promises he will take him to The Black Pearl to rescue his “bonnie lass”.  Sparrow is more than happy as he too has unfinished business with Barbossa…

Johnny Depp really is wonderful and it’s fun to watch his character continually switch from good guy to bad guy.  Orlando Bloom is at an important stage of his career as he tries to build on his Lord Of The Rings publicity.  He actually very good as is love interest Keira Knightley who you should remember from Bend It Like Beckham.  Australian Geoffrey Rush is the weakest of the foursome but not disgraced by any means.

There’s a bunch of fun special effects and some nice, if not a little lame, jokes.  You may see it as a long stretch at 143 minutes but in contrast to the many other action releases this year, there is enough action and adventure to maintain one’s attention and go the distance.  There’s talk of a sequel (how could there not be) but I say that without Johnny Depp’s signature you can forget all about it.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 23 September 2003

The film plays out like a documentary with director Larry Clark focusing on four simple teenagers living in California.  You may think their promiscuous tales are “controversial” and designed purely for shock value but I am certain these stories are more realistic than most (if not all) teen films coming out of Hollywood today.  Shawn (Bullard) is dating a girl from school but behind her back is secretly having casual sex with her mother, whose husband has left her unfulfilled.  Peaches (Limos) has a religious father who is completely unaware that she’s sexually involved with a boy her own age.  Tate (Ransome) is a confused boy who lives with grandparents and don’t seem to mind that he speaks to them disgracefully.  Claude (Limos) is being bullied by his step father who has no respect for him and seems intent on making his life a misery.

It’s clear that these children aren’t fully responsible for their misery and troubles.  Clark is clear to point the finger largely at the adults – those that influence and shape these lives.  Yes, there is sex in the film and yes, it is quite explicit.  It isn’t pornography though and the censors decision is dumfounding.  They have taken offence to the fact that the actors appear to be under the age of 18 even though they are not.  What a joke.

Once you remove all the hype, you have a film which is generally pretty average – some good points and some bad.  The narrative is weak and fragmented.  It’s just a handful of lengthy scenes (in that documentary style I spoke of).  This tends to make the stories drag.  A faster pace and more material would have increased my own interest.  Conversely, I have to applaud the courage of the actors.  They do some pretty confronting stuff on screen and credit to them.  You could say a porno star does the same thing but they don’t have to act – this cast does!

I’d love to be telling you to get to the cinema to check it out but alas, I cannot.  So instead, stick it up the censors and find a bootleg copy (or make one yourself from the internet).  This film is about more than just what’s on screen; it’s about standing up for free speech (a subject close to my heart).  A film about the troubles in society which was considered fit to screen at the Venice and Toronto Film Festivals deserves to be seen my more than just a board of censors.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 14 September 2003

When we last left Elle Woods (Witherspoon), she had beaten the odds and graduated with a law degree.  We open this sequel with Elle and company planning her upcoming wedding.  She’s to marry fellow legal mind Emmett Richmond (Wilson), who you may remember from the first film.  Elle is just as much in love with her dog, Bruiser, and hires a private investigator to find Bruiser’s mother so that she too can be invited to the big day.

The investigator does his job but the result is not what Elle expected.  Bruiser’s mum is at an animal testing facility where a comedic company is using her as a test subject.  Elle hopes the partners at her law firm to help fight this terrible injustice but her wishes fall on deaf ears.  She realises there’s only one way to remedy the situation – to go to Washington.

Elle magically walks into a position working under Republican Senator Victoria Rudd (Field) where she can create a bill and generate interest in her plight to ban animal testing by cosmetic companies.  At first, she is laughed at by Rudd’s other staff (shock horror) but she uses her unique style to impress a few key politicians and suddenly the ball is rolling.  Throw in some helpful advice from her hotel doorman (played by, wait for it, Bob Newhart) and victory will be hers.

I am at a loss to explain what the message is here.  Is it that one person can make a difference even if they are a bloody moron?  If so, then that message was thoroughly drummed into us in the first Legally Blonde film and didn’t need retelling.  Is it that testing on animals is wrong?  If so, then this is the most one-sided biased piece of propaganda since A Time To Kill.  In only one scene is reference made to the other side of this argument comes it’s a dismal effort at best.  Is it that some American politicians are corrupt but the good guys always win in the end?  Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

Reese Witherspoon, what have you done to deserve this?  Her career began so promisingly with a wide range of roles in some brilliant low-budget flicks including Freeway, Pleasantville, American Psycho, Cruel Intentions and Election.  She is a great actress and deserves better than the pitiful script dished up here.  Let’s not even discuss the many other stereotypes on show.  Most irritating moment: watching the senators nod their heads up and down with bliss as they listen to Elle’s “powerful” address.  

If there’s no legitimate reason for a sequel, leave it be.  This is a nothing film.  No jokes but rather one complete joke.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 21 September 2003

“It’s just another day in the life of Mike Lowrey.”  That says it all.  This ludicrous nonsense could happen to no one else.  We first met the characters of Mike Lowrey and Marcus Burnett in the 1995 smash hit.  The film was also a huge launching pad for the careers of Will Smith and Martin Lawrence who have since capitalised on their popularity in the action genre.  Smith has gone on to star in Independence Day, Men In Black and Wild Wild West with Lawrence appearing in films such as Blue Streak and National Security.  Eight years after the original, they are back where they began in Bad Boys 2.

I enjoyed the early stages of the film.  There was an incredible car chase sequence where 23 cars and a boat get obliterated on a bridge in Miami.  It’s masterfully shot and the action guru Michael Bay (The Rock, Armageddon) has placed every camera ideally to capture the incredible action.  However, the screenplay is absolute and utter garbage.  Let’s look at this scene as an example.  In reality, many people would have been killed.  Yet, in the debriefing following the incident, the police chief is quick to point out to Mike and Marcus that “you’re lucky no one was killed”.  That’s too much of a cop out.

That’s not to say that people aren’t killed in the movie.  Those that do die though are the bad guys and when they do, it’s in very gory fashion and it is this attribute that earns the film an MA rating in Australia.  Why is it that they avoid showing us some deaths and yet show us the juicy gore of some others?  While we’re chatting about the screenplay, there is a dreadfully overused joke with Marcus going to therapy to help his stress relief.  It never goes anyway and it’s just filler to give the characters something to talk about between action sequences.

So why even both seeing the movie?  If you’re like me, there’s no need.  There are others unlike me though (believe it or not) who will go simply for the action and will be easily pleased.  One audience member is my screening even applauded as the credits rolled.  Um, ok.  They obviously checked their brain in at the door so as not to be disappointed by the screenplay which failed to make an appearance.  I should have done the same.

My biggest qualm has to be with the length.  This film is damn, damn long and this doesn’t help matters.  The more time I spent in the cinema, the more time I had to find fault with the script and the characters.  It’s two-and-a-half hours in total (thirty minutes longer than the first film).  You’d have though the studio would have asked for a shorter cut so they could squeeze in more screenings on opening weekend.  And you know what more screenings means to Jerry Bruckheimer and his company?  $$$

I realise at this point that in my analysis of the film I forgot to mention the plot.  Come to think of it, I can’t really remember it.