Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 07 September 2003

Harrison Ford looks about as excited making this film as I felt watching it.  He talks like a tired, washed up cop but he could just as easily pass as a tired, washed up actor.  Josh Hartnett isn’t much better but at least in forty years time he can tell his grandkids that he once worked with the legendary Harrison Ford.  I know neither will admit it but you have to think they’re pretty disappointed by what ended up screen.

It’s a dull affair that screenwriters Robert Souza and Ron Shelton have unsuccessfully tried to spice up.  Joe Gavilan (Ford) and Casey Calden (Hartnett) are LAPD detectives but they both have other interests outside the force.  Gavilan is a part-time real estate agent who’s struggling to sell a property he’s invested in, and Calden is a wannabe actor who like a million others, is looking for some Hollywood exposure.

The case they’re currently investigating involves the murder of a rap band at a nightclub.  They were brutally slain and the evidence suggests there was a witness but he or she cannot be identified.  Hampering their efforts is the LAPD’s internal affairs department.  Lieutenant Bennie Macko has a grudge against both Gavilan and Calden and is looking to pin something on them.

You can count the number of jokes on one hand and if you have seen the trailers and advertising, you’ll have already heard every single one of them.  I can’t emphasise enough how disinterested Ford and Hartnett look.  What is in abundance are the number of stupid inconsistencies in the plot.  How these two can do half the stuff they do and get away with it is beyond me.  They shoot wildly in a public street and no one blinks an eyelid.  They obtain police sealed files so effortlessly.  They have a sixth sense for following the enemy in chase sequences even when they didn’t see where they went.

What else can I say?  There’s some farcical romantic subplots including Hartnett screwing everyone in town and Ford nailing his enemy’s wife.  Academy Award winner Martin Landau lowers his credibility with a role which requires about times.  As for the other characters, there’s little to no explanation as to why they’re even in the film or what fate their characters meet.   What an incoherent mess.  Oh and yes, Lou Diamond Phillips has a cameo role as a transvestite.

An investigation is certainly required to find out what went wrong in this Hollywood Homicide.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 26 August 2003

There’s two ways of looking at it I guess.  Those that enjoy the movie will see it as an unrealistic heist which is made deliberately for some fun.  Some critics have drawn parallels to the recent Ocean’s Eleven with its big cast and flashy approach.  If you take the other point of view, you’ll see the film as something which tries too hard to please.  It fits together too comfortably and I would prefer to see these characters work harder for their dollar.

The story begins in Venice, an elite team of criminals craftily steal a safe containing $35m in gold brick.  Charlie Croker (Wahlberg) leads the team under the watchful eye of the retiring John Bridger (Sutherland).  Joining them are tough guy Rob (Statham), computer geek Kyle (Green), bomb maker Left Ear (Def) and newcomer Steve (Norton).  The robbery goes to plan but this movie is about revenge.  The revenge sought when Steve shoots John and takes the gold for himself.

It took the team twelve months to find Steve but they’ve tracked him to Los Angeles where is now lives in a mansion guarded by an elaborate security system.  It would be easy to shoot him dead but that’s not what they’re after.  They just want to see the look on his face when they steal the gold back from him.  Helping them this time is John’s daughter, Stella (Bridger), an expert in safe cracking whose resources will be invaluable.

The idea is nothing new and you may have already heard it before.  I am yet to see the original but this film is adapted from a 1969 release starring Michael Caine.  This film is set in the modern era but there are a few throwbacks to the 60s – for example when mini-minors are used as getaway vehicles.  32-year-old director F. Gary Gray (A Man Apart, The Negotiator) would have had a blast shooting the elaborate chase sequences and the $100m U.S. box-office is proof audience have liked it too.

Now’s not the appropriate time to knit-pick through all the small plot details that left me frustrated.  In doing so I’d probably destroy most of the enjoyment you’re likely to take away.  I’m probably being petty.  Any movie with Edward Norton can’t be bad.  His track record is unequalled.  Ah, maybe I’ll go see it again…

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 06 September 2003

We begin in London at a laboratory where highly classified medical testing is being performed on apes.  Three animal activists break through the security but a scientist at the lab pleads with them not to continue as the apes have been infected with “rage”.  Unaware of the danger, one of the activists releases an ape from its cage and it sets upon her like a starving lion.

28 days later… Jim awakes in a locked operating theatre in a hospital.  The last thing he can remember is couriering on his cycle and being struck by a car.  He yells “hello” but there’s no response.  He looks around the hospital and there is not a living soul to be found.  He wanders outside and the normally bustling London streets are completely deserted with strewn rubbish the only sign that people once existed.

Thinking he is hallucinating, Jim wanders into a church and there he will know for sure that this is no illusion.  An unspeakable plague has overrun the country and life has ceased to exist.  There is no way of knowing if any others are still alive or if the virus has spread across the oceans.  Jim has no time to be philosophical because the infected that remain alive are hunting him down as food.  As a piece of graffiti so eloquently phrases is “Repent.  The end is very fucking nigh.”

Engrossing is the perfect adjective to describe the latest film from the director Danny Boyle who’s stellar credits include Shallow Grave, The Beach and Trainspotting.  The writer of the original screenplay is Alex Garland, who any backpacker should know wrote The Beach.  I have a copy of on my bookshelf and Garland is one guy who knows how to tell a compelling story.  28 Days Later is riveting all the way through.

With wild flesh eating humans roaming the streets, you’d be easily fooled into thinking this an unrealistic horror flick.  In fact, it’s quite the opposite.  It’s a rational tale about how technology has left our society on the verge of annihilation and it could take just one person to destroy it all.  Further, this is a story of survival.  One man pulling on all his resources to stay alive and find the answers.

There are no big name cast members adds to the suspense.  If this were a standard Hollywood blockbuster, you’d know a few of the lesser heroins would be killed off, the big-name hero would defeat the baddies in a bloody finale and the world would go on living happily ever after.  You are never quite sure how this story will end and like a good book, you just wish it would go faster so you can find out.

It seems not even the studio and the director could agree on the ending.  Don’t leave the cinema early because following the final credits is an alternate ending – the one the director himself preferred.  Either ending works for me.  For that matter, you wouldn’t want to arrive at the cinema late either because if you miss the first 5 minutes, you won’t have a clue what’s going on.

There are some amazing scenes early in the film where Jim walks through the deserted London streets.  These scenes were shot very early in the morning and with council approval, crew members blocked off streets to ensure no one would wander on camera to ruin the shot.  When you consider some of the locations include the heart of London and the M1 motorway, it’s quite an achievement.  Danny Boyle produces where few other directors could.

If you notice the different visual style, you’d be interested to know the film was shot with digital cameras to give it a realistic look.  Boyle uses the lighting to great effect and combined with precise editing, it truly is a horrifyingly genuine film.  28 Days Later is undoubtedly a film to be seen and more importantly, to be remembered.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 24 August 2003

In the basement of his large house, he finds a small rat which he names Socrates and it becomes his new best friend.  There are other rats in basement and when Willard starts feeding them, more arrive and soon there’s an army of hundreds living downstairs.  One of these rats (which Willard names Ben) is extremely large and is a leader amongst them.  Willard understands this and sees Ben becoming jealous of the attention he gives Socrates.  He needs to be careful.

Willard is one of the strangest yet creative thrillers released this year.  I deliberate haven’t gone into much plot detail because there are some very bizarre developments which shouldn’t be spoilt.  If you have an aversion towards rats, you’ll need to be fully prepared before entering the cinema.  This isn’t some funny, quirky comedy.  There are graphic scenes of the rats eating living things which could leave some audience members rather sick.

The leading actor is Crispin Glover.  It’s a surprisingly emotional performance and delivers it with amazing intensity.  We last saw Glover in a tiny role in Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle but this more fitting of his talent.  If you’re wondering where you’ve seen him before, Glover has had small parts in Nurse Betty, The People Vs. Larry Flynt and What’s Eating Gilbert Grape.  He must be one of the few actors in Hollywood who would allow himself to be constantly surrounded by filthy rats.

There are some strong special effects and the direction from Glen Morgan befits the subject material.  It his directorial debut but he has a long background in producing and writing movies and television shows.  What a disturbing way to begin a full feature career.

This low-budget film will leave you constantly on your toes.  It’s impossible to pre-empt what will happen next and this is how a good thriller should operate.  Willard will find a cult following and despite my high recommendation, only see it if you’re prepared for it.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 31 August 2003

Before even being released here in Australia, Finding Nemo has set a new box-office record in the United States as the highest grossing animated film in history.  The Lion King owned the previous benchmark but Finding Nemo has captured $330m to date to eclipse the long-standing record.

Sensing sold out sessions throughout its debut weekend, I snuck along to an evening session to avoid the big crowds and squealing kids.  There was still a large turnout with many adult couples seizing the opportunity to watch a light-hearted G-rated flick.  This is a sign of the way animated films are heading.  Once upon a time, they were musicals which lured kids with catchy songs.  Nowadays, humour is the selling point to lure audiences from all ages.

Finding Nemo comes to us with the highest acclaim.  The huge dollars have been matched by universal approval from critics.  According to the website Rotten Tomatoes, 161 out of the world’s 163 leading critics have given the film a positive review.  Who am I to argue?  There’s cute characters, a dash of sentimentality and humour which is very easy to understand.  However, I’m not jumping out of my skin with overwhelming support.  I’ve definitely seen animated flicks with more jokes (Shrek), more story (Spirited Away) and better feeling (Toy Story).

The setting is the ocean and our lead is a clown fish named Marlin.  His only son, Nemo, was captured by divers and he’s now scouring the ocean to find him.  One of the divers left a mask behind and Marlin knows that Sydney is the first place to start looking.  Offering him assistance and becoming his partner along the way is a fish named Dory.  Dory is easily the funniest character of the bunch given she continually suffers from short-term memory loss, although the joke is a touch overused.

Along the way, they encounter a variety of sea creatures (both friendly and not so friendly).  Kids will lap it up.  As we watch Marlin and his adventure, we also follow Nemo’s story.  He’s been placed in a goldfish tank in a dental surgery where he meets a few new fish friends of his own.  Together, they’re plotting an elaborate escape so they can all get back to the deep blue sea where they belong.

There’s an assortment of voices with an Australian flavour, as you’d expect.  Geoffrey Rush, Barry Humphries and Eric Bana all appear.  Let’s not forget Bill Hunter who continues his streak of appearing in just about every Australian film made in the past year.  Ellen DeGeneres voices Dory and there are early whispers that she may become the first actress in history to be Oscar nominated for work in an animated film.  I see it as unlikely but she’s damn good.

From a children’s viewpoint, there’s no fault in Finding Nemo.  Adults looking for entertainment will undoubtedly find themselves amused but not as satisfied.  The cliché that I often like to use to describe such films is “good without being great.”