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.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 10 September 2003

In 1966, Harvey Pekar began work as a file clerk at a hospital in Cleveland.  After thirty-five years of the same monotonous work, he retired in 2001.  It’s the kind of story that was made to be told in a movie, right?  Well there’s a lot more to Hervey Pekar and he is a cult hero to many around the world.

Tired of the same comic books, Hervey decided to write his own in 1976.  He wasn’t an artist but knew the story he wanted to tell.  Leading animator and friend Robert Crumb read Hervey’s work, put ink to paper and published the first edition of American Splendor.  A new edition has been published every year since and Pekar’s work has found universal appeal.

His comics aren’t about superheros.  Rather, it’s about himself and all the frivolous dramas and problems he faces in his average day.  Hervey’s a negative guy and always manages to find a negative in every positive.  Having not read one of his comics myself, I can only presume his popularity comes from telling it as it is.  He’s an early day Jerry Seinfeld only much darker.

Filmmakers Shari Springer Berman and Robert Pulcini wanted to bring Pekar’s story to the screen and have found an incredibly inventive way to tell it.  In the film, Pekar is played by great actor Paul Giamatti.  However, this is not just an adaptation, it’s also a documentary.  The real Harry Pekar narrates the film and appears on screen from time to time to explain situations.  Further, the directors incorporate the comic books themselves into the film by having some scenes which are simple animation.  There’s even more in store because some archived footage of the real Hervey back in the 80s is also used to help tell the story.  So if you can comprehend all of that, you’ll understand the film stars the real Hervey, the real Harvey 20 years ago, an actor playing Hervey, and an animated version of Hervey.

This originality has not gone unnoticed.  The film won a special prize at this year’s Cannes Film Festival and also won the top prize at the Sundance Film Festival.  Hopefully this attention will help the movie reach a wide audience.  The early buzz is pushing Giamatti for a best actor nomination and I’d be thrilled to see it.  He’s an underrated actor I’ve always admired for roles in films such as Man On The Moon and Planet Of The Apes but this is a career defining roles.  Pekar is not an attractive character but he’s certainly very interesting.

The film covers much of his life.  From his pathetic filing job to his numerous appearances on The Late Show With David Letterman.  From his search for love to his battles with cancer.  Pekar is still alive today and his stories will continue to be told through his now famous American Splendor comics.  Only from now on, an even bigger audience is watching thanks to the production of this film.  Do see it, if only for something different.  You won’t be disappointed.

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: 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: 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.