Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 01 June 2003

Six men went on a routine army training mission in Panama and only two have returned.  In charge was the demanding drill sergeant Nathan West (Jackson) but he too is missing.  Of the two survivors, Levi (Ribisi) is in the hospital with gunshot wounds and Dunbar (Holt) sits silent in the interrogation room.  Lt. Julia Osborne can’t get a word from Dunbar and untrusting of all, Dunbar says he’ll only speak to a fellow “ranger”.  With an urgent explanation needed before going public, base leader Col. Bill Styles (Daly) calls on an old friend to help out.

Styles once trained in the army with ranger Tom Hardy (Travolta) and although they haven’t seen each other for years, they happened to run into each other in a car park a few days ago.  Styles calls Hardy and asks a favour – to “unofficially” interrogate Dunbar and Levi to get solve the deepening mystery.  Both Dunbar and Levi both acknowledge that the rest of their party has been killed but they have significantly differing versions of how it happened.

Few movie thrillers are ever an open and shut case.  That would just be boring wouldn’t it?  Screenwriters are obsessed with creating twists, surprises, shocks, bombshells or whatever else you want to call them.  Here’s another example of a film which goes one step too far.  Too many twists have spoiled the broth and it culminates with a ludicrous final scene.  Sure it might seem to wrap up nicely but put some thought into the realism of this scene and what might actually happen if the film were to continue.

Another annoying cliché that features far too often in Basic is that of the unexpected revelation.  Every time Tom and Julia appear to have reached a dead end, one of them suddenly puts a piece of the puzzle together so that the adventure can continue.  This repeatedly happens and Tom and Julia make sure to share these revelations together so they can develop trust and appreciation in each other’s knowledge.  I wonder if real-life detectives and private investigators watch movies like this and just laugh.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 24 May 2003

Stu Shepard (Farrell) is a publicist with an attitude.  His clothing, his demeanour and his arrogance all give the appearance of success but it turns out that someone thinks Stu is a pretty shitty guy.  He gives false hope to his clients, he lies to his friends, he doesn’t pay his assistant, and there’s more.  Despite being happily married to Kelly (Mitchell), he has developed a crush on a client, Pamela (Holmes).  Each day, he calls Pamela from a phone booth on West 53^rd street so that his wife won’t see the number on his mobile phone bill.

As he finishes his latest conversation with Pamela and hangs up the phone, it begins ringing.  Stu picks it up and finds a creepy male voice at the other end.  To make sure he has Stu’s attention, the unknown caller reels off details of Stu’s life and details of his calls with Pamela.  Stu understands the danger he is in when the caller says he has a rifle aimed at the phone booth and just to show he isn’t kidding around, he kills an innocent bystander.  There’s no choice but to stay on the line to see what the demands are.

With a dead man on the street, the police arrive and suspect Stu is the killer.  With the phone booth surrounded, they ask Stu to give himself up but the voice on the other end has more plans in store.  Stu must not leave the booth and must not say anything about their conversation or else he will die.  With two different enemies now pointing guns at him, it seems there’s no hope for Stu but to listen  to the caller’s demands… 

The most ironic piece of trivia here is that writer Larry Cohen pitched the idea of a film set in a phone booth to Alfred Hitchcock in the 1960s.  Apparently, Hitchcock loved the idea but they could not think of a reason to keep the film confined to the booth.  Cohen’s idea of the sniper came to him only a few years ago and he penned the script within a month.  The irony lies in that fact that Hitchcock was right – this cannot work as a film.  Cohen’s screenplay is terribly weak and the sequence of events and mind reading attributes given to the characters are too hard to believe.  Far-fetched is an understatement.

Further proof of the film’s limitation is found in its length.  Including both the opening and closing credits, you’re going to find only 81 minutes of viewing time.  If you take out the obvious padding, you’d be lucky to find an hour’s worth of entertainment.  So much time is wasted in the booth where all Stu need do is asking “what do I have to do to get out of this situation?”

Colin Farrell is the only performance worth reviewing and he’s admirable without being exceptional.  Those hoping to see Katie Holmes and Australian Radha Mitchell should save themselves for the video release as they’re seldom seen.  If you’re trying to figure it out, Keifer Sutherland provides the voice of the sniper but I’m not sure if the strange echo to his voice is necessary.

Filmed in just 12 days, Phone Booth needed more substance before being green lighted.  Should you be invited by a friend to see it, the first and best choice should be to just hang up.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 29 May 2003

Young Lee Holloway (Gyllenhaal) has just been released from a mental institution and back into the waiting arms of her parents.  It was Lee’s fetish for pain that had her institutionalised – she used special blades to cut deep incisions into her body and let them heel before repeating the process.  With the help of her mother, she takes a typing course to boost her chances of employment.  A wise move it seems as she’s successful at her very first interview.

E. Edward Grey (Spader) is a small time solicitor looking for a new secretary.  Impressed by the intent look in her eyes, Mr Grey has chosen Lee to fulfil the role.  I’d say the two develop an attraction but to use such simple English does not give the story justice.  After Lee botches a typing job, Mr Grey bends her over his desk and gives her a savage spanking.  Strange as it may seem, both get an overwhelmingly erotic satisfaction from the experience but neither is willing to admit it.  Thus, this already complicated relationship is made even more complicated by their inability to give into their inner fetishes and desires.

25-year-old Maggie Gyllenhaal (Donnie Darko, Adaptation) tackles the leading role with unrelenting passion.  Lee at first seems a troubled character but in watching her grow, we understand her little nuances and appreciate her innocence.  Gyllenhaal has taken on a daring role that most Hollywood starlets wouldn’t even consider.  Can you imagine a Julia Roberts or a Sandra Bullock in this part?  For her decision, Gyllenhaal has been honoured with a string of newcomer awards and despite missing out on an Oscar nomination (shame on you Academy), she picked up valuable exposure with nomination at the Golden Globes.

James Spader is another great actor who has jumped at this unusual opportunity.  You’re not sure how to react to some of his actions but I guarantee you’ll find yourself laughing one unexpected event that takes place on his office desk.  Disappointing was the appearance of Jeremy Davies as a side love interest to Lee.  After a career changing performance in Saving Private Ryan, Davies has been typecast as a softly spoken “creepy guy” in films such as The Million Dollar Hotel and Solaris.

Secretary is constantly off-balance and little can be predicted with any real certainty.  That’s how I like most of my movies and if you subscribe to a similar theory, here’s one for you.  Assume the position (in the theatre I mean).

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 23 May 2003

To make me feel a little older, I look at the story of Abe Forsythe.  Forsythe dropped out of school when he was 15 but it didn’t stop him winning a huge short film award at Tropfest one year later.  Forsythe didn’t just work behind the camera, he acted in front of it.  After popping up in a few small television shows, he landed his biggest role to date when in 2001, he was cast in Channel Seven’s Always Greener.

While working on the show, he wrote a screenplay and then pitched it to potential investors.  As expected, they were very reluctant to allow a 20-year-old full control but after much searching, the newly established Ocean Pictures and the reliable Becker Entertainment put up the funding.  The film has finally made it to the big screen and Ned is the title.  I can honestly say that in the eight year I’ve been reviewing films, this would be the youngest director I have seen.

Forsythe also has the leading role in this farce on the legend of Ned Kelly.  If you think its release is just to piggy back on the press of Heath Ledger’s Ned Kelly, you’d be wrong.  Forsythe’s film was approved well before Ledger’s version.  Having trashed Ned Kelly several weeks ago, I’m proud to report I found this comedic adaptation much more entertaining.

The bulk of the jokes are in the earlier scenes and you can see the idea wearing a little thin towards the end.  It begins by showing young Ned abandoning his father’s rubber farm and riding out on his pony to begin a career as a magician.  To fund his magic show, he joins a gang which robs banks.  Ned isn’t very experienced but he becomes an instant celebrity thanks to the letterbox he wears as a hat.  And thus, the chace begins to capture him.

A large percentage of the jokes are quite dirty and be warned an MA rating does apply.  I say this not to discredit the film but just to express my surprise at how a film which looks so innocent from the trailers and posters, has more to it.  The final scene itself is a perfect example.  Don’t ask me how but Forsythe has assembled an amazing array of B-grade star cameos.  I won’t spoil them but the clear highlight is a moment during which a face from the past introduces himself to Ned’s dad, Mr. Kelly.

Forsythe’s screenplay mocks many clichés and enjoyably spoofs several other films.  The slapstick style allowed plenty of potential and whilst not all jokes work as well as expected, it’s a fun ride.  Only showing on a limited number of screens, I fear those that had faith in Forsythe won’t be rewarded financially for their efforts.  Down the track though, they can lay claim to producing the very first film of a very experienced director.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 25 May 2003

A popular lecturer at university, David Gale lived an enjoyable life.  That was until he slept with one of his students whilst drunk at a campus party.  Getting back at Gale for a past event, she claims that she was raped and whilst the charges were dropped, the smear stayed with Gale forever.  His wife left him, he never saw his son again, he was fired from his job and the people at Deathwatch wanted him sacked.  A man who was so prevalent in the public eye was now looked upon in a shameful light.

His best friend throughout was co-founder of Deathwatch, Constance Harraway (Linney).  She never lost faith in Gale and stood up for him at all times.  It was the murder of Constance for which Gale was convicted.  She was found strangled to death in her kitchen with Gale’s fingerprints on the body and his semen inside her.  With a dodgy lawyer, Gale never stood a chance.

Like all, Bitsey believes Gale to be guilty but she will soon become his biggest ally when a mysterious video tape surfaces in her hotel room.  The tape appears to show Constance committing suicide but she cannot be clearly identified and the evidence is too subjective to exonerate Gale.  Something is rotten in the state of Texas and Bitsey has less than 48 hours to put the pieces together or it will be too late.

As two of my favourite actresses, Kate Winslet gives an astutely emotional performance.  Kevin Spacey is more subdued but also in fine form.  With such big stars and a feature director in Alan Parker (Mississippi Burning, Evita), it’s strange that the film hasn’t received more publicity in Australia.  I guess it’s just been lost in the wash-up of X-Men 2 and The Matrix Reloaded.

The most widely discussed aspects of The Life Of David Gale are the interesting surprises that fill the finale.  I can’t say they are totally unexpected but in contrast to most critics, I found them very appropriate.  Thinking whilst driving home from the cinema, I could find few faults in these twists and they were well supported by evidence along the way.  The only possible sore point could be the presumption that Winslet doesn’t publish the details from the final piece of evidence she receives.  That’s all I’ll say on that matter.

The film has a strong narrative but I’m unsure what message the writer is trying to tell us.  In the light of the recent troubles the Governor-General has faced, I particularly liked how the film showed the ease at which someone can smear someone’s reputation even when no crime has been committed.  This though is only a small part of the overall picture and the filmmaker’s let themselves down in blurring the capital punishment issue.  An opportunity missed.