Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 28 December 2002

Well if think that’s creepy, check out Robin Williams.  He is Sy Parrish and for 11 years has been the department manager of the photo development section at the Sav-Mart shopping complex.  Living alone with no wife or kids, Sy’s demeanor is placid and inconspicuous.  He’s the last person you’d expect of anything remotely wrong.

But there’s a lot more to Sy than anyone knows.  As regular customers during his entire service, Nina Yorkin (Nielsen) has always brought her family’s prized images to Sy to developing.  Nina is happily married to Will (Vartan) and they have a nine-year-old son, Jake (Smith).  To Sy, they are the perfect American family.

Over time, his fascination has become a very bizarre obsession.  He keeps copies of their pictures to hang on his walls and put in his photo frames.  He fantasises about being part of the family.  He’s now started stalking them by following them around town and watching them in their home from across the street.  His increasing closeness to the family is about to reach boiling point when two events flip his warped world upside down.  A meeting with his boss and a reel from a new customer will force Sy to take action to keep his dream alive...

Such an original film can only come from a first-time director who is yet to be corrupted by Hollywood dollars.  Mark Romanek’s film was debuted at this year’s Sundance Film Festival and had it’s first screening outside the United States at this year’s Brisbane International Film Festival.  The bland colours and slow, simple dialogue simple give the film a low-budget art-house feel but it’s the perfect setting to add an element of unpredictability to Sy and his fate.

Robin Williams is almost unrecognisable.  With bleached hair, glasses and considerable make-up, he is not called upon for his usual overexhuberant comedy.  His character is docile and a complete departure from any role Williams has tackled before.  Assisted by his character’s gradual development through the screenplay, Williams keeps us guessing to the very end (and beyond).

Maintaining the intrigue of the build up, the conclusion does offer a slightly unexpected twist.  However, the resolution of Sy’s character seemed insignificant and the lack of clarity did take the gloss off this final print.  More was expected.  Incidentally, the music score from Reinhold Heil and Johnny Klimek is great and perfectly in tune with the eeriness of the story.

Make sure you allow a little more than an hour to see this film develop.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 26 December 2002

How can I even begin to describe this film?  It’s a bizarre mix of both truth and fiction.  The story begins with Kaufman (played by Nicolas Cage) on the set of Malkovich and ignored by everyone as just another member of the crew.  Kaufman maybe of the most talented screenwriters in the industry but he is extremely self-conscious.  He worries intently about other’s perceptions of him and overanalyses situations before taking no action.  I have no idea if the real Kaufman is like this.

Am I going too fast?  I need to back up a little.  The leading character in Adaptation is called Charlie Kaufman, the same name as the writer.  The Kaufman in the movie shares many similarities with the real Kaufman but since we know so little about the real Kaufman, it’s hard to say just how much is true and how much isn’t.  What we do know is that the real Kaufman doesn’t have an identical twin brother called Donald, like he does in the film.  This is of course despite the fact that Donald Kaufman is listed in the credits as a screenwriter.

Confused yet?  I haven’t even began to describe the plot.  Kaufman (this is the one in the film) wants to adapt a novel written by Susan Orlean called The Orchard Thief.  Orlean is a writer for The New Yorker who met a lover of orchards, John Laroche and initially wrote an article on him before expanding it into a novel.

The film is topsy-turvy but can be broken down into two stories, three years apart, which are told simultaneously.  The first is that of Charlie struggling to adapt the novel.  He realises that it can’t be done because the novel has no story - a beautiful book but nothing actually happens in it.  As he struggles, his twin brother has decided to write a screenplay of his own.  After attending a screen writing seminar, he effortlessly puts together a commercialised thriller about a serial killer with multiple personality disorder.

The second story is that of Susan Orlean writing the article/book in the first place.  We see her initially meeting Laroche, developing a friendship with him as she writes the article, and then re-evaluating her own dull life in a search for something better.  Once again, I have no idea if the real Laroche or Orlean are anything like these film “adaptations”.

If you think it’s all nuts, wait for the ending.  The perfect term would be to call it ironic.  That’s all I’ll say.  Director Spike Jonze blurs the two stories together with effortless ease and despite an initial jaggedness in the beginning, the film flows perfectly.  Included in the film are some hilarious behind-the-scenes stuff from Malkovich with help from its stars.  Those familiar with Wonder Boys and L.A. Confidential will also find delight in seeing the unusual casting choice for Orlean’s husband.

Cage delivers his best performance since Leaving Las Vegas.  The special effects that enable him to appear with himself on screen are seamless and you’ll actually believe there are two of him.  Cage also does a wonderful job of differentiating the two characters.  Despite the fact they look the same, you can tell which is which from their dialogue and mannerisms.  It’s a cherished role for any actor and Cage’s slight similarities with the real Kaufman would have contributed to his casting.

See it if you dare.  It’s a movie for true film aficionados and whilst it’ll make about one tenth of the box-office gross of a thriller about a serial killer with multiple personality disorder, it’ll provide about ten times more satisfaction.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 26 December 2002

If you’ve paid close attention to the trailers, The Tuxedo was made by Dreamworks Studios.  I’m a huge fan of this Steven Spielberg founded company, as they set a standard of producing quality films.  Since opening in the late 90s, they’ve churned out such Oscar winners as American Beauty, Saving Private Ryan, Almost Famous, Shrek and Gladiator.  So despite my reluctance towards the casting of Jackie Chan and Jennifer Love Hewitt, my fingers were crossed in hope of a pleasant surprise.

Luck wasn’t on my side as The Tuxedo disappointed in amazing fashion.  The premise is that agent Clark Devlin (Isaacs) has a billion dollar tuxedo that can do almost anything.  With it, he has no trouble capturing the bad guys and saving the day.  His recently hired limo driver is Jimmy Tong (Chan) who sees his boss badly injured in an attack on both their lives.  In his final words before slipping into a coma, Devlin tells Jimmy to wear the tuxedo.

Clothes make the man and for Jimmy, this is the ultimate outfit.  Back at the agency’s head office, a new agent is appointed to work along side Devlin, Delilah Blaine (Hewitt).  As she’s never met the real Clark Devlin, and with Jimmy going along with the charade that he is Clark Devlin, the two go in chase of a villain who is threatening to poison the country’s water supply.

Delilah’s character astounds me.  She’s supposed to be a secret agent and yet is brilliantly smart in some scenes, and unbelievably dumb in others.  The longer it went on, the more frustrated I became with her.  Chan’s opportunities to perform stunts are limited.  I hope it wasn’t director Kevin Donovan intention to rely on Chan’s acting abilities.  When actual fight sequences do take place, the film is edited so quickly, it’s impossible to tell what’s going on and who’s doing what.

On the dawn of the Oscar season, and with Christmas holidays in full swing, this is a substandard release.  There’s no need to get dressed up for this one.  In fact, there’s no identifiable reason to go at all.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 26 December 2002

Never before have I seen a film made by Americans that pays out Americans to such a large extent.  It is very confronting and not surprisingly, has created its fair share of controversy.  If anything, this is attracting patrons.  The film has made $20m at home and been honoured abroad with a special prize at the Cannes Film Festival.

Let’s just look at what Michael Moore gets up to in Bowling For Columbine.  He visits a bank in Northern Michigan where if you open a new account, you get a free gun.  It seems they are both a bank and a licenced gun dealer.  All you have to do is put $1,000 in a long-term deposit and they’ll give you a huge catalogue to choose your weapon of choice.

He interviews people in a town called Virgin.  Here, it’s law that every resident must own a gun.  One interviewee says “I think it’s a great place to raise your children” and actually means it.

Moore visits the home of James Nichols, the brother of convicted Oklahoma City bomber Terry Nicholas, to talk about his enjoyment of firearms.  He even shows Moore the gun he keeps under his pillow and at one stage, points the loaded gun directly at Moore’s head.

There’s a swag of interviews with notable celebrities including singer Marilyn Manson, the creator of South Park Trey Parker and in the film’s final scene, the head of the National Rifle Association, Charlton Heston.  Moore also interviews regular people off the street.  He’s looking to show both sides of the coin and does a pretty good job.

Criticism has been drawn to the film because of its one-sidedness and loose statistical data.  I’ll acknowledge that I too was curious where some of his factual data came from.  I’m not saying its wrong, but he throws numbers out there and not even the film’s website shows where he’s gotten them.  I don’t think it should detract from the film because the heart is still there.  No matter what you say, American’s are a bunch of gun nuts and finally someone is telling them this to their face through this film.

So what does Moore think to be the greatest contributor to this obsession with guns?  Fear.  American’s live in a society where the media instills fear.  One the interviewees states that whilst gun related deaths fell 20%, exposure on the news rose 600%.  As they say, “if it bleeds, it leads”.  Moore interviews one of the producers of Cops and suggests he make a new series called Corporate Cops.  The producer thinks its a good idea but admits it wouldn’t work unless the corporate criminals took off their shirt and be willing to be chased by the police for television.  That says it all doesn’t it.

Moore’s point about the media reminds me so much about the recent paranoia created by the Washington sniper.  There are so many other aspects of the film that time hasn’t given me the opportunity to explain.  Whilst its hilariously funny at times, there is a strong seriousness that dominates pivotal scenes.  There is actual footage of the Columbine massacre and a sample of 911 calls.  There are interviews with people who have been victims of gun related crimes.

Documentaries don’t get much cinema time in multiplexes but thankfully, Bowling For Columbine is receiving valuable exposure.  In my eyes, it’s the most important film of the year and at all cost, cannot be missed.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 26 December 2002

It’s a daunting task to condense the huge novel into three hours and significant changes have been made.  The heart of the story is still there and those in love with the books need to be wary that not everything will unravel as they expect.  At the end of The Fellowship Of The Ring, the characters were separated and rather than focus on one story, The Two Towers needs to show three.

Unlike the first film, which was “Frodo central”, our main story here is that of Aragorn’s (Mortensen).  Together with the dwarf Gimli (Rhys-Davies) and the elf Legolas (Bloom), he goes in search of the hobbits Pippin (Boyd) and Merry (Monaghan) who were captured by Orcs.  The travel to the land of Rohan where the king, Theoden, has become hypnotised by a spell from the evil wizard Saruman (Lee).  With the help of an old friend, the spell is broken and Theoden realises that Saruman is sending a massive army to obliterate his kingdom and “to destroy the world of men”.  Theoden orders his people to flee to the Rohan stronghold where the best stand a chance of defending themselves.

Meanwhile, Merry and Pippin have escaped danger and found their way into an enchanted forest.  There, the trees come alive and speak to the curious duo.  These mysterious beings, known as ents, are a dying breed but they also have their part in Middle Earth and won’t be a witness to their own destruction at the hands of Saruman.

Throughout this, Frodo Baggins (Wood) and Samwise Gamgee (Astin) set off for Mordor but discover they are being followed by a mysteriously unknown creature known as Gollum.  As hinted at in the first film, Gollum once held the ring of power but lost it to Bilbo Baggins.  They sense Gollum wants to steal the ring back but surprisingly, Gollum is happy to show them the way to Mt Doom, the only place where the ring can be destroyed.  Samwise is doubtful but Frodo, with the ring taking an increasing hold over him, feels Gollum can be trusted.

There’s no let up in the pace and the three hours flies by in an instant.  With the introductions aside, there’s opportunity to explore more storylines and more characters.  Aragorn’s story dominates more than half of the film, as it should.  As is common knowledge, all three films were shot together.

Therefore, every item of praise I awarded The Fellowship Of The Ring needs to be reiterated here.  The special effects, the cinematography, the editing, the acting, the music, the directing, the writing… all awesome!  Is there a bad word that can be said?

It is an amazing production but would never work without the depth of the story.  These are richly developed characters and whilst being a world of fantasy, Tolkien’s themes about power and corruption apply to any world, including our own.  Some of the romantic themes needed a little more work but the climactic action scene is something to behold.

Now, we await the grand finale and the jewel in the crown for director Peter Jackson.  The cast have hinted the third film, The Return Of The King, will be the greatest.  I don’t doubt them for an instant.  365 days to go and counting…