Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 13 June 2002

Conor unenthusiastically shows up for the first day of practice to meet his team.  They’re all from poverty stricken backgrounds and live in substandard housing on the outskirts of Chicago.  The training session doesn’t go well with the team showing their obvious lack of skill.  To make matters worse, Conor gets a visit from the league president warning him that if he can’t find a nine man team, the team will be kicked out.

To get two additional players, Conor goes to the local school and introduces himself to teacher Elizabeth Wilkes (Lane) who his instantly develops an attraction to.  Ms Wilkes promises to let more of her students play if Conor will help them prioritise their homework.  So, Conor begins the job of transforming his team from a team of jokes into a team of champions.  Not only is he successful, but he reaches a defined understanding of his own life and vows to get himself back on track.

Keanu Reeves would be one of the most hot-cold actors in the business.  He draws consistent criticism for many weak performances which have arisen because of bad casting.  Yet, when he finds a role that does suit, he rises to the occasion and reaffirms our faith in his ability.  Hardball best fits the later description.  Reeves is on-song and has the rough personality that matches that of Conor O’Neill.  Surprisingly, the talented Diane Lane doesn’t feature and is very much secondary to Conor’s and the kids’ stories.

You always know where a film like Hardball is heading and there’s only so much of it you can take.  As I’ve reiterated before, sport is most exciting when it is unpredictable.  Just when you think you’ve got it figured out, the underdog steals the show to heighten your interest.  The problem on screen is that sport movies usually are predictable and don’t contain the same level of excitement.  Honestly though, this is a feel good flick and nothing more should be expected.  There’s room for improvement but at least its heart is in the right place. 

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 30 May 2002

Three brothers, Dale (Pearce), Shane (Edgerton), and Mal (Richardson) have just finished serving two years in prison for robbery.  Their “lawyer”, Frank (Taylor), has organised a bank hold-up for the trio on their day of release to give them back in the game.  Everything goes smoothly but Frank and his crooked cop friends have them spend three more weeks in jail as they wait for the aftermath of the robbery to subside.  Throw into the mix the fact that Dale thinks Frank is screwing his wife, Carol (Griffiths), and these three brothers believe their interests aren’t being looked after.

Frank then comes to them with the “big one”.  With the help of his Melbourne contacts, he’s orchestrated one of the biggest robberies in history to go down on the first Tuesday in November.  Thanks to a 50-1 outside bolting home in the Melbourne Cup, the bookies are cashed up with an estimated $20m being held for them at an exclusive inner-city hotel.  Get the idea?  But even if they can pull off this daring daylight heist, it’s going to be a matter of who to trust and a question of who’s playing for who...

Criminal comedies aren’t new but the Australian touch will gives it a big kick.  There’s a great chase scene through the streets of Melbourne which will be enjoyed by those who’ve been to the city.  Seeing Guy Pearce back in an Aussie film is a big release as I won’t be subject to his questionable Yankee accent.  He’s solid but Damien Richardson and particularly Joel Edgerton provide the standout performances.  Robert Taylor is very smooth and makes a great bad guy but Rachel Griffiths isn’t given enough time nor material for an actress of her capability.

Sure it’s a comedy but Scott Roberts has not spared us from the violence.  There are some gruesomely disgusting scenes and anyone who might be left squeamish by the violent gunplay should be prepared to avert their eyes (or even stay home).  I think it does much to the film in that it adds another dimension to the genre.  The sound is sensational and so is the slick, snazzy film score.  Overall, the production is awesome.

The screenplay is slightly narrow.  Sure it’s a comedy but hey, these robberies are just a little too easy for me.  A few more glitches or a little more planning would have done the trick.  There wasn’t enough material to challenge me intellectually but the stylish jokes were sufficient compensation.  Roberts has us rooting for these three brothers despite them being criminals - it’s fun sometimes to watch those being chased rather than focus on those doing the chasing.

At least for this week, we can forget about criticising cliched ridden American garbage and appreciate something closer to home.  The session I saw on Saturday night was a sell out and it’s validation that in our competitive culture, Aussies want to rally behind our own talent.  Expect big things and start spreading the “hard word”.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 13 June 2002

However, her school believes that Sam’s intellect is inhibiting Lucy’s learning ability and thinks she would be best placed in a foster home.  Awaiting a hearing in the family court, Lucy is taken from Sam and the two emotionally suffer in being apart.  On advice, Sam realises he needs a lawyer to fight for custody and sees a flashy ad in the Yellow Pages for Rita Harrison (Pfeiffer).  Knowing Sam has no money to pay for her services, she rejects his case but after receiving flak from inside her firm, she reconsiders.

Sam and Rita then develop an important relationship.  Thanks to Rita’s expertise, Sam learns how the legal system works and what he has to do to get Lucy back.  Rita’s relationship with her own son has gone sour and thanks to Sam, she understands how neglectful she has been of him and starts rebuilding.  Feelin’ good yet?

I’ve tried hard but I just can’t think of an appropriate metaphor to describe just how emotionally manipulating this garbage is.  It’s sickening to watch, sickening to listen to, and sickening to endure.  The story is laughable and an insult to the people it depicts and the issues it explores.  You will have to excuse me if I wasn’t even slightly moved by the sentiment.  Ordinarily, I would have felt for Sam’s plight but I don’t particularly enjoy having my emotions so obviously milked.

Jessie Nelson’s direction is horrendous.  For some stupid reason, most of the film is shot with moving handheld cameras.  I think I saw steadier camera work in The Blair Witch Project.  Why would she even consider using such a style?  What is the point?  During several scenes, I had to look away in frustration and if you do suffer from motion sickness, take with you two panadene, a bottle of vodka and a firearm to ease the suffering.

The only thing saving this “film” from total retribution are the performances of Sean Penn and Michelle Pfeiffer.  They get no help from their supporting cast but Penn is great in a Rainman-like role and earned an Oscar nom for his work.  Pfeiffer is also good and tries to add spark to the pathetic screenplay but the mountain is just too high.

I believe in freedom and giving people the opportunity to do whatever they want but I plead with you not to see I Am Sam.  If you must (for reasons you will have to explain to me), then be careful not to fall into the traps that lie waiting for you.  I’m starting to think this film was actually written by someone with the mental capacity of a 7-year-old.  Sorry if I have offended writers Kristine Johnson and Jessie Nelson but they asked for it.  I am Matt.   I am right.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 30 May 2002

Set in 1944, Lt. Thomas Hart (Farrell) is captured in a raid and taken to Stalag 6A, a German prisoner of war camp.  Leading the soldiers inside is Col. William McNamara (Willis) who debriefs Hart but does not allow him to stay in the hut allocated to officers (as he should be entitled).  Instead, he asks him to stay in another hut and keep a watchful eye on its soldiers.

In the weeks subsequent, two new soldiers arrive, both African American, and McNamara asks them to stay in Hart’s hut.  The other soldiers are enraged that they should have to live with “niggers” and Hart is doing everything he can to keep the peace.  Any chance of that is lost when fellow soldier Vic Bedford (Hauser) is murdered with one of the African Americans, Lincoln Scott (Howard), found overlooking the body.

McNamara asks German camp leader Col. Werner Visser (Iures) that a trial be held to determine the guilt of Scott.  He allows it, as he’s seen such things in American movies, and so it begins.  But Hart soon learns that McNamara isn’t the prized Colonel he expected.  McNamara asks Hart to defend Scott despite having no experience.  Further, he gets a fully qualified lawyer to act as the prosecution.  What hope does Scott have now and why would McNamara have the scales so unevenly balances?  Hart’s going to find out...

Hart’s War is a consistently dull film.  The story is mildly interesting but isn’t given an opportunity to develop.  It’s just a standard “who done it” flick and the answers provided in the third final act aren’t at all surprising.  Colin Farrell (Tigerland) is a star in the making and overshadows Bruce Willis with a strong performance.  In a few weeks, Farrell’s star status will rocket appearing alongside Tom Cruise in Steven Spielberg’s Minority Report.  Willis looks tired in his role and his raspy voice and expressionless face is becoming a stereotype in itself.

It makes you wonder why MGM Studios put up $70m to make this.  The studio has been plagued by disaster after disaster (anyone see Species 2?) and the $19m total gross at the U.S. Box-office is another kick in the teeth.  It appears this film has no target market and is just going to slide off Aussie screens with minimal fuss in a matter of weeks.  Maybe it’s time to try some gambles and tackle some more adventurous material.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 06 June 2002

Having just emerged from the cinema, my feelings are of great relief (as the film was equal to the hype), of great satisfaction (having seen a very enjoyable production), and of great anticipation (knowing an intriguing sequel lies ahead).  It’s certainly not a ground breaking flick but it doesn’t purport to be anything it’s not.  It’s only trying to be fun, action-packed entertainment and it’s right on the mark without overstepping it.

Tobey Maguire (The Cider House Rules, Pleasantville) was a criticised choice when initially cast but is a natural in the role of Peter Parker (aka Spider-Man).  He has a nerdish quality but a subtle sense of humour that is ideal.  He doesn’t try to be a super-serious superhero and has a lot of fun.  I love his cries of “woohoo” when flying above the city streets.  Kirsten Dunst (Interview With A Vampire, The Virgin Suicides) is also superb as Mary Jane Watson and her relaxed “girl next door” persona which makes her a refreshing love-interest who isn’t second-fiddle to both the hero and the story.

I’ve never read a Spider-Man comic but the film’s introduction provides the background to building interest in its subject.  Peter Parker is an ordinary teenager with the hots for a girl, Mary Jane Watson, who’s never really noticed him.  On a school excursion at a science laboratory, he is bitten by a genetically-engineered spider and develops super-human strength and dexterity.  Oh, and he can also shoot sticky spider webs from his wrists.

Peter’s best friend, Harry (Franco), has a wealthy father, Norman (Dafoe), who has been working himself on genetic mutation.  After a botched experiment, he too develops miraculous abilities but as The Green Goblin, is using his power in evil ways.  And so Spider-Man’s easy-living days of clearing crime off New York’s streets are about to get more difficult.   He’s now got an nasty adversary with the strength to stop him.

Credit to the marketing team behind the film.  They have woven a web of media hysteria and the resulting box-office is validation of their efforts.  Spider-Man has completely destroyed Attack Of The Clones.  After a new record for the biggest 3-day opening in U.S. History ($114.8m), the film’s gross already has it in the top 5 of all time with still much more to be reaped from returning audiences.  A great film with great marketing will always equal extraordinary results.

Sam Raimi has done well from the director’s chair.  There are no unnecessary lulls and the dynamic screenplay gives it the depth that’ll keep you attentive the entire time.  It’s the cracking pace that makes raises Spider-Man above almost any other action film to be released in the past few years.  Frustratingly, the special effects are a little too obvious but there’s plenty of daring stunt work too that helps offset the CGI distractions.

            Essentially, Spider-Man offers something different while staying within the realms of familiarity.  It’s the tricky love-triangle between Peter, Mary and Harry that rightfully gets focus ahead of repetitive action sequences.  Highly recommendable, Peter Parker sums it up best in his introduction - “This story, like any worth telling, is all about a girl.”