Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 09 May 2002

Claire Kubik (Judd) and her husband Tom are very happily married and are desperately trying to conceive their first child.  Out of nowhere, comes a bombshell.  Tom is arrested by the military for pulling the trigger in a massacre ten years ago where a group of innocent women and children were killed.  His real name is Ronald Chapman and Clarie is horrified that the man she thought she knew so well, has such a sordid past.

Tom declares his innocence and tells of a massive cover-up.  It was another member of his crew that was responsible for the shooting but since he is now the second-hand man to the powerful Brigadier General, Tom is the scapegoat to take the fall.

Claire is a lawyer herself but has no experience in the procedures and protocols of a military trial.  So she calls upon the reputable Charlie Grimes (Freeman) to represent her husband and together they find more and more truth in her husband’s theory.  Claire’s life is threatened by an attacker which only adds more fuel to her passion to seek the truth.  But what she would discover would soon make the purpose of the trial seem rather insignificant...

Ok, it’s run of the mill.  Some people have called it predictable but others, including myself, were a little stunned by the false ending and subsequent twist.  Perhaps I need to see it a second time to see whether every piece of the puzzle actually fits but despite not tackling anything new, High Crimes is solid entertainment.

Ashley Judd and Morgan Freeman do work well together but neither actor is required to stretch beyond their personas.  Judd seems to be replacing Sigorney Weaver as the new tough-girl thriller heroine with this role following eye-catching performances in Double Jeopardy and Kiss The Girls.  Freeman is above this material and I much preferred to see him diversifying his portfolio in films such as last year’s Nurse Betty.

You know it’s a really weak title when I think about it - High Crimes just isn’t a title that sounds like it’ll sell tickets.  Whilst the film squeaked into number one last week at the Australian box-office, this is the kind of film that will be gathering dust in video stores in about three years time.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 02 May 2002

Edmond Dantes (Caviezel) and Fernand Mondego (Pearce) are two friends who make a living on the sea by transporting cargo.  When the captain of the boat dies, Edmond is appointed the new captain and with it comes a large rise in salary.  Further, he is madly in love with Mercedes Iguanada (Dominczyk) who reciprocates this feeling and the two plan to be married in the near future.

Fernand is jealous of both Edmond’s success and woman.  He unsuccessfully attempts to frame Edmond for treason but it a twist of fate, finds an ally in the prosecutor Monsieur de Villefort and they make a deal for their own benefit.  Edmond is taken to an island prison to spend the rest of his life whilst Mercedes and his family have been told he was executed.

Spending 13 years in a tiny, dimly lit cell, Edmond loses all feeling for life but finds it reinvigorated thanks to the help of Abbe Faria (Harris), another cellmate who is slowly digging an escape tunnel.  In return for Edmond’s help in digging the escape route, Abbe gives Edmond an education.  He teaches him how to read, how to write and importantly, how to fight.  He also gives him something else.  A map to the island of Monte Cristo revealing the location of a hidden treasure that will make him wealthier than his wildest dreams.

And so Edmond escapes and finds the treasure.  Instead of beginning a new life of riches, he is determined to seek revenge upon those who took his old one.  Targeting Fernand and Villefort, Edmond begins an elaborate game to destroy the reputation of these two men.  Edmond renames himself the Count Of Monte Cristo and his power and fortune give him the platform to begin his vengeance...

The novel has been adapted many times before on screen which makes you wonder why they’d choose to do it again.  Perhaps because it is a proven concept that the studio knows the public will accept.  James Caviezel gives the film’s best performance with Guy Pearce slightly over-playing his role although I conceded it positively increased my dislike for the character.  Richard Harris’ small cameo provided some light-hearted fun during the film’s mid-section.

The costumes are an easily identifiable highlight and I single out a scene in which Fernand’s son has a birthday party to provide evidence.  The story flows fell and there are few lulls thanks to expert direction from Kevin Reynolds (Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves, Waterworld).  There’s a good mix of action, drama, thrills and laughs to provide value for your investment.  Like his previous films and with the help of a coastal Ireland backdrop, The Count Of Monte Cristo is an enjoyable adventure best savoured on the bigger screen.  And yes, there’s the assurance that you all know how it’s going to end.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 02 May 2002

In a split second though, their lives suddenly change.  At a baseball game, Michael collapses and is rushed to hospital.  Doctor Raymond Turner (Woods) informs John and Denise their son has an enlarged heart and if a transplant is not performed, he will die within a matter of weeks.  Hospital director Rebecca Payne (Heche) then informs them that their insurance policy will not cover a procedure of this magnitude and that if they cannot find a 30% deposit to cover the $250,000 cost of the operation, their son will be released untreated.

At wits end, John’s actions are forced upon him.  After getting the ring-around from every insurance company and financial aid group, John feels he has no choice.  He takes the emergency wing of the hospital hostage.  The doors are locked, the media are informed and through police negotiator, Frank Grimes (Duvall), John’s demand is made - to have his son placed on a donor’s list.

This film has flaws of gigantic proportions.  Firstly, it tries to cover too much territory by attacking a string of easy targets who aren’t given true representation.  Insurance companies, hospitals, aid groups, the police, the media, the government and the economy are all heavily criticised - it’s everyone’s fault but John’s.  It always leaves a bad taste in the mouth to see a well-made film mislead an audience with obvious propaganda.  I hope people are aware this is a completely fictitious story.

Secondly, the plot development is artificial and based on reaching a predefined conclusion.  The story’s ending has been determined first and then the beginning has been written to match this conclusion.  This sequence of events is too remarkable to believe and the finale is the perfect emphasis to this point.  There isn’t enough grit or suspense - it’s all too easy for John if you ask me.

Newly crowned Oscar champ Denzel Washington gives an emotionally powerful and impressive performance.  As both John Q and Training Day showed, he pours 100% into every character he portrays but is consistently let down by a screenplay transforming his character into a superficial myth rather than a believable hero.  Robert Duvall was also great in a more light-hearted role and it brought back memories of his persona from a personal favourite of mine, Falling Down.

Does this film set a dangerous precedent?  Maybe.  It may only be a movie but a film that justifies illegally putting many lives at risk to save one’s son does deliver a subliminal message.  I didn’t feel the insurance companies and hospitals were given sufficient representation and by casting James Woods and Anne Heche in cold roles, it only adds to the audience’s hatred for them.  Last year, I criticised The Man Who Sued God for similar one-sided reasons.  John Q is just the American version.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 28 April 2002

To be honest, I can’t remember much of the screenplay.  During this part of the review I go through a detailed description of the plot but with all the strange character and place names, I’m struggling to piece it together in a word form.  But the essence of the story is the same as most every action film that has gone before.  There’s a good guy.  There’s the good guy’s wacky sidekick.  There’s the bad guy.  There’s the bad guy’s girl who gets won by the good guy.  There’s about 10,000 pawns who get killed in the process (none of whom matter).  Have I forgotten anything?

The Scorpion King relies solely on sound effects editing to create the illusion of action.  Like a WWF show (which are on Foxtel way too much these days), it’s all fake and phony.  I’m sure when someone has a sword driven through their body, it doesn’t usually make a horrible squelching sound but when you do it in a movie, it somehow gives people the impression it is real.

The Rock has a presence on screen and I can see he has novelty appeal but I’ll easily tire if he keeps dishing up such films (which he will).  As the Jean-Claude Van Dammes, Sylvester Stallones and Dolph Lungrens have shown us, action stars who aren’t willing to diversify have a very limited shelf life.  Michael Clarke Duncan (The Green Mile) is the most high-profile actor of the cast but you wouldn’t believe he’s a previous Academy Award nominee from his stale performance.

There’s plenty of big holes.  The most obvious is a scene towards the beginning when The Rock has been buried up to his neck and about to be attacked by killer ants.  He is rescued by his friend but what is never explained is how his friend escaped or how he saved The Rock in time.  With such little appeal to me, why bother continuing...

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 02 May 2002

Gordon Brewer (Scharzenegger) is a firefighter.  That way, we’ll see him as a decent guy.  His wife and child are killed in a terrorist explosion when Gordon is late in picking them up.  Now we’re supposed to feel sorry for him.  Then he finds the CIA and FBI cannot locate the man responsible, Claudio Perrini (Curtis), because he’s fled back home to Colombia.  Tragic, isn’t it?  So Gordon takes justice into his own hands, goes to Columbia, manages to infiltrate the militia against billion-to-one odds and gets his man.  Excuse me if I’m not busting out of my seat with excitement.

I cannot stand movies that justify revenge killings.  Our emotions are milked by seeing poor innocent Gordon have his beautiful wife and son blown up right in front of him.  The Colombians are to blame 100% (as America has no responsibility whatsoever) and so he goes and blows some of them up.  It’s an eye for an eye.  Wouldn’t it be a great society if we could all do this?  It’s ironic that Americans are currently trying to intervene in the Israeli-Palestinian to create a state of peace when films like this are screening in their own country.

Gordon must be the luckiest son of a bitch that ever existed.  He’s fired at constantly and is never injured.  He jumps off a massive waterfall and manages to survive with only a few scratches.  He can wire a grenade with a rubber-band and predict exactly when the rubber band will break.  He sense when he’s in danger and manages to avoid a bomb exploding in his face by a matter of seconds.  Oh, and he has a moral fibre and despite obliterating hundreds of men, has a thing against killing women and children.  Well excuse me if I say, what a f***ing joke.

The editing and special effects stink.  There’s some stunts early on where it’s clear Arnold is using a body double.  Many scenes don’t flow seem jumbled and inconsistent.  All the good guys can preempt the actions of the bad guys - probably because everyone acts like a cardboard cut-out.  Hollywood stars John Leguizamo and John Turturro make small cameo like appearances but are wasted.  In fact, the sound quality was so poor during Turturro’s scene, I couldn’t understand half of his dialogue.  For a film with an $85 budget, that’s farcical.

When you take a script of the worst magnitude and combine it with one of the year’s worst directing efforts, you have a film that will be included in the list of most critic’s worst of 2002 lists.  The film was to be released last October but following the events of September 11, the opening was delayed.  It’s my contention the opening should have been delayed permanently.