Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 31 January 2002

The film begins with a lady (Harring) about to be shot in a limo high on Mulholland Drive.  A car from the opposite direction then crashes into the limo.  Shaken, the lady makes her way down the mountain and after spending the night in a garden, sneaks into a swanky apartment the next day.

The same day, an actress named Betty (Watts) moves into the apartment and finds the lady in the shower.  Betty asks what she is doing but the lady does not even know her own name.  Making up the name Rita, she can only recall a car accident on Mulholland Drive.  Checking her handbag for identification, she finds $50,000 cash and a blue key.  How did that money get there and what is it for?

Terribly frightened, Rita then remembers a name - Diane Selwyn.  They track down her name in the phone book and decide to pay a visit to see if Diane can identify who Rita actually is.  En route, Betty stops at an audition and makes a dazzling impression on the casting agent.  She’s only just moved to Hollywood from Ontario because she’s always “dreamt” of becoming an actress.

When they reach Diane Selwyn’s house they find her dead.  They then return to Betty’s apartment and make passionate love.  Rita then wakes at 2am and the two travel to a nightclub where they witness a bizarre show.  Finding a mysterious blue box in Betty’s handbag, they again return to Betty’s apartment to unlock the box with the blue key from the handbag.  And from there, it goes nuts...

I’ve read varying reports on the web to help understand the final third of the film.  To avoid revealing secrets, please do not continue reading this paragraph if you don’t want it spoilt.  Here’s my interpretation.  The film doesn’t begin until the final 40 minutes.  Betty is actually Diane Selwyn, a struggling actress who wants to be a star but lacks the talent.  She is sleeping with a Hollywood starlet named Camilla Rhodes who manages to get her small parts in some of her films.  Camilla then leaves Diane for the director of her latest film, Adam Kesher (Theroux).  Feeling her career is finished, she hires a hitman and Camilla is killed.  Regretting her actions, she then masturbates and creates her dream world - one in which she is the starlet and where Camilla is still by her side (this is the first two thirds of the film).  Following this, she takes her own life.

My great simplification in describing the film doesn’t do it true justice.  Director David Lynch (Twin Peaks) originally made this film as a pilot which would become a television series.  The TV series was rejected (probably because the executives couldn’t understand it) and so Lynch chose to release it as a movie.  On its initial screening, the film won best director at the Cannes Film Festival.  Since then, it’s picked up awards from the critics society’s of Boston, Los Angeles and New York.  It also won best picture from the National Society Of Film Critics and was nominated for a Golden Globe.

Australian actress Naomi Watts gives the best performance of the year as Diane/Betty.  Some audience members failed to recognise both roles were played by Watts which is the ultimate tribute to any actor.  Lynch hasn’t used a well-known cast but has certainly drawn wonderful performances from them to suit his mind-blowing script and direction.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 24 January 2002

1975.  Fighting in Vietnam, Nathan needs a marksman to eliminate a military leader and is introduced to rookie Tom Bishop.  Tom learnt his craft in the “boy scouts” and has a deadly aim.  Nathan senses much ability in him and one year later, offers him a lucrative opportunity to train and become a CIA agent.

1985.  In Beirut, Tom and Nathan are working together on an important assignment.  An important leader is to be killed but the death has to be made look an accident.  With a narrow window of opportunity, months are spent setting up the operation but Tom falls for a young medical assistant (McCormack) and may have lost sight of the mission (for better or worse).  It’s a turning point in all their careers.

Screenwriters Michael Breckner and David Arata effectively tell both the present and the past story simultaneously.  It’s well told and maximum value is extracted from its two hour length.  Questionably, both Pitt and Redford look the same in 1975 as they do in 1991.  Surely a little extra make-up could have been used.

The film’s premise is interesting for two reasons.  Firstly, we get a close look at how a spy operates and how they develop the skills that keeps them hidden and removed from suspicion.  Secondly, we get a look at the CIA and their extraordinary ability to obtain information about anyone or anything.  Both concepts are well explored but slight annoyances arose from moments that were a little too hard to believe.  The cool ending will please audiences but it doesn’t suit the tone of the film and I consider it far-fetched.

Pitt and Redford cruise through their performances.  Both are solid but neither will list their roles as a career highlight on their resumes.  Academy Award nominee Marianne Jean-Baptiste (Secrets And Lies) makes a nice cameo as Nathan’s secretary but her talent is wasted in such a small role.  As a CIA agent intent on exposing Nathan’s activities, Stephen Dillane behaves stupidly.  One with his position and qualifications shouldn’t so easily outsmarted.  The same must be said for the entire group that met at the boardroom at CIA headquarters.

Director Tony Scott seems to attracted to stories about power and its effects with Spy Game following his previous efforts, Enemy At The State and Crimson Tide.  The formula behind all three films is similar and if they didn’t climax with the obligatory crowd-pleasing Hollywood ending, may have left a more lasting impression.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 31 January 2002

During their standard mission, they accidentally fly off course and into Bosnian territory which has been declared off limits by NATO.  There’s currently political unrest in Bosnia and NATO does not want the tentative treaty it has orchestrated to become unbalanced.  Burnett stumbles across Serb soldiers up to no good.  They fire on his plane and both he and Stackhouse are forced to eject.

Stranded behind enemy lines, Burnett goes for higher ground to use his radio while Stackhouse remains in the valley with nasty injuries.  Suddenly, the Serb soldiers appear, Stackhouse is shot and they’re coming after Burnett.  Back on the aircraft carrier, Reigart wants to launch an immediate rescue mission but is being prevented by his Captain for fear of ruining any chance of peace in the hostile territory.

Without further adieu, let me declare this film an absolute piece of shit.  The entire story is far-fetched and has been told many times before.  The Americans are portrayed as super-heros who always make the right decisions and judgements.  This time, it’s the French and the Serbs who get the bum wrap at their expense.  At the end of the film, Reigart acts against military orders to save his man.  Why is it whenever someone breaks from the strict military regime, it always turns out favourably (ala Gene Hackman again in Crimson Tide)?  It’s a very tired formula.

The film is also an insult to those in the air force.  From the trailers, I expected a worthwhile war flick but instead got Armageddon 2.  Answer me this question.  How is that a man can survive when he is standing in the open and being shot at by 60 men from 50m away?  Disgraceful.  Following the film’s finale, we get the obligatory words on the screen detailing what became of our two leading characters.  This is also appalling as it tries to justify that the completely fictional story has a point and a meaning.

Gene Hackman does very little and unfortunately Owen Wilson is left to carry the entire film.  He may have “nose” for comedy (Zoolander, Meet The Parents, Shanghai Noon) but he’s no action hero and his cocky demeanour doesn’t play well here.  Let me also note we have another over-the-top Bond-like villain with David Keith playing Captain O’Malley.  Just like Dr. Evil but without the sarcasm.

There are no redeeming features in Behind Enemy Lines that can justify any stance from the one I have taken.  With nothing more than a heap of loud bangs and people blowin’ up stuff, one can’t see any satisfaction being derived from any audience member with an IQ of 3 or higher.  Bad films are always made but when you take a serious issue and transform into cheap crap, you have to question your own ethics and morality.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 17 January 2002

It’s the simplicity of the story that gives it its realism.  Trish (Philips) and Darry (Long) are driving together across the country to visit their parents for the holidays.  They are passed on the road by a maniac driving a large van and only narrowly avoid him.  Further down the highway, they see the same van pulled over beside an old church and a hooded figure is dumping large sacks (similar to body bags) down a sewer pipe.

They instantly attempt to call the police but the mobile phone is out of power and the nearest pay phone is miles away (isn’t it always the way?).  After being passed on the road by the van again, Darry decides they must turn back and see what’s down that sewer pipe - someone could still be alive down there.  Accidentally falling down the pipe, Darry witnesses that which no man should see.  A basement filled with horrors previously unimaginable.

Left speechless and shaken by the ordeal, Trish and Darry head to the nearest town to alert the authorities and it is at this point where things really get creepy.  At a petrol station, they are warned by a mysterious telephone caller that when they hear the song “Jeepers Creepers”, they must run at all costs.  Already unsettled, Trish and Darry do not know what to make of it all.  Is this just some cruel joke or are their lives really in danger?

Gina Philips and Justin Long work really well off each other.  They argue like any brother and sister and their childish fights really annoyed me (which they’re supposed to).  Seeing Trish tell Danny not to go down the sewer pipe is a perfect example - she just never lets up.

The ending is very creative.  With most films, you can always tell the ending is coming up because the pieces have all been put together and you can just tell from the music and dialogue that it’s almost time to stretch the legs.  Not so in Jeepers Creepers.  The film ends rather sickly and abruptly - a pleasant surprise.

With little at risk financially, I guess director/writer Victor Salva (Powder) had the opportunity to take a few chances.  The teen slasher genre is abused and overworked and his efforts to “change the script” have worked successfully and I commend him for it.  I hope he continues his boldness in the sequel currently in development.  Sequels - they’re inevitable, aren’t they?

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 24 January 2002

Mallrats (1995) was his first commercial effort and very much a disappointment.  Chasing Amy’s (1997) look at love and relationships helped rediscover my enjoyment for Kevin Smith.  Dogma (1999) was his boldest project but the heavy religious aspect was a little too much.  And so, we have arrived at film five - Jay And Silent Bob Strike Back.

It’s fruitless recommending this film to anyone not familiar with Kevin Smith.  It reunites characters from his previous four films and pokes fun at Hollywood and the recent trend of bad scripts.  The story revolves around two characters who have appeared is his past works and a cult icons.  Jay (Mewes) is a foul-mouthed hormonal “kid” and Silent Bob (director Smith) is his sidekick who never says a word.

If you saw Chasing Amy, you’ll remember that a comic book was created based on the lives of Jay and Silent Bob.  It was called Bluntman & Chronic and in Jay And Silent Bob Strike Back, the rights to the film have been purchased by Miramax executives and production is set to begin in three days time.  Jay and Silent Bob have only just learnt of this and are introduced to a new technological marvel called the “internet”.  Scanning a movie gossip website, they’ve found their names trashed by those around the world who think the Jay and Silent Bob story is crap and shouldn’t be made into a movie.  To save their image, they set off for Hollywood to make sure the movie never gets off the ground...

The plot is not important but the jokes certainly are.  The film’s essence is the way it mocks everything about Hollywood and its film industry.  There are eight million cameos but without spoiling all of them, I had to admit a scene involving Jason Biggs and James Van Der Beek rivaled anything I’ve seen in a long term in terms of hilarity.  Smith fans will pick up on many of the subtle (and not so subtle) jokes that carry forward from his past films.

A bold project but not everything works as expected.  A subplot involving four young ladies who steal diamonds isn’t particularly funny and too much is made of it.  It’s strange that Smith has come up with jokes that are so good and yet others that are so bad.  Every person has a different sense of humour and no matter how hard you try, you can’t make someone laugh at something that they won’t find funny.