Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 01 March 2001

Proof Of Life is different from the very start.  The open 20 minutes introduces us to the key players.  We meet Terry Thorne (Crowe) at a debriefing following his latest successful K&R (kidnap and ransom) negotiation.  He helped bring the ransom down from $5,000,000 to a mere $750,000 and secured the safety of the captee.  In South America, Peter Bowman (Morse) and his wife Alice (Ryan) are seeing their dreams fall apart.  Peter is overseeing the construction of a dam but back in the States, the company has gone bust and he's left without a job.  Things are a little strained between the two.

Having developed the premise, the film kicks into gear.  When driving to work one morning, Peter is set upon by a terrorist group and taken hostage.  Terry Thorne is called in by the insurance company to begin negotiations but on discovering the company is uninsured he is ordered to return back to the States leaving a distressed Alice without a prayer.  Somehow though, this has become personal.  He can't leave Alice stranded and secretly returns (unknowingly to his employer) to help secure the return of Peter.

We have seen many films in the past deal with terrorism, kidnapping and ransom but this is both real and suspenseful.  Just think that it could happen to you.  As Terry explains the motives behind the kidnappers, you’ll understand how much is at stake and how if you play their game, much can be gained.  It's not a mere matter of talking them down and solving the problem within a day.  Money is all that counts and you have to find just the right amount that gets the job done within the right time frame.

The final half hour features an incredible action sequence which I won't detail.  It is well shot from a variety of camera angles and gives a full appreciation for the situation and its perils.  It's reminiscent of great war sequences we've seen before in Platoon and Apocalypse Now.

Not only is Crowe's performance one of his finest, David Caruso and Pamela Reed give great support with developed roles.  The weakest link was Meg Ryan who does little more than get weepy in a few scenes.  She doesn't stand a chance against the talent around her and can I ask the make-up crew why her hair is so perfect in every scene?  A better casting choice would have put this film up with the year's best.

Taylor Hackford (The Devil's Advocate) has crafted a powerful film that has made the most of the budget and talented crew.  It's hard to look past all the controversy surrounding the relationship breakdown between Crowe and Ryan which many believe (including the director) has contributed to a poor U.S. box-office.  On screen, they don't exactly make a sizzling pair and thankfully, the romance side of the movie is underplayed.  So, disregard what you've already heard and make sure you see Proof Of Life.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 22 February 2001

William Miller (Fugit) is 15, about to graduate from high school and loves rock music.  It’s 1973 and his mother, Elaine (McDormand), is conservative yet stringent.  She started her son in school at an early age so he could reap the benefits and begin a fruitful law career.

William has other ideas and loves to combine his two passions - rock 'n' roll and writing.  He sends articles regularly to Lester Biggs (Hoffman), editor of a local music magazine, to make an impression.  Lester sees a little of himself in William and gives him the chance to attend a Black Sabbath concert if he'll write an article for the publication.

At the concert, he meets an upcoming group led by Russell Hammond (Crudup) and Jeff Bebe (Lee) known as Stillwater.  They take a liking to William and his untarnished innocence - a rock writer is supposed to be the “enemy” but in front of them is a 15-year-old kid with no experience.

Not long after, William gets a phone call - “This is Rolling Stone magazine”.  They’re also impressed with his work and over the phone, offer him a full story.  3,000 words on Stillwater and in return he gets to tour with the band for four days all expenses paid and earn $1,000 on the side.  William’s mother takes some convincing (he has to promise to call twice a day) but the man and the moment have finally met.  Over the next two weeks, William would learn more about the world of rock and roll than he ever thought possible and as the trailer accurately phrases it, "there was more to write home about than just the music".

Cameron Crowe (Jerry Maguire) has based much of the story on his own experiences as a youth and his passion for the story is evident through his direction.  All the characters are richly developed and shouldn't be quickly judged.  Kate Hudson plays a loyal fan that tours with the group (known as a “band aid”) and winds up having a relationship with Russell who also happens to have a girlfriend back home.  Russell himself is quite mysterious and as William finds, hard to pin down for an interview.  The female leads (Hudson and McDormand) do dominate though and are receiving acclaim from critics across the globe.

It’s such a great story.  As it unfolds, William becomes more and more part of the group and in the process loses his independence as a writer.  As Lester tells him, “if you’re going to be a true journalist, you cannot make friends with the rock stars.”  Back in Los Angeles, Rolling Stone is not interested in an article glorifying the band - they want gritty, behind-the-scenes details.  Can William betray the trust the band has placed in him?  Tough decisions for a 15-year-old.

There is much to appreciate in Almost Famous because of the lessons it offers.  Not only does it talk about rock music and the 1970s, it looks at celebrities, what drives them and the influences of people that surround them.  Personally, the point which struck at me most was watching William battling his ethical demons in deciding what to write and the reaction it brought from the Rolling Stone editors.  There’s another great piece of advice he receives from Lester - “be truthful and unmerciful” and you can’t go wrong.

Well I will be truthful and unmerciful.  This is a rare film where you hope the credits never roll because you always want to know more.  Intelligent humour mixed with true human emotion.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 01 March 2001

So just what kind of writing am I talking about?  Having checked a few internet sites and read a few of the passages that were too graphic for film audiences, I understand just how depraved the Marquis De Sade was.  I won't go to the trouble of printing an extract for fear of offending too many.

Geoffrey Rush takes on the juicy leading role and has earned himself his Academy Award nomination.  He is brilliant in his portrayal and is supported by Kate Winslet, as a chambermaid, Joaquin Phoenix as a priest, and Michael Caine as a man sent to bring him to his senses.

The story is told with precision by director Philip Kaufman (Truly Madly Deeply) and adapted from Doug Wright’s play.  It has all the ingredients of a well-made period piece - great sets, great costumes, great actors, great story.  Yet somehow, despite all of this, I was not taken by the story.  Sure the Marquis had his part in history but he wasn't a character I found particularly interesting.  The ending itself epitomised my feelings and seemed to contradict the serious nature of what preceded it.  I was never completely satisfied.

On a curious side note, a point was raised by a fellow viewer in Roger Ebert's Movie Answer Man column.  Being set in France, it's obvious that they spoke French and in the film they all speak English so it can be understood.  But why is it that the actors all speak with a British accent?  An interesting question for which there is no answer.  It seems that movies set in non-English speaking countries of Europe have their characters speak predominantly with British accents.

It's hard to say who would find Quills overwhelming appealing although the National Board of Review found it worthy of their best picture of 2000 honour.  It admirably says something about freedom of speech and the changing of society but not enough is made of his life story.  Despite all the hype, there are definitely better films currently on offer.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 22 February 2001

Two years pass and Carl breaks long standing barriers to become the first African-American admitted to the Navy's diving school.  Surprisingly enough, the head of the division is Billy Sunday who has taken the position as compensation for his forced retirement.  Carl goes through all the dramas associated with being black in a white man's world but his determination and vow to his father keeps him from giving in.

Without discrediting the African-American's plight for equality, I felt I'd seen this film before and it offered little new perspective.  I knew exactly what would happen and am tiring quickly of films featuring leading black actors in roles that show how the race has been discriminated against (just look at The Hurricane, Rules Of Engagement and Shaft which have all been released in the past 12 months).  I know life hasn't been easy for many but we don't live in a perfect world and many are trying to make it better.

Whilst I don't know Carl Brasher's story personally, it's had a pretty good makeover for cinematic purposes.  I am also getting annoyed with “bad guy” actors overplaying their roles – they’re too smug and too obvious.  In Men Of Honor, it was David Conrad as Commander Hanks who tries to keep Carl Brasher from realising his dreams.

I enjoyed the performances although Charlize Theron's tiny role was fruitless and confusing.  Gooding Jr and DeNiro share passionate scenes together and watching their relationship evolve is the highlight of the film.  Director George Tillman Jr (Soul Food) should also be congratulated as the film features many tense underwater scenes which can be very difficult to shoot.

Men Of Honor tries to inspire but the considerable length and tiring screenplay will distract most audiences leading up to the final courtroom scene.  He may be a great man and a great hero but you just get the feeling that 20th Century Fox is trying just a little too hard.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 01 March 2001

Detective Joel Campbell (Spader) tried to hunt an elusive serial killer in Los Angeles who was known to have killed 11 women, all by strangulation with piano wire.  Campbell then developed a stress related drug addiction and was forced to give up his job.

Moving to Chicago, time passes and Campbell struggles to get his life back on track with the help of a psychiatrist (Tomei).  Then, someone in his building is murdered and in the mail a photograph of the victim has been sent to him.  Soon enough, he gets a phone call from his old adversary, the serial killer himself (Reeves).  It seems the detective who replaced Campbell in L.A. was no fun to work with so the killer has moved to Chicago to have Campbell reassigned to the case.

The serial killer is going to give him a fighting chance.  Each morning, a photograph will be mailed to his residence and he will have all day to track down the person in the photo to save her life.  If not, she will be killed at 9:00pm.

The Watcher is filled with all the close shaves and chase scenes that have become standard in modern day serial killer thrillers.  This film had a troubled past with Reeves agreeing to make the film several years ago before trying to back out of the deal (maybe he read the script).  After reaching agreement with the director and the studio, Reeves agreed to complete the film if he wasn't given unnecessary publicity and thus Spader and Tomei take top billing in the film's credits and posters.

All the cast have ability but none show any ingenuity with an extremely limited screenplay.  You always know where it's going and I’m sure the life of a real serial killer isn't quite so predictable - if so, they'd be easier to catch, wouldn't they?

This is the kind of film that didn't deserve a cinematic release and the public would be best seeing it direct on video.  The film's catchline on the poster warns the audience "Don't go home alone".  It's my advice is that you won't find yourself facing this predicament if you don't go at all.