Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 23 May 2005

I’m feeling pressure here.  When I usually write a review, people use it as guidance in deciding if a film is worth seeing (or so I think).  With Revenge Of The Sith, people are going to see it regardless.  I could give it my best rating or my worst rating – it simply won’t make a difference.  So instead of providing guidance, I’m now find myself drafting a defence.  I’ve received a barrage of emails from many who have been unhappy with my B+ grading.  Some think the film deserved better and others think it deserved worse.  This review has to be water-tight…

The Star Wars series will have a different vibe for everyone.  I wasn’t around when the first three films were released and didn’t see them for the first time until they were re-released on the big screen in 1998.  I enjoyed the films a lot but in no way can you call me a passionate fan.  I haven’t seen them since (although I got suckered into buying them on VHS not long after).  As a result of my ignorance, I’ve had no genuine expectations with the new trilogy.  I loved The Phantom Menace and to a lesser extent, Attack Of The Clones.  I saw them as fun, PG-rated action films.

Revenge Of The Sith chronicles Anakin Skywalker’s journey to the “dark side”.  The film’s exciting opening sees Anakin (Christensen) and his mentor Obi-Wan Kenobi (McGregor) in a fierce battle.  Chancellor Palpatine (McDiarmid) has been kidnapped by the wicked Count Dooku and it’s up to these two Jedi Knights to rescue him.  The mission is successful and Palpatine takes young Anakin under his wing as an “apprentice”.

The Jedi soon learn that Palpatine is not who he appears to be.  He is an evil Sith Lord who plans to use his power to eliminate the Jedi and take control of the Senate.  Palpatine sees the powerful Anakin as the key to his success and uses lies and propaganda to turn Anakin against the Jedi and his wife, Padme (Portman).  Soon enough, the galaxy is at war and the usually peaceful Jedi are battling to save their existence.

Speaking firstly of the positives, the visuals in Revenge Of The Sith are nothing short of brilliant.  I was in continual admiration of the amazingly intricate city-landscapes and the lavishly colourful sets and costumes.  It serves as the perfect backdrop for the suspenseful battle sequences that director George Lucas has crafted.  The final duel was a little over-done but in terms of quality action, you’ll see none finer this year.

If you’ve read any other reviews, my criticisms should come as no surprise – dialogue and emotion.  Why do they all speak at such an elementary level?  Why the lack of passion in their voices?  I was often cringing and thinking “I can’t believe he/she just said that”.  Just wait till you hear the stilted conversations between Akanin and Padme.  It highlights another reason why the action scenes were so good – because the characters aren’t talking!

As promised by Lucas, this is the darkest film in the Star Wars series.  Some images are quite gruesome and the M-rating in Australia is justified.  Sadly though, I just couldn’t connect with the film on an emotional level.  I didn’t care much for the fate of Anakin, Padme and Obi-Wan.  I only character I found entertaining was Yoda (voiced by Frank Oz) who has the best lines, the best sense of humour and the best technique with his light-sabre.

After much anticipation, Revenge Of The Sith has been well received by early audiences.  Some are saying that it’s on a par with The Empire Strikes Back, regarded as the best in the series.  I’m in no position to make such a call but on its individual merit, this latest film is an enjoyable two and a half hours.  Whether I have the enthusiasm to watch it again though, is debatable.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 03 May 2005

If you like ensemble films, check out Magnolia.  Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson, it’s an incredibly well-woven drama with a myriad of stories which cleverly interrelate.  It’s one of the best films of the past 10 years and I own the movie poster, the DVD and both soundtracks.  It sets a high benchmark which I doubt will be eclipsed.

Written by Paul Haggis (Million Dollar Baby), Crash is a bold attempt at an ensemble drama which falls slightly short.  In a mere 100 minutes, there’s not enough time to develop the characters and have the audience form an open-minded opinion on them.  The film should either have been lengthened or had fewer characters included.

That said, I emphasise my use of the term “bold” because the film manages to leave an impression despite its shortcomings.  We may live in a more politically correct society but there’s an undercurrent of racism and discrimination that is swept under the carpet by so many.  Haggis uses his film to show a few of these stories.

There is a wealthy couple (Sandra Bullock and Brendan Fraser) who are carjacked on an openly lit street.  There is a young police officer (Ryan Phillippe) who is having difficulty with the unethical behaviour of his more experienced partner (Matt Dillon).  There is a promising film director (Terrence Howard) struggling to stand-up for himself both at work and at home with his wife (Thandie Newton).   There is a reputable police detective (Don Cheadle) sleeping with is partner (Jennifer Esposito).  There is a Persian store owner trying to start a small business.  There is a locksmith wanting to spend more time with his family.  There are two young guys roaming the streets in search of drugs and opportunity.

Some of these stories are more interesting than others.  Sandra Bullock, Thandie Newton and Ryan Phillippe deliver the film’s better performances.  You may be frustrated by the fact that the script lingers on some of the less stimulating tales.  You might also be disappointed by a less than satisfactory conclusion which thinks that a music montage can sum it all up.  That technique was much more effective in Magnolia and Donnie Darko.           

Overall, Crash is worth your money but given my own love for ensemble pieces, I can help but also express some dissatisfaction.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 17 May 2005

In the eyes of her daughters, Terry Wolfmeyer (Allen) was once a vibrant, happy mother.  Now, they all see her as bitter and angry.  Her husband has run off to Sweden with his secretary, her daughters have grown up and Terry seems to have nothing left in her life.

This is my very brief spin on the plot which doesn’t do it justice.  Terry is a complicated woman and for me to try to describe her thoughts and motivations so simply is not right at all.  This is what’s so great about The Upside Of Anger.  She’s a multi-dimensional character who I can’t put into my familiar group of movie stereotypes.

No finer actress deserved the roll than Joan Allen.  In my list of favourite actress released last June, I had her ranked in 8^th place on the back of roles including Nixon, Pleasantville, The Contender, The Crucible and The Ice Storm.  She hasn’t had as many roles of late but Allen is superb in Anger.  It’s a shame the film was held off for a January release in the States or else she may have earned a fourth Academy Award nomination.

With Terry’s husband out of the picture, the next-door neighbour makes his move.  Denny (Costner) is a retired baseball player who sees beyond Terry’s fuming façade and likes what he sees.  Terry acts like she wants nothing to do with him but you sense she’s enjoying the attention.  Their relationship has its fair share of twists and turns but it’s as it should be and it’s great to watch.

The other side of Terry’s life is her bond with her four daughters.  They don’t always get along but you realise it’s because they share her mother’s big-headed ideals.  You can’t be wrong in this household.  Director and writer Mike Binder has used his potent script to attract four very promising actresses to play the daughters.  There’s Erika Christensen (Traffic, Swimfan), Evan Rachel Wood (Thirteen), Keri Russell (Felicity, We Were Soldiers) and Alicia Witt (Mr Holland’s Opus, Urban Legend).  Pretty good, huh?

There’s no a lot showing in Australian cinemas at the moment but thankfully here’s one film of substance.  Ordinarily, I’d only expect to see such a quality drama during the Oscar season.  Thankfully, I don’t have to wait until next January.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 03 May 2005

Birth opens with a lengthy shot of a man running in a snow-filled park.  He reaches a tunnel, slows his pace, then collapses on the ground.  These are the final moments in Sean’s life.

Ten years have now passed and Sean’s wife, Anna (Kidman) is set to remarry.  She never truly recovered from the loss of her husband but has finally been persuaded by her new suitor, Joseph (Huston), to marry him.  Wedding preparations are underway.

At a birthday party in her upper-class apartment, a 10-year-old boy lets himself in.  He tells the guests that he wants to speak with Anna.  Taking her into the kitchen, this eerily docile child introduces himself as Sean, her husband.  Believing it to be a cruel joke, Anna wants nothing to do with the boy and has him removed from the premises.  But when he appears again the following day and reveals intimate details of their marriage, Anna starts considering the impossible…

I never expected it but Birth has become a film I will not easily forget.  It is the first film of 2005 that has forced me to think and explore outside of the theatre.  For some, the crux of the film will be whether Sean truly is a reincarnated version of Anna’s late husband.  If you’ve seen the movie and think you know the answer, think again.  It’s open to a wide interpretation and I have read over 20 different opinions on the internet.  It isn’t in the same class but the film’s greyness reminds me of my favourite film of 2003, Mulholland Drive.

I’ve debated whether the ambiguity is a result poor scripting or whether it’s a direct decision on the part of the writers not to reveal all.  I’m happy to support the later theory when you consider the film has been co-written and directed by Jonathan Glazer, the man responsible for the awesome Sexy Beast (with Ben Kingsley).  There’s a great film if you haven’t already seen it.

Glazer’s direction is confronting but well suited.  There are many awkward silences and intense close-ups.  When the music does arrive, it’s a beautifully chilling piano melody from French composer Alexandre Desplat (Girl With A Pearl Earring).  Having been impressed with the cinematography, it came as no surprise to see Harris Savides (Elephant) credited with the work.  I’d love to have him work on any film of mine!

Nicole Kidman is stirring in the role and delivers a much better performance than that in The Interpreter.  Also powerful is the presence of 12-year-old Cameron Bright (Godsend).  It must have been a difficult decision by his parents to let him star in a film featuring such adult content.  The media has unnecessarily surrounded the film with controversy as there is a scene in which Kidman and Bright share a bath together.  Don’t be perturbed and think this is a showcase for paedophiles.  That couldn’t be further from the truth.

With many layers and much to talk about, Birth is a treat for moviegoers.  What you take away from it, is up to you.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 08 May 2005

Before getting to the film, I must say that I am very curious as to how this film will rate both with the public and with the critics.  Five years ago (to the exact weekend), Gladiator was released.  The film was lauded with praise, took $187m at the U.S. box-office and won 5 Academy Awards, including best picture!

Everything about Kingdom of Heaven makes it seem like Gladiator 2.  They have been released at the same time, been directed by the same person (Ridley Scott) and tell a medieval-like story from an age long past.  I believe the difference which will make or break the film is the lead actor.  Russell Crowe was a powerful presence in Gladiator, so much so that it won him his own Oscar.  Does the inexperienced Orlando Bloom have what it takes to pull in an audience?

Kingdom Of Heaven is set 12^th Century and tells us of a fierce battle fought for control of the city of Jerusalem.  The Christians currently command the city but there’s a rising Muslim army who has plans to attack.  Bringing religion to the big screen is fraught with danger and I’ve read a variety of reports questioning the film’s validity.  Considering that most religious groups are unhappy with how they are portrayed, I guess writer William Monahan has found a nice balance – it doesn’t favour anyone.

We meet Balian (Bloom) as a simple blacksmith who has lost his wife and daughter.  Unexpectedly, his approached by his father Godfrey (Neeson), a man he had never previously met.  A powerful man, Godfrey convinces Balian to leave his home and come with him to the city of Jerusalem.

Not long after they set out, Godfrey is fatally injured in a battle.  Before passing away, he makes a knight of Balian who somewhat reluctantly agrees to continue his father’s legacy.  He makes many influential acquaintances in Jerusalem and soon enough, he is being touted as the next king.  This isn’t a title that sits well with Balian and he gives up both his love (Green) and his shot at the throne.  Guy de Lusignan is to be the new king and his rash battle tactics will leave Jerusalem exposed.  It will be up to Balian to take charge and give his people a glimmer of hope.

The film’s finale was well shot.  This should come as no surprise as Ridley Scott (Gladiator, Black Hawk Down) sure knows how to create a great dramatic action sequence.  Unlike most battle scenes, it wasn’t repetitive and you could easily ascertain what was happening and who had the advantage.  I can’t say the same for the plot.  I’m not a history major and found it difficult to keep up with all the characters and their motives. 

Like another recent battle epic, Troy, I struggled to become emotionally involved with the story and its characters.  Bloom’s performance is admirable but he’s lacked the charisma and passion that I expected from him.  Russell Crowe did it better, much better.  Little was made of Balian’s romance with the Queen (played by French actress Eva Green of The Dreamers).  By the end of the film, the Queen had become a character they cross to every 2-3 minutes just so we can see a silent, concerned look on her face.  I shared a similar look.