Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 05 August 2004

Very little about the past of John Creasy (Washington) is revealed to us but he looks a tired, forlorn figure.  Continually drinking, John has made his way to Mexico City to visit Rayburn (Walken), a long time friend.  Rayburn wants to help out and recommends Creasy for a low paying body guard position for a wealthy family.

You see, in Latin America, kidnappings are a very common occurrence.  The seedy underworld targets the rich and susceptible and can hold family members hostage for exorbitant amounts.  Businessman Samuel Ramos (Anthony) has a 9-year-old daughter, Pita (Fanning), who he wants protected after he and his wife (Mitchell) interview John Creasy, the position becomes filled.

You sense this isn’t a job or a place Creasy wants to be.  He looks disinterested and whilst doing his job with precision, the sense is that he’s going along with it to get enough money to keep on boozing.  But as the weeks pass, Creasy mellows to Pita and for the first time in a long time, life has a purpose.

The crux of the story arrives when Pita is kidnapped in a bloody shootout and Creasy is left for dead.  Whilst unconscious in hospital, the ransom drop is botched and Pita is killed.  When Creasy awakes to learn of this, there’s only one thing in his mind – revenge.  As Rayburn so eloquently phrases it “Creasey's art is death, and he's about to paint his masterpiece.”

So after the long-winded introduction, the film takes on its more interesting side.  It is extremely violent in places but I found particular pleasure in watching Denzel clean out the streets.  I guess you could be critical of its realism – how one person could do all this is beyond me? – but it’s still an entertaining good vs. evil story whilst building towards an unforseen climax.

The story does have its limitations but the standout quality of the film for me was the direction of Tony Scott (Spy Game, Crimson Tide, Top Gun).  The colours are sometimes grainy and there’s a lot of fast paced editing but it looks very good.  He is one of the few action directors I have seen of late to show any creativity.  My favourite trait of the film was its unique subtitles.  They appear randomly throughout (even if English is being spoken) and appear in a variety of fonts in a variety of places on the screen.  Some may be annoyed by this but I found it all the more appealing.

At 146 minutes, Man On Fire is too long but if you can push your way through the first hour, a creative action thriller will be your reward.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 02 August 2004

The most important film of the year, perhaps even the decade, has lived up to expectations.  That sounds like a big statement to be making but I challenge anyone to find a film of equal stance.  So far, the film has grossed over $100m in the United States to become the biggest documentary in cinema history.  But it’s the subject of the documentary which is the key.  In a country where interest in politics has been waning (the last election had the worst voter turn out ever), millions of Americans are being exposed to a secret government underworld which is best described as “shocking”.  With current polls showing things neck and neck between current president George Bush and Democrat contender John Kerry, every ticket sold to a swing voter is pivotal.

The news and publicity surrounding the film has been strong.  Ever since it won the lucrative Palm D’Or at the Cannes Film Festival, every journalist and his dog have had a say.  Those against Fahrenheit 9/11 have slammed Moore for misleading the American public and attacked supporting film critics for letting their political views influence their reviews.  Unfortunately, these articles have only spawned even more talk about the film and ironically, more people will go and see it.  I ask the question again, how many films have generated such heated discussion in the past few years?

I suppose I should go on the record as saying I am anti-Bush and perhaps this is why I love the film so much.  It’s important to note though that Fahrenheit 9/11 is not just about George W. Bush.  He is the focus but the film looks heavily at the government as a whole, America’s political system and the war in Iraq.  If you think politics are dull, think again.

From a documentary perspective, it’s near perfect.  Filmmaker Michael Moore has gone to great lengths to make it as persuasive as possible based on factual information.  He doesn’t speak often and impressively, Moore lets the footage and interviews do all the talking.  George Bush comes off looking like a fool.  One of the key scenes is footage of Bush on the morning of September 11, 2001 on learning the news that terrorists were attacking America.  You have to see it to believe it.  Also compelling are the many instances where politicians seem to contradict themselves.  What Colin Powell said about Iraq in 2001 is rather different to his thoughts in 2003.

From a crew perspective, credit to film editor, ,for putting it all together.  Moore was editing the film up right until its release date (to ensure the information was as current as possible) but the whole package looks very good and the order and timing of the scenes is well thought out.  An example would be the humorous introduction.  Lacing the whole film is a haunting film score from  which also deserves praise.

My favourite part of the film is the topic of fear.  Moore also explored this in his last film, Bowling For Columbine, but it’s just staggering how easily the government and the media can instil fear and paranoia in not just Americans, but citizens all over the world.

I stand up and applaud the work of Michael Moore and his film Fahrenheit 9/11.  I’d even say it’s got a shot at being the first ever documentary to be nominated at the Oscars for best picture.  This is huge stuff and it goes to show you can be both entertained and educated in a movie theatre.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 05 August 2004

I am fast becoming a very big fan of the Spider-Man series.  I thought the first film was great and this follow up flick is just as good if not better.  This time around, the necessary introductions and such aren’t required so there’s more time for character development and adventure.  It sounds strange to be talking about character development in a big action blockbuster but it’s one of the reasons I enjoyed the film so much.

In Spider-Man 2, we begin with our fearless crusader, Peter Parker, thinking that it’s time to hang up the old spidey suit.  His college results are dropping, he’s lost his job, has no money, has no love life, has few friends and can’t stand the demands of fighting crime 24 hours a day.  Things soon change when a new enemy arrives on the scene – Doctor Octopus (Molina).

Octopus was once Dr. Otto Octavius, a brilliant scientist who worked for one of Peter ’s few loyal friends, Harry.  Octavius had been working on creating a new energy source using cold fusion but in a botched demonstration, he was left with four metal tentacles attached to his spine and a mind which no longer knew the difference between good and evil.

Where it goes from here, I will not reveal.  There were many more plot twists that I expected.  Having seen the trailers numerous times, I could not wait until the scene where Harry finally removes the mask of Spider-Man to reveal his identity.  If you remember, Spider-Man killed Harry’s father at the end of the first film and he’s been out for revenge.  What will he think when he realises his best friend killed his father?  You’ll have to see to find out for yourself.

Both films have been made by experienced director Sam Raimi who has fulfilled all of my expectations.  One very positive comment I have is how this second film did got get bogged down in an abundance of special effects.  There’s a lot of drama and dialogue with Tobey Maguire stepping up to the plate in a surprisingly real and emotional performance.  I have always been impressed with Maguire and hope he sticks with the series in years to come.  I also wish to praise another beautifully sinister film score from composer Danny Elfman and you’ll hear the best of it during the craftily made opening credits.

I was overseas at the time the film was released here in Australia and caught a screening of the film in Vienna a few weeks after its release.  I’m sure glad I didn’t miss it and the huge box-office figures being posted around the globe show that word of mouth is good and the public are liking what they see.  A further sequel is imminent and if the directing, screenwriting and acting stay this good, I only see further good reviews coming from this computer.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 28 June 2004

Sure it’s the school holidays but Mean Girls will lure more than just interested teenagers into the movie theatre.  Already, it’s one of the surprise hits of the year in the States.  It opened with a huge $24m weekend back in early May and has grossed over $80m to date.  Very impressive for a film costing just $17m and carrying few known stars.

The centre of the story is Cady Heron (Lohan), an American girl who has lived in Africa all her life and been home-schooled by her two parents.  With her mother accepting a new job back home, Cady finds herself attending a real school for the very first time.  Now in the 8^th grade, she’s about to enter an unknown world where hormones are racing and bitchiness is at an all time high.

After a rough first day, Cady makes friends with Janis and Damien – two kids who are socially unpopular and often the subject of ridicule.  Not long after though, she is approached by the three coolest girls in the school and offered a place into their friendship group.  Regina, Gretchen and Karen are known as the “plastics” and their popularity earns them both the envy and the ire of almost every other student.

Seeing through the façade of these superficial girls, Cady, Janis and Damien come up with an idea to get revenge and expose them for the “mean girls” that they are.  Cady will become their best friend, gain their trust and then expose their weaknesses and hidden secrets.  It’s certainly not the maturest method and a series of surprising twists and turns take the film into a direction you may not expect.

Sure it’s entertainment but I love the underlying subtext here.  It’s not a stereotypical scenario with definitive good girls and bad girls.  There’s a lot of grey in the story and the characters are often dance around the fine line between good and evil.  Let’s just say you may not always been cheering for the same character.  Such scripts are very rare – particularly in the teen genre.  The final scene is a doozy.

There are lessons in maturity but what won me over was the great comedy.  Some of these characters are hilarious and the pick of the bunch is Tim Meadows (The Ladies Man) as the school principal.  He’s one of the few sane characters in this crazy, mixed-up school and his one-liners sparkle (particularly at the school dance).  I’ve thought about providing examples but you just have to see his lines in context to fully appreciate.

The casting of Lindsay Lohan in the leading role is somewhat ironic.  Last Christmas, she was involved in a huge public feud with another teen actress, Hilary Duff.  Both had dated the same young musician and when Lohan attended the premiere of Duff’s Cheaper By The Dozen, Duff’s mother tried to have Lohan evicted with cries of “Get her out!”  The two have since made up on live television but I do find the whole situation very amusing.

Ah, but this review isn’t going to generate into trashy tabloid journalism.  I’m here to talk about Mean Girls and the news is all good.  Director Mark Waters has put behind the horrors of 2001’s Head Over Heels (one of the worst films I have ever seen) and put a teen film on the market that warrants a look.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 03 August 2004

Laws Of Attraction pairs one of my favourite actresses, Julianne Moore, and the very suave Pierce Brosnan.  Moore plays Audrey Woods, a divorce lawyer who never loses a case.  Sure she works long hours and she hasn’t had a relationship in years but Audrey likes her life – she’s the best New York City has to offer.  Her mother Sara (Fisher) doesn’t share the same viewpoint.  She wants Audrey to find a man.

Enter Mr. Daniel Rafferty (Brosnan), another divorce attorney who has just returned to the Big Apple after a stint on the West Coast.  He too never loses a big case and sure enough, he defeats Audrey at their first head-to-head encounter.  A rivalry ensues and if you catch the drift, an interesting romance develops.

Moore and Brosnan are simply great at delivering lines.  They use a little improvisation, throw in some perfect facial expressions, and have an impeccable sense of timing.  Unfortunately for them, the whole screenplay has the feel of a clichéd play.  It tries to be too cute and witty with the biggest slap in the face coming in the final half hour when it all degenerates into a very predictable, much overused ending.  A few more surprises and twists were need to hold my attention.  On comparison, the film reminds me of last year’s Down With Love with Ewan McGregor and Renee Zellweger.  I found Love showed more flair with Laws getting too bogged down in its limited story

The whole show has been directed by Englishman Peter Howitt who is most famous for Sliding Doors, another romantic tale I found dreary.  I’ll lay most of the blame though on screenwriters Aline McKenna (Three To Tango) and Robert Harling (Steel Magnolias).  After 30 minutes, the novelty wears out and the only reason to remain in the theatre is to watch Julianne Moore and Pierce Brosnan do their best to keep the film together.

I’m not sure what the “laws of attraction” are but in the “laws of movies”, there are just too many broken here to go unpunished.