Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 22 January 2005

Like the man himself, Alexander has its flaws.  For starters, I had tremendous difficulty understanding the plot.  I am not an historian and can’t even remember if I studied Alexander The Great in High School.  As the characters rush through their dialogue, I hear names like Zeus, Olympus, Achilles, Olympias, Aristotle.  I also hear other names which mean nothing to me.  When one of the cast refers to another, I’m struggling just to understand exactly who is talking about who.

On top of this confusion, director Oliver Stone has not done a particularly good job.  The action scenes are heavily edited and the constant changing from camera angle to camera angle was frustrating.  We just can’t see what’s going on.  Further, Anthony Hopkins’ long introduction was not the best way to start the film.  Did it serve a purpose?

Another negative were the overly loud sound effects and film score from Vangelis.  At times, the dialogue was difficult to understand because the background noises were so deafening.  I love a good film score and Vangelis has done a fine job but Oliver Stone needed to turn it down just a little.

I don’t usually start a review by focusing so heavily on the negatives.  I guess I need to warn people by following the consensus that Alexander is a sub par film.  If you’ve followed any recent media, you’ll know this is the box-office bomb of 2004.  At a whopping cost of $150m, the film has taken a measly $34m in the United States.  I dare say it’ll scoop the Razzie Awards – a humorous award show held the day before the Oscars which honours the worst films of the year.

Despite agreeing with so many criticisms, a few aspects of the film made it somewhat appealing.  As pathetic as the casting of Angelina Jolie was (who never ages over a 25 year period), Colin Farrell (as Alexander) showed talent.  I haven’t rated his acting ability until this point but was quietly impressed.  Val Kilmer (as Alexander’s father) was also agreeable in his small role.

At a total duration of 175 minutes (making it the longest film I’ve seen in 12 months), I admit to being interested during most of it.  The time seemed to fly.  The storyline has many of the clichés we saw in Gladiator and Troy but I liked the direction of the story and its focus on the slow disintegration of Alexander and the respect from his men.

To quickly sum up this tale in 20 words or less, Alexander becomes King of Macedonia following his father’s assassination.  He then assembles a huge army and conquers many lands.  There’s more to it of course but that’ll tell you all you need to know.

Whilst I’d be incredibly pissed to have been one of the $150m investors in Alexander I’m happy enough to have parted with my $8 as an ordinary-going movie patron.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 09 January 2005

How can I aptly describe Miles Raymond?  Miles (Giamatti) is a man who can find the negative in any positive.  His wife left him two years ago and he hasn’t been remotely intimate with a woman since.   He has drafted several novels but all have been written-off and passed over by publishers.  He lives alone and works monotonously as an 8^th-grade English teacher.  All this has left Miles “officially depressed”.  His life is a joyless existence and he’s out there looking for the next kick in the teeth.

Best friend Jack (Church) is to be married in exactly one week.  To send him off, Miles has planned a week long trip across the wine regions of California.  Miles sees it as a chance to bond with one of his few good friends by playing some great golf, eating some great food, and drinking some great wine.  Jack sees things differently.  For him, the week is about sex.  He wants to get laid as many times as possible before Saturday’s wedding.

The differences come to a head when Jacks meets two girls, Maya (Madsen) and Stephanie (Oh), and invites them to dinner.  Over a few expensive bottles of red wine, Jack and Stephanie hit it off immediately.  Miles however, stumbles through the whole evening.  Maya shows a keen interest but Jack retreats into his shell.  Instead of seizing the opportunity, he focuses on the doomed relationship with his ex-wife – to the point where he calls her from the restaurant’s public phone and pleads for her to take him back.

When the four head back to Stephanie’s house, Jack and Stephanie head to the bedroom while Miles and Maya uncomfortably sit on the porch.  Looking to avoid talk of anything remotely intimate, Miles turns to his favourite topic – wine.  Their conversation is one of the film’s highlights and one of the best written pieces of dialogue I can recall.  That’s all I’ll say at this point.

The rest of the film I will leave for you to discover.  You will go a long way to find a quartet of better performance.  They are all troubled people but each in their own way.  The consensus amongst critics is that the reason the film has been so well received is that there’s always at least one of the characters with whom the viewer can identify.

I have been a huge fan of director Alexander Payne since he made the under-rated Election with Reese Witherspoon in 1999.  On the surface it’s a comedy but there’s a much darker layer just below.  Whilst it is not quite as good, Sideways is of similar design in that it doesn’t fit into one genre.  There are moments of hilarity, moments of tragedy and moments of romance.  I have been so critical of romantic comedies over the past few years but here’s a film which successfully takes a different approach.  The relationship between Miles and Maya is gut-wrenchingly real.  They may not have the looks of a Ben Affleck or a Jennifer Lopez but you’ll find Paul Giamatti and Virginia Madsen leave much more of an impression.

Although the Oscar nominations have not yet been released, Sideways is a shoe-in to receive many of them.  The two most powerful critic groups in America, those of Los Angeles and New York, each voted Sideways as the best film of 2004.  Not since Saving Private Ryan in 1998 have both groups crowed the same film with its best picture honour.  I don’t see it as the year’s best film but if putting together a top 10 list, I wouldn’t want to overlook it.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 16 January 2005

In 1920, Professor Albert Charles Kinsey arrived at Indian University to lecture in zoology.  His area of expertise was the gall wasp and he published two books on the subject.  His collection is currently housed in the American Museum of Natural History.  As fascinating as that sounds, you’ll be happy to know that this isn’t the focus of the film.

As a scientist, students approached Kinsey for advice on a major taboo subject – sex.  Sensing an opportunity, he began to teach a marriage course in 1938.  Kinsey became an overnight sensation.  Hundreds flocked to his lecturers to learn more about a topic that had always been swept under the carpet.

As the questions continued, Kinsey realised he didn’t know all the answers.  There was no one who knew the sexual activities of the American people and Professor Kinsey wanted to become the first.  Over the next 10 years, he assembled a team and questioned thousands of people across the country.  His results were startling and were revealed to the public in 1948 when he published Kinsey’s Sexual Behaviour In The Human Male.  It sold out in days and sat atop the best seller lists across the U.S.

I am a fan of writer-director Bill Condon.  In 1999 he made Gods & Monsters which won him a screenwriting Oscar and was my second favourite film of that year.  It was story of director James Whale (played brilliantly by Ian McKellan) and his homosexual relationship with his gardener (Brendan Fraser).  Kinsey is a similar film in that it is set in the first half of the 20^th Century, looks at homosexuality and is based on a real person.

The other similarity is that the central character is a flawed one.  Professor Kinsey (played in the film by Liam Neeson) did some amazing work and opened society’s eyes to many issues but he himself had his own problems.  Kinsey relationship with his wife Clara (Linney) was a complicated one and his work had it effects.  There were those too looking to stop Kinsey and his research.  As employee Clyde Martin tells Kinsey “sex is a risky game because if you’re not careful, it will cut you wide open.”

Kinsey is a well-made film in that it portrays the Professor for what he was – a scientist.  He thought like a scientist, acted like a scientist and dreamed like a scientist.  When his research created dissent in the community, he was unmoved.  His job was simply to collect the data and collate it.  He was publishing facts, not opinions.

Three of the most underappreciated actors in the business, Liam Neeson, Laura Linney and Peter Sarsgaard, boost the film with superb performances.  Each will be making a strong run at an Oscar nomination when they are announced next week.  With the backing of Bill Condon’s screenplay, what we see on screen is a very interesting film.  I don’t know about you but I particularly enjoy films about real people making a difference.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 09 January 2005

Ladder 49 isn’t a bad film but I get the feeling it’s more a tribute to firefighters than a full-fledged motion picture.  It all begins with firefighter Jack  (Phoenix) helping rescue a man trapped on the 12^th floor of a burning office building.  The man escapes but the floor collapses on Jack and he falls several floors into an area surrounded by fire and debris.

As the other members of Ladder 49 attempt to rescue him, we see Jack’s life as a firefighter retold through a series of flashbacks.  We see how he first came to join the team and meet his boss and good friend  (Travolta).  We see how he met his wife and the arguments fought over Jack’s dangerous line of work.  We see how bravely he battled other fires and rescued others in life-threatening situations.

I had a fun bet with my cousin about how Ladder 49 would end.  We analysed the film’s trailer and both came to a different conclusion about the fate of Phoenix and Travolta.  I will not divulge this ending but was surprised to find I was wrong in my initial presumption.  A few other audience members were as well.  It all didn’t help me though as I now owe my cousin an expensive dinner.

Joaquin Phoenix is the star of the film and gives a good performance.  John Travolta has equally billing on all the posters and advertisement but is largely in the background.  The majority of the firefighting scenes are suspenseful and well shot by director  .  My qualm came with all the background storylines and subplots.  Jack’s relationship with his wife   is shown but seems clichéd and glossed up.  Jack’s friendship with the other fighters is touched upon but not explored far enough.

When you look back on it, the film’s more like an episode of This Is Your Life.  A series of life highlights which were often unconnected.  This hurt the film emotionally and I wasn’t moved by the gripping conclusion.  I applaud firefighters and their awesome work but this movie doesn’t give their valuable service true justice.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 16 January 2005

I always look forward to Thursday nights as it’s my first chance to catch the week’s new releases.  My friends and I scoured the internet to see which of this week’s offerings would be best viewing.  As of last Thursday, Elektra had not yet been released in the U.S. and there were no reviews or public opinions available.  We took the chance and as I am about to tell, we made a grave, grave mistake.

As a rule, I never walk out of a film.  If I’m going to give it a fair review, I need to stay and see it all.  My rule was severely put to the test just fifteen minutes into Elektra.  Instead of leaving, as I should have, I sat there.  I don’t know how to describe what I felt.  It was kind of like an emotionless void – kind of like being about 20 minutes into a three hour university lecture.  The initial novelty as worn off and there’s nothing left to do but watch the clock count down.

For the few still interested in seeing this film, Elektra is a spin off of 2003’s Daredevil (with Ben Affleck).  Although she was killed off in Daredevil, the screenwriters have found a farcical way to bring her back to life for this money-making venture.  Now back in the land of the living, Elektra (Garner) works as a professional killer.  She can be hired through her agent and always gets the job done.

Her latest assignment sees her paid $2,000,000 to eliminate a father and her daughter.  She is not told why they need to be killed, only that it must be done.  Travelling to the remote island where they live, Elektra suddenly develops a heart and doesn’t go through with the killing.  Instead, she goes to her mentor, Stick (Stamp) to find out more about these two people.

There is an enemy here but I don’t know much about them.  The screenplay tells us little so I just assumed they were bad because they looked dark and evil and had crazy powers.  That said, they will all be killed in stupid fashion (but not before a long drawn out battle with Elektra first).  As for the good guys, just how pitiful is star Jennifer Garner?  She wears make-up, has perfect hair, wears revealing outfits and moves really cool in slow motion.  I can’t hold any of that against her but her performance is reminiscent of Halle Berry in Catwoman.  She tries to act cool and tough but it’s laughable really.

Now that the film is showing in the United States, I can take a breath of satisfaction.  According to the website Rotten Tomatoes, 83 leading critics have reviewed the film with 77 of those reviews being negative.  And hey if you don’t like the critics, the average score from members of the public on the Internet Movie Database is 3.9 out of 10. 

Two weeks into 2005, I’m confident that Elektra will be one of the year’s worst films.  I only wish they had of killed off her again.