Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 16 November 2003

Even the most festive of patrons will be struggling to find much cheer in this year’s biggest Christmas relief – Elf.  Comedian Will Ferrell stars as Buddy – an elf who works for Santa building presents at the North Pole.  There’s something obviously different about Buddy though – his height.  He’s twice as tall as the other elves but has never suspected anything wrong about it.

Overhearing a conversation, Buddy finds out he’s not really an elf.  When just a baby, he inadvertently crawled into Santa’s sack of toys and wound up being taken home with him.  Buddy was an orphan so Santa (Asner) took him under his wing and Papa Elf (Newhart) raised him.  On learning this, Buddy is also given some important information from Santa.  His mother has died but his father is still alive and never knew that he was born.  So Buddy sets out for New York City to track dad and become part of his own family for the first time.

The father is Walter (Caan) who works as a book publisher in the Empire State Building.  He’s not on Santa’s nice list and is a pretty cruddy person to be honest.  He’s married but spends little time with his wife and son.  His latest children’s book came back from the printer with the last two pages missing but he decided to sell it to stores anyway.  He’s clearly in need of some Christmas spirit and the arrival of Buddy the Elf will turn his world upside down.

Actor Will Ferrell began his career on American TV’s Saturday Night Live but he’s now classed as a fully fledged movie star.  He’s had major roles in A Night At The Roxbury, Zoolander and Old School.  He’s the headline act in Elf but he’s given no support at all from the script and its writer, David Berenbaum.  I know the film is pitched at kids but there are few jokes even for them.  Nothing more than a sarcastic chuckle was uttered from my mouth.  This idea should not have been green-lighted without a lot more work.

This time every year we have movies about Santa and how people just don’t believe in him anymore.  I’ve seen it all before and don’t feel like seeing it too many more times.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 06 November 2003

Then again, maybe I won’t.  Maybe this is all just “smoke and mirrors”.  All the complicated words and far-fetched theories mean nothing and merely conceal the fact there’s no plot or message to this story.  The audience has been duped into paying three times the price to seeing a series of movies which have been marketed to perfection by Warner Brothers.  They think that if you tell people what they like, some might believe.  There is no “choice” so to speak.

I cannot deny that The Matrix: Revolutions is an extremely well made motion picture.  The special effects are as good as ever and the direction is exceptional.  It’s one thing to conceptualise this amazing world but it’s another to be able to bring it to life visually and the Wachowski brothers have not failed here.  They begin with a bang and the several key action sequences (if not a little long) will keep you firmly entrenched in your seats with the eyes looking forward.

Neo (Reeves) will go in search of The Oracle (this time played by Mary Alice) to find information in his quest to save Zion and defeat Agent Smith (Hugo Weaving).  Some believe him and others do not.  Regardless, the people of Zion will all have to defend their city against the advancing robots (known as sentinels).  The odds are stacked firmly against them but the hope of a “miracle” will keep them fighting to the very end.

Whilst on the subject of the ending, let me express my personal sense of disappointment.  After such a long wait, it wasn’t at all surprising or emotional.  It’s flashy, but like much of what preceded it, you sense there isn’t a lot of substance.

The most definitive positive I can give the film is the incredible performance of Australian Hugo Weaving as Mr Smith.  You will never see a better bad guy and gives a lively boost to every scene in which he appears.  I haven’t heard much buzz but I’d love to see him honoured with some overdue nominations this coming Oscar season.  I’d also like to pay homage to Keanu Reeves.  Six years ago he was ridiculed for turning down the lead in Speed 2: Cruise Control.  Now he gets the last laugh.

There’s basically nothing I can say to stop people from seeing this film but that isn’t my intention.  When you’ve forked out the moolah to see the first four hours of the movie then it’s only fair that you go to see what happens in the last two.  If there’s something I’ve missed, feel free to tell me.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 10 November 2003

The competition first began in 1925 and the words have become increasingly more difficult.  If you consider yourself somewhat of a spelling guru, think again.  Some of the words which have decided recent competitions include “pococurante”, “prospicience”, “succedaneum”, “demarche”, “chiaroscurist” and “euonym”.  Those dedicated to the competition read the dictionary for hours on end each day trying to perfect their knowledge.  But as one entrant so accurate puts it “you could know every word in the dictionary but one, and get that one”.

Spellbound is a documentary made by Jeffrey Blitz which looks at the 1999 competition.  He follows eight entrants in particular and they all have varied backgrounds and techniques which have gotten them this far.  The first half of the film introduces us to the children and it’s surprisingly interesting.  I expected a hard expose of oppressive parents who push their children in pursuit of an unattainable dream.  Instead, Blitz focuses on the children’s unbelievable talent.

There’s something about the innocence and honesty of these kids that makes its all so compelling.  We see them interviewed and they talk about their methods, their confidence levels and what they hope to achieve from it all.  I related most to the contestant who seemed continually negative and despite making it to the final, did not want to even contemplate the idea of winning.

The final half of the movie sees them face off at the National Championships.  This is without doubt, the most suspenseful moment in a film released this year.  They stand alone on a stage, microphone pressed to their mouth, an audience agonisingly watching, the ESPN cameras broadcasting it nationwide, trying to spell a solitary word.  One mistake and the competition is over.  There is no second chance.

This whole sequence has been precisely edited by Jeffrey Blitz.  As the kids prepare to answer, we are shown flashbacks of previous interviews with the child and parents (to remind us of their thoughts and theories) and interviews with the kids after the competition (to help us understand the pressure of the situation and the logic behind their answers).  Just wait till the 249 finalists are narrowed down to the final handful.  No matter how close you get, there’s still only one winner and the tension is electric.

Aside from the obvious entertainment value, Spellbound asks questions which are as difficult to answer as some of the words themselves are to spell.  Should kids of this age group be subjected to such pressures?  Do the hours of continual study isolate them from their fellow classmates?  The filmmakers do not influence us with their opinions (just the way I like it) and the answers to these questions will differ for everyone.

Earlier this year, Spellbound picked up a worthy nomination for best documentary feature at the Academy Awards but lost out to the equally astounding Bowling For Columbine.  I adore quality documentaries and am thankful to have seen two fine examples in the last twelve months.  If you’re looking to see one of the best films of 2003, just remember S-P-E-L-L-B-O-U-N-D.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 02 November 2003

I haven’t actually heard of it before now but Holes is quite a popular children’s book in the United States.  Disney snapped up the rights to the story and secured original author Louis Sachar to transform it into a movie screenplay.  The fact it’s a family story pitched to a young audience must have made it difficult to market in Australia this time of year.  Surely more interest and business would have been generated had the release date coincided with school holidays.

Stanley Yelnats (LaBeouf) is a kid born without luck.  A curse was placed on his great grandfather and it has followed the family ever since.  In a moment of freak chance, a pair of shoes falls from the sky and into his arms.  The police immediately arrive and he’s found in possession of stolen merchandise.  Found guilty, he’s sent to a juvenile detention centre known as Camp Greenlake for 18 months.

The Warden of the camp (Weaver) has an interesting method to whip the boys into shape.  As her loyal employee, Mr Sir (Voight) says to Stanley on his first day "If you take a bad boy and make him dig a hole every day in the hot sun, it will turn him into a good boy.”  It’s a strange theory but sure enough, the boys are driven out to a deserted plain each day and asked to dig one five foot deep hole.  They do it every day without fail.  They sense that they’re supposed to be looking for something but aren’t sure what it is.

The pieces are put together thanks to a separate story that is told concurrently with Stanley’s.  A hundred years earlier, there was once a lake and a town on the spot where Camp Greenlake is today.  There was a woman known as Kissin’ Kate Barlow (Arquette) who taught the children at the local school but was caught kissing a “coloured man” and ostracised from the community.  There’s a link between Stanley and Kissin’ Kate Barlow but of course I won’t tell you what that is in this forum.

The story has an element of depth which is nice.  I hate seeing overly simplistic films pitched to kids and young adults.  I was disappointed with the lack of time spent developing the characters of the kids at Camp Greenlake.  They are more interesting that The Warden and Mr. Sir so I suppose if I do want to find out more I will need to read Louis Sachar’s novel.  Still, I am a fan of Sigorney Weaver and Jon Voight and did enjoy their screen presence (even if they are a little over the top).

If you’re seeing this film in Australia, you’ll be happy to know that this isn’t an ordinary release.  Before the film gets underway, you’ll get to see a wonderful short film called Cracker Bag which was directed by Australian Glendyn Ivin.  Cracker Bag won the best short film prize at this year’s Cannes Film Festival and is a shoe-in to win the short film prize at the Australian Film Institute Awards later this year.  It’s great to see short films being released this way and I’ll support any studio which does similar in the future.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 10 November 2003

Why was the “Biscuit” so popular?  He was the ultimate underdog.  He was bought by the wealthy Charles Howard from a disgruntled owner for just $7,500.  Seabiscuit had raced many times previously but never showed any talent or consistency.  It was trainer Tom Smith who selected the horse for Howard and it was Smith who taught the Seabiscuit “how to be a horse again”.  Initially, the horse was a difficult proposition to ride but in another masterstroke Smith came across a tall jockey by the name of Red Pollard who immediately developed a bond with the animal.

From there, you only need look in the record books.  The ultimate underdog won stakes race after stakes race and was soon acknowledged as the best horse on the West Coast.  Every time he ran, thousands of fans flocked to the track just to hail the mighty hero.  At the horse’s peak, an estimated 40,000 turned out just to watch a training run.  Dominating on America’s East Coast was horse called War Admiral.  It had won the lucrative “Triple Crown” and Howard wanted a match-race between the two to settle the growing debate of who was best.  After several failed attempts to stage the race, the two meet one on one in the afternoon of November 1, 1938.  It was built as “the race of the century”.

The story of Seabiscuit had generally faded away until author Laura Hillenbrand researched the great animal and wrote a novel in 2001.  It won the William Hill Sports Book of the Year Award.  Having read it, I say it’s a beautifully touching tribute.  If you like the movie, you’ll love reading the book.  There is so much that couldn’t be squeezed into the film and if a tear comes to your eye watching in on screen, you can expect an ever deeper response from the novel.

Jeff Brides (The Big Lebowski) plays Charles Howard, Chris Cooper (Adaptation) plays Tom Smith, and Tobey Maguire (Spiderman) plays Red Pollard.  All three give the finest performances.  They are likeable people and the audience will naturally cheer for them.  The director of the film is Gary Ross who made one of the best films of 1998, Pleasantville (which also starred Maguire).  There is a lot to this story and in trying to condense it, Ross has created a long movie which does feel rushed.  Could more have been cut?  I’m not sure.  Ross’s best work is on show during the key horse races.  The camera hovers just inches from the large beasts and you will never be closer to see them in action.

Creating a large scale movie set in the 1930s created natural headaches.  Don’t ask me where they got them but there are an inordinate number of extras in the background during the scenes shot at the track.  They are all immaculately dressed and it had to have been the job of a lifetime for two-time Academy Award nominated costumer Judianna Makovsky.  She will surely get a third nom this year.  The sets are also fantastic and I’d love to know where they found so many antique cars.

It’s a touch corny but the heart of the story is never lost.  If I didn’t know it actually happened then perhaps I’d be critical of an unrealistic screenplay.  But this really did happen and the tale of Seabiscuit, Charles Howard, Tom Smith and Red Pollard can now be watched for decades to come.  It’s a modern day fairytale.