Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 14 October 2004

Filmmaking is a hard business in which to be continually creative but director Michael Mann has delivered once again with Collateral.  I became a fan of Mann’s back in 1995 when he directed the 3-hour epic Heat, starring Al Pacino and Robert DeNiro.  It was a near-perfect illustration of how to make a good crime thriller – you start out slow and keep building, building and building to a big finish.  By not playing all your cards in the first act, you keep your audience interested and looking for more.

Collateral follows in a similar vein although what is distinctive about this Mann film is its cinematography.  The film has been shot completely at night across the streets of Los Angeles.  Usually it’s very difficult to create clear images on film at night but Mann has used a digital camera to do so and L.A. at night never looked so good!  According to Mann himself, nearly 80% was shot digitally and once you’ve seen the film, you’ll realise how amazing the quality is.

Also a strong point are the camera angles Mann and cinematographers Dion Beebe (Chicago) and Paul Cameron (Swordfish) have chosen.  Beebe hails from Queensland which makes it even better!  You’ll be amazed how many different shots you can get within a taxi-cab.  From the high helicopter flyovers, to the close-ups from the steering wheel, it looks simply great.

The story centres on a taxi driver named Max (Foxx) who’s been working the streets of Los Angeles for over 12 years.  As the film’s poster nicely phrases - “it began like any other night”.  That is until a man in a grey suit carrying a large black briefcase enters the cab.  Introducing himself as Vincent (Cruise), he offers Max $700 for his services for the entire night.

Max accepts but it is a decision he will soon regret.  At the very first stop, he waits for Vincent while he visits a “friend” at an apartment building.  After a few minutes, a body falls from a 4^th story window and lands squarely on top of the cab.  After the initial shock subsides, Max realises the gravity of the situation.  Vincent has killed this man and it’s not going to be his only kill of the night.  With a gun pointed at the back of his head, an ordinary taxi driver has become the chauffer of a professional hit-man with a specific agenda…

The film wasn’t a box-office hit in America but for the first time since 1999’s Magnolia, I can say that I enjoyed the performance of Tom Cruise.  Cruise has played too many nice guys of late so it’s great to see him greying the hair and tackling the more challenging, bad-guy role.  His has a few top one-liners too.  On killing his first victim he tells Max that it wasn’t he who killed him but rather it was the bullets and the fall which did so.  Jamie Foxx too is strong with the best performance of his indifferent career.  Sometimes you just don’t realise how much talent some actors have until you give them a decent role.

The only problem with the Collateral lies in its conclusion.  The plot starts to lose its realism and the dialogue starts losing its plausibility.  A few too many coincidences take place and you sense they have been designed to prolong the suspense.  A shorter, more succinct ending would have been preferred.  I will not harp too strongly on this point though because Stuart Beattie’s script until this point is terrific.  Take a bow again Australia because Beattie also hails from this country and helped pen last year’s surprise smash, Pirates Of The Caribbean: The Curse Of The Black Pearl.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 07 October 2004

Vanity Fair is the tale of an innocent girl who is chewed up and spat out by a society in which wealth and power are the measure of success.  Well, she’s not completely innocent (depending on your interpretation).

Set around the turn of the 17^th Century, Reese Witherspoon plays the title role of Becky Sharp.  Having spent her teenage years studying in an orphanage, Becky has finally graduated and found employment as a housemaid for Sir Pitt Crawley (Hoskins).  She’s a breath of fresh air in the household as Pitt struggles to maintain his finances whilst waiting for his wealthy sister to pass on and leave a large inheritance.

Becky is in search of love and finds it in one of Pitt’s sons, Rawdon (Purefoy).  Their marriage coincides with that of Becky’s best friend, Amelia (Garai) who herself has also joined a well-to-do family by marrying George Osborne (Rhys Meyers), the son of high profile businessman (Broadbent).  Their dreams of a privileged life have come to fruition but they will both soon learn of the problems that come with it.  They find heir husbands anything but perfect and their fast rise up the social ladder has spawned a wave of jealousy from other prominent females looking to make a mark.

I have not read the novel from author William Makepeace Thackeray but it must be fairly substantial judging from the detail and the number of storylines packed into the film’s 137 minutes.  A serious criticism I have is that Vanity Fair never gets into a steady rhythm.  We are continually switching between stories and some scenes appear rushed in an attempt to squeeze as much detail in as possible.  Why didn’t we see Becky’s marriage?  Why didn’t we see more of Rawdon’s gambling addiction?  What happened in that 12-year gap at the end of the film and why did all the characters still look the same?

No performer stands out but it’s nice to see Reese Witherspoon in a role more suited to her talent (as opposed to Legally Blonde 2).  It’s a strong performance without being spectacular.  The director of the flick is Indian-born Mira Nair (Monsoon Wedding) which might explain why a few scenes (adding no value whatsoever) were shot in India.

As I’ve mentioned before, I do enjoy period pieces and the eloquent dialogue and elaborate storyline has been well crafted.  Still, I expected more and it would appear Vanity Fair has fallen victim to the difficulty of condensing a massive novel into an endurable film.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 10 October 2004

I can’t think of movie much less appealing than a sequel to a film I never cared for in the first place.  Anaconda was released back in 1997 and unfortunately for us all, it was mildly successful at the box-office.  

So what convoluted storyline have they come up with this time?  Well, a group of scientists in New York believe they have uncovered the secret to… the fountain of youth.  Sigh.  There are toxins in a flower known as the Blood Orchid which could dramatically slow the aging process.  Unfortunately for these scientists, the Blood Orchid can only be found in the jungles of Borneo and it’s only in bloom for three more weeks before it becomes dormant for another seven years.  Oh no!

In the midst of the rainy season, the group charter an old, rusty boat and head down river.  Most of them will be eaten by giant anacondas but if you’re like me, you won’t care less.  The only scene you’ll be looking forward is the fade to black just before the closing credits start rolling.

Too much time is wasting in developing this paper-thin plot.  I don’t think a person was killed until the 45 minute mark.  The group of writers (four in all) have tried to develop these characters but they needn’t have wasted their time.  Few will care and the fact that there’s not a well-known star amongst the cast is a sure sign that this junk should have been labelled “direct to video”.

With most studios holding their big releases until Christmas, October is usually a poor time of year to be heading to cinemas.  Once you’ve seen Anacondas: The Hunt For The Blood Orchid, you’ll know why.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 04 October 2004

Wimbledon, London (AP) – It may sound like a cliché, but the hopes of a nation ride today with Peter Colt who looks to become the first Englishman in over 70 years to win the men’s singles crown at Wimbledon.  He’ll be battling the odds however with rising American Austin Nichols starting as an overwhelming favourite in his own pursuit of the Wimbledon title.

Colt may be the underdog but he’ll be the number one choice of the fans adoring centre court.  Ranked 117 and playing in his final tournament before retirement, the 32-year-old Colt is looking for a Cinderella finish to a career which has offered so much but produced so little.  His best finish in a grand slam before today was a semi-final birth at the U.S. Open almost seven years ago.

It seems Colt has been a winner both on and off the court this week.  His new relationship with young American sensation Lizzie Bradbury has also been headline material with paparazzi following their each and every move.  For a man who hasn’t beaten a seeded player in over two years, this fortnight will be one Colt never forgets.

How he remembers the final chapter however all depends on the play on his opponent.  Nichols may not have Colt’s experience but he has the form and the credentials to take the next step.  Having eliminated previous champion Lleyton Hewitt in the earlier rounds, the stage is set for Nichols to crash England’s party and take the coveted title back to the United States.

Wimbledon is like most other sporting films in that we watch a hopeless underdog try to find success.  They always make it to the final hurdle but whether that hurdle is cleared is something the audience must patiently wait for.

We don’t often see Paul Bettany (Master & Commander, A Beautiful Mind) in a leading role but he the clear star of Wimbledon.  He’s make Peter Colt a very likeable character and his superb performance brings through the fear and doubt that so often clouds his mind.  I didn’t feel as strongly for Kirsten Dunst (Spider-Man) who seemed too ditzy and emotional.  Her tennis ability could also use a little work.

The centre court climax is the film’s obvious highlight.  It was shot back in 2003 during the actual Wimbledon tournament and I know it was a real thrill for Bettany.  The setting is superb and the drama and suspense are beautifully drawn out by English director Richard Loncraine.  With little quirks of the camera lens, I also liked Loncraine’s technique is showing us the busy and unstable mind of our hero.

The film has its flaws and I must ask, what’s with the computerised tennis balls?  Some rallies look phoney and it doesn’t take a genius to realise that the players are just swatting their rackets in thin air with that little yellow ball added later on.  And while I’m at it, what’s with the semi-final being played on such a small court?

I’ve got many friends who’ll agree that tennis would have to be one of the most boring sports to watch either live or on television.  Whilst they are probably correct, I can say that Wimbledon is a sweet, romantic comedy that will likely provide more entertainment.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 09 October 2004

The Notebook is a simple, elegant, romantic tale.  It begins in a nursing home with an elderly man (Garner) reading to an elderly woman (Rowlands) from his black notebook.  We then enter flashback mode with director Nick Cassavetes taking us back into the 1940s and a quiet American town where two teenagers meet for the first time…

Living with his father, Noah Calhoun (Gosling) works at the town’s lumber mill for 40 cents an hour.  His dream is to purchase a run-down property by the river and turn into something majestic.  At the local fair though, he has found something he wants even more – a beautiful young girl named Allie (McAdams).  Noah’s crazy introduction may be bold but it’s most certainly effective.  Soon, they are spending every moment of every day together.  For each of them, it’s the beginnings of a first love.

As the summer comes to a close, they find that this love will be severely tested.  Allie comes from a very well-off family who are particularly disapproving of her choice for a boyfriend.  Further complicating matters are Allie’s own dreams to leave the town and attend a lucrative college in New York City.  Their backgrounds are different, their futures are different, but will love keep Noah and Allie together?

There’s significantly much more to this story but I choose only to reveal a small part.  Most films involving teen romance are trashy comedies filled with toilet humour.  Stars Ryan Gosling (Murder By Numbers) and Rachel McAdams (Mean Girls) make The Notebook a very real, touching romance.  Their characters can’t keep their hands off each other and you really do feel the love that encompassed them and which also clouds their better judgement.

Curiously, The Notebook marks the third novel of writer Nicholas Sparks which has been developed into a motion picture.  The first was the disappointing Message In A Bottle (starring Kevin Costner and Robin Wright Penn) in 1999 and the second was the underrated A Walk To Remember (starring Many Moore and Shane West) in 2002.

Romantic films are those of which I am most often critical.  I find most of them unrealistic with silly dialogue and poor match-ups.  Well for those romantics out there, here’s a film you’ll probably enjoy which I can support along with you.  Take tissues.