Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 04 October 2003

The director of Matchstick Men is Ridley Scott, a talented craftsman who was all but forgotten three years ago.   He made Alien and Blade Runner early in his career and in 1991 earned his first Oscar nomination for Thelma & Louise.  Scott’s next two films, White Squall and G.I. Jane, floundered but like a true Hollywood underdog, he bounced back with Gladiator and Black Hawk Down.  Both films saw him covered once again with acclaim and two more Oscar nominations were in order.

If you look closely at all the abovementioned films, you can see Scott is a man who loves action blockbusters of epic proportions.  Until now, he had never directed a comedy but having seen Matchstick Men, he’s comfortably adjusted his style to pass the test.

It’s a quirky film with a smart screenplay from brothers Ted and Nicholas Griffin.  It’s about two con-men – Roy (Cage) and Frank (Rockwell) who swindle suckers out of their hard earned money.  They’ve been partners for years and Roy has put together quite a nest egg.  Roy’s troubles are not financial – he’s got quite a few phobias that are severely limiting his enjoyment of life.  He’s scared to be outdoors, his house has to be impeccably clean at all times, he’s seeing a shrink, and he’s on medication to help with these psychotic problems.

At a strip club (hilariously known as the Spearmint Rhino), Frank meets the wealthy Chuck Frechette (McGill) who he’s lined up as the next target.  Roy however, has even more dramas in store when he discovers he has a 14-year-old daughter, Angela (Lohman) who comes to stay with him.  She’s a troubled girl, he’s a troubled guy and together they seem to find just what each other needs.  The isn’t much room for relationships though in the life of a con-artist and Roy’s going to have to make some tough decisions…

Don’t be fooled into thinking this is a predictable, melodramatic sob story.  The actors deliver precision performances in that you suspect, but are never quite sure, who is pulling all the strings.  You’ll watch with keen interest waiting to see if your hunches are proven true.  The three leading cast members strongly add to their already impressive year.  Cage is following Adaptation, Rockwell is following Confessions Of A Dangerous Mind and Lohman is following White Oleander.  When you’ve two well received movies in the one year, you know you’re on a roll.

Matchstick Men isn’t being promoted with the same force as Gladiator and Black Hawk Down so make sure you don’t overlook it when heading to the cinema.  There ain’t much else on at the moment (in terms of both quantity and quality) so this should temporarily fill the void.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 23 September 2003

The film plays out like a documentary with director Larry Clark focusing on four simple teenagers living in California.  You may think their promiscuous tales are “controversial” and designed purely for shock value but I am certain these stories are more realistic than most (if not all) teen films coming out of Hollywood today.  Shawn (Bullard) is dating a girl from school but behind her back is secretly having casual sex with her mother, whose husband has left her unfulfilled.  Peaches (Limos) has a religious father who is completely unaware that she’s sexually involved with a boy her own age.  Tate (Ransome) is a confused boy who lives with grandparents and don’t seem to mind that he speaks to them disgracefully.  Claude (Limos) is being bullied by his step father who has no respect for him and seems intent on making his life a misery.

It’s clear that these children aren’t fully responsible for their misery and troubles.  Clark is clear to point the finger largely at the adults – those that influence and shape these lives.  Yes, there is sex in the film and yes, it is quite explicit.  It isn’t pornography though and the censors decision is dumfounding.  They have taken offence to the fact that the actors appear to be under the age of 18 even though they are not.  What a joke.

Once you remove all the hype, you have a film which is generally pretty average – some good points and some bad.  The narrative is weak and fragmented.  It’s just a handful of lengthy scenes (in that documentary style I spoke of).  This tends to make the stories drag.  A faster pace and more material would have increased my own interest.  Conversely, I have to applaud the courage of the actors.  They do some pretty confronting stuff on screen and credit to them.  You could say a porno star does the same thing but they don’t have to act – this cast does!

I’d love to be telling you to get to the cinema to check it out but alas, I cannot.  So instead, stick it up the censors and find a bootleg copy (or make one yourself from the internet).  This film is about more than just what’s on screen; it’s about standing up for free speech (a subject close to my heart).  A film about the troubles in society which was considered fit to screen at the Venice and Toronto Film Festivals deserves to be seen my more than just a board of censors.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 29 September 2003

Shot over a nine week period at the end of last year, Gettin’ Square was deserved selected to open this year’s Brisbane International Film Festival.  It’s a stylish look at drugs, crime and corruption on our very own Gold Coast.  Of the 20 films in contention for this year’s Australian Film Institute Awards, it’s the only one we Queenslanders can call our own and on seeing it, we should be proud of what we offer.

Barry Wirth (Worthington) has served nine of a twelve year sentence for manslaughter.  He was found guilty of killing a security guard during a burglary but he has always proclaimed his innocence and blamed the set-up on Police Detective Arnie DeViers (Field).  He was initially denied parole but on his mother’s death has changed matters.  His younger brother Joey (Pegler) needs parental guidance and Barry has been released under the condition he acts as guardian.

Barry has trouble getting a job on the outside but a friend who puts in a good word with restaurant owner Darren Barrington (Spall) who owns a struggling restaurant known as the Texas Rose.  Darren’s lawyer advises him to scrap the restaurant and reap the gains from the property market.  The plan is to buy the land for $600,000, bribe the Mayor to have it rezoned, then sell it to a property developer at a huge profit.  All he need do is put a $200,000 deposit down and it’s his.

Darren has that amount sitting with his accountant who’s been helping him with some light money laundering activities.  Unfortunately, the wife of the accountant caught her husband screwing around and dobbed in him to the Criminal Investigation Commission (CIC).  Now, Darren’s got nothing and may spend time in jail if implicated in the scam.  Barry’s going to help Darren out with the assistance of drugged up friend Johnny Spitieri (Wenham) and also look to square the ledger against the corrupt Arnie DeViers.

The writer of the film’s screenplay is Chris Nyst, a high profile lawyer on the Gold Coast.  I am sure he has drawn on many of his own experiences in crafting this intelligent screenplay.  After attending the premiere in Sydney a few weeks ago, Chris has to fly straight back to help defend one of his big-name clients, Pauline Hanson.  The director is Jonathan Teplitzky who has made this his second feature following Better Than Sex, a wonderful comedy which was released back in 2001.

Gettin’ Square offers a well rounded cast with the rugged Sam Worthington (Dirty Deeds, Bootmen) giving his very best.  For me personally, the highlight of the film was watching English actor Timothy Spall play Darren, the restaurant owner.  I first saw Spall in the Oscar nominated Secrets & Lies and have followed his career since with roles in Still Crazy, Topsy-Turvy and All Or Nothing.  It’s a tough job luring top overseas talent to star in local Aussie productions and credit to Spall for picking a good script and taking the chance.

Brisbane and Gold Coast locals will recognise many of the film’s shooting locations and it’s a great postcard to be sending the rest of the world.  No word yet on whether the film will receive an international release but so far the signs are good.  Despite the high quality this year’s Australian releases, few have performed well at the box-office.  Don’t let the same fate befall Gettin’ Square.  You’ll love it so see it as fast as you can!

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 21 September 2003

“It’s just another day in the life of Mike Lowrey.”  That says it all.  This ludicrous nonsense could happen to no one else.  We first met the characters of Mike Lowrey and Marcus Burnett in the 1995 smash hit.  The film was also a huge launching pad for the careers of Will Smith and Martin Lawrence who have since capitalised on their popularity in the action genre.  Smith has gone on to star in Independence Day, Men In Black and Wild Wild West with Lawrence appearing in films such as Blue Streak and National Security.  Eight years after the original, they are back where they began in Bad Boys 2.

I enjoyed the early stages of the film.  There was an incredible car chase sequence where 23 cars and a boat get obliterated on a bridge in Miami.  It’s masterfully shot and the action guru Michael Bay (The Rock, Armageddon) has placed every camera ideally to capture the incredible action.  However, the screenplay is absolute and utter garbage.  Let’s look at this scene as an example.  In reality, many people would have been killed.  Yet, in the debriefing following the incident, the police chief is quick to point out to Mike and Marcus that “you’re lucky no one was killed”.  That’s too much of a cop out.

That’s not to say that people aren’t killed in the movie.  Those that do die though are the bad guys and when they do, it’s in very gory fashion and it is this attribute that earns the film an MA rating in Australia.  Why is it that they avoid showing us some deaths and yet show us the juicy gore of some others?  While we’re chatting about the screenplay, there is a dreadfully overused joke with Marcus going to therapy to help his stress relief.  It never goes anyway and it’s just filler to give the characters something to talk about between action sequences.

So why even both seeing the movie?  If you’re like me, there’s no need.  There are others unlike me though (believe it or not) who will go simply for the action and will be easily pleased.  One audience member is my screening even applauded as the credits rolled.  Um, ok.  They obviously checked their brain in at the door so as not to be disappointed by the screenplay which failed to make an appearance.  I should have done the same.

My biggest qualm has to be with the length.  This film is damn, damn long and this doesn’t help matters.  The more time I spent in the cinema, the more time I had to find fault with the script and the characters.  It’s two-and-a-half hours in total (thirty minutes longer than the first film).  You’d have though the studio would have asked for a shorter cut so they could squeeze in more screenings on opening weekend.  And you know what more screenings means to Jerry Bruckheimer and his company?  $$$

I realise at this point that in my analysis of the film I forgot to mention the plot.  Come to think of it, I can’t really remember it.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 29 September 2003

Academy Award winner Angelina Jolie returns as Lara Croft, the computer game hero turned film character.  An earthquake in Greece has exposed an ancient ruin beneath the ocean surface and Lara is there to investigate.  She is set upon though by three Asian attackers who steal a mysteriously glowing orb and leave Lara for dead.  Luckily for Lara, she beats up a shark and has it help her return to the surface.  I was going to laugh at this horrible script twist but then I realised this was beyond bad and began to question the sanity of writer Dean Georgaris.  Seriously, you can’t expect for people to swallow that?  Great news folks because Georgaris is set to pen the script for the upcoming Mission: Impossible 3.  If the garbage served up in the second film is anything to go by, Georgaris will be in his element.

Anyway, back to the “story” and Lara then finds out why the orb is so valuable.  It contains a code which will lead the holder to the Cradle of Life.  It is here where Pandora’s Box has been kept hidden for over two thousand years.  In it is the secret of life but also the power to destroy mankind.  She is asked to recover the orb and uses old flame Terry Sheridan (Butler) to accompany her.  She tracks its location to Hong Kong and Nobel Prize winner Jonathan Reiss (Hinds) who has devious uses for the Box.  If this were an Austin Powers movie it would be funny, but sadly for all involved, this is serious.

The sound effects are over the top and completely out of sink.  The editing is weak and you can see the obvious cuts between the real footage and the special effects.  The effects themselves aren’t much better and the shark in Finding Nemo looked more realistic than the shark here.  The eerie setting of the finale also looked terribly fake.  I will emphasise again that there is nothing worth praising here.  Nothing.

Bah, I’m sick of typing away trying to come up with sentences strong enough to express my true regret at seeing this movie.  As long as you don’t see it, I can take pride that I’ve done my job.