Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 11 August 2004

Since the turn of the century, our own Nicole Kidman has dazzled us in Moulin Rouge, The Others, The Hours, Dogville and Cold Mountain.   Sadly though, The Stepford Wives will prove to be a rare blot on the otherwise impressive resume.

Joanna Eberhard (Kidman) was once a high-flying, well-paid television executive.  That was until she was fired after a few controversial television show ideas.  Looking to escape the big city, Joanna and her husband Walter (Broderick) have moved to the easy living town of Stepford to start a whole new life.

It’s a beautiful town filled with beautiful people but for Joanna, something isn’t quite right about Stepford.  The wives are all meticulously dressed and serve their husbands with unbridled devotion.  There are never any arguments and no wife seems bothered by the fact her husband spends much time hanging out with the other guys at a secret clubhouse.

Now for a major spoiler alert.  If you haven’t seen the film and plan on doing so, please read no further.  What follows this introduction is one of the biggest plot flaws of the year and I am flabbergasted to see it escape the cutting room floor.  It turns out, that the women of Stepford are robots.  In one scene, we see Matthew Broderick and Nicole Kidman descend into a room where she herself will have her brain/memories implanted into a Kidman look-alike robot.

Here’s where we have problems.  Firstly, where does the real Kidman go if she is turned into a robot?  Secondly, once the plan is “foiled”, how come the women at the party transform back into themselves when the computers in the control room are smashed?  Are they robots or are they humans with mind controlling chips in their brains?  The film seems to tell us both which is complete nonsense.

It’s a solid cast with Bette Midler, Glenn Close and Christopher Walken working along side Kidman and Broderick.  We don’t see Midler on screen very often and I enjoyed the scenes she shared with Kidman.  They help build the film’s intrigue in the early stages but as the plot plans out, you realise there’s not a lot to it at all.  It’s a very basic story which doesn’t seem to tell us anything.

According to the Internet Movie Database, many scenes were re-shot and subplots were changed following poor test screenings.  From my own opinions of the final product, I don’t think the changes made much of a difference.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 05 August 2004

The film doesn’t deserve much of my time so I’ll keep this short and sweet.  Against The Ropes is just dismal.  I saw it as part of the in-flight entertainment on a Qantas flight from Sydney to Bangkok but felt like complaining since it didn’t meet the definition of “entertainment”.  My friend sitting beside me on the plane watched it also and about every 5 minutes, we removed our headsets and looked at each other with stunned disbelief at how corny it all was.

Based on a true story (pretty loosely I guess), the story focuses on Jackie Kallan, a female boxing promoter trying to make it in a man’s world.  We go through a routine introduction of her being squashed by other males and guess what?  She has a few ego problems along the way but as you’d expect, it all leads to a rosy ending where we can celebrate Jackie triumphing over adversity.  I celebrated the film’s finale by going to sleep and rejoicing that I didn’t waste $10 at a regular theatre to watch it.

I haven’t met the real Jackie Kallan but I can’t possibly believe she is as annoying as Meg Ryan portrays her.  Ryan is so obviously putting on a rough girl accent and you’ll cringe at how fake it all sounds.  I cannot believe studio executives cast her in a role which clearly does not suit.  Other major cast members include Tony Shalhoub and Timothy Daly but I’ll excuse you if you don’t know who they are.

Now that I’ve wasted another 10 minutes of my life on this tripe, I’ll call it a day.  Good night.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 11 August 2004

In the opening to the film, we are told that recent historical research as revealed more on the legend of King Arthur and his loyal knights.  The presumption I drew was that this would be a more realistic portrayal of actual events.  How wrong I was…

Set around the 5^th and 6^th Centuries, Arthur and his men have been fighting gallantly for 15 years.  Known as the Sarmatian Knights, they fight for their Roman emperor in defending the lands of Britain.  Most resistance has come from the north and a rebel group known as the Saxons but Arthur and his men have bravely kept them at bay and Britain is safe.

In accordance with the terms of their contract, the knights are entitled to retire after their 15^th year of service.  However, when a Roman bishop comes to give them all their release papers, he asks one more demanding journey of them – to rescue a Roman family who are trapped in Saxon territory.          After the obligatory disgruntlement amongst the knights, they set off on a final adventure that would finish with a rather unexpected conclusion.

The final battle scenes have been well directed by Antonie Fuqua (Training Day) but aside, there’s very little to applaud about.  The dialogue is simply atrocious.  If you thought all the melodrama of Troy was bad, just wait till you see what garbage is uttered from the mouths of these “legends”.  At one point, Arthur says to his enemy, “It will be good of you to mark my face, Saxon, for the next time you see it, it will be the last thing you see on this earth.”  Yes, I understand it’s a movie, but please, can we have some more realistic and sensible dialogue?

The cast is led by Clive Owen in the leading role who didn’t impress me.  Rising English starlet Keira Knightly (Pirates Of The Caribbean) is being heavily promoted but her role is quite small.  For Australian fans, actor Joel Edgerton (The Hard Word) appears as one of Arthur’s knights and if luckily, it could springboard him to bigger and better international roles.

Unfortunately, there’s nothing remotely royal in this adaptation of King Arthur.  Considering the budget and the publicity, it’s just disappointingly disappointing.

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: 11 August 2004

Well, it could have been worse, but, um, I don’t know how to finish this sentence.

I myself have just returned from a 5 week trip across Europe and to employ an overused cliché, it was one of the “best times of my life”.  The culture in each country is unique and our tour manager told us to embrace it with the catchphrase – “it’s not wrong, it’s just different”.

You’d think Europe would provide the perfect setting for an American teen flick.  Unfortunately, screenwriters Alec Berg, David Mandel and Jeff Schaffer have combined to create a miserable comedy that exploits European stereotypes and offers no insight into a world far more entertaining than the United States.  To employ an overused cliché, Europe for me was one of the “best times of my life”.  Eurotrip, on the other hand, was one of the “worst times of my life”.  With such a disparaging difference, it’s clear to say that something is amiss.

After some amusing opening titles (the only highlight), we begin with a high school graduation.  Armed with a thick travel guide, Jamie (Wester) and his twin sister Jenny (Trachtenberg) are going to be spending the summer holidaying in Europe.  Best friends Scott (Mechlowicz) and Cooper (Harris) are staying home and have summer jobs lined up.  That is until, Scott releases his German pen-pal is not actually a man but a gorgeous blond with nice tits (yes, we see them many times).  Suffice to say, Scott and Cooper are on the first flight out of there en route to Berlin.

As it turns out, getting to Berlin isn’t as easy as hoped.  Our quartet travel through London, Paris, Amsterdam, Rome and even Bratislava (in Slovakia).  In Paris, the film spends three agonising minutes watching Scott imitate a street performer outside the queue to the Lourve.  How did this make the final cut?  Why not show him heckling some of the illegal immigrants selling Louis Vuitton bags, fake sunglasses or Eiffel Tower statues?

It all unfolds with boring predictability.  There’s plenty of nudity to keep horny male teenagers entertained but if you don’t fit that genre, forget it.  Without giving too much away, it all finishes with a horribly disrespectful display at the Vatican and a pathetically mushy “happily ever after” ending.  If you heard me laughing, it was “at” the film and not “with” the film.

If you look at Eurotrip’s poster, you’ll see the tagline for the film is “no Europeans were harmed during the making of this film”.  Unfortunately, the poster does not discuss how many Europeans were harmed whilst watching the film.  As I say of any film awarded my lowest grade - you have been well and truly warned!