Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 05 May 2003

Tragedy then struck.  The wife did not survive the childbirth and the baby boy died shortly after.  In a mix of grief and distaste for his own father, Porourangi left the coastal village and headed to Europe to leave the mess far behind him.  Paikea, the young baby girl, was then raised by her grandfather Koro and grandmother Flowers (Haughton).

Back in the present, the question has arisen who will succeed Koro as chief.  He prays to the gods for guidance and decides to train other first born males in the community and test them to see which is most worthy.  Paikea too wants a chance to train but the steadfast Koro is disgusted that she would dare make such a suggestion – a woman cannot and will not be chief.  With relations badly strained between Paikea and her grandfather, the gods will soon intervene and give her the chance to prove herself…

You may not have heard of the film before but Whale Rider arrives in Australia with quite a reputation.  It won the People’s Choice Award at the prestigious Toronto Film Festival in 2002.  One only need look at recent winners of this award to see the weight that it carries.  Amelie (2001), Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon (2000), American Beauty (1999), Life Is Beautiful (1998) between them earned 12 Academy Awards and 31 overall nominations.  How’s that for a track record?

Perhaps I’ve been jaded by the hype but despite enjoying the film, I can’t think of it as being something amazing or memorable.  The film’s trailer promised this would be a film that would move me, but my emotions were well in check here.  The only aspect of the film for which the hype was justified was the performance of young Keisha Castle-Hughes.  She gives an incredibly brave performance that asks her to harness a range of feelings.  This must be a huge relief to the casting crew who auditioned over 10,000 girls and only found Keisha, who had never acted before, at a New Zealand primary school.

Whale Rider is based on a 1985 novel from author Witi Ihimaera.  The film itself is filmed at Witi’s hometown of Whangara which is on New Zealand’s East Coast.  The location mirrors that of the novel and ensures all the physical aspects of the book are translated perfectly onto the screen.  It’s a story particular to the Mauri people which would ordinarily have me question its appeal to a wider audience but results from festivals like Toronto allay any doubts.

Overall, it’s a nice, enjoyable film that you almost certainly won’t dislike.  Whether it goes above and beyond though is a decision I will leave to yourself as I cannot find the evidence to support such a claim.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 22 April 2003

The older, wiser Tom Ripley now lives happily in a luxurious French mansion.  His wife, Luisa (Caselli), knows much of Tom’s past and seems equally as cunning as her husband.  A face from the past comes to visit Tom and he is known simply as Reeves (Winstone).  After a botched art deal three years earlier, Tom told Reeves never to speak with him ever again.  Still, he’s curious as to what is important enough to have him come to his French doorstep.

It’s a simple job – Reeves needs a man killed.  Tom doesn’t want to help Reeves in any way but sees an opportunity to have a little fun.  One of Tom’s next door neighbours is Jonathan Trevanny (Scott) who has terminal leukaemia and only a few months to live.  He and his wife Sarah (Headey) are struggling to make ends meet and Jonathan is worried that Sarah and their young son won’t have financial stability when he passes on.

Tom suggests to Reeves that Jonathan is the man he should hire for his assignment.  As expected, Jonathan wants no part of the idea but with one hundred thousand pounds being waved in front of his nose, the offer becomes too attractive.  Tom isn’t going to completely wash his hands of this situation – he has done what he has done not to protect himself, but to see what Jonathan is really made of.

Expecting disappointment, due to my love for the The Talented Mr. Ripley, I found there was much to enjoy in Ripley’s Game with John Malkovich’s performance a clear highlight.  He’s ice-cool under pressure and never changes his demeanour.  You know he’s an evil man but the personality gives no immediate indication of who he likes and who he doesn’t.  It’ll keep you on your toes.  Also, the French backdrop is used to maximum effect by Italian director Liliani Cavani.  There are some wonderful scenes on Tom’s estate – the whole setting is rather peaceful.

Getting its release in Australia over the Easter break, the film hasn’t had quite the success expected in the United States.  It was due to be released two weeks ago but pulled at the last minute by the studio for no apparent reason and a “straight to video” release has been tipped.  Also of interest is the latest news that the second book from Highsmith, Ripley Underground, is now to be made into a movie.  Starring Barry Pepper and Tom Wilkinson, expect its release in mid 2004.  The intrigue of Tom Ripley is taking hold.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 01 May 2003

Original director Bryan Singer (The Usual Suspects) has returned to the series he is using to define his career.  The very opening scene is an action packed visual feast as new mutant Nightcrawler (Cumming) makes an attack on the President at the White House.  At their secret school, mutant leader Professor Charles Xavier (Stewart) is immediately investigating the incident to uncover who is behind it and who would be willing to jeopardise human-mutant relations.  Using both the power of his mind and “cerebra” machine, he tracks the Nightcrawler to Boston and sends Jean (Janssen) and Storm (Berry) to capture him.

They will soon learn that scientist William Stryker (Cox) is out to destroy the world’s mutant population and it was his special drug that enabled him to dictate the actions of Nightcrawler.  To uncover the location of the school and the secrets behind the cerebra machine, he’s using the same controlling techniques on the imprisoned Magneto (McKellan).  Learning the only way to destroy mutants will be to control the mind of Xavier, Stryker uses his military influence to attack the school and kidnap him.

However, due to public demand following the success of X-Men, Wolverine (Jackman) is the central character here.  Following an unsuccessful quest to discover his past, he had only just returned to the school before Stryker’s attack.  He helps fellow mutants Rogue (Paquin), Iceman (Ashmore) and Pyro (Stanford) escape and they begin the quest to find Xavier and restore order to the world of mutants.

At over two hours, X2 is an unrelenting treat for filmgoers.  There are traits of a crappy American summer blockbuster (look to some of the dialogue for examples) but the many unique characters and well-developed plot more than compensate.  Younger cast members are given expanded roles (a deliberate studio intention I’m sure) with Shawn Ashmore as Ice Man, Anna Paquin as Rogue and Aaron Stanford as Pyro leading the charge.  On sheer acting ability though, I cannot go past the amazing Ian McKellan as Magneto – every moment on screen was a treasure.

I believe there are two features of the X-Men that separate them from other superheros, making the series ideal for a screen adaptation.  Firstly, there isn’t a single hero.  Director Bryan Singer understands there are many characters who all have an important part in this story.  With editor John Ottman and cinematographer Newton Thomas Sigel they use the action scenes to give everyone a chance to fully display their wide array of mutant talents.  Secondly, while there is both hero and villain, there is also that which lies in between.  Magneto and Mystique are the characters I specifically refer to and their intriguing unpredictability is a valuable asset.

In Australia, the film has been released one day earlier than the traditional Thursday to help ease the expected weekend cinema congestion.  Before trekking off to see it, I’d advise rewatching the original film as no time is wasted here explaining the past.  X2 deserves to be a success and a combination of marketing and word-of-mouth will ensure it will be.  In one of those rare moments I find myself already anticipating, which much eagerness, the next instalment.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 18 April 2003

Standing beside his long-time girlfriend Linda (Tomei), Dave Buznik (Sandler) is about to board a plane.  He doesn’t kiss Linda good-bye because a painful childhood incident has left him with a phobia of kissing in public.  Once aboard, the quiet, nervy Dave takes his seat next to an eccentric gentleman who won’t give him any peace.  He asks the stewardess (sorry I mean, flight attendant) for some headphones but she seems preoccupied with gossiping to her fellow employee.  As she walks past his seat empty handed, Dave grabs her arm to ask yet again.  Sooner than you can blink, Dave’s in court on an assault charge and sentenced to 20 hours of anger management therapy under the guidance of Dr. Buddy Rydell (Nicholson).

This was the dumbest, stupidest opening to a film so far in 2003.  I was literally shocked at how bad and implausible this scenario was.  Yet, for some reason, I had faith.  Faith that actors like the re-born Adam Sandler and the reliable Jack Nicholson wouldn’t sign on for such garbage without a reason.  The thought foremost in my mind was that the silly introduction was designed to lure the audience into a false sense of security before revealing the true “humour”.  Oopsy.  I was wrong.

This farce continues in a similar vein.  Dave finds himself up again on another “anger management charge” and to avoid a one year prison sentence, Buddy gets approval of the court to move in with Dave to cure his problem.  With Buddy now following him 24 hours a day, the therapy is only adding to Dave’s anger.  They have to sleep in the same bed.  All the phone lines have been bugged.  Dave has to cook breakfast for both every morning.  He’s missing deadlines at work.  Life has become a living hell.

There’s an attempt at the very end to explain these crazy happenings.  Whilst my tongue burns to reveal all, I’ll limit myself to a brief scathing.  This ending is completely bogus and the more you think about it, the more you’ll realise it doesn’t make a single shred of sense.  It’s as if two completely different scripts were written with the beginning of one was attached to the ending of the other.

It’s hard what to make of it all.  Amongst the childish jokes (highlighted by a scene where Nicholson farts in bed), there’s a slight hint that there may well be a darker undertone to Sandler’s story (ala Punch-Drunk Love).  Don’t even bother getting your hopes up as the lovey-dovey ending immediately put that theory to sleep.  You’ll find it’s easy to compensate for the lack of darkness by simply closing your eyes and cringing.

The film comes to us from the Happy Madison production company whose 2002 releases were Eight Crazy Nights, The Hot Chick, Mr. Deeds and The Master Of Disguise.  With four consecutive dismal efforts, I should have been more apprehensive towards Anger Management.  The film will undoubtedly be a box-office success (due to the huge marketing campaign) but it’s just as bad and unfunny as the aforementioned titles.  The only joke here, is the film itself.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 23 April 2003

For an actor, the crossover from television into film is a challenging hurdle and for Jennifer Aniston, The Good Girl may be proof that she’s successfully made the transition.  Her character, Justine, has recently turned 30 and is at a crossroads in her life.   She’s been married to her husband Phil (Reilly) for seven years but they have been successful in conceiving a child.  He’s a painter, she works as a shop assistant at the Retail Rodeo and their life together is quite dull.  The word “love” seems to have lost its meaning.

Deep down, Justine knows this but she is trapped by routine and lacks the courage to make a change.  At her work, a new employee grabs her attention.  Holden (Gyllenhaal) is a 22-year-old loner who doesn’t socialise with the other staff, eats lunch on his own, and generally says very little.  Justine introduces herself and Holden, sensing an attraction, opens up.  He’s recovering alcoholic who dropped out of college and is now living back home with his parents.  What they both share is a disenchantment with their own lives and their depression acts as a catalyst to bring them together.

The two begin an affair but the secret reaches a point where it can no longer be contained.  Holden wants them to elope and leave the misery behind by starting a fresh life together.  Justine’s decision isn’t quite as clear.  Despite the lack of passion in their relationship, how can she leave her always courteous and faithful husband?  Things are further complicated when Phil’s best friend, Bubba (Nelson), sees Justine with Holden and intends to use the information to blackmail her.  It’s a life changing moment for Justine. Choices need to be made but there is no time in which to make them.

Aniston is wonderful and in touch with her character.  Her consistent expression is one of boredom and you hear the tiredness in her voice.  Further, she uses her emotions to help the audience empathise with her situation – she’s not necessarily making all the right decisions but we understand why she is making them.  Love interest Jake Gyllenhaal (who starred in the brilliant October Sky and Donnie Darko) also plays an intriguing character although I would have liked him to have a greater screen presence with a deeper insight into his “psychotic” persona.  Zooey Deschanel gives the film light comic relief with a cute performance as Justine’s assistant, Cheryl.

I praised the quality of Mike White’s screenplay in last year’s Orange County and my opinion is unchanged having seen The Good Girl.  Perhaps the plot meanders and focuses on the wrong elements during its middle scenes but it’s an ending I like to describe as honest.  What I mean by this is that the somewhat surprising finale is well supported by that which precedes it.  All the pieces of the puzzle fit.  Miguel Arteta’s direction is in most cases top-notch although there were a few indoor scenes that looked off with their “grainy” feel.  What I will single out was the immaculate dinginess of the Retail Rodeo – I loved constantly looking in the background at all the little odds and ends of the store.

Like many small-budget productions, The Good Girl premiered at the Sundance Film Festival and since, the word has been largely positive.  Honoured at the Independent Spirit Awards for best screenplay (beating out such films as Lovely & Amazing and Roger Dodger), it’s a offbeat delight for those who like their movies to focus on plot development rather than action or special effects.  Hmmm, no wonder I liked it.