Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 04 May 2004

Robert Strange McNamara is now 85 years of age and the stories he can tell will leave audiences gasping for more.  He has done much since his birth in 1916.  He lectured in Business Administration at Harvard, he was an Air Force Captain during World War II, he was President of the Ford Motor Company and he was President of the World Bank.

Despite these achievements, most Americans will remember him as Secretary of Defence of the United States Of America during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations of the 1960s.  McNamara oversaw the Vietnam War which many regard today as one of America’s great mistakes.  I guess the timing of this film is somewhat appropriate considering the current conflict in Iraq.

The Fog Of War is a smart documentary put together by director Errol Morris.  Initally, Morris wanted to put together a short segment for a television series.  After interviewing Morris for the first time, he realised this story deserved a wider audience.  In all, Morris interviewed McNamara for over 20 hours and this film features the best of what McNamara had to say, mixed with archival footage and old audio tapes of McNamara speaking to political heavyweights.

What impressed me most was Morris’s obvious decision not to take a side on the McNamara debate.  There are some who heavily criticised McNamara during his time as Secretary of Defence but there were others who praised his work.  This film does not try to categorise everything as black and white.  Morris understands there is much grey and the overall impression we will form on McNamara has not been influenced by his own opinions.

The full title of the film is The Fog Of War: Eleven Lessons From The Life Of Robert S. McNamara.  The film is focused around these eleven lessons and whilst they are not new, they carry an extra significance given the person who is speaking them.  The lessons weren’t all learnt from Vietnam.  The film does focus on his time as Secretary of Defence but does look at many other aspects of his early life.

It’s unusual to see a big-note soundtrack to a documentary feature but Morris secured brilliant composer Philip Glass (The Hours, Kundun) to craft a hypnotically repetitive score ideally suited to the subject material.  I’ll be ducking down to my local music store to pick up a copy of the soundtrack as soon as I get the opportunity.  I also think I’ll be buying the dvd when released because it is a great example of how to put together a documentary.  Morris does not linger too long on any one point and uses old television and movie footage to compliment McNamara’s words.

After taking home the Oscar for best documentary at this year’s Academy Awards, The Fog Of War has received deserved attention.  2004 looks like being the year of the documentary and if they continue to be released with such high quality, I’ll welcome even more big screen documentaries in 2005 and beyond!

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 26 April 2004

Looking back upon my initial review for Kill Bill: Volume One, I see it as the better of the two films.  Sure the martial arts scenes were competitive but at least there was some action.  There are few fight scenes in Kill Bill: Volume Two and even they are an anticlimax.  Especially that grand finale when Uma gets to “kill Bill”.  During the close credits, there are a few glimpses back at what the first film had to offer.  They serve as a reminder to the audience of what film one offered and what film two didn’t.

What I praised about the initial flick was director Quentin Tarantino’s style.  But the flair which dazzled me then doesn’t seem as impressive now.  Perhaps because I’ve seen it once before.  I fear retribution for making these statements because clearing the film has a following.  On the Internet Movie Database, the public has already ranked it within the top 250 of all time.  I am very much a Tarantino fan and thought I would feel the same way but alas, I do not.

The film picks up where the last one left off.  There’s a lengthy introduction first though to show us why and how Beatrix Kiddo (Thurman) was slain in the wedding chapel by Bill (Carradine) and the rest of the Deadly Viper Assassination Squad.  The next stop for Beatrix is Budd (Madsen) follwed by Elle (Hannah) and then Bill.  Tarantino likes casting “washed up” actors in his films with Carradine, Hannah and Madsen clearly fit into that category.  They do give good performances and I loved the slow talking style of Carradine and friend Esteban Vihaio (played by Esteban Vihaio).

I believe the conclusion to be limp.  Is there something Tarantino is trying to say?  I was looking for a big bang of a finish but instead found little more than a long winded conversation.  Not sure why.  As I’ve said, others love the film so maybe they can tell me where I have gone wrong with my thinking.  But as it currently stands, I can’t find a strong enough reason to recommend Kill Bill: Volume Two.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 03 May 2004

Paris, France, 1968.  Almost every evening, film-buff Matthew (Pitt) leaves his small hotel room and walks to the nearby movie theatre to take in a night’s entertainment.  Somewhat of a loner, the theatre provides the American-born Matthew a world of escape.

One afternoon though, the theatre is closed.  A swarm of students are outside conducting a demonstration rally against the French government while the police look on.  Under direction from the government, the cinema’s curator had been removed of his post and the cinema closed.  This was just the tip of the iceberg and it is a true story that France was brought to its knees in May 1968 as a result of these student riots.

Matthew had never really made any friends in Paris but spots a fellow filmgoer outside the closed theatre and shyly introduces himself.  Her name is Isabelle (Green) and is always accompanied by her twin brother, Theo (Garrel).  With no movies to attend, the three walk around town, talk movies and for Matthew, it’s the greatest night of his life.  But it’s only just beginning…

The next day he is invited to dinner with Isabelle and Theo and on the next, he is invited to move in with them.  With their parents away on a holiday, Matthew, Isabelle and Theo have the lavish house to themselves for a whole month.

To say there is a sexual tension between all three is an understatement.  You should expect nothing less from director Bernardo Bertolucci who made the explicit The Last Tango In Paris in 1972 won an Oscar for The Last Emperor in 1987.  The film comes from the novel by Gilbert Adair which I only finished reading a few weeks ago.  The novel is very different but the expected sex and nudity does come through on screen.  You’re unlikely to see so much of it in another film this year.

But the purpose of this film isn’t to push the boundaries of cinema.  It’s a story about three people who become consumed by each other and create world that seems fine to them but frowned upon by outsiders.  The performances from stars Michael Pitt, Eva Green and Louis Garrell are all very good and their personalities match what I’d expect having read the novel.  Pitt is creating quite an impressive arthouse resume having appeared in the well received Hedwing And The Angry Inch, Bully and Changing Lanes.

The film takes a little while to develop and the ending is a touch weak but the body of The Dreamers will take you away from the monotony of life and into a crazy sexual odyssey.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 25 April 2004

Elephant will leave you talking.  There’s a fair chance you won’t see another film like it.  Does this mean it’s the must see movie of the year?  Not necessarily.

On April 20, 1999, two teenage students went on shooting rampage at Columbine High School in the small town of Littleton, Colorado.  In all, 13 students were killed and a further 25 were injured.  As expected, the event sparked a media frenzy.  Everyone had an opinion as to why these kids had done what they had done.  Some blamed violent video movies and video games.  Some blamed gun control.  Some blamed bullying in schools.  Some blamed the parents.  Some blamed everyone.

Filmmaker Michael Moore used the shootings as the basis for his award winning and universally praised documentary, Bowling For Columbine.  Elephant is not a retelling of the Columbine story.  Rather, it is a fictional story of two teenagers, Alex (Frost) and Eric (Duelen), who also go on a similar high school killing spree.

Last year, Elephant claimed one of the highest honours in film – the top prize (known as the Palm D’or) at the Cannes Film Festival.  I have a huge respect for this award as it is voted upon by a select jury of film aficionados.  Previous winners of the Palm D’or include The Pianist, Dancer In The Dark, Secrets & Lies and Pulp Fiction.  Despite the acclaim, you won’t be seeing Elephant at many cinemas in Australia.  The film is receiving a very small release and this can be attributed to its distinctive art-house style.

What do I mean by this?  Well, the film is shot very much like a documentary.  The camera follows a group of selected students around the school in the hours leading up to the shootings.  They are just going about their day like it is any other day.  There are scenes that run for several minutes and are nothing more than kids walking up and down the school corridors.  It may sound boring on paper but I found that director Gus Van Sant’s style enhanced my liking for the characters.  These are just ordinary people and knowing their pending fate left a chilling feeling in my stomach.

Also impressive about Elephant is its conscious decision not to imply a singular reason for the tragedy.  I enjoy such films as they allow us to think about the film rather than letting the film think for us.  This approach by Gus Van Sant has not gone unnoticed and controversy has surrounded it since its Cannes premiere.  Only recently I saw the usually likable Andrew Warne of Foxtel’s Showtime Movie News describing his disgust for film’s cold blooded finale.

There isn’t a familiar name amongst the cast with the performances largely improvised.  The casting crew auditioned over 3,000 teenagers in the Portland area for the leading roles and those selected were encouraged to use their own experiences at school to shape their characters.  These unproven actors do an incredible job and it’s great to see Gus Vant Sant being rewarded for taking the risk with such an alternative concept.

An inspiration to Van Sant was a BBC documentary on school violence shot filmed in 1989 by late Alan Clarke.  It was also called Elephant and Van Sant’s own use of the title serves as a tribute.  Clarke’s use of the title came from his saying that the problem is as easy to ignore as an elephant in a living room.  An appropriate phrase indeed and I similarly urge you not to ignore this film at any cost.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 29 April 2004

Miranda Grey (Berry) is an expert psychiatrist but her latest case has left her dumfounded.  For months, Chloe Sava (Cruz) has had continual hallucinations and now she’s claiming to have had visions of the devil.  Miranda tries to gain her trust but as Chloe accurately phrases it “how can you trust someone when they think you’re crazy.”

After her Friday afternoon appointment with Chloe, Miranda heads home in a driving rainstorm.  Crossing an old bridge, she suddenly sees a girl standing in the middle of the road.  Miranda swerves to avoid her but crashes the car into a tree beside the road.  In a state of shock, Miranda notices the girl is still standing aimlessly in the middle of the road.  She approaches her to see if she’s ok.

This is the last thing Miranda can remember.  Three days have now passed and she finds herself in a locked cell within the same mental hospital at which she works.  Her friend and co-worker Pete Graham (Downey Jr) has been assigned to Miranda’s case and comes to speak with her.  Miranda wants to know how she got there and Pete informs her with the news that she killed her husband in cold blood.

Miranda can’t believe it and wants answers.  Was it this girl she saw who did it?  Her mind is a mess and she is having visions and hallucinations of her own.  She’s not sure who to believe, who to trust, and whether she has become crazy herself.

Gothika feels like it has been stretched out to make it last the standard 90 minutes.  After the first 45 minutes, I knew what the mystery was and became impatient waiting for it all to resolve itself.  There’s an expected twist which didn’t do a lot to satisfy me either.  All a bit far fetched as are the reactions from some people.  A comment I make about so many thrillers is that the story seems incorrectly based around the conclusion rather than vice versa.  This annoys me.

Frankly, I’m glad this film has finally come and gone.  It was supposed to be released in Australia last December and then in mid March.  Both times the release date was changed.  As a result, I’ve seen the trailer far too many times and can now rest a little easier knowing I don’t have to see it again.  I probably won’t see the actual film again either.