Reviews


Directed by: Guy Ritchie
Written by:Lina Wertmuller, Guy Ritchie
Starring: Madonna, Adriano Giannini, Jeanne Tripplehorn, Bruce Greenwood
Released: November 28, 2002
Grade: C-

No. 

    


Directed by: Chris Columbus
Written by:Steven Kloves
Starring: Daniel Radcliffe, Rupert Grint, Emma Watson, Kenneth Branagh, Maggie Smith, Richard Harris, Alan Rickman
Released: November 28, 2002
Grade: A

With less hype than a year ago, Harry Potter And The Chamber Of Secrets lives up to expectations by being vastly superior to the original.  All the missing elements have this time been included and the end result is a fitting tribute to the works of J.K. Rowling.

On the verge of starting his second year at school, Harry is warned by a house-elf named Dobby that “Harry Potter must not go back to Hogwarts this year”.  There is danger afoot but it’s not going to stop Harry - especially considering how bad his home life has become with Uncle Vernon and Aunt Petunia.

Soon after his arrival at Hogwarts, Harry discovers the truth in Dobby’s warnings.  Some of his classmates are found frozen stiff (victim to a spell of petrifaction) and there’s talk that all students will have to be sent home.  Such mayhem is the delight of Lucius Malfoy, a powerful wizard who is rumoured to have links to the Dark Arts.  He can use the attacks as justification to overthrow principal Albus Dumbledore (Harris) and have the school run his way.

Naturally, it’s fallen upon Harry Potter to save the day.  A message written in blood on a corridor wall warns that the Chamber Of Secrets has been opened and the Heir Of Slytheren has arrived.  So what is this Chamber of Secrets?  Who is the Heir of Slytheren?  What is it that Harry can do?

The film’s length needs to be addressed.  For a family film, 161 minutes would be considered an arduous test but with the multitude of characters and lengthy plot, there’s few dull moments.  Judging by the excited reactions from the sold out crowd in my opening night screening, most the audience agreed.  There’s plenty of material to go the distance.

The humour lacking in the first novel has been rediscovered in this adaptation.  Despite not being the first casting choice (Hugh Grant was), Kenneth Branagh is hilarious as the superficial teacher Gilderoy Lockhart.  Seeing the late Richard Harris his final role also brings to the film added sentiment - Harris’s larger role in the sequel is appreciated and he will be sorely missed in future instalments.

Our younger cast members have seen their voices break but talent-wise, they have developed over the past twelve months.  As Harry, Daniel Radcliffe delivers his lines with more confidence - like a new superhero.  Rupert Grint (as Ron) has been given more flexibility and adds much humour with his misadventures and facial expressions.

In the back of your mind, you know the film is flooded with visual effects but it’s impossible to identify the line between truth and fiction.  Director Chris Columbus has returned and once again added much to the project - he has a great knack with kids.  That’ll be it though for Columbus as a new director, Alfonso Cuaron (Y Tu Mama Tambien), has been asked to direct the third film to keep the series fresh.  Expect Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban to be released in mid 2004.

Already guaranteed to be a classic, the Chamber Of Secrets has something for everyone.  A dazzling fantasy world that hopefully will appreciated more so, in years to come.

    


Directed by: Gore Verbinski
Written by:Ehren Kruger
Starring: Naomi Watts, Martin Henderson, Brian Cox, Jane Alexander, David Dorfman
Released: November 14, 2002
Grade: B+

The Ring is the film of the hour with impressive box-office numbers being posted in the United States.  Its showing no signs of stopping and has made over $15m for three consecutive weekends.  The success has an added flavour for those down under with Australian actress Naomi Watts and New Zealand actor Martin Henderson sparkling in their leading roles.

There’s nothing new about The Ring because it’s already been a smash hit.  How so you ask?  Based on the novel by Koji Suzuki, a Japanese version was made back in 1998 (under the title Ringu) and was one of the highest grossing Japanese films of all time.  In fact, two Japanese sequels have already been made.  Dreamworks Pictures saw the opportunity to make an English version which is that I’m hear to review.

No time is wasted getting to the punch.  Instead of the traditional opening titles, we begin with an attention-grabbing incident.  A girl is sitting on her bed talking to a friend.  She tells about a tape she watched the weekend before with some friends.  On the tape were some bizarre images and after finishing, the phone rang and delivered a message - “you will die in seven days”.  Her fate is sealed when the premonition comes true a few minutes later.

Journalist Rachel Keller (Watts) knew the family and has been asked to investigate.  She tracks down the tape, sees it for herself and is given the same warning.  With the help of friend Noah (Henderson), they begin a search to track the tape’s origin and the significance of its images.  In the back of their minds is a burning thought - if they can’t solve this puzzle in seven days they too will face a horrible demise...

The Ring isn’t an edge-of-your-seat thriller nor will it have you shrieking with fear.  But this isn’t its design.  Like The Sixth Sense (which was made after Ringu), it keeps you absorbed by creating unanswered questions and then taking time to provide the answers.  There’s some neat little plot turns but given the build up and hype, I was slightly underwhelmed by the key twist revealed at the end.

Director Gore Verbinski (The Mexican, Mouse Hunt) gets much help from his crew.  The editing from Craig Wood is sharp and the music score from Hans Zimmer brilliantly echoes in the background.  It’s dark and there’s few bright colours - all setting the scene for a morbid tale.

Naomi Watts sure is a rising star with this following her award winning turn in Mulholland Drive.  Like another Australian star, Cate Blanchett, she can transform herself for each new role.  Martin Henderson was seen in Australia only a few years ago in the short-lived TV series, Big Sky.  Now, he’s a feature character in an U.S. smash hit.  For both, it seems, the success will only continue.

Lured by the moola, I expect a sequel will follow.   In the meantime, I might check out Ringu - word on the street is that it’s much better and scarier than its American equivalent. 

    


Directed by: Bob Doleman
Written by:Bob Doleman
Starring: Goldie Hawn, Susan Sarandon, Geoffrey Rush, Erika Christensen, Robin Thomas
Released: November 21, 2002
Grade: A-

Back in the 70s, Suzette (Hawn) and Lavinia (Sarandon) partied long and hard.  They drank heaps, did drugs, slept with rock stars and loved every minute of it.  Time then came between them.  Lavinia settled down, married a lawyer, had two daughters and now lives in a posh home (with a maid) in Phoenix.  Suzette continued to work at a dingy bar and seemingly slept with half the clientele.

Fired after years of slacking off, Suzette reflects back on days past and decides after almost 20 years, to give Lavinia a visit.  She begins a journey across the country only to soon run out of fuel.  At a gas station, she meets Harry (Rush), a washed-up screenwriter with obsessive compulsive disorder.  He’s fed up with the standard of his travel bus and offers Lavinia a tank of fuel if she’ll also take him to Phoenix.

As expected, Lavinia isn’t thrilled to see Suzette.  That part of her life had long been buried and she’s happy with the way things are.  Or at least that’s what she thought.  Suzette’s arrival has her suddenly reevaluating life.  Yes, everyone on the outside has the perception that she lives the perfect life but on the inside, there’s a yearning for the excitement and adventure she felt as a carefree teenager.

Goldie Hawn and Susan Sarandon are both Academy Award winning actresses and light up the screen with hilariously sentimental performances.  On a looks versus age basis, Hawn and Sarandon are the best in the business.  It’s almost impossible to believe they’re 57 and 56 years old respectively.  They’re performances in The Banger Sisters are relaxed and you can see many impromptu elements.  Many scenes see them splitting open with laughter and I sure they’re not acting.

It’s an unusually conventional role for Geoffrey Rush but he gets great audience response with his quirky character.  He’s the perfect supporting actor alongside these two starlets.  Erika Christensen (Traffic, Swimfan) and Eva Amurri make great loathing material as the daughters.  Casting doesn’t come much simpler that of Amurri.  She plays Sarandon’s daughter in the movie and yep, she’s Sarandon’s daughter in real life.

Maybe not realistic, but these characters are fun and easy to love.  I can see the target audience aimed higher than that of myself but it’s certainly a sweet film for all ages.

    


Directed by: Clint Eastwood
Written by:Brian Helgeland
Starring: Clint Eastwood, Jeff Daniels, Wanda De Jesus, Tina Lifford, Anglica Huston
Released: November 14, 2002
Grade: B-

It’s the old “detective lured out of retirement” routine.  FBI profiler Terry McCaleb was shot while chasing a serial killer and was forced to retire.  Needing a heart transplant, Terry waited two years before hearing the good news that a donor was available.  The surgery went successfully but Dr. Bonnie Fox (Huston) stresses that he must go easy on the new heart and not do anything strenuous.

No sooner is he back home, a visitor arrives on the doorstep of his houseboat.  Gracie Rivers (De Jesus) wants Terry to return a favour and explains her reasons and motivations.  Her sister was recently shot dead in a convenience store robbery and fed up with the lack of answers the police are providing, she turns to McCaleb.  Oh yes, and she’s found out that the heart used in Terry’s transplant was that of her sister.  Feeling a sense of indebtedness, Terry agrees to help.

The investigation begins.  There’s an assortment of characters along the way (including a funny police detective) and they interact well.  The dialogue is classy as you’d expect from screenwriter Brian Helgeland (L.A. Confidential).  The other notable cast members if Jeff Daniels who plays a resident.  Aside from the opening and closing scenes, there’s not a lot of action.

Dumfounded I was by the holes in the plot.  They’re big.  Don’t ask me how they expect us to overlook this.  Once you’ve seen the flick you’ll understand it but there’s a scene where McCaleb visits an ATM machine.  He later realises the killer was right behind him at the machine.  Can I ask why that on knowing this information, McCaleb didn’t get a copy of the security tape from the teller to identify him?  Since he used the machine right after him, why didn’t he just get the bank’s records?  Beats me.

It sure is frustrating.  Whilst it’s not a direct criticism, I do share doubts over the fact that the aging Terry has a relationship with the 20-something Gracie in the finale.  I’m sure it’s possible but a few people in my cinema were equally as squeamish as I.  I my eyes - it was an unnecessary subplot used to waste time.

Sounds like an interesting book.  It was originally written by Michael Connelly.  As for the movie, average at best.  Many good qualities but the inconsistencies ruin the hard work put in.

    


Directed by: Roger Mitchell
Written by:Chap Taylor, Michael Tolkin
Starring: Ben Affleck, Samuel L. Jackson, Sydney Pollock, Toni Collette, Kim Stuanton
Released: November 21, 2002
Grade: A-

By what measures do we judge ourselves? A character in Changing Lanes justifies a wrong action but saying that he does more good than harm in this world. This is just one theory and everyone has differing standards of ethics and morals to guide their actions. The judicial system defines guidelines by which we live but no situation is ever same and essentially, it all comes down to subjective judgement as to what is right and wrong.

Two men in separate vehicles have an accident on a freeway. Neither men have a scratch on them but one of the cars won’t start. Both men are running late for important meetings at the courthouse. One is a lawyer (Affleck) who has documents which must be immediately lodged – they will give his firm control over $107m worth of assets left by a late client. The other is an alcoholic father (Jackson), who must appear to fight for custody of his children.

The father asks for five minutes so they can exchange insurance details. The lawyer apologises, pulls out his briefcase and offers to write a blank cheque for any damages. The father refuses and wants to do things by the book. The lawyer now must make a decision. What’s more important – staying five minutes to exchange details or getting back in his car to get the important documents lodged on time? He chose the later. He jumps back his car whilst the father shouts at him for a lift. “Better luck next time” the lawyer replies with.

What would you do in the same situation? Where the line between right and wrong is positioned depends on who you are. Some would think the lawyer made the correct decision and some would think otherwise. His job was on the line. How was he to know the father had an equally important engagement to be at?

The father misses his hearing and loses custody of the children. The lawyer makes his appointment on time but realises he doesn’t have the lodging documents – he left them at the accident! Now the father has the documents and when the lawyer makes an effort to contact him, he knows they must be important to him. The balance of power has shifted. It’s now time for the father to make a decision – does he give the file back or not? It’s a cat and mouse game from here with control swaying back and forth between them.

This is the essence of Changing Lanes. It’s a sequence of events where characters are forced to weigh up alternatives in on-the-spot situations and make snap decisions. They often don’t know all the facts, nor have the time and patience to seek them out. Consequently, decisions they believed to be right, later become wrong. But this is what life can be all about.

When you get to the end, you’ll know a lot more about these characters. The finale may seem to wrap things up by having both parties discover the error of their ways but have they actually learnt anything? It’s open to interpretation. Such thought provoking subject material is an oddity these days so congrats to screenwriter. There are a few little anomalies in the script I’d like to look into - events that seem to extend the margin of plausibility beyond its limits. It may not be perfect, but the message still gets across.

It’s been six months since its American release but finally the distributors have found a slot in the Australian schedule for this aptly titled film. So if you are changing lanes, make sure it’s into the one that’ll get you fastest to this movie. And if you don’t see it? Well that would be a wrong decision. Wouldn’t it???