Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 18 May 2006

The cinematic version of The Da Vinci Code will be huge.  It opened the prestigious Cannes Film Festival and is being released in almost every country on the same weekend.  The film has been withheld from critics so that no early reviews can dampen the anticipation.

I finally got the chance to see the film on the night before its Australian release.  Funnily enough, the reel caught on fire at the two hour mark.  It took 25 minutes for the projectionist to fix the problem and restart the film.  Since there are some religious groups who don’t want this film seen, I can’t help but think this event was the result of some “divine intervention”.

The Da Vinci Code is one of the most widely read books of the modern era.  First released in 2003, Dan Brown’s novel has grabbed the attention of almost everyone.  Those people expecting the movie to be equally captivating will be frustrated by what they see on screen.  Let’s face facts.  You simply can’t take a detailed novel and condense it into two and a half hours.

This leads to what is an obvious criticism and that is that the movie feels condensed.  Certain parts of the story are left out and others are underdeveloped.  Bishop Aringarosa’s plan and the motivations of Opus Dei were not made clear.  Flashbacks are included to help us understand the history behind the story but they lack the interesting detail of Brown’s novel.

If you’re one of the few who hasn’t read the book, The Da Vinci Code begins at the Louvre art gallery in Paris.  Its curator, Jacques Sauniere, has been killed.  Before dying however, Sauniere left a series of symbolic clues which have confused police detective Bezu Fache (Reno).  He has asked for Robert Langdon (Hanks), a professor of religious symbology, to be called to the scene.

Langdon quickly realises that Fache isn’t after his advice.  Before dying, Sauniere wrote the name “Robert Langdon” on the floor and Fache believes that Langdon is the killer.  With the help of new friend Sophie Neveu (Tautou), Landgon flees the scene and begins a quest to clear his name.  Together, they start piecing together Sauniere’s clues to see where it will lead.  With the entire French police force looking for them though, time is running out…

When I read the book, I was fascinated by its discussions of religious symbology.  It was also great reading the discussions between Langdon and Neveu as they tried to interpret the clues and break the codes along the way.  In the film, there isn’t enough time devoted to these areas.  The riddles are solved too easily.

The highlight of the film is the appearance of Ian McKellan as Sir Leigh Teabing, a fellow historian.  McKellan has the best lines and his spirited personality has Tom Hanks and Audrey Tautou looking like emotionless cardboard cut-outs.  Jeno Reno is also good with his famous French accent but is given very little screen time.

The Da Vinci Code will be remembered more fondly as a novel than a movie.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 04 May 2006

On 18 September 2004, Dave Chappelle threw a street party in Brooklyn.  He invited some prominent African American artists to perform and gave tickets to people in the area and from his home in Ohio.  Both the lead-up and the concert itself were filmed a documentary crew led by director Michel Gondry and cinematographer Ellen Kuras.  Dave Chappelle’s Block Party is the end result.

For those who don’t know Dave Chappelle, he’s a 33-year-old comedian who got his start in the entertainment industry with small acting roles in films such as The Nutty Professor, Con Air and You’ve Got Mail.  His notoriety rocketed in 2003 when he started a television show on Comedy Central (seen here in Australia on the Comedy Channel) called Chappelle’s Show.  It’s a sketch show often filled with controversial jokes about the cultural differences in society.

I’m not sure what Chappelle’s motivation for making this film is but I’ll speculate and suggest that he just wanted to throw a big party.  The performers include Kanye West, Mos Def, Talib Kweli, Common, Dead Prez, Erykah Badu, Jill Scott, The Roots, Cody ChesnuTT, Big Daddy Kane, and The Fugees.  These names mean little to me but I’m sure they’ll gain the attention of some who will now think this is a must see film.

Considering that the music wasn’t a great attraction to me, I was hoping that a few laughs from Dave Chappelle would make the film worthwhile.  The comedy isn’t too bad but you wouldn’t call it outstanding.  The skits on Chappelle’s television show are funnier than what’s on offer here.

The most curious aspect of the film is that it has been directed by Michel Gondry, the same man who directed Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind (my favourite film of 2004).   This is Gondry’s first film since Eternal Sunshine and I’m surprised by his choice to shoot a documentary.  Based on his previous films and music videos, I believe Gondry is one of the world’s most talented and original filmmakers.  The documentary style doesn’t give him the chance to showcase his creativity.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 14 May 2006

Some silly films are funny.  I speak of movies such as There’s Something About Mary, American Pie and Happy Gilmore.  Some silly films are not funny.  The Benchwarmers is one of them.

Here’s the story.  A lawnmower named Gus (Schneider) sees three young kids being bullied at a local baseball field.  The bullies are part of a baseball team who want to kick these “nerds” off so that they can practice.  Helping stand up for the minority, Gus proposes a challenge.  He and his two friends, Richie (Spade) and Clark (Heder), will play them in a match.  The winner has the right to the field.  Richie and Clark have no idea what they’re doing but with Gus’s baseball experience, they win the game.

Hearing the story is a multi-millionaire named Mel (Lovitz).  As a child, he was bullied and he’s finding that his son is receiving a similar treatment.  Mel proposes that a full tournament should be held.  Gus, Richie and Clark will be known as the Benchwarmers and will take on every little league team in the district.  The winner will have a brand new stadium built for them.  Lo and behold, the Benchwarmers develop a huge following.  The downtrodden now have someone to root for. 

It’s a ridiculous plot which should not be taken seriously.  It has been made by Happy Madison Productions, the same production company which brought us Deuce Bigalow, The Longest Yard, Dickie Roberts, 50 First Dates, Anger Management, The Hot Chick, The Master Of Disguise, Mr Deeds, Joe Dirt and The Animal.

I have deliberately mentioned those ten films because you need to know that I gave each a grading of C+ or lower.  I know there are a number of people who liked some of the above films.  If you did, then you might enjoy The Benchwarmers.  I didn’t however and have no intention of recommending this.  If I ranked the Happy Madison films in my order of preference, I’d have The Benchwarmers close to the bottom.  It’s worse than I expected.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 03 May 2006

To date, we’ve seen Ethan Hunt (Cruise) survive two impossible missions.  Now, he’s ready for a third.  If he continues at this rate, I’ll be wondering if there even is such a thing as an “impossible mission”.

I speak jokingly of course.  When I thought about the film afterwards, I realised that it’s the insanely crazy situations that Tom Cruise manages to extricate himself from that gives it such appeal.  In Mission: Impossible 3, he dodges missiles from a fighter jet, jumps off a high-rise building and is electrocuted by live wires.  It won’t win awards for realism but there were certain scenes (the high-rise jump in particular) that gave me a genuine adrenalin rush.

The villain in this instalment is played by Academy Award winning actor Philip Seymour Hoffman (Capote).  He plays Owen Davian, a wealthy arms dealer with friends in the Middle East.  Davian’s illegal activities have attracted the attention of the Impossible Missions Force who want evidence against this slippery individual so that he can be bought to justice.

Hunt and his team (including Ving Rhames and Jonathan Rhys Meyers) have a range of gadgets at their disposal that would make James Bond jealous.  They go too far in my opinion and the best example is the “face making” machine used early in the film.  When speaking of dramatic action flicks, I see the Bourne Identity series as much more appealing.  The bad people are brought to justice with intelligent thinking rather than ridiculous gizmos.

My other gripe with the film is how serious it takes itself.  There’s no reality in the plot so I thought the writers would have taken the chance to throw in more humorous moments.  Not that I want to compare the film to the James Bond series (which has its own weaknesses), but at least Bond has a sense of humour.  The Ethan Hunt character is too full-on for my liking but I confess this is a matter of taste and others will feel differently.

Mission: Impossible 3 is the first major film directed by J.J. Abrams, the man who directed the first two episodes of the Lost television series.  He has also written a few screenplays including Joy Ride, Forever Young and Armageddon.  It’s a superb debut for Abrams who has made the most of a $150m budget.  It looks awesome on the big screen and credit also must go to stylish cinematographer Daniel Mindel (The Bourne Identity, Domino).

No member of the cast stands out but neither do any let the film down.  Cruise is his usual self and whilst I haven’t liked him in many of his recent films, his passionate personality suits the role.  Hoffman has a fun time as the villain but doesn’t have as much screen time or dialogue as I anticipated.  His character is very much underdeveloped.

Mission: Impossible 3 is easily the best film in the series to date.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 13 May 2006

Sports betting is big business.  For some people, it’s the only reason they watch sport.  Two For The Money is a film which looks at the crazy world of football betting in the United States.

Brandon Lang (McConaughey) was once a footballer with professional aspirations.  That was until a crippling knee industry ended his short career.  Needing to find a job to care for his brother and mother, Brandon found work at a dial-up gambling service.  Gamblers would call up, pay a small fee, and get Brandon’s “exclusive” tips.

After a few rounds, Brandon’s advice was become more and more popular.  He was picking 80% of all winners but still making just $12 an hour.  That would change with a single phone call from Walter Abrams (Pacino).  Walter runs a huge tipping service in Manhattan which has a large sales team.  Customers call up and get the week’s football picks.  If they lose, they owe nothing.  If they win, they have to hand over a small percentage of their winnings.  As they tell their customers – you’re not handing over your money but rather the bookies money!

Walter employs Brandon and starts grooming him to be his protégé.  He changes Brandon’s name to John Anthony, buys him a new wardrobe and starts including him on his cable television show.  Brandon returns the favour for Water by simply picking winners.  As word spreads of this incredible tipster, Walter’s business takes off and the money starts rolling in.

Can you guess what happens next?  It doesn’t take an expert to figure it out and the film pans out in very predictable fashion.  If there is one surprise, it’s that the film isn’t very critical of the gambling industry.  It glazes over the problems associated with gambling and at times, I thought it promoted it.  How is it that a single tipster can have a success rate far superior to his competitors without any real inside information?  I didn’t buy it.

My other gripes with Two For The Money are its length and what it focuses on.  The film goes for just over two hours and many scenes are too long.  We didn’t need the long, drawn-out football matches at the end of the film where it feels like every touchdown in every film is shown.  The time would be better spent elsewhere.  For example, Brandon has a one-night stand with a girl named Alexandria (King) in a quick and strange sub-plot.  Why was this developed more?  Brandon gets a phone call from his estranged father at one point and yet this is never mentioned again.  Why was it even included?

My personal tip is that you should give this film a miss.  That advice is free of charge.