Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 07 August 2005

This is the worst film Will Ferrell has made.  As I can’t find a single redeeming feature, it’s well and truly earned by worst grading.

Phil Weston (Ferrell) is coaching an under 12s soccer team which includes his son, Sam (McLaughlin).  They’re known as the Tigers but you wouldn’t know it from their reputation.  Don’t ask me how but they’ve been deemed the worst team after only one just game of the season.  Phil is the new coach after his predecessor walked out and hasn’t been seen since.

Phil’s got not idea how to coach a soccer team but has a point to prove to his father, Buck (Duvall).  You see, Buck coaches the number 1 team in the competition and has always looked down upon his son.  He’s never had any belief in his son’s sporting ability nor his job as a vitamin salesman.  If you ask me, Buck’s made the right assessment in thinking his son’s a moron.

Thankfully for Phil, his father has an enemy and next door neighbour in former gridiron star Mike Ditka (playing himself).  Ditka agrees to help Phil train the team so he too can get revenge on Buck.  When they recruit two gun Italian forwards from a butchery, the team starts to gel and the wins start coming.  Lo and behold, Phil and Buck’s teams are soon facing off in the grand final.

Underdog films are usually inspiring but the development of this story doesn’t seem to make any sense?  Apart from the two Italians, the rest of the team doesn’t seem to get better at all during the matches.  How can you win with just two good players?  Phil and Mike have no idea what they’re doing so how does the team’s performance improve?  Why to the parents keep supporting him when he is so rude and disrespectful to them?  The worst subplot sees Phil become a coffee addict and harass family, friends and coffee shop staff.  What was the point of this?

Kicking & Screaming is an empty void of a film that doesn’t know what it wants to be.  It could possibly be a comedy but Phil’s over-the-top antics create sympathy for him rather than comedy.  It could possibly be a family film but Phil’s son is hardly seen and the other kids have even less screen time.  It could possibly be a sporting drama but the farcical story is more convenient than believable.

After 40 minutes, my attention span was gone.  I resorted to checking my mobile phone for the latest cricket updates in the 2^nd test between Australia and England.  When I left the theatre, the Aussies still needed 30 runs to win and I was racing back to the car to listen to the radio broadcast.  An awesome comeback by the Aussies but I’m shattered to see them fall two runs short.  Now that’s entertainment!

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 31 July 2005

It’s hard to believe a film starring Dennis Quaid and Miranda Otto could feature in my list of the worst 10 films of the year.  As talented as they are however, they stood no chance of rescuing this film.  The dreadful screenplay makes all the cast look second-rate.

The strange thing is that I usually like the work of writers Scott Frank and Edward Burns.  Frank’s credits include The Interpreter, Out Of Sight and Get Shorty.  Burns’s credits include Sidewalks In New York and The Brothers McMullen.  As life teaches us all, people make mistakes and deserve to be forgiven.  So I won’t hold it against either Frank or Burns - this clichéd effort is the exception rather than the rule.

The story begins in Mongolia with pilots Frank (Quaid) and A.J. (Tyrese) coming to collect a group of oil speculators who have had their funding pulled after producing no result.  They don’t want to abandon their hard work but there’s no choice, the orders have come straight from the top.  Off they set but near the Mongolia-China border, they encounter a savage dust storm and crash into the desert.  Two are killed.

Frank estimates its roughly 200 kilometres to the nearest civilisation and there’s no way that one could travel that distance under the hot sun.  His idea is conserve food and water (they have roughly a month’s supply) and wait to be rescued.  I took would think they’d be rescued.  It makes sense doesn’t it?  Surely these people have families back home who would be lobbying someone to go find them?  For some reason though, Frank thinks they only have a 5% chance of being rescued.

Presented with these dismal odds, the other survivors want a better alternative.  Lo and behold, there’s some weirdo on the plane named Elliot (Ribisi) who thinks he has the answer.  No one knows anything about him but he arrived out of nowhere at the isolated oil fields and was working with them for a few weeks.  Strange security, I guess?  Anyway, it just so happens that Elliot is also an aircraft engineer.  He believes that with the parts left from the broken airplane, they can build a new one which will fly them all to safety.

If you can believe this, then you’ll spend the next hour watching them do so.  My biggest frustration was how overly dramatic it was.  It’s as if the writers are creating drama just for the hell of it.  Just when you think something else can’t go wrong, they throw some new far-fetched twist into the mix.

The film was consistently bad but the final 4 minutes was truly horrendous.  After spending weeks in the dessert, I find it too convenient that a group of Chinese nomads just happens to attack them the split second that they are about to fly away on their “contraption”.  While we’re at it, can people really ride on the wings?

After a strangely abrupt final scene in which we don’t even see them land successfully, the closing credits show us snap shots of our happy bunch enjoying the rest of their lives.  Apologies for the spoilers but if you feel the way I did, you will have walked out well before this point.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 01 August 2005

I have a friend who’s holidaying in New York and just yesterday bumped into Leonardo DiCaprio at a grocery store.  I suppose if you walk the streets of New York or Los Angeles, you’re sure to run into the royalty which makes up the American film industry.

Here in Brisbane, Australia, you’d be hard pressed to run into any celebrity of note.  However, every few years, a major production comes to town.  They usually shoot at Warner Bros’ Movie World on the Gold Coast and recent examples have included The Phantom and Scooby-Doo. 

House Of Wax is the latest blockbuster to be filmed here in Brisbane and I can remember all the hoopla when Paris Hilton and company came to town last year to commence filming.  I hope they had a good time because you probably won’t when watching their work on screen.

It’s another teen slasher thriller which unites some rising actors and becomes a guessing game to see who will live and who will die.  There are six in all and they’re driving across country before camping out for the night in an isolate area off the main road.  They hear noises in the night and when they awake, the car’s fanbelt has been cut.  They ain’t going anywhere.

Stumbling into the nearest town for help, they come across a rundown wax museum.  This is just the start of a spooky night which leaves them screaming, and screaming and screaming for help.  Someone’s out to kill them and in doing so, create 6 new sculptures for the House Of Wax.

Elisha Cuthbert from The Girl Next Door and Chad Michael Murray from A Cinderella Story are your two leading stars.  Much as has been made of her appearance in the film, but Paris Hilton’s role is quite small.  Her acting is a bit wooden but I admire her sense of humour in going along with a script which sees her being videotaped by a friend making out with someone and being attacked whilst wearing revealing lingerie.

It takes a long time to get going and way too much time is wasted introducing the actors but the big finale is worth hanging around for.  The sticky wax was a cool effect and it must have been a fun scene to shoot.  This makes it the perfect film to skip at the cinemas and try to pick up on video.  Let us praise technology and the magical fast-forward button.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 25 July 2005

Being a film critic is not my full-time job.  When you’ve had a long week, it’s hard to find the time and the creative energy to write a decent review.  For great films, I usually find the inspiration but for average films, it’s not as easy.  I usually ramble on for a few paragraphs, throw in a few negative comments and then fail to look for spelling and grammatical errors.

Monster-In-Law would usually be one of these films but since I’ve been on holidays in London for two weeks, I find myself refreshed and willing to give the film the full critique it deserves.

The story marks the comeback of two-time Academy Award winning actress Jane Fonda (Barbarella, Klute, Coming Home).  Having not appeared in a film since 1990, Fonda plays the clichéd mother-in-law from hell, Viola Fields.  Viola is very controlling of her son, Kevin (Vartan), and when he arrives on her doorstep and proposes to his girlfriend, Viola realises she will no longer be the top woman in Kevin’s life.  Playing Charlotte, Jennifer Lopez is this bride-to-be.  Charlotte (aka Charlie) is in for the fight for her life against Viola who is determined to find her flaws and end the engagement before it’s too late.

I know this will sound disrespectful but why does J-Lo continue with these weak, simplistic characters?  She is a fairly big name in Hollywood and I don’t understand why she doesn’t try for juicier and more interesting roles.  Since 2001, she has worn out the romantic comedy genre with credits including Shall We Dance, Jersey Girl, Gigli, Maid In Manhattan and The Wedding Planner.  It’s not that she’s a bad actress but she has the same persona is every one of these films.  Why can’t we see the edgier Jennifer Lopez we all remember from 1998’s Out Of Sight?

On the whole, the acting is ordinary but they have been dragged down by a disappointing first-time screenplay from Anya Kochoff.  The film is cute enough to begin with but then it turns silly and nasty in the middle stages.  I came to dislike both Viola and Charlie and this isn’t how it should be.  Charlie gives Viola sleeping tablets and leaves her sleep face down in a pile of tripe.  Viola puts nuts in Charlie’s gravy knowing full well she’s allergic to them.  These physical acts are completely out-of-character and turn the film into a borderline farce.  It was much more entertaining when Viola and Charlie battled with words.

By the way, what’s with Viola’s assistant, Ruby (Sykes)?  Is she on the payroll?  Does she live in the house?  She keeps appearing and helps Viola with her evil doings but I don’t know why considering she’s always disagrees.  Why doesn’t she tell Viola she’s a bitch and walk out?  In cinematic terms, she’s your standard goofy side-kick.  She has some good one-liners but they really needed to make Ruby more believable.

The ultimate cop-out comes in the finale which we know is coming.  Considering that 90 minutes is spent illustrating the massive hatred between Viola and Charlie, it’s upsetting to have it all resolved and wrapped-up in about 4 minutes.  Surely there could have been a more inventive or comedic way to do this?

Monster-In-Law marks the third film from Australian-born director Robert Luketic (Legally Blonde, Win A Date With Tad Hamilton!).  At the age of just 32, I applaud his ability to find the finance to fund three major Hollywood films.  That unfortunately that’s as far as my admiration will stretch.  There’s a few laughs amongst the mayhem but I dare say that the finished product is not the great comeback that Jane Fonda envisioned.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 01 August 2005

The Brisbane International Film Festival (BIFF) is underway and it always makes the regular releases seem more monotonous.  In the past week at BIFF, I’ve seen a funny film about a sex addict, a compelling film about suicide bombers, and a confronting film about child abuse.  It’s kind of hard to step back and review a film with the same repetitive action and ludicrous storylines that we’ve come to grow and love/hate from Hollywood.

It’s the mid 21^st Century and the majority of the planet has been destroyed due to a contamination.  Only a few hundred people have survived and they reside in a large facility which borders the ocean.  Each day, a lottery is held in which one resident is selected to go to the island, the last remaining place on earth which hasn’t been contaminated.  It’s what gives them all hope.

Lincoln Six Echo (McGregor) and Jordan Two Delta (Johansson) believe that’s something not right.  Snooping around with curiosity, Lincoln soon learns that there is no island.  In fact, everything they’ve ever believed in has been a lie.

You see, they’re not real.  They’re genetically created copies of real people on Earth.  They have been created so that if the real person needs new body parts, these “copies” can be used for replacements.  This of course is highly illegal and it’s up to a scientist named Merrick (Bean) to keep it all hush-hush.  Those that have paid millions of dollars for the service, don’t realise how Merrick is doing what he’s doing.

When Lincoln Six Echo and Jordan Two Delta escape however, Merrick’s billion dollar enterprise is at stake.  Well recommended, he hires Albert Laurent (Hounsou) to track them down and kill them before they attract attention and expose the facility for what it is.

To be honest, it’s all rather long and tedious.  We have a rough idea how it will end and so to sit through 136 minutes of mild thrills and unbelievable chase sequences isn’t exactly my idea of a good time.  The sets and costumes give it a cool, futuristic look but this will only carry a film so far.  I’ve love to get out the scissors and try to trim at least 30 minutes for the better.

The film has been a spectacular box-office failure in the United States, which despite my own personal negativity towards it, comes as a surprise.  The director, Michael Bay, is the king of big-budget action have made Bad Boys, The Rock, Armageddon, Bad Boys 2 and Pearl Harbor.  It’s now been 10 years since the original Bad Boys and I don’t think the action genre has come very far in this time.  We’re relying too much on fast editing and special effects to create tension.  It’s only my personal opinion but I believe the public wants something different and are making their voices heard through ticket sales.