Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 30 May 2005

The message in Coach Carter is pretty blunt.  There’s no sugar-coating or subtlety whatsoever.  It’s also a message we’ve seen before.  If you’ve seen any American high-school sporting flick (e.g. Friday Night Lights), you’ll know what I mean.

Ken Carter (Jackson) came to Richmond High School in 1999 to coach the basketball team.  The previous season had been a disaster for the Richmond Oilers having won just 4 of 28 games.  On day one of practice, Carter made all his players sign a contract.  This contract required them to always be on time, attend all classes, keep an academic grade point average of 2.3 and wear a shirt and tie on game day.

This didn’t sit well with the team at first but the results soon spoke for themselves.  Richmond won their first 16 games of the 2004 season.  Unfortunately for Coach Carter, the results weren’t the same in the classroom.  Many of the team were failing at least one subject and it was time to take action.

What happened next made headlines in America and is the inspiration for this film.  Coach Carter locked the gym and refused to let the team play until their grades were back on track.  The team would forfeit two matches as a result and parents wanted Carter’s head on a platter.

Carter though, would not relent.  He was determined to have his players honour their contracts.  He wanted a winning team but more importantly, he wanted to make a difference in the lives of these boys.  He wanted to provide a future.

Coach Carter is long and predictable.  Two months ago I saw a similarly themed film (albeit about football) called Friday Night Lights.  I compared the two films and found Lights to be superior.  It has greater suspense, better direction and most importantly, more interesting characters.  This for me was the biggest flaw in Carter – I didn’t care for this cast of stereotypes.

I wonder if they’ll ever make a film which is the reverse of these inspirational sporting flicks?  What about a film where a team is on top of the ladder, has a new coach arrive, and then they slump to bottom and start taking it out on each other.  I’d pay to see that over Coach Carter.

As a footnote, I have to remark at the similarity of the performance of the Richmond Oilers versus this year’s performance of the AFL’s Richmond Tigers.  Last year’s Tigers also won just 4 matches.  Is this an omen for Richmond in 2005 who have already won 7 of 10 matches?  Probably not.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 17 May 2005

In the eyes of her daughters, Terry Wolfmeyer (Allen) was once a vibrant, happy mother.  Now, they all see her as bitter and angry.  Her husband has run off to Sweden with his secretary, her daughters have grown up and Terry seems to have nothing left in her life.

This is my very brief spin on the plot which doesn’t do it justice.  Terry is a complicated woman and for me to try to describe her thoughts and motivations so simply is not right at all.  This is what’s so great about The Upside Of Anger.  She’s a multi-dimensional character who I can’t put into my familiar group of movie stereotypes.

No finer actress deserved the roll than Joan Allen.  In my list of favourite actress released last June, I had her ranked in 8^th place on the back of roles including Nixon, Pleasantville, The Contender, The Crucible and The Ice Storm.  She hasn’t had as many roles of late but Allen is superb in Anger.  It’s a shame the film was held off for a January release in the States or else she may have earned a fourth Academy Award nomination.

With Terry’s husband out of the picture, the next-door neighbour makes his move.  Denny (Costner) is a retired baseball player who sees beyond Terry’s fuming façade and likes what he sees.  Terry acts like she wants nothing to do with him but you sense she’s enjoying the attention.  Their relationship has its fair share of twists and turns but it’s as it should be and it’s great to watch.

The other side of Terry’s life is her bond with her four daughters.  They don’t always get along but you realise it’s because they share her mother’s big-headed ideals.  You can’t be wrong in this household.  Director and writer Mike Binder has used his potent script to attract four very promising actresses to play the daughters.  There’s Erika Christensen (Traffic, Swimfan), Evan Rachel Wood (Thirteen), Keri Russell (Felicity, We Were Soldiers) and Alicia Witt (Mr Holland’s Opus, Urban Legend).  Pretty good, huh?

There’s no a lot showing in Australian cinemas at the moment but thankfully here’s one film of substance.  Ordinarily, I’d only expect to see such a quality drama during the Oscar season.  Thankfully, I don’t have to wait until next January.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 29 May 2005

Melinda & Melinda begins with four playwrights in a restaurant discussing whether the world is tragic or comic.  To settle the argument, one of the fence-sitters starts telling a story about a girl named Melinda.  The scene fades out and we rejoin our quartet at the end of the story.  Sy sees humour in the story and thinks it could be made into a great comedic screenplay.  On the other hand, Max sees tragedy in this tale and envisions an equally impressive dramatic screenplay.  And so each is then given an opportunity…

What we then have are two different stories laid out before us.  To best describe it, I can only suggest you think Sliding Doors, only better.  There are many similarities in the two stories but they each have a different cast and a different setting.  The only common link between the two is Australian actress Rhada Mitchell who plays Melinda in both versions.

In the drama, Melinda has left her husband and turns up at the front door of an old school friend, Laurel (Sevigny).  She looks a mess and Melinda tells Laurel a surprising story of how she killed a man several months ago and spent time in a mental institution.  Somewhat stunned, Laurel asks Melinda to move in with her for a short time, although this doesn’t sit well with Laurel’s husband Lee (Miller).  Laurel is then determined to find Melinda a new man – one that can help get her life back on track.

In the comedy, Melinda befriends a young married couple who live in her apartment building.  Hobie (Ferrell) is a quirky actor and Susan (Peet) is a budding film director trying to get a start in Hollywood.  Susan is dazzled by the endearing Melinda and hopes to play matchmaker.  She knows a guy who’d be perfect for Melinda.  Unfortunately, Hobie also has an interest in Melinda.  He’s smitten with her and lacking action in his own bedroom, starts the flirting process.

Woody Allen, where have you been?  Allen makes one film every year but his last two struggled at the American box-office and couldn’t find a distributor in Australia.  Instead, they went direct to video.  The last Allen film in Aussie cinemas was 2001’s The Curse Of The Jade Scorpion (which was great I might add).  He has his own style and if you aren’t a fan of previous works, there’s no point watching this.  It’s typical Allen with old-style music, sophisticated dialogue and a nutty cast.  Just what I’ve been waiting for!

I don’t think the stories are as interesting or well written as some of Woody’s other works.  His best films in recent years have been Bullets Over Broadway (1994) and Deconstructing Harry (1997).  There are a few yawns in the middle stages of Melinda & Melinda but you stick with it because you know the ending’s going to be worth it.

If you’re looking for a definitive reason though to see the film, then see it for its uniqueness.  It’s a inspired concept to mix genres within one film by telling two separate stories.  So which will you prefer – comedy or drama?

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 08 May 2005

Before getting to the film, I must say that I am very curious as to how this film will rate both with the public and with the critics.  Five years ago (to the exact weekend), Gladiator was released.  The film was lauded with praise, took $187m at the U.S. box-office and won 5 Academy Awards, including best picture!

Everything about Kingdom of Heaven makes it seem like Gladiator 2.  They have been released at the same time, been directed by the same person (Ridley Scott) and tell a medieval-like story from an age long past.  I believe the difference which will make or break the film is the lead actor.  Russell Crowe was a powerful presence in Gladiator, so much so that it won him his own Oscar.  Does the inexperienced Orlando Bloom have what it takes to pull in an audience?

Kingdom Of Heaven is set 12^th Century and tells us of a fierce battle fought for control of the city of Jerusalem.  The Christians currently command the city but there’s a rising Muslim army who has plans to attack.  Bringing religion to the big screen is fraught with danger and I’ve read a variety of reports questioning the film’s validity.  Considering that most religious groups are unhappy with how they are portrayed, I guess writer William Monahan has found a nice balance – it doesn’t favour anyone.

We meet Balian (Bloom) as a simple blacksmith who has lost his wife and daughter.  Unexpectedly, his approached by his father Godfrey (Neeson), a man he had never previously met.  A powerful man, Godfrey convinces Balian to leave his home and come with him to the city of Jerusalem.

Not long after they set out, Godfrey is fatally injured in a battle.  Before passing away, he makes a knight of Balian who somewhat reluctantly agrees to continue his father’s legacy.  He makes many influential acquaintances in Jerusalem and soon enough, he is being touted as the next king.  This isn’t a title that sits well with Balian and he gives up both his love (Green) and his shot at the throne.  Guy de Lusignan is to be the new king and his rash battle tactics will leave Jerusalem exposed.  It will be up to Balian to take charge and give his people a glimmer of hope.

The film’s finale was well shot.  This should come as no surprise as Ridley Scott (Gladiator, Black Hawk Down) sure knows how to create a great dramatic action sequence.  Unlike most battle scenes, it wasn’t repetitive and you could easily ascertain what was happening and who had the advantage.  I can’t say the same for the plot.  I’m not a history major and found it difficult to keep up with all the characters and their motives. 

Like another recent battle epic, Troy, I struggled to become emotionally involved with the story and its characters.  Bloom’s performance is admirable but he’s lacked the charisma and passion that I expected from him.  Russell Crowe did it better, much better.  Little was made of Balian’s romance with the Queen (played by French actress Eva Green of The Dreamers).  By the end of the film, the Queen had become a character they cross to every 2-3 minutes just so we can see a silent, concerned look on her face.  I shared a similar look.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 23 May 2005

I’m feeling pressure here.  When I usually write a review, people use it as guidance in deciding if a film is worth seeing (or so I think).  With Revenge Of The Sith, people are going to see it regardless.  I could give it my best rating or my worst rating – it simply won’t make a difference.  So instead of providing guidance, I’m now find myself drafting a defence.  I’ve received a barrage of emails from many who have been unhappy with my B+ grading.  Some think the film deserved better and others think it deserved worse.  This review has to be water-tight…

The Star Wars series will have a different vibe for everyone.  I wasn’t around when the first three films were released and didn’t see them for the first time until they were re-released on the big screen in 1998.  I enjoyed the films a lot but in no way can you call me a passionate fan.  I haven’t seen them since (although I got suckered into buying them on VHS not long after).  As a result of my ignorance, I’ve had no genuine expectations with the new trilogy.  I loved The Phantom Menace and to a lesser extent, Attack Of The Clones.  I saw them as fun, PG-rated action films.

Revenge Of The Sith chronicles Anakin Skywalker’s journey to the “dark side”.  The film’s exciting opening sees Anakin (Christensen) and his mentor Obi-Wan Kenobi (McGregor) in a fierce battle.  Chancellor Palpatine (McDiarmid) has been kidnapped by the wicked Count Dooku and it’s up to these two Jedi Knights to rescue him.  The mission is successful and Palpatine takes young Anakin under his wing as an “apprentice”.

The Jedi soon learn that Palpatine is not who he appears to be.  He is an evil Sith Lord who plans to use his power to eliminate the Jedi and take control of the Senate.  Palpatine sees the powerful Anakin as the key to his success and uses lies and propaganda to turn Anakin against the Jedi and his wife, Padme (Portman).  Soon enough, the galaxy is at war and the usually peaceful Jedi are battling to save their existence.

Speaking firstly of the positives, the visuals in Revenge Of The Sith are nothing short of brilliant.  I was in continual admiration of the amazingly intricate city-landscapes and the lavishly colourful sets and costumes.  It serves as the perfect backdrop for the suspenseful battle sequences that director George Lucas has crafted.  The final duel was a little over-done but in terms of quality action, you’ll see none finer this year.

If you’ve read any other reviews, my criticisms should come as no surprise – dialogue and emotion.  Why do they all speak at such an elementary level?  Why the lack of passion in their voices?  I was often cringing and thinking “I can’t believe he/she just said that”.  Just wait till you hear the stilted conversations between Akanin and Padme.  It highlights another reason why the action scenes were so good – because the characters aren’t talking!

As promised by Lucas, this is the darkest film in the Star Wars series.  Some images are quite gruesome and the M-rating in Australia is justified.  Sadly though, I just couldn’t connect with the film on an emotional level.  I didn’t care much for the fate of Anakin, Padme and Obi-Wan.  I only character I found entertaining was Yoda (voiced by Frank Oz) who has the best lines, the best sense of humour and the best technique with his light-sabre.

After much anticipation, Revenge Of The Sith has been well received by early audiences.  Some are saying that it’s on a par with The Empire Strikes Back, regarded as the best in the series.  I’m in no position to make such a call but on its individual merit, this latest film is an enjoyable two and a half hours.  Whether I have the enthusiasm to watch it again though, is debatable.