Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 14 September 2006

When you look at the people behind Nacho Libre, you should get a fair idea as to what to expect.  It has been written and directed by Jared Hess, the creator of the cult hit Napoleon Dynamite.  It stars Jack Black, the man we remember from School Of Rock and Shallow Hal.  It all adds up to an off-beat comedy that will be loved by some and loathed by others.

Nacho Libre gets its humour by creating a bizarre leading character and putting him in ridiculous scenario.  Ignacio (Black) is a friar who works at a monastery in Mexico.  He is looked down upon by the other monks and has been given the unwanted job of chef.  When you see the depressing dishes that Ignacio serves up, it’s a wonder that he’s kept the position for so long.

Ignacio has a secret however.  He has a love for wrestling.  He covertly watches the fights on television and fantasises that he might be a wrestler some day.  His dreams are about to be realised when he meets a poor young lad named Esqueleto (Jimenez) and they decide to enter a competition as a tag-team.  To disguise his identity, Ignacio wears a mask in the ring and goes by the name of Nacho.

Ignacio and Esqueleto are comprehensively flogged in all their fights but the crowd falls in love with them.  They are the ultimate underdog and they keep coming back week and week for more punishment.  Their appeal with the audience sees their share of the prizemoney increase and this creates opportunities for them both.  Ignacio can buy fresh fruit and vegetables for the orphans at the monastery.  Esqueleto can buy fashionable clothes and a hair brush.

Jack Black does his best to make the material as funny as possible.  It has its moments but the dry, sarcastic humour falls well below the level achieved in Napoleon Dynamite.  For every joke which produces a chuckle, there’s another which falls flat.  It doesn’t have the continual stream of hilarious scenes that you’d expect from a great comedy.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 02 September 2006

The Book Of Revelation will be one of the more controversial releases of 2006.  Daniel (Long) is a dancer who is kidnapped by three masked women.  They chain him to a warehouse floor and sexually abuse him for roughly two weeks.  This is graphically shown in the film and hence it’s R rating here in Australia.

The three women eventually release Daniel but the experience leaves him a changed man.  He wants to find the women who did this to him but this will prove almost impossible since he never saw their faces.  Why is it that he wants to find them?  He never reported what happened to the police.  Does he want to get revenge and see them brought to justice?  Or was he strangely turned on by the experience and wants to know more about these women?

As curiously erotic as the film sounds, I was bored from the outset.  The dialogue, particularly at the start of the film, is incredibly stiff.  When I saw this film at the Brisbane International Film Festival, director Ana Kokkinos was asked why the conversations were so short on words and her response was that she was trying to show how isolated the characters were.  Well if that’s the case, then Kokkinos has overdone it.

Another annoying element of the film is that Daniel has a girlfriend who we meet at the start of the film.  If you think you can recognise either the eyes or the voice of one of the masked women then you’re spot on - it’s the same actress who plays the girlfriend.  Couldn’t they afford another actor?  I was extremely frustrated because it gives the impression that the girlfriend is involved when in fact she’s not.

The original novel, written by Rupert Thomson in 1999, is set in Amsterdam.  Given that it’s been put together by an Australian production team, Melbourne becomes the new setting.  It’ll be interesting to see how the film is received by Aussie audiences when released this week.  The French film Irreversible was almost banned in this country because an explicit scene in which a man raped a woman.  Is this film different because of the gender reversal?  Is it easier to watch a man getting raped by a woman on screen?  If you see it with friends, it’ll certainly provide some post-movie discussions.

Kokkinos last major film was 1998’s Head On with Alex Dimitriades.  It too was controversial but the plot and its characters were more intriguing.  Tom Long deserves a pat on the back for taking on the gutsy leading role but that’s as far my admiration goes for The Book Of Revelation.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 10 September 2006

As expected, this film was awful.  I’d had enough after the 10 minute introduction which featured more special effects than actual live footage.  The special effects didn’t look any good either.  As per the closing credits, the cast included Jaime Pressly, Sarah Carter, Devon Aoki and Australia’s own Holly Valance.  Once you’ve seen the film, you’ll understand why I think their whole performances were computer generated.

Based on yet another computer game, DOA: Dead Or Alive sees 16 of the best fighters from around the globe face off in a major tournament.  It is held on a remote island and run by a man known as Donovan (Roberts).  First prize is $10m but for some strange reason, there’s no media coverage.  Surely Mr. Donovan could make plenty out of endorsements!

The three leading female competitors are Tina (Pressly), a strong wrestler, Christie (Valance), a seductive thief, and Kasumi (Aoki), a Japanese princess.  Don’t think there’s any realism to this story because the “moves” that these three women have defy belief.  My best analogy would be to call it as a cross between Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and a straight-to-video Jean-Claude Van Damme movie.

I like to give ever movie a fair chance but it’s hard to see DOA: Dead Or Alive having much appeal to anyone but fans of the computer game.  If you’re going along because you’ve seen the ads where the women are scantily clothed, think again.  There’s no nudity whatsoever.

Everyone I’ve spoken to about this movie has groaned at the mere mention of its name.  It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that there’s no substance.  I’ve seen it, confirmed that it stinks, and now that this review is complete, will never have to think of it again.  

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 26 August 2006

A few months ago, I went to a seminar where the guest speaker was Nigel Marsh.  In 2005, Marsh wrote a book called “Fat, Forty & Fired” and if you haven’t read it then I highly recommend it.  It is based on his actual life and he recounts the lessons he learned when at age 40, he was sacked from his high profile, yet stressful job.  He took a year of work and spent the time training to be a long distance swimmer, curbing his obsession with alcohol and most importantly, getting closer to his wife and four children.  I have been told that the book is being developed for film.  I wish I’d bought the rights first because it could be a great film!

Marsh’s speech was inspiring and there was something he said that I remember vividly.  He has met many rich, successful people through his job and through his public speaking tours.  What he has learned is that “rich people are no happier than you or me.”  We often think that money will make life easier but take it from a man who knows – it’s not true.

I took a similar feeling away from the aptly titled Friends With Money.  The film observes four women and the relationships they share both within their friendship group and with their loved ones.  Franny (Cusack) is incredibly wealthy, doesn’t work and lives a simple life with her husband (Germann).  Jane (McDormand) is a frazzled fashion designer who is continually critical of others and struggles to find any joy in life.  Christine (Keener) is a writer who thinks her husband (Isaacs) doesn’t show enough interest in her.  Olivia (Aniston) is the only one without money and is depressed by the thought that she doesn’t have boyfriend or a job that offers any fulfilment.

The conversations in the film are exquisite to listen to.  These four women talk about everything from manners and etiquette to love and sex.  When the film ended, I sat in my seat wishing I could I watched more.  I was interested in these characters and would have loved to have seen what ultimately became of them.  It’s not often I see a film these days where I wish it could have gone longer (especially with my short attention span).

If you’re looked for the best female actors working in Hollywood, you’d be hard pressed to find a better quartet than Catherine Keener, Frances McDormand, Joan Cusack and Jennifer Aniston.  Friends With Money is a low budget production and so you have to assume that all four actors took substantial pay cuts for the chance to work together.  They shine thanks to the work of 46-year-old writer-director, Nicole Holofcener (Lovely & Amazing).  It’s tough enough writing good, realistic dialogue for one character let alone four but Holofcener has pulled it off.

This isn’t a film with universal appeal and the notion of four well-to-do women evaluating their lives won’t be a turn on for all.  Others might wonder how these four women became friends in the first place.  It struck a cord with me however and I think many people, wealthy or not, will feel the same way.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 02 September 2006

Apparently, Silent Hill is based on a computer game.  I haven’t heard of it.  I haven’t played it.  If this film is anything to go by, then I won’t be buying the game version anytime soon.  I’d only be confused and irritated.

I’m not really sure what this film is about.  This doesn’t mean it’s cool in a Mulholland Drive kind of way.  Rather, it had we wanting to walk out of the theatre.  It begins with a mother, Rose (Mitchell), and her daughter, Sharon, driving to a ghost town called Silent Hill.  Sharon has been having bizarre hallucinations about this place and Rose thinks that visiting it for real might help cure her.

When they get there however, things start getting spooky.  The town is covered with smoke and there are strange ghostly creatures that attack them.  When they try to leave, they find the roads have been cut-off.  They are trapped and must fight for their lives.  Trying to help locate them is Rose’s husband, Christopher (Bean), but he too is up against some supernatural elements.

Well, that’s my interpretation of events.  If I’ve gotten it wrong, then they should have done a better job helping me understand.  I’m surprised to know that it was written by Roger Avary, a filmmaker I admire for his screenplays of Pulp Fiction and The Rules Of Attraction.  This is not one of his better efforts.

Australian Rhada Mitchell stars in a role that only requires her to look frightened and scream out her daughter’s name repeatedly.  At the preview screening I attended, the audience’s reaction said it all.  They laughed when they weren’t supposed to (mostly at the cheesy dialogue) and looked as equally confused as I was.  Few would have had positive words to say afterwards.

There are a few different theories about the ending on internet forums but after two hours of this nonsense, I couldn’t be bothered reading them.  Please don’t make a sequel.