Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 22 May 2006

I know a lot of people who are going to be interested in seeing this film.  Now that Dancing With The Stars has finished for another season, lovers of dance can get their “fix” with Antonio Banderas and Take The Lead.

At last year’s Brisbane International Film Festival, the audience vote for best documentary went to a film called Mad Hot Ballroom.  It showed the story of three schools in New York City who had implemented a ballroom dancing program for students in the 5^th grade.  They trained and ultimately competed against 60 other schools in a year-end competition.  It was exciting to watch.  The kids stole the show with their innocence.

Take The Lead is the fictional equivalent.  I shouldn’t call it a work of fiction because it’s based on the real life story of Pierre Dulain, a man who started a dance program for underprivileged kids.  When you see the film however, you’ll realise it the story has received a Hollywood facelift.  The dialogue is stiff, the acting is average and there are scenes which will leave you screaming “now I know that didn’t really happen.”

I’m opening myself up for criticism since I don’t know anything about the real Pierre Dulain.  Perhaps this is all true!  The film opens with Pierre (Banderas) walking into a sub-standard public school in New York City.  He’d like to help out by offering ballroom dancing lessons to some of the teenage students.  He says they’ll teach students about respect but deep down, I think he does it because he simply loves dancing wants to impart this love onto others.

Principal James (Woodard) doesn’t see any merit in Pierre’s idea so puts him in charge of after-school detention.  She bets him $5 that he won’t come back after the first day.  It takes time but Pierre finally starts winning over these students (who for some reason are always in detention).  He teaches them the dances such as the waltz and the salsa by mixing his classic music with their modern rap.

It’s very predictable but the spirit of Take The Lead did sink in during the final half hour.  It finishes with a well choreographed dance contest that looks great on screen.  It’s the feature film debut of director Liz Friedlander but she’s picked the right project given her experience with music videos.  She has directed clips by bands included Blink 182, Babyface, 3 Doors Down and Simple Plan.

So if you like the sounds of it, take two steps forward and off you go!

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: 21 May 2006

Who likes a good zombie movie?  If so, then this zombie movie is for you.  If you haven’t already gathered, I just like saying the word “zombie”.

Slither takes a humorous look at zombies in a similar vein to the 2004 English zombie comedy, Shaun Of The Dead.  It begins with a strange object falling from the sky and landing in the forest near a small town.  It looks like a meteorite but when it opens, a strange, slug-like creature is unveiled.

When a man, known as Grant Grant (Rooker), goes into the forest one evening, he is stung by this slug.  He then starts turning in a rather ugly looking slug himself.  He uses a barn in the forest to hide out and then starts an unusual breeding process with a woman he has taken hostage.

Thousands of small red slugs are then born and they go out into the nearby town in search of human life.  They go in through people’s mouths, travel up into the brain and then transform them into… mindless zombies!!!  Muhahahahaha.

The film doesn’t take itself seriously and hence why it will pride more laughs than thrills.  It’s a good approach to take and you need not be worried about excessive violence or horror.  There are a few squeamish scenes but nothing too confronting.

The film marks the feature debut of director James Gunn.  It may be his first time in the director’s seat but he’s worked as a writer for many years.  He helped pen the screenplays for Dawn Of The Dead and the two Scooby Doo movies.  Perhaps it was his work on Dawn Of The Dead which gave him the inspiration for Slither.

Zombies!

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.

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.