Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 06 April 2006

Al (Bradshaw) and Sue (Bates) want their son Tripp (McConaughey) out of the house.  He’s lived at home for over thirty years and they think it’s about time he found a place of his own.  Personally, I don’t know why they don’t just ask him to leave or simply kick him out?  Instead, they hire an interventionist named Paula (Parker) to persuade him.  She can’t have been cheap!

Paula’s plan is to simulate a relationship with Tripp.  This will give him self-confidence and will hopefully create a desire to move out and become more independent.  Paula admits that she has been successful with this technique many times before so I’d like to ask, what happened to the other guys?  Did she go out with them, lead them along, get them to move out, and then dump them for some made-up reason?  It’s awfully strange if you ask me.

Anyway, Tripp is going to prove a lot more challenging than Paula thought.  Firstly, he has a fear of commitment.  The idea of steady girlfriend (as opposed to a series of one night stands) is something he isn’t interested in.  Secondly and most importantly, Paula starts falling for Tripp and as the rule goes, you should never mix business and pleasure.

As you pay have picked up from my cynicism, there are a hundred things wrong with this premise.  If you stand back and look at the story from a distance, it doesn’t make much sense.  It is all structured around the predictable “boy gets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl” formula.  Lovers of romantic comedies with disagree with my misgivings but I don’t care.  Surely they could have written a more believable tale?

The casting of Matthew McConaughey reminded me of his turn in the 2003 romantic comedy, How To Lose A Guy In 10 Days.  I was critical of that film too but I had many friends who disagreed and enjoyed the silliness of the story.

Failure To Launch isn’t as bad and I believe it’s due to the casting of Sarah Jessica Parker.  She’s good along McConaughey but she’s even better alongside Zooey Deschanel, who plays her sarcastic roommate in the movie.  This is the second time I’ve praised Parker this year (after The Family Stone) and it’s reaffirming my belief that she’s one of the best actresses of the moment.

I’ve seen worse but I’ve also seen many which are much better.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 29 March 2006

The Weather Man isn’t anywhere near as good but there are traits which reminded me of American Beauty.  It’s the story of a family where everything looks peachy but in reality, it’s the exact opposite.

David Spritz (Cage) is the weather man who works at a Chicago news network.  He doesn’t have a degree in meteorology but it’s never proved a hindrance.  He just reads what’s on the auto-cue and lets his excitable personality appeal to the viewers.  His enthusiasm is limited strictly to when in front of the camera.  For every other minute of his life, he’s a neurotic depressant who seldom shows his emotions.

David number one goal appears to be reconciling with his ex-wife, Noreen (Davis).  She has moved on and found a new boyfriend but David cannot comprehend this and still thinks he has a chance.  Trapped in between is their teenage son, Mike (Hoult), who is being seduced by his male guidance counsellor, and their younger daughter, Shelly (Pena), who is over-weight and gets teased at school for wearing inappropriate clothing.  Are you getting the picture as to how messed up this scenario is?

The film’s quirkiness is a positive attribute.  This isn’t a standard drama and there are moments which will catch you off guard.  Events happen which are unexpected and characters blurt out profanities at the most unlikely times.  Writer Steve Conrad and director Gore Verbinski (Pirates Of The Caribbean) deserve credit for taking a gamble on something off-beat.

Sadly, The Weather Man doesn’t eventuate into much.  The opening attracted my interest but the film lost its adventurousness in the later stages.  It panned out as expected and didn’t offer much in the way of a satisfactory resolution.  What was the point of it all?

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 05 April 2006

The setting is London in the not to distant future.  Terror has spread around the globe.  After a civil war broke out in the United States, the citizens of the UK elected a conservative government to keep them and their country safe.  Under the leadership of Prime Minister Adam Sutler (Hurt), this government has become somewhat of a dictatorship.  They have maintained their power by instilling fear in the population.  Those who don’t fit the mould of an ideal citizen are taken from their homes and never seen again.

On the 5^th of November, a masked man seizes control of a television studio and broadcasts a message to the world.  He identifies himself simply as V (Weaving).  He promises to blow-up the Palace of Westminster, home to the UK parliament, in exactly one year’s time.

This may sound like the threat of a terrorist but there’s something different about the mysterious V.  As the police investigate, they uncover ties to a secret government experiment at a psychiatric facility in Lockwood.  All records relating to the experiment have been destroyed and Detective Finch (Rea) is struggling to work out the connection with V’s actions.

Inadvertently drawn into V’s plans is a young officer worker named Evey (Portman).  The pair met by chance and became unlikely friends.  Evey’s parents were killed by the government when she as a child and her life has been one of adversity ever since.  She understands the mastery of V’s plan and realises that his threats are only part of a scheme and a story which goes much deeper…

The film’s subject matter is sure to attract controversy.  Written by the creators of The Matrix Trilogy, V For Vendetta will raise eyebrows in the way it seemingly promotes terrorism.  Some will find it distasteful but if you’re prepared to open up to it, the film has a lot to say about fear and its role in society today.  It scrutinises the power of governments and the media and puts them face-to-face with the power of the people.

Australian Hugo Weaving stars in what is a very unusual role.  You never get to see his face (only the mask) and his powerful presence is created simply by his slow-talking voice and his body language.  I believe the film achieves so much more by keeping the identity of this character hidden.  You aren’t judging him by his appearance but rather on what he has to say.

Natalie Portman is also superb in a performance which required her to shave her entire head.  You actually get to see this scene in the film as it happened (no special effects required).  It shows the courage that Portman has above other actress who wouldn’t dare approach such a role.

There are a few elements to the story that don’t work but on the whole, this is a great film with strong political views.  It reminded me very much of Fight Club (the 1999 flick with Brad Pitt and Edward Norton) and I’ll guarantee that few films this year will give you as much to think about.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 19 March 2006

Proof stars Gwyneth Paltrow and has been made by John Madden, the director of Shakespeare In Love.  That sentence alone will be a turn off for many and I admit to having my doubts.  Yet, here I am trying to justify why it deserves an A grading and is one of the best films so far this year.

Robert (Hopkins) was a brilliant mathematician who wrote many famous proofs and taught for many years at a prominent Chicago university.  In his later years however, he was anything but brilliant.  He developed a mental disorder and was unable to care for himself, let alone teach others.

Robert’s death will serve as a turning point for his daughter, Catherine (Paltrow).  Catherine had hoped to follow in his father’s footsteps by studying mathematics but was forced to drop out of college to care for him.  Now that he has passed away, Catherine does not know how to return to the life she left behind.  She has been living in isolation with Robert for so long, that she has no job and no friends.  Worst of all, Catherine has a sense that something is amiss with her own mind.  Is her father’s mental condition hereditary?  Her increasing worries see her slip into a world of depression.

Two people with questionable intentions will then enter Catherine’s life.  The first is her sister, Claire (Davis), with whom she has never gotten along well with.  Claire now lives in New York and is trying to encourage Catherine to move there so she can sell Robert’s house and claim half of the inheritance.  The second is a college student named Hal (Gyllenhaal) who was a long-time fan of Robert.  Hal wants to sift through Robert’s final journals to see if he left behind any decipherable proof he can claim discovery for.

That’s as far as I’ll go in describing a film which tells a great story.  I would expect no less given that it’s based on a play written by David Auburn which won the Pulitzer Prize for drama and the Tony Award for best play in 2001.  I see the attraction for director John Madden who brings Auburn’s story to the bigger screen with precision.  These characters are extremely complex and we understand a little bit more with each passing minute. 

For Gwyneth Paltrow, it’s her best role since Shakespeare In Love and this should come as no surprise given she starred in the play when it featured on London’s West End.  Jake Gyllenhaal gives a performance equal to that seen in Brokeback Mountain and Jarhead and it caps off what has been an incredible year.  The most notable cast member is my humble opinion was Hope Davis as Catherine’s sister.  Seemingly destined to always be a supporting actress, Davis is very much underappreciated.

There are people who can guess my gradings with close precision.  They know my likes and dislikes all too well.  I have no problem with this but once in a while, a film does come along which unexpectedly surprises.  It’s why I like to see every movie.  You may have a strong hunch but it’s always risky to judge a book by its cover.  This film is “proof” of that.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 29 March 2006

Plenty of movies have been made about bank robberies and they have been told from differing perspectives.  A friend asked me before this movie about whether real bank robberies actually happen the way they do in the movies.  Are they usually that planned and precise?  Do they usually have expert police officers and detectives working the case?  The answer is probably no but few people seem to care.  These films may not be realistic but they’re damn fun to watch.

I love movies with intrigue and Inside Man delivers just that.  It begins with a man named Dalton Russell (Owen) telling the audience that he has committed the perfect bank robbery.  I was sceptical but certainly interested.  How did he pull it off and was it really a “perfect” robbery?  We are then treated to a visual retelling of the event…

Dalton and his team walk into the bank and set the wheels in motion.  They lock it down, take the people inside as hostages and then head to the main vault.  Meanwhile, Detective Keith Frazier (Washington) has been called in as the negotiator to work alongside Officer John Darius (Dafoe).  Frazier immediately senses something is different about this crime.  It appears to be very well planned and is clearly the work of professionals.  He can’t figure out their next move and this increases his worries that the situation and the lives of the hostages will get away from him.

Complicating things for Frazier is a mysterious woman named Madeline White (Foster) who has been hired by the bank’s owner (Plummer) to “protect his interests”.  There is something in the bank he doesn’t want discovered and he wants Madeline to keep a close eye on the escalating situation.

The pieces of the puzzle are slowly put together in a craftily written screenplay from newcomer Russell Gewirtz.  There is plenty of mystery and I’ll confess to picking the ending about two thirds of the way through.  I’m usually terrible at solving crime thrillers so I’m giving myself a pat of the back.  I think part of the reason I cracked the case is because it has been so well written.  There isn’t a farcical ending which is impossible for any sane person to pick.  The clues are there and it’s up to you to find them.  My only criticism is the final scene in the movie which I deemed unnecessarily.  The tale has been wrapped up a little too neatly and I would have preferred a few questions go unanswered.

The cast is one of the best of the year and all have a strong presence.  It’s great to see some acting outside their usual range.  We see Willem Dafoe playing a good guy and Jodie Foster playing a not-so-nice girl.  These attributes help differentiate the film from others in the genre.

Inside Man is the most commercial film we’ve seen from director Spike Lee (25^th Hour, Summer Of Sam, Do The Right Thing) is many years.  It’s also one of his best and I’m pretty confident you will think so too.