Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 28 October 2005

Be careful because the title can be misleading.  Released just a few days before Halloween, I was expecting some “scare the pants off you” horror flick in a similar vein to The Exorcist.  Instead, I got a legal drama and seeing Laura Linney again as a lawyer had me thinking back to the excellent Primal Fear.

Based on a true story, Father Moore (Wilkinson) finds himself being charged with negligent homicide.  Told by way of flashbacks, we learn how Father Moore came to be in this position.  The family of young college student named Emily Rose had come to him as a last resort.  Once a vibrant, happy girl, Emily now experiences continual hallucinations and epileptic-like seizures.  Doctors have been unable to help her and so the Rose family have gone in search of a “spiritual” answer.

Father Moore didn’t believe in the supernatural but that quickly changed on meeting Emily Rose.  After seeing her condition and the way she spoke, he believed she had been possessed by a satanic demon.  An exorcism was attempted without success and not long after, Emily died of self-inflicted injuries and malnutrition.  Non-believers see her death as a direct result of Father Moore’s “treatment” and hence he finds himself before a judge and jury.

I’m not sure how I stand on the subject matter but I like courtroom setting and I enjoyed seeing this story unfold.  Emily’s story is compelling and I’m sure many people who see it, will ask themselves the question as to whether they believe in ghosts, demons and other supernatural phenomena.  What also keeps the film interesting are the lingering questions about Father Moore – is he telling the full story and will he be found guilty?

Laura Linney plays Erin Bruner, a gun defence attorney who initially took on the case to improve her public image.  As the trial progresses though, she finds herself increasingly caught up with the emotion of the case and it becomes her own personal battle to find the truth and seek justice.  Linney is my favourite actress of the moment and she rarely turns in a bad performance.  If I’m ever on trial for murder, I’d be extremely tempted to hire her – she’s a very convincing lawyer!

The film has its weaknesses however and I do question the obvious one-sidedness to the story.  There’s an obvious message here at that is that we need to believe what happened to Emily is true.  You get the feeling the screenwriters have overused their cosmetic brush and that the real story wasn’t as straight forward.  The prosecuting lawyer, played by Campbell Scott, is an unlikeable character and is always making stupid remarks.  When you put him alongside Laura Linney, you know who people will be cheering for.

Another query I had was how this case came to be in the first place?  Emily’s family, who for some strange reason we don’t hear much from, appear to support Father Moore.  Who had the unequivocal evidence in the first place that Moore was guilty?  The mystery of Emily Rose continues…

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 16 October 2005

If you’ve read by reviews of The Corporation, Bowling For Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11, it should come as no surprise that I liked this documentary.  There is an incredible amount of corporate corruption in this world and Enron: The Smartest Guys In The Room helps get this message out to an unknowing public.  There were audience members gasping at my screening which says enough about how surprising some of this material is.

Started 20 years ago, Enron grew into one of the largest corporations in America.  It operated power plants and natural gas pipelines and considered itself the world’s leading energy innovators.  At the top of the corporate ladder was Ken Lay, the Chairman and Jeffrey Skilling, the CEO.  There were over 30,000 employees an Enron but the finger is firmly pointed at these two individuals in this film.

The most amazing thing I took away from the documentary is how easily a culture of dishonesty and fraud can spread.  The Board at Enron was only interested in their share price and would do anything to ensure it stayed above expectations.  Their influence spread well outside the firm itself.  Almost all stock analysts had “buy” recommendations, glowing articles were printed in newspapers and business magazines and the government helped it secure huge business deals.

Incredibly though, the company wasn’t making any money.  The only reason the company was showing a profit was because billions in fictitious future profits were being booked.  As it continue to chew up its cash resources, cracks started to appear and in late 2001, things had spiralled beyond the point of repair.  The company filed for bankruptcy, all employees lost their jobs, many employees lost their retirement benefits and all shareholders were left with nothing.

Despite the collapse, top executives, including Ken Lay and Jeffrey Skilling, managed to profit from the sale of millions of dollars worth of shares.  Others received huge bonuses for jobs which brought huge losses to the company.  This truly was the greatest fraud in the history of corporate America.

I thought there was an overuse of metaphors and some of the footage and language used was a bit clichéd but the message gets through and that’s what seeing this film is all about.  What is says about power and greed cannot be disputed.  I work as an accountant myself and the effects that Enron collapse has had on the business world have been very significant.  It results in the closure of America’s oldest accountant firm, Arthur Anderson, who acted as Enron’s auditors.

With some great interviews and a wealth of archival video footage, Enron: The Smartest Guys In The Room is compelling, fascinating and startling.  It’ll leave you with plenty to talk about.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 19 October 2005

I’ll never forget the moment when Emma Thompson won an Oscar back in 1997 for her adapted screenplay of Jane Austen’s Sense & Sensibility (a long time favourite of mine).  She thanked the producer of the film, Sydney Pollack, “for asking all the right questions – like, why couldn’t these women go out and get a job?”  For those familiar with the world of Jane Austen, you have to laugh at Pollack’s perspective.

Pride & Prejudice introduces us to Mr & Mrs Bennett (played by Donald Sutherland and Brenda Blethyn) and their five daughters.  Unfortunately for the Bennett sisters, they’ve been born into an era where the word “career” has no meaning.  Their purpose is to find the best, mostly wealthy bachelor available and never let go.  There was nothing more important than one’s reputation and social standing in 19^th Century England.

It is at a ball when the second eldest daughter, Elizabeth (Knightley) first catches a glimpse of a bored looking gentleman named Mr. Darcy (MacFadyen).  Inquiring about him, Lizzy is told that “miserable he may be, but poor he most certainly is not”.  The two exchange glances, some quick banter but Lizzy is unable coax him onto the dancefloor.  His cards are being kept very close to his chest.

Their introduction sparks a flirtation which spans over many months.  Fate keeps bringing them together but fate also finds a way of breaking them apart.  Truths are concealed, misinterpretations are made and time is never in their favour.  It all plays out like a great Shakespearean romance.  If you love you comedy mixed with tragedy and eloquent dialogue, you’ll find this film for you.

Unless of course… you’ve already seen the BBC’s 310 minute mini-series which was first screened here in Australia in 1996.  It featured Jennifer Ehle and Colin Firth in the leading roles and whilst I have never seen it myself, I’m yet to meet someone who speaks badly of it.  Those expecting a replica of the BBC version should prepare for disappointment.  This cinematic version clocks in at just 127 minutes and from what I’ve been told, provides a different spin on the characters and their personas.

Keira Knightley hasn’t impressed me as actress until now.  She brings strength to Elizabeth Bennett whilst delicately showing her inner insecurities.  My pick of the cast has to be Brenda Blethyn (Secrets & Lies) who plays the mother, Mrs. Bennett.  She’s incredibly annoying and you’ll just want to punch her sometimes but her over-anxiety provided many laughs and reminded me so much of people I know.

I usually don’t advise that people read the book after seeing the movie but Pride & Prejudice may be a rare exception.  The film does feel rushed at times (particularly towards the end) and so a reading of Jane Austen’s novel will probably fill in many of the gaps.  It is a classic story.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 10 October 2005

There’s a familiar saying that you can choose your friends but you can’t choose your family.  It’s the perfect analogy to describe the relationship between sisters Maggie (Diaz) and Rose (Collette).  They are as different as chalk and cheese but there’s an unbreakable connection between them that has come with spending their entire lives together.

Rose lives in a nice apartment and has a high-paying job with a law firm.  She has have the image of success of Rose can find the negative in any positive.  Always self-conscious about her appearance, she is still looking for the right guy to build a life with.  Her idea of a good night is lying alone in bed, watching television and eating potato chips.

Maggie has never had a serious job.  She’s a party girl who has mooched off many guys and never settled down.  She still lives at home with her father whose patience is wearing a little thin.  Maggie’s ideal night out would see her wearing a skimpy outfit, hitting the nightclubs and looking to go home with a good-looking guy.

When Maggie is kicked out of the house by her father and step-mother, she lobs on Rose’s doorstep looking for a place to live.  Two events soon follow though which will change their relationship.  Firstly, Maggie learns they have a living grandmother named Ella (MacLaine) who lives in Hollywood.  Her father had always told her she was dead.  The second event will shatter Rose and Maggie’s relationship and if you haven’t seen the trailer, I won’t spoil it for you.

The result is that Rose and Maggie’s worlds are turned upside down.  Maggie heads to Florida to meet her long-lost grandmother and hopefully find someone who can keep funding her swanky lifestyle.  Rose quits her law career and starts walking dogs for a living.  Forced outside their comfort zones, Maggie and Rose soon learn there’s a lot more to be gotten out of life.

I’ve seen few films which do a better job of capturing the essence of what family is all about.  Maggie, Rose and Ella are very interesting characters and the screenwriters have done a great job in defining their flaws.  We can relate to their problems and their differences should strike an emotional cord with the audience.  They were reaching for the tissues at my screening.

The star of the film is Australia’s own Toni Collete and it marks her best performance since Muriel’s Wedding.  She skilfully shows her character’s insecurities without ever overacting.  The other standout is the great Shirley MacLaine (Terms Of Endearment) who gives the film a real boost in the final hour.  She looks so effortless when acting and it’d be nice to see her earn another Academy Award nomination for her role here.  I have a slight qualm with Cameron Diaz but it’s the result of a misstep on the part of the screenwriters.  I just didn’t believe Maggie’s transformation in the later stages and her relationship with the residents of the old folks home was too cute.

I’m a long time fan of director Curtis Hanson (L.A. Confidential, Wonder Boys, 8 Mile) and those who appreciate the nuances of a good director will see his signature style all through the film.  I love how he doesn’t try to be flashy – he just puts the camera in the perfect position and lets the story and the actors do the work for him.  In Her Shoes is one of the better films I’ve seen in a while.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 16 October 2005

Director Judy Irving doesn’t describe her film as a documentary but rather as a non-fiction feature.  It’s an apt term because it doesn’t have the feel of a documentary.  It has a very likeable lead actor and a supporting cast of birds who will melt any heart.

The Wild Parrots Of Telegraph Hill is the story of Mark Bittner and a flock of cherry-headed conures.  Somewhat of a bum, Mark had drifted through life with no job and little money.  Living in a small shack in San Francisco, he slowly became captivated by a small group of birds which lived in the trees outside.

As the flock grew in size, so did Mark’s interest.  He was soon feeding them on a daily basis and caring for them when they became sick.  There were close to 50 in all but Mark could identify each one and had given them all a name.  He didn’t like to think of himself as “eccentric” but there wasn’t really a better word to describe him.

Mark was never an expert in birds but the relationship he had with them gave him the chance to study what few others have had a chance to.  Filmmaker Judy Irving met Mark and over a period of four and half years, realised the potential in this story.  She took hours of footage and the end result is a touching film which has earned the chance to be seen across the globe.  Mark Bittner is currently in Australia and is helping promote the film by coming along to special screenings.

Mark’s story is great but it’s no comparison to that of the birds themselves.  When you see them and how they live, you’ll learn that their emotions are a mirror image of those of a human being.  They get involved in relationships, they cheat on each other, they have fights, they feel sympathy and they have a need for companionship.  They are captivating creatures and I had a soft spot for one particular bird named Connor.

At a compact 83 minutes, The Wild Parrots Of Telegraph Hill is a G-rated crowd pleaser.  A surprising twist makes for the perfect ending and should leave you smiling as you walk out the door.