Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 26 January 2005

Put simply, Million Dollar Baby is a “knockout” story.

It centres on an aging boxing coach Frankie Dunn (Eastwood) looking for redemption.  He has seen many great fighters come through his rundown boxing centre but has never taken any to a world-title fight.  Then, Maggie Fitzgerald (Swank), a “rough as guts” 31-year-old, walks in the door.  A struggling waitress living alone, Maggie has only one love – boxing.  All she needs is a coach…

The hardened Frankie has no intention of coaching a girl.  She may be tough but as he tells her “tough ain’t enough”.  What Frankie hasn’t counted on is coming up again someone as stubborn as himself.  Maggie won’t take no for an answer and is prepared to prove herself.  She is always the last to leave the gym of a night and is being helped along by Frankie’s best friend and co-worker Eddie (Freeman).  Persistence pays off.  Frankie takes Maggie under his wing and it’s the marks the start of a life changing journey… for both of them.

If you think you’ve seen this story before, think again.  It may sound like any other rags-to-riches sporting film but there’s a lot which neither I, nor the film’s trailer, is telling you.  Further, these characters are truly believable.  Writer Paul Haggis follows a golden rule in screenwriting and keeps the audience hanging.  There’s a lot we don’t know about Frankie, Maggie and Eddie and instead of a revealing all in the introduction, Haggis increases the intrigue by making us watch and wait.

Only 11 actresses in history have won two best actress Oscars.  The list includes Katharine Hepburn, Bette Davis, Ingrid Bergman, Vivien Leigh, Elizabeth Taylor and Jodie Foster.  Hilary Swank is on the verge of joining this list having won an Academy Award back in 1999 for Boys Don’t Cry.  Swank is sensational in her role as Maggie Fitzgerald.  A very demanding job both physically and emotionally.  Considering I’ve wagered $300 on her to win the Oscar, I’ll be one of many cheering her home in a few weeks.

Speaking of talent, how good is Clint Eastwood?  As I indicated in my review of Mystic River, he has a knack for using light and shadow to wonderful effect.  It’s noticeable again in Million Dollar Baby and the darker tones and a perfect metaphor for what is being hidden by these characters.  Praise also goes to Eastwood’s direction of the many boxing scenes.  I’m usually an emotional void in movie theatres but I literally found myself cringing during the punches and smiling during the triumphs.  His ability behind the camera is matched in front of it.  Eastwood’s heartfelt performance is the best I have seen from him.  To top it off, he also composed the film’s music score!

Million Dollar Baby is the complete package – great direction, great acting and most importantly, great story.  What more do you want???

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 16 January 2005

In 1920, Professor Albert Charles Kinsey arrived at Indian University to lecture in zoology.  His area of expertise was the gall wasp and he published two books on the subject.  His collection is currently housed in the American Museum of Natural History.  As fascinating as that sounds, you’ll be happy to know that this isn’t the focus of the film.

As a scientist, students approached Kinsey for advice on a major taboo subject – sex.  Sensing an opportunity, he began to teach a marriage course in 1938.  Kinsey became an overnight sensation.  Hundreds flocked to his lecturers to learn more about a topic that had always been swept under the carpet.

As the questions continued, Kinsey realised he didn’t know all the answers.  There was no one who knew the sexual activities of the American people and Professor Kinsey wanted to become the first.  Over the next 10 years, he assembled a team and questioned thousands of people across the country.  His results were startling and were revealed to the public in 1948 when he published Kinsey’s Sexual Behaviour In The Human Male.  It sold out in days and sat atop the best seller lists across the U.S.

I am a fan of writer-director Bill Condon.  In 1999 he made Gods & Monsters which won him a screenwriting Oscar and was my second favourite film of that year.  It was story of director James Whale (played brilliantly by Ian McKellan) and his homosexual relationship with his gardener (Brendan Fraser).  Kinsey is a similar film in that it is set in the first half of the 20^th Century, looks at homosexuality and is based on a real person.

The other similarity is that the central character is a flawed one.  Professor Kinsey (played in the film by Liam Neeson) did some amazing work and opened society’s eyes to many issues but he himself had his own problems.  Kinsey relationship with his wife Clara (Linney) was a complicated one and his work had it effects.  There were those too looking to stop Kinsey and his research.  As employee Clyde Martin tells Kinsey “sex is a risky game because if you’re not careful, it will cut you wide open.”

Kinsey is a well-made film in that it portrays the Professor for what he was – a scientist.  He thought like a scientist, acted like a scientist and dreamed like a scientist.  When his research created dissent in the community, he was unmoved.  His job was simply to collect the data and collate it.  He was publishing facts, not opinions.

Three of the most underappreciated actors in the business, Liam Neeson, Laura Linney and Peter Sarsgaard, boost the film with superb performances.  Each will be making a strong run at an Oscar nomination when they are announced next week.  With the backing of Bill Condon’s screenplay, what we see on screen is a very interesting film.  I don’t know about you but I particularly enjoy films about real people making a difference.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 23 January 2005

Biopics are in fashion.  We’ve reflected on the lives of J.M. Barrie in Finding Neverland, Alfred Kinsey in Kinsey, Che Guevara in The Motorcycle Diaries and Alexander The Great in Alexander.  In the coming weeks, we’ll check in on Howard Hughes in The Aviator, Ramon Sampedro in The Sea Inside and Vera Drake in Vera Drake.

The Ray Charles I know is the great blind musician who was loved by so many.  This is how many others will remember him too.  But the first 30 or so years of Ray’s life was one struggle after the other.  Gaining notoriety only brought on more problems.

Taylor Hackford’s film chronicles the early years of Ray Charles’ music career with reflections on his upbringing.  Much has been said of the mind-blowing performance of Jamie Foxx and I agree 100%.  Foxx is truly brilliant and I guarantee that he will walk away with the best actor Oscar in a few weeks.  I’m just as stunned as you are to think that the star of Booty Call can soon add the moniker “Academy Award winner” to his name.  For those curious, that isn’t Foxx’s voice doing the singing.  It’s the real Ray Charles but you wouldn’t know it as the lip-syncing is spot on.

In Ray, we see Charles fight to get a fair deal with agents and studios, develop a drug addiction and cheat many times on his wife.  It’s not a flattering portrait but one which I am told is a true reflection.  Some of the best scenes in the film come towards the end when it becomes difficult for Ray to learn who can be trusted and who cannot. 

The film is definitely too long at just over two and a half hours.  My mind wandered at times and I believe it could have been more interesting and effective at just two hours.  Those more familiar with his music though may have no qualms.  You’ll get to hear such classics as “I Got A Woman”, “Georgia On My Mind”, “Hit The Road Jack”, “Unchain My Heart”, “Bye Bye Love” and “You Don’t Know Me”.

Ray Charles passed away last June but did have an influence over the project.  He had the screenplay translated into Braille so that he was able to read it.  He really was an amazing musician and credit to him for overcoming much adversity.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 16 January 2005

I always look forward to Thursday nights as it’s my first chance to catch the week’s new releases.  My friends and I scoured the internet to see which of this week’s offerings would be best viewing.  As of last Thursday, Elektra had not yet been released in the U.S. and there were no reviews or public opinions available.  We took the chance and as I am about to tell, we made a grave, grave mistake.

As a rule, I never walk out of a film.  If I’m going to give it a fair review, I need to stay and see it all.  My rule was severely put to the test just fifteen minutes into Elektra.  Instead of leaving, as I should have, I sat there.  I don’t know how to describe what I felt.  It was kind of like an emotionless void – kind of like being about 20 minutes into a three hour university lecture.  The initial novelty as worn off and there’s nothing left to do but watch the clock count down.

For the few still interested in seeing this film, Elektra is a spin off of 2003’s Daredevil (with Ben Affleck).  Although she was killed off in Daredevil, the screenwriters have found a farcical way to bring her back to life for this money-making venture.  Now back in the land of the living, Elektra (Garner) works as a professional killer.  She can be hired through her agent and always gets the job done.

Her latest assignment sees her paid $2,000,000 to eliminate a father and her daughter.  She is not told why they need to be killed, only that it must be done.  Travelling to the remote island where they live, Elektra suddenly develops a heart and doesn’t go through with the killing.  Instead, she goes to her mentor, Stick (Stamp) to find out more about these two people.

There is an enemy here but I don’t know much about them.  The screenplay tells us little so I just assumed they were bad because they looked dark and evil and had crazy powers.  That said, they will all be killed in stupid fashion (but not before a long drawn out battle with Elektra first).  As for the good guys, just how pitiful is star Jennifer Garner?  She wears make-up, has perfect hair, wears revealing outfits and moves really cool in slow motion.  I can’t hold any of that against her but her performance is reminiscent of Halle Berry in Catwoman.  She tries to act cool and tough but it’s laughable really.

Now that the film is showing in the United States, I can take a breath of satisfaction.  According to the website Rotten Tomatoes, 83 leading critics have reviewed the film with 77 of those reviews being negative.  And hey if you don’t like the critics, the average score from members of the public on the Internet Movie Database is 3.9 out of 10. 

Two weeks into 2005, I’m confident that Elektra will be one of the year’s worst films.  I only wish they had of killed off her again.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 22 January 2005

Like the man himself, Alexander has its flaws.  For starters, I had tremendous difficulty understanding the plot.  I am not an historian and can’t even remember if I studied Alexander The Great in High School.  As the characters rush through their dialogue, I hear names like Zeus, Olympus, Achilles, Olympias, Aristotle.  I also hear other names which mean nothing to me.  When one of the cast refers to another, I’m struggling just to understand exactly who is talking about who.

On top of this confusion, director Oliver Stone has not done a particularly good job.  The action scenes are heavily edited and the constant changing from camera angle to camera angle was frustrating.  We just can’t see what’s going on.  Further, Anthony Hopkins’ long introduction was not the best way to start the film.  Did it serve a purpose?

Another negative were the overly loud sound effects and film score from Vangelis.  At times, the dialogue was difficult to understand because the background noises were so deafening.  I love a good film score and Vangelis has done a fine job but Oliver Stone needed to turn it down just a little.

I don’t usually start a review by focusing so heavily on the negatives.  I guess I need to warn people by following the consensus that Alexander is a sub par film.  If you’ve followed any recent media, you’ll know this is the box-office bomb of 2004.  At a whopping cost of $150m, the film has taken a measly $34m in the United States.  I dare say it’ll scoop the Razzie Awards – a humorous award show held the day before the Oscars which honours the worst films of the year.

Despite agreeing with so many criticisms, a few aspects of the film made it somewhat appealing.  As pathetic as the casting of Angelina Jolie was (who never ages over a 25 year period), Colin Farrell (as Alexander) showed talent.  I haven’t rated his acting ability until this point but was quietly impressed.  Val Kilmer (as Alexander’s father) was also agreeable in his small role.

At a total duration of 175 minutes (making it the longest film I’ve seen in 12 months), I admit to being interested during most of it.  The time seemed to fly.  The storyline has many of the clichés we saw in Gladiator and Troy but I liked the direction of the story and its focus on the slow disintegration of Alexander and the respect from his men.

To quickly sum up this tale in 20 words or less, Alexander becomes King of Macedonia following his father’s assassination.  He then assembles a huge army and conquers many lands.  There’s more to it of course but that’ll tell you all you need to know.

Whilst I’d be incredibly pissed to have been one of the $150m investors in Alexander I’m happy enough to have parted with my $8 as an ordinary-going movie patron.