Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 02 April 2004

Robert DeNiro said it best at the 2000 Academy Awards – “Making a documentary feature is the cinematic equivalent of jumping out of a plane.  You start with no script, no actors, and hope that when you pull the shoot, the camera finds its drama.”  For as long as I can recall, documentaries have been a heavily underappreciated art form in the world of cinema.  You’ll catch them when flicking through cable television channels late at night but seldom will you see them on a big screen.  2003 proved a turning point however and the box-office success of Bowling For Columbine and Spellbound has seen documentaries thrust into the spotlight.  The trend looks set to continue this year and I couldn’t be happier having seen the latest Academy Award nominated documentary, Capturing The Friedmans.

In June 1987, police obtained a search warrant for the home of 57-year-old Arnold Friedman.  They believed Friedman had been purchasing child pornography magazines from overseas and during their search found a very large stash in his study.  The police also knew that Friedman taught a computer class to neighbourhood boys out of his basement and also from the search, they obtained a listing of students.  Given their discovery, authorities now suspected that Arnold Friedman had molested some of these young boys.  They immediately went to the homes of these students and from their testimony, laid numerous charges against Arnold and further charges against his son, Jesse Friedman, who was believed to have participated in the acts of sexual abuse.

You may think this is an open and shut look at the horrors of child paedophilia but think again.  This sensational documentary exposes an abundance of problems in today’s society which are too easily swept under the carpet.

The most obvious issue and one close to my heart is that of “hysteria”.  We are too easily consumed today by the media and its sensationalism of a story.  Just look at the recent Canterbury Bulldogs scandal which has been littering front and back of every newspaper in the country.  No charges have been laid, no investigate is complete and yet everyone feels compelled to add their “two cents” as if they know all the answers.  In the Friedman case, the media labelled both Arnold and Jesse as “monsters” and to everyone in the community they were guilty before being proved innocent.

I will let you judge for yourself but Andrew Jarecki’s documentary provides very persuasive evidence as to their innocence.  Since the film’s release, even more alleged “victims” have come forward to say that detectives pressured them to give false evidence.  There’s even a tape of one detective threatening a boy that he could become a homosexual if he did not admit to the abuse.  Is the Friedman case an isolated incident in today’s world?  Something deep down makes me think not and this is of concern.

Andrew Jarecki’s technique uses current day interviews with family members and key individuals mixed with actual footage from the time.  This footage was filmed by another Friedman brother with his home movie camera so we get to see the arguments and disintegration within the family as it happens.  There best of this footage is a montage put together of Jesse in his final 24 hours before going to his bail hearing.

Jarecki’s film also looks at the insanely unethical issue of plea bargaining and the common misconception of a “dysfunctional” family.  Not since the abovementioned Bowling For Columbine will a film promote so much positive discussion on thought-provoking matters.  I have deliberately concealed the results of the trial and its aftermath to maintain the element of surprise for those yet to see it.

The dvd for the film (already released in the United States) features hours more footage on this captivating story.  I strongly urge you not to wait for its release but instead to find a cinema where Capturing The Friedmans is showing and treat yourself to one of the most important films 2004 has to offer.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 21 March 2004

We don’t get a lot of big name stars and directors here in Brisbane but I was fortunate enough to see a premiere screening of Love’s Brother with director Jan Sardi and stars Adam Garcia and Amelia Warner in attendance.  Following the movie was a short question & answer session but unfortunately there was not the time to ask the question burning in my mind.

There comes a point in almost every romantic film where you know whether or not the leading characters will end up together.  As a writer, how do you get past this?  How do you keep the story interesting when your audience knows how it will end?  I don’t know if there is an obvious answer to this question but I’d love to know what other more knowledgeable filmgoers think.

In the early 1950s in Australia, there were many Italian men but not enough Italian women.  The men sent letters and photos of themselves back home to try to convince the women of Italy to marry them and then come to Australia to live.  In Love’s Brother, Angelo (Ribisi) and Gino (Garcia) are two men of this time.  Gino already has an Australian girlfriend in Connie (De Santis) but Angelo is continually turned down.

In a moment of foolishness, Angelo sends a letter to a girl in Italy named Rosetta (Warner) but includes a photo of the better looking Gino.  Rosetta then accepts his invitation for marriage takes her vows in Italy and sets sail for Australia.  Now the day of her arrival has come and Angelo can no longer hide the guilt that has built inside him.  He confesses to Gino and his family that she will be expecting to meet not Angelo, but Gino!

For director Jan Sardi, Love’s Brother marks his first time in the director’s chair.  Sardi is a two-time Academy Award nominee having both written and produced the wonderful Australian film Shine.  He struggled for finance but has made the most of a small budget having employed the quality services of cinematographer Andrew Leslie (The Lord Of The Rings) and composer Stephen Warbeck (Shakespeare In Love).  It’s a beautiful looking picture.

Conversely, I question the casting of Giovanni Ribisi (Lost In Translation, Boiler Room).  His character is too creepy and his “Godfather” like accent was too over the top.  The screenplay asks us to feel sorry for him but his performance left me feeling anything but.  Adam Garcia (Coyote Ugly) and Amelia Warner (Quills) certainly outshone the more talented Ribisi.

Once you’ve seen the film, you’ll understand the comments I made at the start of this review.  The film reaches a point where the ending becomes very predictable and as a consequence, the final half-hour felt like a drawn-out affair.  Still, there are romantics amongst us who will soak such a flick… but not me.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 28 March 2004

After his beginnings on Saturday Night Live, Adam Sandler has now found a place in American cinema.  The term “an Adam Sandler movie” says it all and you know exactly what to expect before reading any review or seeing any trailer.  Sandler is a proven box-office draw and studios will continue to capitalise on his popularity with an increasing number of releases.  They’re all predictable and Sandler keeps acting like a goose but we’re still buying tickets to see him.

50 First Dates sees Adam Sandler working with old friends - director Peter Segal (Anger Management) and stars Drew Barrymore (The Wedding Singer) and Rob Schneider (every other Sandler movie).  Sandler is Henry Roth, a man who falls in love with a girl only to find she has short term memory loss and will never remember who he is.  That girl is Lucy Whitmore (Barrymore) and each day, Henry has to reintroduce himself and win her heart over.  Think of it as like Groundhog Day… only not as good.           

Like I always say with Adam Sandler movies, a critic’s opinion serves no use.  Even if the script is weak and copies off past films (cough cough) the majority of the audience will laugh and laugh and laugh.  So instead of focusing on 50 First Dates, I thought I might go have dinner.  Good-bye.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 20 March 2004

If this film is a recreation of actual events, then I’m an 18^th Century playwright.  It centres on a horse race held in Saudi Arabia known as the Ocean Of Fire.  Competitors journey across the desert for hundreds of miles and the first man past the post is the winner.  It’s a treacherous adventure with many falling victim to either the elements or the sabotage of others.

The year in 1890 and Sheik Jazira oversees the annual competition.  For the first time, he has sent scouts to America to find a foreign competitor and Jazira has someone in mind – Frank Hopkins (Mortensen) and his horse Hidalgo.  The cowboy Hopkins accepts the invitation lured by the first prize of $100,000 and the chance to prove that Hidalgo is the best long distance runner the world has ever seen.

After a long-winded introduction involving American Indians (don’t ask why), Hopkins travels to Saudi Arabia and the race begins.  Writer John Fusco obviously felt the race wasn’t enough story in itself.  There’s a few confusing subplots including Hopkins’ romance with the Sheik’s daughter, a foiled kidnapping and a sabotage attempt of a pompous English mistress.  To call it all far-fetched is an understatement.

Viggo Mortensen has the title role and the marketers are hoping to cash in on his newfound popularity following The Lord Of The Rings.  Riding on horseback with a softly spoken demeanour may even have some audience members confusing him with Aragorn.  His performance doesn’t impress neither does that of the horse.  I’m dead serious.  Director Joe Johnston (Jumanji) loves zooming in on the horse when he gives one of those cheeky looks.  It’s cute the first time but frustrating for the other 15 times.  It’s also disappointing because Joe Johnston directed one of my favourite films of 1999, October Sky.

At a whopping 134 minutes, I couldn’t wait for Hidalgo to reach the finish line.  I couldn’t care less about the result.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 21 March 2004

It’s only March but Paycheck is now the third film to be released in 2004 on the concept of time travel (following Timeline and The Butterfly Effect).  The concept of the film is rather interesting – as one would expect given that it is adapted from a short story by science-fiction guru Philip K. Dick (Blade Runner, Minority Report).  It centres on reverse engineer Michael Jennings (played by Ben Affleck).  A reverse engineer is one who buys a competitors product, pulls it apart, figures out how it works, and then puts together a better and improved model.

Jennings’ employer is good friend James Rethrick (Eckhart) who knows the importance of confidentiality and security in his business.  At the end of each job, Jennings willingly submits himself to a medical procedure whereby his memory of the previous job is erased.  This way, Jennings cannot use the knowledge gained against the company.

Most jobs last only a few weeks but Rethrick approaches Jennings with a life changing opportunity.  The job will take 2-3 years to complete but the rewarding paycheck will be an eight figure sum.  Jennings thinks it over and realises he could lose three years of his life as a result but eventually, he accepts the lucrative offer.

The next thing Jennings will remember is sitting in the office of James Rethrick.  Three years has passed and he has no knowledge of it.  He heads to his investment broker for his paycheck only to discover he signed an agreement four weeks earlier to forgo his enormous salary.  Instead, he asked only to be given an envelope containing 20 random objects (ranging from a bullet to a paper clip).  This makes no sense to the furious Jennings who thinks he has been screwed over.  The situation immediately changes however when Jennings is brought in by the FBI for questioning and told a partner he worked with has been found murdered.  Exactly what is it Jennings did to put his life in such danger?

It’s enjoyable watching Affleck put the pieces of this puzzle together.  As I’ve hinted at, there’s a time travel element amongst this and Affleck’s action make you stop and think.  Unfortunately for us all, the screenplay slides away in the final half hour.  The intelligent Jennings is transformed into a James Bond rip-off.  He pulls out one miraculous escape after the other and eludes capture of the super villains who are intent to blow him up with big explosions and stuff.  I was a big fan of director John Woo’s Face/Off but his action stylings don’t fit here.  This is a thriller, not an action flick.

Not perfect but it’s a film worth keeping a little from your own pay cheque to see.