Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 14 November 2002

No sooner is he back home, a visitor arrives on the doorstep of his houseboat.  Gracie Rivers (De Jesus) wants Terry to return a favour and explains her reasons and motivations.  Her sister was recently shot dead in a convenience store robbery and fed up with the lack of answers the police are providing, she turns to McCaleb.  Oh yes, and she’s found out that the heart used in Terry’s transplant was that of her sister.  Feeling a sense of indebtedness, Terry agrees to help.

The investigation begins.  There’s an assortment of characters along the way (including a funny police detective) and they interact well.  The dialogue is classy as you’d expect from screenwriter Brian Helgeland (L.A. Confidential).  The other notable cast members if Jeff Daniels who plays a resident.  Aside from the opening and closing scenes, there’s not a lot of action.

Dumfounded I was by the holes in the plot.  They’re big.  Don’t ask me how they expect us to overlook this.  Once you’ve seen the flick you’ll understand it but there’s a scene where McCaleb visits an ATM machine.  He later realises the killer was right behind him at the machine.  Can I ask why that on knowing this information, McCaleb didn’t get a copy of the security tape from the teller to identify him?  Since he used the machine right after him, why didn’t he just get the bank’s records?  Beats me.

It sure is frustrating.  Whilst it’s not a direct criticism, I do share doubts over the fact that the aging Terry has a relationship with the 20-something Gracie in the finale.  I’m sure it’s possible but a few people in my cinema were equally as squeamish as I.  I my eyes - it was an unnecessary subplot used to waste time.

Sounds like an interesting book.  It was originally written by Michael Connelly.  As for the movie, average at best.  Many good qualities but the inconsistencies ruin the hard work put in.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 31 October 2002

Poor Sandra Bullock.  Of her last eight films, not one have I considered worthy of a grade higher than a B-.  Honestly, I do have sympathy because she’s not solely to blame.  Her friends, family and especially her agent have contributed to these misguided career choices.  One day, she’ll dazzle us all with a perfect performance and I’ll retract my degrading comments.  But until then, my harsh judgement will stand.

In this farcical adventure, Sandra Bullock is police detective Cassie Mayweather.  She is called to the scene of a murder with her new partner Sam Kennedy (Chaplin) and begins the search for clues.  There aren’t many but a shred of carpet fabric leads the investigatory team to a suspect who it appears to have committed suicide in his hideaway.  The case is closed but Cassie knows something is not right.

Frustrating to watch, Murder By Numbers has a 0% reality factor.  I have no idea how Bullock solved this mystery - it’s as if she’s a mind reader and knew everything without even having to think about it.  The fragmented screenplay needed a lot more work!  Nothing flows at all and scenes are all over the place!!!  What was up with the sudden relationship between Cassie and Sam?  Were Richard and Justin gay?  Why is Bullock the subject of criticism from her co-workers when she’s seems to have some psychic crime solving ability?  What was the point of the twisted ending?  Why did I waste my Friday night?

The film also takes a disgustingly relaxed attitude towards the victim.  A person was brutally murdered (which we see in graphic flashbacks) but no concern seems to be given to her or her family.  If you ask me, the director’s focus is on the younger stars to turn this into some cheap teen thriller.

Released last week, Red Dragon showed how to make a decent serial killer movie.  Look at these two films side-by-side and you’ll see the vast differences.  The only crime in Murder By Numbers is that of punishing a defenceless audience.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 07 November 2002

This film is a based on actual events of Russian soldiers on a Russian navy vessel, the K-19, in 1961.  At a time when nuclear weapons were being produced at a rapid rate, Russia wanted to show it could match it with the United States.  Despite not being fully tested, they sent the K-19 on a test mission to detonate a missile in the deep ocean.  It went successfully but Russian military leaders then asked the boat’s captain to position the sub off the American coastline for a potential attack.

At this point, it went horribly wrong.  A leak developed in the nuclear core.  The temperature was rising and if it rose above 1,000 degrees, it threatened to detonate the boat and everything within hundreds of miles.  Crew members gave their lives to enter the radioactive chamber and help repair the leak.  They were successful but 7 died with days and another 20 dies over the next two years.  It was the ultimate sacrifice for mankind.

It may be a Russian story but it wouldn’t help attract an audience by using Russian language and acting.  So they cast Harrison Ford and Liam Neeson, give them cute accents, and yes, make the film in English for us to understand.  Their acting is pretty good and the story reminiscent of Crimson Tide with it’s “conflict on a submarine” issues.  It clocks in at over two hours in duration which can hurt a film these days.  Some of the early introductions could have been spared but it’s a good package overall.

Not to sound discriminatory but I was surprised to see K-19: The Widowmaker directed by a female, Kathryn Bigelow.  She has the experience of working on box-office success stories such as Point Break and underground cult hits such as Strange Days.  There isn’t a single female in this film which is why it’s so strange - not one at all.  There’s a picture of one but that’s it.  Quite bizarre.

Recommended for those who enjoy military stories that preach the truth rather than fiction.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 31 October 2002

I’d heard little about the film and it had completely disappeared from memory until the trailers started popping up at the Palace Centro.  Almost two years after being released in America, the film has found an Australian distributor and is being screened for all to see.

The film has been a passionate journey for Ed Harris.  Harris had always been touched by Jackson Pollock’s story and bought the rights many years ago with plans of playing the title role.  Like any independent film, finance was hard to come by.  Finally, the opportunity presented itself and not only did Harris give “an honest, true performance” (his words), he made a stylish directorial debut.

Jackson Pollock was an American painter who leapt from obscurity in 1949.  His brand of unique art had him revered within critic circles but few others knew of his ability and he struggled to make a living.  Driven by the unwavering support of his wife, Lee Krasner (Harden), Pollock’s notoriety blossomed when the national publication, Life Magazine, ran a full article on his works.

While the painting itself seemed so simple, the rest of his life was anything but.  He battled depression and constant self-doubt.  Despite his success, his mind would never allow him to enjoy it.  Alcohol was an easy answer and it eventually would destroy their marriage.  Drunk behind the wheel, he died in a 1956 car accident.  A career cut short.

Pollock intelligently explores the issues of depression without resorting to oversimplification.  It’s an incurable sickness and the screenplay does not preach to us any solution of beating it.  We just watch Jackson Pollock fight his demons with no means of escape.  It’s reminiscent of seeing Russell Crowe’s performance of John Nash in A Beautiful Mind.

Marcia Gay Harden’s performance is fantastic and I admire her as one of my favourite under appreciated actors.  If you haven’t heard of her, it’s probably because she’s always playing the “supporting” role.  Recent films include Space Cowboys and Meet Joe Black but her career began on Broadway and still returns there quite often.  Ed Harris also began in the theatre (it was where he met Harden) and gives one of his career defining performances.  You can feel his devotion to the character and thankfully, he too received an Academy Award nomination (although lost to Russell Crowe in Gladiator).

This is quality filmmaking and storytelling.  The two year wait has been worth it.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 07 November 2002

There’s a scene late in Kissing Jessica Stein that sums up why I love unconventional cinema.  Two people are having a relationship.  At a wedding, one of them goes out on to the balcony with an old friend and the two share a kiss.  Usually, this would be the part where the jilted lover would walk in, see them kiss and them storm off (completely misunderstanding the situation before seeing the truth later on).  But instead, the other partner walks in a few moments of the kiss and never sees it.  Director Charles Herman-Wurmfeld crosses the cliché line and doesn’t even blink.  When you see what happens to all three characters in this scene, you’ll find his breaking of the cliché rather ironic.

A rave at film festivals worldwide (including the Brisbane International Film Festival), Kissing Jessica Stein’s quirky New York setting gives it a modern-day Woody Allen feel.  As the title character, Jessica (played by Jennifer Westfeldt) even speaks like Mr Allen.  She’s like Phoebe out of Friends.  Her love interest is Helen (played by Heather Juergensen).  In fact, both stars also co-wrote the film.  It’s the shame they haven’t gotten the same exposure as Matt Damon and Ben Affleck for Good Will Hunting.

If you haven’t already gathered, this is the tale of a same-sex romance.  Jessica has complex issues and constantly breaks up with guys because they’re not “perfect”.  Things aren’t getting any better for her.  A friend asks her if she talks about her relationships with her therapist.  “Of course not” she replies, “that’s private”.

In the paper she reads a personals ad that at first, grabs her attention.  But it turns out to be from a female “seeking same”.  Why not give it a go for something different?  It turns out the lady at the other end, Helen, is also experimenting but has a lot more confidence and is more sure in her quest for another woman to share her life with.  It’s going to be a rocky romance with one ready to go slow and the other ready to plow ahead.

The supporting characters may look like something from a one-season sitcom but it’s a smart screenplay with great dialogue.  You’ll learn that the word “marinate” can have many uses, someone can be both sexy and ugly, and it’s important for women to accessorise in the bedroom.

Winner of the audience award at the 2001 Los Angeles Film Festival, it’s an appealing film that will hopefully get its chance to appeal to an even wider audience here in Australia.  So if you can’t find someone better, why not try Kissing Jessica Stein.