Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 28 March 2002

It’s 1940 and C.W. Briggs (Allen) is a leading detective at an insurance agency.  The boss, Chris Magruder (Aykroyd), has recently hired Betty Ann Fitzgerald (Hunt) to “streamline” the office and she’s got plans to outsource the firm’s detective wing leaving Briggs without employment.  Suffice to say, relations between C.W. and Betty are a little frosty.  He’s a “wormy little ferret” and she “needs a good old fashioned roll in the hay”.

The two are both at an after-work function when they selected to appear on stage by a magician named Voltan (Stiers).  He hypnotises them and when the words “Constantinople” and “Madagaska” are uttered, the two fall into a deep hypnotic trance and feel madly in love with each other.  Neither can remember the incident but both find themselves involved in an elaborately creative jewel heist.

Voltan never released C.W. and Betty from the hypnotic spell.  He calls C.W., says the magic word and then asks him to steal security plans from work and use them to rob the homes of the firm’s wealthy clients.  After two robberies in as many nights, the evidence begins mounting against C.W. but he has no idea why he is being suspected and is out to clear his name.

Jade Scorpion is a delightful comedy.  The jokes wear out in the final half-hour but watching Allen and Hunt play off each other in their one-on-one scenes is the clear highlight.  I never realised there were so many ways of expressing one’s hatred for another - it’s hilarious.  Allen gets the best of the jokes and others like Dan Aykroyd and Charlize Theron seem wasted but hey, I’m not complaining.

The films follows the style of all Allen’s other works - another plus.  The old fashioned music, the old style credits, the old style editing process.  It’s a throw back to classic Hollywood - a fact I appreciate even more today when faced with “new age comedies” such as Not Another Teen Movie and Sorority Boys screening next door.  Help me!

As regular as clockwork, Allen makes one film a year.  He’s currently putting the finishing touches on his next film, Hollywood Ending, which is a story about a former great director who gets a chance to redeem himself late in his career with a final big picture.  But he goes blind due to paranoia and so he and a few of his friends conceal the disability from studio executives so that he can keep directing the film.  Now do you understand what I mean when I say Allen’s comedy stylings are above anything else currently being offered?

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 14 March 2002

Poor Kate.  Meg Ryan is in New York 2001 and has broken up with her boyfriend Stuart (Schreiber) and is fighting hard at her marketing job to gain an important promotion.  It’s leaving her stressed and rundown.  Maybe she needs more iron in her diet?

But then something “extraordinary” happens.  Stuart finds the secret to time travel and goes back into 1876 and accidentally brings Leopold back with him.  Leopold meets Kate who goes through the whole “you’re not from the past” routine but they fall in love and she realises he is telling the truth.  Throughout this, whilst Kate has been at work, Leopold has been learning the ways of the 21st Century with the help of Kate’s brother, Charlie (Meyer).

I forgot to mention that Stuart fell down an elevator shaft and was taken to hospital.  He’s not allowed to make a phone call (um, why?) and so is trying to get out by Monday because that’s the only time frame at which Leopold can be transported back to 1876.  But will Kate and Leopold be able to cope with being separated again forever?

The film is a lighthearted romantic comedy.  Unfortunately, there’s no chance to lose one’s self in the romance because of the many inconsistencies in the subplot.  The finale is a perfect example.  I’m sure it went through many rewrites and it’s very, very stupid.  How can one make a film these days and not know the ending before starting?  It puzzles me too that DVDs feature alternative endings.  Seriously, if you don’t know how a film should end what’s the point of making it?

Our two leads give contrasting performances.  Hugh Jackman is fantastic and the only reason to see the film.  There’s no hint of an Australian accent and adds a sense of humour to the film.  On the other hand, Meg Ryan is flat.  Her hairstyle is dreadful and I’m sick of her taking these ditzy romantic roles too seriously (ala Hanging Up, You’ve Got Mail, City Of Angels, Addicted To Love). 

A few women in the audience laughed during this film.  I don’t know why.  Maybe they’ve been screwed too by men who gave them the old “sorry but I have to go back in time tonight” routine.  I wish I could go back in time.  Then I could travel back to the exact time when Miramax executives green lighted this project and hand them the above critique.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 21 March 2002

Together, the two develop a simple idea to target low-security banks in small towns.  The night previous, they appear on the doorstep of the bank manager and take them and their family hostage.  The following morning, they take a casual stroll down to the bank where the manager’s keys can be used to open the vault and all can be taken before trading even commences.

The plan is effective but in a matter of weeks, the two become known around America as the “sleepover bandits” and they develop a gentlemanly reputation.  Their faces are plastered on TV screens, they make the FBI’s 10 most wanted list, and a $1,000,000 reward has been offered for their capture.  It’ll be hard to keep their anominity.

Following their initial robberies, Terry meets a fragile woman named Kate (Blanchett) who has just split from her husband.  She realises these two are the “sleepover bandits” and asks to be part of their team or else she will turn them over to the authorities.  The two hesitantly agree but find themselves warming to the idea when both fall for Kate - threatening to jeopardise their “business”.

Bandits is often unsatisfying in its failure to fulfil the audience’s desire.  The beginning is fragmented - a combination of the first robbery, the final robbery, a TV interview.  It then gets back of the rails but delays the appearance of Cate Blanchett until at least a half-hour into the film.  As the robberies become interesting, the film strays and focuses too heavily on the romance.  The finale then offers a small twist but is short and lacking common sense.

Despite these noticeable annoyances, the film is held together by two wonderful and one decent performance.  Billy Bob Thornton and Cate Blanchett would be the two most versatile actors in the business today.  They can take on any role, any persona.  Look at the last six months for example.  Thornton in The Man Who Wasn’t There and Monster’s Ball.  Blanchett in The Fellowship Of The Ring and The Shipping News.  Both found themselves on the outer come Oscar time perhaps because they had too many good performances for voters to choose between.  As the weakest of the trio, Bruce Willis lacks originality but I’ll admit this is one of his better roles of late.

Two hours is also a long ride for a comedy and sure enough, I glanced at my timepiece more often than I should.  Bandits is a subdued comedy with perhaps not enough “laugh out loud” moments.  Fun but not funny.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 14 March 2002

The Royal Tenenbaums is a movie ahead of its time - it has no genre.  It opens like a comedy but then it becomes something else... or does it?

Royal and Ethel Tenenbaum (Hackman and Huston) married and had three children who all showed gifted promise as a child.  Chas (Stiller) became a business entrepreneur and ran his own successful company.  Margot (Paltrow) became a playwright and wrote several well-critiqued productions.  Richie (Wilson) became a tennis player and his natural ability saw him turn professional and hit the circuit.

Just prior to the children reaching their teen years, Royal and Ethel separated (although they never divorced).  Royal moved to a hotel where he remained for 22 years and in that time, had little to no contact with Ethel or their children.  Now, Royal is broke and kicked out.  At the same time, he finds that his wife’s accountant, Harry Sherman (Glover) has proposed to her.

As for Chas, Margot and Richie, their lives have reached the depths of misery.  Chas lost his wife in a plane accident, Margot lives a loveless uninspired existence and Richie suffered a nervous breakdown on the tennis court and retired.  To find themselves again, they have moved back to the family home.

It’s all about to be rocked though by the reappearance of Royal and he’s killing more than one bird with his stone.  He thinks he can just walk back in, reacquaint himself with his kids and reaffirm his love for Ethel.  They’re all in for a few surprises...

Despite the hilarity of these absurd characters, they all behave very seriously.  This contradiction gives The Royal Tenenbaums its quirky feel - you’re not sure whether your supposed to be laughing or crying.  Royal’s fate in the finale is proof enough of that.  The film has no formula and I can understand the frustration the audience feels in not knowing what to expect or feel.

I love it because film has become too formulaic.  Subconsciously, we know what’s going to happen.  We usually know when a conversation has ended by the way the final sentence is worded.  We usually know when something thrilling is happening by the music that precedes it.  Think about it and then imagine the opposite.  Now you’re in the ballpark when trying to describe The Royal Tenenbaums.

Gene Hackman won a Golden Globe for his performance and is remarkable.  Just as impressive is the ageless Angelica Huston.  All of the cast play their comedic roles with downplayed originality.  Humour comes naturally and jokes aren’t set up - this will divide many audiences.  Compare it to Gary Larson’s Far Side comics - some jokes are obvious but others require an absurd sense of humour to understand.

Wes Anderson’s last film, Rushmore, was another underappreciated flick that has a growing cult status.  The Royal Tenenbaums will most likely follow in a similar vein but it’s nice to see minds opening up with this unconventional screenplay receiving an Academy Award nomination for both Wes Anderson and star Owen Wilson.  So what’s the best “genre” to categorise this film?  How about... hilariously depressing.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 21 March 2002

Let’s look at their three big computer animated successes of the past twelve months - Shrek (Dreamworks), Monsters, Inc (Pixar) and now Ice Age (Fox).  Respectively they opened with $42m, $62m and $46m in their opening three days of release in the United States.  So there’s no question about success but what many may not realise is how similar these two films are.

Has anyone seen The Odd Couple?  All three films borrow heavily by having two male leading characters who despite seeming completely incompatible, discover the importance of friendship.  These films may be targeted at a young audience but surely there must be a new message worth reiterating?  Both Shrek and Ice Age involve a long journey where they encounter many obstacles.  Both Monsters, Inc and Ice Age involve a baby being returned to their parents.  In addition to the screenplay, all three films rely on cutesy-poo characters who suck in the kiddies and help reap millions of dollars in merchandise sales.

On its merits, Ice Age is a good film.  It’s about a mammoth named Manfred (Romano) and a sloth named Sid (Leguizamo) who are forced together when left behind after their fellow animals migrate south before the ice age sets in.  Meanwhile, a pack of sabertooths has targeted a human camp in retaliation for their tiger killings.  They want a young baby as a sacrifice but the baby escapes and finishes in the hands (or should I say trunk) of Manfred.

Reluctantly, they understand they must return this child to its parents and begin the journey.  A sabertooth named Diego (Leary) befriends Manfred and Sid and offers to join their party to help guide them to the humans.  They accept his offer but of course Diego has an ulterior motive and has no intention of guiding them to the humans...

Animation is top notch but that is nothing spectacular in today’s non-ice age.  Most jokes were disappointingly targeted at the younger audience.  Shrek showed you can equally entertain the full-fare paying adults who unlike the kids, aren’t purely satisfied by a shaggy mammoth with a funny looking trunk.

Despite my documented criticisms, you can’t hold a grudge against the innocence of Ice Age.  When kids giggle and scream with laughter all the way through, how can you knock it?