Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 29 March 2006

The Weather Man isn’t anywhere near as good but there are traits which reminded me of American Beauty.  It’s the story of a family where everything looks peachy but in reality, it’s the exact opposite.

David Spritz (Cage) is the weather man who works at a Chicago news network.  He doesn’t have a degree in meteorology but it’s never proved a hindrance.  He just reads what’s on the auto-cue and lets his excitable personality appeal to the viewers.  His enthusiasm is limited strictly to when in front of the camera.  For every other minute of his life, he’s a neurotic depressant who seldom shows his emotions.

David number one goal appears to be reconciling with his ex-wife, Noreen (Davis).  She has moved on and found a new boyfriend but David cannot comprehend this and still thinks he has a chance.  Trapped in between is their teenage son, Mike (Hoult), who is being seduced by his male guidance counsellor, and their younger daughter, Shelly (Pena), who is over-weight and gets teased at school for wearing inappropriate clothing.  Are you getting the picture as to how messed up this scenario is?

The film’s quirkiness is a positive attribute.  This isn’t a standard drama and there are moments which will catch you off guard.  Events happen which are unexpected and characters blurt out profanities at the most unlikely times.  Writer Steve Conrad and director Gore Verbinski (Pirates Of The Caribbean) deserve credit for taking a gamble on something off-beat.

Sadly, The Weather Man doesn’t eventuate into much.  The opening attracted my interest but the film lost its adventurousness in the later stages.  It panned out as expected and didn’t offer much in the way of a satisfactory resolution.  What was the point of it all?

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 13 March 2006

A family has been murdered in brutal fashion.  It is horrific because there is no murder weapon.  What does that mean you ask?  I don’t know because we don’t find out.  All this goes on behind the opening credits which take forever to finish.  The film is only 87 minutes long and I sensed this introduction was included simply to make the film longer.  Without it, it would clock in shorter than Chicken Little.

The real film then begins and we and our feature character is Jill Johnson.  She’s been grounded by her parents and her car and mobile phone privileges have been taken from her for one month.  So whilst her school friends are partying at some bonfire, Jill finds herself on a babysitting assignment.  She was dropped there by her dad (hence no car) and the home’s owners won’t be back till after midnight.  Did I mention that the house is deep in the woods with no one for miles around?

Then, the phone calls start.  After a few red herrings (regular phone calls), Jill starts getting some creepy calls from a man who says very little.  He’s watching her from somewhere and Camilla starts freaking out.  Where is he and what is he planning?

When A Stranger Calls is a disappointing thriller that never lives up to its possibilities.  The film hasn’t received my full wrath because there were moments where I did feel suspense and wonder how it might end.  For a split second I thought the film could be redeemed with a slick finale.  This didn’t occur of course and I’m still scratching my head about the limp ending.  What was the point of the scene in the hospital?

Few legitimate questions are answered.  Why did this guy choose to stalk her?  How did he get the phone number?  How did he get in the house?  How did he get in the guest house?  How did kill her friend and get her upstairs?  How did the housekeeper get killed without a peep?  Why did she answer the phone in the first place considering it’s not her home?

The film is a remake of a 1979 film starring Charles Durning and Carol Kane.  There was even a TV sequel made in 1993 called When A Stranger Calls Back.  Well if this stranger calls back again, I won’t be answering!

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 19 March 2006

Proof stars Gwyneth Paltrow and has been made by John Madden, the director of Shakespeare In Love.  That sentence alone will be a turn off for many and I admit to having my doubts.  Yet, here I am trying to justify why it deserves an A grading and is one of the best films so far this year.

Robert (Hopkins) was a brilliant mathematician who wrote many famous proofs and taught for many years at a prominent Chicago university.  In his later years however, he was anything but brilliant.  He developed a mental disorder and was unable to care for himself, let alone teach others.

Robert’s death will serve as a turning point for his daughter, Catherine (Paltrow).  Catherine had hoped to follow in his father’s footsteps by studying mathematics but was forced to drop out of college to care for him.  Now that he has passed away, Catherine does not know how to return to the life she left behind.  She has been living in isolation with Robert for so long, that she has no job and no friends.  Worst of all, Catherine has a sense that something is amiss with her own mind.  Is her father’s mental condition hereditary?  Her increasing worries see her slip into a world of depression.

Two people with questionable intentions will then enter Catherine’s life.  The first is her sister, Claire (Davis), with whom she has never gotten along well with.  Claire now lives in New York and is trying to encourage Catherine to move there so she can sell Robert’s house and claim half of the inheritance.  The second is a college student named Hal (Gyllenhaal) who was a long-time fan of Robert.  Hal wants to sift through Robert’s final journals to see if he left behind any decipherable proof he can claim discovery for.

That’s as far as I’ll go in describing a film which tells a great story.  I would expect no less given that it’s based on a play written by David Auburn which won the Pulitzer Prize for drama and the Tony Award for best play in 2001.  I see the attraction for director John Madden who brings Auburn’s story to the bigger screen with precision.  These characters are extremely complex and we understand a little bit more with each passing minute. 

For Gwyneth Paltrow, it’s her best role since Shakespeare In Love and this should come as no surprise given she starred in the play when it featured on London’s West End.  Jake Gyllenhaal gives a performance equal to that seen in Brokeback Mountain and Jarhead and it caps off what has been an incredible year.  The most notable cast member is my humble opinion was Hope Davis as Catherine’s sister.  Seemingly destined to always be a supporting actress, Davis is very much underappreciated.

There are people who can guess my gradings with close precision.  They know my likes and dislikes all too well.  I have no problem with this but once in a while, a film does come along which unexpectedly surprises.  It’s why I like to see every movie.  You may have a strong hunch but it’s always risky to judge a book by its cover.  This film is “proof” of that.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 11 March 2006

A History Of Violence is a craftily written film where you never know what’s around the corner.  Tom Stall (Mortensen) is quiet, softly spoken man who lives in a sleepy American town.  It’s the kind of place where everyone knows everyone and nothing newsworthy ever happens.

That is until two gangsters stop off for coffee (and money) on their way through.  They are heavily armed are try to hold up Tom and a few customers inside the diner.  Tom instinctively reacts and manages to kill them both before they have the chance to do likewise.

Tom is now a hero.  Those at the diner knew they wouldn’t have survived without his bravery.  The story is all over the television and makes the front page of the newspaper.  He is applauded and thanked by people he meets in the street.  Tom is grateful but he just wants to return to his standard life – working hard and spending time with his loving wife, Edie (Bello), and two children.

This will not happen.  The life he has forged will not be the same again.  The arrival of three more gangsters will see to that.

For acclaimed director David Cronenberg (eXistenZ, Spider), this is his most commercial film in many years.  That said, he still likes to push the envelope.  The violence is extremely graphic and the sex scenes are quite explicit.  You could tell from the reaction from the audience at my screening that they were definitely caught off guard.

Viggo Mortensen and Maria Bello are terrific in their roles but the more memorable performances come from the supporting cast.  William Hurt appears in the film for less than 10 minutes and yet managed to earn an Academy Award nomination.  Even better is Ed Harris who remains one of America’s most underappreciated actors.  Whether he’s playing a good guy or a bad guy, Harris nails each and every role.

The film is serious in nature but there’s an underlying comedic tone when lends itself more to the black comedy genre.  However you classify it, this is one original film you really should see!

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 16 March 2006

In the year 2011, a virus wiped out most of the world’s population.  The few that survived now live in an enclosed city ruled by Trevor Goodchild (Csokas).  The city is surrounded by walls which prevent its residents from going out into the wilderness which now covers the globe.

Four hundred years have since past and a resistance is rising against Goodchild and his regime.  There have been strange happenings in the city and answers are being sought.  Why have been people been disappearing?  Why have some been experiencing strange delusions?  Why can’t anyone go outside the walls?

Aeon Flux (Theron) has been given an assignment to kill Goodchild but when the opportunity presents itself, she is unable to go through with it.  She senses that Goodchild may not be the person responsible for the city’s unrest and wants to dig deeper to find out who the bad guys really are…

You’d struggle to find a recent flick with stiffer dialogue.  It may be a futuristic sci-fi flick but these characters have no personalities!  Every body movement looks unnatural and you’d think the cast were reading directly off auto-cues.  Please give them a life.

The storyline has some interesting components but it looks awfully similar to The Island (released last year with Ewan McGregor and Scarlett Johansson).  I also felt that the filmmakers have spent too much time creating a colourful, futuristic world as opposed to writing a decent script.  It looks great visually and Charlize’s hair styles are cool but what’s supposed to make it interesting?

The film is based on a cartoon series which aired on MTV in the United States.  Those that have seen and enjoyed it, will most likely appreciate the opportunity to see a live action version.  Suffice to say, I haven’t seen it.