Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 12 June 2005

If your husband/wife was a secret agent would you know?  Well that’s the case for both John Smith (Pitt) and Jane Smith (Jolie), if that is their real names.  They’ve been married for “five or six years” and have managed to hide their true occupation from their partner.  I surprised they weren’t more suspicious with all the inter-state conferences and rumblings in the middle of the night.

Their cover is about to be blown however when they are each assigned the same target, a young kid by the name of Benjamin Diaz (Brody).  John and Jane’s relationship was already a little rocky but now it’s about to get outright nasty.  Each thinks that they have been secretly used by the other to obtain classified information.  Now it’s personal!

If Mr & Mrs Smith is a comedy, then it’s quite funny.  There are some humorous scenes that Angelina Jolie and Brad Pitt share with a therapist.  There are also some funny lines from a fellow agent named Eddie (played by Vince Vaughn).  I’m not usually a fan of either Pitt or Jolie but they unexpectedly work well together as a comedic duo.  Their sarcasm is spot on.

If Mr & Mrs Smith is an action flick, you’ll be sorely disappointed.  There is one scene where Pitt and Jolie are fired upon a hundred times and are uninjured.  Yet when they remove their bullet proof vests, it is littered with bullet marks.  How did every bullet manage to hit them in the chest but not anywhere else?  Further more, there’s a scene in which Pitt and Jolie fire at each other with huge bazookas and other explosive devises.  They are clearly trying to kill each other which is why it’s such a cop-out when the two come face to face with a pistol and don’t have the “heart” to kill one another.

I also have a problem with the underlying premise behind this adventure.  The two agencies want Mr & Mrs Smith killed because they have just realised they are married and think they could inadvertently spill information to the other.  Firstly, what kind of dodgy background checks are they doing?  Secondly, why are the two agencies working together to kill them?  Doesn’t this contradict why they want them eliminated in the first place?

The limitations in the screenplay are off set by the good direction from Doug Liman.  If you don’t know of him, Liman is a great director.  He’s got style and his film’s always have a fresh, fast look to them.  Many will have seen his last effort, The Bourne Identity, but my own favourite was 1999’s Go.  Liman also directed the very first episode of TV’s teen drama The O.C.  Fans of that show will enjoy the funny cameo in Mr & Mrs Smith of the witty Adam Brody.

I’ve had two people point out how much bus stop advertising there has been for this film.  Posters are everywhere and 20^th Century Fox are expecting big things.  It’s slightly better than your average Hollywood summer blockbuster but that’s as positive of an endorsement as I’m prepared to give.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 30 May 2005

The message in Coach Carter is pretty blunt.  There’s no sugar-coating or subtlety whatsoever.  It’s also a message we’ve seen before.  If you’ve seen any American high-school sporting flick (e.g. Friday Night Lights), you’ll know what I mean.

Ken Carter (Jackson) came to Richmond High School in 1999 to coach the basketball team.  The previous season had been a disaster for the Richmond Oilers having won just 4 of 28 games.  On day one of practice, Carter made all his players sign a contract.  This contract required them to always be on time, attend all classes, keep an academic grade point average of 2.3 and wear a shirt and tie on game day.

This didn’t sit well with the team at first but the results soon spoke for themselves.  Richmond won their first 16 games of the 2004 season.  Unfortunately for Coach Carter, the results weren’t the same in the classroom.  Many of the team were failing at least one subject and it was time to take action.

What happened next made headlines in America and is the inspiration for this film.  Coach Carter locked the gym and refused to let the team play until their grades were back on track.  The team would forfeit two matches as a result and parents wanted Carter’s head on a platter.

Carter though, would not relent.  He was determined to have his players honour their contracts.  He wanted a winning team but more importantly, he wanted to make a difference in the lives of these boys.  He wanted to provide a future.

Coach Carter is long and predictable.  Two months ago I saw a similarly themed film (albeit about football) called Friday Night Lights.  I compared the two films and found Lights to be superior.  It has greater suspense, better direction and most importantly, more interesting characters.  This for me was the biggest flaw in Carter – I didn’t care for this cast of stereotypes.

I wonder if they’ll ever make a film which is the reverse of these inspirational sporting flicks?  What about a film where a team is on top of the ladder, has a new coach arrive, and then they slump to bottom and start taking it out on each other.  I’d pay to see that over Coach Carter.

As a footnote, I have to remark at the similarity of the performance of the Richmond Oilers versus this year’s performance of the AFL’s Richmond Tigers.  Last year’s Tigers also won just 4 matches.  Is this an omen for Richmond in 2005 who have already won 7 of 10 matches?  Probably not.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 08 June 2005

“Oh everything's stolen nowdays. Why the fax machine is nothing but a waffle iron with a phone attached.” – Grandpa Simpson

In a movie theatre a few backs, I saw the rather pathetic trailer for The Longest Yard.  My friend was rather vocal in his opinions – openly declaring it a stupid American rip-off of the 2001 English soccer film Mean Machine.  Well it turns out that Mean Machine was actually a remake of a 1974 film called The Longest Yard.  The bottom line is that this screenplay has now been made into a film three times.  That alone is a shocking thought and it only adds to the theory that there isn’t a single new idea floating around in Hollywood.

Adam Sandler stars as Paul Crewe, a retired pro-footballer who has now become a drunk.  After a few beers one night, Paul takes his wife’s keys and crashes the car into about 10 police vehicles after a lengthy, televised police chase.  Let me pause here to point out that Paul’s wife is played by Courtney Cox of Friends fame.  She’s in the film for about 2 minutes and is not seen again after this opening.  Why?

It seems a bit harsh but Paul is sentenced to three years jail for his indiscretion.  Warden Hazen (Cromwell) has asked that Paul be assigned to his penitentiary so that he can impart his football knowledge on his own team (consisting of the prison guards).  Paul suggests that the guards play a pre-season warm up game against the inmates as a training drill.  The Warden thinks it’s a great idea but so do to the inmates.  It’s their chance to finally get back at them.  This is going to be a very, very physical encounter.

This joke a script gets worse as it goes along.  One of the characters is killed in ridiculous fashion and I’m surprised they tried to squeeze such a sombre moment into a film which is predominantly a “comedy”.  After this point, his death is used as motivation in the big game which is televised nationally by ESPN and attended by a crowd of many thousands.  Does this make a lick of sense?

The film has been produced by Happy Madison Productions, the same company which made 50 First Dates, Anger Management, The Hot Chick, The Animal, Mr. Deeds, Little Nicky and Deuce Bigalow.  As you can see, the company has been set up to fund the works of Adam Sandler and Rob Schneider (who makes another cameo here).  To have made as many films as they have, the company must be quite profitable.  If you ask me though, they’re films are getting worse and worse.  Anger Management and now The Longest Yard are right at the bottom of the barrel.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 29 May 2005

Melinda & Melinda begins with four playwrights in a restaurant discussing whether the world is tragic or comic.  To settle the argument, one of the fence-sitters starts telling a story about a girl named Melinda.  The scene fades out and we rejoin our quartet at the end of the story.  Sy sees humour in the story and thinks it could be made into a great comedic screenplay.  On the other hand, Max sees tragedy in this tale and envisions an equally impressive dramatic screenplay.  And so each is then given an opportunity…

What we then have are two different stories laid out before us.  To best describe it, I can only suggest you think Sliding Doors, only better.  There are many similarities in the two stories but they each have a different cast and a different setting.  The only common link between the two is Australian actress Rhada Mitchell who plays Melinda in both versions.

In the drama, Melinda has left her husband and turns up at the front door of an old school friend, Laurel (Sevigny).  She looks a mess and Melinda tells Laurel a surprising story of how she killed a man several months ago and spent time in a mental institution.  Somewhat stunned, Laurel asks Melinda to move in with her for a short time, although this doesn’t sit well with Laurel’s husband Lee (Miller).  Laurel is then determined to find Melinda a new man – one that can help get her life back on track.

In the comedy, Melinda befriends a young married couple who live in her apartment building.  Hobie (Ferrell) is a quirky actor and Susan (Peet) is a budding film director trying to get a start in Hollywood.  Susan is dazzled by the endearing Melinda and hopes to play matchmaker.  She knows a guy who’d be perfect for Melinda.  Unfortunately, Hobie also has an interest in Melinda.  He’s smitten with her and lacking action in his own bedroom, starts the flirting process.

Woody Allen, where have you been?  Allen makes one film every year but his last two struggled at the American box-office and couldn’t find a distributor in Australia.  Instead, they went direct to video.  The last Allen film in Aussie cinemas was 2001’s The Curse Of The Jade Scorpion (which was great I might add).  He has his own style and if you aren’t a fan of previous works, there’s no point watching this.  It’s typical Allen with old-style music, sophisticated dialogue and a nutty cast.  Just what I’ve been waiting for!

I don’t think the stories are as interesting or well written as some of Woody’s other works.  His best films in recent years have been Bullets Over Broadway (1994) and Deconstructing Harry (1997).  There are a few yawns in the middle stages of Melinda & Melinda but you stick with it because you know the ending’s going to be worth it.

If you’re looking for a definitive reason though to see the film, then see it for its uniqueness.  It’s a inspired concept to mix genres within one film by telling two separate stories.  So which will you prefer – comedy or drama?

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 05 June 2005

Last year, I have a huge wrap to the Richard Linklater film, Before Sunset.  Essentially, it was a film where two characters (Julie Delpy and Ethan Hawke) talk for 90 minutes.  Some may find this boring but I was really taken by them.  Hawke and Delpy made a good couple and their conversations were fascinating and intelligent.

A Lot Like Love feels like the Hollywood equivalent.  Ashton Kutcher and Amanda Peet star as Oliver and Emily.  They met on an airplane seven years ago and have seen each other on and off since that time.  Their world has always been complicated though by friends, other lovers and work.  Everytime you think they’re going to live “happily ever after”, something comes along to upset the apple cart.

There’s a theory that every film has three acts – the opening, the body and the conclusion.  It felt to me that A Lot Like Love never got past the introduction.  So much time is spent getting to know these people and it left me bored and frustrated.  If Oliver and Emily were interesting characters, I might think differently (as I did with Before Sunset).  Unfortunately, every piece of dialogue uttered from their mouth was clichéd and contrived.  It wasn’t natural.

Romantic comedies aren’t my favourite genre so to justify my position on this film, I’ll point out that the mostly female audience looked as disinterested as I did.  I don’t remember a single laugh nor emotional response.  It’s a low point in the resume of director Nigel Cole as I enjoyed his previous two films, Calendar Girls and Saving Grace.

A Lot Like Love looks a lot like a film to pass over.