Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 25 October 2004

John Clark (Gere) is a simple, inner-city estate lawyer.  He works long hours and doesn’t see as much of his wife (Sarandon) and two teenage kids as he would like.  John has the feeling that he’s just going through the motions – every day offers the same, unchallenging tasks.  He’s happy that he has a great family but he’s finding himself asking the question whether, deep down, he’s happy with himself.

Recently, he’s become transfixed by a solemn girl standing in the window of a 2^nd story dance studio.  He passes the studio on the train ride home from work each day.  Then one day, in a moment of spontaneity, John disembarks at the station opposite the studio and climbs the stairs to find out who the beautiful girl was by the window.

Her name is Paulina (Lopez) and she is one of the studio’s dancing instructors.  Next thing, John has signed up for a beginner’s guide to ballroom dancing.  He’s not quite sure why he’s doing what he’s doing but John soon finds excitement in the art of dancing.  He’s finally doing something different with his life, he’s interacting with new people and even his daughter has noticed an improvement in his personality.

Not quite sure how his wife would react, John keeps the details of his new hobby a secret from Beverly, his wife.  She has become suspicious however of John’s late Wednesday nights and suspecting him to be having an affair, she hires a private detective to investigate.  Suffice to say, she will be surprised by what he uncovers…

Shall We Dance is a sweet romantic comedy that I found myself falling for.  Richard Gere is the key here in that he plays an ordinary character looking for a spark in his life, something we perhaps are all searching for.  An elder audience might relate more to his story but there’s something for everyone in my opinion.  It is Gere who delivers the best lines of the film with his voiceovers so eloquently phrasing the work that he does and the correlation with his own life.  Gere must also be developing a love for dancing having shot this film of the back of the Academy Award winning Chicago.

The film is directed by Peter Chelsom who directed another romantic comedy I enjoyed – Serendipity with John Cusack and Kate Beckinsale.  Both films have a certain class to them and rely on quality acting to get the job done.  The screenplay is based on a 1996 Japanese film of the same title.  This story does sadly suffer in the in the final half hour with the improvement in the dancing ability of the characters a little too difficult to believe.  Still, it’s a nice story and bound to please most romantics.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 14 October 2004

Filmmaking is a hard business in which to be continually creative but director Michael Mann has delivered once again with Collateral.  I became a fan of Mann’s back in 1995 when he directed the 3-hour epic Heat, starring Al Pacino and Robert DeNiro.  It was a near-perfect illustration of how to make a good crime thriller – you start out slow and keep building, building and building to a big finish.  By not playing all your cards in the first act, you keep your audience interested and looking for more.

Collateral follows in a similar vein although what is distinctive about this Mann film is its cinematography.  The film has been shot completely at night across the streets of Los Angeles.  Usually it’s very difficult to create clear images on film at night but Mann has used a digital camera to do so and L.A. at night never looked so good!  According to Mann himself, nearly 80% was shot digitally and once you’ve seen the film, you’ll realise how amazing the quality is.

Also a strong point are the camera angles Mann and cinematographers Dion Beebe (Chicago) and Paul Cameron (Swordfish) have chosen.  Beebe hails from Queensland which makes it even better!  You’ll be amazed how many different shots you can get within a taxi-cab.  From the high helicopter flyovers, to the close-ups from the steering wheel, it looks simply great.

The story centres on a taxi driver named Max (Foxx) who’s been working the streets of Los Angeles for over 12 years.  As the film’s poster nicely phrases - “it began like any other night”.  That is until a man in a grey suit carrying a large black briefcase enters the cab.  Introducing himself as Vincent (Cruise), he offers Max $700 for his services for the entire night.

Max accepts but it is a decision he will soon regret.  At the very first stop, he waits for Vincent while he visits a “friend” at an apartment building.  After a few minutes, a body falls from a 4^th story window and lands squarely on top of the cab.  After the initial shock subsides, Max realises the gravity of the situation.  Vincent has killed this man and it’s not going to be his only kill of the night.  With a gun pointed at the back of his head, an ordinary taxi driver has become the chauffer of a professional hit-man with a specific agenda…

The film wasn’t a box-office hit in America but for the first time since 1999’s Magnolia, I can say that I enjoyed the performance of Tom Cruise.  Cruise has played too many nice guys of late so it’s great to see him greying the hair and tackling the more challenging, bad-guy role.  His has a few top one-liners too.  On killing his first victim he tells Max that it wasn’t he who killed him but rather it was the bullets and the fall which did so.  Jamie Foxx too is strong with the best performance of his indifferent career.  Sometimes you just don’t realise how much talent some actors have until you give them a decent role.

The only problem with the Collateral lies in its conclusion.  The plot starts to lose its realism and the dialogue starts losing its plausibility.  A few too many coincidences take place and you sense they have been designed to prolong the suspense.  A shorter, more succinct ending would have been preferred.  I will not harp too strongly on this point though because Stuart Beattie’s script until this point is terrific.  Take a bow again Australia because Beattie also hails from this country and helped pen last year’s surprise smash, Pirates Of The Caribbean: The Curse Of The Black Pearl.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 21 October 2004

Will Ferrell has many credits to his name but you always know what to expect when it comes to his wacky brand of comedy.  Elf, Old School, The Ladies Man, Zoolander, Superstar and A Night At The Roxbury you may have already heard of.  The creatively titled Anchorman: The Legend Of Ron Burgundy isn’t as funny nor black as I suspected it to be.

The infamous Ron Burgundy (Ferrell) is the head of the top-rating news team at Channel 4.  He works alongside Brian Fantana (Rudd), Steve Carell (Brick Tamland), and David Koechner (Champ Kind) in a male dominated office place.  Enter… Veronica Corningstone (Applegate).  She’s the new female reporter hired by the network head and has her eyes on becoming the country’s first female news anchor.

It’s not going to be easy for Veronica though.  Her first assignment at the network was a dodgy reporting job covering a fashion show for cats.  She’s even less impressed when she sees the seedy guys trying to continually crack on to her around the office.  The only person looking out for her seems to be Ron Burgandy himself and lo and behold, he wins his way into Veronica’s heart and also into her bedroom.

Trouble soon brews though when Ron misses a broadcast and Veronica has to step in.  She wows the audience, ratings are up, and Ron soon finds himself with competition from an unwanted co-anchor…

The costumes are worth a laugh as are the ridiculous antics of the moronic Brick who seems to get the bulk of the laughs.  Ferrell is trying to get laughs by playing it straight but it doesn’t always work.  Perhaps his character is just not crazy or eccentric enough.  With the jokes themselves, too many fall into an abyss.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 10 October 2004

I can’t think of movie much less appealing than a sequel to a film I never cared for in the first place.  Anaconda was released back in 1997 and unfortunately for us all, it was mildly successful at the box-office.  

So what convoluted storyline have they come up with this time?  Well, a group of scientists in New York believe they have uncovered the secret to… the fountain of youth.  Sigh.  There are toxins in a flower known as the Blood Orchid which could dramatically slow the aging process.  Unfortunately for these scientists, the Blood Orchid can only be found in the jungles of Borneo and it’s only in bloom for three more weeks before it becomes dormant for another seven years.  Oh no!

In the midst of the rainy season, the group charter an old, rusty boat and head down river.  Most of them will be eaten by giant anacondas but if you’re like me, you won’t care less.  The only scene you’ll be looking forward is the fade to black just before the closing credits start rolling.

Too much time is wasting in developing this paper-thin plot.  I don’t think a person was killed until the 45 minute mark.  The group of writers (four in all) have tried to develop these characters but they needn’t have wasted their time.  Few will care and the fact that there’s not a well-known star amongst the cast is a sure sign that this junk should have been labelled “direct to video”.

With most studios holding their big releases until Christmas, October is usually a poor time of year to be heading to cinemas.  Once you’ve seen Anacondas: The Hunt For The Blood Orchid, you’ll know why.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 17 October 2004

Don’t go along to Open Water thinking you’re in for a Jaws like experience.  The two films couldn’t be more different.  Jaws was made by the illustrious Steven Spielberg with a big-name Hollywood cast including Roy Scheider, Robert Shaw and Richard Dreyfuss.  Open Water was shot on weekends by a small crew and cost a mere $130,000.

What you may then ask is how such a low budget flick like Open Water made it to Australian cinemas?  Well, the film impressed many critics at the 2003 Sundance Film Festival and was subsequently bought by Lions Gate Films to distribute worldwide.  After raking in over $30m at the box-office in the United States, the decision of Lions Gate has proven to be quite profitable.

The story won’t be familiar to all who see it but it should be for us Australians.  In 1998, two American tourists, Tom and Eileen Lonergan, were left behind by their tour boat when diving in the Great Barrier Reef.  By the time the tour operator realised what had happened, it was too late.  They were never seen again.

In Open Water, our two leading characters are Susan (Ryan) and Daniel (Travis).  After exploring the wonders of a coral reef, Susan and Daniel surface to find their boat missing and no one in sight.  Over the next 24 hours, they will go through a range of emotions and battle the elements.  Sharks, hunger and freezing temperatures are just the start.

It’s not easy to make a film set in just one location with only two characters.  On paper, it’s a big gamble and you run the risk of your audience going for a toilet break and not returning.  If used effectively though, you can create an unrelenting tension that’ll keep the viewer transfixed.  Despite the raves of some critics, I didn’t feel that “unrelenting tension” here.  There’s a lot of footage of sharks and other underwater creatures that looks out of sync.  In other words, you could tell it wasn’t filmed at the same time as some of the footage above the water.

I did like the honesty of the storyline and how it felt more realistic than if it had been made by a big Hollywood studio.  Still, a few minor details did bother me.  Firstly, the introduction includes the most blatant, unnecessary nudity since Halle Berry in Swordfish.  Secondly, why did we need to keep crossing back to the tour boat (once it had left) and to the partiers on the shore?  Susan and Daniel wouldn’t have known what’s going on so why show us?

I’ve tried not to let my review be tainted but it is hard watching a thriller based on events for which you already know the ending.  This may have contributed to my lack of an emotional response.  If you do find yourself feeling the same way, you can breathe easier in knowing that at just 79 minutes, it’s one of the shortest films of 2004.