Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 21 November 2002

Two men in separate vehicles have an accident on a freeway. Neither men have a scratch on them but one of the cars won’t start. Both men are running late for important meetings at the courthouse. One is a lawyer (Affleck) who has documents which must be immediately lodged – they will give his firm control over $107m worth of assets left by a late client. The other is an alcoholic father (Jackson), who must appear to fight for custody of his children.

The father asks for five minutes so they can exchange insurance details. The lawyer apologises, pulls out his briefcase and offers to write a blank cheque for any damages. The father refuses and wants to do things by the book. The lawyer now must make a decision. What’s more important – staying five minutes to exchange details or getting back in his car to get the important documents lodged on time? He chose the later. He jumps back his car whilst the father shouts at him for a lift. “Better luck next time” the lawyer replies with.

What would you do in the same situation? Where the line between right and wrong is positioned depends on who you are. Some would think the lawyer made the correct decision and some would think otherwise. His job was on the line. How was he to know the father had an equally important engagement to be at?

The father misses his hearing and loses custody of the children. The lawyer makes his appointment on time but realises he doesn’t have the lodging documents – he left them at the accident! Now the father has the documents and when the lawyer makes an effort to contact him, he knows they must be important to him. The balance of power has shifted. It’s now time for the father to make a decision – does he give the file back or not? It’s a cat and mouse game from here with control swaying back and forth between them.

This is the essence of Changing Lanes. It’s a sequence of events where characters are forced to weigh up alternatives in on-the-spot situations and make snap decisions. They often don’t know all the facts, nor have the time and patience to seek them out. Consequently, decisions they believed to be right, later become wrong. But this is what life can be all about.

When you get to the end, you’ll know a lot more about these characters. The finale may seem to wrap things up by having both parties discover the error of their ways but have they actually learnt anything? It’s open to interpretation. Such thought provoking subject material is an oddity these days so congrats to screenwriter. There are a few little anomalies in the script I’d like to look into - events that seem to extend the margin of plausibility beyond its limits. It may not be perfect, but the message still gets across.

It’s been six months since its American release but finally the distributors have found a slot in the Australian schedule for this aptly titled film. So if you are changing lanes, make sure it’s into the one that’ll get you fastest to this movie. And if you don’t see it? Well that would be a wrong decision. Wouldn’t it???

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: 14 November 2002

There’s nothing new about The Ring because it’s already been a smash hit.  How so you ask?  Based on the novel by Koji Suzuki, a Japanese version was made back in 1998 (under the title Ringu) and was one of the highest grossing Japanese films of all time.  In fact, two Japanese sequels have already been made.  Dreamworks Pictures saw the opportunity to make an English version which is that I’m hear to review.

No time is wasted getting to the punch.  Instead of the traditional opening titles, we begin with an attention-grabbing incident.  A girl is sitting on her bed talking to a friend.  She tells about a tape she watched the weekend before with some friends.  On the tape were some bizarre images and after finishing, the phone rang and delivered a message - “you will die in seven days”.  Her fate is sealed when the premonition comes true a few minutes later.

Journalist Rachel Keller (Watts) knew the family and has been asked to investigate.  She tracks down the tape, sees it for herself and is given the same warning.  With the help of friend Noah (Henderson), they begin a search to track the tape’s origin and the significance of its images.  In the back of their minds is a burning thought - if they can’t solve this puzzle in seven days they too will face a horrible demise...

The Ring isn’t an edge-of-your-seat thriller nor will it have you shrieking with fear.  But this isn’t its design.  Like The Sixth Sense (which was made after Ringu), it keeps you absorbed by creating unanswered questions and then taking time to provide the answers.  There’s some neat little plot turns but given the build up and hype, I was slightly underwhelmed by the key twist revealed at the end.

Director Gore Verbinski (The Mexican, Mouse Hunt) gets much help from his crew.  The editing from Craig Wood is sharp and the music score from Hans Zimmer brilliantly echoes in the background.  It’s dark and there’s few bright colours - all setting the scene for a morbid tale.

Naomi Watts sure is a rising star with this following her award winning turn in Mulholland Drive.  Like another Australian star, Cate Blanchett, she can transform herself for each new role.  Martin Henderson was seen in Australia only a few years ago in the short-lived TV series, Big Sky.  Now, he’s a feature character in an U.S. smash hit.  For both, it seems, the success will only continue.

Lured by the moola, I expect a sequel will follow.   In the meantime, I might check out Ringu - word on the street is that it’s much better and scarier than its American equivalent. 

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.

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.