Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 23 May 2002

Nice-guy Tommy (Burns) has just been dumped by his girlfriend and kicked out of his apartment.  At a video store, he meets Maria (Dawson) and exchanging numbers, they agree to meet up.  Maria has been divorced for a year from Benny (Krumholtz) and only now is finding the courage to tackle a new relationship.  Benny however, is still hung up on Maria and wants to get back together.

Confronted by Maria’s ability to move on, Benny meets Ashley (Murphy) in a cafe and asks her out.  The two seem sweet together but Ashley is having an affair with a married man, Griffin (Tucci), who is twenty years her elder.  Their relationship is purely sexual and Ashley feels trapped but her innocence and lack of experience sees her continue this hopeless pursuit in lieu of Benny.  Griffin’s wife, Annie (Graham), suspects her husband of six years is sleeping around but hates the idea of divorce and thinks it will work out.  She works as a real estate agent and is currently helping Tommy find a place to live.

If you’ve understood the complexity of the above, you’ll see the circle that has been formed.  Tommy likes Maria who is divorced from Benny who wants Ashley but who is sleeping with Griffin behind the back of Annie who is helping Tommy.  Set against the backdrop of New York, it sounds like a screwball Woody Allen comedy.  Not so.  It’s a lightheartedly insightful look and love, sex and relationships.

Each story is worth hearing.  I’m a huge fan of films that don’t limit themselves to one storyline and with Sidewalks Of New York having six, it’s highly unlikely you’ll be bored.  For most of the flick, we’re just watching people interact.  We’re looking at their reactions and emotions for hints to gauge how they really feel.  It’s shot like a glossed-up documentary with the film frequently interrupted by an unseen interviewee asking our cast questions about themselves.  It’s not an original idea but it’s perfect for the film’s style and makes it feel real.

Writer-director-actor Ed Burns isn’t from the Hollywood style of thinking.  Born in New York, he came out of nowhere when in 1994 he made his first film, The Brothers McMullen, for just $238,000.  The film was shot on weekends (since he had to work during the week) and went on to win the Grand Jury Prize at the Sundance Film Festival.  Sidewalks Of New York is exactly what I would expect from Burns - a film that refuses to be routine and provides both entertainment and something to take away.

Filled with lots of memorable quotes (including Ed Burns’s final epilogue) and an expertly assembled cast, Sidewalks Of New York is a so muchly needed breath of fresh air.  A chance to relax, forget about yourself and let six other people do the talking.  The great thing being, these people are worth listening to.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 09 May 2002

Mean Machine begins with Danny Meehan (Jones) being sentenced to three years jail for drink driving and striking a police officer.  Meehan is a celebrity in prison as he was once the captain of the English soccer team before having his reputation trashed for deliberately losing an important soccer game.  On his opening day in the slammer, Meehan is approached by the prison’s Governor (Hemmings) to coach the guards’ soccer team to help them get promoted in their local competition.

He refuses and is punished with time in solitary confinement.  Once back amongst the ranks, they give him a suggestion as a compromise to the Governor.  Meehan will organise, coach and play in a soccer team made up of the inmates to take on the guards’ team as a pre-season opener to toughen them up.  But this is about more than just a friendly game.  It’s a chance for the inmates to get revenge for years of torment and a chance for the guards to show they are still the boss.

The film’s opening hour is pretty flat.  We meet the characters, understand a little about them, have a couple of quick adventures but that’s about it.  There aren’t enough laughs either.  Jason Statham is the best character of the bunch as Monk but the script doesn’t offer him much screen time.  In addition to the pending soccer game, there’s a more interesting subplot in watching one of the inmates control the Governor with the offer of inside tips on racehorses.

The big game then arrives and I won’t spoil it for those who can’t foresee its result.  The direction of the soccer scenes was cool - there’s a mix of a fast-mo, slow-mo and regular-mo.  Plus some great “in your face” camera angles and some hilarious commentary from two of the inmates.  It’s definitely the best part of the flick but a little late to make significant inroads into its success.

Next week sees the release of... drum-roll please... Star Wars Episode 2: Attack Of The Clones.  It’s guaranteed to be screening on about every second cinema which means there’ll be little room for a small English flick about soccer.  So if you’re tempted to check out the efforts of the Mean Machine, I wouldn’t be wasting any time.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 16 May 2002

Castle Rock Studios chose to release the film in Australia on the same day as Attack Of The Clones.  To me, that is admitting defeat before even beginning.  In the first seven days of release, Clones made $14.7m compared with The Majestic’s $0.31m.  Now I’m not saying the film is bigger than Star Wars but Darabont’s reputation should have seen the film debut higher than 8th on the Aussie charts.

If you catch my drift, the film stinks.  It’s a crazy fairy tale with seemingly no moral.  Carrey plays Peter Appleton, a screenwriter living in L.A. during the early 1950s who has been blacklisted after being falsely linked to a communist club.  His latest film, which is set to go into production, is scraped and he asked to appear at a government hearing to clear his name.

Trying to escape his problems, his car falls into a river and he wakes up on a beach with no memory of his life before the accident.  Found by an elderly gentlemen, he is escorted to the nearest town where the most ridiculous game of mistaken identity takes place.  Everyone in the town believes Peter to be Luke Trimble, a war hero believed to be long dead.  He of course has no memory and so goes along with this new life only to have memories of his true past return...

The performances are sterile and useless.  The whole cast act as if they have a gun to their back and are being told to read every line word-for-word with zero improvisation.  The dialogue is laughable and anyone who has seen the brilliant comedy Pleasantville will appreciate The Majestic’s ugliness at an even higher level.  There isn’t a single cast member who deserves a mention.

There’s nothing fundamentally wrong with the director although it is standard and I did expect more.  It is the hopeless screenplay that gave the film no chance.  I think the film is trying to say something about freedom of speech.  I think it’s also saying something about the power and “magic” of movies.  I can’t be really sure though because it’s much a mismatch of themes and the monotonous predictability left no excitement or enjoyment on my solemn face.

Anything but what the title will lead you to believe, this shocker never deserved release and should never have been made in the first place.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 09 May 2002

Storytelling is made by a director who has recent established cult-status, Todd Solondz.  His only two other films, Welcome To The Dollhouse and Happiness were praised by critics for their deeply rich studies of human complexities.  This film has similar traits but once senses Solondz isn’t happy with this finished product.

The film is quite unique.  It is actually two completely unrelated short stories.  The first is about a struggling English Literature student who has an intellectually handicapped boyfriend.  At a bar, she bumps into one of her lecturers, an African-American Pulitzer Prize winning writer.  The two then go back to his house, have rough sex, and the experience gives her the platform to explore new emotions in her writing.

The second story is longer and more expansive.  It is about a sexually confused teenager in his final year of school who is being pressured by his wealthy parents to knuckle down and get into college.  His only identifiable aim in life is to be on television and when approached by a pathetic loser trying to make a film documentary about adolescent troubles, he allows both his life to be captured on camera.

There is a lot missing from this film thanks to studio intervention.  The original cut featured a homosexual sex scene involving Dawson’s Creek’s James Van Der Beek which was removed from the film due to “creative differences”.  Also, there is a sex scene which was ordered to be removed by the censorship board before the film could be screened.  Refusing to concede to their demands, Solondz stuck a big red box over the “explicit” part of the scene as a smart-ass compromise.  I applaud him and thankfully, the Australian censors approved the scene without the red box.

So why are there two stories rather than just one?  The adventurous Solondz has the same fundamentals in both stories and describes Storytelling as a “two-paneled painting”.  You can look at two different impressions of his “message” from two completely different angles.  Certainly a fresh idea.

As I hinted at earlier, this film is about the characters.  They are an erratic mix of personalities and you’ll oscillate back and forth in your impressions about them.  Can they be helped or are they beyond help?  Should we feel sorry for them?  Are they just a bunch of idiots?  My opinions were changing every five minutes and the doubt which clouded my mind was certainly an unaccustomed feeling whilst sitting in a darkened theatre.

I suspect most readers haven’t seen either Happiness or Welcome To The Dollhouse nor will have time to sneak to the Dendy to catch Storytelling.  But they are three amazing films that may upset your emotional apple cart.  They go way beyond the one-dimensional world created by Hollywood and into a new world of disturbing realism.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 16 May 2002

Escorting her home is Anakin Skywalker (Christensen), the rising Jedi apprentice who has always had a crush on Amidala but has not seen her since his induction to the Jedi order.  Obi-Wan (McGregor) is hesitant to give a Jedi with little experience such an important task but Yoda and Windu (Jackson) ask it to be so.  Further, Obi-Wan sees arrogance developing in Anakin and doesn’t believe he can be trusted to uphold the Jedi reputation without guidance.

Spending time alone, Anakin and Amidala sense the attraction in one another but Amidala knows that their love cannot ever be accepted and refuses his advances.  Meanwhile, Obi-Wan has travelled to the secret planet of Kamino where he finds that ten years ago, a fellow Jedi orchestrated a massive clone army to be created.  Confused by the massive undertaking, he meets a tracks down a bounty hunter named Jango Fett who he follows to the planet of Genosis.  There, he finds the Separatists developing a similar army of their own, under the direction of Darth Sidious, to destroy the Republic once and for all...

Can you reach a point where you have too many special effects?  Take for an example where Anakin and Amidala have a “roll in the hay” to the backdrop of a waterfall.  Or the gladiator battle scenes towards the end.  Knowing in the back of your head that it’s all a computer generated myth detracts from the excitement and the adventure.  The film’s obvious highlights are the finale’s light saber battles.  These contain few visual effects, no silly looking characters - it’s just two men in one-on-one combat and that’s the valuable spirit that was more evident in the original Star Wars trilogy.

The dialogue is stiff and constricting.  There’s a few sharp one-liners but people are way too serious in what should be a fun movie.  Before entering the gladiator arena, Anakin and Amidala admit their feelings for each other and in what should be the film’s romantic highlight, I was stunned by the lack of passion in their words and actions.  Christensen was selected for the role to play opposite Portman because George Lucas saw a natural attraction between them.  Where was this attraction on screen?  And can I ask the obvious question - how come Portman looks the same as she did in The Phantom Menace?

Favouring the film is a meaningful story that has more substance than the usual Hollywood action flick.  The film takes it time in developing the conflict and characters but the final hour is a fast-paced thrill ride that gives the film an adrenaline charge.  Still, there were very few moments (apart from perhaps the last ten minutes) that generated much audience reaction in my cinema.

Bottom line, where’s the fun and where’s the emotion?  I was entertained by some elements and disappointed by others.  The noticeable absence of Jar-Jar Binks in this film shows that Lucas is listening to the public’s criticisms.  Hopefully, he’ll take many of the above comments into consideration before treating us to the much darker final instalment when released in 2005.