Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 26 December 2000

I have described the film ever so briefly above but there is little more I can add without spoiling most the film.  Ethan and Joel Coen are brave and adventurous filmmakers themselves but no matter how hard you try, you can’t get it right all the time.  O Brother, Where Art Thou? is based on Homer’s poem, The Odyssey, written almost 3,000 years ago.  Of course there is still conjecture today as to whether Homer even existed but that’s another story.

The cast are all well rounded.  Both George Clooney and Tim Blake Nelson are superb and I love seeing John Goodman in action.  Extravagant lengths have been taken to set up many scenes, which is fine work on behalf of production designer, Dennis Gassner.  The Coen brothers’ most recent film, The Big Lebowski, took several viewings to fully appreciate and did grow on me.  Perhaps O Brother, Where Art Thou? may do the same but right now, I feel let down.

Bottom line, it’s a very strange film that many will enjoy and others simply will not.  There are a few musical numbers mixed with totally bizarre subplots.  It is an interesting trip but upon reaching the end, I just didn’t understand the point.  I know Homer said “the journey’s the thing” but in this instance, I wanted more appreciation.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 26 December 2000

Lars Von Trier’s Dancer In The Dark was this year’s Palm D’or winner and as always, critics were at loggerheads.  Some claimed the film the film was deserving but others claimed it was redemption for Von Trier not winning in 1997 for Breaking The Waves, a personal favourite of mine.

Dancer In The Dark is the story of Selma, a Czech mother with a 12-year-old son who migrated to the United States.  Both suffer from a birth defect in that they are slightly retarded and have failing eyesight.  As we discover, Selma has less than a year before she is totally blind.  In that time, she is working flat out at a factory to save money for an operation that can prevent her son from succumbing to blindness also.

Selma lives in a caravan rented from local police-office Bill (Morse) and his wife.  Bill inherited a large sum of money but through his wife’s lavish spending, the money is all gone and the bank is to repossess their house.  When Bill finds that Selma has over $2,000 stashed in her home, he steals the money and claims it is his own.  Who’s going to believe a retarded Czech mother over a local police officer?

Unbelievably painful to watch is the most apt way of describing Dancer In The Dark.  To take advantage of the disadvantaged is a callous act and it’s impossible not to be affected emotionally.

Singer turned actor Bjork, is strikingly brilliant as Selma as are the supporting cast members.  Von Trier uses many moving camera shots and close-ups and with the help of the cast, creates a “documentary-like” production adding to the realism.  I should have read the posters for the film before seeing the film as it contained a warning - “Dancer In The Dark commences with a four minute musical overture, accompanied only by a blank screen”.  Sure enough, many were left confused and one patron even complained to the staff indicating that there was a problem with the print.

The film would easily have been up with the best of the year had Von Trier not insisted on weaving unusual musical numbers into it.  I’m not sure what they are intended to indicate but distract from the main show - sort of like ad breaks.  Bjork may be a great actress but her singing technique is not my style and given she sings eight songs during the film, it becomes very annoying.

Certainly not for everyone, Dancer In The Dark again illustrates the talents of Lars Von Trier whilst also showing that he is human.  Clearly the big winner is Bjork with her performance and one wonders whether she’ll stick with singing or acting.  I’m hoping for acting.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 26 December 2000

Sunshine pans many years and is the story of the Sonnenschein family.  Told from the perspective of the latest son, the film begins with his great grandfather and works its way through the family.  From developing marketable alcoholic drinks, to competing at the Olympics, to spending time in a Nazi concentration camp, to loving and losing time and again, the fictional Sonnenschein story unfolds.

68-year-old Szabo based much of the film on his own experiences in Hungary growing up which is clearly evident.  Politically, Hungary has been unstable all throughout the 20th Century and Szabo uses this as a backdrop to his stories.  Rather than “force feeding” us history, he tells it in an attractive way - an immense relief given the film’s three hour duration.

No expense has been spared and the production is lavish.  Much has been created to give the appearance of the respective time frames.  Interestingly enough, the house used as the family home in the film was actually the same house Szabo grew up in as a youth.

Whilst an outstanding film, the “over use” of Ralph Fiennes is irritating.  Given the film stretches for almost a century, different actors are used at the different ages of their lives.  However, Fiennes plays the middle-aged version of the grandfather, father and son.  It is annoying as all three characters look too similar and it doesn’t match the style of the film.  On an interesting side note, there is a character known as Valerie to which Jennifer Ehle plays the younger version and Rosemary Harris plays the older.  In fact, Harris is actually Ehle’s mother - definitely better casting from Szabo.

In many ways, Sunshine reminded me of a great film that won the foreign language Oscar in 1995, Antonia’s Line.  Journeys through generations make interesting viewing, especially when set across famous time frames.  Few are familiar with Hungary and it’s political upheaval but Sunshine shows all on a world stage.  Just don’t take the kids.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 26 December 2000

When Satan decides to sit for another 10,000 years, Adrian and Cassius are furious.  They ascend to the surface in a plot to overtake and rule Earth.  In doing so, they have blocked the passage that takes people to hell which threatens to destroy it.  In desperation, Satan sends Nicky upworld to try to capture Adrian and Cassius and bring them back to hell to solve the problem.

Things aren’t going to be easy for Nicky as he’s unaccustomed to the human lifestyle.  Led by a talking dog (a friend of his father), he’ll meet a bizarre assortment of characters which each rivalling the last.

Certainly different, Little Nicky is an unusually entertaining film.  Personally, I question its M rating and suggest the censors were a little lenient given the subject material.  I mean would a 14-year-old kid understand why Satan is sticking a large pineapple up Hitler’s ass?  That’s the kind of humour you should expect.

The liveliest part of the film came from the numerous cameos.  Jon Lovitz, Dana Carvey, Rob Schneider, Quentin Tarantino and Rodney Dangerfield all make surprising appearances.  The best of the bunch was Reece Witherspoon as a “laid-back” angel from heaven who enjoys talking with her friends on her mobile and drinking the odd daiquiri.

Sandler films are an acquired taste and apart from The Wedding Singer, I haven’t been a fan.  It’s tough to see a good comedian limited to the same stupid scripts over and over.  At least Little Nicky is original enough to break some new ground.

Actors like Tom Hanks and Jim Carrey have broken the shackles and moved from comedy to drama but one feels Sandler doesn’t have that ability.  Yet as I speak, Sandler has just signed with one of Hollywood’s leading directors, Paul Thomas Anderson (Boogie Nights, Magnolia), to star in a top-secret movie.  Given the class of Anderson and the lack thereof from Sander, that will be a movie worth seeing!

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 26 December 2000

Soon after her release, Cruella helps develop a business known as “2nd Chance” with two other dog lovers.  It’s a place where dogs that have been rejected can stay before new owners are found.  Soon, Cruella on TV and magazine covers with tales of her remarkable transformation.

Of course that wouldn’t make much of movie?  Cruella’s evil side resurfaces and with the assistance of fashion designer Le Pelt (Depardieu), she plots to create a lavish coat made entirely out of dalmatian puppy fur.  Only this time, she’s added a hood to the garment and an extra dalmatian, making the total head count 102.

As with the original 101 Dalmatians, the star of the film is not Glenn Close but rather the adorable dogs that leave audience members giggling.  Throw in a bird that thinks it’s a dog (voiced by Eric Idle) and you’ve got everyone suckered.  All we needed was a baby and the audience stood no chance.

Following tradition of recent sequels, it’s the script that disappoints 102 Dalmatians and most of the original cast did not return as a result.  Jeff Daniels, Joely Richardson, Joan Plowright and Hugh Laurie all did not reappear.  The significant addition to the cast comes in the form of Gerard Depardieu but I cannot understand why he agreed to co-star.

The film has its moments with elaborately crafted action sequences combined with creative costuming and set decoration.  Kids will be kept amused but adults may find themselves a little weary.  With the other strong list of Christmas releases (including The Grinch and Chicken Run), 102 Dalmatians may struggle to find an audience.  You need more than just cute dogs to maintain the attention of this viewer.