Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 10 February 2000

It’s easy to see why Darabont was attracted to the project.  Like Shawshank, it was based on a Stephen King novel, is set in a prison and is a story of hope.  Whilst Shawshank was an unanticipated sleeper, The Green Mile never had that luxury and has been touted as a big release for some time, perhaps to its disadvantage.

We are introduced to our leading character, Paul Edgecomb (Hanks) at a retirement home and it is from there that he reflects on the summer of 1935.  Whilst head of E-Block on the infamous “Green Mile” (where prisoners on death row sit out their last days), a new inmate arrives by the name of John Coffey (Duncan).  A man of gigantic proportions, Coffey is awaiting his date with the “chair” after being convicted of raping and murdering two young girls.

There was something different about Coffey.  He was always quiet, afraid and distant from his surroundings.  Paul had seen many walk the Mile, but had never seen a man convicted of such a heinous crime exhibit such behaviour.  Yes, there was something special about John Coffey, and every memory from every moment of his stay on the Green Mile would remain with Paul Edgecomb for the rest of his long life.

Prepare yourself for the heavy Southern accents as Tom Hanks and the rest of the cast pour them on.  Tom Hanks is wonderful in his role and is supported by a renowned cast including David Morse and James Cromwell.  As good as they are, their portrayal in the film is poor - the dialogue forces the characters to overplay their roles when it wasn’t at all required.  Percy (played by Doug Hutchinson) is a prime example.  Darabont seems to focus on the story at the expense of the characters (the opposite of King’s great book) and the movie suffers accordingly.

This is connected with the film’s major flaw - it’s length.  When you’ve got a bunch of characters that aren’t all that interesting, delivering dialogue as if it’s been read out of book, no film is going to hold your attention for three hours and ten minutes.  Honestly, the film could have been told in less than two hours and been better for it.  Darabont obsession with keeping strictly to the novel and leaving little to waste was a bad error in judgement.

To use an interesting story, when I saw the film for the first time two reels were played out of order. As such, there was a segment in the film where roughly twenty minutes was omitted and the audience was none the wiser.  It showed just how much of the film really was unnecessary.

Although I may seem harshly negative, the film has redeeming qualities exemplified by the cast but after three hours, their appeal wears then and what’s left could only be described as nothing more than “run-off-the-mill”.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 03 February 2000

Adele wants to find a dream job, a dream house and have her daughter become a dream actress.  Ann is a contrast - she enjoyed her life in Bay City, she didn’t want to leave her family and friends, and had no thoughts of becoming an actress but such is the bond between a mother and daughter, she reluctantly follows.

This is a tear-jerking drama with a lot of heart but at times becomes bogged down when the story deepens.  Controversy surrounded the film when Portman originally turned down the role after the script required a sex scene and Sarandon followed suit quoting he would only do the film with Portman.  Based on the finished product, it’s easy to see why both wanted to work together - they bring out the best in each other.

A lot of the younger audience with feel a repore with Ann.  Sarandon beautifully captures the role as the overbearing mother who only wants the best for her daughter but can’t give her the freedom she yearns for.

Based upon the book by Mona Simpson, Anywhere But Here’s main flaw is that it plays out too much like a novel.  As each subplot unfolds, it seems all too coincidental and predictable leaving a finished product that is unsurprising.  Just what was the point of it all?

As time passes, this film will be remembered as the time the two great actresses, Oscar winner Susan Sarandon and future Oscar winner Natalie Portman, starred together.  It’s a shame the two couldn’t find a more productive script to support their talent.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 10 February 2000

Rob White’s novel, House On Haunted Hill, was first adapted by Dreamworks last year in The Haunting starring Liam Neeson and Catherine Zeta-Jones. It was nothing more than a major frustration.  Following suit is Buena Vista’s House On Haunted Hill which won the rights to the book’s original title, but not too much else it seems.

In this effort, Geoffrey Rush stars as Steven Price, an amusement ride king who loves giving people the fright of their lives.  In preparation of his wife Evelyn’s (Janssen) birthday party, he invites five guests to an old mental hospital.  The hospital has remained uninhabited since 1931, when a fire killed all but five of its patients, including a sadistic doctor who tortured and conducted horrific medial experiments on its inmates.

So as you can gather, the house is supposedly “haunted” and Steven has set up a few gags for his guests to give them the fright of their lives.  Just to spice things up, he offers $1,000,000 if they can make it through the night alive.  However, when unusual events and mysterious disappearances unfold that were not planned, Steven starts to wonder just who else or what else is still within the walls of Hill House.

It was very tempting to walk out halfway through this mess.  It opens in such a ludicrous manner and features a group of idiotic characters.  It’s just like all those bad horror movies - people always take the stupidest options and they wonder why it gets them into trouble.  The film’s conclusion had its moments and in fact I did enjoy the final scene in particular but when are filmmakers finally going to learn that films like this aren’t very scary.

The original book must have been exactly the opposite to have spawned such interest from Hollywood studios but after two failed attempts, I think that’s the last we’ll be hearing about Hill House for a long time to come.  Perhaps it is the book that is truly “haunted”.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 03 February 2000

Dogma does not fall under the above description despite the attacks many Catholic leaders have launched on the film.  Dumped by Disney as being too hot to handle, it premiered at Cannes and was eventually released worldwide by Lions Gate Films.

As the comedic opening disclaimer reveals, Dogma is a satire on the Catholic faith and should not be taken serious although it does make several valid points.  It is the story of two fallen angels, Loki (Matt Damon) who at one time lived happily in heaven as the Angel of Death.  Lured by friend Bartleby (Ben Affleck), he disobeyed God’s orders and broke from his angelic status and together they were kicked out of heaven, banished forever.

Thousands of years later, a loophole has provided them with an opportunity to return home.  A special door at a Church celebrating its 100th anniversary, will forgive the sins of those who pass through it and once they do, they can die and go straight back to heaven.

Sent to stop our duo is God’s interpreter Metatron (Rickman) who appears in an unusual vision to Bethany (Fiorentino) and instructs her to get to this Church in New Jersey and stop them from entering.  To help her in her quest she is given two “prophets”, Jay and Silent Bob and along the way catches up with the 13th apostle (Rock) and a stripper/muse (Hayek).  So just how are they going to stop Loki and Bartleby?

Kevin Smith is becoming a very successful cult director.  Following the brilliant Clerks with the mediocre Mall Rats and then the compelling Chasing Amy,  Smith has brought back many of his past cast members (as well as Jay and Silent Bob) for this his fourth feature and it works against the film.  The script has wit but the cast doesn’t do it justice, in particular Jason Lee, Salma Hayek and Alan Rickman.  A better casting job would have made Dogma a better view.  To name two cast members who did make a worthwhile contribution - Fiorentino and Damon were spot-on.

The comedic look at religion is not an issue but the source material is not used to its full potential.  There are a few laughs and top one-liners, but too much room in between and that is its downfall - if you’re going to make a comedy with such sensitive material, you’d better make it damn funny!

Bound to please many of Kevin Smith’s followers, Dogma was a bold project that devoted Catholics should probably avoid (for fear of going to confession).  For others, go along for the ride but don’t expect to get total “enlightenment”.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 03 February 2000

French director Luc Besson’s (The Fifth Element) take on the Joan Of Arc story is not so much a viewpoint of what she did, but rather why she did it and what went through her mind from such a young age.

In this adaptation, Milla Jovovich plays Joan surprisingly well.  Starring in the pivotal role was a challenge she rose to with amazing strength and she does capture a striking figure.

Joan Of Arc opens rather boringly as the stage is moulded over the first half hour but from then on the time flies by.  John Malkovich takes the role of France’s king, Charles VII with Faye Dunaway as his mother Yolande D’Aragon but in one of the strangest roles I have witnessed, Dustin Hoffman plays her conscience (yes, that’s right).

Besson’s direction is effective if not unusual but Dustin Hoffman’s character was unnecessary in my opinion.  As I mentioned, the story is open to wide interpretation and this one is way out there.  The facts are not flawed but the analysis of Joan’s mindset is bewildering.  It’s hard to see what point Besson was making that hasn’t already been made in past versions of Joan Of Arc. It is the same story just done with a bigger budget in an art-house form.

Graphically gory and realistic, Joan Of Arc is worth checking out especially for the performance of Milla Jovovich, but it is just too long and at times, too confusing.  One wonders when the next crack at her story will been seen.  Knowing Hollywood, it won’t be too long...