Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 23 April 2003

For an actor, the crossover from television into film is a challenging hurdle and for Jennifer Aniston, The Good Girl may be proof that she’s successfully made the transition.  Her character, Justine, has recently turned 30 and is at a crossroads in her life.   She’s been married to her husband Phil (Reilly) for seven years but they have been successful in conceiving a child.  He’s a painter, she works as a shop assistant at the Retail Rodeo and their life together is quite dull.  The word “love” seems to have lost its meaning.

Deep down, Justine knows this but she is trapped by routine and lacks the courage to make a change.  At her work, a new employee grabs her attention.  Holden (Gyllenhaal) is a 22-year-old loner who doesn’t socialise with the other staff, eats lunch on his own, and generally says very little.  Justine introduces herself and Holden, sensing an attraction, opens up.  He’s recovering alcoholic who dropped out of college and is now living back home with his parents.  What they both share is a disenchantment with their own lives and their depression acts as a catalyst to bring them together.

The two begin an affair but the secret reaches a point where it can no longer be contained.  Holden wants them to elope and leave the misery behind by starting a fresh life together.  Justine’s decision isn’t quite as clear.  Despite the lack of passion in their relationship, how can she leave her always courteous and faithful husband?  Things are further complicated when Phil’s best friend, Bubba (Nelson), sees Justine with Holden and intends to use the information to blackmail her.  It’s a life changing moment for Justine. Choices need to be made but there is no time in which to make them.

Aniston is wonderful and in touch with her character.  Her consistent expression is one of boredom and you hear the tiredness in her voice.  Further, she uses her emotions to help the audience empathise with her situation – she’s not necessarily making all the right decisions but we understand why she is making them.  Love interest Jake Gyllenhaal (who starred in the brilliant October Sky and Donnie Darko) also plays an intriguing character although I would have liked him to have a greater screen presence with a deeper insight into his “psychotic” persona.  Zooey Deschanel gives the film light comic relief with a cute performance as Justine’s assistant, Cheryl.

I praised the quality of Mike White’s screenplay in last year’s Orange County and my opinion is unchanged having seen The Good Girl.  Perhaps the plot meanders and focuses on the wrong elements during its middle scenes but it’s an ending I like to describe as honest.  What I mean by this is that the somewhat surprising finale is well supported by that which precedes it.  All the pieces of the puzzle fit.  Miguel Arteta’s direction is in most cases top-notch although there were a few indoor scenes that looked off with their “grainy” feel.  What I will single out was the immaculate dinginess of the Retail Rodeo – I loved constantly looking in the background at all the little odds and ends of the store.

Like many small-budget productions, The Good Girl premiered at the Sundance Film Festival and since, the word has been largely positive.  Honoured at the Independent Spirit Awards for best screenplay (beating out such films as Lovely & Amazing and Roger Dodger), it’s a offbeat delight for those who like their movies to focus on plot development rather than action or special effects.  Hmmm, no wonder I liked it.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 13 April 2003

Helping to pass the time on a recent flight, I read an interview in a film magazine with Steve Martin.  He speaks of the truth in the claim that comedy is the hardest genre to pull off.  You can have your instincts and think something is funny but until you put it in front of that audience, you’ll never know for sure.

In the past twenty years, few have delivered as high a success rate in comedy than Martin.  Since his breakout theatrical performance in The Jerk, his comedy has “mellowed” (his admission) but he’s still making people laugh and delivering when he has to.  As host of this year’s Academy Awards, Martin emphatically proved he can ad-lib just as well, if not better, than that scripted.

Sadly, no one is perfect and Bringing Down The House is a sub-standard blip in his lengthy resume.  He plays Peter Sanderson, a divorced lawyer who is looking to secure a big new client at work.  On the internet, he falls for a woman who it turns out was slightly misleading in providing her details.  She’s Charlene Morton (Latifah), fresh from prison and looking for a lawyer to clear her name.  Peter immediately kicks her out of the house but Charlene threatens to send the emails to his bosses if he doesn’t co-operate.

As always happens in the wonderful world that is Hollywood, Charlene and Peter become friends and learn valuable lessons in life.  Peter gets to know his kids better, realises his personal life is more important than work, and reconciles with his ex-wife.  Charlene clears her name, makes new friends and develops a whole new better life.  Comedy is mixed amongst these adventures with Martin doing his utmost but failing under the weight of the restricted screenplay.

A particular matter of disgust was the film’s method in delivering the message that we should be appreciating African American culture rather than chastising it.  I felt Martin’s antics (particularly those in the club scene at the end) were insulting and I’m interested in anyone else’s opinion on this matter.  The jokes were in very poor taste.

Queen Latifah gets few chances to dazzle, the usually witty Eugene Levy is lifeless and the other supporting stereotypes (sorry, I mean characters) are summed up by the stupidity of the next door neighbour (Bette White) and the silliness of the wealthy new client (Joan Plowright).  First time screenwriter Jason Filardi needs to throw away his textbook of overused clichés and rising director Adam Shankman (The Wedding Planner, A Walk To Remember) needs to be more selective of his material.  Honestly, I can’t think of a single member of the cast or crew who brought any initiative to this project.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 22 April 2003

The older, wiser Tom Ripley now lives happily in a luxurious French mansion.  His wife, Luisa (Caselli), knows much of Tom’s past and seems equally as cunning as her husband.  A face from the past comes to visit Tom and he is known simply as Reeves (Winstone).  After a botched art deal three years earlier, Tom told Reeves never to speak with him ever again.  Still, he’s curious as to what is important enough to have him come to his French doorstep.

It’s a simple job – Reeves needs a man killed.  Tom doesn’t want to help Reeves in any way but sees an opportunity to have a little fun.  One of Tom’s next door neighbours is Jonathan Trevanny (Scott) who has terminal leukaemia and only a few months to live.  He and his wife Sarah (Headey) are struggling to make ends meet and Jonathan is worried that Sarah and their young son won’t have financial stability when he passes on.

Tom suggests to Reeves that Jonathan is the man he should hire for his assignment.  As expected, Jonathan wants no part of the idea but with one hundred thousand pounds being waved in front of his nose, the offer becomes too attractive.  Tom isn’t going to completely wash his hands of this situation – he has done what he has done not to protect himself, but to see what Jonathan is really made of.

Expecting disappointment, due to my love for the The Talented Mr. Ripley, I found there was much to enjoy in Ripley’s Game with John Malkovich’s performance a clear highlight.  He’s ice-cool under pressure and never changes his demeanour.  You know he’s an evil man but the personality gives no immediate indication of who he likes and who he doesn’t.  It’ll keep you on your toes.  Also, the French backdrop is used to maximum effect by Italian director Liliani Cavani.  There are some wonderful scenes on Tom’s estate – the whole setting is rather peaceful.

Getting its release in Australia over the Easter break, the film hasn’t had quite the success expected in the United States.  It was due to be released two weeks ago but pulled at the last minute by the studio for no apparent reason and a “straight to video” release has been tipped.  Also of interest is the latest news that the second book from Highsmith, Ripley Underground, is now to be made into a movie.  Starring Barry Pepper and Tom Wilkinson, expect its release in mid 2004.  The intrigue of Tom Ripley is taking hold.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 13 April 2003

Johnny English become a spy by default when all the agents at the department in which he works are killed in an explosion.  He is called upon to guard the crown jewels at a special unveiling but as expected, he blows the job.  Given the chance to redeem himself, he immediately suspects wealthy Frenchman Pascal Sauvage (Malkovich) but doesn’t have the evidence to support his theory.

With partner, Bough (Miller), and another curious damsel, Lorna (Imbruglia), he begins his investigation.  As you’d be well aware, it’s one “joke” after the other.  He bumbles through the case in the tradition of Austin Powers and The Naked Guy to wind up becoming the hero.

Like so many other comedies I’ve been critical of in the past few months, Johnny English is terribly unadventurous.  The punchlines to most of these jokes aren’t required because we’ve heard them before.  Don’t you hate someone telling you a joke when you already know how it ends?  That suffering in the forced laugh you would reply with is roughly equivalent to the experience of watching this film.  The three-man screenwriting team is well behind the times in terms of its material.

Australian singer Natalie Imbruglia makes her motion picture debut with little fanfare.  Her own lines require even less effort than the hammy material she delivered in her run on Neighbours ten years ago.  I will not be too hasty in judging her talents though as the limited screenplay clearly contributed to her performance.  I also hope dual Academy Award nominee John Malkovich regrets his involvement.  His accent is lame and the concept is just really, really stupid.

Helping this package stay together are a few select gags which do hit the mark.  Sadly, I emphasise these being the minority rather than the majority.  An idea which is funny for a few minutes doesn’t make a motion picture.  That’s the lesson here.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 18 April 2003

Standing beside his long-time girlfriend Linda (Tomei), Dave Buznik (Sandler) is about to board a plane.  He doesn’t kiss Linda good-bye because a painful childhood incident has left him with a phobia of kissing in public.  Once aboard, the quiet, nervy Dave takes his seat next to an eccentric gentleman who won’t give him any peace.  He asks the stewardess (sorry I mean, flight attendant) for some headphones but she seems preoccupied with gossiping to her fellow employee.  As she walks past his seat empty handed, Dave grabs her arm to ask yet again.  Sooner than you can blink, Dave’s in court on an assault charge and sentenced to 20 hours of anger management therapy under the guidance of Dr. Buddy Rydell (Nicholson).

This was the dumbest, stupidest opening to a film so far in 2003.  I was literally shocked at how bad and implausible this scenario was.  Yet, for some reason, I had faith.  Faith that actors like the re-born Adam Sandler and the reliable Jack Nicholson wouldn’t sign on for such garbage without a reason.  The thought foremost in my mind was that the silly introduction was designed to lure the audience into a false sense of security before revealing the true “humour”.  Oopsy.  I was wrong.

This farce continues in a similar vein.  Dave finds himself up again on another “anger management charge” and to avoid a one year prison sentence, Buddy gets approval of the court to move in with Dave to cure his problem.  With Buddy now following him 24 hours a day, the therapy is only adding to Dave’s anger.  They have to sleep in the same bed.  All the phone lines have been bugged.  Dave has to cook breakfast for both every morning.  He’s missing deadlines at work.  Life has become a living hell.

There’s an attempt at the very end to explain these crazy happenings.  Whilst my tongue burns to reveal all, I’ll limit myself to a brief scathing.  This ending is completely bogus and the more you think about it, the more you’ll realise it doesn’t make a single shred of sense.  It’s as if two completely different scripts were written with the beginning of one was attached to the ending of the other.

It’s hard what to make of it all.  Amongst the childish jokes (highlighted by a scene where Nicholson farts in bed), there’s a slight hint that there may well be a darker undertone to Sandler’s story (ala Punch-Drunk Love).  Don’t even bother getting your hopes up as the lovey-dovey ending immediately put that theory to sleep.  You’ll find it’s easy to compensate for the lack of darkness by simply closing your eyes and cringing.

The film comes to us from the Happy Madison production company whose 2002 releases were Eight Crazy Nights, The Hot Chick, Mr. Deeds and The Master Of Disguise.  With four consecutive dismal efforts, I should have been more apprehensive towards Anger Management.  The film will undoubtedly be a box-office success (due to the huge marketing campaign) but it’s just as bad and unfunny as the aforementioned titles.  The only joke here, is the film itself.