Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 07 March 2002

This film is a great illustration when teaching people about bad films because there are so many specific examples that can be highlighted.  Let’s start with the most noticeable aspect of a movie - the performances.  I dislike actors who talk with unrealistic precision - each line is too perfect.  Justin Chambers is D’Artagnan and his seriousness is laughable.  Mena Suvari is his romantic conquest, Francesca, and talks like a pompous ice queen.  Stephen Rea and Tim Roth are the villains.  Why do bad guys always have to be so over the top?  Do they think we can’t understand that they are the bad guys?

Now for some simple lessons in direction.  The Musketeer features many stunts and sword fighting duels.  These scenes are very weak and have tried to be concealed by over editing.  It’s all edited so quickly, that you can’t understand what’s going on.  A perfect example is the bizarre finale where D’Artagnan and his enemy, Febre (Roth), fight in a “barn” on top of moving ladders.  The idea is stupid and it looks even stupider on screen.

What about sound effects?  This really pissed me off.  The same repetitive metallic sounds are used during all the sword fighting battles to signify the sound of metal hitting metal.  Why is it then that the same sound is heard when metal hits concrete or when metal hits wood?  Give me a break.

Time now for some general negative comments.  The opening credits stink and look like they belong in a Hallmark telemovie.  Opening credits of recent years have been very creative which the credits of The Musketeer even more surprising.  The music is hopelessly over-the-top.  A good film score should complement the film and not distract the audience but composer David Arnold seems to have accomplished the later.

It seems I’ve forgotten to mention the plot.  Don’t worry, there isn’t one anyway.  A few musketeers save the day, yadda, yadda, yadda.  Boy, what creativity in choosing the musketeers to make a movie about.  About how many times has it been done before?  If you check the Internet Movie Database, the word “musketeer” appears in the title of 78 different films.  Certainly a big gamble by Miramax and Universal Pictures (please note sarcasm).

Thanks for paying attention during my informative lesson.  For those interested in making a film of their own, this should provide a few helpful tips to win over both audiences and critics.  Class dismissed.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 28 February 2002

Wearing his dark sunglasses, Prot (Spacey) is arrested at a train station for odd behaviour and his lack of identity sees him placed in a mental institution.  There, he talks of his origins on an distant planet named K-Pax and his travels across the universe.  His placid behaviour is a mystery to the medical staff.  There’s no sign of brain damage, no sign of drug use, and yet he talks nonsense which no one believes.

Called in to help, psychiatrist Mark Powell (Bridges) meets Prot and soon becomes fascinated by his story.  Naturally hesitant, Mark soon finds himself believing more and more in Prot’s story and he’s starting to question his ability to look at Prot’s condition objectively.  His wife, Rachel (McCormack), is already frustrated by her husband’s long work hours but now is legitimately worried by his talk of alien life.  Just who is Prot?

Iain Softley (The Wings Of The Dove) has directed a sleepy film that begins ordinarily but then becomes something much deeper.  Spacey and Bridges shares some emotional scenes late in the flick when Prot undergoes hypnosis to dig into his past.  As the patient audience, we’re just as interested as Mark to know the truth.  I was a tad disappointed by the finale’s easy resolution but will say no more as not to spoil it.

The strange title is easy to forget but K-Pax is a solid movie that keeps you alert and builds your curiosity.  Not perfect but the wisdom offered by Prot is valid and worthy of further thought. 

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 07 March 2002

Director John McTiernan has made back-to-back remakes.  Three years, he directed The Thomas Crown Affair which had its moments but Rollerball was a disaster waiting to happen.  The original was made in 1975 and starred James Caan.  I never saw it but it does seem an unlikely candidate for a remake.  Even more so now with MGM spending a whopping $70m on the film and receiving a return of under $20m.  Ouch.

So what is Rollerball?  It’s a game developed by Petrovich (Reno) to market to TV networks.  It’s played on a ring where two teams compete on rollerskates and motorcycles trying to win possession of the ball and smashing it into the goalposts.  Jonathan Cross (Klein) is the number one star of the sport and Petrovich rewards him as such with a very swanky lifestyle.  Cross is having a secret affair with one of his teammates, Aurora (Romijn-Stamos).

TV ratings are slipping and Petrovich is pulling out all stops to keep the networks interested and to keep the cash rolling in.  He sets up a serious of violent accidents on the field and ratings begin to pick up again.  Cross does think much of it at first but friend Marcus Ridley (LL Cool J) suspects Petrovich and the two plan to flee the team and head home.  Not easily done...

There’s some questionable decisions made during this film.  McTiernan has a scene shot at night which has a green tinge as if being watch through night goggles.  It’s fun for a while but the technique wears thin very quickly.  For a rare positive comment, I liked the setting and the Blade Runner like feel of the action.  It’s pretty hard to tell what’s going on but it looked worth watching.  I had to chuckle at McTiernan sneaking in a few breasts shots of the female cast (including Romijn-Stamos).  It’s like something out of the 1980s.

Critics are confident this film will be the worst of the year but I’m not prepared to go as far as it does have redeeming qualities.  I know that’s not a compliment but it’s as close as this film is going to get.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 28 February 2002

When Bobby loses patience with Jessica’s line of work, he sees Max and gets the opportunity he has been hoping for.  Max asks him to travel to New York City for a money-laundering pick-up and he will be rewarded handsomely for his efforts.  Bobby asks if best friend Ricky (Vaughn) can accompany him since Ricky once bailed Bobby out of a tight spot and Ricky is also hard-up financially.  Max does not like Ricky but allows him to go since Bobby vouches on his behalf that he can do the job.

The fun then begins and Made becomes an hilarious black comedy.  Ricky is an annoying dimwit - the kind of person who always says the wrong thing in the wrong situation but keeps getting away with it.  Vaughn has the persona down to perfection and if it’s possible to both cringe and laugh at the same time, then I was doing it.

Vaughn and writer-director Favreau have worked together before in 1996’s cult hit Swingers.  Favreau wrote this film for both himself and Vaughn to reunite on screen and the two play off each other hilariously with their ideally different personalities - they’re the new “odd couple”.  Keep your eyes peeled for the cameo of the year from ex-Saved By The Bell star Dustin Diamond (ala Screech) - inspiring comedy.

It’s a simple 90 minute comedy with some great individual scenes.  Shot for just $5m, I’m glad the film had the opportunity to be released in Australia so it can be seen by those with an appreciation for a darker sense of humour.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 07 March 2002

When it comes to selecting the best of the year, it’s often a fine line and it irks me that films like In The Bedroom, Moulin Rouge, Gosford Park and Mulholland Drive are snuffed into the background as if “inferior” competition.  A Beautiful Mind is an impressive film but in the company of those mentioned above, is nothing special.  I guess this seems like a harsh comment to make to a film worthy of an A- but please do correct me if I’m wrong.

It’s the commercialism of A Beautiful Mind that gives it the appealing edge in the public’s eye.  It’s “based” on the true story of Dr. John Nash, played in the film by Russell Crowe.  In 1947, Nash’s genius earned film a full scholarship at Carnegie University where he developed his talent in the field of mathematics.  On graduating, he then attended the prestigious Princeton University and published a paper on analysing the equilibria in the theory of non-cooperative games.  This theory became a cornerstone in the world of economics and won him the Nobel Prize in 1994.

In the 40 years between the development of the theory and its award-winning acceptance, Nash’s life was not the spectacular one that many envisioned.  Following Princeton, he went to M.I.T. which was where he met his wife, Alicia.  They married in 1959 but soon after it became apparent that Nash was suffering from schizophrenia.  His mind, once his greatest asset, was now his greatest foe and could not be replied upon.  For much of the next twenty years, he spent time in and out of hospital trying to make sense of his delusional theories.  Even today, Nash struggles with this incurable mental disease but his grit and determination has seen him battle the condition and come up a winner.

There’s been conjecture in the press that the film overlooks the important detail that many believed Nash to be a homosexual.  The film’s producers decided against exploring this aspect of Nash as they thought audiences may link schizophrenia with homosexuality.  This insults our intelligence.  Aside, Akiva Goldsman’s (The Client) screenplay brilliant captures the horrors of the disease and the haunting effect it can have over someone.  As director, Ron Howard (Apollo 13) begins slowly with a rather dull introduction but when the film enters the later chapters, it finds its feet and its purpose.

Compare Russell Crowe’s performances in Gladiator and A Beautiful Mind.  Astonishing achievements for a man who is poised to win an Oscar for both roles.  Low-profile actress Jennifer Connolly (Requiem For A Dream) is on a par with Crowe’s dazzling efforts and rounds out a well defined ensemble with Ed Harris and Christopher Plummer.  Specific praise goes to the make-up crew who age our characters over the film’s 50 year time frame, the costume designers for Crowe’s inventive clothing collection and composer James Horner for a career reviving musical score.

A handful of scenes were too melodramatic making it unnecessarily clear a cosmetic brush had given the film a little Hollywood touch up.  Still, the finished product is an important achievement and essential viewing for those looking for a strong, emotional story.  Just why though, did they have to go and spoil it by calling it the year’s best?