Reviews
Rabbit-Proof Fence
- Details
- Written by Matthew Toomey
Directed by: | Phillip Noyce |
Written by: | Christine Olsen |
Starring: | Everlyn Sampi, Tianna Sansbury, Laura Monaghan, Kenneth Branagh |
Released: | February 21, 2002 |
Grade: | A- |
“The policeman came and took us, Gracie, Daisy and me, Molly. They put us in that place. They told us we had no mothers. I knew they were wrong. We run away. Long way from there. We knew we find that fence, we go home.” (Molly Craig)
Rabbit-Proof Fence is a vehicle to further highlight the topical issue of the “stolen generation”. Made in Australia, it can expect a world-wide release because of one person - the director Phillip Noyce. As the director of such films as Patriot Games, Clear And Present Danger and The Saint, Noyce has standing. He’d have the choice of any project in Hollywood but instead has chosen this small project. It’s budget is less than 10% of his last film, The Bone Collector.
Set in Western Australia 1931, Mr A.O. Neville (Branagh) is in charge of policing the government’s policy on aboriginal children. There has been an increase in the number of “half-castes” - those born of a white father and an Aboriginal mother. To prevent interracial deconstruction, Neville identifies half-caste children and they are taken to the Moore River Native Settlement to be re-educated to the ways of the “white man”.
Molly (Sampi), Daisy (Sansbury) and Gracie (Monaghan) are taken from their mother in Jigalong and forced to live at the Settlement. Conditions are terrible, they are treated like slaves and all three want to return to their mother. They escape and begin a 1,200 mile trek to find their home. They are being chased by the Settlement tracker, the press and the government but somehow these three girls defy the odds. Sticking close to the rabbit-proof fence that leads them north, the elements soon become their biggest obstacle.
Rabbit-Proof Fence is an intelligently created movie. It brings to light the shocking treatment of Aboriginal children in the early 20th century but does so by not preaching documentary style. The story is the key and this simple tale of three girls looking for their mother will tug the heartstrings in the right way.
Noyce’s direction is sensational and the cinematography is amazing. He has captured the barrenness and desolation of outback Australia with precision - it’s a side of Australia we don’t often see. There was obvious difficulty in casting the three leading roles. Over 1,000 girls were auditioned and Everlyn Sampi (11), Laura Monaghan (9) and Tianna Sansbury (7) were those selected. None had prior acting experience and it does show. Given their age though, they can’t be criticised.
An important film in Australia’s own cinematic landscape, Rabbit-Proof Fence needs to be seen for not only its entertainment but for its education.
Ali
- Details
- Written by Matthew Toomey
Directed by: | Michael Mann |
Written by: | Stephen J. Rivele, Christopher Wilkinson, Eric Roth, Michael Mann |
Starring: | Will Smith, Jamie Foxx, Jon Voight, Mario Van Peebles, Ron Silver, Jeffrey Wright |
Released: | February 21, 2002 |
Grade: | B- |
Mohammed Ali may have been the “greatest” but his namesake movie is anything but. It’s a dull picture that offers little in-depth insight into the Ali and his accomplishments. The film bypasses Ali’s upbringing and picks up in 1964 as he bursts onto the boxing scene by claiming the world title. It’s a lengthy intro but once completed, the film moves into its darker chapter.
Ali was drafted by the U.S. Army but refused to do his service on the grounds of his Muslim beliefs. He was sentenced to five years jail but thanks to the American appeals process, he never actually served any time behind bars. Just as important though, his boxing licence was revoked and he could no longer compete in the sport that had made him the “champ”.
Still the outspoken one, Ali’s wealth dried up and his marriage failed. All he wanted was a chance to prove himself again in the ring and thanks to heavy lobbying and the help of sports journalist Howard Cosell (Voight), he would get his chance. Under the management of Don King, a fight was set up in Zaire against the new undefeated world champ, George Foreman. It would become known as the “rumble in the jungle”.
It chokes me up to say this but Will Smith is the best aspect of Ali. Until this point, I have loathed Smith’s acting ability. After a lucrative start to his career in Six Degrees Of Separation, he has fallen with a series of unintelligent roles requiring nothing more than an occasional unfunny sarcastic remark. Those looking for examples should watch Bad Boys, Independence Day, Men In Black, Enemy Of The State and Wild Wild West. Notably, Smith’s accent is on the money in Ali and it’s evident he spent much time in the ring to mimic his style to that of the man himself. I can no longer deny that Smith is worthy of an Oscar nomination.
Jon Voight is the other of the cast to be nominated this year but his performance is short and limited. Sure he’s unrecognisable (a job he’s good at ala: U-Turn) but just because he wears a silly toupee does mean he’s acting well. Jamie Foxx the real standout of the supporting cast.
Having loved Heat and The Insider, I expected more from director Michael Mann. The boxing scenes are not exciting and the film’s dramatic moments are not passionate. The fragmented screenplay (to which Mann was a co-writer) is also a huge let down. The film tries to tell too much of Ali’s story and much of the middle resembles a muddle of events. And what was with all those long musical numbers?
By the 2 hour mark, I was ready to knock myself out but sadly had to sit there until the full 156 minutes had expired. I am not disrespecting the achievements of Mohammed Ali because I know he has done much positive for this world. Rather, I am trashing this interpretation of his life that tells us nothing at all about a man who is so intriguing. The Academy Award winning documentary, When We Were Kings, is an undeniably better film to watch if your looking for the real Ali story. It makes this film look vastly inferior.
The Shipping News
- Details
- Written by Matthew Toomey
Directed by: | Lasse Hallstrom |
Written by: | Robert Nelson Jacobs |
Starring: | Kevin Spacey, Julianne Moore, Judi Dench, Cate Blanchett, Pete Postlethwaite, Rhys Ifans, Jason Behr, Scott Glenn |
Released: | February 7, 2002 |
Grade: | B |
Miramax Studios has had a film nominated for best picture at the Academy Awards for nine consecutive years. Their million dollar Oscar advertising campaigns have come under fire but whatever they’re doing must be working. In 1999, The Cider House Rules was their nominee. In 2000, Chocolat was their nominee. Both films were directed by Lasse Hallstrom (What’s Eating Gilbert Grape).
Seeing Hallstrom was an expert in producing a “prestige” picture, they signed him to make The Shipping News - a “prestige” book written by E. Annie Proulx. They signed Oscar winning “prestige” actors Kevin Spacey and Judi Dench and had the film ready to release in December, the “prestige” time of the year. Sadly, there’s only so much “prestige” one can take and The Shipping News has been a disappointment at the box-office and with critics. It’s no surprise that Miramax has abandoned its marketing for the film and is pumping everything into In The Bedroom to give the studio it’s 10th consecutive nominee.
It’s difficult to translate a respected novel onto the big screen. It’s not impossible (see Lord Of The Rings) but it doesn’t happen very often. The adaptation is the problem here. The film plays like fragments of multiple stories that don’t gel. There’s little character development at the beginning nor little resolution at the end. Despite being beautifully shot in the snow-covered lands of northern Canada, my feeling for the film was equal to that of the weather - cold.
Kevin Spacey is Quoyle, a slow and simple man with a 6-year-old daughter, Bunny. His wife, Petal (Blanchett), has no respect for him and travels around the country sleeping with other men. When she is killed in a car accident, Quoyle packs his bags and travels with his long-lost aunt, Agnis (Dench), to Newfoundland where his ancestors once lived. He finds a job as a reporter for the local newspaper, makes new friends and finds a new love, Wavey (Moore), who operates the day care centre. Quoyle slowly finds himself enjoying life but he’s still battling the demons that haunt his past...
There are subplots. Scott Glenn is the newspaper’s owner who gives Quoyle his big break. Pete Postlethwaite and Rhys Ifans are Quoyle’s work colleagues who teach him a thing or two about life in the small community. Jason Behr is a handyman helping repair Agnis’s old house. All of them have their own troubles but are secondary to those of Quoyle.
The performances cannot be questioned. Spacey is a little over-the-top with his subdued personality but he’s still the guy you want to root for. Dench is great in her supporting role and it only adds to the amazing Hollywood resume (including Shakespeare In Love, Mrs. Brown and Chocolat) she has compiled late in her career. Of the crew, Christopher Young’s score is wonderful and a film highlight. Hallstrom’s direction was a tad disappointing - perhaps I’m tired of him directing these slow-paced mushy dramas. It’s the same soft camera movement appreciating panoramic surroundings. Perhaps he needs a good action flick to get it out of his system.
The headline is in - “The Shipping News is good but not great.” It ain’t page one material.
Black Hawk Down
- Details
- Written by Matthew Toomey
Directed by: | Ridley Scott |
Written by: | Ken Nolan, Steven Zaillian |
Starring: | Josh Hartnett, Eric Bana, Ewan McGregor, Tom Sizemore, Sam Shepard, William Fichtner, Ewen Bremner |
Released: | February 21, 2002 |
Grade: | A |
This film is directed by Ridley Scott (Alien, Thelma & Louise, Gladiator). There are few who could have made this very challenging motion picture and the highest credit goes to Mr Scott for holding it together. War is not formulaic. Films are formulaic. It’s a paradox that difficult to bridge. Scott has crafted a film where the audience has a complete sense of understanding despite the breakneck speed of the battle.
This film is a true story. In 1993, Somalia was being controlled by Mohammed Farrah Aidid, a despised military leader. To proliferate his power, Aidid had intercepted packages of foreign aid and over 300,000 Somalians had died of starvation. In August 1993, U.S. troops were sent to Somalia to assassinate Aidid and begin rebuilding the shattered country. On October 3, 1993, American intelligence learned that two of Aidid’s lieutenants were meeting in Mogadishu. U.S. troops were sent to the location but as history tells, it all went horribly wrong. Two Black Hawk helicopters were shot down in hostile territory forcing the troops to redirect their attention. It was no longer a routine kidnap operation. It was a complicated rescue mission.
This film has an accomplished cast. As The Thin Red Line showed, the use of many well-known actors helps the audience identify and differentiate between the characters. Josh Hartnett (who can now be forgiven for Pearl Harbor) gives a blue-ribbon performance - he’s just a young kid but his natural leadership ability makes him an unlikely hero. My favourite of the cast was Sam Shepard who controls the operation from the military base - he has hundreds of lives in his hands and one bad judgement could cost him. Shepard ideally captures the persona of a man who’s trying to stay cool but knows the pressure is building.
This film has immaculate realism. Shot in Morocco, cameras have been set up in helicopters, tanks and buildings to give a wider picture of the intensity and ferocity of battle. The crash of the first Black Hawk is a prime example of a great action sequence. The helicopter flyovers also work well and help us track our troops and gauge the difficulty of their surroundings.
This film has a purpose. Like another great recent war flick, Saving Private Ryan, the film isn’t solely about the horrors and injustices of war. It’s about comradery. Hundreds of men were willing to risk their own lives to save the few men who were aboard the downed Black Hawks. It’s the golden rule (and the film’s catchphrase) - you leave no man behind.
This film (for once) doesn’t try to tell us that American always makes the right decisions. In fact, an opposing viewpoint is expressed. As a result of the bungled mission, 19 U.S. Soldiers and over 1,000 Somalians were killed. A tragedy of massive proportions and Ridley Scott makes this very clear. The opening minute gives us a well worded introduction and the closing minutes gives us a well worded conclusion. They’re the perfect bookend to the furious pace that makes the 143 minute running time seem much shorter.
This film shouldn’t be overlooked.
This film is Black Hawk Down.
Domestic Disturbance
- Details
- Written by Matthew Toomey
Directed by: | Harold Becker |
Written by: | Lewis Colick |
Starring: | John Travolta, Vince Vaughn, Teri Polo, Steve Buscemi, James Lashly |
Released: | February 7, 2002 |
Grade: | C |
The problem with Domestic Disturbance is that the actual odds of it actually happening are similar to those of me winning the lotto for three consecutive weeks. 12-year-old Danny Morrison (O’Leary) has been rebelling since the marriage breakdown and subsequent divorce of his parents Frank (Travolta) and Susan (Polo). Things are boiling over with Susan to marry Rick Barnes (Vaughn), a wealthy businessman with fine standing in the community.
I’m probably going to spoil most of the film from here but it must be done to have a full appreciation of just how senseless it really is. Just as Rick is about to say “I do” at the wedding, an old friend, Ray Coleman (Buscemi) appears on the scene. It turns out that Ray has been in jail and has come to claim his share of the loot that Rick ran off with. A few weeks after the wedding, Rick agrees to give Ray a large cash sum to settle the ledger.
That same night, Susan comes home to tell Rick that she’s pregnant. Danny overhears the conversation and is upset. When Rick says he’s going into town to do some work, Danny hides in the back seat of Rick’s car to sneak a ride into town to see his bad. But it turns out Rick isn’t “working”. He picks up Ray (who’s waiting for his money), kills him and then burns the body in the oven of an old warehouse.
At the warehouse, Danny manages to sneak out of the car undetected and runs to his dads house where they call the police. However when the police arrive at the warehouse, there’s no evidence of any murder and everyone believes Danny is just causing trouble because he’s upset at his mother’s new marriage. Of course Frank still believes him and with the police not helping, begins an investigation of his own to find out who Rick Barnes really is.
I’ve done a rough calculation in my head and I think the odds of this happening is about 400 billion-to-one. Let me look at some of the striking coincidences that occur for this to take place. (1) Ray arrives just as the wedding takes place; (2) Frank sees Ray at the wedding and introduces himself - and hence he knows his name; (3) Frank runs to Ray in a restaurant a few weeks later and asks why he’s still in town whilst at the same time, Rick sees them having lunch; (4) Susan tells Rick she pregnant the same night he’s going to murder Ray; (5) Danny decides to sneak the ride in Rick’s car and somehow goes unnoticed; (6) just as Ray realises Danny is in the back seat, he is killed, (7) the police somehow find no evidence of Ray’s body or whereabouts and don’t seem to care.
I’d go and talk about the second half of the film but I couldn’t be bothered. Let’s cut right to the chase then. Frank discovers the truth about Rick months later when he does a simple internet search using the name “Ray Coleman”. How weak is that? Just how dumb are these people?
The only saving grace for the film are decent performances from the cast. Without excelling, they at least look interested even if their scripted lines and reactions are completely illogical. Very poorly written and directed, Domestic Disturbance is unworthy of cinema release and should have been seen straight off the video shelf. Then again, it shouldn’t have been seen at all.
From Hell
- Details
- Written by Matthew Toomey
Directed by: | Albert Hughes, Allen Hughes |
Written by: | Terry Hayes, Rafael Yglesias |
Starring: | Johnny Depp, Heather Graham, Ian Holm, Ian Richardson, Robbie Coltrane |
Released: | February 14, 2002 |
Grade: | B+ |
A quick history lesson for those not update with their famous serial killers. An unknown murdered was responsible for the death of five prostitutes in London 1888. He was dubbed Jack The Ripper as many of his victims had organs and body parts removed. He was never caught and thus never identified. This probably only added to the mystique that was Jack The Ripper.
From Hell is a fictitious interpretation of Jack’s story. Inspector Fred Abberline (Depp) has been called upon by Peter Godley (Coltrane) to investigate the first killing. Fred has a unique ability to see into the future and with police left stunned by the killer’s ferocity, he may be their strongest chance to crack the case.
Hunting for clues, Fred meets Mary Kelly (Graham), a prostitute working the night streets. Some of her friends have been victims to the Ripper and her insight is valued information. Further, Mary keeps appearing in Fred’s visions - perhaps a sign she is to become a victim...
Johnny Depp has a genre to himself. Perhaps the only similarity in his choice of roles is that they are all dissimilar. Contrast his works in Edward Scissorhands, What’s Eating Gilbert Grape, Ed Wood, Dead Man, Donnie Brasco, Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas and Sleepy Hollow and you’re looking at one of the world’s most under appreciated actors. He can take on any character and his accent in From Hell is ideally suited.
The era is amazingly captured by directors Albert and Allen Hughes (Menace II Society). They have strong support from cinematographer Peter Deming. It’s a gloomy setting and the violence is disgustingly grotesque (bordering an R-rating) but their artistry makes it hypnotically interesting. There’s a wonderful use a shadows and concealing camera angles to keep the killer’s identity hidden. Further, they tease the audience with brief glimpses of the mutated corpses (sounds charming I know).
An unfortunate flaw of the flick is that the identity of the killer in the film is too obvious. A friend recognised the voice of the killer from the trailer and pinpointed exactly who it was. So as it turned out, I knew who Jack The Ripper was (at least in the film) all the way through. Hopefully others won’t pick it quite so easily.
I have to chuckle quietly having seen this film on its day of release which also happened to be Valentine’s Day. You’d think the studios could of offered something with a lesser body count. Oh well, to hell with those who aren’t interested.