Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 26 December 2001

Not revealed to Maggie is that her closest friend, Charlotte Stant (Thurman) has a romantic past with Amerigo.  Once married, Maggie suggests her father marry Charlotte and after doing so, we have a complicated foursome.

Charlotte is married to Adam but longs for Amerigo.  Amerigo is married to Maggie but is torn between his affections for both Maggie and Charlotte.  The large amount of time Maggie spends with her father makes her oblivious to Charlotte’s and Amerigo’s deception.  Fully aware of everyone’s feelings is Fanny but she’s keeping tight-lipped since it was her who introduced Maggie to Amerigo without telling her of Charlotte’s past.

A great intricate romance could only come from an equally great novel.  Henry James’s works have a magical ability to translate well on screen.  The stories are dated but when it comes to the complications of love, nothing has changed in the past 100 years.  Recent adaptations of his other works include The Portrait Of A Lady, The Wings Of The Dove and Washington Square - all films worth seeing if you haven’t already.

The Golden Bowl is a Merchant-Ivory Production which again will prick the ears of those knowledgeable of their works.  James Ivory and Ismail Merchant are renowned for quality period dramas.  Just think of Remains Of The Day, A Room With A View, A Soldier’s Daughter Never Cries and Howard’s End and you’ll know what I speak of.

The cast are well chosen and vital to developing the film’s romance.  Their performances provide an awareness of what each character is feeling and thinking without giving all the cards away.  As time passes, the suspense builds as all come closer to finding the “flaw” in their relationships.

The Golden Bowl should provide perfect entertainment for filmgoers this Christmas who are tired of the commercialism of Vanilla Sky, The Fellowship Of The Ring and Monsters Inc.  A delectable tale to enjoy with a few friends and a hot cup of coffee.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 13 December 2001

The house is left to Arthur Kriticos (Shalhoub) and his two children, Kathy (Elizabeth) and Bobby (Roberts) following the death of his Uncle Cyrus (Abraham).  Arthur’s wife was killed in a house fire six months previous and the family has since struggled both emotionally and financially.  This fortunate break could get their lives back on track.

They take the two hour drive into the secluded forest to see the house for their own eyes.  It’s an archaeological and technological marvel featuring many glass panels, strange rooms and narrow corridors.  On entering the house, they are warned by visitor Dennis Rafkin (Lillard) that there are ghosts locked in the basement and they must leave the house immediately.

In a departure from standard “ghost films”, we don’t go through the whole “I don’t believe in ghosts” routine.  Arthur learns pretty quickly that something is amiss with the house but his son has gone walkabout and he must find him first.  Throughout this, the lawyer has snuck into the basement to find a bag of money left by Cyrus.  When he finds and opens the bag, a mechanism is activated transforming the house into a machine.  All exits are locked, the corridors change and one by one the ghosts are released...

Tony Shalhoub (The Man Who Wasn’t There, Galaxy Quest, A Civil Action) is an usual choice to star in a low budget horror flick but he’s a great choice and gives an even greater performance.  Matthew Lillard has some damn funny lines too.

But back to the house.   I’m positive much of the $20m budget was spent on its creation and Sean Hargreaves, Don Macaulay and Dominique Fauquet-Lemaitre appear in the opening credits and those responsible.  Reminiscent of the indy flick Cube, the entire film is set in one place and it has that claustrophobic feel.  A great job.

Thirteen Ghosts is particularly gruesome and not for the faint of heart.  An early scene involving the lawyer is evidence of that.  But the increased horror pumps the adrenalin and keeps the story rolling.  Not for everyone but good enough for me.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 26 December 2001

There exists a fictitious world where monsters live happily together.  Fearful of humans, they don’t dare enter their world but do rely upon them to survive.  To generate electricity, leading power company Monsters Incorporated needs to harness children’s screams.  So, special doorways have been created that take the scariest monsters into children’s bedrooms to give them quite a fright.

Sulley (Goodman) is the firm’s number one scary monster and with partner Mike (Crystal), they make a formidable team.  There’s newfound competition though with monster Randall Boggs (Buscemi) trying his best to steal Sulley’s top spot title.  Of late though, the energy supply has been drying up because children aren’t as scared as they used to be. 

One evening, a door is left open on the factory floor and Sulley inadvertently lets a small child into the monster world.  Both he and Mike try to sneak her back through the door but it’s too late as the Child Detection Authority has been alerted.  Keeping the child at his house while waiting for the dust to settle, Sully develops an attachment and calls her Boo.  He’s left thinking why monsters are forced to fear humans seeing this little girl couldn’t be any cuter or more innocent.

Trouble is afoot when Sully realises Boo’s arrival at Monsters Incorporated was no accident.  Randall plans on using her as a guinea pig in his new scream extracting machine to revolutionise the industry and seize control of the company.

The quality of animation matches the high benchmark set by this year’s other animated hit, Shrek.  Both films share a great sense of humour which will be adored by both children and adults (kind of like The Simpsons).  But I do wonder if we’re becoming too easy to please in the animated market.  The plot shares many similarities with both Toy Story films - it’s about what goes on in your bedroom when you’re not looking.  Shrek took a bigger gamble with a more creative script and deserves more acclaim.

I still had fun in Monsters Inc. and kids are going to flock in masses to see it.  My “adult” criticisms will mean nothing to children who will adore the cute monsters and be entertained by the silly story.  It’s good value for money (especially if you’re paying kids prices).

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 06 December 2001

A year has passed and our cast have just finished their first year at college.  It’s the summer holidays and time to reunite and relive memories from yesteryear.  Kev (Nicholas) is given the idea to rent a beach house over the break as a way of getting everyone together.  Jim (Biggs), Oz (Klein), Finch (Thomas) and Stifler (Scott) help put in the cash and the fun is about to begin.

Jim’s still thinking of the one that got away but when Nadia (Elizabeth) calls and says she’ll be in town soon, things start looking up.  Oz and Heather (Suvari) are still a sizzling couple but with Heather in France for the holidays, the two spend the time apart longing for each other.  Kev and Vicky (Reid) now have an uncomfortable friendship having parted company after school broke up – are they just friends or is there something more between them?  Finally, Finch still dreams of “Stiffler’s mum” and the indication that she’ll be paying a visit is all he needs to make this summer a great one.

There are loads of great gags.  They can be seen coming from a mile away but it suits the film’s style.  Like There’s Something About Mary, each joke is drawn out to its full potential.  Just when you think a scene couldn’t be any crazier, it’s taken to an even higher level.

A visible aspect of the second film is the increase in the rudeness and crudeness of the subject material.  Some borderlines an R-rating but as the movie is seen as a light-hearted teen comedy, the censors have gone a little easier.

In contrast to the original, there’s a clear discrepancy in the screen time each character is awarded.  Oz, Heather, Kev and Vicky are largely in the background.  Sean William Scott as Stifler is the clear winner with his hormonally charged persona attracted the most laughs and attention.  It’s nice to see Eugene Levy as Jim’s dad get more lines also - he’s a very funny guy.  Jason Biggs as Jim obviously has the “big balls” he suggests in taking on this sequel.  In this film alone - he kisses another guy, has a trumpet stuck up his ass, feels another girl’s breasts, wears a revealing diaper, and let’s not forget the aforementioned scene.

Aside from the jokes, it’s the heart and spirit of the story that makes it a winner in my book.  It talks about friendship and how people change over time.  We always wish we could go back to the way it was but often we are blind sighted by just how good we have it now.  Most teen films don’t purport to teach us such lessons and it’s why American Pie is already a classic and American Pie 2 is destined to be.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 20 December 2001

From Academy Award winning writer/director Cameron Crowe comes Vanilla Sky.  The film has an interesting story.  It’s a remake of a 1997 Spanish film called Open Your Eyes which was directed by Alejandro Amenabar (and also screened at the Brisbane International Film Festival a few years ago).  Penelope Cruz plays the same roll in both films.  Amenabar made his Hollywood debut this year when he directed The Others starring Nicole Kidman.  Kidman split with Cruise after he developed a relationship with Cruz during the filming of Vanilla Sky.

The above coincidences make a better story than the film itself.  It begins with wealthy company owner David Aames (Cruise) being awoken after his alarm clock whispers “open your eyes”.  He wakes up, gets dressed and heads to work but it’s all wrong - the streets of New York are deserted and there’s not a soul in sight.  But suddenly he’s awoken after his alarm clock whispers “open your eyes”.  That’s what the film is all about - the difference between dreams and reality.

David meets “moth” Sofia (Cruz) at a party and the two feel love at first sight.  The catch is that David is currently screwing Julie (Diaz) who is jealous that he’s found another.  And so she does what anyone else would - she picks David up and then drives off a bridge at 80m/hr.  Julie is killed but David survives and awakes from a long coma with a heavily disfigured arm and face.  His perfect world has been shattered and he’s gone from the person everyone wants to be around to the person no one wants to see.

After a romantic-free first hour, the complicated plot takes shape.  The film doesn’t make a lot of sense but we follow it anyway because we hope for a key scene where it will all fit together.  That scene does come but the explanation was unsatisfying.  Over the past year, Memento and The Pledge have been prime examples in showing how to leave the audience hanging (and thinking) with a crafty finale.  I would love to begin a heated discussion as to why the ending of Vanilla Sky is poor but won’t ruin it for those who wish to see it.

Tom Cruise continues to frustrate.  He is too over-passionate and I’m tiring of his sensitive shtick - he’s just milking our emotions.  Penelope Cruz offers little to the film and I continue to endorse my position that she’s typecast as Spanish eye candy in romantic dramas.  This is her fourth film in 2001 (following Captain Corelli’s Mandolin, Blow and All The Pretty Horses) and if you just “open your eyes”, you’ll find she’s the same person in all four films.  As the exception, Cameron Diaz did impress with a juicier role that does deserve acclaim.

Cameron Crowe is a great director but the deep material contrasts his style and he hasn’t adapted to suit it.  To confound us, the story is interwoven with fragments from the past and the future but it doesn’t add to the intrigue, it just adds to the confusion.  Vanilla Sky is a film that needs to be seen multiple times to understand.  I’m sure I’d appreciate the film more on a second viewing but after what I saw the first time, I’ve no desire to go back.