Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 03 May 2001

The President of the United States is the world’s most powerful person and is one of few that could issue that command.  Think about power in general and the effect it has on people.  Everybody wants it and yet some people change and cannot cope when even the slightest pressure is placed on them.  If the world were to go to war today, George W. Bush could control the lives of four billion people and just imagine the pressure that would be placed on any decision he made.

Crimson Tide provided a worthy illustration of power, pressure and nuclear weapons.  It was fictitious of course and one would hope that the situation depicted could and would never eventuate.  Thirteen Days cannot be classed similarly because it is a true story and the key factor that makes it so entrancing to watch.

In October 1962, U.S. spy planes discovered missiles being assembled in Cuba that had been obtained from the Russians.  Cuba believed the U.S. was planning to attack.  Joining forces with Russia, they intended using the weapons to defend themselves.  The U.S. interpreted things differently.  They never had intention to invade Cuba and saw the development of weapons as a threat to their own security.

Over the next 13 days, the world was brought to a standstill and braced for World War III.  President John F. Kennedy (Greenwood) and his adviser Kenny O’Donnell (Costner) were left to make the biggest decision of their lives.  Military leaders advised the president to strike Cuba before assembly was completed but Kennedy was reluctant given that many lives would be lost and the world would see America as breaching international treaties.

I could write a book on how detailed the crisis was but someone has beaten me to it.  The film is based on a novel by Ernest May and Philip Zelikow which was compiled from eyewitness testimony and White House audio tapes.   At just over two hours, Thirteen Days captures only a brief glimpse of the conflict but still develops incredible tension.  The film is unrelenting and keeps building until the history making conclusion.

Kevin Costner gives his best performance since JFK which is ironic - perhaps Costner prefers political material.  As Kennedy himself, Bruce Greenwood is remarkable.  He plays a subdued character who is rarely upset but on the cusp of losing control.  I’m so familiar with Greenwood playing the “bad guy” (as in Rules of Engagement, Double Jeopardy and The Sweet Hereafter) but here he portrays one of the most important people of the 20th Century and rises to a challenge that would be beyond other actors.

I’m a fan of political dramas if just to see the effect that power and pressure have on one’s judgment.  Bulworth, Primary Colours and The Contender are all A-worthy in my opinion and Thirteen Days continues the impressive trend.  We don’t often see what goes on behind closed doors and are accustomed to the usual clichés and statements politicians tout.  This film will shock you but I wonder just how many equally compelling stories are kept within the walls of the White House and the Pentagon?  If we only knew...

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 19 April 2001

Steven Seagal (aka Orin Boyd) saves the vice-president in a blaze of glory after a huge shootout with a militia group.  Instead of the praise he expected to receive, he’s demoted for having stepped on the toes of the Secret Service and stealing their thunder.  Now in the 15th Precinct (as low as it gets), he’s still out to settle unfinished business on the streets.

He discovers a drug dealer by the name of Latrell Walker (DMX) who is setting up something big and is getting help from inside the ranks.  It seems there are corrupt officers getting a slice of Walker’s pie in return for police protection.  So just who can Boyd trust?  Pretty much no one so he takes the law into his own hands and brings down the whole cartel (crooked cops and all).

Like any porno, the plot is secondary to the action.  That doesn’t excuse the film but at least you know what you’re getting when you see a film like Exit Wounds.  Personally, I found it pathetic but that’s because I had no desire to see it.  However, there were audience members cheering and clapping as Seagal blew things up and butchered his victims.  It’s all in fun but be forewarned that it is more violent than you’re usual action film.

Seagal may be a great action lead but he can’t act and will be left with roles like this until he either dies or retires.  He lacks the wit of an Arnold Swarzenegger but he’s definitely got more pizzazz than a Jean Claude Van Damme or Dennis Rodman (that’s not saying much).  He just walks around looking serious, talking tough and always finding a way out of impossible situations.  For example, in Exit Wounds, he manages to escape from a moving car despite being handcuffed and surrounded by 4 armed men.  Don’t ask me how.

You can forget the “wounds” because all I was looking for was the “exit”.  Then again, I was stupid enough to go through the “entry” and deserved the punishment I endured.  If I haven’t convinced you not to see this film then I’ll give you one final piece of advice that should provide proof without a shadow of a doubt - Tom Arnold is a co-star.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 26 April 2001

Bill Gates falls into the above category and is the obvious inspiration for Antitrust’s Gary Winston (played by Tim Robbins).  Gary is battling his competitors in trying to become the first to develop technology with the ability to link every electronic medium in the world.

With his much publicised product launch just 42 days away, he recruits young computer genius Milo Hoffman (Phillippe) to solve the major technical glitches that continue to plague the software.  For Milo, this is a career defining opportunity and girlfriend Alice (Forlani) is equally excited by the money on offer.

After settling in for a few weeks, Milo comes to learn that something isn’t quite right about the organisation.  Every time he’s stuck in a programming jam, Gary provides a near-immediate answer to his problems.  Just where is Gary getting his information from?  He doesn’t have time to program all this language himself so are there others working for him or is he part of conspiracy that’s stealing ideas from his rivals?

Whilst it may appear targeted at a teen audience (with the casting of Phillippe and Cook), Antitrust is a sharp thriller with legitimate perspectives on the “antitrust” laws.  Milo feels the software should be free to the public given its importance and puts this question to Gary who responds by saying he’ll use the billions raised to fund future projects and make technology even better.  Is that a valid argument?  As I walked out of the cinema, I saw an advert boldly proclaiming that Westfield is donating $1,000,000 for computers in schools.  Are they doing it to further our children’s education or are they just doing it for publicity?  Just what is their motive?

Political statements aside, Antitrust also looks at the simple importance of trust - something we can all relate to.  Gary’s money and power give him a lot of friends so just who can Milo turn to when he senses something is wrong?  As fellow worker Lisa (Cook) says to Milo, “how do you let go of a secret without telling the wrong person?”  Sometimes we get it right but sometimes we get it wrong and pay the price.

Director Peter Howitt (In The Name Of The Father, Sliding Doors) has made as heightened the suspense of this edge-of-your-seat thriller thanks to some slick music from Don Davis, speedy editing from Academy Award winner Zach Staenberg (The Matrix) and dazzling sets from Doug Byggdin and Rose Marie McScherry.  The eye-catching opening credits set a high standard that is lived up to.  Ryan Phillippe shows he can carry a film and Tim Robbins again proves that he’s one of the few actors in Hollywood who can play both a good guy (as in The Shawshank Redemption) and a bad guy (as in Arlington Road) really well.

The catchphrase reiterated throughout the film is that “a good chess player always knows his opponents moves before he makes them”.  It’s kind of the same way I look at films - I like it when the film knows what I’m expecting and then surprises by taking a different direction.  Antitrust is one such film so make sure you check it out.  Don’t worry, you can “trust” me.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 19 April 2001

Aside, the film stinks anyway.  It’s the story of seven guys who make a “tomcats” bet.  They all put a couple of hundred dollars a year into an investment fund and the last man to get married gets the whole pot.  Five are married in the space of seven years which just leaves two - Michael (O’Connell) and Kyle (Busey) to fight for the kitty which has now reached $500,000.  When Michael goes on a casino gambling spree (trying to impress a young lady), he finds himself $51,000 in debt and 30 days to find the money or else...

If you haven’t already predicted it, the only way Michael can come up with the money is to get Kyle married but that’s going to be a task in itself.  Kyle’s goal in life is to sleep with every single woman on the planet.  He constantly uses women and then dumps them when he’s finished with their services.  The only true love he ever had was a girl he met at a wedding known as Natalie (Elizabeth).  Michael knows he has to track down Natalie and get her to woo Kyle to the altar.

To show just how pitiful this film is, let me give you an example of one scene.  Kyle has cancer of the testicle and has it removed in an operation by his doctor.  Not wanting to leave a part of him behind, he asks Michael to search the hospital and steal the jar that contains his removed testicle.  Michael finds it but drops the jar leaving the swollen testicle on the ground.  It a barrage of coincidences, the testicle is kicked around the hospital until it finds itself in the cafeteria on a tray of sticky buns.  The buns are spilt and the testicle is now on the lunch tray of the doctor who promptly takes a juicy bite.  Classy.

Not my kind of film and judging from the trailers before it, more sick garbage is on the way.  Previews for David Spade’s Joe Dirt and Tom Green’s Freddie Got Fingered show that just when you think we’ve sunk to a new low, we somehow find a way to sink even lower.  Gross out comedies are over produced and when people of the future look back, they’ll wonder how such trash came to be made.  It must be kind of like us looking back on the late 80s and cringing at titles such as Revenge Of The Nerds 4: Nerds In Love and Police Academy 6: City Under Siege.  At least things aren’t that bad yet, are they?

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 26 April 2001

With no other option, Jerry heads to Mexico and Sam nicks off to Las Vegas to start a new life.  There’s a lot more at stake here and Jerry’s about to find out just how much the gun is really worth.  It seems everyone wants the gun for their own and a hitman know as Leroy (Gandolfini) has kidnapped Sam in Vegas to use her as leverage in securing the gun.  When he finds that Sam and Jerry have split, he’s determined not to lose the edge and with his compassionate side, shows Sam just how much she still loves Jerry and vice-versa.

It’s hard to fit this film into any particular genre - there’s a mix of comedy, drama and romance but in all honesty, the story is juvenile.  Both Pitt and Roberts are unexpectedly impressive but most will agree James Gandolfini stands out and will provide the film’s talking points.  I did enjoy the way the story was told.  Apart from the opening ten minutes, our two stars do not share a scene for over an hour and watching both their adventures provides more material.

The Mexican is different but not in a positive or negative way.  You can tell you’re watching a classy production made by the best in the biz but you’re never really captivated by the story nor are you able to gauge how you’re supposed to feel.  Important characters are killed but not enough seems to be made of their demise as if secondary to the whole Pitt/Roberts thing.  The film also proposes to give lessons in love which I felt were best left implied rather than spelt out.

Box-office figures haven’t been huge and I’m Dreamworks will be disappointed given the star billing.  It shows you need a script to make a movie and to be truly successful, you need your audience to like it and recommend it to others.  This is not one of those films.