Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 22 February 2001

Two years pass and Carl breaks long standing barriers to become the first African-American admitted to the Navy's diving school.  Surprisingly enough, the head of the division is Billy Sunday who has taken the position as compensation for his forced retirement.  Carl goes through all the dramas associated with being black in a white man's world but his determination and vow to his father keeps him from giving in.

Without discrediting the African-American's plight for equality, I felt I'd seen this film before and it offered little new perspective.  I knew exactly what would happen and am tiring quickly of films featuring leading black actors in roles that show how the race has been discriminated against (just look at The Hurricane, Rules Of Engagement and Shaft which have all been released in the past 12 months).  I know life hasn't been easy for many but we don't live in a perfect world and many are trying to make it better.

Whilst I don't know Carl Brasher's story personally, it's had a pretty good makeover for cinematic purposes.  I am also getting annoyed with “bad guy” actors overplaying their roles – they’re too smug and too obvious.  In Men Of Honor, it was David Conrad as Commander Hanks who tries to keep Carl Brasher from realising his dreams.

I enjoyed the performances although Charlize Theron's tiny role was fruitless and confusing.  Gooding Jr and DeNiro share passionate scenes together and watching their relationship evolve is the highlight of the film.  Director George Tillman Jr (Soul Food) should also be congratulated as the film features many tense underwater scenes which can be very difficult to shoot.

Men Of Honor tries to inspire but the considerable length and tiring screenplay will distract most audiences leading up to the final courtroom scene.  He may be a great man and a great hero but you just get the feeling that 20th Century Fox is trying just a little too hard.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 15 February 2001

Clarice Starling (Moore) has just received a severe reprimand following a botched FBI raid.  In the subsequent whirlwind of media attention, she gets a call from Mason Verger (Oldman), one of Hannibal's former victims who lived to tell the tale.  It has been 10 years since her famous encounter with Dr. Hannibal Lecter (Hopkins) and Verger provides Clarice with new information and combined with a letter from Dr. Lecter himself, her passion for the case is reignited.

For the film's first hour and a half, we see Clarice in America perusing over evidence trying to pinpoint Dr. Lecter's location.  Meanwhile, an Italian detective has put the pieces together and realised than Dr. Lecter is living in Florence as a librarian and seeks the $3,000,000 reward on offer for his capture.  After receiving word of the detective’s discovery, Clarice warns him to be careful but alas, he is killed (but not before much time wastage).

Dr. Lecter finally heads back to the States to meet with Clarice and it provides the material for the film's final 35 minutes.  The film was somewhat compelling to this point but became a laughing stock as a result of what followed.  I can't give much away but the demise of both Mason Verger and FBI agent Paul Krendler (Liotta) was incredibly stupid and incredibly disgusting.  I didn't want to discuss the ratings debacle that has surrounded the film's Australian release but I have to add my two cents.  Based on these two scenes, I cannot understand how the film escaped with a mere MA rating.  It was never to the point where I would have walked out (as some critics have) but it was clearly in bad taste and the original never went this far.

There's nothing much more to say except to emphasise my severe disappointment with Hannibal.  There were no thrills, no resolutions and no sense behind it all.  Two audience members in front of me said at the very end, "is that it?"  Whilst I wasn't prepared to yell my own opinions, I knew exactly how they felt.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 22 February 2001

11-year-old Trevor McKinney (Osment) tackles Mr Simonet's challenge and comes up with an idea.  It begins simply enough - you do three huge favours for three other people and it has to be something big, something that they can't do for themselves.  Then, when they ask how they can pay you back, you tell them to pay it forward and do three huge favours for three other people.  Thus, in a short space of time, people should be doing favours for everyone all over the world.

Eugene is impressed with Trevor's suggestion but understands that it revolves entirely around the honour system and to put the idea into practice would be an impossibility - there just isn't enough faith in the world.  Soon enough though, Trevor tests his theory and one of his favours is to set up the lonely Mr Simonet with his equally lonely mother, Arlene (Hunt).  Both have been scarred by past relationships but slowly, Trevor melts the hesitation between them.  Can they find the courage from within to let go and take a chance?

Meanwhile, there is a journalist in Los Angeles named Chris Chandler (Mohr) who is involved in a car accident and is given a brand new Jaguar by a stranger in the street under the condition that he pay the favour forward.  This could be a great story.  So he starts out tracing the "movement" back to where it began...

Having read the novel by Catherine Ryan Hyde, I felt that Pay It Forward would translate into overly sentimental tripe on the big screen.  I was wrong.  The adaptation was true to the story's heart and was told in a more concise and interesting fashion.  We know that the "pay it forward" idea has been successful given that Chris is tracing it back but it's great to watch both stories concurrently.  We see the beginning and the end and we're working towards the middle.  On a side note, Eugene's character in the book is black and I am at a loss to explain why he was not so in the film.  Perhaps the filmmakers felt the racial issue would complicate things too much but I'm not sure if it was the right thing to do.

What stops Pay It Forward breaking through into a higher class is an overuse of perfect dialogue.  Arlene does not talk to her son like he's an 11-year-old and the dialogue between Eugene and Arlene is too analytical.  It may sound like a trivial point but every time I found myself sucked in by the film, a silly scene would ruin it and bring me back to reality.

Performances are all great and Haley Joel Osment's youthful enthusiasm rubs off on both Spacey and Hunt who make a believable couple.  The tension and apprehension between the two that took so much time to develop in the novel, is evident right away and it's a tribute to the talents both actors possess.

It's hard to conclude on the whole "pay it forward" idea.  In general is the world a good place, a bad place, or do we even care at all?  If someone did a huge favour for me and asked me to pay it forward, would I do it?  Would you do it?  Do we give those around us more credit or less credit than they truly deserve?  This film doesn't offer any answers, but it does raise interesting questions.  Worth thinking about.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 08 February 2001

A professional singer and hustler, Ricky Dean (Lewis) is returning to Las Vegas for a funeral.  There, he meets his daughter, Liv (Paltrow), whom he hasn't seen in over ten years.  Meanwhile, there's Todd Woods (Paul Giamatti), a salesman who travels all over America making a fortune only to have no respect from his wife and kids.  In frustration, he storms out of the house and just starts driving with no intended destination.  In the desert, he comes across hitchhiker, Reggie Kane (Braugher) who has a mysterious past.  Finally, there's Billy Hannon (Speedman) who's just found out his girlfriend is sleeping with his best friend and he heads to a bar to drown his sorrows.  There, he meets a zany singer named Suzi Loomis (Bello) who wants a lift to California and in a drunken stupor, he agrees.

We criss-cross back and forth between the three "duos" until they all converge at a $5,000 karaoke challenge in Nevada where only one will be the winner.  There was zero care factor for any of the stories and I could not have cared less how they unfolded.  I'm glad I didn't because the ending was very weak and offered little in the way of resolution.  Dumb stuff.

Gwyneth Paltrow's father, Bruce Paltrow, makes nothing of his chance behind the camera and I expect he won’t be receiving many more offers following Duets.  It's a lifeless tale that thinks it's witty when it couldn't be further from it.  Even the karaoke scenes are a bore but at least they provide a break from the main stories.

Interestingly, all the film’s stars have the opportunity to sing and all but one uses their real voice with Scott Speedman relying on voice over.  Incidentally, Speedman's role was originally written for Brad Pitt (when both he and Gwyneth were dating) but as time as shown, not all things work out.  This film is a perfect example.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 15 February 2001

The ultimate traditionalist, the town's Mayor saw the new shop as an evil influence.  How dare she open a chocolaterie just in time for lent when townsfolk should be avoiding such pleasures?  Not to worry, she'll be out of business by Easter.  To make sure of it, he’s had a quiet word in the local priest's ear to ensure he preach the importance of abstinence during his sermons.

Slowly however, the residents warmed to the shop and were lured by its sweet delights.  The lady had a knack for picking everyone's favourites and sure enough, they kept coming back for more and more.  To make matters worse for the Mayor, a group of gypsies had arrived and set up camp by the river.  With the town rapidly in the midst of change, the Mayor’s given no choice but to take forceful action.  At a council meeting, he imposed everyone take a "boycott and morality" stance and not serve or talk with any gypsy forcing them away from the town.

Yet there was one lady open to these newcomers - the owner of the chocolaterie and together they became allies against the determined Mayor and his cohorts.  Will the town remain the same forever or will change sweep through it like the cold winter winds?

Based on the seductive novel by Joanne Harris and directed by Lasse Hallstrom (The Cider House Rules), Chocolat is an inherently charming film with a blend of touching drama and giggling comedy.  Having read the book, I was disappointed by the heavy alterations made for the cinematic adaptation with particular emphasis on the ending.

The cast are top-notch.  Apart from Juliette Binoche, brilliant performances were turned in from Judi Dench (as always) and Lena Olin (the wife of Hallstrom).  It's a lavish production filled with great sets, costumes, make-up and another engaging score from composer Rachel Portman.

It is a very nice film but I do not consider it amongst the best of the year.  The reason I make such a statement is that 36 hours prior to seeing Chocolat, it was nominated as one of the five best pictures of the year by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.  The press have been justifiably critical and their comments are true in that the Oscars have become little more than a political and marketing campaign.  An incredible $1.8m was spent on "For Your Consideration" ads for the film in Hollywood's leading publications and I guess that in the end it was worth it for Miramax Pictures which has now had a best picture nominee for nine straight years.  The film will be remembered as one of history's most suspect best picture nominees.

Not one to pass over, Chocolat is a "delicious" fable but don't arrive with high expectations.  Just a little too "sweet" for my appetite.