TrueJoshNight Truly Dreadful Film

ThiefHott Too much of everything

UnowPriceless hyped garbage

Portia Hilton Blistering performances.

Theo Robertson Interesting that the comments for this film are very lukewarm but this film could have been far worse than it worked out . Get a little kid , give him a life threatening illness and if that's not bad enough get his mother to find out that the boy's father is a total slag who likes to play away from home and you've got a disease of the week type TVM that causes audience diabetes down to sugary manipulation by the producers I'm not entirely sure what stops it from descending in to pure cynical mawkishness but I can make a very good educated guess and that is the cast work very well along with a screenplay that fleshes out the characters . James Nesbitt might be one of those divisive actors but here his oft played cheeky Irish chappy is put to good use and makes for a genuinely likable character in a film that whilst never being classic drama is at least watchable

insomnia Films dealing with children struck down with a life-threatening disease can either be uplifting, or, as is the case with most of the films tackling this kind of emotionally-charged subject, become un-abashed tearjerkers. Jack Hagen (Tom Russell) a previously normal, healthy child falls ill and is diagnosed with leukaemia. There is a way to stave off this disease and that is to for the patient to have a bone marrow transplant. The snag is the donor's DNA must 'match' that of the patient, hence the film's title. Jack's parent's hope against hope that the surgeon Professor Nelson (Colin Friels) will find a donor whose DNA matches Jack's. The longer they have to wait, the more dangerous the situation becomes: something the mother refuses to acknowledge. It is then that Jack's mother Marissa (Jacinda Barrett) discovers that her husband, David (Richard Roxburgh) has been unfaithful, and not with just one woman, either. From that moment on, the film shows Jack's mother's frantic attempt to track down her husband's former lovers in the hope that he might have fathered an illegitimate child, and therefore would be the perfect 'match' for her son. To avoid "Matching Jack" becoming overly saccharine, the director Nadia Tass, along with first time writer Lynne Renew, have bent over backwards not to fall into that trap. Instead they have opted to introduce large chunks of levity into the film at the expense of empathy, and in so doing, have turned "Matching Jack" from being a serious, though not necessary boring, film about cancer, into one that is risible by anyone's definition. Two films that tackle the subject of children at risk from life-threatening diseases, without in any way being tedious or un-interesting, are "Life For Ruth" where a father refuses to let his child have a blood transfusion due to his religious beliefs, and "Lorenzo's Oil" – where a father finds a cure for a disease for which no cure is known. The director of "Matching Jack" could have made a film with a strong, social message. Sadly, she didn't.

busta rimes Technically competent and adequately performed Hallmark fare. Nadia Tass has to be a contender for Australia's own version of the "Otto Preminger Upward Failure" Trophy - an infamous award from Esquire Magazine accorded to the Swedish Hollywood director who started his career with a half decent film and got steadily worse thereafter. Since "Malcolm" (1986) , it's been downhill ever since for Ms Tass - and yet she seems to get automatically funded. It must be a Melbourne thing (ref Paul Cox et al).This film stinks on every level - because of its disguise as a quality film. It's cloying cast mug and perform by numbers. The plot comes from a weekend Robert McKee course and the resolution would probably even send hallmark executives asking for a shootout. The soundtrack is also pure saccharine, just in case you miss the point. There's no meat on any of the bones in this - it's all predictable and "charming". UUgh.Avoid at all costs.Oh, the score of 2 is for the her husband's cinematography ... which is excellent, as always.

patsy-j Oh dear. Am I the only movie goer who can -- and loves to -- suspend disbelief IF ONLY THE LITTLE ANNOYING DETAILS CHECK OUT AS TRUE!!?? I started off loving this movie. For 15 minutes. Love Tass/Parker. Or Loved Tass/Parker. Love Roxburgh. Love Melbourne as a great back-drop city. Thought all the acting terrific -- especially the boys -- wonderful -- great -- terrific actors in very small parts (Colin Friels; Gina Turner (? sorry if I got the name wrong) Amanda Muggleton -- and then -- and then -- the twee factor set in. Was it the Disney influence where, so I read, Tass/Parker have been working in for years of late? Whatever it was (I know what it was) the cutesy, Mary Poppins element took over with the inevitable sacrifice to truth. A terrible incident in the early hours of a big city hospital -- audible to the street below -- without even the scream of an approaching police car??! Obviously-disguised children allowed to escape a ward for terminally ill children in the middle of the night, while all the staff on the front desk did was nod and smile??! (And where did they get the money for the taxi??!).Big, emotionally-fraught scenes by ALL the actors (except the boys) were left with no following residue for the next scene. Therefore all the tears -- including the copious ones I initially believed from the lead actress -- left me cold and uninvolved because I simply could not believe them. It was a film made with 'Takes', not emotionally involved continuity between true characters.I was left with a big, cranky yawn. PAY ATTENTION TO DETAIL!! If you don't, you will NEVER get your audience to accept the BIG PICTURE.Such a shame. Shallowness in the script (I am a scriptwriter) ruined, for me, what could have been a lovely -- and true -- film -- which could have rewarded well all the wonderful actors in it.