So che ci sei

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.

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.

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

It's a shameless tear jerker that must have some feelings of shame as it disguises itself as a love story in the summery presented on this page, and as a film that "avoids emotional extortion of any kind" in the words of the Jerusalem Film Festival catalog. But tear jerkers have their right to exist and many do like them, I don't like them much but that's not the reason that got my rating as low as 7/10. My biggest problem was that everything happening in this film follows the kids cancer film cliché. Nothing unexpected happens here, the only reason it still works is the fact already mentioned in my title - superb acting by everybody on the cast the whole thing is believable because everybody on screen is simply super, and that's something to see. The director has chosen a low key approach for herself and simply lets her story play out - it also suits the case. A little more originality and this "tear jerker" could've been a real gem. As it is, what you get is exactly what the story promises.