Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 09 July 2012

As a film director, the process of making a movie is seldom easy.  You have to convince a studio or investor to put in the money.  You have to enlist a crew who share in your creative vision.  You have to find a cast of great actors who are available when you need them.  You have to deliver your finished film on time and within budget.  It’s takes a lot of skill… but you also need a little luck.

Everything came together for director Kenneth Lonergan back in 2000.  His first feature film, You Can Count On Me, received much praise.  It made my top 10 list in 2001 and was a heartfelt story about the bond between a brother and sister.  It earned Laura Linney an Academy Award nomination for best actress with Lonergan picking up a nomination of his own for best original screenplay.  Not bad for your first movie!

In complete contrast, Lonergan’s follow up effort has been a debacle.  Margaret was shot in New York City back in 2005 and its troubles began in the editing room.  As per the conditions of his contract, Lonergan had full control over the film but with one key clause – it had to clock in at less than 150 minutes.  It was something he could not achieve and this led to disputes with the studio and the producer.

With his funding cut off, Lonergan borrowed money from friend Matthew Broderick (who appears in the film) to try to finish a 150 minute version that he approved of.  He wasn’t the only one trying to save the film though.  Unhappy with Lonergan, producer Gary Gilbert brought in his own editor (Dylan Tichenor from Brokeback Mountain) to craft a two-hour cut.  There was even a third version of the film being pulled together, free of charge, by the legendary Martin Scorsese (Hugo, The Departed).

After years of litigation, Lonergan’s 150 minute cut of the film was slipped into 14 cinemas across the United States in late September 2011.  It screened for 4 weeks, received next-to-no marketing and made a pitiful $43,000 at the box-office.  It was a sad end to a movie that had so much potential.

I’ll say this though – it’s fantastic to see Margaret getting a small release in Australian cinemas.  Yes, this is the “abbreviated” 150 minute version but it’s well and truly worth a look.  The story begins with 17-year-old Lisa (Paquin) roaming the streets of New York City and trying to buy a cowboy hat.  When she spots one being worn by a bus driver (Ruffalo), she tries to get his attention and ask where he purchased it.  Distracted, the driver runs a red light and kills a pedestrian.

Lisa initially lies to the investigating police officer and tells him that the light was green and this was just an unfortunately accident.  She feels compelled to protect herself and the bus driver.  Struggling to cope with the guilt, Lisa decides to fess up.  She naively believes the truth will set her free.  That is not the case.  The police have already closed their file and are reluctant to re-open the investigation based solely on the testimony of a witness who has changed her statement.  It marks the start of Lisa’s passionate crusade to clear her conscience, for better for worse, and see justice prevail.

The actors all look a little younger than we’re used to (given it was filmed 7 years ago) but Margaret is an absorbing character study headlined by a wonderful performance from Anna Paquin (The Piano).  We can see that Lisa is trying to do the right thing but she keeps making mistakes due to her immaturity and stubbornness.  Should we be sympathetic because of her age and the gravity of the situation?  It’s a question that I’m still grappling with.

Whilst it held my attention all the way through, I can see why Lonergan fought hard against his producer.  This two-and-a-half hour version feels fragmented.  You’ll be lured into a conversation only for the film to cut away abruptly and move to the next scene.  Things feel particularly rushed in the final third.

The DVD for the Margaret is being released in the United States this week and includes both this original cut and an “extended” cut that may help fill in some of the gaps.  You therefore have two options – check it out in cinemas or order it online.  Either way, I think you’ll be surprised about how good it is.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 27 June 2012

Polisse is a French drama that takes us inside the lives of those who work for the Children Protection Unit (CPU) in Paris.  We learn from the opening titles that these are fictional characters but the stories themselves are based on actual events.

Above all else, it’s an eye-opening film.  We see plenty of movies and TV shows focusing on police officers and their exciting adventures.  I’m not revealing anything new when I say that these films and programs tend to glamorise reality.

That’s not the case here.  Well, at least I don’t think so.  Polisse is shot like a documentary and this style gives it a huge dose of authenticity.  It feels like we’re just sitting in the corner of the room, watching these people go about their daily lives and eavesdropping on their conversations.  They’re an interesting bunch and you’ll quickly grow to like them.

Writer-director Maïwenn has covered a lot of material within the two hours duration.  For starters, we observe these officers in their professional setting.  They interview a father who has been accused of sexually abusing his daughter.  They go in search of a drug-addicted mother who has kidnapped her daughter from a child care centre.  They try to help a homeless mother who cannot care for her young son.

Just as enlightening is the perspective offered on the personal lives of these characters.  Child protection is a challenging profession and many of these officers have trouble “leaving their work at home”.  It’s not easy to spend your day interrogating an accused rapist and then coming home to relax on the couch with your partner.

It’s a subject matter that many filmgoers will find confronting but, for use of a better word, I “enjoyed” Polisse.  It’s an affecting film that’s has stuck with me since I left the theatre.  I’m guessing the jury at last year’s Cannes Film Festival had similar thoughts.  The movie took third place honours in the official competition (winning the Jury Prize) behind The Tree Of Life and Once Upon A Time In Anatolia.

My only criticism is that the film covers too many case files.  We’ll spend a few minutes listening to a person being interrogated and then not see them again for the rest of the movie.  A part of me wanted to know more and I’d have preferred an approach that is less fragmented and focuses more on certain individuals.

Building on the strong word of mouth from its screenings at the Melbourne, Brisbane and Sydney Film Festivals, Polisse is now getting a limited release in Australian cinemas.  Make time for it.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 03 July 2012

Back in May, I spent a week travelling with the Queensland men’s amateur golf team on a trip to South Australia.  We were on the team bus and the subject matter turned to upcoming movies that they were keen to see.  Ted was on top of their list.

You only have to look at the trailer to see the appeal.  It’s a low-brow comedy that has come from the mind of Seth MacFarlane, the creator of the popular animated series Family Guy.  You may not recognise his face but if you’re a fan of Family Guy, you’ll certainly know his voice – he’s the man behind Peter, Brian, Stewie and Quagmire.

The story centres on a middle aged guy named John (Wahlberg) who has been living with his girlfriend, Lori (Kunis), for a number of years.  They’re not married and they don’t have any kids.  They do have one other member of the household, however – a large, talking teddy bear named Ted (voiced by MacFarlane) who has been John’s best friend since he was a child.

So how does this make any sense?  In what kind of world do we have a talking teddy bear that walks the streets and goes about his day with minimal fuss?  Wouldn’t people be staring at him?  Wouldn’t talk show hosts have him on their programs as a regular guest?  They’re valid questions which are (mostly) addressed in a humorous sequence just prior to the opening credits.

Ted is a great character.  He’s foul mouthed, politically incorrect and has a penchant for debauchery.  I can best describe him as a cross between Howard Stern and Hugh Hefner.  It should therefore come as no surprise to learn that the film has been rated MA in Australia for its “strong sexual references, coarse language and drug use”.  Many will love the offensive material but I acknowledge that some will not like it.  You’re probably best to use Family Guy as a benchmark.  If you think that’s a show full of dumb, puerile humour, you can avoid Ted like the plague.

This is a film to be enjoyed for its one-liners. Admittedly, the best stuff is in the trailer but there were still many moments that left me laughing openly.  There are plenty of jokes to be made about a filthy teddy bear (that’s obvious) but the film has a surprising number of references to Hollywood, celebrities and general pop culture.  Some of it is really bizarre (e.g. Tom Skeritt).

It’s just a shame the broader story couldn’t have been stronger.  Put simply, Lori has grown tired of Ted’s infantile behaviour and believes it’s rubbed off heavily on John who looks like he’ll never grow up and become a responsible adult.  She puts an ultimatum to John along the lines of “either he goes or I go”.  John eventually agrees and helps Ted move into his own apartment but this creates even more complications.

This set up creates too much drama in the film’s second half and let’s be honest, we all know where the story is heading.  I’ve a hunch that most members in the audience would rather be following Ted’s crazy antics than the up-and-down relationship of John and Lori.

Having opened to a box-office of more than $50m in the United States last weekend, it seems Ted is on track to become one of the year’s most successful comedies.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 26 June 2012

You wouldn’t put them in the upper echelon of the animated film world but the Ice Age flicks have been fun.  They’re simple crowd-pleasers aimed at a young audience with a cute assortment of creatures.  There’s Ray Romano as the level-headed mammoth, Denis Leary as the not-so-ferocious tiger and John Leguizamo as the clumsy sloth.  Let’s not forget the tiny squirrel who is forever trying to get his hands on an acorn.

I hate to be the one to break it to everyone… but it’s time these animals were put to sleep.  Their best days are now behind them.  There’s no need to shed any tears though.  Trust me, they won’t feel a thing.  We’ll just do the humane thing and stop making more Ice Age movies.

It’s the wafer thin premise in Continental Drift that has led me to this conclusion.  It begins with Manny the mammoth being separated from his family after an unexpected earthquake.  It has left him stranded on a tiny iceberg with Diego the tiger and Sid the sloth.  They’re joined by a new addition to the series – Sid’s feisty grandmother (Sykes) who pretty much does as she pleases.

They’re all desperate to return home but the iceberg keeps drifting further and further from the mainland.  Hope seems to have arrived when they encounter a large ship but lo and behold, it is controlled a group of pirates.  They are led by Captain Gutt (Dinklage), a villainous ape who is not renowned for showing mercy.

What follows is a silly adventure where our beloved creatures try to evade the pirates and find a way back home.  Things work out far too easily for these characters and as a result, there’s very little excitement or tension.  Every now and again, we cross back to the mainland for an even weaker subplot involving Manny’s wife and daughter who are having problems of their own.

A handful of moments left me chuckling but for the most part, this is a ho-hum film-going experience.  It’s hard to be too critical of something targeted at the family audience but when you compare it to last week’s Brave, a film with beautiful animation and a strong storyline, you’ll realise there are far better alternatives.

As a positive, those that see Ice Age 4: Continental Drift in cinemas will be treated to a 4-minute short film beforehand.  It’s a quick 3D Simpsons episode that revolves around Maggie trying to evade her arch rival, Baby Gerald, at the Ayn Rand School For Tots.  There isn’t a single piece of dialogue (must have allowed 20^th Century Fox to save on the voice costs) but it’s cute and I’m sure that fans of The Simpsons will find it amusing.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 30 June 2012

If your computer starts having problems, what’s the first thing you should do?  Don’t worry, this isn’t a trick question.  You’d see it being asked at the $100 mark on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire.  The answer is to simply shutdown and reboot.  It doesn’t always work… but I’m surprised by how often it does make a difference.

It’s a practice that has now been whole-heartedly adopted within the film industry.  If a long-running series is showing signs of weakness, you don’t send it to the scrap heap.  You just shut it down, wait a little while and press “reboot”.  As we’ve seen with the Batman and Star Trek franchises, a fresh cast and a new director will lure the paying public back into theatres.

I say this often but I’m tiring of the lack of originality coming out of Hollywood and the frustrating trend towards sequels, prequels, remakes and reboots.  Films like Inception (my favourite of the past few years) are few and far between.  You’d be amazed to learn how many reboots are currently in production.  Brace yourself for new versions of Superman, Total Recall, Judge Dredd, Highlander, Robocop, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Starship Troopers and Godzilla.

I should get to the point and talk about the latest blockbuster reboot - The Amazing Spider-Man.  It’s a gamble for Sony Pictures in the sense that the previous Spider-Man series is still warm it its grave.  It was only ten years ago that we saw Tobey Maguire slip into his spidey-suit, hang upside down from a building and kiss the lips of Kirsten Dunst.  Do filmgoers want to see the “how did he become Spider-Man” story all over again?

Fresh off his superb performance in The Social Network, Andrew Garfield takes on the role of Peter Parker and transforms him into an extremely likeable superhero.  He’s never overconfident or preachy – he’s just a quiet, introverted guy with a wry sense of humour.  More importantly, he’s vulnerable.  Spider-Man isn’t a “perfect” superhero who can foresee every event and is never injured.  He has weaknesses and we see these through Garfield’s terrific performance.

The best moments in the film are easy to categorise – those where Andrew Garfield interacts with Emma Stone.  She’s one of the best young actresses working today (The Help, Easy A) and she can do no wrong in my eyes!  As Gwen Stacy, she’s more than Peter Parker’s naive love interest.  She’s an assertive, intelligent woman who can quickly size up any situation.  There’s an amusing scene on the rooftop of her parent’s apartment building where the two express their feelings for the first time (don’t worry, it’s not mushy).

What stops The Amazing Spider-Man from being a “great” film is the jumbled script.  For starters, we never get a clear perspective of the public’s feelings about Spider-Man.  This was achieved in the earlier movie by having Peter Parker work for the influential editor of a major newspaper.  That’s not the case this time around and we really only see things from the one-eyed viewpoint of the police chief (Denis Leary).

The villain is also a letdown.  Rhys Ifans plays Dr Curt Connors, a gifted scientist who is trying to develop a revolutionary drug that will allow humans to regenerate missing limbs.  It all goes wrong when he tries the serum on himself and turns into a giant lizard.  The problem is that we never really understand Connors and why he suddenly becomes so intent on world destruction.

Director Marc Webb (500 Days Of Summer) provides a solid action finale that looks great against the backdrop of the beautiful New York City landscape.  It’s just a shame things fall into place too easily.  How did no one manage to take a photo of the lizard while it was on the bridge?  Why was a 17-year-old intern given full security access to the laboratory?  How did all of those cranes (and drivers) happen to be in the right place at the right time?

Adding it all up, the positives outweigh the negatives with The Amazing Spider-Man (although it was a close call).  The intoxicating charm of Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone will distract audiences from the muddled screenplay.  Is it as good as the first film in the previous Spider-Man series?  I don’t think so.