Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 19 November 2011

Featuring some of the sharpest dialogue of the year, The Ides Of March is an intelligent political drama that shines the spotlight on the ugly nature of politics.  For some, it’ll be an eye opener.  For the rest, it will reaffirm what they already think goes on “behind the scenes”.

Governor Mike Morris (Clooney) has his eyes on the Democratic nomination to become the next president of the United States.  He has a small army of support staff who are doing everything they can to raise funds, generate publicity and secure support.  Their eyes are currently focused on the key primary in Ohio where victory will almost certainly win Morris the nomination.

The two people pulling most of the strings are Morris’s two key campaign managers – Paul Zara (Hoffman) and Stephen Meyers (Gosling).  Paul is a seasoned veteran who’s been there before.  He knows who to trust and how to play the political game.  Stephen is a relative newcomer and he’s yet to shed his youthful optimism.  He has “drunk the Kool-Aid” and fervently believes that Morris is the perfect man to lead the United States into the future.

The screenplay’s focus is on Stephen’s character and we soon see his enthusiasm whittled away by a series of events.  He quickly realises that you often have to compromise your own beliefs and morals in pursuit of victory.

As an example, Governor Morris needs the public endorsement of a key senator (Wright) if he’s any chance of winning the Ohio primary.  However, the senator will only give his support if he’s promised the position of Secretary of State, a roll that most believe he is unsuitable for.  How far are they willing to budge?  Do the means justify the end?  Is it an inevitable part of the messy political process?

The Ides Of March features one of the strongest casts of the year and there are plenty of other characters I’m yet to mention.  Marisa Tomei plays a reporter for the New York Times who is being used to leak topical information.  Paul Giamatti is terrific as the campaign manager for a rival candidate and is looking to shift the momentum his way.

Evan Rachel Wood is also great as a young intern who becomes involved in a relationship with Stephen.  There’s a scene in a hotel bedroom that sums up Stephen in a nutshell.  The two are having sex but he still manages to keep a close eye on the television set in the corner to hear the day’s latest political news – emphasising his devotion to his work and showing where his heart truly lies.

George Clooney is the finest actor working in Hollywood today.  If you look at all the roles that he’s chosen over the past decade, he’s hardly put a foot wrong.  The same could be said of his efforts in the director’s chair.  The Ides Of March marks his fourth feature film (my favourite being Good Night, And Good Luck) and it again shows his ability to tell a compelling story and extract top-notch performances from his actors.

Whilst I loved the cracking dialogue, I admit that some the pieces from this tale fit together too neatly.  I can’t say much more given the film’s key twists (which shouldn’t be spoiled) but I had trouble believing the actions of certain characters.  It felt like these actions were designed to reinforce the film’s political messages rather than providing a more realistic portrayal of what may happen in the circumstances.

The film has struggled a little at the box-office in the United States which emphasises the difficulty in selling political dramas to the mainstream public.  On its debut weekend, it pulled in $15m as compared to Hugh Jackman’s Real Steel which managed $35m.  I guess most people go to the movies for some fun escapism rather than reliving the political stories they see in the news each day.

I’d like to think there’s room in this world for both kinds of films and I’d strongly urge you to hand over a $10 donation and support The Ides Of March.  It has my endorsement!

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 08 November 2011

Not a single “Christmas themed” film was released during the festival season in Australia last year.  The gaping hole has quickly been filled in 2011 with two movies being released over the space of a fortnight – Santa’s Apprentice and Arthur Christmas.

Santa’s Apprentice is a unique animated film in the sense that it’s been financed by companies in both Australia and France.  Between them, they’ve tried to come up with a movie that could appeal to audiences in both countries.

There are actually two versions of the film in existence – one with French voices and one with Australian voices.  It makes sense given the movie is targeted squarely at young children.  Subtitles would not have worked.  Voices you’ll recognise in this Australian version include Shane Jacobson, Delta Goodrem, Georgie Parker, Hugh Sheridan and the always distinctive Magda Szubanski.

I often find myself hesitating when it comes to reviewing kid’s films.  I need to find my “inner child” and try to see the movie from a younger perspective.  If I were taking an 8 year old to see Santa’s Apprentice, would they enjoy it?

The answer I’ve come up with is… no.  The story is tricky to follow and there are hardly any laughs (for both adults and kids).  It revolves around an ageing Santa Claus who has been told it’s time to retire and hand over the reigns to someone new.  You’d think he’d be ready for a break after more than a century in the role but it turns out that this Santa is a control freak.  He even tries to sabotage the process of finding his successor.

I’m not sure why Santa is portrayed as such as a schmuck early on and this is part of the reason why I think kids will be sitting there with a blank stare on their face.  Anyway, Santa is finally forced to take on an apprentice.  He finds a young orphan named Nicholas and arranges for his trusty elf to “steal” Nicholas from the orphanage and bring him to the North Pole.  It kicks off a silly subplot where the police come in to investigate his disappearance.

Nicholas is a shy boy with a few self esteem issues.  He doesn’t think he’ll be up to the challenge of being Santa and distributing gifts to millions of kids around the world.  He has a full year to prepare however and as the time passes, he slowly starts learning the ropes.

I’m yet to see this year’s other Christmas release, Arthur Christmas, but it looks more interesting.  The characters appear to be cuter and the plot seems to have a lot more substance.  My impression has come solely from the trailer (and so I could be wrong) but if you can hold out for another two weeks, you may find Arthur Christmas offers something more entertaining for your kids.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 16 November 2011

Dial 000.  A crime is currently in progress.  This weekend, millions of people around the globe will be conned into handing over their hard earned cash to see a film with no plot, no action and no climax.  I’ve been generally “ok” with the earlier movies but The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn – Part 1 will most certainly be regarded as the weakest in the franchise.

Bella gets married.  Bella has sex.  Bella gets pregnant.  That’s a two hour movie summed up using just nine words.  The film’s lack of suspense shouldn’t come as much of a surprise.  We saw this happen exactly a year ago with the release of Harry Potter & The Deathly Hallows.  The book was split into two parts with the sole purpose (I don’t care what anyone else says) of generating additional revenue for the studio.  We were left with a dull part one and a much more exciting part two.

I haven’t read any of Stephenie Meyer’s novels but I’d heard from a friend that Breaking Dawn was a little more “adult” than the earlier books.  The promise of steamy sex and a demonic vampire baby did grab my attention.  Perhaps this series was finally going to deliver some serious action and move away from its tiring, melodramatic romance.

That hasn’t been the case.  I’m not sure whether Australian censors got their hands on any scenes but I found the bedroom sequences short and weak.  You never get a sense of the deep (probably shouldn’t have used that word) connection between these two characters.  Things didn’t get any better during the film’s post honeymoon phase.  Kristen Stewart gets off the bed… and moves to the couch where she nurses her bloated stomach and tries to look as sickly as possible.  “Dull” is the first adjective that comes to mind.

There’s some weird stuff going on between Edward (Robert Pattinson) and Jacob (Taylor Lautner) in this instalment but for some odd reason, it’s not a focus of the screenplay.  Jacob ends up providing most of the emotional support to Bella whilst Edward stands around feeling sorry for himself.  It’s all very strange if you ask me.

I know it’s short but I think it’s time to wind up this review.  I could follow in the film’s footsteps and drag it out for a while.  I could even suggest that a better review awaits when the second film comes out next year.  I could… but I won’t.  It’s just not right.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 05 November 2011

We see a bunch of feel-good sporting flicks released every year.  They generally focus on an athlete or team that has hit rock bottom.  They then find some way of overcoming adversity and achieve the ultimate victory.  I’ve mentioned before that I’d love to see the reverse film made (where a successful team disintegrates) but I don’t think it’d sell as many tickets.

Whilst it doesn’t quite go that far, Moneyball is something different.  The filmmakers haven’t given in to traditional formulas.  They’re trying to pull back the curtain and show the world of baseball from a different perspective.  I read a quote from Tommy Craggs in GQ magazine that best summed up the film – “it’s Rudy meets Microsoft Excel!”

Instead of the focus being on the coaches or the players, Moneyball’s two central characters are a general manager and a statistician.  The year was 2002 and the GM for the Oakland A’s, Billy Beane (Pitt), found himself with his back against the wall.  The club was struggling financially and they had the lowest available payroll in the entire league – just $38m.  This left them well below the successful New York Yankees who had more than three-times that amount to spend.

It was a tough reality for Beane to face.  Even if the Oakland A’s could find and develop talented players, they’d likely get snapped up a year or two later but a more profitable team.  This problem isn’t as big in Australia given many of our sports have a “salary cap” but I realise how frustrating it can be.

For example, there are 20 teams that compete each year in the English Premier League football and yet just 3 teams (Manchester United, Chelsea and Arsenal) have won the title over the past 16 years.  They have the power to dominate with their huge bankroll and it must be disheartening to fans from other clubs.

Beane came across a young statistics guru (Hill) and together, they combined to change the sport.  They crafted a complicated statistical formula that could value players on the open market.  This could then be used to snap up undervalued players and pull them together to create a winning team.  This didn’t sit well with the scouts who felt the system overlooked key criteria such as injuries and confidence.  The coach (Hoffman) also rebelled against Beane and his “fortune cookie wisdom”.

How did it all end up?  Those with a close knowledge of baseball should know the answer but for those unfamiliar, I’ll let you see the movie and find out for yourself.  Keep in mind what I said earlier – it is a little different.

I admit that a movie that shines the spotlight on the “business” nature of sports could have been a tough sell to wider audiences.  In Moneyball’s instance, this argument has been countered by casting Brad Pitt in the leading role.  He’s still one of Hollywood’s most bankable actors and the film’s healthy $70m take in the United States highlights this fact.

He’s not just a pretty face.  Over the past 5 years, Pitt has crafted a resume of which any actor would be jealous – The Tree Of Life, Inglourious Basterds, The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button, Burn After Reading and Babel.  Moneyball will most likely earn him a third Academy Award nomination.  It’ll be well deserved too.  He portrays Beane as confident guy with a great sense of humour.  Equally impressive is Jonah Hill (Superbad) who proves he can make the transition from comedy to drama.

I’m a sucker for sporting flicks and I was lucky enough to attend this film’s world premiere at the Toronto Film Festival back in September.  It reeled me in very quickly with its interesting story, a few surprising twists and an unexpected number of laughs.  I’m confident that you’re going to like it!

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 13 November 2011

Australian director Jonathan Teplitzky is putting together an impressive resume.  I was a huge fan of his debut feature, Better Than Sex, and equally enjoyed his follow up, Gettin’ Square.  Both films earned him an AFI Award nomination for best director and I strongly suggest you track them down if you haven’t seen them already.

After an eight year absence from the big screen, Teplitzky has returned with Burning Man.  He has described it as a very “personal film” because he has drawn heavily from his own life experiences in putting together the screenplay.  His partner, costume designer Amanda Lovejoy, died roughly 10 years ago from breast cancer.

Teplitzky hasn’t set out to make a sentimental tear-jerker.  Do not go along thinking you’re in for a remake of Terms Of Endearment.  You’ll realise from the very opening scene – that of star Matthew Goode masturbating in front of a prostitute – that Burning Man is a far more challenging filmgoing experience.

It’s most obvious trait is an extremely fragmented narrative.  Instead of going from point A to point B in a straight line, Teplitzky takes us there through a myriad of roundabouts and u-turns.  We jump back and forth in the timeline and it will take audiences a little while to get a clear picture of the story and its characters.  You’ll need to be paying attention all the way through.

The style illustrates the psyche of the leading character – a chef named Tom (Goode) who is trying to overcome the death of his wife (Novakovic) whilst faced with the responsibility of raising his young son on his own.  It’s a situation he’s struggling to deal with and his reckless actions illustrate that fact.  None of Tom’s friends want to criticise however – they excuse his erratic behaviour as part of the grieving process.  It effectively gives him a leave pass to do whatever he wants.

I’ve a hunch the film’s fragmented nature will frustrate some viewers but the remainder should see this as a powerful piece of cinema.  The death of a loved one is a topic often explored on the big screen but Burning Man finds a way of telling it in a realistic and heartfelt manner.  It came as no surprise to see it selected at the Toronto Film Festival for its world premiere.

Matthew Goode (A Single Man, Match Point) delivers a wonderful performance as Tom.  He’s a character that you want to sympathise with but he makes it difficult with some of his not-so-likeable outbursts.  It left me wondering how I’d reaction if a friend found himself in a similar state.  Do you give them space and let them “get it out of their system” or do you haul them into line?  Perhaps buying a ticket to see this movie would be a good start.

You can read my interview with director Jonathan Teplitzsky by clicking here.