Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 19 November 2008

Virtually every regular moviegoer is going to pay to see Quantum Of Solace.  Friends haven’t been asking me what this film is about because they know what to expect.  A James Bond film is a genre in itself.  The question people have been asking… is whether the film is any good.  So let’s cut to the chase.

I’d ideally like to jump up on my soap-box and say how much I loved or hated the film.  That would leave an indelible impression on those reading this review.  Unfortunately, my opinion falls somewhere in the middle.  There’s an equal mix of positives and negatives and I left the cinema with a feeling of indifference.

I must say that this is a lot better than the trashy Bond films of the 1990s which starred Pierce Brosnan.  Those sad days are behind us thankfully.  At the same time though, this new flick didn’t have the same “wow factor” as Casino Royale.  I remember being blown away by the amazing action sequences and the strong performance of first-timer Daniel Craig.  My interest in the series was reinvigorated.  Perhaps my expectations were too high this time around.

Quantum Of Solace picks up where the last film left off.  Bond (Craig) is trying to track down the man who killed his love interest, Vesper Lynd.  In the process, he uncovers a secret organisation which is up to something sinister.  The ringleader is a high-profile businessman known as Dominic Greene (Amalric).  Bond doesn’t know what he’s up to but he’s determined to find out.

Back at MI6 headquarters, M (Dench) is worried.  Bond’s body count is piling up and he’s treading on the toes of other agencies.  She believes that he’s acting out of revenge as opposed to his civic duty.  Caught up in the story is Camille (Kurylenko), a young Russian woman with ties to Greene.  Bond realises she is a person of value but is not sure if she can trusted.

So, what did I like about the film?  The performances were great once again.  Daniel Craig humanises the character and you get a sense of the darkness that lies within.  It reminded me of The Dark Knight in that it shows the difficulty of being a super-hero.  It’s not easy to save the world and sometimes you have to make sacrifices.  Judi Dench faces her own moral dilemmas as M.  Some of the best scenes in the film are those where M and Bond face-off.

My two biggest criticisms relate to the plot and the action sequences.  The story seems to jump all over the place and it’s as if parts of the film were missing.  I didn’t think that Greene’s evil plan made a lot of sense nor did I understand why other people were involved.  Also, what was with the two American CIA agents?  Whose side were they on?  You can see that no expense has been spared on the stunts but they too are hard to follow.  I didn’t feel any moments of true suspense.

It’s been months since we had a big blockbuster in release and Quantum Of Solace will be a breath of fresh air for cinema owners.  I’m curious to know what the public will make of it.  You can be the judge.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 09 November 2008

I saw Lemon Tree back in July as a preview to the 2008 Brisbane International Film Festival.  I went with a friend and I can remember our reactions walking out of the cinema.  We were both disappointed and couldn’t understand what all the hype was about.

Nearly a month later, I went along to the closing night screening of the Festival.  Prior to the film commencing, the Festival Director revealed the top 10 movies as voted by the audience.  You could tell from the stunned look on my face that I was surprised to see Lemon Tree ranked in 2^nd place.  My first reaction was… what were these people thinking?  Now that I have to write up a review for Lemon Tree, I feel I should by asking myself this question.  Why didn’t I like it?  What was it that I missed?

The story is about a Palestinian widow named Salma (Abbass) who lives near the border between Israel and the West Bank.  She lives a simple life and makes a living by selling lemons.  Her property has a nice lemon grove and it has provided an income for decades.

Her world is turned on its head when the new Israeli Defence Minister, Israel Navon (Tavory), moves into the house next door.  Given his position, a large number of security men have been entrusted to guard both him and his family.  A lookout tower is immediately built in the backyard so that the guards can see who is approaching.

The problem is that Salma’s lemon grove is obscuring the view from the tower.  Security is worried that that the Minister’s enemies could use the grove as a hide-out before launching an attack.  The Minister therefore orders that the lemon trees be cut down.

The tale now becomes one of David versus Goliath.  With little money to spare, Salma finds an understanding lawyer and takes the case to the Israeli Supreme Court.  It makes newspaper headlines across the world with the Defence Minister portrayed in a negative light.  Who will be the first to back down?

What I haven’t yet touched on are the relationships in the film.  Salma’s developing friendship with her lawyer, Ziad (Suliman), has attracted unwanted attention from people in her community.  There’s also the deteriorating relationship between the Defence Minister and his wife (Lipaz-Michael), who doesn’t agree with some of his decisions.

Those that enjoy Lemon Tree will develop a connection with Salma and feel passion for her story.  I did not however.  I thought the story was “too manufactured” – it was like something that you’d see from Hollywood.  Security is so tight at the Defence Minister’s house and yet the guard in the lookout tower never seems to be paying attention.  This is meant to be a joke but they keep using it over and over again.

I see the importance of the film given that it highlights some of the problems between Israelis and Palestinians.  I’ve been extremely impressed with some of the movies in recent years which have focused on this part of the world.  Lemon Tree wasn’t for me however and to use a cliché, it left a rather sour taste in my mouth.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 15 November 2008

On 9 August 1974, Richard Nixon became the first and only person to resign as President of the United States.  There was evidence which linked Nixon directly to the Watergate scandal and his approval rating had slipped to record lows.  Nixon denied the allegations but felt it best to resign “in the interest of the Nation.”

One month later, the new President, Gerald Ford, gave Richard Nixon a full pardon.  Many historians believe it was a wise move by Ford.  It allowed the country to move forward and focus on other, bigger issues.  The public didn’t see it that way at the time.  They wanted Nixon brought to justice for the fact that he had brought shame to their country’s highest office.

The public would get their wish but it came from an unlikely person in an unlikely forum.  David Frost was an English talk show host who in the mid-1970s, had television shows in both England and Australia.  Fascinated by Nixon’s resignation, Frost had wanted to get an exclusive one-on-one interview with him.  This wasn’t going to be an easy assignment as Nixon had become somewhat of a recluse.  He hadn’t given a single television interview since his resignation.

Frost found a way to do it – with money.  He offered Nixon $600,000 in exchange for four 90-minutes interviews.  It was a phenomenal sum of money and Nixon accepted.

Frost / Nixon started out as a play.  It was written by Peter Morgan (The Queen) and was performed on Broadway between April and August 2007.  The play was widely acclaimed and it would go on to receive 3 Tony Award nominations.  This cinematic version has also been written by Peter Morgan and stars the two men who featured in the Broadway show – Frank Langella and Michael Sheen.  It should come as no surprise to hear that their performances are terrific.

The first half of the film follows the lead up to the interviews.  We see Nixon (Langella) discuss his strategy for the interviews with good friend Jack Brennan (Bacon).  They think Frost will be a “push over” given his limited political experience.  Nixon will be able to use the interviews to win back the public’s respect and return to the political arena.

Frost sees the interviews differently.  He thinks that the resulting spotlight will allow him to launch himself in the American marketplace.  He’s a man driven by fame and stardom.  Unfortunately, his plan for these exclusive interviews isn’t turning out like he’d hoped.  The major networks aren’t interested in buying them because of Frost’s background.  They think he’s a joke and would rather see Nixon grilled by a leading journalist such as Mike Wallace.  This leaves Frost exposed since he paid most of the interview fee out of his own pocket.

The second half of the film features the interviews themselves and it makes for great viewing.  You could call it an action film.  The only difference is that instead of fighting with guns and fists, these two combatants are fighting with words.  The winner will be judged by those who watch.  Frost knows that if he can get Nixon to admit guilt, then he will come away as the victor.

Frost / Nixon is a strong movie which has been directed by Ron Howard (A Beautiful Mind, Apollo 13).   I love this type of cinema – it’s intelligent and entertaining at the same time.  My only qualm is that I think Frost’s “transformation” at the end of the film is a little hard to believe.  He’s portrayed rather negatively in the lead up to the interviews and I was surprised at how quickly he pulled himself together.

Some in Hollywood are buzzing about potential Oscar nominations and I think Frank Langella has the best chance with his portrayal of Richard Nixon.  Langella is an underrated actor and I’m happy to see him receive this early recognition.  If you want to find out why, make sure you don’t miss checking out this film while it is screening in cinemas.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 05 November 2008

I’m struggling to review this film.  Like any good thriller, it contains a key twist in the later stages which is supposed to catch you off guard.  I can’t talk about it in detail however as I’d be ruining the movie for you.  What I will say is that I found the “twist” to be very predictable.  I had it picked within the opening 10 minutes and I think other people will do the same.  This leaves me asking the question – was it this obvious for a reason?  I don’t know.

Our main protagonist is Samir Horn (Cheadle).  To steal a line from Austin Powers, I can best describe Samir as an “international man of mystery”.  He was born in Sudan where he saw his father killed in a terrorist explosion.  He was raised in the United States and would become a member of the U.S. Army.  Now, Samir is in Yemen and has been linked to major terrorist organisations.  Whose side is he on?  Does he even have a side?

Trying to answer these questions is FBI Agent Roy Clayton (Pearce).  A number of serious terrorist attacks have taken place across the globe in recent months and Clayton believes that Samir is involved.  He needs to track him down.  The situation becomes even more critical when word comes through of an imminent attack on home soil.

An interesting piece of trivia about Traitor is the original idea for the film came from actor Steve Martin.  He shared his ideas with a producer on the set of Bringing Down The Hosue and that starting the ball rolling.  The concept also grabbed the attention of Don Cheadle (Rotel Rwanda) and Guy Pearce (Memento).  Under the direction of Jeffrey Nachmanoff, they have produced two strong performances.

Look, it’s not that bad a film, but I can’t help but reflect on the disappointing ending.  I think I was expecting more realism and less action.  There’s a scene on a bus at the very end which I’ll use as an example.  How could this really happen?  You’ll understand what I mean if you see the movie.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 10 November 2008

Are you tired of unrealistic teen-orientated comedies?  You know what I’m talking about, right?  I speak of films where every teenager has perfect looks and an IQ of 220.  They also have an uncanny ability to solve any problem.  It’s not that I don’t like the genre – the problem is that almost every movie feels the same.  Storylines are rehashed and familiar stereotypes appear.

American Teen tries to break that mould by tackling the subject matter in a very different way.  Filmmaker Nanette Burstein wanted to make a “realistic” teen flick and the best way of doing this... was to create a documentary.  Burstein picked out a high school in Indiana and focused her camera lens on five diverse students undertaking their senior year.

Megan is the princess – a popular girl with good looks and an “up herself” attitude.  Colin is the jock – a basketball star trying hard to earn a college scholarship.  Hannah is the rebel - a moody girl who can’t wait to finish school and follow her lofty dreams.  Mitch is the heartthrob - a perfect guy who all the girls have a close eye on.  Jake is the nerd – a kid with acne, a bad haircut and no social skills.

During the film, you’ll watch these five individuals go about their lives both inside and outside the school’s walls.  They also open up to Burstein with a series of one-on-one interviews that were conducted throughout the year.  It’s not easy for people their age to open up about their inner feelings and I applaud their courage for participating.   I’d be interested to know what they think and what they’ve learned when they look back on the film in say, ten years time.

Opinions on the film have been mixed.  Some have loved it but others have been extremely critical.  They feel that certain scenes were “staged” and that in reality, it isn’t a true documentary.  Having seen the film and done some research on the internet, I believe those criticisms are justified.  It does feel fake at times and I’m positive that some scenes were re-enacted.

However, to use a popular phrase, I believe that “the means justifies the end”.  Yes, it’s had a touch-up with Hollywood’s cosmetic brush, but the essence of the characters is not lost.  When you see these teenagers being interviewed, you know that they’re speaking from the heart.  It will bring back memories from your own schooling years and remind you about the difficulties that kids face at that age.  Life ain’t easy.

What I took away most of the film was its exploration of American culture.  We don’t often use the words “United States” and “culture” in the same sentence but they are a very interesting country with their own unique quirks.  There’s the extreme pressure placed on kids to get a scholarship and go to the best college, there’s the obsession that final year students have with their senior prom, and there’s the incredible popularity and rivalry that comes with college sport.

If you want to know how hard it is to make a documentary, know that Nanette Burstein took close to 1,000 hours worth of footage.  She then had to cut this down to a 100-minute film while still getting her message across.  That’s not easy to do considering that more than 99.8% of your film has to be left on the cutting room floor.  Burstein has done a terrific job.  I also like the small animated segments that have been included and the snazzy soundtrack.

Even if you don’t like the movie, I’m confident that it will leave you with some talking points.