Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 15 November 2006

I like reading books but have trouble finding the time to do so.  I could count on one hand the number of novels I’ve read this year.  Last November though, I read The Black Dahlia.  I was inspired after seeing a brief plot overview on the Internet Movie Database.  It wasn’t the best book I’ve read but it helped pass the time on the train to and from work.

I couldn’t remember the intricacies of the story but I was looking forward to seeing what this cinematic version had to offer.  I needn’t of bothered because this film is a mess.  I had trouble following the story (despite having read the novel) and the long-winded, deliberate passages of dialogue were annoying.  I fear that many audience members will look bewildered en route home from the cinema.

The Black Dahlia is a work of fiction but it is based around a real-life event.  In 1947, a wanna-be actress named Elizabeth Short was murdered in Los Angeles.  Her body was cut in two and her organs had been removed.  The brutal nature of the crime made in front page material.  Despite a massive police investigation, the crime was never solved.

Author James Ellroy (L.A. Confidential) used the murder as the backdrop of his imaginary tale of two cops trying to solve the case.  Lee Blanchard (Eckhart) and Bucky Bleichert (Hartnett) were once successful boxers.  They found their way into the police force and their popularity saw them appointed to the high-profile warrants division.  Nicknamed Fire and Ice, they developed a reputation for always “getting their man”.

In the days following the murder of Elizabeth Short however, their partnership would unravel.  The crime was too much for the usually tough Blanchard to deal with.  It consumed him to the point where he would think about it day and night.  It was also affecting the relationship with his long-time girlfriend, Kay Lake (Johansson).

In conducting his own investigations, the steady-headed Bleichert uncovered a lead in Madeleine Linscott (Swank), the wealthy daughter of a property developer.  Linscott knew Elizabeth Short and also had an uncanny resemblance to her.  Bleichert finds his own judgment impaired when he falls for Madeleine’s seductions.

The film looks great with its 1940 costumes and set direction but it fails with its poor story and questionable performances.  Why did they need to show all the video footage of Elizabeth Short?  Why did we need the scenes with Bucky and his father?  They don’t add much to the story if you ask me.  The time would have been better spent either: (a) exploring the strange three-way relationship between Lee, Bucky and Kaye, (b) looking more intently at the corruption in the police force, (c) explaining the story of Bobby De Witt.

The characters are as stiff as a board.  Rarely emotive and always smoking a cigarette, their lifeless personalities bored me to tears.  The sex scenes are laughable.  I also had trouble understanding the dialogue at times.  Either they were speaking too softly (Hartnett in particular with his narration) or the film score and sound effects were too loud in the background.  How could the director of a $50m film let this happen?  Maybe I’m just going deaf.

Like poor Elizabeth Short, this story has been murdered.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 09 November 2006

I am a big fan of Ridley Scott, the director of Gladiator, Black Hawk Down and Matchstick Stick.  Further, I recently included Russell Crowe in my favourite actors list (at number 4) on the basis of his work in A Beautiful Mind, Cinderella Man and The Insider.  How then, is this film so awful?

It begins in London with Max Skinner (Crowe) leading a successful stockbroking team.  He was the mastermind behind a series of unethical transactions which netted the firm $77m.  He doesn’t care that he’s breaking the rules.  All he wants is to be a winner and create as many enemies as he can along the way.

I hated Max Skinner.  I hated his personality, I hated his accent and I hated his smugness.  This wouldn’t ordinarily be a criticism (since there are lots of films with dislikeable people) but the problem is that the film wants me to like him (at least in the end).  My opinion never changed.

Max’s transformation begins when he receives word that his Uncle Henry (Finney) has passed away.  They were like father and son with the parentless Max growing up on his uncle’s French vineyard.  Over time though, they slowly drifted apart.  Max’s demanding life in London meant that there was no longer time to visit, or even communicate, with Uncle Henry.

Max soon learns that as his uncle’s closest living relative, it is he who will inherit the estate.  After travelling to France to inspect his new property, Max finds himself flooded with memories of his childhood.  The sentimentality isn’t enough to change his mind about the property however.  He has little use for it and intends to sell it, despite the protests of Uncle Henry’s dearest friends and employees.

Fate then arrives.  A coincidental series of events leaves Max stranded at the vineyard.  An unknown cousin and an attractive waitress will then enter his life.  The more time they spent together, the more Max doubts himself.  Should he sell the estate?  Is the life in London worth returning to?

If you want to know the answer, you can see the film for yourself.  I didn’t care however.  The story was artificial and too hard to believe.  I haven’t read Peter Mayle’s novel, on which the film is based, but it has to be deeper than this simplistic film.

Reminiscent of 2003’s Under The Tuscan Sun (with Diane Lane), A Good Year is a muddled mix of comedy and drama.  I didn’t laugh at Russell Crowe’s not-so-subtle attempts at humour nor was I moved by the myriad of 1980s flashbacks.  Furthermore, what’s with Max’s secretary, Gemma?  There are a multitude of wasted scenes where the two yammer back and forth on the phone (particularly in the first half hour).

They may think it’s a good year but in reality, it’s nothing more than two wasted hours.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 13 November 2006

“The audience for a magic show knows that what they’re about to see is a trick.  If they actually thought a woman was going to be sawn in half, they would be very upset, and definitely not amused.  So they know it’s a trick but they also want to feel fooled.”  - director Christopher Nolan.

 That’s how I often feel when I go to see a much anticipated movie.  I want to be kept guessing.  I don’t what to know all the answers right away.  A perfect example is The Sixth Sense.  When you break it down, the answers were all right in front of you.  The director however, had you looking in the wrong direction.  So in a way, a good movie works in the same way as a good magic trick.

This concept is what brothers Jonathan and Christopher Nolan have explored in The Prestige.  Many people will walk out of this movie and won’t understand.  Others will fit the pieces of the puzzle together perfectly.  How can this be when we’re all watching the same movie?  As I hinted at earlier, it depends on where you’re looking and how closely you are concentrating.

The irony of the film is that it centres on two people trying to do exactly the same thing.  Robert Angier (Jackman) and Alfred Borden (Bale) are two young magicians looking to wow audiences.  Set in the early 20^th Century, their shows played out in front of large audiences in some of London’s best theatres.  What began as a friendly rivalry has now become an obsession.  Borden has crafted an illusion that Angier cannot comprehend.  In a business shrouded in mystery, Angier will sacrifice everything to learn Borden’s secret.

Some will be rooting for the Christian Bale whilst others will be cheering for Hugh Jackman.  There’s no hero but no villain either.  The balance of power shifts back and forth with their friends and family caught in between.

As a critic, I have been asked by the studio “not to reveal too much about the deceptions at the heart of the film” so that “audiences can fully enjoy the unfolding of the story”.  Few films are as clever as The Prestige and so I am more than happy to comply with their request.  They deserve it as the talented filmmakers and you deserve it as the inquiring audience.

It can’t have been an easy project to put together but Christopher Nolan has done an outstanding job.  His trickery with the camera is reminiscent of his first major film, Memento.  Starring Guy Pearce, it was the tale of a man with severe amnesia and it featured in my top 10 list of 2001.  Nolan followed that up with the impressive Insomnia (starring Al Pacino and Robin Williams) and last year’s surprisingly first-rate Batman Begins.  He’s yet to put a foot wrong.

I’m not sure I understood the whole story (perhaps that is part of the “trick”) but I did come to the realisation that I’d been fooled.  My surprised reaction in the film’s third act was easily worth the admission price.  A second viewing is in order.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 08 November 2006

The Wrong Man, released in America under the title, Lucky Number Slevin, is a craftily written tale of mistaken identity.  Slevin Kelevra (Hartnett) recently lost his job, got kicked out his termite infested apartment and found his girlfriend sleeping with another man (her excuse is priceless).  Looking to change his fortunes, Slevin has flown to New York to visit an old friend, Nick Fisher.

On setting foot in The Big Apple, Slevin’s luck is about to go from bad to worse.  After getting mugged en route from the airport, he arrives at Nick’s apartment to find the front door wide open.  Nick is no where to be found.  His excitable neighbour, Lindsey (Liu), suspects foul play and wants to investigate further.

The mystery deepens when two oafish looking goons turn up at the apartment.  They think that Slevin is Nick and have come to collect a $96,000 gambling debt which is outstanding.  They don’t believe Slevin cry of innocence and so they take him to meet The Boss (Freeman).  The Boss threatens does buy his story either but is prepared to offer him an out.  If he can kill the son of a rival crime lord known as The Rabbi (Kingsley), the debt will be waived.

There’s a lot more to this story but I can’t continue on.  It’s not that I don’t want to spoil it, rather it would take me many more paragraphs to describe the convoluted plot.  I’d only confuse you.  This characteristic of the film is both a positive and negative.  I love a well written movie and the interaction between these characters is fantastic.  The one-liners and metaphors are incredibly well thought out.  There’s certainly no room to ad-lib.

On the other hand, the story is so complex, that it takes a long time to explain all the twists and turns in the end.  It’s not that I didn’t like the ending but I’d have preferred to see something sharper that is wrapped up a little quicker.

The cast is strong with all pulling an equal weight.  It boosts my opinions of both Josh Hartnett and Lucy Liu, two actors who I think have talent but who have trouble finding the right roles.

In the tradition of Brick and Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, The Wrong Man is a nice blend of mystery and humour.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 11 November 2006

Shortbus is the most sexually explicit movie I have seen in a cinema (surpassing 9 Songs which was released last year).  It shows actual penetration and ejaculation.  It includes both heterosexual and homosexual intercourse.  It explores a range of fetishes and fixations.

By this point, I’m sure you’re either intrigued or repulsed.  If you fall into the later category, this film is simply not for you.  I could recommend at least 200 other films this year which will provide more enjoyment.  It’s a matter of taste.  You can stop reading now.

For those who are interested, don’t go along thinking this is a porno.  It includes two things that you won’t find in any porno – insightful commentary and a decent script.  Its content alone makes it a “must see” for those who appreciate alternative styles of filmmaking.  You may not like it but I guarantee that it’s something different.

The film revolves around a group of complicated people living in New York City.  James (Dawson) is a depressed filmmaker who loves his boyfriend (DeBoy) but struggles with intimacy.  Severin (Beamish) is a dominatrix who finds it easier to push people away than to get to know them.  Sophia (Lee) is a married sex therapist who has never had an orgasm.

They all come together (either interpretation will do) at an underground nightclub known as Shortbus.  It is a place where people can relax, talk and explore their sexual inhibitions without judgement.  A place detached from the outside world.

It’s hard to articulate exactly what these folk are feeling but I’ll try by describing it as a mix of unhappiness and confusion.  Is their frustrating sex life contributing to their problems?  Or is it the other way around?  Interesting conversations are shared between the leading characters as a result.  Some are humorous but others, particularly late in the film, are more poignant.  The best scene is found at the very end - Jamie consummately articulates his pain to a new friend, Caleb (Stickles).

Shortbus is the second feature film of director John Cameron Mitchell.  His first feature, Hedwig And The Angry Inch, won numerous honours around the globe.  When released in Australia in 2001, I described it as a film “that stands out in a year of lifeless releases.”  The same comment applies here.  Mitchell is a director who knows how to stand out.  His unconventional films leave an impression and a memory that most others do not.

Too much time is spent on certain plotlines (Sophia’s orgasm quest for example) but I’m willing to forgive Mitchell because the film has so many redeeming qualities.  The soundtrack is awesome and the musical montage at the end of the film (where we see how each character has changed) provides a well-time chance to reflect.

In the words of the club’s owner, “voyeurism is participation”.  An apt way of describing the 90 minutes you’ll spend in the theatre.