Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 20 August 2006

Smoking is bad for you.  Few people will dispute this fact.  I have never smoked myself but what if I wanted to?  I could have a shorter life than I would otherwise but I’m mature enough to know the risks and the ultimate choice is mine.  It’s my life and I’ll do what I want with it.

This logic is behind the great new film, Thank You For Smoking.  Nick Naylor (Eckhart) is a lobbyist for the tobacco industry.  In other words, he gets paid to promote smoking.  When asked how he can live with himself, Naylor responds with the fact that everyone is entitled to a defence.  There are many outspoken critics of smoking and so why shouldn’t the industry be allowed to fight back?

Given the restrictions on tobacco advertising, Nick’s latest plan is to get smoking back on the big screen.  He travels to Hollywood with his son, Joey (Bright), and meets with super-agent Jeff Megall (Lowe) to talk business.  Jeff has a futuristic sci-fi movie in production with Brad Pitt and Catherine Zeta-Jones and for a mere $25m, he can ensure they “light up” after a steamy sex scene.

Thank You For Smoking boasts a big cast and there are many inter-related storylines.  Polly (Bello) and Bobby (David Koechner) are advocates for the alcohol and gun industries and Nick meets with them weekly to discuss ideas.  Heather Holloway (Holmes) is a young journalist who is looking to grill Nick for information to expose him in a newspaper article.  Senator Finistirre (Macy) is a strong anti-smoking campaigner and is trying to pass legislation requiring poison pictures to be included on packaging.  “The Captain” (Duvall) is one of the most powerful men in the tobacco industry and uses his money to protect his interests.

It’s a remarkably interesting film that makes you think about the “spin” that is generated by both sides to get their point across.  We are often slaves to the media and if you take something away from this movie, it’s that you don’t have to share the same opinions of others.  We all have our own brains and we all have our own interests.

If you’re not yet sold, you need to see this film for the top-notch performance of Aaron Eckhart.  He’s the perfect person to play Nick Naylor and it’s his best role since I first saw him in 1997’s In The Company Of Men.  He somehow manages to make his character both likeable and dislikeable at the same time.

Based on the novel by Christopher Buckley, this creative film has been written and directed by 29-year-old Jason Reitman.  Jason is newcomer in the industry but he comes from a strong form line.  His father, Ivan, directed such comedy classics as Stripes, Ghost Busters and Kindergarten Cop.  Smoking tries to squeeze in a little too much into its 90 minutes (a few storylines are under-explored) but the end result is a smart flick which I’d love to see again.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 08 August 2006

I can remember exactly where I was when the events of September 11, 2001 took place.  I was at home working on my computer.  At roughly 10:45pm, I changed the channel on my television hoping to catch the late night news.  What I saw was the now famous image of the World Trade Centre on fire.  I was still glued to the screen 5 hours later.  It’s was the kind of event where you dare not look yet you cannot turn away.  All I wanted was information.  How did the terrorists do this?  How many people were killed?  What would the ramifications be?

Almost five years has passed since that evening and much has been said and written about that date.  We’ve heard about the heroes who saved many lives.  We’ve heard about the loved ones who sadly perished.  We’ve heard about the government’s lack of action prior to and during the event.  It’s a difficult subject for some but I’ve found it extremely interesting.

Now, for the first time, a major film has been based on the terrorist attack.  Don’t be fooled into thinking that a major Hollywood studio is trying to cash-in on the tragedy.  United 93 is a respectively made film which serves as a tribute to the brave people who boarded the fateful flight.

The opening scenes show a group of people going about their daily lives.  The only thing they have in common is that they are about to board United Flight 93.  In the back of our minds, we know these people will die and it is this lingering thought that gives the film its emotional power.  These people are ordinary.  There is nothing special about them.  They talk and act just like you and me.  It makes you realise that they could have been a friend, a family member or maybe even yourself.

Shot in real time, the film follows the passengers, the pilots, the stewards and the terrorists from the time just before boarding to the moment the plane crashes.  Their story is intermingled with the drama unfolding on the ground.  The first reaction at the National Air Traffic Control Centre is that the reported hijacking cannot be true.  As the truth and gravity of the situation starts in, panic and miscommunication engulfs the air traffic administrators and the U.S. military.

Writer-director Paul Greengrass doesn’t have an agenda and isn’t trying to force-feed a message to us.  He is simply showing the events as they happen and it’s up to us to take something away from it.  It’s reminiscent of Greengrass’s Bloody Sunday, an incredible film about the death of 13 protestors at a 1972 rally in Northern Island.  Some details will never be known but Greengrass has done his best to base the film on facts.  He has listened to the cockpit voice recorder and spoken to family members who received phone calls from those aboard the flight.

United 93 is a difficult film to watch.  The documentary-like style will make you think you are watching the real thing.  I walked out of the cinema with a stunned look.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 20 August 2006

In the twelve years that I have attended the Brisbane International Film Festival, I have never seen a film sell out as quickly as 48 Shades.  Both screenings sold out in less than two weeks and I was thankful to have snapped up my ticket before it was too late.

Why the interest in this film?  It’s not often that Brisbane moviegoers can see a major release which has been entirely shot in their home town.  You can see Kangaroo Point, the Story Bridge, Brisbane Boys College, the Rosalie shops and the beautiful city skyline.  For those not from Brisbane (the majority), this won’t mean much.  For those from Brisbane, this is really cool!

Keeping that in mind, it’s hard for me to stay independent when critiquing 48 Shades.  I can’t help but like it.  One of its strongest features is the way in which writer-director Daniel Lapaine has captured the relaxed Brisbane lifestyle.  For this reason, the film feels “realer” than a standard teen movie.  Its characters remind me of people I know and the panoramic vistas remind me of images I see every day.

If the title sounds familiar, Lapaine’s movie is based on the novel 48 Shades Of Brown written by Brisbane-based author Nick Earls.  I haven’t read it myself but when first released in 2000, friends told me how much they enjoyed the many references to our great city.  If the cinematic version is anything to go by, Earls has a knack for good storytelling.  He has now published eleven novels, four of which have been developed into plays.  Other works include Zigzag Street and Bachelor Kisses.

48 Shades is the story of Dan (Wilson), a year 12 student who is in for the best year of his life.  His parents have gone overseas for a year and he is to stay with Jacq (McLeavy), his 22-year-old auntie who is studying at university.  Jacq lives in an old Queenslander with her friend, Naomi (Lung), and they live a life of leisure.  There are picnics, partying and plenty of drinking.  For the naïve Dan, it’s like letting a puppy dog of its leash.  His overbearing parents are out of the picture and it’s time to learn some honest lessons in life.

The film culminates at a huge house party where a few interesting revelations are made.  The dialogue is a bit cheesy but the romantic elements to the story are what make it a winner.  It realises that two people don’t have to end up together for a finale to be a crowd pleaser.  Before you think otherwise, I’m not spoiling the ending.  There are many romantic entanglements in the film and I have mentioned no names.  I would just like to acknowledge a mainstream film that has the courage to not necessarily give the audience what they want.

Judging from the loud cheers from the cast and crew at the BIFF premiere, a lot of fun was had whilst making this movie.  I wasn’t quite as excited as they were but I did walk out with a satisfied smile on my face.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 25 July 2006

The surprise story of the 2005 cinematic calendar in the United States was March Of The Penguins.  It earned an incredible $75m at the box-office and won the Oscar for best documentary feature.  If you like movie trivia, you’ll be interested to know that this was the first time in history that the best documentary winner made more money than the best picture winner (Crash made just $54m).  Is it a sign of the times?

March Of The Penguins looks at the unusual mating ritual of the emperor penguin.  It will be an eye-opening experience for those learning of it for the first time.  Once you’ve seen it, you’ll have to agree that few other animals go through such an arduous experience to reproduce.  Both the male and female will suffer and it’s hard to believe they go through this experience every year!

This documentary has been put together by French director Luc Jacquet who had initially planned to release the film as a television movie.  Such was the quality of footage however, that the chance was taken to produce a full length motion picture and distribute it world-wide.  The crew battled Antarctic temperatures of -20^oC and winds which exceeded 150 km/h.  They finished with 120 hours of footage shot over the course of one year.  The best 85 minutes is what you will get to see.

The English version of the film has been narrated by Morgan Freeman and I have qualms about what he has to say.  The narrative is overdramatised and continual references are made to the “many” penguins and babies who don’t survive.  You’d think that with all the dangers mentioned, that hardly any would make it through but from information provided to me, I can reveal that roughly 74% of penguin chicks survive from the time they are conceived until the time they take their first swim in the ocean.

The quality of footage is remarkable but its feels repetitive when watching it for 85 minutes.  All we really see is a mixture of wide panoramic shots and some close-ups of the penguins protecting their young.  Research on the internet has told me a lot more about the lives of emperor penguins and I’m disappointed that more information isn’t included in the movie.  In my honest opinion, the story is told far too simply.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 10 August 2006

Pete Garrison (Douglas) has had a long and distinguished career with the U.S. Secret Service.  He took a bullet for President Reagan in the early 1980s and he is known as one of the Service’s most respected and experienced agents.

After a fellow agent is murdered in his own home, Garrison receives information from a trusted source that the current President is to be assassinated.  When quizzed as to how, his source reveals that there is an “insider” within the Secret Service who is putting the plan in place.

Garrison takes the threat seriously and informs the upper echelon of the Secret Service.  An immediate investigation is launched by David Breckinridge (Sutherland) with every single agent who has access to the President forced to undertake a lie detector test.  No chances are being taken.

There is one man who fails the test.  It is Pete Garrison.  The man who has protected the President for his entire career now finds himself accused of wanting to kill him.  Unable to reveal why he failed the test (I’ll let you find out for yourself), Garrison now finds himself pitted against his fellow agents in a race against time to clear his name.

I love a good political thriller and whilst The Sentinel has far too many holes for my liking, it’s fun to watch the drama unfold and pieces of the puzzle fit together.  Both Michael Douglas and Kiefer Sutherland have been well cast and they have the right personalities for their characters.  The female presence in the film is boosted with the inclusion of Kim Basinger, as the President’s wife, and Eva Longoria (Desperate Housewives), as a newcomer within the Secret Service.

It’s familiar territory for director Clark Johnson who has worked on television series such as The Shield, The West Wing, Law & Order, Third Watch and Homicide.  He knows what the audience is looking for - an interesting mystery that wraps up with a nice, neat ending.  If that sounds like your kind of movie, you’ll be happy to know that Johnson and writer George Nolfi (Ocean’s Twelve) have delivered.  Those prepared to scrutinise the nitty-gritty details of the story will be less impressed.