Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 21 January 2014

The first corporations in the UK and the US were subject to very strict rules and regulations so as to prevent them from becoming too powerful. They could only engage in specific activities allowed for by the government (which were often for a public good). They could not own stock in other corporations. Their members could be personally liable if losses were incurred. It wasn’t until the late 19^th Century that the first states in America started relaxing laws so as to stimulate business activity.

Let’s fast forward to the year 1987 and I’ll introduce you to 22-year-old Jordan Belfort (DiCaprio). It’s his first day working for a big stockbroking firm and he’s been taken out to lunch by his millionaire boss (McConaughey). Belfort is given two important tips to succeed – masturbate regularly and start doing cocaine. Both will keep him relaxed so that he can smooth talk investors into buying stock.

Does it matter that he knows nothing about the corporations that he’s recommending to his clients? Nope. The stockbroking game is not about picking winners and losers. It’s not about increasing the wealth of investors. Belfort is told the only thing he has to worry about is commissions. You see, brokers get their fee up front. They don’t care what happens after you’ve invested. Somehow, I don’t think this was envisioned by those who first came up with the idea of a “corporation”.

It’s hard to believe this is a true story. I’m sure a few elements have been embellished (the screenplay is based on Belfort’s autobiography) but the key facts have been proven. Within the space of a few years, Belfort created one of the world’s largest stockbroking companies and was worth roughly $200 million. A Forbes magazine article exposed some of his firm’s dodgy practices… but this only made Belfort more popular! Everyone wanted in. Everyone wanted to be rich. It was like pigs at a trough.

Brought to the screen by iconic director Martin Scorsese (Goodfellas, The Departed), The Wolf Of Wall Street has generated controversy. Detractors believe that the film glorifies Belfort’s actions given its many comedic scenes and its lack of a moralistic conclusion. That was certainly not Scorsese’s intention. He didn’t want audiences to leave the cinema feeling better and thinking that the problem has been solved. He “wanted them to feel like they’d been slapped into recognising that this behaviour has been encouraged.” The film’s final scene is haunting in that regard.

Some might argue about the perverse content, the excessive coarse language (there are more than 500 f-bombs), the frequent drug use, the workplace sex, the orgies, the nudity, the misogyny, the discrimination… but it’s hard to fault the performance of Leonardo DiCaprio. He starts out as an ordinary guy and transforms himself into someone so powerful, so influential that he could “sell lube to a convent full of nuns”. His passionate monologues will be remembered.

My only qualm with the film is its length. At 180 minutes, it’s the longest of this season’s award contenders. The first hour is fast, tight and you can see the great work done my Scorsese’s long-time editor Thelma Schoonmaker to keep the story moving. Things start to slow from thereon and a splash of repetition creeps in. Perhaps this was also part of Scorsese’s plan? Maybe he wanted to push filmgoers to the point of exhaustion.

There’s an extra reason for Australian audiences to see the movie and that’s to admire 23-year-old Margot Robbie who deservedly gets plenty of screen time as Belfort’s second wife. Robbie graduated from Somerset College on the Gold Coast in 2007, landed a role in Neighbours, picked up a smart part in Richard Curtis’ About Time, and now looks set for very big things.

Nominated for 5 Academy Awards including best picture, The Wolf Of Wall Street is not so much a film… but more of an examination paper. When you leave the room after three hours, you’ll know if you’ve passed.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 05 January 2014

We’ve seen a few films in recent years that have covered World War II from the perspective of children. Examples which come to mind are The Boy In Striped Pyjamas (2008), Sarah’s Key (2010) and Lore (2012). The newest addition to that quickly growing group is The Book Thief – based on the novel by Australian Markus Zusak and brought to the screen by Emmy Award winning director Brian Percival (Downtown Abbey).

The story begins in 1938 and centres on a young girl named Liesel (Nélisse) who has been placed in the care of two foster parents (Rush and Watson) living in a small German town. Coupled with the recent death of her younger brother due to illness, it’s a situation the shy, quiet Liesel is struggling to grapple. Why was she abandoned by her mother? Will she ever see her again?

The remainder of the film spans the breadth of World War II as seen through Liesel’s eyes. Some of her experiences would be familiar to many of us. She develops a love for literature after being taught how to read by her new father. She becomes best friends with a sporty, energetic boy (Liersch) who lives down the street. He’s always chasing her for a first kiss!

Some of her other experiences are darker, more life threatening. Her foster parents agree to hide a young Jewish man (Schnetzer) is their small basement so that he can evade capture by the Nazi soldiers. Liesel realises the importance of keeping his presence a secret. If discovered, her world will again be upended and her new family imprisoned.

The Book Thief isn’t offering any new insight into the events of World War II. We know of the atrocities that took place and we’ve heard similar stories of heroisms. The film still packs a strong emotional punch though thanks to the likeable nature of its leading characters. You want them to find comfort, happiness. With a sweet smile and a curious disposition, 13-year-old Canadian actress Sophie Nélisse (Monsieur Lazhar) is a wonderful fit in the leading role. She’ll be a name to watch in the near future.

The film is also to be enjoyed for two elements that hear but don’t see. Firstly, staying true to Zusask’s novel, we hear a few poignant words from Death as the story’s narrator. It’s a curious choice that provides a dash of intrigue. Secondly, 5-time Academy Award winning composer John Williams adds a key layer with a sweet yet hauntingly reflective score. It’s the first time that Williams has written the music for a non-Steven Spielberg directed film since 2005’s Memoirs Of A Geisha.

Screenwriter Michael Petroni (The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader) faced a tough battle in condensing the 550 page novel into a two hour feature film. Sufficient time is devoted to character development but there are some key plot developments in the film’s second half that feel too rushed. Sticklers for realism might also question why Liesel always looks so good (despite living in near-poverty) and why the young actors speak so insightfully (despite their age).

It hasn’t received much attention over the current award season but The Book Thief is still a film that will admired by many.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 14 January 2014

A lot changes in Hollywood – marriages, friendships, faces. One thing that has endured is the filmmaking partnership of Ethan Coen and Joel Coen. Sure, they’re brothers… but these two guys have always worked together. They’ve compiled an incredible body of work that includes Academy Award winners (Fargo, No Country For Old Men) and cult classics to be watched again and again (Barton Fink, The Big Lebowski).

Inside Llewyn Davis is their latest collaboration and centres on a struggling folk singer (Isaac) living in New York, 1961. Struggling is probably an understatement. Llewyn turns up at a studio recording session and when asked to fill out his details for the payroll clerk, he leaves the address field blank. It’s not because he’s keeping a low profile. It’s because he’s homeless. With barely a cent to his name, he’s been turning up at the apartment of some friends, often uninvited, and asking to crash on their couch.

Do we feel sorry for Llewyn? Well, not really, no. He’s a good singer, no doubt about that. In the film’s opening scene, we see him perform a heartfelt song in front of a small audience at a dingy looking club. Llewyn’s problem is himself. He’s his own worst enemy. He doesn’t cope well with adversity or criticism. Even when someone offers a helping hand, he finds a way of screwing it up.

This is not a commercial film. I have friends who I know would be bored stupid. I like the quote from New York Times critic A.O. Scott who describes the film as “a wobbly, circular journey to nowhere in particular and back.” We see Llewyn interact with an assortment of odd characters, typical of a Coen brothers film, and that’s about it. There’s no shock twist or no huge character transformation.

I was somewhat bewildered on leaving the cinema but Inside Llewyn Davis is a film that has stuck with me. Perhaps that’s because of the wonderful soundtrack and sleepy New York setting. Perhaps it’s because of the terrific central performance from Oscar Isaac. Perhaps it’s because I couldn’t quite get my head around it. I’ve read a few internet forums that suggest several underlying messages – many involving a cat that Llewyn is forced to carry around for a while. A second viewing will be required.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 01 January 2014

Set 70 million years ago, Walking With Dinosaurs is a live-action family film that centres on a young dinosaur named Patchi who is trying to find his place in the world. He will encounter many other dinosaurs in his travels, some who will be his friends and others who are looking to eat him.

It’s clear this film is targeted at a younger audience. It’s not designed to appeal to the masses like a Jurassic Park. The story is kept simple (it runs for just 87 minutes) and there are even some small educational elements. The film pauses every so often to give us a few titbits of information on the scary dinosaurs that we see on screen. This includes their name, their origin and their diet.

Some of the character transformations are rushed (such as that of Patchi’s older brother) and I don't quite think there’s enough here to keep youngsters entertained. The dinosaurs are cool though.  Directors Barry Cook (Mulan) and Neil Nightingale had an $80m budget to work with and so they do look very realistic. An Australian-based company, Animal Logic, was behind the bulk of the special effects. They are well established within the industry having worked on such films as The Matrix trilogy and Happy Feet.

It’s not a huge cast but two voices you will probably recognise are Justin Long (Dodgeball) and John Leguizamo (the voice of Sid in the Ice Age series). You can see that they’re trying to make their respective character as fun and exciting as possible. Not all of the dinosaurs talk though. Most of them get their message across through a fierce roar.

I don’t think the expectations are too high for Walking With Dinosaurs (20^th Century Fox didn’t even preview it to critics in Brisbane) but if you’ve seen Frozen and you’re looking for a way to occupy your young kids for a few hours over the school holidays, this could be a viable option.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 11 January 2014

Theodore Twombly (Phoenix) is a curious individual. It’s hard to work out if he’s happy with his progression in life. He’s forged a surprisingly successful career as a “professional letter writer” for a small firm. You pay him a fee and he’ll come up with a heartfelt love letter, birthday greeting or anniversary note. He’s got a knack with words (at least when putting them on paper) and his customers keep providing rapturous feedback.

His confidence at work hasn’t translated into his personal life. Theodore comes across as an insecure guy who struggles to hold a conversation. There’s a moment where he goes on a blind date with a friend of a friend (Wilde) but it doesn’t end well. Her final words to him are not pleasant. Theodore also resists change. His wife (Mara) recently left him but he blindly hopes they’ll get back together. He’s certainly in no rush to sign the divorce papers, despite her insistence.

There is a place where Theodore is comfortable – alone at home. He has a spacious apartment with nice views (not sure how he can afford it) and he’s happy enough to sit on the couch and play video games. If in need of company, he walks down the hall and knocks on the door of his long-time friend, Amy (Adams). They vent, they gossip, they laugh. Occasionally, they open up.

Don’t feel sorry for Theodore though. He’s about to meet Samantha (Johansson) – the woman of his dreams. She’s smart, funny and cheeky. She has a sexy voice and an infectious enthusiasm for life. She laughs at his jokes. She enjoys spending time with him. They soon become inseparable.

Anyone already familiar with the film will know the catch – Samantha isn’t a real person. She’s an operating system (referred to the film as an OS). Her is set in the not-to-distant future where this type of thing is starting to take off. These OSs are self-aware and have an ability to learn, an ability to interact. It was inevitable that humans would form an attachment and Theodore isn’t the only guy to have fallen in love.

He has only three other feature credits to his name but Spike Jonze has already defined himself as a director who thinks far outside the square. He worked with writer Charlie Kaufman to create two wonderfully original comedies – Being John Malkovich (1999) and Adaptation (2002). He then followed with Where The Wild Things Are – a heartfelt family adventure based on a novel containing just 338 words.

Her is striving to be an unorthodox romantic comedy. It’s a formulaic genre and so I like the idea of having a guy fall in love with someone who doesn’t actually exist. It poses specific functional questions such as “how do they have sex?” That answer is provided and you’ll enjoy the laugh. There are also broader philosophical questions about the appropriateness and healthiness of a relationship with a computer operating system. You’ll have to do the thinking and come up with these answers on your own.

The amount of pleasure you take from Her is likely to correlate with your willingness to suspend your sense of disbelief. It’s like watching a time travel movie. We know it’s not possible (yet) but it doesn’t mean that we still can’t enjoy the story. The fact that the film has been showered with praise during the current awards season, including being named best picture by the Los Angeles Film Critics Association, suggests many have bought into the concept of a computer with a romantic mind of its own.

For me, it was battle. The film takes a narrow focus and devotes itself almost entirely to the relationship of two characters that aren’t all that interesting. I grew tired of Theodore’s quirky, overanxious personality. I’d have preferred to see the film provide a wider view of this cool-looking futuristic world. It needed to analyse the public’s acceptance of human-OS relationships and question Samantha’s sincerity given she is the creation of a controlling, profit-driven corporation. For such a complex issue, Her feels too simplistic.