Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 01 July 2013

When discussing documentaries with friends, I find there are two schools of thought. One group believes that a good documentary should be even handed. It should cover all angles of the subject matter and then let the audience draw their own conclusions. Suffice to say they’re not a fan of the Michael Moore style of documentary filmmaking that is heavy on narration and where his message is “forced down your throat”.

My other group of friends has no problems with this. They ask the question – why would a filmmaker spend years of their life putting together a documentary unless they had something to say? Aren’t they trying to open people’s eyes and change their perspective? If you’re looking to explore other sides of an argument, that aren’t covered in the film, you’re free to do your own additional reading and research. The same applies to any news story or editorial.

I sit somewhere in between these two schools of thought. Perhaps it’s how I’ve evolved. Perhaps I’m just trying to appease all of my friends. I am more than happy to see a filmmaker put forward their point of view… provide that we at least get to hear from those pushing the other side of the argument.

A great example which comes to mind is the Academy Award winning Inside Job. Director Charles Ferguson had no qualms identifying those he believed responsible for the 2008 global financial crisis. He made a very strong case too. However, whilst we often laughed at their expense, we did get to see interviews with government officials, educators, lobbyists and financial advisers who disagreed with his conclusions.

We Steal Secrets: The Story Of Wikileaks is an intriguing documentary in that you’re never quite sure where it’s heading, despite the fact this story has featured prominently in the media over the past two years. Is it taking a side? Or is trying to be fair and balanced?

The early scenes, which kick off with an appropriate Midnight Oil song, highlight an increasing level of secrecy within the United States. In the aftermath of the 2001 terrorist attacks, we are told that the number of classified documents increased from 8 million to 76 million. A record number of phone calls and emails were being intercepted. Not even Congress knew how much was being spent annually on surveillance. That too was a secret!

Does this make Julian Assange a saviour for pulling back the curtain and making these confidential documents public? Not necessarily according to the film’s Oscar winning director, Alex Gibney (Enron: The Smartest Guys In The Room, Taxi To The Dark Side).

With access to a surprising large amount of behind-the-scenes video footage, Gibney portrays Assange as a man full of contradictions who “liked crushing bastards”. There are times when you will agree with Assange’s actions. There are times when you will not. The ultimate paradox comes from the fact that in exposing the truth, Assange had to tell lies. It comes back to an age old question – does the end justify the means?

The film is about more than just Julian Assange though. An equal amount of time is spent examining Bradley Manning, a U.S. Army soldier who leaked a plethora of diplomatic cables and war logs to Wikileaks. The film may sit on the fence when it comes to judging Assange but it’s clearly sympathetic towards Manning. The United States Government turned him into their “scapegoat” and his subsequent persecution highlights the perilous nature of being a whistle blower. Manning makes for a great character study but I’m a little puzzled as to why so much time is spent exploring his difficult personal life. Should it have any impact on the decisions he made?

A large amount of chatter could be overheard in the foyer following last week’s preview. To me, this is a positive. Alex Gibney has shone his spotlight into a few dark corners and shown us something worthy of discussion.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 18 June 2013

When you think of films like Finding Nemo, The Incredibles, Ratatouille, WALL-E and Up, it’s easy to see why Pixar are the leaders when it comes to family friendly animation. All of these films won the Academy Award for best animated feature and all of them came with a great story.

For the most part, Pixar have steered clear of sequels. Aside from the two follow ups to Toy Story and the not-so-great sequel to Cars, Pixar have focused on new material. It seems that mantra is changing. Perhaps they’re looking to boost the company’s bank account. Perhaps they’re simply bowing to public pressure. Whatever the reason, Monsters University is now in cinemas and a Finding Nemo sequel will be out in late 2015.

To quickly refresh your memory, Monsters, Inc. was set in a world where monsters of all shapes and sizes lived happily together. They had secret doorways that led into the “human world” but they were only used for one purpose. They’d sneak in at night, scare the bejesus out of small children and then capture their screams to be used as an energy source. For obvious reasons, only the scariest monsters were selected.

Monsters University serves as a prequel to the 2001 original. When it begins, our two protagonists, Mike (Crystal) and Sulley (Goodman), haven’t even met. It’s their first day at college and they’re both looking to impress their lecturer and fellow students within the high profile School of Scaring. They’re in for a quick reality check though. The university’s headmaster (Mirren) lays down the ground rules. If you’re not scary enough to pass the final exam, it’ll be time to start looking for another profession.

The film covers familiar ground in terms of its family orientated themes. Mike learns that you should never give up no matter how hard it seems. No one gives him a chance of making it because of his small size but he’s determined to study for hours every day and prove everyone wrong. On the flip side, Sulley learns that there are no free rides in life. He thinks he’ll cruise through the program because his father was a famous monster but he quickly realises it won’t be that easy.

There’s also a new group of characters from the not-so-popular fraternity Oozma Kappa. They’d given up on their chances to enter the School of Scaring but find themselves reinvigorated when they join Mike and Sulley in a school-wide scaring competition. Here we can tick off two other recognisable messages – (1) never write-off the underdog and (2) never undervalue the importance of friendship.

Please note that I’m not trying to be dismissive. I don’t expect Mike to give up on his dreams, develop a drug addiction and spend the rest of his life living in a ditch. That’s not how family movies work (although I wouldn’t mind seeing one take that kind of chance). What I’m trying to illustrate is that Monsters University is a safe film. Aside from one interesting twist at the start of the third act, things generally plan out as you’ll expect.

As was the case with Monsters, Inc., this is a film to be remembered for its great characters above anything else. It’s hard not to smile while listening to Billy Crystal and John Goodman argue back and forth. Their “buddy” relationship is reminiscent of that shared between Buzz and Woody in the Toy Story series. You’ll also notice the distinctive voices of Steve Buscemi and Helen Mirren who tap into their villainous personalities.

You could argue that Monsters University lacks the freshness of the original but it’s still nice to revisit this world and be charmed by these fun-loving monsters.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 25 June 2013

Seven years ago, Warner Bros. tried to bring this popular franchise back to life with Superman Returns. Everything seemed to be in place. Superhero movies were increasing in popularity. Director Bryan Singer had already proven himself with the X-Men series. Brandon Routh was a fresh-faced actor ready for stardom.

For whatever reason, it didn’t work. The film pulled in only $391m at the international box-office and while that may sound like a lot, it was just enough to cover the production and marketing costs. The studio had lost faith and a sequel, scheduled for release in 2009, was canned.

As the saying goes – if at first you don’t succeed, try again. Warner Bros. has coughed up another $225m and is having a second crack at revamping the franchise. This time around, they’ve gone with director Zack Snyder (Watchmen, 300) and brought in another newbie who is ready to make a name of himself, Henry Cavill (Immortals).

You can forget about the earlier Superman flicks because we’re going right back to beginning with Man Of Steel. The first scene of the film is set on the distant planet of Krypton where we witness the birth of our soon-to-be hero. The planet is about to implode (long story) so his parents throw him into an escape pod and send him off to the far distant planet of Earth. It’s the only way they can ensure the survival of not only their son, but their race as a whole.

The film’s first hour is its most interesting with two stories being told concurrently. The current day narrative sees Earth under attack from a rather passionate villain, General Zod (Shannon). Zod fled Krypton before it exploded and spent 33 years trying to locate Kal-El aka Clark Kent aka Superman. Having finally made it to Earth, he has plans to annihilate the human population and make it home to a new race of Kryptonians.

As we watch the drama unfold, we learn more about Superman and his past by way of flashback. We see him arrive on the planet and be raised by two loving parents. We see him get bullied at high school and watch him struggle to keep a hold on his super powers. We see his father warn him about humans and why he should keep his identity hidden. It seems we’re not quite ready to learn that we aren’t alone in the universe.

While I like the way the past storyline overlaps with that of the current day, there are still some puzzling gaps. There’s a scene where a young Clark Kent saves a school bus which has plunged into a river. He was clearly seen by the students on the bus so why weren't questions asked?. How else did the bus get out of the deep water? Don’t even get me started on a strange development where an alien space ship is found beneath the arctic ice. You’d think the authorities would show a little more concern when it suddenly flies away under Clark’s control.

I tried to like this film. I really did. For example, I was drawn to the heartfelt moments between Clark and his adopted father, Jonathan, where they discuss each other’s troubles. It’s a subtle, touching performance from Kevin Costner – one of his best in recent years. Unfortunately, these scenes are easily forgotten when you see the silly, comical way in which Jonathan meets his fate. It makes no sense.

Man Of Steel suffers most in its final hour where in degenerates into a seen-it-all-before, CGI-laden action fest. Time could have been spent developing the fun relationship between Clark Kent and snoopy journalist Lois Lane (Adams) but instead, we get punches, explosions and buildings falling over. Michael Shannon trots out cheesy lines like “either you die or I do”. Oh, and let’s not forget that Superman is always in the right place at the right time to save the day. He’s the king of convenience.

A sequel is planned but as we learned with Superman Returns in 2006, nothing is guaranteed in Hollywood. I think there’s hope for this rebooted franchise but would like to see something more engaging next time around.

You can read my interview with director Zack Snyder by clicking here.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 16 June 2013

According to Wikipedia, there are at least 640 zombie movies. I’ve got a hunch that many of these went “straight to video” but still, it’s a subject matter that filmmakers are turning to again and again and again.

I wasn’t sure what to expect from World War Z but I was hooked within the first 20 minutes. After a quick getting-to-know-you sequence in the family kitchen, Gerry (Pitt) and his family get in their car and go for a drive through Philadelphia. As they reach the city centre, they find the traffic is backed up on every street, police motorcycles are flying past and helicopters are hovering above. What is going on?

It’s a great scene because we’re only seeing things from Gerry’s perspective. We know something is wrong… we just don’t know what it is yet. An explosion in the distance kick starts the pandemonium. Thousands of people are running through the streets and screaming loudly. For those in cars, it’s time to drive as if the road rules no longer apply.

It’s time for the big reveal. This isn’t a terrorist attack. We’re dealing with ZOMBIES! Once they get their teeth into you, it’s only a matter of seconds before you’re a new member of the growing zombie army. Gerry and his family manage to escape the mayhem but only thanks to his former employer – the United Nations. They orchestrate a daring helicopter rescue and fly the family to the safety of a U.S. navy ship stationed in the Atlantic Ocean.

It is there where Gerry realises the gravity of the situation. The President of the United States has been killed and the Vice President is missing. Zombie attacks are being reported across the globe and the computer models suggest that it’s only a matter of time before the planet is completely overrun.

Gerry also learns there was an ulterior motive behind his rescue. Given his expertise as a top-notch investigator, he has been asked to return to the mainland and locate the original source of the virus. He will accompanied by a doctor and a well-armed military team. It’s an extremely risky assignment but Gerry reluctantly agrees realising it’s the only way his wife and two children can be guaranteed lodging aboard the ship.

We’ve seen a bunch of action blockbusters so far this summer (Iron Man 3, Star Trek Into Darkness, Fast & The Furious 6) but this is the first time we’ve seen one offer suspense. This is not just because of the freaky looking zombies. It’s also because of the perilous situations crafted by the screenwriters (who have drawn from Max Brooks’ 2006 novel of the same name). With every major scene, you’ll be asking yourself – how the hell are they going to get out of this?

In the leading role, Brad Pitt is a good fit as the film’s strong yet reluctant hero. Ok, so it’s a bit of a stretch to think that he can pull off so many amazing escapes but still, it’s hard not to admire his character’s calm demeanour and the common-sense way in which he goes about the task at hand. Watching him unpick the mystery of the zombies is far more interesting than similar films which focus on “shooting anything that moves”. This is most evident during the finale.

Throw in a few unexpected plot developments and World War Z adds up to an engaging action-thriller. Do see it.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 23 June 2013

Germain (Luchini) is at home marking the assignments of his high school literature class. The students had a simple task – write about what happened to them over the weekend. Unfortunately, their submissions are terrible. He reads a sample of them to his wife, Jeanne (Scott Thomas), and it’s clear that these students simply do not care about the subject.

There’s an exception though. A 16-year-old named Claude (Umhauer) submitted a lengthy hand-written piece. He reveals that he is infatuated with the home from a fellow student, Rapha (Ughetto). He’ll often sit on a bench in the adjoining park and fantasise about what goes on inside. It’s rather creepy.

Over the weekend, Claude took his obsession one step further. He befriended Rapha and offered to help with his maths homework. It may seem a kind, gracious act but Claude isn’t after a new friend. He just wants to be invited inside the house so he can snoop around and get a sense of what their life is like. While Rapha is completing a maths problem in his bedroom, he can peak into cupboards and eavesdrop on conversations shared between Rapha’s mother (Seigner) and father (Menochet).

Claude’s story ends with the words “to be continued” and it leaves Germain somewhat shocked. Claude deserves a good mark as it’s an open, well-written piece that comes with a splash of mystery and intrigue. It will grab the attention of any reader. However, it also reveals that Claude a cunning, sinister individual.

Germain considers alerting the school’s headmaster but in the end, he decides to encourage Claude to keep writing. Is this because he thinks Claude is a gifted student who could one day be a great author? Or is it because he’s now drawn into the story and wants to know more about the secret lives of Rapha and his family?

There are a few moments within In The House that push the boundaries of believability but this is still an interesting, creative, puzzling film that is best described as a black comedy. It’s a dark subject matter but writer-director François Ozon (Swimming Pool, 8 Women) adds a few light touches to keep the audience on edge. These characters are messed up and yet there I was, sitting in the back row of the cinema, with a smile on my face.

Many elements of this tale will keep you thinking and guessing. How much of Claude’s story is real? How much has been embellished so as to make it more appealing? Also, what’s the deal with Germain? Should he spending so much time helping Claude outside of regular school hours? Who really has the upper hand in their student-teacher relationship?

In The House took out the FIPRESCI Prize at the 2012 Toronto Film Festival and picked up 6 César Award nominations including best picture (losing to Amour). I’m not alone with my admiration for the film and as one of the year’s best foreign language releases, you should be checking it out.