Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 24 January 2013

Put simply, Zero Dark Thirty recounts the events that led to the capture of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.  We begin in September 2001 and hear telephone calls from those trapped atop the burning World Trade Centre towers and pleading for help.  Two and a half hour later, we finish with a group of elite Special Forces operatives storming bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan and killing him.

Given it is one of this year’s awards season contenders, Zero Dark Thirty has been subjected to a huge degree of scrutiny by journalists and some members of the public.  No one would blink an eyelid if this were a direct-to-TV movie or an episode of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation.  They’d realise Hollywood’s cosmetic brush had been applied (thankfully not as much as in Argo) and go along with it.

That’s not the case here.  This latest collaboration from director Kathryn Bigelow and writer Mark Boal (The Hurt Locker) is engaging, persuasive and believable.  It’s as if you’re standing in the same room as these characters and watching them go about their day-to-day lives.  The bottom line is that it feels real, almost documentary-like in style.

This has worried some.  The Acting Director of the CIA recently made a public statement reminding audiences that “the film takes significant artistic license, while portraying itself as being historically accurate.”  I can’t remember the CIA ever having issued such a statement before!  A few United States senators have also voiced their concerns and criticism.

The biggest talking point has been around the subject of torture.  In the early scenes, we see CIA agents using torture to extract information from an al-Qaeda detainee.  The most extreme technique depicted is that of waterboarding – continually pouring water over the face of an immobilised person to create the sensation of drowning.  It ultimately leads to the detainee revealing the name of bin Laden’s most trusted courier.

I have read numerous articles proclaiming that the film is either pro-torture or anti-torture.  For me, this is proof that the script of Mark Boal has been effective.  Boal hasn’t taken a one-sided viewpoint on this highly provocative issue.  What he’s done is generate a much-needed debate.  Even if you don’t believe the film portrays events as they happen, you’d be naive to think that (1) the U.S. didn’t torture anyone and (2) they didn’t gain any valuable information through such techniques.

Many people were involved in capturing Osama bin Laden but given the natural time constraints of a movie, Zero Dark Thirty focuses on just one – a CIA agent known as Maya.  Bigelow has acknowledged the character is based on a real person but she’s still working for the CIA today and so her true identity has been hidden.  Not even Jessica Chastain (The Help) had the chance to meet her.

It’s a brilliant performance from Chastain who portrays Maya as a woman who is smart, passionate and level-headed.  She’s not a “super hero” though.  She has doubts and insecurities just like anyone else.  Two years ago, I’d never heard of Chastain.  Now, I consider her one of the best actresses working in Hollywood today.  She’s guaranteed to earn a second consecutive Academy Award nomination (after The Help last year) and she’s a strong chance to be holding the famed 13½ inch statue in her hands on Oscar night.

Boal’s screenplay and Chastain’s performance reminded me of the tagline from the terrific David Fincher film Zodiac – “there’s more than one way to lose your life to a killer”.  Most of us go to work each day and we come home with some sort of accomplishment – we’ve met a sales target or we’ve finished a set number of jobs or reports.

Maya has devoted her life to just one task – finding Osama bin Laden.  She goes to sleep each night not knowing if she is any closer to completing that task.  Coupled with the increasing pressure from the public, the government and her superiors, you get a clear sense of the role’s heavy emotional burden.  With the film spread across a full decade, we see many instances where the agents struggle to maintain their cool temperament.  There’s a particularly strong moment when a CIA official (Mark Strong) grills his team about their failure to get results.

We all know this story ends but Zero Dark Thirty’s finale is still gripping and action-packed.  Watching the Special Forces guys navigate their way through bin Laden’s hideaway, working to a strict timeline, highlighted the perilous nature of the operation.  The fact that the Pakistan military hadn’t been informed also contributed to the difficulty.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 13 January 2013

I admire Judd Apatow.  He’s a guy who wants to make successful comedies but he doesn’t always bow to Hollywood conventions.  He’s not afraid to take a few chances and think outside of the square.  Apatow’s best writing credits over the past decade include The 40 Year Old Virgin, Knocked Up, You Don’t Mess With The Zohan and Pineapple Express.

This Is 40 is something slightly different from Apatow.  Yes, there’s comedy but there’s a more serious, a more personal undercurrent to the story.  It centres on two characters that have just celebrated their 40^th birthday and are stumbling into the next chapter of their lives.  They’re not sure where they’re heading and it’s left them questioning the future of their relationship.

Why I’m describing this film as “personal” to Apatow is that he’s cast his wife, Leslie Mann, in the leading role alongside Paul Rudd.  Further, he’s used his two daughters to make up the rest of this on-screen family.  When you throw in the fact that recently turned 45 years of age, you’d have to ask yourself the question – how close to home is this storyline?

Apatow actually describes his life as “pretty boring” and not quite as exaggerated as what you’ll see in the movie.  That’s not to say that a few of these scenes aren’t based on actual events.  He wants to make us laugh... but he also wants us to reflect on our own lives and our own connections.

When you break it down, This Is 40 highlights the difficulties that come with being in a long-term relationship.  It’s not meant to be dramatic and depressing.  Rather, it’s a movie that wants to provide comfort.  When you’re spending every day with the same person for the rest of life, there are always going to be a few bumps along the way.  That’s normal and you’d be naive to think otherwise.

Fans of the 2007 film Knocked Up may already be familiar with these characters.  Pete (Rudd) and Debbie (Mann) were the two best friends of the lead couple – played by Seth Rogen and Katherine Heigl.  Some might describe this as a “spin off” but there’s no real need to have seen the earlier film, which is terrific I must point out, before this one.  There’s very little overlap.

To give you a flavour of the film’s content, the opening scene sees Pete and Debbie having sex in the shower.  It’s all going fine until… Pete admits to taking a Viagra tablet beforehand.  Debbie then kick starts a heated debate about why he can’t maintain a “non-assisted” erection and whether he still finds her attractive.  Whilst many of us won’t be able to relate the specifics of such a moment, you will understand what’s going through each of their heads during the argument.

Whilst I like what Apatow is trying to do in this film, I’m not 100% sold on the delivery.  Every conversation feels like it’s a minute too long.  It’s as if these characters are trying too hard to demonstrate their flaws and insecurities.  I got the message early on and when you drag it out into 134 minutes, a lengthy gamble for a comedy, you’re going to struggle to hold my attention.

The secondary cast includes the likes of Albert Brooks, who plays Pete’s financially struggling father, and John Lithgow, as Debbie’s long-lost dad who unexpectedly re-enters her life.  They’re not particularly exciting subplots and I’d question their necessity.  There’s a scene-stealing moment from Melissa McCarthy (Bridemaids) during, strangely enough, the closing credits.  It generated more reaction at my preview screening than any other part of the movie.

While I’m sure there are some who will respond to the film’s “close to home” style of comedy, This Is 40 didn’t connect as well as I’d hoped.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 23 January 2013

You only have to spend 5 minutes with Pat Solitano (Cooper) to realise that he’s struggling.  He battles bipolar disorder and is clearly not in control of his emotions.  Having spent 8 months in a mental care facility, Pat is now back living with his parents (DeNiro and Weaver).  They can see that their strong-headed son isn’t taking his medication and they’re worried that he’s not getting any better.

Pat wasn’t institutionalised of his own volition.  He was placed there by the court after a violent incident involving his ex-wife (which isn’t shown to us until mid-way through the film).  She subsequently took out a restraining order against her husband and left Philadelphia for good.  The two haven’t spoken since.

It’s this broken relationship that Pat can’t come to grips with.  When he speaks to others, he confidently professes that he and his wife will soon get back together.  It’s as if he’s forgotten about his past indiscretions and thinks that all has been forgiven.  His family and friends don’t know how to react.  They’re concerned about Pat’s delusional comments but they don’t want to react negatively and risk upsetting his delicate mental state.

With the stage set, writer-director David O. Russell (The Fighter) introduces a new love interest to further complicate the situation.  Her name is Tiffany (Lawrence) and she’s battling her own mental demons following the unexpected death of her young husband.  They meet for the first time at an impromptu dinner party and have a humorous exchange where they contrast and compare their medication.

What develops is a one-sided relationship.  Tiffany is “head over heels” for Pat and is using every trick in the book to spend time with him.  Unfortunately for her, Pat is still wearing his blinkers and only has eyes for his ex-wife.

If there’s one reason why you should see this film, it’s to admire the wonderful performances from Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence.  Both actors have created troubled characters that are also immensely likeable.  We can see their flaws and their propensity to irritate… but we appreciate their problems and hope they can find comfort, happiness.

Silver Linings Playbook has received 8 Academy Award nominations and in the process, has become the first film is 31 years to be nominated in all four acting categories.  Both Cooper and Lawrence will be there on Oscar night alongside Robert DeNiro and Australian Jacki Weaver.  It’s nice to see Weaver recognised again (after Animal Kingdom two years ago) but I’m a little surprised about her nod.  It’s a sweet performance but it doesn’t require much more than an American accent and a concerned look on her face.

There’s so much to love about this film during its first two-thirds including the “getting to know each other” scenes between Cooper and Lawrence and the light-hearted exploration of their mental condition.  Unfortunately, the film changes tact in the final third and becomes a safe, silly, unrealistic romantic comedy.  The actors were the same but it felt like I was watching a different movie with different characters.  Oh, and if anyone can explain the purpose of Chris Tucker’s character, I’m all ears.

It’s been showered with honours, including the prestigious Audience Award at the Toronto Film Festival, but I’m happy to sit just outside of the main group when it comes to Silver Linings Playbook.  Most will describe it as “great”.  I’m describing it as “good”.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 10 January 2013

There are few filmmakers working today who can generate as much buzz as Quentin Tarantino.  It’s not a question of “if” you will see a new Tarantino movie but rather a question of “when” you will see it.  You don’t even need to know the actors’ names or have an idea of the story.  The fact that Tarantino is sitting in the director’s chair is the only impetuous required to get you inside a darkened theatre.

Django Unchained is Tarantino doing what he likes – reviving an old genre and throwing in (1) a few surprises, and (2) plenty of violence.  He treated us to a martial arts flick with Kill Bill and a 70s-style exploitation film with Death Proof.  This time around, he pays homage to the American western… and has a lot of fun in the process.

Set in Texas 1858, the first character we meet is Dr King Schultz (Waltz).  He was once a dentist but he’s now found a more lucrative profession.  In his own words, Schultz “kills people and sells their corpses for cash”.  That may give the impression that he’s a crazed murderer but nope, that’s not the case.  This is all above the law.  Schultz is a bounty hunter.  He captures those criminals, whether it be dead or alive, that are highly sought by the authorities.

Usually a one-man operation, Schultz has taken on a partner to help with a particular assignment.  There are three violent brothers involved in cattle rustling and stagecoach robberies.  The problem is that Schultz doesn’t know how to identify them.  He only knows their names.

This is where a black slave named Django (Foxx) will come in handy.  Schultz purchases Django from a slave trader (a humorous opening scene) and agrees to give him freedom if he can help locate the three criminals he seeks.  It’s an easy choice for Django – “I kill white people and get paid to do it. What’s not to like?”

The two soon become a formidable team.  The liberal, well-spoken Schultz seems to enjoy having an African American as his partner.  He’s not actively trying to abolish slavery… but Schultz is an affable attention-seeker who likes stirring the pot.  He loves the quizzical expressions when he and Django ride into a small town side-by-side.  Onlookers can’t believe they’re looking at a black man on a horse.  Such a thing was unthinkable at the time.

Django appreciates his newfound wealth and freedom but there’s something more important he seeks – his wife, Broomhilda (Washington).  She was recently sold as a prostitute to Calvin Candie (DiCaprio), a wealthy Mississippi plantation owner with a fetish for gladiator-type fighting.  Schultz and Django concoct a risky plan to visit Candie’s estate and rescue Broomhilda from his villainous ownership.

Django Unchained drags on a little too long at the end (clocking it at a total of 165 minutes) but it’s still a wildly amusing ride.  The brutal action is mixed with lengthy dialogue-driven sequences.  If there’s one guy who knows how to create great conversation between characters, it is Quentin Tarantino.  Schultz and Django find themselves in many tricky situations and it is more fun watching them talk their way out of trouble as opposed to getting involved in a shoot-out.

Tarantino can’t take all the credit though.  You won’t find many other films this year with a better collective group of performances.  Christoph Waltz is again an ideal fit for the lead role (he won an Oscar last time he worked with Tarantino on Inglourious Basterds) but he can’t be singled out.  That’s because Jamie Foxx, Leonardo DiCaprio and Samuel L. Jackson are just as good.

Whilst there are a bunch of wonderful individual scenes (the Ku Klux Klan bit springs to mind), I felt the broader story needed more meat on the bone.  I never quite understood the mindset of Dr Schultz.  He’s a guy driven by wealth and notoriety (with no competition in the bounty hunter trade) and yet he keeps throwing himself into dumb, ridiculously life-threatening situations.  Why he so willingly agreed to help Django rescue his wife is also something that didn’t sit right.

This is a minor nit-pick though.  If only all films could contain such precise dialogue and such distinctive characters.  I’d be entertained every time I went to the cinema.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 17 January 2013

It was only a matter of time until we saw a major movie focus its attention on the horrifying tsunami that stuck on Boxing Day in 2004.  Over 230,000 people were killed in countries including Indonesia, Sri Lanka, India and Thailand.