Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 01 January 2013

Most people will be familiar with Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho, first released in June 1960.  It is regarded today as one of the greatest thrillers ever made.  It’s ranked inside the “all time” top 30 on the Internet Movie Database and inside the top 20 by the American Film Institute. In terms of box-office, it was Hitchcock’s most successful film – grossing $32m in the United States (the equivalent of roughly $400m today).

Fewer people will be familiar with the story “behind” Psycho.  You could easily pick up a copy of the non-fiction book by author Stephen Rebello but for those with shorter attention spans, this new film, simply titled Hitchcock, will at least whet your appetite.  It seems to oversimplify the material but it’s still an interesting subject matter and I know many people will be keen to see it.

He may have been a highly-praised director but the 60-year-old Hitchcock had a lot of trouble getting Psycho off the ground.  Paramount Pictures were horrified by the storyline.  They didn’t understand why a man with Hitchcock’s reputation would want to create a cheesy horror flick.  They also had doubts as to whether it could get past the strict censorship board, especially given the nudity and bloody murder.  In the end, Hitchcock decided to fund the $800,000 film himself… and as we now know, it was a very good decision.

We saw it with Argo and there’s been a similar debate regarding Hitchcock.  When you’re trying to recreate a real-life event, how much poetic licence can you take?  I’m not an expert on this particular subject matter but there are long-time fans of Alfred Hitchcock who believe this film is horribly misleading.

The movie would have us believe that Hitchcock had to mortgage his house and limit his household spending to get the funding.  It suggests that his wife, Alma Reville, was a huge creative influence and even directed parts of Psycho when Hitchcock was at home on sick leave.  It implies that Hitchcock had a violent streak and used it to help extract a frightening performance from star Janet Leigh.  Would such assertions have Alfred Hitchcock rolling his grave?  There are many who would suggest so.

The film also struggles with the breadth of material it is trying to cover in its 98 minute running time.  There are some intriguing subplots including the “mamma’s boy” persona of star Anthony Perkins, the work of screenwriter Joseph Stefano and the awkwardness between Hitchcock and co-star Vera Miles.

All of these play second fiddle however to the main subplot – the not-so-interesting relationship between Alma Reville and a boring screenwriter named Whitfield Cook.  I realise that Alma is a key character but too much time is wasted following her efforts to step out from behind her husband’s shadow and create her own name.

It’s the performances that you’re most likely to remember about Hitchcock.  With the help of his talented make up crew, Anthony Hopkins (Silence Of The Lambs) is terrific as the overweight director.  It’s a nice touch to see him address the audience at the start and end of the film – just like the real Hitchcock.  Helen Mirren (The Queen) is strong as Alma and Scarlett Johansson (Lost In Translation) has been well-cast as Janet Leigh.

Many will leave the theatre with a smile on their face but in my eyes, Hitchcock focuses on the wrong characters and tries too hard to please.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 19 December 2012

A man gets into a white mini-van and drives to a quiet parking lot in central Pittsburgh.  He parks on one of the upper floors and slips a quarter into a parking metre.  The time has come.  He looks across the river with his long range rifle and starts firing.  Five random people are killed.  The man then jumps back into his van and flees the scene.

With 24 hours, the police have made an arrest.  The car, the gun and a fingerprint on the coin in the parking metre have led them to James Barr – an ex-army guy who now lives a solitary life.  He fits the profile and the evidence is overwhelming.  The District Attorney (Rodin) and lead detective (Oyelowo) just need to Barr to sign a confession statement and that’s it, the case will be closed.

As a member of the audience, we know that Barr is innocent.  Oh, and don’t worry.  I’m not giving away any spoilers.  Writer-director Christopher McQuarrie (an Oscar winner for his screenplay for The Usual Suspects) toyed with the idea of not revealing the real killer’s identity but it would be too hard to keep that secret from the audience (who would already realise something is suspicious).  Further, test audiences much preferred the version where the real killer is known at the very start.

The characters don’t know this though.  Before being beaten into a coma whilst in custody, Barr wrote three words on a piece of paper – “get Jack Reacher”.  There’s a file on Reacher but details are sketchy.  He has no phone number, no email address and no driver’s licence.  All they know is that he was once a military police officer and that he “disappeared off the grid” about two years ago.

They won’t need to find him as Jack Reacher (Cruise) has already found them.  He turns up at the office of the District Attorney and introduces himself.  Reacher isn’t sure why Barr requested his presence (they weren’t even friends) and on quickly looking over the evidence, he comes to the same conclusion as the investigators – Barr is guilty.

He’s not leaving town just yet though.  Persuaded by Barr’s defence attorney, Helen Rodin (Pike), Reacher agrees to take a look at the crime scene and the case files.  The deeper he digs, the stranger things get.  When he is attacked a group of strangers in a bar, Reacher realises that something is clearly amiss.  Why is someone trying to stop him?

Fans of Lee Child’s novels may be disappointed (since Reacher is supposed to be 6’5”) but I had no problems with Tom Cruise in the leading role.  Who cares if he’s shorter in stature?  What’s more important is that Cruise has created a protagonist that is full of personality.  He has a sharp sense of humour (evidenced in so many scenes) and a smart, calculating mind that allows him to put the pieces together and extract evidence from possible witnesses.

The character that doesn’t work is Helen Rodin, the defence attorney.  Going against the advice of her father and her firm, she took on an unwinnable case – defending a man who is clearly guilty.  Why?  That question is never answered.  When Reacher starts digging up evidence that suggests Barr might be innocent, she’s suddenly disbelieving.  Again, why?  This is not a criticism of the beautiful Rosamund Pike (An Education) but rather the way in which her role has been framed.

On the whole, this is an engaging action-thriller that’s been nicely directed by McQuarrie.  The opening sequence, which doesn’t contain a single trace of dialogue, shows us that this won’t be a formulaic, paint-by-number exercise.  McQuarrie wants to give it a little style.  A clear highlight is a realistic car chase sequence that makes use of some great camera angles.  The odd casting of documentary filmmaker Werner Herzog, as the film’s villain, is also a cool move.

Things fall into place too easily in the finale but having now seen the film twice, I can confidently proclaim that Jack Reacher is worth a look – whether you like Tom Cruise or not.

You can read my chat with writer-director Christopher McQuarrie by clicking here.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 21 December 2012

How do you prefer your big-budget Hollywood musicals?  Do you prefer them light or heavy?  Do you like colour, comedy and razzle-dazzle?  Or would you rather something darker, deeper and more emotional?

The public’s preference over the past decade has been towards “lighter” musicals.  Mamma Mia! (2008) took a staggering $609m at the international box-office and not far behind have been the likes of Chicago (2002) with $306m, High School Musical 3 (2008) with $252m, and Hairspray (2007) with $202m.

Heavier musicals haven’t been as popular.  Dreamgirls (2006) managed $155m internationally but it’s the best of a bunch that includes The Phantom Of The Opera (2004) with $154m, and Sweeney Todd (2007) with $152m.

Les Misérables is trying to buck that trend.  Given its reputation, you’d like to think it has a good chance.  The English-language version of the live musical opened in London back in October 1985.  It is still showing today and holds the records as the West End’s longest running production.  In total, it has now been seen by more than 60 million people in 42 countries.

For those unfamiliar with the story, it comes from the 1862 novel written by Victor Hugo and is set in the first half of the 19^th Century.  It opens with Jean Valjean (Jackman) finally been released from prison after serving a 19 year sentence.  His crime?  Stealing a loaf of bread to feed his sister’s starving family.

Valjean is looking for a clean start, a new life.  The man determined to stop him is Inspector Javier (Crowe).  He doesn’t believe that a “leopard can change his spots” and is convinced that Valjean will reoffend.  This is further confirmed when Valjean fails to visit his parole officer and then disappears.  It sets Javier on a quest, spread across many years, to find Valjean and bring him back into the custody of the Parisian authorities.

There are other players in this ensemble.  They include Fantine (Hathaway), a young woman who loses her job and is forced into a life of prostitution.  Her only daughter, Cosette (Seyfried), will grow up and fall in love with a student (Redmayne) who is part of the revolution to overthrow the French government.  There’s also Thenardier (Baron Cohen) and his wife (Bonham Carter) – two thieves without a shred of moral fibre.

With a handful of exceptions, every piece of dialogue is sung.  Academy Award winning director Tom Hooper (The King’s Speech) made a few small trims (only one whole song needed to be cut) and has managed to squeeze it into a two and a half hour running time.

Hooper also made the interesting decision to have the actors sing the songs as they were performing, as opposed to recording them in a music studio.  It’s a good move and gives the film an added layer of authenticity.  This is highlighted by a heartfelt moment when Anne Hathaway delivers her big solo number.  The camera zooms in on her face and does not move.  We see the tears in her eyes and can hear the desperation in her voice.  Such a shot would not be possible if forced to mime.

It’s the performances that are the key to this cinematic version of Les Misérables.  It took me a while to warm to the gloomy premise but the beautiful voices, coupled with the famous lyrics, bring out the emotion of the situation and make us appreciate the hopeless plight of these characters.  It’s been a few days since I saw the film but the memorable songs are still washing around inside my head.

Hugh Jackman (X-Men) is superb and he is matched by a surprising performance from Russell Crowe (Gladiator).  You may not see Crowe singing the high notes in a church choir but his rough voice makes him a worthy choice as Inspector Javier.  Anne Hathaway (The Devil Wears Prada) dominates every scene in which she appears and is on track to win the supporting actress Oscar.  Perhaps the biggest shock for me was hearing the sweet, delicate voice of young English actor Eddie Redmayne (My Week With Marilyn).

The film makes the most of the cinematic medium, particularly through the use of close ups, and is a worthy adaptation of this much beloved musical.  It’s heavy-going and there’s not much in the way of comedic respite but Les Misérables is a captivating tale of love, forgiveness and redemption.

You can read my interview with director Tom Hooper by clicking here.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 16 December 2012

My sole-surviving grandmother passed away last week at the age of 90.  She was a strong, funny, opinionated woman who always took an interest in my life.  It’s sad to think that we’ll never share another conversation and I’ll no longer have the pleasure of picking her up from her home (where she lived since 1946) on Christmas morning.

Where is she now though?  I was raised as a Catholic and so I’m supposed to believe that she’s with God in heaven and that one day, we’ll see each other again.  As a realist, that’s a very hard theory to subscribe to.  When I complete personality profiling exercises, they always confirm that I’m a person who acts based on fact as opposed to instinct.  Do I believe in an afterlife?  Given there is no evidence, I don’t see how I can.

It’s funny though.  At the funeral last Friday, the emotion of the situation forced me to surrender my level-headed logic.  I wanted to believe in heaven.  I wanted to believe that my grandmother was looking down on us with a smile on her face.  Such thoughts gave me comfort.  They were easier to deal with than the more realistic alternative.

I’m reflecting on this experience because a similar message can be found within Life Of Pi.   Despite what our head may say, there are times when we need to give in and just have faith.  That in itself is not easy.

The film begins with a young writer (Spall) looking for the subject of his next book.  He has been told to speak with a man named Pi (Khan), an immigrant born in India who now resides with his family in Canada.  The writer has heard that Pi’s story is so amazing that it will make him believe in God.

Burning with curiosity, the writer turns up at Pi’s home and introduces himself.  The nonchalant Pi plays the situation somewhat coyly.  He confesses that he’s not sure if the story is worthy to be adapted into a novel.  He agrees to tell it though and deep down, you get a sense that he’s looking forward to the challenge of convincing the writer.

Pi transports us back to 1970s India where his younger self (Sharma) is living with his family in Pondicherry, India.  His father is a zookeeper and the inquisitive Pi has spent a large chunk of his life surrounded by an assortment of animals from around the globe.  Due to the increasing political unrest within India, the family has decided to sell the animals and move to a more stable life in North America.

Sadly, the freighter ship on which they are travelling encounters a freak storm and sinks in the middle of the night.  It all happens in a flash.  After slipping off the deck and being knocked unconscious, Pi wakes up on a lifeboat drifting aimlessly across the ocean.

He’s the only person on board… but Pi quickly realises that he’s not alone.  Hidden beneath the lifeboat’s tarpaulin are a zebra, an orangutan, a hyena and a Bengal tiger named Richard Parker.  The animals escaped from their cages during the storm and also sought refuge in the small boat.

Suffice to say that this isn’t a situation that can remain stable for very long.  A savage tiger is not going to sit idly by when his next meal lies just a few feet away.  The other three animals are quickly devoured while Pi manages to escape the tiger’s claws by lying on a makeshift raft attached to the back of the lifeboat.

We know that Pi survives, evidenced by the fact that he is still alive to tell the story, but how did he pull it off?  What does one do when stuck on a tiny boat in the middle of the Indian Ocean with next-to-no food while in the company of a Bengal tiger?

Things become less and less plausible with each passing scene and it will certainly put audiences to the test.  Will you buy into this?  Do you think these events really happened?  Can you ignore the niggling doubts and suspend your sense of disbelief?  If you can do it for a film like Transformers, why not for a story such as this?

I’m trying to be a little cryptic while still providing a sense of what Life Of Pi is all about.  Even if you don’t connect with the key themes, it’s hard to fault the precise direction from Ang Lee (The Ice Storm, Brokeback Mountain).  The special effects are seamless (especially the attacking tiger) and the absurdly beautiful cinematography from Claudio Miranda (Tron: Legacy) adds to the film’s mystery and illusion.

The movie is based on the novel by Yann Martel which won the Man Booker Prize for Fiction back in 2002.  You could make an argument that the early stages of the film are a little slow but I think screenwriter David Magee (Finding Neverland) has done a very good job given the circumstances.  It can’t have been easy given much of the book is spent following the deteriorating psyche of a teenage boy stuck in the middle of the ocean.  There are no other characters for him to interact with!

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 21 December 2012

Let’s get this frame rate thing out of the way first.  The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is the first major film to have been shot using 48 frames per second.  Films are traditionally made using 24 frames per second but director Peter Jackson has always considered himself at the forefront of movie technology and wanted to give audiences a “different experience”.

He’s right about that.  It certainly looks different.  I’m not sure it’s to the film’s benefit, however.  I realise it takes a little while to adjust (things look like they’re in fast-mo when the camera pans) but my major concern is that in making things look “more real”, it has made the special effects look more obvious.

There’s a scene where Radagast the Brown (an eccentric wizard) is on a make-shift sled while being chased by a series of large wolves.  The graphics look like something from a video game.  It’s almost cartoonish in quality and you know what you’re seeing is fake.

It’ll be interesting to hear the audience reaction to 48 frames per second and whether this format thrives in the same way that 3D has since Avatar.  The good news is that at least we have a choice here.  The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is being screened in cinemas using both frame rates.  It’s up to you which one you want to see.

As for the film itself, I can’t help but be disappointed.  On Boxing Day morning from 2001 to 2003, you would have found me sitting in a packed theatre and watching the latest instalment in The Lord Of The Rings trilogy.  I loved all of the films and was enthralled by Frodo’s quest and the many complex storylines.  The three films made just under $3 billion at the international box-office and won 17 Academy Awards.

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey just isn’t the same.  At the one hour mark, I opened my notepad and wrote the comment – “something is going to happen, right?”  Too much time is wasted in Bilbo’s house discussing the possible adventure and introducing the characters.

It left me questioning Jackson’s recent decision to split J.R.R. Tolkien’s novel into three films as opposed to two.  We all know his key motive is cash (yay, more box office revenue) but I still hoped there’d be enough material to sustain three movies.  I was wrong.

We eventually get to the action when our team of heroes leave Bag End, the home of the Hobbits, and set off for the Lonely Mountain.  There’s Bilbo the Hobbit (Freeman), Gandalf the Wizard (McKellan) and 13 Dwarves.  Their plan is to defeat the dragon that lives inside the mountain and reclaim the territory on behalf of the Dwarves.

Does any of that actually happen?  Nope.  That’ll be saved for the second and third films.  An Unexpected Journey simply follows them trekking across the mountainous countryside and facing off against the series of adversaries.  Oh, and there’s a quick stop over in the beautiful city of Rivendell which allows the film to reintroduce Hugo Weaving and Cate Blanchett for a few minutes.

I’m sounding overly cynical but the film does have its positives.  There is a terrific sequence late in the film which marks the arrival of Gollum – the small, devious creature who many will remember from the The Lord Of The Rings trilogy.  Gollum’s interaction with Bilbo is fun and entertaining.  It’s far more enjoyable than hearing the drawn-out backstory of the dull Dwarves.

Aside from the choice of frame rate, the production values are again superb.  It’s also great to see composer Howard Shore craft a new score that mixes the music from The Lord Of The Rings films with a couple of new themes.  I’m sure the film will pick up some Oscar nominations within the technical categories.

Lacking the interesting characters and intriguing subplots that made the earlier trilogy so engaging, The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey is too flat, too slow.  Hopefully Peter Jackson decides to release a director’s cut on DVD… which is one hour shorter.