Reviews
Review: Lincoln
- Details
- Written by Matthew Toomey
| Directed by: | Steven Spielberg |
| Written by: | Tony Kushner |
| Starring: | Daniel Day-Lewis, Sally Field, Tommy Lee Jones, David Strathairn, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, James Spader, Hal Holbrook, John Hawkes, Jackie Earle Haley |
| Released: | February 7, 2013 |
| Grade: | A- |
Politics is the art of compromise. In pursuit of a greater good, there are times when you have to lie and there are times when you have to manipulate. It’s a delicate balancing act and the trick is to not get caught. You only have to follow the news or social media to see the way a politician is attacked when they break an election promise or become involved in a cover up.
The story in Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln is more than 150 years old but its message is just as relevant in today’s age. It is set in January 1865 and follows President Lincoln’s attempt to pass the 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution. The amendment would fulfil two of Lincoln’s highly sought after goals. It would abolish slavery and in the process, put an end to the bloody civil war between the north and south, which had now run for close to 4 years.
President Lincoln had already obtained the necessary two-thirds majority in the Senate. His next, more challenging task was to obtain a two-thirds majority in the House of Representatives. Given that his Republican party controlled just 56% of the seats, Lincoln knew that he’d have to convince at least 20 Democrats to vote against their own party’s position.
Some of his closest advisors though it to be an impossible task but the softly-spoken Lincoln had a plan. He knew that some of the Democratic Congressmen has lost in the recent election and they would have to vacate their seats following the upcoming inauguration. Lincoln wasn’t prepared to bribe these guys… but the promise of a cushy, high-profile job might be just enough to swing their vote.
History tells us that President Lincoln pulled off the improbable and obtained the votes required. It was one of the most important pieces of legislation in the history of the United States. I realise this subject matter is a little dry and like Zero Dark Thirty, we know how the story ends, but this is still interesting to watch. It highlights that the tactics of politicians today really aren’t that different from those of yesteryear.
Much has been said about the terrific performance of Daniel Day-Lewis (My Left Foot, There Will Be Blood) and he’s on the verge of becoming the first man in history to win three Oscars for best actor. His portrayal of President Lincoln is based on fact but still may surprise some. He wasn’t a confident orator and he didn’t have a loud, authoritative voice. You could even say he was a shy man.
The remaining cast is a who’s who of Hollywood and includes everyone from 31-year-old Joseph Gordon Levitt (The Dark Knight Rises) to 87-year-old Hal Holbrook (Into The Wild). You’ll probably get a laugh out of their hair styles – both on top of their head and below their chin. The standout amongst the supporting players is Tommy Lee Jones as a Republican congressman with very strong views. The moral dilemmas asked of his character make him just as intriguing, if not more so, than President Lincoln.
The production values are superb and the film has been recognised with 12 Academy Award nominations – more than any other film this year. It’s also reeled in $167m so far at the U.S. box-office which is pretty damn impressive given it’s a political, period-piece drama. A few plot developments seem forced (such as an early scene where Lincoln talks to a husband and wife about a toll booth) but for the most part, this is a solid, nicely-paced film from Spielberg and screenwriter Tony Kushner (Angels In America).
Not everyone is going to jump with glee at the chance to see a two and a half hour tale about a 19th Century U.S. President trying to pass a constitutional amendment… but those interested in the subject matter should find it informative, eye-opening and rewarding.
Review: Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters
- Details
- Written by Matthew Toomey
| Directed by: | Tommy Wirkola |
| Written by: | Tommy Wirkola, Dante Harper |
| Starring: | Jeremy Renner, Gemma Arterton, Peter Stormare, Famke Janssen, Thomas Mann |
| Released: | February 7, 2013 |
| Grade: | C |
Once upon a time, there was a boy called Hansel and a girl called Gretel. Wandering through the woods, they came across a house made of candy and gingerbread. What they didn’t know… was that house belonged to an evil witch who liked to cook and eat small children. Hansel and Gretel had the last laugh though. They shoved the witch into the oven and she burned to death.
The entirety of this German fairy tale is covered before the opening credits even begin in Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters. It sets the stage from which writer-director Tommy Wirkola has tried to create an 80 minute epilogue to this famous story.
It turns out that Hansel and Gretel weren’t satisfied with the death of just one witch. Now that they’ve grown up (and look like Jeremy Renner and Gemma Arterton), they want to rid the whole world of these villainous creatures by “setting their ass on fire”. Oh, and get paid handsomely in the process. It’s a creative but still dangerous way to make a living.
For their latest assignment, they’re been brought in by the mayor of a small town who is worried about the number of children who has recently gone missing. Hansel and Gretel will have to battle more than the witches responsible though. The local sheriff (Stormare) isn’t happy that this authority is being trumped. He’d like to continue his evidence free, Crucible-like strategy and pick women at random to burn at the stake.
We’ve seen a few attempts over the past year to revive a simple fairy tale and transform it into a big screen action-adventure. I preferred the more intricate story in Snow White & The Huntsman over Mirror Mirror but both films showed that such an adaptation can appeal to audiences. A sequel is planned for Huntsman given its success at the international box-office.
There’ll be no such sequel to Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters. This movie is terrible. There’s graphic violence, coarse language and even a splash of nudity. It’s all been included to help sell this film to the young adult crowd. If you like the thought of a giant troll stamping on a man’s face and squashing it into a million gooey pieces, make sure you buy a ticket to opening weekend.
I’ve got no issue with the inclusion of violence, language and breasts… but the film’s problem is that this all seems more important that actually telling a story. The forgettable premise revolves around some ancient legend that will allow the witches to become immune to the effects of fire. Famke Janssen plays the “lead” witch but she’s not particularly scary or threatening.
There’s also a lack of witty banter between the characters. If you’re going to create such a silly story, why not make it funny? For the record, the dropping of an unexpected f-bomb does not count as humour. Don’t expect any romance either. They’ve cast Jeremy Renner and Gemma Arterton (both easy on the eye) but keep in mind that their characters are brother and sister. Part of me thinks they'd have been better casting Jason Statham and Milla Jovovich given the film's theme of action first, plot second.
It’s certainly not for kids… and I’ve got doubts about whether Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters is fit for anyone else.
Review: The Impossible
- Details
- Written by Matthew Toomey
| Directed by: | Juan Antonio Bayona |
| Written by: | Sergio G. Sanchez |
| Starring: | Naomi Watts, Ewan McGregor, Tom Holland, Samuel Joslin, Oaklee Pendergast |
| Released: | January 24, 2013 |
| Grade: | B |
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.
The Impossible follows one family’s ordeal and is based on a true story. The film opens with Maria (Watts) and Henry (McGregor) arriving at a beachside holiday resort in Thailand with their three sons. Thankfully, the film doesn’t get bogged down in a long-winded “let’s get to know the characters” type introduction. The tsunami strikes roughly 15 minutes into the movie.
As has been well documented, there was no warning. These five characters were simply enjoying themselves in the resort’s idyllic swimming pool. A faint rumble could be heard in the distance and then seconds later, a massive wall of water enveloped them. It’s a sequence that has been well choreographed by Spanish director Juan Antonio Bayona (The Orphanage). The horror of what you’ll see on screen will feel very real.
What follows is the crux of the film – a battle for survival. The wave swept Maria several kilometres inland. She was pushed underwater for lengthy periods of time. Her body was torn and battered against fallen trees and other debris. When she finally comes to rest, her body is covered in mud and she’s bleeding from several open wounds. She located her eldest son, Lucas (Holland), but her husband and other two kids are nowhere to be seen.
It’s at this point where the emotional impact of the film starts to kick in. Maria and Lucas look around to find nothing but destruction. There are no mobile phones to be able to call for help. There’s no hi-tech hospital waiting around the corner to treat their injuries. In fact, they don’t even know where they are. What are they going to do? Should they look for the rest of their family or should they go in search of medical attention? What would you do if faced with such a situation?
There’s some cringe-worthy stuff in this… and I say that to the film’s credit. It’s tough to watch at times. Thanks to the emotive performance of Australian Naomi Watts, you’ll feel the pain and suffering of her character as she drags her bleeding body towards safety. She’s acting like a mother too – putting the wellbeing of her own son, who just has a few scratches, ahead of herself. It’s not hard to see why she earned her second Academy Award nomination (following 21 Grams in 2003).
It’s a shame that some the dialogue feels so cheesy. There’s a scene where Lucas lets out his frustrations on his mother and it feels scripted, unnatural. While I can’t say too much, there are a few too many coincidences in the finale (oh, and an odd dream-like sequence) that ruins much of the drama that has been created in the lead up. I’m also not sure about the score from composer Fernando Velazquez. It’s overdramatic at times.
The film hasn’t escaped its share of controversy with some labelling it as “racist”. They’re not happy that it focuses largely on a rich white British family and seems to ignore the plight of the many locals who lost their lives. There’s also the fact that the real family, on which this story was based, was Spanish. To each their own… but I don’t have a big problem with this. The heart of the story is still there and I can understand the need to cast Hollywood stars to help sell tickets and recover the $45m budget.
The Impossible has been lost a little amongst the hype of this year’s big award season contenders (many which are about to be released in Australia) but it’s still worth a look if you can find the time.
Review: Zero Dark Thirty
- Details
- Written by Matthew Toomey
| Directed by: | Kathryn Bigelow |
| Written by: | Mark Boal |
| Starring: | Jessica Chastain, Jason Clarke, Kyle Chandler, Joel Edgerton, Mark Strong, Jennifer Ehle |
| Released: | January 31, 2013 |
| Grade: | A |
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.
With a few memorable one-liners (love Chastain’s quote about 95% certainty) and its eye-opening look inside the CIA and the hunt for Osama bin Laden, Zero Dark Thirty is what I consider to be great cinema.
Review: This Is 40
- Details
- Written by Matthew Toomey
| Directed by: | Judd Apatow |
| Written by: | Judd Apatow |
| Starring: | Paul Rudd, Leslie Mann, Albert Brooks, Megan Fox, Jason Segel, Chris O'Dowd, John Lithgow, Melissa McCarthy |
| Released: | January 17, 2013 |
| Grade: | B- (or 2.5 out of 5) |
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 40th 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.
Review: Silver Linings Playbook
- Details
- Written by Matthew Toomey
| Directed by: | David O. Russell |
| Written by: | David O. Russell |
| Starring: | Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, Robert DeNiro, Jacki Weaver, Chris Tucker, Julia Stiles |
| Released: | January 31, 2013 |
| Grade: | B+ |
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”.