Reviews
Review: The Master
- Details
- Written by Matthew Toomey
| Directed by: | Paul Thomas Anderson |
| Written by: | Paul Thomas Anderson |
| Starring: | Philip Seymour Hoffman, Joaquin Phoenix, Amy Adams, Laura Dern, Ambyr Childers, Jesse Plemons |
| Released: | November 8, 2012 |
| Grade: | A- |
The Master marks the sixth film of the brilliant writer-director Paul Thomas Anderson (Magnolia, There Will Be Blood) and it is perhaps his most inaccessible to the wider public. Anderson himself has said that “there’s not a lot of plot but hopefully we make up for it with an abundance of character.”
I can’t believe I’m making this comparison but Anderson’s approach reminds me of the Big Brother television series. There’s no strict narrative. Rather, we simply watch the characters go about their day-to-day lives. That’s not to say that it’s boring. It’s just that our focus is different. Instead of wondering what’s going to happen next in the story… our focus is on the characters and trying to understand who they are and what they’re thinking.
Part of my fascination with The Master is that it centres on such an aimless character. Set in the early 1950s, Freddie Quell (Phoenix) is a solider who served in World War II and is struggling to assimilate back into society. He has no friends, he can’t hold down a job and he has no interest in being social. The only two things on his mind would appear to be sex and alcohol.
Roaming the streets late one night, he sees a lively party being held on a moored yacht. He sneaks onboard and meets Lancaster Dodd (Hoffman), a published author and leader of a small philosophical movement. The centre point of Dodd’s teachings is a technique known as “processing”. He will ask someone a series of questions and then use the information to reveal details about their prior lives.
Dodd senses that Freddie has “wandered from the proper path” and takes him under his wing. There’s an intense moment early in the film where Freddie submits himself to “processing” and Dodd tries to unlock his past. It’s the first chapter in an ongoing battle between these two.
There are scenes that show us the bizarre nature of mind controlling cults. There are scenes that highlight the difficulty of a solider coming back from war. As I’ve alluded to above, that’s not what the film is really about though. At its heart, The Master is a two hour journey that explores the relationship between Freddie and Dodd.
Why is the directionless Freddie allowing himself to be subjected to Dodd’s manipulative teachings? Is it because he’s in search of a father figure? It is because he’s mentally unstable? Why does Dodd keep Freddie around, despite the misgivings of his wife (Adams) and close friends? Does he see him as the ultimate challenge? Does he enjoy the sense of the control? These are questions you will ask yourself as opposed to the traditional “how will this story end?”
The Master is the first major film to be shot using 65mm film since Kenneth Branagh’s Hamlet back in 1996. It involved using cameras that were decades old and with the support of cinematographer Mihai Malaimare Jr (Youth Without Youth), Anderson has created a beautiful looking film that comes with a 1950s feel. Jonny Greenwood’s moody, uneasy score further enhances the experience.
Joaquin Phoenix (Gladiator) and long-time Anderson collaborator Philip Seymour Hoffman (Capote) have been touted as Oscar contenders for good reason. The film draws much strength from the exceptional performances of both Phoenix and Hoffman and the riveting interplay between their characters.
You could argue there a few unnecessary scenes during the final 45 minutes but The Master is still an engrossing character study that again demonstrates the talents of Paul Thomas Anderson.
You can read my interview with Paul Thomas Anderson by clicking here.
Review: End Of Watch
- Details
- Written by Matthew Toomey
| Directed by: | David Ayer |
| Written by: | David Ayer |
| Starring: | Jake Gyllenhaal, Michael Pena, Anna Kendrick, Natalie Martinez, David Harbour, Frank Grillo |
| Released: | November 1, 2012 |
| Grade: | B |
The early stages of End Of Watch reminded me of an episode of Cops. We’re following around two police officers, Brian (Gyllenhaal) and Mike (Pena), as they uphold the law on the streets of Los Angeles. We see the action from an array of carefully placed cameras that create the feel of a documentary. There are cameras attached to their shirts and affixed to their car. Brian even has a handheld camera that he’s carrying around as a training development tool.
These guys aren’t on simple traffic duty. They’re two of the best within the LAPD and they often find themselves in situations that are either sickening or life threatening. In the film’s very first scene, Brian and Mike are involved in a high speed pursuit of a stolen vehicle and are fired at repeatedly. They are forced to return fire and it prompts an internal investigation as to whether their actions were justified.
Writer-director David Ayer (Training Day, The Fast And The Furious) tries to elevate this above a Cops-type show by delving into the personal lives of both Brian and Mike. There are numerous sequences where they sit in their car and talk about marriage, kids and their plans for the future.
There’s a nice moment where Brian has met a great girl (Kendrick) but is trying to figure out whether she’s “the one”. Mike offers a fitting piece of advice passed down from his grandmother. He tells Brian to ask himself the question – could he live the rest of life without her?
The reason for showing us this interaction is to illustrate the close bond that has formed between Brian and Mike. As a police officer working in the field, you need someone alongside you who can be trusted. These two have come from very different backgrounds but it’s clear they’ve worked together for a long time and are a good fit.
The “villains” in this film aren’t very well defined but they’re engaged in some kind of drug trafficking operation. They’re not the brightest bunch and why they’re carrying around their own video cameras is a mystery to me. We get a glimpse of them from time-to-time and see that they’re doing their best to evade the authorities. Part of me thinks the film would work better if we didn’t know what plans were being hatched by these bad guys. It would have added more suspense.
It took me a while to warm to these characters but eventually they pulled me into the story. Jake Gyllenhaal (Donnie Darko, Zodiac) has fun with his mischievous persona but it’s Michael Pena (Crash, The Lincoln Lawyer) who impressed me most as his strong-willed, level-headed partner. You’ll believe that they’re officers of the LAPD. Fans of Anna Kendrick (Up In The Air) will be disappointed as she has little screen time and doesn’t do much else except smile, giggle and laugh.
The story is nothing new and the mix of cameras doesn’t always make sense (didn’t know who was holding them when we see both Brian and Mike in the field) but this is still a solid action-drama that takes us inside the world of two likeable police officers and highlights the risks they face.
Review: Argo
- Details
- Written by Matthew Toomey
| Directed by: | Ben Affleck |
| Written by: | Chris Terrio |
| Starring: | Ben Affleck, Bryan Cranston, John Goodman, Alan Arkin, Victor Garber, Kyle Chandler |
| Released: | October 25, 2012 |
| Grade: | A- |
Director Ben Affleck isn’t afraid to point a few fingers during the opening of Argo. He quickly covers the history of the United States’ involvement in Iran that began in the 1950s when the CIA helped overthrow the democratically elected Prime Minister. The U.S. had acted due to the fact that Iran had nationalised their country’s vast oil reserves.
Over the next 25 years, the U.S. Government formed a close bond with Iran’s Shah to help increase their influence and to protect their commercial interests in the region. Huge amounts of financial aid were provided to Iran and the U.S. meddled further with the introduction of Westernization policies.
The increasing anti-American movement within Iran reached a tipping point in 1979 and its people revolted. The Shah was ousted from power and the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khomeini took control. It forced the Shah, who was suffering from cancer, to flee to the United States to avoid execution.
Following this brief history lesson, the film picks up the story on 4 November 1979. A revolutionary group of Iranians stormed the U.S. embassy in Tehran and took more than 50 American diplomats hostage. Six managed to escape however. They snuck out through a back exit and took refuge in the home of the Canadian Ambassador.
With the stage set, Argo broadens its scope. We cross to the United States and start following the mission to rescue these six Americans. Top CIA agent Tony Mendez (Affleck) has a creative plan but it’s proving to be a “tough sell” to his superiors.
Mendez wants to fly into Tehran under the guise that he’s a Canadian film producer looking for a location for his new Arabian science-fiction movie. He’ll then visit the Canadian Ambassador’s house, provide the trapped diplomats with fake passports and have them all fly out together as part of a film crew.
Realising it’s “the best bad idea” they have, the proposal gets the green light from the CIA. Mendez knows that every detail has to be considered before setting foot in Iran. He starts by flying off to Hollywood and working with a good friend (Goodman) to create the illusion that this fake movie is real. You won’t believe the lengths they go to!
Argo is largely based on actual events. The full story wasn’t made public until declassified by Bill Clinton back in 1997. You can read all about it on the web but I’d suggest you squash your curiosity until you see the film. It will make the tale far more intriguing and suspenseful.
Many have already made reference that 40-year-old Ben Affleck is following the footsteps of the late Sydney Pollack. Affleck started life as an actor but he’s now spending more time in the director’s chair making quality, award-worthy dramas. Argo marks his third directorial effort following Gone Baby Gone and The Town.
Affleck has made the film look as authentic as possible and the work of the costume designers and set decoration crew must be recognised. You’ll also see from the footage in the closing credits that the actors look remarkably similar to the real-life people that were involved in mission. Affleck could have added a Clooney, DiCaprio or Damon to enhance the movie’s marketability but it’s clear that he wasn’t after “big names”. He wants the story to be the focus.
While I cannot find fault with the film’s strong visual presence, I do have concerns about the screenplay and in particular, the ending. I was reminded of the clichéd scene in action-thrillers where a hero cuts the wire on a bomb with just one second left remaining on the timer. There are too many such moments in Argo’s later stages. I’m appreciative of the need to Hollywood-ise the story to build tension but Argo goes too far. Those hungry for the truth will be able to find more through a simple internet search.
The performances are superb with the two standouts being Bryan Cranston (Breaking Bad) as a supervisor within the CIA and Alan Arkin (Little Miss Sunshine) as the film’s fictitious producer. One of the film’s best scenes features Cranston going on a passionate crusade to secure plane tickets for the mission. Arkin, with the help of John Goodman, adds a useful dose of comedy. There’s one line in particular (a reference to his fake movie’s title) that will be remembered for many years to come.
The use of dramatic licence in the finale is too obvious but aside, Argo is a solid dramatic thriller that is informative, entertaining and gripping.
Review: Housos Vs Authority
- Details
- Written by Matthew Toomey
| Directed by: | Paul Fenech |
| Written by: | Paul Fenech |
| Starring: | Paul Fenech, Elle Dawe, Jason Davis, Kevin Taumata, Vanessa Davis |
| Released: | November 1, 2012 |
| Grade: | C- |
I found an entry on Wikipedia that lists the feature films that most frequently use the “F-word”. Excluding a documentary on the subject matter (yes, one exists), the top entry is Gutterballs (with 625 uses) followed by Summer Of Sam, Nil By Mouth and Casino. It’s amusing to see another of this week’s cinema releases, End Of Watch, in the top 10.
I didn’t attempt to count the F-bombs in Housos Vs. Authority but if someone has the patience to do so, I’d be curious to know the final number. It feels like none of these characters can complete a sentence without uttering the word. It’s repetitive to the point of being infuriating. While the film won’t be winning any awards of any kind, it will at least earn a high ranking when that Wikipedia article is next updated.
The story is set in the fictitious suburb of Sunnyvale, regarded as the worst place to live in Australia. We follow a few of the foul-mouthed, dim-witted residents (known as Housos) who enjoy their bludgy lifestyle and do whatever it takes to avoid any real responsibility.
To give you a flavour for this film’s style of “comedy”, their adventures include (1) consuming illegal drugs, (2) attacking police officers and destroying their cars, (3) starting unnecessary brawls, (4) falsely claiming welfare from Centrelink, and (5) defacing national landmarks. They’re just a great bunch of people (note: sarcasm).
While watching this film, I thought of the politically incorrect musings of Sacha Baron Cohen in films such as Borat, Bruno and The Dictator. His comedy is designed to be provocative and offensive… but there’s often an underlying subtext and a point he is trying to make. There’s a great scene late in The Dictator where he draws comparisons between a Middle Eastern dictatorship and the United States.
The problem with Housos Vs. Authority is that I don’t understand its point. Is it supposed to be celebrating the lifestyle of these bogans? Should I happy that these lazy, offensive bums stand up to the “shackles” of authority and get away with it? Is flashing one’s tits in public the true answer to life’s problems?
The film is a spin off from the 9-episode television series that aired on SBS in late 2011. The show generated its fair share of controversy and it led to a petition being presented to the New South Wales Parliament to have the show banned. I don’t advocate censorship and I’m more than happy for the show to be seen but again, I have questions – who watches this show and who finds it funny?
Even if I could find a way to admire this film for its attack on political correctness, the tiresome nature of the comedy wears thin very quickly. It’s just the same easy jokes over and over again. Cameos from the likes of Angry Anderson, Barry Crocker and Chopper Read couldn’t save it for me. Fans of the TV series (whoever you are) can check it out but everyone else can steer clear. Watching the two-minute trailer is bad enough.
Review: Savages
- Details
- Written by Matthew Toomey
| Directed by: | Oliver Stone |
| Written by: | Shane Salerno, Don Winslow, Oliver Stone |
| Starring: | Blake Lively, Taylor Kitsch, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Benecio Del Toro, John Travolta, Salma Hayek, Demian Bichir |
| Released: | October 18, 2012 |
| Grade: | B- |
My thoughts on Savages can be summed up by splitting the film into three parts. The opening half-hour is slow and frustrating. It takes too long to introduce this story and its characters. As the film’s narrator, Blake Lively keeps yammering on about these characters and her perspective on love and life. It’s not required. Her talent would be better put to use narrating a Terrence Malick film.
It’s largely centred on two guys, Ben (Taylor-Johnson) and Chon (Kitsch) who have established a successful marijuana growing operation in California. They smuggled the seeds from Afghanistan and their strong customer base is a testament to their amazing product. They’re the best the business with Ben providing the brains and Chon providing the brawn.
There’s a girl in the middle and she’s simply known as O (Lively). In most films, you’d expect her character to cause a divide between the two guys. That’s not the case here. They’re happy to share and she’s the “girlfriend” to them both. After smoking a particularly strong joint, there’s one moment where they all end up in the same bed together.
The film steps up when we’re introduced to a Mexican drug cartel that is looking for a piece of their enterprise. It’s a “joint” venture, so to speak. Ben and Chon would provide details on their products and their suppliers. The cartel would then use this to satisfy their increasing market share both within the United States and back in Mexico.
Ben and Chon decide it’s not a deal worth pursuing. They’d rather not get involved in a partnership with these untrustworthy Mexicans. They’d prefer to sell the business as a whole, take the money and go on a lengthy sabbatical in Indonesia.
That won’t be possible though. The leader of the cartel, Elena (Hayek), organises for O to be kidnapped by her right-hand man, Lado (del Toro). She’s going to be kept locked up in a filthy cage for a year… and that’s only if the two guys agree to the partnership. Boxed into a corner, it forces Ben and Chon to take action. With the help of a corrupt Drug Enforcement Agency official named Dennis (Travolta), they try to find a way to rescue O and seek revenge against Elena.
It’s this second part of the film (which thankfully is the longest) that is its strong point. Savages develops into a fun, entertaining “who’s in control” tale that’s easy to go along with. We’re not just seeing the story from the perspective of Ben and Chon. We follow Elena, we follow Lado and we follow Dennis. They’re all after the same thing – money – but they’ve all got different plans. They’re also not quite sure who to trust.
The film falters with a dumb ending. I won’t elaborate here but once you’ve seen the film, you’ll know exactly what I’m talking about. I haven’t read Don Winslow’s novel, on which the film is based, so perhaps that’s to blame. It left the audience laughing at my preview screening and it wastes all the good work that went into the lead up.
Salma Hayek is the strongest member of the cast with her portrayal as the drug cartel’s leader. She’s a vicious, calculating individual who knows how to manipulate. Benecio del Toro and John Travolta are also good value. I wasn’t as enthused about the three youngsters though – Taylor Kitsch, Aaron Taylor-Johnson and Blake Lively are boring by comparison.
With the premise stretched out over more than two hours, Savages reels you in but then doesn’t finish the job.
You can read my interview with Oliver Stone by clicking here.
Review: The Intouchables
- Details
- Written by Matthew Toomey
| Directed by: | Olivier Nakache, Eric Toledano |
| Written by: | Olivier Nakache, Eric Toledano |
| Starring: | François Cluzet, Omar Sy, Anne Le Ny, Audrey Fleurot, Clotilde Mollet |
| Released: | October 25, 2012 |
| Grade: | A- |
It’s satisfying to see a locally made film thrive at the box-office. Last year in Australia, we saw Red Dog warm its way into the hearts of audiences. It spent an amazing 11 weeks inside the top 10 and grossed more than $20m here in Australia. This year’s success story has been The Sapphires. It’s pulled in just over $14m to date and was picked up by Hollywood heavyweight Harvey Weinstein for a release in the United States.
They’re impressive statistics… but they cannot compete with The Intouchables. This is a film that spent ten consecutive weeks in the number one position at the French box-office following its release in November 2011. Wow. Just wow. The film has been extremely popular with international audiences and has now made more money than any other non-English language film, with the except of The Passion Of The Christ.
It’s taken almost a year but finally, The Intouchables has found its way into Australian cinemas. It’s getting a bigger release than you might expect. Most of the major cinema chains normally wouldn’t go near a foreign language film with a bargepole. That’s not case this time around. They’re trying to cash in on the film’s wide appeal and believe that many Australians are going to want to see it, particularly once the word-of-mouth starts to spread.
Based on actual events, The Intouchables is the simple tale about a friendship that forms between two very different men. Philippe (Cluzet) lives in a beautiful Parisian mansion. He’s extremely wealthy and has a small group of loyal servants at his disposal. Tragically, Philippe is paralysed from the neck down – the result of a paragliding accident many years ago.
Driss (Sy) is the complete opposite. He’s just been released from a 6-month stint in jail, lives in an extremely poor neighbour and has a rocky relationship with his extended family. A few of the film’s early scenes are overdramatised but they make the clear point that Driss is a self-centred guy who takes no responsibility for his actions.
Ironically, it’s Driss’s egotistical behaviour that leads him to Philippe in the first place. Philippe has advertised for a live-in carer – someone who he will employ to help care for him on a day-to-day basis. Driss turns up at the interviews but it’s not because he wants the job. He just wants to get his form stamped so that he can show the welfare office and continue receiving his unemployment benefits.
Philippe calls Driss’s bluff. Tired of pity that he continually receives from his friends and employees, Philippe offers him the job. He wants someone who is rough around the edges. He wants someone who will treat him like a normal person. He wants someone who is a little unpredictable. Driss fits that mould.
The movie then chronicles their up-and-down adventures and a “closeness” that slowly develops. We’ve seen this kind of movie before – two unlikely people meet and then forge a valuable friendship that will change their lives forever. They each need the other… but for different reasons.
The two heartfelt central performances from François Cluzet and Omar Sy will inject you with happiness. They make a wonderful team and the scenes they share, particularly in the movie’s later stages, will leave you feeling great about life. You’d be hard pressed to find a better crowd-pleaser this year.
Don’t take my word for it though. Just ask anyone who has already seen it.