Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 18 July 2012

The Dark Knight Rises comes with an almost unprecedented level of hype and expectation. The last film in the series grossed more than $1 billion at the international box-office and won an Oscar for the late Heath Ledger. Further solidifying his reputation as one of Hollywood’s best’s directors, Christopher Nolan followed up with the equally successful Inception – the best movie of the last three years (in my eyes anyway).

This final instalment in Nolan’s trilogy picks up the story exactly eight years after the conclusion of The Dark Knight. A small get-together is being held to honour the memory of district attorney Harvey Dent. Dent is remembered fondly by the citizens of Gotham City for the way in which he ruthlessly prosecuted the “bad guys” and kept them off the streets.

Only Bruce Wayne aka Batman (Bale) and Police Commissioner Gordon (Oldman) know the truth. Harvey Dent wasn’t a martyr. After being badly disfigured in an explosion, Dent had gone on a murderous rampage before Batman was finally able to stop him.

It was Batman who took the fall though. He realised that if the public knew the truth about Dent, it would destroy their faith in the officials and police officers who help maintain law and order. Batman sacrificed his reputation and is now seen as a villain – the man who killed the heroic Harvey Dent.

Depressed by the whole experience, Bruce Wayne hung up his Batman costume and has now lives the life of a recluse. He hobbles around his mansion using a cane, takes little interest in his multi-billion dollar company and no longer makes any public appearances. Not even his loyal butler (Caine) can convince Bruce to put the past behind him and start a new life.

Ah, but as the saying goes – every hero need a villain. It takes the arrival of a new evil mastermind to lure Batman back into the spotlight. A terrorist by the name of Bane (Hardy) has recruited a small army (not sure how) and has crafted a ridiculously intricate plan (not sure why) to destroy Gotham City. He is being assisted by the alluring Selina Kyle (Hathaway), a seductive cat burglar who can seemingly get her hands on anything.

It has received glowing reviews thus far but I was only mildly impressed with The Dark Knight Rises. One of the strengths of the earlier films was the way in which they explored the fine line between good and evil and the difficult choices we sometimes must make. I’ll never forget the prophetic line uttered by Harvey Dent – “you either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain”.

These thought-provoking concepts haven’t come through as strongly in The Dark Knight Rises. In terms of the villain, Bane’s motivation is to “liberate” the residents of Gotham City from the shackles of its overbearing government and police force. It’s an interesting concept (with relevance in today’s society) but it isn’t explored in much detail. We never really understand why so many are motivated to stand behind him.

It left me with the disappointing realisation that this story is too “black and white”. The closest we get to something more substantial is a heartfelt exchange between Christian Bale and Michael Caine midway through the film. It’s a shame there wasn’t more of this.

Instead, we’re left with action-packed scenarios, filled with plot holes, where people always seems to be the right place at the right time. This significant weakness gives the film an over-the-top “cartoonish” feel and detracts from what could have been a hugely suspenseful finale to the trilogy.

To its credit, the film offers a few nice surprises. Some of the twists create a connection with characters in past Batman films. Others leave the door open to future franchises. It’s also great to see the introduction of new, intriguing characters. The feisty Anne Hathaway (The Devil Wears Prada) is a breath of fresh air as Selina Kyle. The likeable Joseph Gordon-Levitt (500 Days Of Summer) makes an impression as a budding police officer (although he should probably be a clairvoyant).

As one of the best action directors in the business, Christopher Nolan has again created a series of fast-paced action sequences that will get the blood pumping. Despite the limitations within the screenplay, this film is still exciting to watch! Nolan pulls you into this fictitious world and you won’t even notice the visual effects – it all feels so real. The thunderous sound effects (it felt like my seat was vibrating at times) and bold film score from Hans Zimmer further add to the experience.

The Dark Knight Rises has a convoluted plot and struggles to justify its key themes but it’s still worth a look as an epic action flick. I’d be careful not to set your expectations too high.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 03 July 2012

Back in May, I spent a week travelling with the Queensland men’s amateur golf team on a trip to South Australia.  We were on the team bus and the subject matter turned to upcoming movies that they were keen to see.  Ted was on top of their list.

You only have to look at the trailer to see the appeal.  It’s a low-brow comedy that has come from the mind of Seth MacFarlane, the creator of the popular animated series Family Guy.  You may not recognise his face but if you’re a fan of Family Guy, you’ll certainly know his voice – he’s the man behind Peter, Brian, Stewie and Quagmire.

The story centres on a middle aged guy named John (Wahlberg) who has been living with his girlfriend, Lori (Kunis), for a number of years.  They’re not married and they don’t have any kids.  They do have one other member of the household, however – a large, talking teddy bear named Ted (voiced by MacFarlane) who has been John’s best friend since he was a child.

So how does this make any sense?  In what kind of world do we have a talking teddy bear that walks the streets and goes about his day with minimal fuss?  Wouldn’t people be staring at him?  Wouldn’t talk show hosts have him on their programs as a regular guest?  They’re valid questions which are (mostly) addressed in a humorous sequence just prior to the opening credits.

Ted is a great character.  He’s foul mouthed, politically incorrect and has a penchant for debauchery.  I can best describe him as a cross between Howard Stern and Hugh Hefner.  It should therefore come as no surprise to learn that the film has been rated MA in Australia for its “strong sexual references, coarse language and drug use”.  Many will love the offensive material but I acknowledge that some will not like it.  You’re probably best to use Family Guy as a benchmark.  If you think that’s a show full of dumb, puerile humour, you can avoid Ted like the plague.

This is a film to be enjoyed for its one-liners. Admittedly, the best stuff is in the trailer but there were still many moments that left me laughing openly.  There are plenty of jokes to be made about a filthy teddy bear (that’s obvious) but the film has a surprising number of references to Hollywood, celebrities and general pop culture.  Some of it is really bizarre (e.g. Tom Skeritt).

It’s just a shame the broader story couldn’t have been stronger.  Put simply, Lori has grown tired of Ted’s infantile behaviour and believes it’s rubbed off heavily on John who looks like he’ll never grow up and become a responsible adult.  She puts an ultimatum to John along the lines of “either he goes or I go”.  John eventually agrees and helps Ted move into his own apartment but this creates even more complications.

This set up creates too much drama in the film’s second half and let’s be honest, we all know where the story is heading.  I’ve a hunch that most members in the audience would rather be following Ted’s crazy antics than the up-and-down relationship of John and Lori.

Having opened to a box-office of more than $50m in the United States last weekend, it seems Ted is on track to become one of the year’s most successful comedies.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 11 July 2012

Jonah (Kwanten) is a twenty-something-year-old guy with a relaxed, happy-go-lucky lifestyle.  He lives with two of his best friends, Gus (Corr) and Stevie (Snook), in a nice house in Sydney’s inner-west.

Instead of finding themselves a normal job, these three have come up with a more unorthodox way of paying the bills.  On weekends, they turn their house into “party central”.  They collect a cover charge at the front door and then let everyone socialise until the wee hours of the morning.  There’s alcohol, there’s a DJ and it’s plenty of fun.

I acknowledge this is, for the most part, a comedy but it’s hard to buy such an implausible situation.  How do they continually host loud parties that involve people drinking on the sidewalk?  Wouldn’t a sleep-deprived neighbour be on the phone to the police?

Moving on… and Jonah’s life takes an unexpected twist when he learns that he has testicular cancer.  The doctor breaks it to him gently in that’s one of the best forms of cancer to get.  The surgeon can simply remove the testicle and after a few weeks of chemotherapy (which doesn’t involve him losing his hair), everything should be fine.  There’s little risk of it spreading elsewhere.

There’s a catch however.  After the chemotherapy, Jonah will become infertile.  He’ll have no chance of fathering a child of his own.  In case you’re wondering why he doesn’t make a “deposit” at the local sperm bank – it’s an option that’s eliminated early in the film.  He gives it a try but it seems his sperm isn’t powerful enough to survive the freezing process.

It leaves Jonah at a strange crossroad in his life.  Instead of accepting reality or opening his mind to the idea of adoption down the track, he is convinced that he must father a child before it’s too late.  He winds up on a bizarre quest of tracking down ex-girlfriends and talking to “friends of friends” to find someone who can carry his child.

Not Suitable For Children has its fair share of genuine laughs but it’s the overall story that holds it back.  The writers have tried too hard to fit these likeable characters into this strange, drawn-out premise.  Jonah’s sudden transformation from a party-loving playboy to a sensitive wanna-be dad is tough to believe.  Further, there are revelations in the film’s final act that left me thinking “well, why didn’t they think of that earlier?”  The idea of a comedy revolving around the “having kids before it is too late” argument was better handled in last month’s Friends With Kids.

There is a reason to see this movie however and her name is Sarah Snook.  The lure of Ryan Kwanten (True Blood, Red Hill) will help get people into cinemas but it’s the performance of Snook that you’ll remember as you leave the theatre.  She plays a strong, opinionated woman with a wonderfully sarcastic sense of humour.  Snook steals the film, particularly in the later stages, and shares some terrific one-on-one conversations with Kwanten.  I will follow her future endeavours with great interest.

Selected to open the 2012 Sydney Film Festival, Not Suitable For Children now finds itself in cinemas across Australia and in a “David versus Goliath” battle against Hollywood’s big summer blockbusters – The Amazing Spider-Man, Ted, Snow White & The Huntsman and Brave.  As a supporter of the local film industry, I hope it isn’t left flattened on the canvas after the first round.  It deserves better than that.

You can read my interview with star Sarah Snook by clicking here.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 30 June 2012

If your computer starts having problems, what’s the first thing you should do?  Don’t worry, this isn’t a trick question.  You’d see it being asked at the $100 mark on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire.  The answer is to simply shutdown and reboot.  It doesn’t always work… but I’m surprised by how often it does make a difference.

It’s a practice that has now been whole-heartedly adopted within the film industry.  If a long-running series is showing signs of weakness, you don’t send it to the scrap heap.  You just shut it down, wait a little while and press “reboot”.  As we’ve seen with the Batman and Star Trek franchises, a fresh cast and a new director will lure the paying public back into theatres.

I say this often but I’m tiring of the lack of originality coming out of Hollywood and the frustrating trend towards sequels, prequels, remakes and reboots.  Films like Inception (my favourite of the past few years) are few and far between.  You’d be amazed to learn how many reboots are currently in production.  Brace yourself for new versions of Superman, Total Recall, Judge Dredd, Highlander, Robocop, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, Starship Troopers and Godzilla.

I should get to the point and talk about the latest blockbuster reboot - The Amazing Spider-Man.  It’s a gamble for Sony Pictures in the sense that the previous Spider-Man series is still warm it its grave.  It was only ten years ago that we saw Tobey Maguire slip into his spidey-suit, hang upside down from a building and kiss the lips of Kirsten Dunst.  Do filmgoers want to see the “how did he become Spider-Man” story all over again?

Fresh off his superb performance in The Social Network, Andrew Garfield takes on the role of Peter Parker and transforms him into an extremely likeable superhero.  He’s never overconfident or preachy – he’s just a quiet, introverted guy with a wry sense of humour.  More importantly, he’s vulnerable.  Spider-Man isn’t a “perfect” superhero who can foresee every event and is never injured.  He has weaknesses and we see these through Garfield’s terrific performance.

The best moments in the film are easy to categorise – those where Andrew Garfield interacts with Emma Stone.  She’s one of the best young actresses working today (The Help, Easy A) and she can do no wrong in my eyes!  As Gwen Stacy, she’s more than Peter Parker’s naive love interest.  She’s an assertive, intelligent woman who can quickly size up any situation.  There’s an amusing scene on the rooftop of her parent’s apartment building where the two express their feelings for the first time (don’t worry, it’s not mushy).

What stops The Amazing Spider-Man from being a “great” film is the jumbled script.  For starters, we never get a clear perspective of the public’s feelings about Spider-Man.  This was achieved in the earlier movie by having Peter Parker work for the influential editor of a major newspaper.  That’s not the case this time around and we really only see things from the one-eyed viewpoint of the police chief (Denis Leary).

The villain is also a letdown.  Rhys Ifans plays Dr Curt Connors, a gifted scientist who is trying to develop a revolutionary drug that will allow humans to regenerate missing limbs.  It all goes wrong when he tries the serum on himself and turns into a giant lizard.  The problem is that we never really understand Connors and why he suddenly becomes so intent on world destruction.

Director Marc Webb (500 Days Of Summer) provides a solid action finale that looks great against the backdrop of the beautiful New York City landscape.  It’s just a shame things fall into place too easily.  How did no one manage to take a photo of the lizard while it was on the bridge?  Why was a 17-year-old intern given full security access to the laboratory?  How did all of those cranes (and drivers) happen to be in the right place at the right time?

Adding it all up, the positives outweigh the negatives with The Amazing Spider-Man (although it was a close call).  The intoxicating charm of Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone will distract audiences from the muddled screenplay.  Is it as good as the first film in the previous Spider-Man series?  I don’t think so.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 09 July 2012

As a film director, the process of making a movie is seldom easy.  You have to convince a studio or investor to put in the money.  You have to enlist a crew who share in your creative vision.  You have to find a cast of great actors who are available when you need them.  You have to deliver your finished film on time and within budget.  It’s takes a lot of skill… but you also need a little luck.

Everything came together for director Kenneth Lonergan back in 2000.  His first feature film, You Can Count On Me, received much praise.  It made my top 10 list in 2001 and was a heartfelt story about the bond between a brother and sister.  It earned Laura Linney an Academy Award nomination for best actress with Lonergan picking up a nomination of his own for best original screenplay.  Not bad for your first movie!

In complete contrast, Lonergan’s follow up effort has been a debacle.  Margaret was shot in New York City back in 2005 and its troubles began in the editing room.  As per the conditions of his contract, Lonergan had full control over the film but with one key clause – it had to clock in at less than 150 minutes.  It was something he could not achieve and this led to disputes with the studio and the producer.

With his funding cut off, Lonergan borrowed money from friend Matthew Broderick (who appears in the film) to try to finish a 150 minute version that he approved of.  He wasn’t the only one trying to save the film though.  Unhappy with Lonergan, producer Gary Gilbert brought in his own editor (Dylan Tichenor from Brokeback Mountain) to craft a two-hour cut.  There was even a third version of the film being pulled together, free of charge, by the legendary Martin Scorsese (Hugo, The Departed).

After years of litigation, Lonergan’s 150 minute cut of the film was slipped into 14 cinemas across the United States in late September 2011.  It screened for 4 weeks, received next-to-no marketing and made a pitiful $43,000 at the box-office.  It was a sad end to a movie that had so much potential.

I’ll say this though – it’s fantastic to see Margaret getting a small release in Australian cinemas.  Yes, this is the “abbreviated” 150 minute version but it’s well and truly worth a look.  The story begins with 17-year-old Lisa (Paquin) roaming the streets of New York City and trying to buy a cowboy hat.  When she spots one being worn by a bus driver (Ruffalo), she tries to get his attention and ask where he purchased it.  Distracted, the driver runs a red light and kills a pedestrian.

Lisa initially lies to the investigating police officer and tells him that the light was green and this was just an unfortunately accident.  She feels compelled to protect herself and the bus driver.  Struggling to cope with the guilt, Lisa decides to fess up.  She naively believes the truth will set her free.  That is not the case.  The police have already closed their file and are reluctant to re-open the investigation based solely on the testimony of a witness who has changed her statement.  It marks the start of Lisa’s passionate crusade to clear her conscience, for better for worse, and see justice prevail.

The actors all look a little younger than we’re used to (given it was filmed 7 years ago) but Margaret is an absorbing character study headlined by a wonderful performance from Anna Paquin (The Piano).  We can see that Lisa is trying to do the right thing but she keeps making mistakes due to her immaturity and stubbornness.  Should we be sympathetic because of her age and the gravity of the situation?  It’s a question that I’m still grappling with.

Whilst it held my attention all the way through, I can see why Lonergan fought hard against his producer.  This two-and-a-half hour version feels fragmented.  You’ll be lured into a conversation only for the film to cut away abruptly and move to the next scene.  Things feel particularly rushed in the final third.

The DVD for the Margaret is being released in the United States this week and includes both this original cut and an “extended” cut that may help fill in some of the gaps.  You therefore have two options – check it out in cinemas or order it online.  Either way, I think you’ll be surprised about how good it is.