Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 03 June 2012

Anyone who tries to craft an intelligent romantic comedy deserves points in my book.  It’s a genre I’ve grown to loathe but that’s because so many films can be classified as cheesy, predictable and unrealistic.

Just over a decade ago, actor-writer Jennifer Westfeldt adapted her own play and brought it to the big screen.  Kissing Jessica Stein was one of favourite movies of 2002 and focused on a woman who could never find the right guy because of her incredibly high standards.  In the end, she tries something completely different… and starts dating another woman.  It reminded me of a witty Woody Allen flick and was filled with sharp dialogue and unconventional moments.

When the program was released for last year’s Toronto Film Festival, one of the first films that I added to my “must see” list was Friends With Kids.  It marked the return of Westfeldt as a writer but also saw her take on a new challenge by sitting in the director’s chair for the first time.

The broad premise is nothing new.  Last year, we saw two comedies explore the idea of best friends have a relationship based purely on sex – Friends With Benefits and No Strings Attached.  Friends With Kids takes it a step further however.

Julie (Westfeldt) is in her mid-30s and, unable to find the perfect guy, is worried that the opportunity to have kids is slipping away.  It takes some debating but she ultimately comes to an understanding with her long-time friend, Jason (Scott).  They agree to have a child together whilst not actually engaging in a relationship.  It’ll take the pressure of Julie and she won’t have to worry about diving in too quickly with the wrong guy, for the sole reason that she wants a baby.

Ground rules are laid down with both Julie and Jason free to date whoever they want.  The parental responsibilities will be shared and in Jason’s words – he’ll “be 100% committed to this, half the time”.  It’s an interesting plan but as you can imagine, it won’t be simplest of social experiments.  Two couples who they regularly hang out with (played by Wiig, Hamm, Rudolph and O’Dowd) have serious doubts about the idea but prefer to gossip amongst themselves instead of publicly airing their concerns.

Following the traditional storytelling arc, a few spanners are thrown into the mix during the second act.  Julie and Jason both start dating.  She’s going out with Kurt (Burns), a divorced construction worker with kids of his own.  He’s going out with Mary Jane (Fox), a career-driven dancer who has no desire to have children.  Things are about to very complicated.

You’ll always have a sense where the story is going but there’s a lot to like about Friends With Kids.  The whole concept of “children first, relationship second” should provide some entertaining post-film discussion with your own friends.  Westfeldt explores both the positives and negatives of this argument through her sharply written screenplay.

The strong cast is also a testament to the material.  It’s no surprise to see Mad Men’s Jon Hamm (since he and Westfeldt have been dating for many years) but the list also includes three actors backing up from Bridesmaids - Kristen Wiig, Maya Rudolph and Chris O’Dowd.  It’s just a shame some of these supporting players don’t get more screen time.  Getting the best of the laughs is the underrated Adam Scott who as Jason, is never afraid to share what’s on his mind.

Last week in Australia, we were “treated” to What To Expect When You’re Expecting – a silly, shallow rom-com that looked at the trials and tribulations of pregnant women.  Offering more insight and digging much deeper into its characters, Friends With Kids is clearly a better film.  Do see it.

Megan Fox with husband Brian Green on the red carpet at the world premiere of Friends With Kids.

Jennifer Westfeldt on the red carpet at the world premiere of Friends With Kids.

Jon Hamm on the red carpet at the world premiere of Friends With Kids.

On the red carpet at the world premiere of Friends With Kids at the 2011 Toronto Film Festival.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 20 May 2012

It’s hard to watch this film and NOT think about Robert Pattison as the sparkly vampire from the Twilight franchise.  It’s the role that he will always be most known for.  I’m stating the obvious here… but the tricky part for Pattinson is trying build on that popularity and forging a long-term career as a serious actor.  Can he dispel the naysayers?

Bel Ami is an important diversion for Pattinson as it’s the first time he’s played a not-so-nice character.  The story is set in Paris in the late 19^th Century and when we first meet the young Georges Duroy (Pattinson), he’s just returned from a lengthy stint with the French army in Algeria.  He has no money to his name and is in desperate need of employment.

Despite his current predicaments, Duroy still has lofty ambitions.  He wants to weave his way into high society and become a man of wealth and influence.  After bumping into an old military friend, Duroy is invited to a small dinner party where he receives a piece of advice that will forever shape his life.  The secret to success is not building relationships with successful businessmen.  Rather, Duroy should befriend their wives and mistresses – the people behind the scenes who hold the real “power”.

It’s a mantra by which Duroy subsequently lives his life.  He hones his skills and uses his good looks to seduce a series of married women.  It helps land him a job as a journalist with a leading Parisian newspaper.  They want him to write about his experiences during the war in Algeria to help influence public sentiment and start a backlash against the government.

Duroy is an intriguing individual.  I won’t spoil too much but he is prepared to squash a lot of people in his ascension up the social ladder.  There’s nothing wrong with having a little ambition but can his actions be justified?  Will you think they are acceptable under the rationale that we live in a “dog eat dog” world?  Or will you see him as a borderline-psychopath who shows no consideration to anyone but himself?

It’s an interesting premise but sadly, Bel Ami is a film that underachieves.  I found it a continual struggle to understand the mindset of each character.  The way in which Madeleine Forestier (Thurman) was so easily charmed by Georges was particularly puzzling given her intelligence and some of her comments early on.

Further, the film’s political themes are not explored in enough depth.  There is a move to unseat the government due to their involvement in the war but this element of the story, whilst important, plays second fiddle to Georges Duroy and his womanising.

If we look past the final Twilight film, Robert Pattinson will next be seen in Cosmopolis -  a David Cronenberg thriller about a day in the life of a 28-year-old billionaire asset manager living in New York City.  Now that sounds like a film I’d rather see.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 30 May 2012

We begin with two clowns in a get-away car trying to evade the cops on a long stretch of highway.  I use the term “clowns” both physically and metaphorically.  Yes, they are indeed dressed as clowns.  It was their costume as part of a daring robbery that helped net them a few large bags filled with cash.

The fact that they’re about to be caught is the other reason why the word “clown” feels appropriate.  In a final act of desperation, they try to drive their car through a thin wall that separates the United States and Mexico.  There’s no creative twist here.  This isn’t The Fast & The Furious where they’ll smash through and zoom off into the sunset.  Rather, the car flips and lands as a crumpled mess, a few metres into Mexican territory.

One of the robbers is dead.  The other wishes he was.  It’s at this part of the review where I’d go through the simple formality of telling you his name… but we never actually find out.  He uses a variety of alias such as Richard Johnson and Reginald T. Barnes.  We all know he’s Mel Gibson though so let’s just call him that to keep things simple.

Anyway, the corrupt Mexican police officers take the stolen money (which adds up to just over $2m) and throw Mel in a filthy local prison.  This isn’t your ordinary, every day prison.  You’re not locked up in a cell and fed three square meals a day.  It’s like a mini-city surrounded by high walls and barbed-wire fences.  You have to find a place to sleep and a way to make a living.  If you don’t… or if you get on the wrong side of the wealthy gangs… you’re unlike to last more than a few days.

Mel Gibson’s had a long and successful career but I’m not too sure about this film choice.  He’s trying to play some kind of mix between a humorous action hero and a soft-hearted family fan.  He kills an array of “bad guys” inside the prison whilst also befriending a widowed mother (Sisniega) and her 10-year-old son (Hernandez).

There’s not a lot more to the plot but that’s a moot point given this is a mindless action film.  Never at any time does it purport to be anything else.  There are shoot outs, explosions and an occasional laugh.  I must confess that the last scene in the film did leave me smiling.

My major grievance is that Gibson doesn’t fit this character and he’s looking tired at the age of 56.  The lead role didn’t necessarily require someone younger but it needed an actor with more flair and charisma.  I’d much rather watch 66-year-old Danny Trejo in Robert Rodriguez’s 2010 action classic Machete.  Do rent that film if you haven’t already seen it!

An actor other Gibson was always unlikely though given he co-wrote the screenplay and funded the film himself.  He pumped $20m into the production and in an interesting move, chose not to release in the movie in U.S. cinemas.  Instead, the film was released through a video-on-demand service that the public could access from the comfort of their lounge rooms at a cost of just $10.99.  Will we see more of this in the near future?  That’s a topic more worthy of discussion than Get The Gringo.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 14 May 2012

When on Twitter, I’m generally polite and do everything possible to avoid conflict.  For that reason, you’ll never see me talking about politics and religion.  It’s not that I don’t have an opinion.  It’s just that we live in a world of political correctness where things can easily be misinterpreted.  I’d rather have a friendly debate with someone in person than “have it out” while protected by the walls of cyberspace.

Perhaps it’s for this reason that I enjoy the comedic style of Sacha Baron Cohen.  He’s the exact opposite in the sense that he’s doing everything possible to shock and offend.  There’s seemingly no topic too sensitive for him to mock.  He’s thrown the handbook on political correctness out the window and you know what?  It’s refreshing.

He played a dim-witted Kazakhstani journalist in Borat and a gay Austrian fashion designer in Bruno.  This time around, Cohen has moved himself higher up society’s hierarchy and plays an oppressive dictator from the North African country of Wadiya.  His name is Admiral General Aladeen and those found disagreeing with his opinions are likely to find themselves executed.

Aladeen is your stereotypical dictator (if there is such a thing).  He hates the United Nations and has a secret factory that develops nuclear weapons.  He lives in a ridiculously lavish palace adorned with paintings and statues.  He despises women and laughs at their efforts to gain equality.  He has a huge army at his disposal and they’re all prepared to die to protect their revered leader.

Threatened with financial sanctions imposed by the international community, Aladeen goes on the front foot and accepts an offer to speak at the United Nations headquarters in New York City.  What he doesn’t realise is that it’s an elaborate conspiracy concocted by his right-hand man, Tamir (Kingsley), to have him removed from power.  Tamir arranges for Aladeen to be taken captive by an overly patriotic American torture expert (Reilly) and brings in a hapless body douple so that no one is the wiser.

The real Aladeen manages to escape but with his beard now shaven, he is unrecognisable to all who knew him.  He needs to find a way to reclaim his identity, sneak back into the heavily guarded hotel and deliver another passionate speech in defence of his dictatorship.  He will be helped by a naive organic food store owner (Faris) who has no idea what she’s getting herself into.

If you’re not a fan of Cohen’s comedy, you’re entitled to that opinion and you should do everything necessary to avoid The Dictator.  I know quite a few people who would be appalled by the jokes regarding the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the 1972 Munich Olympic Games massacre.  There’s even a reference to 14-year-old boys which… yeah… I probably won’t say anything more about that.

It’s easy to forget that Borat was nominated for best adapted screenplay at the 2007 Academy Awards.  It highlights that whilst Cohen’s humour is crass, there is often an intelligent, underlying subtext.  That’s again the case here but admittedly to a lesser extent than Borat and Bruno.  There’s a terrific monologue from Cohen late in the movie which is provides the clear high point.  It’s just a shame we didn’t see more of this.

The topic is rife for a spoof and it’s obvious the script has been inspired by the likes of Muammar Gaddafi and Kim Jong-Il (to whom the film is dedicated).  While acknowledging that some of the film’s individual scenes are quite funny, the overarching story needed work.  Anna Faris’s character is too stupid and the scheme involving Ben Kingsley and the oil companies required more development.

The Dictator is amusing but it had the potential for so much more.  If you disagree, you can argue with me on Twitter.  Hang on.  Better not.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 28 May 2012

You can forget the classic literary works of William Shakespare, Charles Dickens and Jane Austen.  They’ve been “done to death” on the big screen.  The time has come for us to take self-help books and bring them to life through the magic of cinema.  Hopefully someone picks up the rights to Internet For Dummies but in the meantime, we’ll have to make do with What To Expect When You’re Expecting.

The film is “based” on the widely read pregnancy guide from Heidi Murkoff, first published back in 1984.  The book has no narrative.  Rather, it contains a series of questions and answers on what a woman can expect while going through each month of the pregnancy.  Don’t ask me how but screenwriters Shauna Cross and Heather Hach have crafted a series of fictional characters from the book’s pages for the purposes of the movie.

Jules (Diaz) is the host of a reality television show who is trying to maintain her work life throughout the pregnancy.  Wendy (Banks) is the owner of a baby store and has a mood swing every hour.  Rosie’s (Kendrick) pregnancy was an accident and she’s not sure what to do about it.  Skyler (Deckler) is happy-go-lucky despite the fact she’s having twins.  Holly (Lopez) is the only woman who isn’t pregnant but that’s because she’s on the verge of adopting a baby from a third world country.

There’s one reason you should see this film and that’s Ms Elizabeth Banks.  She’s as over-the-top as everyone else in this ensemble but she has a fun, endearing personality that won me over.  There’s a great scene late in the film where she tries to explain the “wonders” of pregnancy to a sizeable audience at a baby convention.

As for everyone else, I wasn’t impressed.  It’s like watching a dumber version of Sex & The City (and yes, I am a fan of the TV show, not the movies).  These women have nothing that interesting to offer and their husbands are just as dull.  The most ridiculous characters are a group of men (led by Chris Rock) who walk their babies in the park and are forever complaining.  The highlight of their day is when their bump into their hunky, well-travelled friend and salivate over his bachelor lifestyle.  It’s so silly.

Worst of all, the writers have tried to weave in a few moments of unexpected drama into what is largely a comedy.  It doesn’t work and these particular scenes are far too rushed.  They needed to be developed in much more detail (to give the audience a chance to feel some kind of emotion) or scrapped all together.

We all know that I’m not the target audience for such a film so take my opinion for what it’s worth.  What To Expect When You’re Expecting is pretty much what I expected.  In other words, it’s not good.