Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 22 February 2012

Let’s just say you go into a highly-regarded restaurant and trying something new off their menu.  It’s a dish that you’ve never tried before.  You take a bite and it tastes a little strange.  Deciding to give it a chance, you carry on and finish off the plate.  You’re still not quite sure what to make of it.  Is it an acquired taste?  Or is just no good?

Ok, I admit it’s not the greatest of metaphors but it’s the best way I can express my thoughts regarding Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close.  Based on the 2005 novel by Jonathan Safran Foer, the story was placed in the gifted hands of director Stephen Daldry.  Has any filmmaker had a more impressive start to their career than Daldry?  He’s only made 3 previous films and all of them have earned him an Oscar nomination for best director – Billy Elliot, The Hours and The Reader.

Extremely Loud centres on a 9-year-old boy named Oskar Schell (Horn) who tragically lost his father (Hanks) in the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York City.  It’s been tough for Oskar to deal with.  His dad has always been his best friend and mentor.  Oskar has always struggled to interact with other people and so his father would create fun quests to help him overcome his fears.  Their final adventure together saw Oskar questioning regulars in Central Park and trying to learn the location of New York City’s long-lost 6^th borough.

Since his father’s death, Oskar has distanced himself from his mother (Bullock) and retreated back into his shell.  He’s set up a cubby-hole in his bedroom where he’s created a makeshift memorial.  On an answering machine, he has a series of phone messages left by his dad from the 105^th floor of the World Trade Centre’s North Tower.  It may sound morbid but Oskar listens to the messages regularly.  It’s his way of dealing with the grief and clinging to his father’s memory.

Sifting through is father’s closet during a moment of curiosity, Oskar discovers a blue vase that contains a small yellow envelope.  It is labelled “Black” and contains a gold key.  What is it for?  What lock does it fit?  Turning the situation into one of his dad’s challenges, Oskar creates a new quest to find the answers to these questions.  He starts with the phonebook and decides to visit every person in New York with the surname of Black.

As I’ve alluded to above, I found this to be a peculiar movie.  Some parts drew me in whilst other, not-so-believable parts, pushed me away.  There’s been much criticism to the effect of “the kid is really annoying” but I found Oskar to be an intriguing character.  To the film’s credit, it takes a while to get to know him.  It’s as if we’re tagging along on his journey of self-discovery and learning a little more about him with each passing scene.  It’s an impressive performance from the endearing Thomas Horn in first ever acting role.

The film’s best moments see Oskar interacting with a mysterious man (von Sydow) who lives with his grandmother in an apartment building across the street.  He his known only as The Renter and for whatever reason, he does not speak.  He communicates by writing on a notepad that he carries with him at all times.  82-year-old Max von Sydow has picked up his second Academy Award nomination for the role and it’s well deserved.

My major concern with Extremely Loud is that it seems to be straddling the fence between reality and fantasy.  That ordinarily wouldn’t be a problem… but I can’t understand if it’s a deliberate decision.  The whole idea of an incredibly articulate 9-year-old boy roaming the streets of New York City and visiting every single person named Black is a stretch (at best).  My brows were furrowed on several occasions.  I can’t help but think the unrealistic nature of the situation lessens the story’s emotional force.

So what is the final verdict?  Is this indeed an acquired taste?  The fact that the film has been nominated for best picture at the Academy Awards (despite lukewarm reviews from most critics) highlights that it has struck a cord with some filmgoers.  I wouldn’t mind seeing it for a second time.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 08 February 2012

Ryan Reynolds works for the CIA and is a good guy.  Denzel Washington used to work for the CIA and is the bad guy.  This is because he’s selling top secret government intelligence to other bad guys.  Denzel doesn’t see himself as a bad guy however.  He thinks he’s the good guy and that what he’s doing is justified.

Denzel is captured and is being interrogated at a safe house in South Africa by other CIA good guys.  Unfortunately, the building is attacked by a group of mysterious bad guys who have a lot of guns and bombs and stuff.  Everyone is killed with the exception of Ryan and Denzel.  They flee the scene and Ryan is given orders by the good guys back in the United States to get Denzel to a “safer” safe house.

But are the folk back in the U.S. all good guys?  It doesn’t seem that way.  How else would the bad guys have known about the safe house and Denzel’s location there?  It appears someone is leaking information.  This would certainly make them a bad guy.  Perhaps even a bad girl?  I shouldn’t be sexist because that would certainly make me a bad guy.  We can’t have that.

So who are the good “people” and who are the bad “people”?  That’s pretty much what this action-thriller boils down to.  The story fits together far too neatly but I admit that it held my attention and I was curious to see the story would unfold.

On the plus side, Denzel Washington and Ryan Reynolds are both great.  I’d expect nothing less from Mr Washington (given the two Oscars he has sitting on his mantelpiece at home) but Mr Reynolds caught me off guard.  I liked him a lot.  His character is completely out of his element (at least at the start) and endures a few savage beatings... all designed so that you’ll be rooting for him to finish on top.

The film’s action sequences are also very good.  The introduction is a touch slow but the film shifts gear with a crazy car chase sequences through the streets of Cape Town.  The editing is precise and you won’t be able to hear the munching of popcorn over the deafening sound effects.  It’ll get the blood pumping.

On the negative side, the film was too serious for my liking.  It’s an insane, relatively predictable storyline and you’d think they’d be able to weave more humour into the mix.  At the packed preview screening I attended, there were only a couple of scenes that generated a slight chuckle.  Perhaps my expectations were misaligned with those of the filmmakers.

As I alluded to above, the plot could have also used some work.  Denzel and Ryan are forever chasing each other around town – first one gets the upper hand and then the momentum switches.  It drags on for too long and you’ll be anxious to get to the finale where everyone’s true colours are revealed.  Whilst I won’t give anything away, I can’t say I was too surprised by the ending.

I wouldn’t describe it as memorable piece of cinema but if you’re a fan of these two actors or you enjoy a half-decent action film, it’s worth the price of admission.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 15 February 2012

Getting an unusual Tuesday release in Australia, This Means War was offered up as this year’s major Valentine’s Day release.  Couples could head long to their local theatre, snuggle up next to their partner and have a few laughs with this light mix of action and romance.  Perhaps it had the desired effect.  As I walked down the aisle during the closing credits, I saw two separate couples making out passionately in their seats.  They had no idea what was going on around them.

I envy them.  Not because they’ve found true love.  Rather, because they were sufficiently distracted to not have to watch this awful movie.  I saw the dreadful trailer and I tried to go in with an open mind but I’m sorry, there’s not much I can recommend about it.

The plot is just dumb.  Tuck (Hardy) and FDR (Pine) are two CIA agents who can’t find a girlfriend.  The reason is quite simple – they’re too much in love with themselves.  The film opens with them going to a lavish party and trying to apprehend a bad guy with a foreign accident.  They’re told by their boss (Bassett) to make it a “covert” operation.  That’s not how it goes down.  They’re looking for any excuse they can to fire their guns and make a scene.  They want to look cool!

Thanks to a plot-driven coincidence, these two guys find themselves lusting for the same woman.  Her name is Lauren (Witherspoon) and she works for a product testing company.  The catch is that she doesn’t know that they’re best friends.  She met them separately and has agreed to go on a date with them both.  She hopes it’ll give her some clarity on who is the better man.

As for Tuck and FDR, well, they know exactly what’s going on.  It’s a contest for them.  They’re doing anything possible to outshine the other guy and win her affections.  This includes using staff within the CIA to bug her house and follow her movements.  Basically, she’s under 24 hour surveillance.  It’s just so stupid.

I’m open to the idea of a fun, silly romantic-comedy but these three characters are all so unlikeable.  I didn’t want either of the two guys to earn her affections.  They’re both superficial jerks – an opinion that didn’t change throughout the entire film.  I’m a fan of Reese Witherspoon, Chris Pine and Tom Hardy but they had no hope with this weak screenplay in their hands.

As a backdrop to the romance, there’s a woefully developed subplot involving the foreign bad guy (played by Til Schweiger) that I alluded to above.  He pops up every 10 minutes or so and tries to give the film some kind of action-thriller quality.  It doesn’t work either.  The two stories come together at the end with a quick, unsatisfying conclusion and some dodgy special effects.

We all have different tastes when it comes to comedy… and for me, this is the bottom of the barrel.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 04 February 2012

Shame opens with a beautiful scene.  A man is travelling on a New York City subway train and his eyes are glued to a young blonde woman sitting diagonally opposite.  Initially flattered by the attention, the woman quickly starts to feel uncomfortable.  He hasn’t said a word but his confident, unflinching stare has made his intentions very clear.  She not-so-subtly flashes her wedding ring and then makes a hasty exit from the train.

The man’s name is Brandon Sullivan (Fassbender) and he is one of the most interesting characters that we have seen on screen over the past year.  He lives alone in a clean, trendy apartment with a great view.  He has a nicely-paying job that comes with a sleek office.  He dresses immaculately and looks like a man who is cool, calm and collected.

To use a popular idiom - appearances can be deceiving.  He may have everyone else fooled but deep down, Brandon Sullivan knows he is not in control.  He is a sex addict.  It’s what he thinks about all day long.  He regularly hires prostitutes, he downloads huge amounts of porn and he even masturbates in the toilet cubicles at work.

When I saw this film at the Toronto Film Festival last September, writer-director Steve McQueen (Hunger) and star Michael Fassbender (X-Men: First Class) touched on the subject matter in the post film Q&A session.  There are so many “addictions” that are widely acknowledged such as alcohol, drugs and gambling.  The symptoms are easy to spot and various services are available to help people deal with their problems.

That’s not the case with sex addiction.  It’s largely kept from public view and it’s a key reason why McQueen wanted to make the film.  He’s not trying to score political points or offer any easy solutions.  He just wants to put the issue “out there” and get people talking.  I saw this film for a second time last week and had a few lengthy conversations with friends in the cinema foyer afterwards.  Any movie that can generate such discussion has my admiration.

The exploration of sex addiction is only part of the story however.  Equally riveting is the psychological analysis of its leading character.  Every scene of the film is spent focused on Brandon and over the course of two hours, we try to break through his façade and understand what drives his behaviour.

At the heart of Brandon’s troubles is a deep-seated fear of intimacy.  He’s a 30-something year old guy but he’s never had a relationship that has lasted more than 4 months.  It’s a fact he freely confesses while on a date with a colleague from work (a great segment in the film).

The only person who can get past Brandon’s steely exterior is his younger sister, Sissy (Mulligan), who is staying with him for a few days while visiting New York City.  These two characters share a dark history that isn’t specifically detailed.  It’s as if McQueen wants us to draw our own conclusions.  Her presence in his apartment and her constant probing into his lifestyle is of great discomfort to Brandon.  He tries to push Sissy away but she won’t budge.

Without a doubt, Shame is one of the best films of the year.  The story is fascinating in itself but it’s Steve McQueen’s careful direction that gives it a seductive, hypnotic edge.  He wants us to know what it’s like to be Brandon Sullivan and there’s very little respite.  The lack of editing, curious camera angles and odd choice of music will leave many feeling uncomfortable.

The terrific performances must also be acknowledged.  The tortured look in Michael Fassbender’s eyes says more than any dialogue could.  Carey Mulligan (An Education) floors the audience with a heartfelt rendition of Liza Minnelli’s New York New York in a hotel bar.  It’s disappointing that both were overlooked in the recent Academy Award nominations.

As amazing as this movie is, I don’t think you can ever say that you “enjoyed” it.  Rather, it’s an intense film-going experience that will leave a lasting impression.

The Shame Q&A at the 2011 Toronto Film Festival with director Steve McQueen & star Michael Fassbender.

The huge crowd at the Princess Of Wales Theatre at TIFF for the North American premiere of Shame.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 12 February 2012

There are three serious contenders for best actress at the upcoming Academy Awards – Viola Davis in The Help (who won the Screen Actors Guild Award), Meryl Streep in The Iron Lady (who won the Golden Globe – Drama) and Michelle Williams in My Week With Marilyn (who won the Golden Globe – Comedy).

The question I’d like to throw out there is… what makes a good performance?  How would you differentiate between these three wonderful actresses?  There are varying schools of thought and I’m not here to proclaim that there’s a right answer.  Such is the nature of any award that involves a degree of subjectivity.

If I were a voting member of the Academy however, I’d be putting a tick next to the name of Viola Davis.  It’s not that I dislike Meryl Streep and Michelle Williams.  I think they’re both very talented.  Michelle Williams’ performance in Take This Waltz, my favourite film from last year’s Toronto Film Festival, is incredible.  I can’t wait for it to be widely released later this year.

My problem with Streep and Williams is that they’ve been nominated in films that I don’t really care for.  Looking at Streep in The Iron Lady, I admit that she’s done a terrific job looking and sounding like the real Margaret Thatcher.  However, the film’s screenplay holds her back.  It doesn’t dig deep enough into her character and the film, as a whole, left me with no new perspective on one of the most intriguing leaders of the 20^th Century.

I left the theatre with similar thoughts after seeing My Week With Marilyn.  The story is set in 1956 and centres on a 23-year-old named Colin (Redmayne) who is looking to break into the film industry.  After pulling a few family strings, he’s landed the job as the third assistant director on a new movie titled The Prince And The Showgirl.  It’s to be directed by Laurence Olivier (Branagh) and will feature one of the world’s biggest stars, Marilyn Monroe (Williams).

From the moment she became involved in the project, Marilyn was “hard work”.  She’d always arrive late to the set.  She’d often forget her lines.  She’s regularly question the director about the script.  Why was she like this though?  Was she a prima-donna who loves the power and the attention?  Or was she a vulnerable, insecure woman who was often misunderstood?

The naïve Colin was the only person who seemed to be able to get close enough to find the answers.  Marilyn developed a soft spot for the young lad and the two started spending time together off set.  Everyone warned Colin about the dangers of getting close to this married starlet but it’s pretty hard to say “no” to Miss Monroe.

The subject matter is interesting but I was disappointed with its delivery.  The screenplay is repetitious.  I tweeted to a friend afterwards – “Marilyn turns up late to the set 10 times, people warn young kid about Marilyn 20 times. The end.”  I’m being a little simplistic but it gets the message across.

Also working against the film is that fact that Colin is a dull character.  We watch him learn about movie-making and see him seduce a young costume assistant (Watson).  For what purpose?  Marilyn is clearly the most fascinating person in this story so why not tell it from her perspective?  I wanted to know more about her… and not Colin!

I’ll replicate my comments above and say that, like Meryl Streep in The Iron Lady, Michelle Williams has done a great job capturing the exterior of her character… but failed to provide much insight on her interior.