Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 05 November 2011

We see a bunch of feel-good sporting flicks released every year.  They generally focus on an athlete or team that has hit rock bottom.  They then find some way of overcoming adversity and achieve the ultimate victory.  I’ve mentioned before that I’d love to see the reverse film made (where a successful team disintegrates) but I don’t think it’d sell as many tickets.

Whilst it doesn’t quite go that far, Moneyball is something different.  The filmmakers haven’t given in to traditional formulas.  They’re trying to pull back the curtain and show the world of baseball from a different perspective.  I read a quote from Tommy Craggs in GQ magazine that best summed up the film – “it’s Rudy meets Microsoft Excel!”

Instead of the focus being on the coaches or the players, Moneyball’s two central characters are a general manager and a statistician.  The year was 2002 and the GM for the Oakland A’s, Billy Beane (Pitt), found himself with his back against the wall.  The club was struggling financially and they had the lowest available payroll in the entire league – just $38m.  This left them well below the successful New York Yankees who had more than three-times that amount to spend.

It was a tough reality for Beane to face.  Even if the Oakland A’s could find and develop talented players, they’d likely get snapped up a year or two later but a more profitable team.  This problem isn’t as big in Australia given many of our sports have a “salary cap” but I realise how frustrating it can be.

For example, there are 20 teams that compete each year in the English Premier League football and yet just 3 teams (Manchester United, Chelsea and Arsenal) have won the title over the past 16 years.  They have the power to dominate with their huge bankroll and it must be disheartening to fans from other clubs.

Beane came across a young statistics guru (Hill) and together, they combined to change the sport.  They crafted a complicated statistical formula that could value players on the open market.  This could then be used to snap up undervalued players and pull them together to create a winning team.  This didn’t sit well with the scouts who felt the system overlooked key criteria such as injuries and confidence.  The coach (Hoffman) also rebelled against Beane and his “fortune cookie wisdom”.

How did it all end up?  Those with a close knowledge of baseball should know the answer but for those unfamiliar, I’ll let you see the movie and find out for yourself.  Keep in mind what I said earlier – it is a little different.

I admit that a movie that shines the spotlight on the “business” nature of sports could have been a tough sell to wider audiences.  In Moneyball’s instance, this argument has been countered by casting Brad Pitt in the leading role.  He’s still one of Hollywood’s most bankable actors and the film’s healthy $70m take in the United States highlights this fact.

He’s not just a pretty face.  Over the past 5 years, Pitt has crafted a resume of which any actor would be jealous – The Tree Of Life, Inglourious Basterds, The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button, Burn After Reading and Babel.  Moneyball will most likely earn him a third Academy Award nomination.  It’ll be well deserved too.  He portrays Beane as confident guy with a great sense of humour.  Equally impressive is Jonah Hill (Superbad) who proves he can make the transition from comedy to drama.

I’m a sucker for sporting flicks and I was lucky enough to attend this film’s world premiere at the Toronto Film Festival back in September.  It reeled me in very quickly with its interesting story, a few surprising twists and an unexpected number of laughs.  I’m confident that you’re going to like it!

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 26 October 2011

In Time is set is some bizarre parallel universe where “time is money”.  Instead of receiving cash for putting in a hard day’s work, you receive time.  Your running balance appears on your arm in neon lights – kind of like an inbuilt watch.  Should it ever reach 0:00:00, you’re life will come to an abrupt end.  There’s no chance of declaring bankruptcy and starting again.

The film’s production notes suggest the film is set in the “future” but I’m not sure how this is the case.  Many of the buildings, roads and infrastructure look like something from today.  It’s only the cars that look slightly different.  The point I’m trying to make is that this is a really difficult concept to invest in.  Writer-director Andrew Niccol (Gattaca) provides no background information as to how our world got itself into this position.

The film’s overarching premise is that a select group of people have transformed time into a commodity for their own advantage.  Poor people never have more than a day or two on their clock and so must continually work like slaves to prolong their life.  Alternatively, the wealthy live like royalty with more than a century up their sleeve.  I’m sure Kim Jong-il will investigate the concept when he checks out a bootleg copy of the film.

Again, how did this happen?  How did humans suddenly find themselves with green numbers glowing on their arms?  How did we end up in a cashless society?  How did those at the top manage to get there?  How did this system get introduced around the entire planet?  Not even Bill O’Reilly from Fox News would have endorsed this!

There are a few other odd quirks as well.  For starters, no one ever looks older than 25.  They’ve tapped into some chromosome to stop the aging process and this has created the potential to live forever.  I should also mention the odd way in which people exchange time.  You grab the arm of the other person and then watch your clock go up/down whilst a strange whooshing sound can be heard.

Even if you can get past the plot holes (and that’s a big IF), you’ll still be bored by this standard action-thriller.  There's very little to get the heart pumping.  28-year-old Will Salas (Timberlake) comes from a poor neighbourhood and is struggling to get by.  In a bar one evening, he meets a 105-year-old guy who has simply had enough.  He gives Will his remaining time (more than 100 years) and then jumps off a bridge.

Blessed with more time than he could ever imagine, Will decides it’s time to “change the system”.  It seems that 1% of the world controls a disproportion share of the wealth.  Instead of participating in an Occupy Wall Street march, Will partners up with the daughter (Seyfried) of an affluent businessman (Kartheiser) and together, they try to steal enough time to be distributed to the masses.  Both are being chased however by a timekeeper (Murphy) looking to ensure that order is maintained.

There are a gazillion references to time and how precious it can be.  That message comes through loud and clear.  I’m not that sure what to make of the ending however.  With several storylines not wrapped up satisfactorily (such as that of Will’s father), I think many will leave the cinema disappointed.

On paper, In Time looked interesting.  The writer of Gattaca and The Truman Show teaming up with rising stars Justin Timberlake and Amanda Seyfried in a thriller that makes us think outside the square.  Sadly, I must report that the finished product is a waste of your time.  If you think that reference is lame, wait until you hear some of the others in the film.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 02 November 2011

Anonymous puts forward a curious theory – William Shakespeare was not one of history’s greatest storytellers.  The plays and sonnets that carry his name were actually written by a man born into royalty – the Earl of Oxford.

The reason Oxford didn’t want his name attached was because they were part of a cunning plan to cause division within the English monarchy.  Queen Elizabeth had grown old and there was much speculation about who would succeed her on the throne.  Oxford was worried that she was being overly influenced by her chief adviser, William Cecil, who wanted to see a Scotsman next wear the crown.

Many of the plays featured political messages and Oxford hoped that it would subtly turn the public against Cecil and his henchmen.  The reference is made early in the film that this is a fight that can be won with words as opposed to swords.

Perhaps there is an element of truth in this tale but director Roland Emmerich makes it very hard to believe with this muddled story.  The film begins in the 21^st Century with Derek Jacobi standing on a stage and giving us a quick history lesson.  I’m not sure what purpose this serves.

We are then whisked back into Shakespearean times for a lengthy and confusing introduction.  Writer John Orloff has tried to tell this tale using a mix of flash backs and flash forwards.  It doesn’t work.  It makes it tough to identify each character and work out their role in the larger story.  Not helping matters is the fact that for both Queen Elizabeth and the Earl of Oxford, two different actors play the role – one for the “young” version and one for their “old” version.

I’ve had the luxury of seeing Anonymous twice – once at the Toronto Film Festival and once here back in Brisbane.  You may ask why I wanted to see it again if I disliked it so much on a first viewing.  I’ve read a couple of positive reviews over the past few weeks and I felt it deserved another chance.  Perhaps I wasn’t in the right frame of mind when I saw it in Toronto.

I admit that I enjoyed it a touch more the second time around.  I now knew all the characters and could understand their motives from the beginning.  That was the only major improvement though.  I still disliked the finale which gets bogged down in melodrama.  Did we really need one the characters to tell the Queen just how highly regarded these plays would become?  It’s cheesy and unnecessary.

The film’s best performance is provided by Edward Hogg who plays Robert, the hunchbacked son of William Cecil.  He is a sly yet awkward individual who is trying to follow in his father’s vindictive footsteps.  Also impressive was Jamie Campbell Bower (Sweeney Todd) as the young Earl of Oxford.  I didn’t know what to make of Rafe Spall as William Shakespeare.  He plays him as such a silly oaf that it’s hard to believe that anyone though him responsible for these plays.

Clocking in at just over two hours, Anonymous moves along at a surprisingly brisk pace.  This is an interesting story but it’s just a shame it hasn’t been told a little better.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 22 October 2011

One of the highlights of my Toronto Film Festival experience was a “Super Saturday” of amazing films.  I caught The Hunter, The Ides Of March, Moneyball and The Descendants before it culminated with a 9pm screening of Drive is a cinema filled with more than 1,000 people.  Oh, and stars Ryan Gosling, Albert Brooks and Bryan Cranston were in attendance.  It was the perfect ending to a perfect day.

A strong buzz has surrounded this film since director Nicolas Winding Refn (Valhalla Rising) picked up the best director prize at the Cannes Film Festival back in May.  You’ll realise why as soon as the unusual opening credits start to roll and the pulsating soundtrack thrusts itself through the cinema speakers.  This film is cool!

The story, which often feels secondary to the film’s distinctive style, revolves around a guy who works as a stunt driver in Hollywood movies by day and a “get away” driver in armed robberies by night.  We never get to know his real name – he is known simply as the “Driver”.

He lives alone and mostly keeps to himself but those lucky enough to meet the Driver will see a guy who is classy, confident and composed.  Ryan Gosling (The Notebook, Blue Valentine) does a fantastic job bringing this character to life.  Almost every member of the audience, both male and female, will be ensnared by his charm and sex appeal.  Further, toothpick sales should soon be on the rise (you’ll see why once you’ve seen the movie).

The Driver seems content with his solitary existence but that changes when he befriends a woman named Irene (Mulligan) and her young son who live in his apartment building.  With her husband serving time in prison, Irene is in need of companionship and her son is in need of a father figure.  The Driver ticks both of those boxes.  We finally get to see his softer side and the three enjoy spending time together.

At the Q&A following the screening at the Toronto Film Festival, Refn said the idea was to make a film where “half the movie is a John Hughes movie (Sixteen Candles, Ferris Bueller’s Day Off) and then the guy goes psychotic and kills everybody.”  That’s not quite how it comes off on screen but this is the part where Drive changes gears and puts its foot on the accelerator.

Irene’s husband (Isaac) is released from prison and he turns out to be a pretty decent guy.  Unfortunately, he owes money to some powerful gangsters for “protection” whilst behind bars.  The Driver agrees to help him pull off “one last job” so he can get the cash and keep his family safe.  However, it sets off a chain of events that will see the Driver’s world spiral out of control.

Squeamish viewers should brace themselves for the film’s second half.  The packed audience at my screening didn’t know quite how to react.  Some were laughing with shock.  Others were looking down at the floor with their hands over their ears.  Refn and writer Hossein Amini (The Wings Of The Dove) deserve praise for the audacious way in which they’ve mixed genres.  It’s a wild ride.

It’s no surprise that Drive has already developed a cult-like status before reaching Australia.  The movie currently sits inside the IMDB’s top 250 of all time as judged by the public.  I can’t fault the film’s style (particularly the 1980s themed score) but it does fall slightly short when it comes to story and dialogue.  It’s the only reason it can’t be compared to the best works of director Quentin Tarantino (such as Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs).

If you can make it through one viewing, I dare say Drive is a film you’re going to want to watch again and again.

The Drive Q&A at the 2011 Toronto Film Festival with director Nicolas Winding Refn and stars Ryan Gosling, Bryan Cranston and Albert Brooks.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 30 October 2011

Liz (Mortimer) is a stay-at-home mother who hasn’t had sex with her husband (Coogan) in over a year.  Miranda (Banks) is a wanna-be journalist who can’t seem to find an exclusive story to launch her career.  Natalie (Deschanel) is struggling comedian living in a small New York apartment with 6 other people.

These three sisters all have problems.  They also have, as so appropriately described in the film’s title, an idiot brother named Ned (Rudd).  His stupidity is illustrated in the film’s first scene.  A uniformed police officer comes up to his stall at an open street market and asks if he has any cannabis for sale.  You’d think the alarm bells would be ringing in Ned’s head but not so.  He hands over the weed and is promptly arrested.

On being released from prison, Ned finds himself with nowhere to live.  He was hoping to return to his “hippy” lifestyle at his girlfriend’s biodynamic farm but she’s moved on and found a new guy.  He tries moving back home with his mother but her smothering nature wears thin very quickly.

His sister’s begrudgingly offer Ned a lifeline but that doesn’t go well either.  He moves in with each one of them and in the process, turns their lives into a complete mess.  He’s not doing it deliberately but he has his uncanny knack for causing tension and brining everyone’s problems into the open.  No one wants him.  No one knows what to do with him.

Our Idiot Brother wants to be a quirky comedy but I don’t think it delivers enough laughs.  These characters and situations are all very eccentric but you won’t be laughing heartedly like in a Coen brothers movie.  The writing wasn’t sharp enough and you always have a hunch where the story is heading.  In its defence, the ending isn’t too bad and the film’s message comes through strongly.

The cast are good as opposed to great.  With his sloppy attire, ungroomed beard and lethargic nature, Rudd reminded me of Jeff Bridges’ iconic performance in The Big Lebowski.  The key difference being that Bridges was funny.  Rudd is not.  There’s a strong female presence with Emily Mortimer, Zooey Deschanel and Elizabeth Banks but again, the screenplay doesn’t ask enough from them.

Our Idiot Brother made it in the top 3 of the audience vote at the Melbourne International Film Festival (just ahead of the crowd-pleasing Red Dog) which suggests that it is tickling the funny bone of most filmgoers.  I guess I’m in the minority with this one.  It has its moments but, for the most part, I found it to be flat and disappointing.