Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 06 March 2012

Most of William Shakespeare’s plays have been translated into film but this is the first time that Coriolanus has made it to the big screen.  I can now see why it’s taken so long.  It’s a great story… but it’s also a very complicated one.  There are many characters to follow and many motives to understand.

To sum it up as simply as possible, it centres on a strong Roman general named Caius Martius (Fiennes) who ruthlessly upholds the law and protects the city’s inhabitants.  When Rome is threatened by an invading Volscian army led by arch-rival Tullus Aufidius (Butler), Martius retaliates by successfully attacking the Volscian city of Corioles.

He returns home as a hero and is given the nickname of Coriolanus.  Pressured by his friends and family, he decides to capitalise on his popularity and enter the political arena.  It’s a decision he will regret.  Two conspirators do not believe Coriolanus is fit to hold office and are doing everything possible to turn the public against him.

He may be a brilliant warrior but Coriolanus doesn’t quite have the “gift of the gab” when it comes to politics.  You won’t see him out in the street kissing babies and making small talk with locals.  He is a proud man who does not like show-boating.  He is also very firm with his beliefs and refuses to compromise on any issue.

It doesn’t take long for the conspirators to seize on these weaknesses.  His approval rating plummets and Coriolanus is infuriated.  For many years, he has risked his life in battle to protect this city he loves.  Now, he is portrayed in the media as a flawed leader and his reputation is in tatters.  The time has come to seek vengeance…

Making his directorial debut, Ralph Fiennes (Schindler’s List, The English Patient) has worked with writer John Logan (Gladiator, Hugo) to modernise this compelling tale.  It may be 400 years since Shakespeare penned this work but the story feels just as relevant today with its exploration of war and politics.  It leaves you with food for thought.  Those hungry for action will be impressed by the intense fight sequences.

Unfortunately, I can’t say I approve of the decision to retain the Shakespearean dialect.  If I’d have studied this play and was more familiar with the story, it wouldn’t have been a problem.  I bumped into Geoffrey Rush at the media screening for this film at the Toronto Film Festival and he described it as “brilliant”.  As a man who starred in many Shakespearean plays early in his career, that’s a big compliment.

I’m not so fortunate however.  Watching this film, it was a constant struggle trying to keep up with the conversations and understand what everyone was saying.  I almost wished there were subtitles.  The Hollywood-style trailer tries to mask the challenging dialogue so do tread carefully before buying a ticket.  I feel like saying “caveat emptor” but that may only confuse you further.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 22 February 2012

I’m a fan of Mark Wahlberg and I think he’s put together a solid resume (mixing many genres) but I’m the first to admit that Contraband is a pretty average action flick.  It meanders along with poor developed characters and culminates with a weak finale that tries too hard to please.  Let’s just say it was rare error on Wahlberg’s part and move on.

Perhaps I better say a little more.  I don’t want people thinking I’m a tired, forlorn critic who can’t string together a review containing more than 100 words.  We’ve reached 100 words right?   No, it seems not.  Hang on, now we have.  Excellent.  This review is coming along nicely.  Who said anything about writer’s block?

Wahlberg plays a home-security technician named Chris who is now happily married with two kids.  I found Kate Beckinsale an odd choice to play his wife.  It’s not that I don’t think they’re compatible.  It’ just her role is so tiny.  Why cast a bigger-name actress and not make full use of her?  Was she there simply to an extra name on the poster?

Getting back to the story… it turns out that Chris has a criminal past that he thought was behind him.  It turns out not to be the case.  His wife’s younger brother, Andy (Jones), has gotten himself involved with a nasty group of people who are importing drugs from Panama.  Andy was bringing in a large shipment from Panama via boat but had to dump them into the ocean when customs officers sensed something amiss.

Suffice to say his employer (Ribisi) isn’t happy.  He’s threatened to kill Andy unless he can come up with $700,000 as compensation for the lost shipment.  This is where Chris has to step in.  He rounds up a few old friends and together, they head to Panama and try to smuggle in a large sum of fake bank notes.  It’s only way he save his brother-in-law and protect his family.

There are a few moderately surprising twists in this tale but on the whole, it doesn’t add up to much.  The action scenes are ho-hum and the storyline could have used more oomph.  I haven’t seen the 2008 Icelandic film on which this is based but I’d like to hope it has more to offer.  I might try to track down a copy.

Posting a solid $65m box-office take when released in the United States last month, I’m sure quite a few Aussies will be keen to check this film out.  I’d be wary though.  Don’t set your expectations too high.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 29 February 2012

A Separation begins rather innocuously – a married couple living in Iran are having a lengthy argument in front of a judge.  The wife, Simin (Hatami), has requested a divorce on the grounds that she wishes to leave the country and provide a better life for their 11-year-old daughter (Farhadi).  The husband, Nader (Moadi), wants to stay however.  His elderly father is suffering from Alzheimer’s disease and he feels obligated to stay and take care of him.

The judge denies their divorce on the grounds that it’s a trivial dispute and that they should find a way to resolve their differences.  In the end, they agree to a separation.  Simin moves in with her mother.  Nader retains the apartment and takes interim custody of their daughter.  With no one at home during the day, he is forced to hirer a housekeeper / carer named Razieh (Bayat) to tend to his ailing father.

It takes a little while to get going but once the stage is set, A Separation transforms from a simple drama to a complex tragedy.  I feel like I shouldn’t say too much more as the story doesn’t always follow the path you’ll be expecting.

As the saying goes – you shouldn’t judge someone until you’ve put yourself in their shoes.  It’s clearly a mantra that writer-director Asghar Farhadi believes in.  An outsider could see these characters as misguided.  That’s not the reality however.  Farhadi slips us into their shoes and we appreciate each of their perspectives.  You can ask yourself the question on leaving the cinema – would you have done anything differently if presented with the same situation?

The overall theme reminded me of the excellent House Of Sand And Fog (released in 2003) starring Ben Kingsley and Jennifer Connolly.  As a society, we love to simply things as good or evil, right or wrong, guilty or innocent.  Films like House Of Sand And Fog and A Separation remind us that life is rarely that clear-cut.  You can’t always rely on a textbook when faced when a tough ethical dilemma.

There’s a religious aspect to the film which is also deftly handled by Farhadi.  Again, it would be easy to pass dispersions on these characters based on their strong Islamic beliefs.  On leaving the cinema, you’re likely to be talking about the gripping story and powerful performances… as opposed to questioning their religious values.

You’d be hard-pressed to find a film that has received more praise over the past 12 months.  A Separation has won the Golden Bear at the Berlin Film Festival, the top prize at the Sydney and Melbourne Film Festivals, best picture at the Asia Pacific Screen Awards, and best foreign language film at the Golden Globes and Academy Awards.  Oh, and it has a 99% critics rating on Rotten Tomatoes and has been ranked inside the top 100 films of all time on the Internet Movie Database.

Given the high praise, there’s not much I can say that hasn’t been said already.  A Separation is a wonderful movie.

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: 28 February 2012

It’s an impressive cast.  I’ll say that much.  Academy Award winning director Roman Polanski (The Pianist) has brought Oscar winners Jodie Foster (Silence Of The Lambs), Kate Winslet (The Reader) and Christoph Waltz (Inglourious Basterds).  John C. Reilly (Chicago) joins them as just a “lowly” Oscar nominee.

I can describe Carnage rather simply – it’s an 80 minute conversation.  It is set entirely within an apartment building and the whole movie is spent watching these four characters interact.  It begins with Nancy (Winslet) and Alan (Waltz) dropping by the home of Penelope (Foster) and Michael (Reilly) to discuss an altercation between their children in a nearby park.

They each have a different viewpoint on the matter and what begins as a friendly, civil discussion degenerates into a complete farce.  It’s as if they’re all trying to use the power of intelligent conversation to get the upper hand, twisting the words of their opponent like a skilful politician.  When a bottle of 18-year-old scotch is opened mid-way through the film, things get a little looser.

The film is based on the successful play from Yasmina Reza.  It started out as a small production in Zurich before moving onto the loftier heights of Paris, London and New York.  The Broadway version starred Jeff Daniels, Hope Davis, James Gandolfini and Marcia Gay Harden.  It took home 3 Tony Awards in 2009 including best play and best leading actress (Harden).

Perhaps this story works better on stage… but I honestly don’t know what all the fuss is about.  The story felt so horribly contrived.  Nancy and Alan keep trying to end the debate and leave the apartment.  They even make it to the elevator in one scene.  However, for some strange reason, they keep getting drawn back in.  It just didn’t feel natural.

I’d say the same for the dialogue.  Each character seems to be rushing through their arguments and it’s as if every single word has been over thought.  I got tired of watching the momentum shift back and forth between them.  They’d all gang up on someone in the room… only for the situation to reverse a few minutes later.  If you think it’s leading up to a huge, unexpected finale then think again.

It’s hard to describe the genre but I guess it falls into the comedy category.  As disappointed as I was with the film’s overall execution, I did enjoy the humorous insults.  Christoph Waltz gets the best of the material with his rude, arrogant portrayal of Alan.  You can see from the opening scene that he’s sized up the situation and won’t be taking any nonsense.