Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 10 October 2010

It all began with a girl.  At least that’s what this film will have us believe.  Mark Zuckerberg (Eisenberg) was a 19-year-old college student at Harvard.  To put it simply – he was a nerd.  He had few male friends and even fewer female ones.  His inability to interact socially hampered his chances of getting into an exclusive Harvard club.  It was all he’d think about.  Mark’s current girlfriend (Mara) couldn’t take any more of this obsession and his other neurotic tendencies.  So, she broke up with him.

Mark didn’t take it too well.  That night, he went home and hacked into the databases of the major fraternities on campus.  He downloaded the ID photo of every female and put them on a website he created called “Facemash”.  The site would the pull up the image of two random girls and the user could vote on who was the hottest.  It was so popular that the crashed the Harvard servers.

Mark was put on academic probation for his exploits but he didn’t care.  What mattered was that he was now being talked about on campus.  People knew the name Mark Zuckerberg… and he loved it!

Financed by his best friend Eduardo (Garfield), Mark started a friendlier website called “The Facebook”.  Harvard students could upload information about themselves and it was designed to help people get to know each other.  It proved to be incredibly popular.  Within months, the site was being used in colleges all across America.  We all know what happens next.

As the tagline notes, “you don’t get to 500 million friends without making a few enemies.”  Whilst the film chronicles the creation of Facebook, its focus is on two separate lawsuits that were brought against Mark Zuckerberg.  The first was from three Harvard students who claimed that Mark had stolen their idea.  The second was from best friend Eduardo who found himself out of favour as the company expanded.

The Social Network is an interesting film for a few reasons.  Firstly, we get to see how Facebook came into existence.  This is a website that, in the space of a few years, has significantly changed the way people interact.  I’m convinced that some parts of this story have been embellished for theatrical effect but it’s still engrossing.  It has inspired me to do more reading about the subject matter.  The big question is – are these characters really like the way they are portrayed in the movie?

Secondly, Mark Zuckerberg is an intriguing individual.  I’m curious to know how people will judge him after seeing the film.  Is he a sociopath or is he just misunderstood?  I once met a best-selling author who left me a prophetic quote - “I’ve met a lot of rich people and I can assure you that they’re no happier than you and I.”  I’ve never forgotten that.  Mark Zuckerberg is the youngest billionaire in the world but let me ask the question – is he happier than you and I?  The final scene of the film should give you the answer.

Finally, you must see this film to witness the skilful direction of David Fincher (Seven, Fight Club).  He’s one of the best directors working today.  You’ll be watching in awe as Fincher weaves the scenes of this film together.  There’s never a dull moment.  He cuts back-and-forth between the modern day setting (the lawsuits) and events as they unfolded (back in 2004). Screenwriter Aaron Sorkin (Charlie Wilson’s War, The American President) also deserves kudos for his sharp dialogue.

How good is Fincher’s trickery when it comes to visual effects?  A few years ago, he brought to life a much older looking Brad Pitt in The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button.  This time around, he’s baffling us with a set of twins.  Two different actors played the role but he’s used the same face on both characters.  Don’t ask me how but I didn’t even realise until I sat down to write this review.

There’s been a lot of hype regarding The Social Network and many believe it is in line for numerous Academy Award nominations.  It’s a fantastic film but I’m not convinced it will earn the best picture prize.  Will older Academy members really vote for a movie about a sociopathic nerd?  We’ll soon see.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 29 September 2010

For many years, Tim (Rudd) has been working hard on the 6^th floor of his private equity firm.  He’s been biding his time, waiting for an opportunity to earn a promotion and move up to the lucrative 7^th floor.  His chance has now arrived.  He’s impressed the big boss (Greenwood) with a creative idea to earn the trust of a wealthy Swiss businessman.  It’s earned Tim an invite to a special dinner that the boss is hosting.

This is no ordinary dinner however.  Instead of bringing a bottle of wine or some appetisers, all the guests are asked to bring along an “idiot”.  The reason is solely for entertainment.  The other guests will laugh and mock these lower-class individuals (who won’t be in on the joke).  The biggest idiot will be awarded a special trophy at the end of the night.

I had a problem with this film and it stems from this strange storyline.  Is this supposed to be a farcical comedy or is it supposed to be a black comedy?  As you may have detected from my plot overview, the characters behind this dinner are quite sinister.  It is one thing to laugh at another’s misfortune but to set up such an elaborate sham is cruel.

I hoped this would be a dark comedy.  The premise reminded me of a brilliant 1997 film called In The Company Of Men which was directed by Neil LaBute.  It was about two guys looking for show their dominance over the female race.  They picked the most innocent woman they could find and set up an elaborate plan to crush her heart  It was a powerful film but very difficult to watch.  It’s why I can still remember it so vividly today.

Unfortunately, director Jay Roach (Meet The Parents) has gone with a much softer option with Dinner For Schmucks.  The “schmuck” that Tim has chosen is a random guy he ran into (literally) on the street.  His name is Barry (Carell) and he works as a taxidermist (mounting dead animals for display).  His favourite animal is the mouse and he’s got plenty of them stuffed at home.  He calls them his “mouse-terpieces”.

Barry is a complete nightmare.  He’s like the friend you just get rid of.  He comes across as well-intentioned but everything Barry’s involved with becomes a disaster.  Tim’s current girlfriend now hates him and his ex-girlfriend is now stalking him.  Is it all worth it?  Has he gone too far in order to earn this promotion?  I think we all know the answer to that question.

You can tell from the film’s tone that everything will work out in the end.  Trust me, I’m not giving much away there.  I didn’t like Steve Carell as Barry.  It’s hard to feel sorry for someone who seems to instigate so many of his own problems.  Paul Rudd isn’t any better.  The best characters are those who are supporting.  Jemaine Clement provides most of the highlights as a performance artist with an insatiable sex drive.

If you see this film as a simple farce, you’ll probably have some fun.  Even I had to laugh at a great scene where Tim has brunch with the Swiss businessman.  It’s not enough though to warrant a positive review.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 06 October 2010

Liz (Roberts) is going through a premature midlife crisis.  I’m using the term “premature” because I don’t think midlife kicks in until you’re around 40.  Liz is just 32.  She seems to have a successful career as a writer but things aren’t working out when it comes to love.  She’s made the decision to split from her husband (Crudup) and find a way of “rediscovering” herself.

Her plan is to go on a year long holiday and visit three key locations.  She makes new friends in Italy and enjoys some tasty pizza and pasta.  She goes to an ashram in India and tries to cleanse her mind.  She will be given a new perspective on life by a friendly guru in Indonesia.  Will Liz be a changed person by the end of her journey?  More importantly, will she find a new love?

The film is based on the memoir of Elizabeth Gilbert which was first published in 2006.  The book became an instant bestseller and I’m sure many people will be keen to see this film adaptation.  I found it interesting to read that Julia Roberts chose not to meet the real Liz Gilbert before shooting the movie.  She wanted to put her own mark on the character and didn’t want to get caught in the trap of imitating her.

Maybe I wasn’t in the mood but I found this movie to be an exhausting experience.  There’s too much eating, too much praying and too much loving.  I should have known given the title.  Watching Julia Roberts sit in a café eating pasta just didn’t do it for me.  I struggled to relate to her tired, forlorn character.  Things picked up in the final scenes but it wasn’t worth the overly long running time of 133 minutes.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 27 September 2010

Do you like a challenge?  If so, you should see this movie and try to identify the Australian actors who have leant their voices to its characters.  There are more than 15 by my count.  I guess the casting agents had a thing for Aussies.  Then again, maybe it was just for convenience given the film was shot at Fox Studios in Sydney.

That’s not the end of the local connection.  Australia company Animal Logic was behind the incredibly detailed animation that you’ll see on the screen.  They rose to prominence in 2006 with Happy Feet and this latest effort will only further enhance their reputation.  I don’t even want to guess how many man-hours it took to create some of these scenes.

Unfortunately, my love for the animation doesn’t extend to the direction and storyline.  I found certain elements of the plot difficult to understand.  How does “moon blinking” work?  What’s with the metal flecks machine thingy?  I also had trouble keeping up with all the characters.  Did we really need so many of them?  It’s hard to tell who’s fighting who in certain fight sequences.

Given my grievances as a 33-year-old adult, I’m not convinced this film will engage its target audience.  It’ll be a struggle to maintain kids’ short attention spans.  I’ve also concerns about the marketability of these animals.  Are owls exciting enough to warrant their own movie?   They didn’t do it for me.  I had a lot more fun earlier in the year watching talking toys and fire-breathing dragons.

To quickly encapsulate the story, it’s about a group of good owls who are trying to stop a group of bad owls from taking over their world.  That’s about all I took away from it.  I haven’t read Kathryn Lasky’s novel but I’m guessing this is yet another case where something was lost in translation.

The film opened in the United States last weekend with a poor box-office take of $16.3m.  Considering the film’s $100m budget, I suspect this will be the first… and last time we see the owls of Ga’Hoole on the big screen.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 02 October 2010

We live in a time when major movie studios are as conservative as ever.  They’re sticking to sequels, remakes and anything else which is easy to market.  It’s not that I dislike big Hollywood fare.  My problem is that when I tick off my scorecard, there’s always one box that remains blank – originality.

That’s not the case here.  Whether you like it or not, Buried is a film that will stick in your memory.  I couldn’t wait to start talking to people about it.  I’m hoping many of my friends get to see it because we’ll have some fun discussions after.

So what’s so special about the movie?  Well, it’s set entirely within a coffin.  You heard me right.  There are no flashbacks or dream sequences.  For 95 minutes, you will see nothing but the happenings within this wooden box buried under the ground.

The guy in the coffin is Paul Conroy (Reynolds), a contract truck driver working in Iraq.  The last thing he can remember is his team being ambushed by a group of insurgents.  He quickly realises the gravity of the situation.  The air supply will only last a few more hours and he’s got to find a way out.  It’s not a hopeless situation however.  There are a few objects in the box which he may be able to use.  They include a torch, a lighter, a knife and a mobile phone.

This premise will get you thinking.  How would you react in a similar situation?  Could you maintain your composure?  What would you do to try to escape the coffin?  The key element here is the mobile phone.  You could call someone for help but how can you tell them where you are?  Maybe someone could track the phone using GPS but how easy will it be to pinpoint a precise location given it is Iraq?

We soon learn that there’s a reason why Paul has been left the mobile phone.  He gets a call from his kidnappers.  They promise to let him go but only if he pays a $5m ransom.  Now what does he do?  Should he spend his time trying to find someone who can pay the ransom for him?  Will they really let him go if it is paid?  Or should he stick to his original focus of finding a way out.  The clock is ticking…

I don’t think I’ve ever raised so many questions in a single review but again, that’s the fun of this film.  It will keep your attention right until the very end.  I throw in one caveat however.  There’s no way that anyone could last more than two hours in an air-tight coffin.  That’s the consensus I’ve reached after talking to a few people (who gave me some strange looks when I first asked the question).

If you can get past that nagging plot hole, you’re going to enjoy this impressive feature from Spanish director Rodrigo Cortes.  There are only so many camera angles you can use in a coffin and yet Cortes finds a way to keep things suspenseful.  The lack of lighting and the enhanced sounds also add to the tension.  It may leave some audience members feeling just as claustrophobic as Paul Conroy – the film’s one and only character.

Buried is only getting a limited release in Australia but I hope that astute filmgoers make time to check it out.  It’ll be worth it.