Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 20 November 2019

I’m a big fan of New York City but even I was sceptical on first seeing the trailer for 21 Bridges.  It shows a crime being committed followed by the police shutting down every single exit from the island of Manhattan to stop the perpetrators from getting away.  How is that logistically possible?  Wouldn’t the criminals have time to escape given their head start?  Couldn’t they find a decent hiding place given the size of the city?  What about the public disruption to the 2 million people going about their daily lives?

The answers to some of those questions are provided but the twist to this film is that the 21 bridges (that includes tunnels) are rather irrelevant.  There are a few minutes worth of flyovers that show these landmarks but the reality is that the bad guys don’t even go near them.  The crux of the narrative is set around key locations in Manhattan (such as Chinatown and the Meatpacking District) where the “heroes” try to take down the “zeros”.

The featured protagonist is Andre Davis (Boseman), an NYPD detective with a reputation for using his gun a little too often (although he’d disagree with that assertion).  He’s brought in when 8 police officers are brutally killed in a drug robbery gone wrong.  Time is of the essence and so he must rely on the support of a narcotics expert (Miller) and the team back at the station who are providing him with instant access to CCTV footage.

We also see events unfold from the opposing perspective.  Ray (Kitsch) and Michael (James) are the two guys responsible for the crime and it’s a struggle to avoid detection given the number of police officers involved and the fact their mug shots have been plastered across TV screens.  They’re an odd combination but they’re prepared to stick together with hopes of escaping the city and making a better life for themselves.

We’ve seen this storyline many times before and we’re likely to see it many times more.  There are early scenes involving Andre’s upbringing and his mother that are included to make his character look like a decent, honest guy (they weren’t necessary).  Once the investigation is in full swing, the characters rush from place-to-place with Andre having a magical “sixth sense” that allows him to foresee the criminals’ next moves.  There’s also a not-so-subtle hint that several cops can’t be trusted. 

Director Brian Kirk has spent the last decade in television as part of shows such as The Tudors, Luther and Game of Thrones.  21 Bridges marks his feature film debut and while it can boast a strong cast with the likes of Chadwick Boseman (Black Panther), Sienna Miller (The Girl) and J.K. Simmons (Whiplash), it’s ultimately a very standard cop thriller. 

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 10 November 2019

In 2009, former FBI employee Daniel J. Jones was asked to lead a Senate investigation after it became widely known that the CIA had used “enhanced interrogation” techniques (a newfound adjective for “torture”) on certain detainees in the years following the September 11 attacks.  Jones was given a small team of staff, a secure room, and access to a wealth of classified CIA emails, cables and documents.

He spent over 6 years working on the investigation and in that time, Jones and his dwindling team reviewed roughly 6.3 million pages of CIA records.  His final report was 6,700 pages in length and covered the background to the interrogation program, it’s effectiveness, details of those detained, and the knowledge and oversight (or lack thereof) of those within the CIA, Department of Justice and White House.

There’s a lot to take away from this movie.  If you’re new to the subject and haven’t seen films such as Rendition and Zero Dark Thirty, you’ll gain a deep understanding of the torture program adopted by the CIA to extract information from subjects.  It’s tough to watch as detainees are chained to walls, denied the ability to sleep, subjected to waterboarding and locked in coffins with cockroaches.  Was there any science behind it?  Did it achieve results?  The answers to those questions are provided.

The film also provides insight into the mental strain endured by investigators.  Jones (Driver) is consumed by the investigation to the point where he has unhealthy dreams and a non-existent social life.  The more CIA reports he reads, the more he realises the importance of his work.  That in itself comes with additional pressure.  Jones must ensure his report is succinct and accurate or else it could be used to destroy his reputation.

Perhaps the most intriguing layer explored in The Report is the role of government and the extent to which makes itself accountable for its own mistakes.  Some characters argue that the full report should be made public for its learnings and transparency whereas others want it supressed because of the potential reputational damage.  There’s also the question of avoiding blame and responsibility.  I’m reminded of the great line from the award-winning documentary Inside Job when an interviewee is asked why a detailed investigating has not occurred – “Because then you will find the culprits.”

I like the approach of writer-director Scott Z. Burns who avoids frivolous subplots and makes the most of the two-hour running time.  There’s no romantic love interest and there’s no moral dilemmas involving family and friends.  That may annoy some viewers who’ll tire of the political/technical speak but Burns sticks to what’s important in delivering his thought-provoking messages.

Adam Driver (BlacKkKlansman, Star Wars: The Last Jedi) continues his streak of great roles with another quality performance.  He portrays Jones as incredibly smart but also as someone who struggles to keep his emotions in check when stonewalled, rightly or wrongly, by shrewd government officials.  Annette Bening (American Beauty) is also terrific as long-running U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein who serves as Jones’s boss and mentor.

You won’t find many other films released year that have as much to offer as The Report.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 14 November 2019

South African director Gavin Hood has ventured out into a range of genres including science fiction (Ender’s Game), action (X-Men Origins: Wolverine) and home-grown dramas (the Oscar winning Tsotsi).  That said, there’s one subject that Hood seems particularly attracted to.  Rendition (2007) recounted the true story of a Lebanese man illegally tortured by the CIA.  Eye in the Sky (2015) was a fictional tale about British military folk using drones to spy on militants in Kenya.

The theme of secret government surveillance is explored once again in Hood’s latest effort, Official Secrets.  It’s based on the real life tale of 28-year-old Katharine Gun (Knightley) who in 2003, was employed as a translator within the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) in South West England.  Her job was to listen on wiretaps involving Chinese subjects, translate into English, and relay sensitive information to her superiors.  In simpler words… she was a back office spy.

It was around this time that the United States was pushing strongly for war with Iraq under the belief they were developing a nuclear weapons program.  The U.S. sought a resolution from the United National Security Council to sanction military action in Iraq but there was uncertainty as to whether enough countries would vote in support (it required an affirmative vote from 9 of the 15 member countries).

To improve their chances, the National Security Agency (NSA) in the United States asked their British counterparts to gather intelligence on Security Council delegates by intercepting their phones and emails.  They would target officials from the likes of Chile, Mexico and Pakistan with the hope of using damaging information to “blackmail” these countries into supporting the Iraq war.  It was dodgy stuff.

Gun never felt comfortable with the request and after much soul-searching, she slipped a copy of the NSA’s memo to a friend who subsequently passed it on to journalists at the Observer newspaper.  The story became front page news on 2 March 2003.  The GCHQ launched an immediate investigation and, worried that someone else might take the blame, Gun confessed to her role as the whistle-blower.  She was charged for leaking sensitive government information under the Official Secrets Act and faced a lengthy jail sentence.

Gavin Hood couldn’t believe that he’d never heard about Katherine Gun’s story when first approached about the movie.  It was “big news of the day” that was quickly forgotten when the war itself began.  Hood flew to London and spent hours with Gun, the journalists and the lawyers to create a realistic, authentic script.  He also refuted the demands of action-loving studio executives who were looking for a script with more carnage and car chases.  The finished product makes for great viewing.

Keira Knightley is outstanding in the lead role as she grapples with the validity of her acts.  There are times when she’s glad she leaked the memo but other times when she regrets her decision (to the point where she’s physically ill as she struggles to deal with the aftermath).  In the same vein as the Academy Award winning Spotlight, we also follow the actions of the journalists as the dig to confirm the memo’s veracity.  Considering the newspaper had made the decision to support the Iraq war (acting as a quasi-PR machine for Prime Minister Tony Blair), there was much angst about the decision to publish.

There’s an unforgettable punchline to this tale which involves Gun, her lawyer (Fiennes), and the Director of Public Prosecutions.  Not easily forgotten, Official Secrets is another reminder about the dangers of unchecked government power.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 06 November 2019

We’ve seen movies based on books, plays, musicals and amusements rides.  Last Christmas is a little different in that it’s based on a song.  I’m not sure how the idea first originated but producer David Livingstone (Pride) entrusted Oscar winning screenwriter Emma Thompson (Sense and Sensibility) with the task of creating a film based on George Michael’s popular 1984 Christmas song.  That’s not a lot of source material given the song runs for only 4 minutes!

Centre stage throughout the film is Kate (Clarke), a young woman born in Yugoslavia who has now forged a life for herself in London.  She’s described as the “most selfish woman in the world” and while that’s a tad harsh, it’s easy to how such a reputation has evolved.  She avoids her family, she’s disrespectful to housemates, and she’s a lazy employee who spends more time on the phone than serving customers.

It may therefore come as a surprise to discover she works in a vibrant, colourful Christmas store selling ornaments and decorations.  It’s a place filled with happy people but the festive cheer hasn’t rubbed off on Kate who provides a strained, sarcastic look when asked by a customer if she loves her job.  Perhaps there are downsides to being surrounded by tinsel and deafened by carols for 365 days a year?

Once you’ve reached the point where you can stand Kate no longer (it only took me about 10 minutes), the film pushes for empathy and evolution.  We learn Kate wasn’t always an egotistical Grinch and there was a particular event in her recent past that shaped her current personality.  I won’t give away details (even though it’s alluded to throughout the movie) but when all is revealed, it didn’t alter my view that her dramas are largely self-inflicted.  I didn’t feel compassion.

The only person getting through to the troubled Kate is her new friend / love interest, Tom (Golding).  It’s clear that opposites attract given he has such a positive, uplifting view of the world.  He likes the freedom of not having a mobile phone, he spends evenings volunteering his time in a homeless shelter, and he’s quick to dispense informed advice for those in need.  He’s the ultimate nice guy who would be a perfect addition to the next series of The Bachelor.

Jillian Bell played a similarly self-absorbed character in last week’s Brittany Runs a Marathon but the key difference is that you could relate to her problems and appreciate her mindset.  That’s not the case here.  It’s as if the writers have created a character too neurotic and too unlikeable.  They have tried to soften the character with some unlucky, klutz-like actions (birds pooing on her, tripping into garbage bags) but these scenes struggle to win laughs.

There are other subplots but they’re either weird (a relationship involving the store owner) or undercooked (Kate’s relationship with her sister).  Director Paul Feig has made some wonderful female-led comedies over the past decade (Bridesmaids, The Heat, Spy) but sadly, this is a major disappointment.

You can read my interview with director Paul Feig by clicking here.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 12 November 2019

The year is 1963 and a furious Henry Ford (Letts) laments that the Ford Motor Company, founded by his father more than 60 years ago, is experiencing the “worst sales slump in US history”.  There’s a sequence where he berates his staff (both the blue and white collar guys) and demands they come up with new ideas or else they’ll be fired.

His army of executives and vice-presidents believe they’ve got the answer.  The Ford brand has become tired and wealthy customers are now lured by the likes of Jaguars, Aston Martins and Ferraris because they feature in renowned, televised motor races and are associated with “victory”.  Ford buys into their theory and bankrolls a racing program with the end goal of winning the famous 24 Hours of Le Mans in France and demonstrating to the public that Ford cars are the fastest on earth.

Many people had a part to play in achieving Ford’s dream but this film, directed by James Mangold (Walk the Line, Logan), focuses on two key characters.  The first in Carroll Shelby (Damon), an American driver who won at Le Mans several years earlier but subsequently retired due to life-threatening health issues.  The second is Ken Miles (Bale), a penniless British driver who is blessed with talented but struggles to get opportunities on the track due to his “hothead” nature.

Ford demands the best so he can “bury Ferrari 100 feet under the finish line” and so this unlikely duo have been recruited.  Shelby is there for his experience, his business acumen and his star power.  Miles is there for his skill behind the wheel and his knowledge when looking under the bonnet.  Their goal is to design a car that can achieve speeds exceeding 300 km/hr while also being durable enough to withstand 24 hours of consecutive racing, in all weather conditions, on a rough track.

This fascinating true story has been slightly over-romanticised by the 3-man writing team.  There’s a scene where a jetlagged Miles can’t sleep and so he goes for a late night wander to soak in the vibe of a quiet race track (where he runs into Shelby doing the same thing).  There’s another odd moment where Miles’s wife (Balfe) makes a point to her husband by engaging in ridiculously dangerous driving on a windy suburban road.  These parts lack authenticity and feel like they’ve been included solely to add unnecessary comedy/drama to a story that can already stand on its own two feet.

The film’s other weak spot is its one-note villain.  Josh Lucas plays Leo Beebe, a high-ranking executive within the Ford Motor Company with a petty vendetta against Ken Miles.  I’m not sure why he’s such a sabotaging jerk, why no one else can see that, and why Henry Ford decides to put him in charge of the racing program.  He’s a character with zero depth.

Qualms aside, Ford v Ferrari makes for compelling viewing and my attention was held throughout the lengthy 152 minute running time.  The interplay between Matt Damon and Christian Bale is terrific and the racing scenes, shot from every camera angle imaginable, do a great job recreating the tension of the races while also highlighting the dangers faced by the drivers.  These fast-paced action scenes are nicely balanced with a quieter, moving subplot involving Miles’s young son (Jupe) who idolises his father but also worries for his safety.

I was sweating as the final credits started to roll and given that was from the effects of the film (as opposed to eating too much popcorn), I can say Ford v Ferrari achieves its mission in telling a great true story.