Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 29 February 2016

It’s hard to believe that in the space of two months, we’ve been treated to three separate films set in 1952.  Carol was released in January, Brooklyn was released in February, and now The Finest Hours has been released in March.  The coincidence extends a step further with all three films set in the north eastern United States.  You could let your mind stray and wonder if these characters ever crossed paths.

It’s unlikely they would have done so on 18 February 1952.  It was at that time when a huge tanker, the SS Pendleton, split in two off the coast of Massachusetts during a severe storm.  For the 33 surviving crew members, their situation couldn’t have been more perilous.  The tanker was sinking into the freezing water, their communication lines had been cut, and the flimsy lifeboats would never hold up in the rough seas.

Based on actual events, The Finest Hours is told from several perspectives.  The first is from aboard the Pendleton.  Following the loss of the tanker’s negligent captain, Ray Sybert (Affleck) is trying to rally his fellow crewman and keep it afloat.  Not everyone agrees with his unorthodox approach and there are several tense exchanges.

The second is that of Bernie Webber (Pine), a young, passionate Coast Guardsman stationed at the small town of Chatham.  Under the strict instructions of his chief officer (Bana), Bernie and three colleagues have set out in search of the missing tanker on a tiny 36-foot motor lifeboat.  With the waves increasing and the weather deteriorating, most believe it to be a “suicide mission”.

The final perspective is that of Miriam Pentinen (Grainger), Bernie’s fiancé who must endure an agonising wait back at the Coast Guard station.  She met the softly spoken Bernie on a blind date and the two have been inseparable ever since.  She’s not afraid to voice her disapproval at those who sent her beloved partner out to sea.

This may be a powerful true story but for some odd reason, the three-man screenwriting team have packed it with distracting, unnecessary clichés.  There’s a moment when Bernie is walking out the door of the coastguard headquarters when the phone rings.  He looks back, decides not to answer it, and heads out in the driving rainstorm.  As the audience, we can see that it’s an emotional Miriam making the phone call.  Did she miss the last chance to speak with her husband by a matter of seconds?

There’s not a lot of texture to the characters either.  They’re either horribly awful (such as Eric Bana as the overbearing coast guard chief officer) or wonderfully endearing (such as Casey Affleck and Chris Pine who each have an uncanny sixth sense).  It’s oversimplified and lacking in tension.  The Finest Hours is based on a great tale but I wouldn’t have told it this way.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 17 February 2016

A lot of thought goes into finding a suitable release date for a movie.  You don’t want face off against a huge blockbuster and you also want to avoid having to compete against a bunch of other new films in the same week.  There are some times however where the date appears obvious.  That’s the case for How To Be Single which is being released in Australia in the aftermath of Valentine’s Day.

Borrowing a little from Sex & The City, the film follows four women in New York City who are unattached for different reasons.  Meg (Mann) enjoys her job and would rather focus on her career than a burdensome relationship.  Alice (Johnson) has just come out of a long-term relationship and is rediscovering what it’s like to be single.  Lucy (Brie) won’t settle for “second best” and is on a long quest to find a guy who is perfectly compatible.  Robin (Wilson) loves one night stands and doesn’t want to be tied to a single man.

The paths of these characters cross repeatedly throughout the film and they meet an assortment of guys who have their own views on relationships.  It’s a rushed, choppy screenplay that struggles to find the balance between the respective stories.  There’s one moment where Alice starts falling for a widowed father (Wayans Jr) but it’s all over before you even get to know him.  The continual shift between comedy and drama adds to the confusion regarding the film’s intentions.

While the film is far from perfect, it’s nice to see a romantic comedy where the ending isn’t a foregone conclusion.  You’re not quite sure what will come of these characters and while there are a few formulaic moments, there are also a few surprises.  It drums home a worthy message that yes, relationships are great but yes, single life can be great too.  It comes down to what each of us wants out of life.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 24 February 2016

This isn’t the type of movie I was expecting from director Michael Bay.  He’s had one previous crack at bringing a real life story to the screen but 2001’s Pearl Harbor was slammed by the majority of critics.  He’s better known for his fun, unrealistic action films such as Bad Boys, The Rock, Armageddon and Transformers.

The events depicted in 13 Hours are from not long ago.  The year is 2012, the setting is Libya, and the central characters are a group of ex-marines and ex-army guys who are now private military contractors.  They’re the “hired help” who have been directed to protect CIA operatives gathering intelligence.

It’s clear that they don’t want to be there.  The city of Benghazi is one of the most dangerous places in the world following the death of Muammar Gaddafi.  These guys have accepted the job only because they have no other options.  There are no jobs back home in the United States and they need a means to provide for their families.  The money is good.

Tensions in Libya are high but thing spiral out of control when a diplomatic outpost housing the American ambassador is attacked a large group of Islamic militants.  They’re well-armed and intent on causing as much damage as possible.  A heavy burden then falls upon the military contractors who must risk their own lives to save many others.

It’s hard to knock the film’s spirit and intent.  The word is often overused but these guys would meet the definition of “heroes”.  They were well-trained and their actions prevented what could have been a far greater tragedy.  Rather than load the film up with Hollywood stars, Bay has gone with lesser known actors for the leading roles.  The most recognisable is John Krasinski (The Office, It’s Complicated).

Unfortunately, the film struggles with the “bigger picture”.  We’re told in the opening credits that there are “turf wars” in Libya but we don’t really know what they’re fighting for and why these militants are so strongly opposed to the United States.  The work and impact of the CIA agents is also glossed over.  We see them discussing stuff but that’s about it.  Oh, and they have a clichéd chief (Costabile) who feels the need to belittle them constantly.

What that leaves us with is a glorified computer game.  The good guys use an array of firepower to kill the bad guys one-by-one.  It is shot and edited in a chaotic fashion to depict what it would have actually been like in the same situation.  That is offset by the occasional shot from a military drone to provide a broader perspective.

Given the focus is on battle sequences as opposed to character development, the 144 minute running time feels unnecessary.  Fans of Michael Bay may think otherwise.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 14 February 2016

The history of this broad subject matter has been well documented.  In the late 1940s, the United States Government used its oddly named House Committee on Un-American Activities to investigate actors and filmmakers who were accused of using the medium to push their communist views on the community.  George Clooney’s Good Night, and Good Luck, released back in 2005, brilliantly captured the era and the subject matter.

Trumbo looks at the same events through the eyes of Dalton Trumbo (Crantson), an acclaimed screenwriter working in Hollywood.  He was one of the highest paid writers in the business but that changed in the late 1940s when he was blacklisted as a Communist sympathiser.  Asked to explain himself before the House Committee, Trumbo refused to cooperate and was jailed for close to a year.

It’s hard to believe with the benefit of hindsight.  American citizens were being sacked and imprisoned merely because of their views on the government.  Directed by Jay Roach (Recount), Trumbo shows us how fear can be wrongly used as a political tool.  It’s a mistake that society keeps making again and again.

The film also shows the emotional toll that it took on those affected.  Trumbo was resolute with his views but that left him at odds with friends who felt they should yield and admit defeat.  Was the end goal worth the huge personal cost?  Trumbo’s relationship with his wife (Lane) and children also deteriorated.  They too were seen as outcasts within the community and Trumbo struggled to offer the necessary moral support.

It’s repetitive in places but Trumbo is a moderately interesting character study.  It’s not putting Dalton Trumbo on a pedestal and asking for him to be declared a saint.  Like all of us, he had his good qualities and his bad qualities.  He was continually torn between the needs of his family and his personal desires to prove the government wrong and to be an acclaimed writer.  He struggled to find the balance.

Bryan Cranston won several Emmy Awards for Breaking Bad but Trumbo marks the first time he will be attending the Academy Awards as a nominee.  He delivers a great performance and is well supported by a cast that includes a villainous Helen Mirren and subdued Louis C.K.  John Goodman also shines as the head of a film production company who specialise in low-quality movies (for use of a better term).

The film has been attacked from several angles as being factually inaccurate and it seems there is merit in their arguments.  I won’t say too much more as to do so would spoil key plot points for those previously unfamiliar with Trumbo and his work.  A little post-film reading and research may help satisfy your curiosity.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 22 February 2016

There’s a moment in Hail, Caesar! where a kidnapped George Clooney is lying unconscious on a lawn chair in a dimly lit room.  He is awoken by the sound of a vacuum cleaner continually banging up against the door.  He gets to his feet, opens the door, and finds a housekeeper going about her duties.  She has no idea what’s going on and doesn’t really care.  She just points him in the direction of the kidnappers who are having a few drinks down the hallway.

This simple scene left me a wide smile on my face.  If you’re going to kidnap someone and bring them to your house, it’s probably best to plan ahead and give the cleaner the day off.  Some will find this joke silly and stupid.  Others, myself included, will find it hilarious.  It’s this dry, off-beat sense of humour that I love about the Coen Brothers.  They’re on a par with Paul Thomas Anderson as my favourite filmmakers working today.

Despite my admiration for their talents, I’ll happily admit that Hail, Caesar! isn’t one of their very best.  There are more than enough laughs but the premise lacks the entertaining complexity that we saw in Intolerable Cruelty and Burn After Reading.  Set in 1951, it all revolves around Eddie Mannix (Brolin), the head of a Hollywood movie studio.  He’s working long hours to keep the studio’s many films on track and on budget.

Things go haywire when one of their big stars, Baird Whitlock (Clooney), is kidnapped.  It shuts down production on his big Roman epic and two nosy journalists (both played by Tilda Swinton) are fishing for details to publish in their gossip columns.

While trying to pull together $100,000 in ransom money, Eddie still has to go about his day job and deal with other issues.  An acclaimed director (Fiennes) is frustrated by a leading actor (Ehrenreich) who can barely string a sentence together.  A high-profile actress (Johansson) has become pregnant while playing a mermaid in a synchronised swimming flick.  An aerospace company is trying to convince him to leave the studio and become their new CEO.

There’s not a lot of overlap to the stories and they have a “skit” type feel.  Trailers and television advertisements boast about the great cast (deservedly so) but most of them are limited to a handful of scenes.  Some don’t even require a wardrobe change.  That said, Josh Brolin is fantastic in the lead role.  His suave, calculating personality is best illustrated during an amusing scene where he explains his new biblical movie to a group of religious leaders.

Were the Coen Brothers intending this to be a goofy throwback to the 1950s or are there deeper undertones in the same vein as their last effort, Inside Llewyn Davis?  I’m still not sure.  Fans of these iconic filmmakers should enjoy the ride.  Those unfamiliar with their previous work may find it all a bit too strange.