Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 21 October 2015

Adam Jones (Cooper) is a bizarre character.  Over a 10 year span, he rose to become “the Rolling Stones of chefs” for a famous Parisian restaurant.  He was cocky, he was arrogant, but he was also the best.  Then, he threw it all way.  He developed addictions to sex, drugs and alcohol.  He also owed a huge sum of money to drug dealers.

Adam could have faced his problems in a traditional manner.  He could have sought professional help from a treatment facility.  He could have apologised to those he’d hurt.  He could have worked off the debts he owed.  Instead, Adam decided on a more neurotic form of “penance”.  He fled Paris, moved to New Orleans, and spent a few years shucking oysters in a rundown restaurant.  He kept a journal where he actually counted the number of oysters.  As the film begins, the total ticks over to 1 million.  It seems like an odd way to clear his head.

Now free of his addictions, Adam returns to Europe to catch up with some faces from the past.  Suffice to say they’re surprised to see him.  They all thought he was dead.  You’d of thought he could have least told a few people he was going to New Orleans so as not to cause so much stress and worry.  It’s yet another reason why Adam is such a hard character to like.  He really was a shmuck.

Ah, but is he still a shmuck?  I’d argue the answer is yes.  Before his life fell apart, Adam was the head chef at a 2 Michelin star restaurant.  He now wants to go one step further and earn the most coveted of acknowledgments – a third Michelin star.  He convinces his old partner (Bruhl) to take him back in and he pulls together a group of young chefs from London.

I can’t say I’m a huge fan of his leadership style.  He comes across as deranged lunatic who continually abuses and degrades his staff.  Perhaps he wants to make them better at what they do (kind of like J.K. Simmons in Whiplash) but you can’t help but feel he’s just using them to achieve his own selfish dreams.

Burnt is a film that doesn’t work.  It’s intended to be a tale of redemption but Adam doesn’t have a lot of redeeming qualities.  The film is also vague about his backstory.  What happened during his breakdown in Paris?  It’s an event that’s mentioned numerous times but few details are revealed.

The supporting cast are woefully underutilised.  Uma Thurman (Pulp Fiction) is credited on the film’s poster but appears in only one scene as an influential food critic.  Is that all she was contracted for?  Or were scenes left on the cutting room floor because parts of the film weren’t working?  Sam Keeley plays a budding chef but his character goes nowhere.  Emma Thompson plays a therapist who makes little impact.  Omar Sy plays a fellow chef but we know little about his past altercations with Adam (which becomes important in the later stages).

Directed by John Wells (August: Osage County) and written by Steven Knight (Dirty Pretty Things), one can’t help but think this finished product is what they envisioned. 

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 11 October 2015

This is the greatest story I’ve ever heard in my life.  No, I am not exaggerating.  This isn’t one of those moments where I’m over-hyping something for dramatic effect.  I first learned about French hire-wire artist Philippe Petit through the 2008 Oscar-winning documentary, Man On Wire.  It reduced me to tears and if you haven’t seen it, I’d strongly suggest you do so.

In August 1974, Petit completed what many believed would be impossible.  After 6 years of planning, he and his friends broke into the World Trade Centre towers in New York City.  They rigged a metal wire between the rooves of the two buildings and Petit used it as a tight-rope.

Just thinking about it makes me nauseous.  A guy is walking 60 metres along a thin wire that is located 110 stories above the ground.  He had no harness.  He had no safety net.  Oh, and he didn’t walk across the wire just once.  He did it 8 times over a 45 minute period.  He even kneeled on the wire and saluted the crowds below who were watching this “once in a lifetime” act.

How was this possible?  How could Petit balance his entire weight on the wire for so long?  How could he allow for the wind at such a height?  How could he push the fear of falling so deeply into the back of his mind?  How could be break into these iconic New York buildings with all the necessary equipment to rig the wires in the first place?  How could he convince his friends to be involved in these illegal activities for no financial gain?

I had doubts when I first heard about this movie.  Having already seen the brilliant documentary, could a Hollywood-ised dramatization really add much more?  It turns out the answer is yes.  Director Robert Zemeckis is a filmmaker who breaks boundaries when it comes to visual effects.  Three of his films won the Oscar for in that category – Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Death Becomes Her and Forrest Gump.  The Polar Express also has a place in the Guinness World Book of Records as the first all-digital capture film.

Perhaps my fear of heights was a contributing factor but The Walk provides a film-going experience unlike anything I’ve seen this year.  There’s an early scene where Petit (played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt) pictures himself standing on the small beam that protrudes from the top of the north tower.  I could feel myself tensing up.  Of course, that was nothing compared to the film’s lengthy climax.  Shot using astonishing 3D imagery, it left me with sweaty palms and a light head.  It looks all too real.

The screenplay comes together nicely.  A few facts have been changed but they’re understandable given it all must fit into a two hour running time.  Gordon-Levitt trained with the real Philippe Petit to gain an appreciation of his persona and the art of wire walking.  That comes through his terrific performance where he portrays Petit as a man who is brash, cocky and inspiring.  The use of narration also helps us get inside his head.

It’s a shame that the early box-office numbers from the United States for The Walk have been poor.  Audiences are more interested in The Martian and Hotel Transylvania 2.  All I can say is that if you give this the flick, you’re missing out on a wild ride and an incredible true story.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 20 October 2015

Steven Spielberg’s last film, Lincoln, was an historical drama about a man trying to change the law.  It followed Abraham Lincoln’s efforts to abolish slavery by pushing the 13^th Amendment to the United States Constitution through Congress.  Lincoln faced huge opposition but he stuck by his guns and is now regarded as of the greatest U.S. Presidents.

Bridge Of Spies isn’t about someone trying to change the law… but rather someone attempting to uphold them.  Based on actual events, the film begins in 1957 with lawyer James Donovan (Hanks) asked to represent a man, Rudolf Abel (Rylance), accused of being a Soviet spy.  Donovan acknowledges upfront that he has no experiences in such matters.  His area of expertise is insurance law and so he tells Abel that “this will be a first for both of us.”

It’s obvious why Donovan was given the job.  This is a case that no one wanted him to win.  Relations were tense between the United States and the Soviet Union with each fearful of their growing nuclear programs.  Rudolf Abel’s arrest was front page news in New York City and the CIA needed to see him convicted.  It would help assure the public that the United States had the better intelligence and the upper hand.

So was Abel guilty?  Spielberg’s film skirts around that question.  It opens with an absorbing, dialogue-free sequence as we watch Abel go about his business just prior to his arrest.  It’s clear that he was involved in “something” but we’re never really sure how much he knows, how many people are involved, and who he’s working for.  We don’t get to see the evidence compiled by the CIA.  We don’t get to see Donovan ask the question directly of his client.

The film’s reluctance to delve into Abel’s actions is a weakness.  If we knew that his activities as a spy led to the deaths of American citizens (and I’m not saying they did), would we feel as sympathetic towards he and Donovan?  Bridge of Spies is structured so that it creates a “Donovan versus the world” type scenario.  He’s the good guy lawyer who wants to do things by the book.  Everyone else is the enemy.  His wife, his family, his co-workers, the CIA, the legal fraternity, the Government, and the public all take turns in questioning his loyalty to the American cause.  It’s overdone.

Thankfully, the film changes tact at the half way mark and becomes more complex, more interesting.  While trying to take photos over Russian airspace, an American plane is shot down and its pilot captured.  A prisoner swap seems like a simple solution but that comes with political ramifications.  Neither side wants to admit they’ve been spying on the other.  As someone without links to the U.S. Government, Donovan is flown to the volatile East Germany and asked to negotiate a very important trade.

Tom Hanks is at his very best here.  During the early scenes, he portrays James Donovan as a smart, level-leaded individual.  He’s a man of principles.  As the film progresses, we see a more cunning side to his personality.  He’s not afraid to act dumb and take calculated risks in pursuit of his objectives.  For example, he uses his head cold to great effect.  Mark Rylance, more known for his stage work, is equally imposing as the quiet Rudolf Abel.  He keeps his cards very close to his chest.

Touted as one of this year’s awards season contenders, Bridge Of Spies holds the audience’s hand a little too much but it’s still a gripping true story with relevance today.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 07 October 2015

Since the 1950s, the FBI has maintained a list of its Ten Most Wanted Fugitives.  The name of James “Whitey” Bulger was added in 1999 with the FBI offering as much as $2 million for information leading to his arrest.  Bulger was a crime lord who rose to power in Boston in the 1970s and was involved in drug trafficking, money laundering, weapons smuggling, and extortion.  Oh, and he was also wanted for his role in 18 murders.

Brought to the screen by actor-turned-director Scott Cooper (Crazy Heart), the film opens in 1975 where Bulger (Depp) was just a small time crook living in South Boston.  He led a small group who were involved with vending machines, loan sharking and racketeering.  He had a wife, a young son, and was highly regarded within the community.  His older brother (Cumberbatch) has been elected to the U.S. Senate.

The story of Bulger proves that truth really can be stranger than fiction.  John Connolly (Edgerton) was a young FBI agent looking to move quickly up the ranks.  He reached out to Bulger, who he’d known as a child, and suggested they form an alliance.  The FBI would turn a blind eye to Bulger’s illegal activities and in return, he’d feed them information about much bigger gangs that were operating in Boston.  Top of the list were the Angiulo Brothers who headed up Boston’s dark underworld.

Over the next few years, Bulger’s power grew and grew.  The FBI were too afraid to touch him because of the deal that had been made.  They knew that Bulger was arrested, he’d spill the beans about the FBI had been supporting his enterprise.  The police were also letting Bulger go about his business.  He was making that much money that he could afford to bribe whoever was necessary.  This went on for close to two decades.

This is the best performance we’ve seen from Johnny Depp in a while.  He’s created a character who will keep you on your toes throughout the whole film.  One minute, he’ll be making small talk with someone.  The next minute, he’s killing them in a brutal fashion.  One of the film’s best scenes is at a dinner table where is berating someone for giving up the secret to a long held family recipe.  Bulger was an expert in creating fear and that was a major reason for his success.

I’d argue that FBI agent John Connolly, played by Joel Edgerton, is the film’s more interesting character.  However, the screenplay struggles when illustrating his mindset.  Why did he want to form the alliance with Bulger?  Was it simply to further his career?  Did he want to protect Bulger since they were childhood acquaintances?  Did he ever have any doubts about what he was doing?  Connolly’s methods are continually questioned by his wife and his fellow FBI agents (these scenes become repetitive) but he never shows any hesitation.

The major take away from Black Mass are its themes of power and corruption.  Most folk from Boston knew that Whitey Bulger was bad news.  What they didn’t know was that the tax-payer funded organisations designed to stop people like Bulger… were just as bad.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 12 October 2015

As reported through the media last week, 2015 has been a stellar year for Australian made films at the local box-office.  They reeled in $64.1m which, adjusted for inflation, is the highest total since 2001 (a year that had Moulin Rouge and Lantana).  Mad Max: Fury Road has been the biggest contributor with The Water Diviner, Last Cab To Darwin, Oddball and Blinky Bill also performing well.  That Sugar Film set its own record and is now our highest grossing Aussie documentary.

Despite those impressive numbers, one could also argue that the “glass is half empty.”  The $64.1m total represents less than 7% of total box-office receipts in Australia.  It’s become increasingly difficult to compete with the huge blockbusters coming out of the United States.  It boils down to marketing.  When you’re a small Aussie film with a tiny production budget, how can you compete when Marvel spends $200 million in marketing alone to promote their latest superhero movie?

One Aussie trying to make a difference is Devendra Gupta, a wealthy IT entrepreneur based in Sydney.  In 2013, he helped establish the Australian India Film Fund (AIFF) which aims to generate funding for “India-centric Australian films for a global audience.”  The idea makes perfect sense.  India has a huge film culture and produces more movies than any other country.  Widening the target audience will increase the film’s chances of being profitable.  More money equals more movies.

UnIndian is the AIFF’s first feature film and you don’t need to sift through the closing credits to find the names of the major investors.  The product placement is not subtle.  Will (Lee) teaches English language classes at the University of New South Wales.  Meera (Chatterjee) is single mum with a well-paying job at Cochlear.  A song used during the film includes the lyrics “come and fall in love with Sydney.”  Kudos to the New South Wales Government for getting that included.

It’s as cheesy as it sounds but UnIndian is still an entertaining romantic comedy.  Will and Meera come from different backgrounds but fate seems determined to bring them together.  How else can you explain them randomly bumping into each other 4 times during the film’s opening 20 minutes?  It’s not long before Will is able to convince Meera to take the plunge and go on a date.

Unfortunately, those around them are intent on making life as difficult as possible.  Meera’s parents are trying to push her into an arranged marriage with a wealthy Indian doctor (Brown).  Her young daughter (Sathi) is secretly trying to get in touch with her estranged father (Grover).  Will’s boss is threating to cut off funding to his successful English language program.  Things are getting messy.

The screenplay is formulaic (it even includes a racing to the airport scene) but the likeable cast more than compensate.  The film marks the acting debut of Australia cricket star Brett Lee who looks surprisingly relaxed.  The conversations shared between he and co-star Tannishtha Chartterjee are not over-scripted.  Supriya Pathak Kapur earns plenty of laughs as Meera’s stressing, overbearing mother and Arka Das also impresses as Will’s close friend.

Offering an insight into Indian culture here in Australia, UnIndian is simple and easy to enjoy.

You can read by chat with star Brett Lee by clicking here.