Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 13 December 2013

It was named the best film of the year by the prestigious New York Film Critics Circle. It was included in the American Film Institute’s annual top 10 list. It led the nominations for the Golden Globe Awards with 7 nods including best picture drama. It was nominated for best ensemble at the always important Screen Actors Guild Awards. It currently has 97% approval on Rotten Tomatoes based on the opinion of more than 60 critics. American Hustle must be an amazing film, right?

Well, actually, no. Every award season, there are always one or two contenders that I don’t connect with (for whatever reason). Recent examples include The Tree Of Life, The Kids Are All Right and The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button. I should also name Silver Linings Playbook but don’t want to sound like I’m beating up on director David O. Russell too harshly.

American Hustle begins with a lengthy introduction. We are told that the story is set in 1978 and that “some of this actually happened”. Irving Rosenfeld (Bale) and Sydney Prosser (Adams) are two con artists that have established a successful brokering business in New York City. They promise to help business owners desperate for short term loan funding… in return for a non-negotiable, non-refundable fee paid up front. Do they end up talking to financial institutions and getting the loans? Nope! They simply apologise and tell their clients that they were unsuccessful.

It’s a smooth operation that comes unstuck when they are busted by an overzealous FBI agent named Richie DiMaso (Cooper). He promises not to press charges if they’ll agree to help him snare some “bigger fish”. DiMaso wants to use their con artist skills to entrap high profile politicians and mobsters. He sees it as his best chance of earning a quick promotion within the FBI.

Their key target is Carmine Polito (Renner) – the popular mayor of Camden, New Jersey who is looking for investors to help rejuvenate the casinos of Atlantic City. Rosenfeld and Prosser come up with the idea of creating a fake Arab sheik with money to splash around. If they can get footage of Polito and other officials accepting bribes in return for development approvals, they’ll have fulfilled their obligations to the FBI and they’ll have stayed out of jail. Ah, but it’s not going to be that easy.

The film’s strongest attributes are the performances from the two female leads – Amy Adams (The Fighter) as the seductive con artist who loves speaking in an English accent, and Jennifer Lawrence (Silver Linings Playbook) as a jilted wife who becomes a part of everyone’s plans without actually realising it. My thumbs are also up for the set decorators, costume designers and make-up artists who have had fun recreating the late 1970s. Christian Bale and his not-so-convincing toupee had me smiling during the film’s opening scene.

There are a few other genuine laughs (such as Louis CK’s yarn about his brother) but they’re overshadowed by the messy, overly-convoluted screenplay. Despite the heavy use of narration, I still struggled to keep up with each character’s motivations and mindset. It’s designed as a “who’s playing who” movie but there were parts that it felt more like a “what the hell is going on” movie.

The story is also hard to buy into given the erratic nature of its characters. There are moments where they show great knowledge and insight. There are other moments where they act in a rash, silly, illogical manner. It left me asking the question – how could people so dumb pull this off? Was this a sequel to Pain & Gain? I also have concerns about the overly incompetent FBI.

American Hustle isn’t a bad film… but it’s certainly an overrated one.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 24 November 2013

If you jump onto Youtube and type in the search term “Paul Potts first audition”, you’ll get a glimpse of what is an inspiring true story. Paul Potts, a mobile phone salesman from Wales, took to the stage in an effort to earn a spot on the 2007 series of Britain’s Got Talent. The judges looked ready to write him off as another dud contestant… but when Paul opened his mouth and sung the iconic opera aria “Nessun dorma”, he received a tear-filled standing ovation. He would go on to take the £100,000 prize and become the show’s first winner.

For whatever reason, director David Frankel (The Devil Wears Prada) and writer Justin Zackham (The Bucket List) have decided to take Paul’s story and adapt it for the big screen. It doesn’t work. They’ve taken a beautiful story, which can be already be viewed online (or perhaps purchased on DVD), and turned it into an over-scripted drama with some strange production choices.

First and foremost, star James Corden (The History Boys) doesn’t use his own voice when singing. It’s the voice of the real Paul Potts that is dubbed over the top. It’s obvious to the point of being distracting. It hurts the film’s credibility and will leave you asking the question – why didn’t the cast someone who could actually sing opera?

Things get even stranger when we reach the film’s climax and Paul’s first performance on Britain’s Got Talent. We see shots of actor James Corden standing on stage and performing the aria. However, when we see shots of the audience and the judges (including Simon Cowell), the actual footage from the 2007 show is used. It’s another puzzling decision that diverts attention from what should be the movie’s signature moment.

Everything in the lead up is formulaic and unadventurous. We see Paul’s father (Meaney) try to convince his son to give up on his silly opera school dreams. We see Paul mocked and beaten by a group of bullies who have targeted him since high school. We see him meet a girl (Rooper) who gives him the courage to take that “one chance”.

I’m not a huge fan of reality television and it’s a little concerning that we are now making films based on the results of such programs. You’d like to think that there are more interesting stories out there, stories that we haven’t heard before. I’m not dissing the achievements of Paul Potts but this is a formulaic exercise in “feel good” cinema that fails to recreate this inspirational tale.

You can read my interview with director David Frankel by clicking here.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 04 December 2013

I’m kind of glad this is not based on actual events. Delivery Man is the tale of David Wozniak – a man who has just discovered that he is the father to 533 children. How is this possible? Well, in the early 1990s, David made 691 visits to his local sperm bank. He wasn’t doing it for the good of mankind. David needed cash.

You’d think there’d be some kind of controls in place but it turns out David’s sperm was of great quality and was used to help a record number of women conceive. Ordinarily, David would be none the wiser but a class action lawsuit has been launched by 142 of his children who want to know the identity of their father. They only know him by his code name, Starbuck.

Vince Vaughn, in a typical Vince Vaughn role, overplays his character’s emotions for comedic effect. At the start, he’s freaking out and using his lawyer / best friend (Pratt) to help keep his name concealed. This becomes trickier when the case becomes a worldwide news story. It’s even joked about on late night talk shows.

Somewhat predicably, David mellows and decides to seek out some of the kids - most of who are in the later stages of their teen years. They include a star basketball player, a struggling actor, a chronic drug user and a strange clingy homebody. David doesn’t reveal that he’s their father… but the time he spends with them has him re-evaluating his own relationships and plans for the future.

There are some touching elements to this story highlighted by a moment where David realises one of his children is a disabled young man who has been abandoned and institutionalised. The film is trying a little too hard though with some of its other “warm and fuzzy” moments. I realise this is a far-fetched comedy but his interaction with some of the kids feels too forced, too scripted.

I’d also argue that not enough time is spent exploring his relationship with his long-term girlfriend (who feels very much pushed into the background). The comedy tends to be hit and miss but the best material seems to be shared between David and his best friend, Brett, as they debate the merits of his bizarre plans and ideas.

A remake of a 2011 Canadian film from the same director (entitled Starbuck), Delivery Man can’t quite deliver on its interesting premise.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 21 November 2013

I would have done a few things differently but I did enjoy the first Hunger Games movie, released back in March 2012. So much so that it actually inspired me to read the book! The use of an exclamation mark is justified. As I spend so much time in cinemas and on the golf course, I usually only find the time/energy to read a couple of books each year (woe is me).

Having also read the second novel, I came at The Hunger Games: Catching Fire from a different angle. Instead of going into the theatre blind with no knowledge whatsoever, I had a heightened sense of anticipation. I knew what was going to happen (the second book was actually very good) but it was now a question of how it would translate onto the big screen with a widened cast.

To bring newbies up to speed, The Hunger Games series is set in a futuristic world dominated by inequality. Citizens in the Capitol have lavish clothes, extravagant meals and beautiful homes. Those in the neighbouring 12 districts work like slaves and live in poverty. If you think that’s bad… once a year, the Capitol chooses two teenagers from each district and has them fight to the death in a makeshift area. It’s televised for the Capitol residents who are allowed to place bets and “sponsor” contestants so as to influence the result.

In the first movie, two contestants from the same district managed to survive thanks to some cunning play – Katniss Everdeen (Lawrence) and Peeta Mellark (Hutcherson). Their success was celebrated within the poor districts and as you’d expect, this wasn’t well received by the Capitol’s tyrannical leader, President Snow (Sutherland).

To squash any chance of an uprising, Snow and new Head Gamemaker Plutarch Heavensbee (Hoffman) have come up with something special for this year’s 75^th annual Hunger Games. The 24 contestants will not be teenagers. Rather, they will be former champions from recent years. Katniss and Peeta will again be forced to compete against “the best of the best” and, to borrow from the film’s catchphrase, the odds do not appear to be in their favour.

The film comes together nicely. As was the case with the first instalment, it’s the opening hour that works best. The story is fictional (obviously) but the key theme of human oppression leaves plenty to reflect upon. We’ve seen it again and again throughout our history and I can’t help but think about the recent Arab Spring. If you push people to the breaking point and create a situation where they have nothing to lose… they will fight back. The bottom line – this is a franchise that offers more than just action and romance. For that, I am grateful.

The 75^th Hunger Games dominate the film’s second half. While you won’t be feeling as emotional as the characters in the games themselves (some fight sequences do feel manufactured), there are a few interesting twists that will keep you intrigued. Don’t expect everything to be revealed though. Much has been saved for the final two films which are slated for release in 2014 and 2015.

Jennifer Lawrence is a perfect fit for the leading role and she’s well supported by group of actors led by the likes of Donald Sutherland, Stanley Tucci and Woody Harrelson. They don’t get a lot of screen time but they all manage to make an impression. That said, it will probably help if you’ve seen the first movie as there isn’t much in the way of character history.

There’s a new director at the helm this time with Francis Lawrence filling the shoes of Gary Ross. I can’t see too many noticing. The film has retained the same look and feel. Events feel a little rushed at times but the strength of the story and its characters make this a series I’ve become a big fan of.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 04 December 2013

The year is 1943, the setting is New York City, and the central character is a shy, budding poet by the name of Allen Ginsberg (Radcliffe). A student at Columbia University, there’s a great scene where Ginsberg challenges his lecturer’s rigid devotion to rhythm and meter. While most students were happy to follow textbook methodologies, Ginsberg thought differently. He was inspired by the great 19^th century poet Walt Whitman and was in search of his own unique voice.

Ginsberg was a talented writer. There’s no doubt about that. We get to hear some his beautiful prose during the film. That said, Ginsberg was also shy, naïve, inexperienced. He had few friends and few life experiences. He was in search of someone or something to serve as his inspiration.

That gap was soon filled by a dashing young gentleman by the name of Lucien Carr (DeHaan). A fellow student at Columbia, Carr was extroverted socialite who loved to drink and loved to party. In one of their early encounters, Carr explains his outgoing personality to Ginsberg by saying – “I love first times. I want my entire life to be composed of them. Life is only interesting when life is wide.”

The film’s first half is an intriguing character study. Ginsberg and Carr weren’t linked romantically but they shared a “closeness” that went beyond a straight forward friendship. It helped them discover who they were – both on and off the page. Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter) and star-the-making Dane DeHaan (Chronicle, Lawless) deliver superb performances that tap into their character’s respective insecurities.

Kill Your Darlings shifts direction in its second half and becomes more of a murder mystery following the death of a David Kammerer (Hall), a close friend of Carr. It’s the weaker section of the movie as events are rushed and it’s hard to keep up with the mindset of each character. Further, a few titbits of information are provided during the closing credits which I’d have preferred to see included by adding an extra 10-20 minutes to the running time.

The film marks the directorial debut for 40-year-old John Krokidas. I’m looking forward to his future projects as Kill Your Darlings has a distinctive visual presence thanks to some beautiful cinematography and unorthodox editing. He’s done a terrific job recapturing New York in the 1940s without having to rely on special effects. The soundtrack is also a big help in that regard.

I wasn’t a fan of On The Road – a 2012 release based on the novel by Jack Kerouac which covered a similar characters in the same era. Perhaps it’s the better casting. Perhaps it’s the better screenplay. For whatever reason, Kill Your Darlings is more palatable and more interesting.