Reviews
Pride And Glory
- Details
- Written by Matthew Toomey
| Directed by: | Gavin O’Connor |
| Written by: | Joe Carnahan, Gavin O’Connor |
| Starring: | Colin Farrell, Edward Norton, Jon Voight, Noah Emmerich, Jennifer Ehle, John Ortiz |
| Released: | February 5, 2009 |
| Grade: | C+ |
Pride & Glory is a seen-it-all-before drama about good cops trying to triumph over bad cops. I generally like these kind of movies. Two of my all time favourites are L.A. Confidential and The Departed. I had high expectations for this film given the quality of the cast but there’s no suspense whatsoever.
The story begins with four New York City police officers being killed whilst undertaking a raid. We learn pretty quickly that not everything as it appears. These cops were "dirty" and there’s a bunch more who are now covering their tracks. They don’t want any evidence uncovered which can be directly traced to their dishonest activities.
The good guy in all the mayhem is Ray Tierney (Norton). He doesn’t want to get involved but he is forced by his father (Voight), a now retired cop, to head up a taskforce which will investigate the matter. In his search for the truth, he discovers that both his brother (Emmerich) and brother-in-law (Farrell) are hiding valuable evidence.
When it comes to the crunch, Ray will have to decide what comes first. Should he protect his fellow officers and the reputation of his family? Or should he risk his career and expose the deep-seeded corruption which exists within the force?
This moral dilemma that Ray faces is the most interesting patch of the movie. The first half is very slow and many characters are left undeveloped. We go through long periods where we don’t even see certain key characters. It’s a real jumble. We also know where each character stands. The problem with this is that is allows no room for any surprises.
Just when the film starts to show promise, it is ruined by a ludicrous ending full of clichés and unintended laughs. There’s a confrontation where Ed Norton and Colin Farrell slug it out in an empty bar with Irish jig music playing in the background. It’s just as ridiculous as the finale which follows.
Perhaps the film could have been saved by some outstanding performances but none of the cast step up to the plate. They just don’t have enough material or screen time to pull it off. If I had to single someone out, I’d say Jon Voight was the pick of the bunch.
Clocking in at just over two hours, Pride & Glory is an underwhelming movie.
Revolutionary Road
- Details
- Written by Matthew Toomey
| Directed by: | Sam Mendes |
| Written by: | Justin Haythe |
| Starring: | Leonardo DiCaprio, Kate Winslet, Kathy Bates, Michael Shannon, Kathryn Hahn, David Harbour |
| Released: | January 22, 2009 |
| Grade: | A |
If I were to sum up Revolutionary Road in a single sentence, I’d say it was about a young couple in the 1950s having some serious marital problems. To describe the film so simply though would be an injustice to the filmmakers. This is a deep film with an intricate story and complex characters. It left me with much to think about.
I could spend hours analysing the key figures but I do my best to provide a quick summary. Frank (DiCaprio) and April (Winslet) fit the definition of a model family. They have two children, a boy and a girl, and they have a nice home in a well-to-do neighbourhood. Frank has a standard office job whilst April is a house mother. They are close with their next door neighbours and often invite them over for drinks.
They may look like an ideal couple but Frank and April are going through somewhat of a mid-life crisis. The hopes and dreams they once had have been replaced with a life of monotony and predictability. There’s nothing left to excite them.
The building tension is relieved when April suggests that they move to France. She can get a job as a secretarial assistant and Frank can take a break and spend time with the kids. Frank thinks it’s a great idea and they start making plans.
Their proposal doesn’t sit well with their friends and colleagues. They can’t understand why they want to "escape" their current life. Their concerns rub off on both Frank and April who now find themselves filled with doubt. Will going to Paris really make them happy? Will it fix the deep-seeded problems that are slowly driving them apart?
As much as I liked this film, I have to warn people that it is extremely heavy going. I felt like I needed to see an Adam Sandler film after walking out the cinema just to lighten things up. It’s both dark and depressing. It will probably hit those hardest who have been through such experiences in their own lives.
The reason Revolutionary Road is so impressive is because of the powerful performances from Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet. It’s a far cry from the last time they teamed up – 11 years ago for Titanic. Their bitter arguments are excruciatingly difficult to watch. I felt like walking out of the cinema – not because I hated the movie but because I wanted to give them some space to sort out their difficulties.
The emotional outbursts from both DiCaprio and Winslet are contrasted by equally awkward scenes where they keep to themselves. The communication between them has broken down and you can tell from their demeanour that they are melancholic. I couldn’t "get inside their heads" and I think the reason was because these people were just as lost and confused.
There is one other character worth pointing out – Michael Shannon plays John Givings, a once gifted mathematician who has since been institutionalised with psychological problems. He meets April and Frank on two occasions and his brutally honest remarks about their lifestyle have a lasting impact. It’s a career-defining role for Shannon.
Director Sam Mendes hasn’t made a bad film. His three previous credits were American Beauty, Road To Perdition and Jarhead. The guy knows how to leave an impact and Revolutionary Road continues his perfect streak.
The Wrestler
- Details
- Written by Matthew Toomey
| Directed by: | Darren Aronofsky |
| Written by: | Robert D. Siegel |
| Starring: | Mickey Rourke, Marisa Tomei, Evan Rachel Wood, Mark Margolis, Todd Barry, Wass Stevens |
| Released: | January 15, 2009 |
| Grade: | A+ |
It’s been a disappointing Oscar season so far. I’ve seen a lot of good films but I haven’t seen one that wanted to make me stand up and cheer. That is, until now. The Wrestler is a near-perfect movie. If it’s not the best film of 2009, it’ll be damn close.
Randy "The Ram" Robinson (Rourke) is a semi-retired wrestler. Back in the 1980s, he was one of the biggest celebrities in the business. He had everything he wanted – wealth, popularity and success. His most famous bout was against an adversary known appropriately as "The Ayatollah". Their fight at Madison Square Garden is still talked about today.
The world has since moved on… and Randy hasn’t been a part of it. He now works at a crummy looking supermarket and what little income he has is spent on booze and hookers. He doesn’t even have enough to pay the rent. Randy still gets an occasional gig on the amateur wrestling circuit but it’s a far cry from the lofty heights that he once achieved. The crowds are small and his pay cheque is even smaller.
There’s a great scene which sums up the crux of the movie. Randy and a group of other wrestling "has beens" have an exhibition night where fans can come and meet them. They set up their stands and have photographs and VHS tapes ready to sell. Only a handful of people turn up. It was at this point when I truly felt sorry for these guys. Sure, they’re not saints, but they’ve been chewed up and spat out by the system that operates in the world of professional sport. When you’re hot, everyone wants to be with you. When you’re not, no one could care less.
Mickey Rourke’s performance as Randy is the best by an actor in the past year. I’ll be gutted if he doesn’t win the Oscar next month. He is as tough as nails and he throws himself around with unwavering determination. What impressed me more was the "softer side" of the role. Rourke beautifully portrays Randy as a guy who puts on a brave face but deep down, is sad and lonely. He’s such a rich, complex character.
There are two relationships which are explored in the film. The first is with an ageing stripper named Cassidy (Tomei). The pair have always been close and Randy wants to take their friendship a step further but Cassidy is reluctant to do so. She has a strict rule not to get involved with clients. The second relationship is with his estranged daughter, Stephanie (Wood). Randy knows that he’s let Stephanie down over the years and he’d like to make amends.
Director Darren Aranofsky has now made two amazing films. The first was Requiem For A Dream and it was my favourite film of 2001. He slipped up in 2006 with The Fountain but has now returned to full form. The style of The Wrestler is little unusual but incredibly effective. It’s a mix between documentary and drama. It feels like we’re intrusively peering into the lives of real people.
When you break it down, this is a movie about a broken man trying to find a purpose for his life. The story of "The Ram" is one that I won’t easily forget.
Gran Torino
- Details
- Written by Matthew Toomey
| Directed by: | Clint Eastwood |
| Written by: | Nick Schenk, Dave Johannson |
| Starring: | Clint Eastwood, Christopher Carley, Bee Vang, Ahney Her, Brian Haley, John Carroll Lynch |
| Released: | January 22, 2009 |
| Grade: | B- |
Gran Torino is a film of two halves – the first part is a comedy and the second part is a drama. I don’t think this is the intention of director Clint Eastwood but that’s how I saw it.
The film opens with Walt Kowalski (Eastwood) attending the funeral of his late wife. He stands at the front of the church with a stern, unemotional look on his face. This is one tough cookie. Even his own grandchildren are afraid of him.
I can’t quite think of the right word but I’ll describe Walt as being "old school". He fought in the Korean War, he worked the same job in a car factory for 50 years, and he has an American flag hanging from his front porch.
Walt is also a racist. He lives in a neighbourhood in which a lot of Asian immigrants now live. Instead of welcoming them to his country, Walt sits on his porch and growls at them as they walk past. His actions generated many laughs from the audience at the screening I attended. I have to admit that even I laughed at some of his racist jokes. For a while I thought I was watching Borat 2.
One evening, a fight breaks out the front yard of his next door neighbour’s house. The Chinese family who live there have been targeted by an Asian gang who are looking to recruit their eldest son, Thao (Vang). Walt grabs his shotgun and steps outside with a crazy look in his eye. With his teeth clenched, he tells them all in his croaky voice to "get off my lawn". The gang members slowly retreat to their car and drive away.
The next day, Walt finds himself inundated with gifts from the local Asian community. They believe it was his actions that saved Thao’s life and they want to show their thanks. Walt wants nothing to do with them but they won’t take no for an answer and he reluctantly accepts their food and flowers.
It must have an effect on Walt because he soon becomes friends with Thao and his sister, Sue (Her). He takes Thao under his wing and helps him find his first job. I’m not really sure why Walt has mellowed after decades of resentment. Perhaps he’s realised the error of his ways. Perhaps he’s just lonely. I’m not sure.
There’s an action packed finale which is silly and unnecessary. I can’t say anymore without ruing the story. It doesn’t seem to have bothered the many Americans who flocked to see this film in its opening weekend. It took in a cool $29m which was the biggest opening ever for a Clint Eastwood movie. Does this mean I’m in the minority once again?
There were parts of the film which showed promise but I did have issues with the over-simplified plot and clichéd characters. I thought the acting was terrible. Some of the cast looked like they were reading their lines of cue cards. There’s talk that this may be Clint’s last movie but I hope this isn’t the case. He’s made some brilliant movies in recent years and I’d hate to see him finish up on such a mediocre note.
The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button
- Details
- Written by Matthew Toomey
| Directed by: | David Fincher |
| Written by: | Eric Roth, Robin Swicord |
| Starring: | Brad Pitt, Cate Blanchett, Tilda Swinton, Julia Ormond, Taraji P. Henson, Jason Flemyng |
| Released: | December 26, 2008 |
| Grade: | B |
The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button is close to 3 hours in length but the plot is surprisingly easy to summarise. It’s the life story of a person who ages in reverse. His name is Benjamin Button and when born, he had the appearance of a tiny, wrinkly old man. The doctors didn’t give him long to live. As time passed though, Benjamin started to look better and better.
The film follows the ups and downs of his life and the people he meets along the way. We see him raised by his adopted mother after being left on her doorstep. We follow his father who tries to maintain an interest in Benjamin’s life without revealing his true identity. We watch him discover love for the first time after meeting an Englishwoman in a Russian sea port.
There’s one character however who plays a bigger part in Benjamin’s life than all the others. Her name is Daisy. They first met when Daisy was a child and their lives have continued to cross the same paths ever since. There’s an obvious connection between them but destiny keeps finding ways to keep them apart.
That’s all I’m prepared to reveal at this point. If you’re interesting in seeing the film, you can go along and watch Benjamin’s journey unfold. We’ll all have our own opinion but I admit to being disappointed. I was expecting a greater emotional impact. The way the characters spoke and interacted left me feeling “cold”. The only exception was Benjamin’s mother, Queenie (played by Taraji P. Henson). You could sense the love and concern that she had for her adopted son.
The running theme throughout the movie is one of ageing and death. Benjamin has to watch all of his friends grow older and die. The film will strike a cord with some audiences but I wasn’t particularly moved by this theme (which was reinforced again and again). The other major problem is that there’s no suspense. You always know where the story is heading and to have to wait so long for the inevitable conclusion was frustrating at times. Could certain subplots have been cut to greatly shorten the film’s length? Also, what was the point of the Hurricane Katrina stuff in the current day scenes?
Qualms aside, I do want to praise the quality of the production. The work performed by the make-up artists and visual effects teams is amazing. There are scenes where Brad Pitt looks 20 and there are scenes where he looks 80. I don’t know how they did it. The cinematography from Claudio Miranda and the music score from Alexandre Desplat (The Queen) also deserve a mention. It’s not his best film but I think it’s gutsy for director David Fincher (Fight Club, Zodiac) to tackle such challenging material.
Likely to earn a bunch of Academy Award nominations early next year, I don’t know what the general movie going public is going to make of Benjamin Button. It certainly has “star power” with the likes of Brad Pitt and Cate Blanchett but if they share a similar reaction to myself, they’re likely to walk out of the theatre feeling unfulfilled.
Doubt
- Details
- Written by Matthew Toomey
| Directed by: | John Patrick Shanley |
| Written by: | John Patrick Shanley |
| Starring: | Meryl Streep, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams, Viola Davis, Joseph Foster, Mike Roukis |
| Released: | January 15, 2009 |
| Grade: | A- |
"Doubt is a bond as powerful as certainty." These words are uttered by Father Brendan Flynn (Hoffman) during one of his weekly’s sermons. He speaks to those who doubt their ability, their judgement or even their own faith. Father Flynn’s intent is to comfort his parishioners. They should not feel alone when they experience doubt. It is a natural human condition and the best medicine is to confide in the people we trust most.
Fathers Flynn’s sermon sets the stage for this aptly titled film. The man behind it all is John Patrick Shanley, the Academy Award winning writer of Moonstruck. It started out as a play which debuted in New York in 2004. It went on to win four Tony Awards in 2005 and has since been performed around the globe (including here in Australia).
The story has attracted the attention of some powerful people in Hollywood and it comes as no surprise to see it adapted into a movie. It features two of the finest actors in Hollywood – Philip Seymour Hoffman and Meryl Streep. Instead of choosing a more high-profile director, the studio has taken a gamble and allowed Shanley to both write and direct this cinematic adaptation. His only previous credit was the less than memorable Joe Versus The Volcano in 1990.
For the most part, those behind the production have come through with the goods. This is a quality drama with some outstanding performances. Several cast members are in line for Academy Award nominations when they are revealed next week.
The film is set in 1964 within a small Catholic school in New York. Sister Aloysius Beauvier (Streep) is the school’s headmasters and she rules with an iron fist. All the students are afraid of her and she is quick to punish any minor indiscretion. Father Flynn doesn’t quite see eye to eye with Sister Aloysius. He sees that the times are changing and believes the Catholic Church present a more welcoming image. Kids shouldn’t have to live in fear in of them.
These two people are about to face off. One of the young teachers, Sister James (Adams) has become a little concerned about Father Flynn’s relationship with a boy named Donald Miller (Foster). She noted that when Donald returned to class after meeting with Father Flynn, he seemed troubled. She could also smell alcohol on his breath. She reported to the matter to Sister Aloysius who immediately jumps to the conclusion that something is amiss.
Has Sister Aloysius been too hasty with her judgement? Is she wrong to trust her gut instinct, especially given the gravity of the situation? Father Flynn provides an explanation for the events but can he be trusted? With little physical evidence to go on, Sister Aloysius does her utmost to get Father Flynn to confess. Who is right and who is wrong?
The only issue I have with the film is that there are a few unnecessary subplots and characters. We are introduced to some of the students at the start but nothing seems to come of them. Maybe they’re meant to be red herrings. It still bugged me though.
There’s a lot of dialogue in this film and the best parts are the confrontations between Hoffman and Streep. They do exactly what the screenplay asks of them – they create doubt in the mind of the audience. If you see this film with friends, you might enjoy comparing thoughts afterwards. Who did you believe?