Blog


You can download an abbreviated podcast of this interview by clicking here.


Matt:  One of the reasons I love talking about movies is because I get opportunities like this.  I’m speaking this morning with Kenneth Branagh, an Oscar nominated actor, writer and director.  It was announced back in September 2008 that he’d be seated in the director’s chair for Thor and now after two and a half years of hard work we finally get to see the finished product.  Mr Kenneth Branagh, good morning.

Kenneth:  Good morning.

Matt:  You’ve been in Australia for the world premiere of the film.  How were we lucky enough to get that honour?

Kenneth:  In the jockeying for position that the big film companies do for where their movies go, they were looking to put this picture at the beginning of the American summer, in front of everyone else’s summer.

But we were also trying to find where they had the most space to release it and it kind of fell into place for Australia.  It seemed perfect given Chris Hemsworth’s attachment and given they also knew I loved Australia.  The travel plans to get everyone around the globe together seemed to point towards Australia and so they’re lucky enough to be the first people to see the film.

Matt:  Every time I hear your name I always think about Shakespeare – the films you’ve directed like Henry V, Much Ado About Nothing and Hamlet.  I then heard you were directing a Marvel comic book.  What is it we don’t know about you?  How did you get interested in the project?

Kenneth:  I love going to the pictures and I’d go a couple of times a week with my wife.  We’ll see something obscure and then we’ll see something entirely popular.  We like the “big movie” experience and I’d gotten to the stage where I’d seen so many of these films and I’d made a number myself.  I wanted to put my experience of both together and when this project came up, my name was thrown into the ring.

It was a comic that I knew.  It was a character that I knew from my youth and I loved the epic story at the centre of which was this wild, primitive man, barely in control of his very, very dangerous energy.  He travels through space, he can be on earth, he can be in the home of the gods in Asgard and I thought this was amazing material to try to make a film of.  It was very exciting.

Matt:  These comics have been around for about 50 years ago.  They would have changed a lot over time and there have been so many issues that would have been released.  Where do you start?   How do you make a movie out of all of that?

Kenneth:  Good question.  You throw yourself into the comics and you pull out, in broad terms, many different versions of the comics.  The world is very psychedelic or very gothic or very space age.  You then look back at the Norse myths themselves that Marvel successfully plundered to create their version of things.

You also look at modern influences and architecture such as images from the Hubble Space Telescope.  Then you sit in a room with a designer, a visual effects supervisor and you start to try to put it together and work out how much time you want to spend on each location.

It’s trial and error.  We tried to find something that combines the ancient with the modern.  We had a primitively influenced society who were nevertheless technologically advanced and lived on as asteroid at the top of space.  It adds up to some spectacular images – like six people on horseback riding across a rainbow bridge in outer space.  
 
Matt:  Comic book films have become so popular and trendy over the past decade.  We seem to have a few of them released every year.  Were you trying to distinguish your film in some way?  To give it that Kenneth Branagh stamp?

Kenneth:  We started already with a distinct difference because Thor is a god.  Stan Lee, when he started working on the comic said that he’d gone as far as he could go with human beings.

In a way, we have a reverse journey.  Most superheroes start in ordinary circumstances and then something extraordinary happens... like being bitten by a spider, they are given powers and the story begins.

Here, we have a hero who is a god with extraordinary powers and he goes through the opposite.  The powers are taken away from him and he lives in an ordinary place.  I liked that “switch around” where our hero has to learn humility.  He has to learn more about how to be a leader by looking at examples from human beings.  I thought it was a beautiful twist.

Matt:  Do you feel pressure making a film like this with the huge budget and all the fans of the comic book with their expectations?  Is it tougher than your normal film?

Kenneth:  You’re certainly aware of an intense gaze, an intense level of interest.  There was no decision that was made on the film, whether it be the casting or the colour of a helmet, that wasn’t the subject of vigorous, passionate debate.  You have to take it all with a respectful pinch of salt and say “Hey, we’re making a film.  We’re not making some documentary about the comic.  We will try to find the essence and we will try to make it a film story.”  

The pleasure so far in unveiling the picture is that comic book fans who have seen it have been very passionate.  One told me he had a “nerd-gasm” and I’m taking that as being a positive reaction.

Matt:  I know Stan Lee created the character back in 1962.  Do you know if he’s seen the film yet?

Kenneth:  He has not seen the film yet.  There’s a tradition that he plays a cameo in his films and I cannot confirm or deny that he has a cameo in our film.  Perhaps the tradition continues.

He was my first port of call.  I had lunch with him at the beginning of the project and I was inspired by his energy at the age of 86.  He was very supportive but he just said to get on with it.  Excelsior!

Matt:  You’ve got me curious now because I’ve seen the film and I can’t remember seeing Stan Lee so now I’ll have to see it again.

Kenneth:  I could tell you but I would have to kill you.  I promise you that if you revisit it with that question in mind, you would not be disappointed.

Matt:  Did you think about putting yourself in there?  I know you’ve done that before with some of the other films you’ve directed?

Kenneth:  You asked earlier about the amount of pressure and I felt I didn’t want to extend that further by being it and so this time, I said “no, I have enough to do.”

Matt:  I think you’ve got a pretty good cast anyway – Natalie Portman, Anthony Hopkins, Jeremy Renner, Stellan Skarsgard.  What was your pitch to these guys?  How did you get them on board?

Kenneth:  Anthony Hopkins looked at the part of Odin and he felt it was a wonderful opportunity to play the king of the universe and convey the kind of power and intelligence and danger that he can through saying very little.  He only has one eye and yet he is still indelibly powerful.

As for Natalie, the invitation was to help us create a character that was not going to be some fluffy love interest.  She was there to lend a scientific credibility to the relative reality of our superhero movie.  Her genuine intellectual curiosity, in addition to her staggering beauty, was vital to sustaining the role.

That part was not well established when she first joined the film and I admire her tremendously for bringing that kind of commitment and taking that kind of risk.  We stuck by our promise to make that character as unusual and as striking as she makes it.

Matt:  I enjoyed the sense of humour that she brought to the film alongside Stellan Skarsgard and Kat Dennings.  I thought they worked really well off each.

Kenneth:  Thank you for that.  They worked really hard together.  Stellan Skarsgard brings such authenticity to the role.  He’s so utterly real with everything he does.  Kat Dennings has such a brilliant comic gift and had such an effective rapport with the other two.  You warm to that side of the picture enormously and it helps draw us in.

Matt:  I have to mention the Aussie connection – Chris Hemsworth in the leading role.  I know some here will remember him from Home & Away but I wouldn’t describe him as an international household name.  It was a bit of a gamble for you taking him on.  What won you over?

Kenneth:  We did want to discover an actor in the role of Thor and this would be a way for the audience to enjoy the story, the film and the character without associating any actor with previous movie star baggage.

The joy was to try and find someone who was going to come up with the goods physically and be as magnificent as this god needed to look.  Mr Hemsworth certainly does that.  And then he needed to have the commitment to the acting range that’s required – to have the courage to be as arrogant as Thor is at the beginning of our story and yet still be charming and funny when he is a “fish out of water” on earth.

By the end of the film he has a directness, a sweetness and a straight forward honest quality that completes Thor’s changing journey before our very eyes.  He had all of that and he’s also a natural in front of the camera.

We knew we needed someone who could carry the movie, as young as he was going to be, and Mr Hemsworth did that beautifully.

Matt:  Kelly Higgins-Devine here at the ABC was very impressed with his abs and she wanted to know if they were digitally done or if they really were that good?

Kenneth:  I can absolutely promise you that Mr Hemsworth’s body was untouched by the digital effects crew.

Matt:  Talking about special effects, 3D is becoming more and more prevalent these days.  Some films are taking advantage of the technique better than others.  What made you decide to go down the 3D path with Thor?

Kenneth:  To try to make a differently immersive film experience, especially with the possibility of travelling through space.  I wanted to do so in a way that provided a smooth experience on the eye and wouldn’t give people headaches or restrict me in the way I moved the camera and so we didn’t shoot in 3D.  We converted and rendered the 1,300 special effects shots in 3D so that we could be both subtle and bold depending on the scene.

Matt:  I’ll finish up by asking the touristy question.  Have you had a chance to see some of the sights here in Australia or have you been too busy promoting the film?

Kenneth:  I’m in Sydney and I went running around the Botanical Gardens this morning and my wife and I believe we will try to climb the Sydney Harbour Bridge.  I was also in a boat on the harbour yesterday.  I know Sydney fairly well and I’d love to get up your way but it may not be this trip.

Matt:  I’m sure you’ve got plenty of other places to visit around the world in the next few weeks to help promote this film and I know it’s going to be doing big business at the box-office.  Mr Kenneth Branagh, I love your work and thank you for joining us.

Kenneth:  I appreciate it.  It was nice to talk Matthew.  Thank you.

  

Back in late 2009, I wrote a blog about the role of a film critic.  You can check out the full article here but to quickly summarise, the 4 key points were:

 

Point 1:  Promotion

 

I’ve never seen a film which was unanimously liked or disliked.  We’re all different people and we’re all going to take something different away from a film.  Even if two moviegoers are similar, they may still see a film differently based on the mood they’re in at the time.

 

So I do see my role as important in terms of “promotion”.  Through my website and though the ABC, I try to get people interested in going to the movies.  It’s that simple.  There are some awesome ways for the people of Brisbane to experience an art form (movies, plays, musicals, concerts) but they often don’t know they’re on.

 

Point 2:  Expanding Horizons

 

Everyone always knows when a big blockbuster is showing.  I’ve said this numerous times before but my review of these films is meaningless.  I don’t think it would stop a single person from seeing it.

 

I prefer telling people about a smaller film that’s currently in movie theatres which has received little-to-no advertising.  I like to promote low-budget Australian films with blossoming stars.  I like to get people to film festivals as a way of opening their eyes.  So many movies are made and yet we find ourselves drawn to the big action blockbusters through the manipulation of the media and Hollywood studios.

 

Point 3:  Offer Insight

 

I sometimes slip up on this point (especially for films I don’t like) but a good review should offer insight.  Given that a critic sees so many films, they should be able to pick up on details which others may not.  When I watch Margaret and David on At The Movies (two incredibly experienced critics), they often say something which leaves me thinking “you know, they’re right, I can’t believe I didn’t realise that.”

 

In my own movie reviews, I try to include titbits of information and quotes from actors/directors which readers might find interesting.  This can be particularly so after someone has seen a movie.  You can then read back on a review and think – “ah, I didn’t know that’s what the direction was trying to achieve.”

 

Point 4:  Generate Discussion!

 

The above three points all lead into what I think is the most important – generating discussion.  Disagreeing about a movie can be really fun.  A good example is Gran Torino.  It was a film I didn’t like but I’ve spent a lot of time debating its merits with other people – some who liked it and others who didn’t.  There’s no right or wrong answer.  It’s great to talk about, to interact with people.

 

 

When I wrote the above, there’s one thing I failed to mention.  A critic shouldn’t give away key plot twists, especially if they’re critical to the movie.  You’d think that would go without saying but one person who didn’t get the message was Jim Schembri, critic for The Age in Melbourne.

 

Last Thursday, I saw a number of fellow critics express their shock and disbelief that Schembri had given away the killer’s identity in Scream 4 in the first line of his review.

 

Here’s what he said in his carve up of the film (and I’ve taken out the name of the killer)…

 

“Only the sight of (actor’s name) getting all kill-happy in the frenzied, formulaic final-reel bloodbath makes this totally unwanted, utterly predictable franchise stretcher marginally worthwhile.”

 

Are you kidding me?  I didn’t like the movie either but there’s no way that I’d be spoiling it for others.  As I noted above in point 1, just because I didn’t like it doesn’t mean that others will feel the same way.  What point was Schembri trying to make by opening which such a huge spoiler?

 

At just after 6pm, I vented my own dissatisfaction with Schembri by posting this tweet on Twitter – “Jim Schembri's review of Scream 4 in The Age reveals identity of killer in the first line. What's he trying to prove? That he's an a**hole?”  I then turned my phone off and slipped into a preview screening of Mrs. Carey’s Concert at the Palace Centro.

 

When I got out two hours later, I was stunned with the number of responses that I’d received back.  Most contained profanity so I won’t include them in this blog (need to at least attempt to keep things “family friendly”).  Let’s just say that many people agreed with my comment and the overwhelming answer to the question I posed was “yes”.

 

I was also surprised by the number of people who had re-tweeted my comment.  When you’ve got the likes of Wil Anderson giving you a re-tweet (with his 87,750 followers), it’s certainly going to help get your message out there.

 

Here’s a picture to show you the image I had on my phone after getting out of Mrs. Carey’s Concert - http://twitpic.com/4lytaz.  I’d suddenly found myself a Twitter trending topic both in Melbourne and Australia wide.  I was ranking just ahead of the Melbourne International Comedy Festival.

 

I was happy.  I couldn’t think of a single justifiable reason why Schembri would spoil the film and he needed to be pulled up on it.  I’d made my point and thought that would be the end of it.

 

Wrong.  Turns out that Schembri has a Twitter account and he fired back the next day with this comment – “We do NOT give away the ending. http://tinyurl.com/42amzo2 And pity on those sad Twitts who think abuse is cool.

 

Huh?  I quickly clicked on the link to pull up his review once again.  He was right.  He hadn’t given away the ending… but that’s because he’d changed his review!  Here’s what it now said…

 

“Only the sight of (actor’s name) getting caught up in the frenzied, formulaic final-reel makes this totally unwanted, utterly predictable franchise stretcher marginally worthwhile.”

 

Now I was totally confused.  Why would he change his review and then have a go at the people who criticised him?  Isn’t that a major contradiction?  If you’ve made a mistake, at least admit it.  Don’t try to cover up your tracks.  Luke Buckmaster from Cinetology has also written a nice piece on the whole debacle which you can view by clicking here

 

Can we put this matter behind us?  Perhaps not.  Schembri posted this tweet a few hours ago – “The full story behind the Scream 4 meta-controversy coming soon. Stay tuned next week. And thank you all for playing.

 

Is Schembri simply covering his tracks?  Or was there some method to his madness?  I guess we’ll find out but until he proves otherwise, he’s still an a**hole.

   

We’ve reached a Film Pie milestone this week!  On Wednesday night, I’m going to a preview screening of Scream 4.  It officially be the 3,000th time that I’ve dished out a grading to a film.

 

For those who don’t know my background, my first job out of school was in a video store.  As I was seeing so many movies, I thought I’d start a spreadsheet to keep track of them and my grading for each (on a 9 point scale from A+ to C-).  I kicked off on 1 January 1996 with screenings of Operation Dumbo Drop and Copycat (which I saw while on holidays up the Sunshine Coast).

 

Over the years, things have expanded somewhat.  In 1998, I started reviewing for Logan 101.1FM.  In 1999, I started up my website (The Film Pie) and an e-newsletter which I sent out to a few friends.  In 2000, I started writing up full length reviews for about 2 films each week.  In 2005, I landed a reviewing gig with Brisbane’s highest rating breakfast show with Spencer Howson on 612ABC.  In 2009, I revamped the website and started up a Facebook group and a Twitter profile.  In 2010, I obtained accreditation on Rotten Tomatoes which helped expand my audience.  Later this year, I’m hoping to attend a big international film festival (plans are in progress).

 

In my database, I’ve only included films which have had a cinema release in Brisbane since 1996.  Whilst I’ve seen plenty of films from before that time, it’s kind of hard to give them a grade given most of them are already considered “classics”.  I also haven’t included any direct-to-video releases or small films from film festivals because hardly anyone will see them anyway.

 

I have to admit to feeling a sense of accomplishment having made it this far.  I’m pretty passionate about the things I do but even I’m surprised that I’m still reviewing after more than 15 years.  It’s been a fun ride and the hopefully it will continue into the future.  Being able to see movies ahead of time and interview some actors and filmmakers is a great thrill.

 

In this week’s blog, I thought I’d reflect back on the past 5,580 days and give you a summary of all the films I’ve seen.  Enjoy!

 

 

Total films graded: 2,999 (an average of 4.3 films per week since 1996)

 

Here’s a summary by grade:

 

A+ – 44 films

A – 196 films

A- – 424 films

B+ – 537 films

B – 470 films

B- – 450 films

C+ – 418 films

C – 326 films

C- – 134 films

 

Total films where I’ve written a full review: 1,193 (an average of 2.3 per week since 2000)

 

Most films seen in a single year:  238 (in 2006)

 

Total films worthy of an A+:  44

 

Here’s the list of A+ films by year…

 

1996 – Fargo, Leaving Las Vegas, Mr. Holland’s Opus, Shine, Romeo & Juliet

1997 – Breaking The Waves, Face/Off, The Ice Storm, Marvin’s Room, The People Vs. Larry Flynt, Titanic

1998 – Jackie Brown, Mulan, Saving Private Ryan, The Sweet Hereafter

1999 – Being John Malkovich, Election, Gods & Monsters, Pleasantville, Snow Falling On Cedars, Thin Red Line

2000 – American Beauty, Billy Elliot, Magnolia

2001 – The Fellowship Of The Ring, Nurse Betty, Requiem For A Dream, Traffic

2002 – Ghost World, Gosford Park, Monster’s Ball, Mulholland Drive

2003 – Chicago, The Quiet American

2004 – Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind

2005 – Million Dollar Baby

2006 – Capote, The Departed, Hidden, United 93

2007 – none

2008 – Juno, Persepolis

2009 – The Wrestler

2010 – Inception

 

Year with the most A+ films:  1997 and 1999 (see above for a list of films)

 

Longest drought without seeing an A+ film:  553 days (between seeing The Wrestler in January 2009 and Inception in July 2010)

 

Year with the most C- films: 2003 (Anger Management, Ballistic: Ecks Vs. Sever, Final Destination 2, The Four Feathers, Half Past Dead, Hollywood Homicide, Horseplay, Legally Blonde 2, The Lizzy McGuire Movie, The Master Of Disguise, The Real Cancun, Tomb Raider, Trapped)

 

Time taken to grade 1,000 films:  2,181 days (I saw Vanilla Sky on 20 December 2001)

 

Additional time taken to grade 2,000 films: 1,746 days (I saw the Devil Wears Prada on 30 September 2006)

 

Additional time taken to grade 3,000 films:  1,657 days (I will see Scream 4 on 13 April 2011)

 

Best film I’ve seen since 1996:  Billy Elliot

 

Worst film I’ve seen since 1996:  A Sound Of Thunder

 

Most number of films seen in a single day:  6 (on 7 August 2004 which started at the Palace Centro at 10am and finished at BIFF at the Regent around 1am).

 

Longest drought without seeing a movie:  22 days (from 28 June 2004 to 19 July 2004 while I was off on a holiday in Europe)

 

Total review shows done for 612ABC Brisbane:  approximately 245

 

Total review shows done for Logan 101.1FM:  approximately 585

 

Total Film Pie e-newsletters sent out:  approximately 640

 

Total best and worst lists combined:  15 (you can check them all out here).

 

 

It’s kind of nerdy to have all of these statistics but hey, I’m an accountant by day so you should expect nothing less.  A big thanks to everyone who reads my reviews on a regular basis or tunes in on 612ABC, Logan 101.1FM or ABC Southern Queensland.  I do love talking about movies and hopefully I’ve been able to provide plenty of helpful advice on what to see and what not to see.  May the good times continue!

 
It’s time for the last in my 3 part series where I list my favourite directors, actresses and actors.  If you missed the first two blogs, you can check them out here (for directors) and here (for actresses).

The criteria is the same as last time – (1) the actor has a history of strong performances in great movies over the past 10 years, and (2) any new film starring this actor is likely to grab my attention.

I have a long list of honourable mentions so let me quickly name... Paul Giamatti, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Tommy Lee Jones, Chris Cooper, William H. Macy, Javier Bardem, Geoffrey Rush, Johnny Depp, Jeff Bridges, Colin Firth, Ben Kingsley, Sean Penn, Jim Broadbent and Mark Whalberg.

Philip Seymour Hoffman topped the list when I last did it in October 2008 but I think George Clooney’s body of work over the past decade can’t be topped.  He has earned the top ranking this time.

I admit that it’s a list that seems to change each month but as of today and based on my current mood, here are my top 10 favourite actors working today...


Josh Hutcherson
10.  Josh Hutcherson


Best Recent Performance:  Bridge To Terabithia (2007)
Other Great Performances:
  The Kids Are All Right (2010), Winged Creatures (2008), Zathura (2005), Little Manhattan (2005)

Ryan Phillippe
9.  Ryan Phillippe


Best Recent
Performance:  Flags Of Our Fathers (2006)
Other Great Performances:  The Lincoln Lawyer (2011), Stop-Loss (2008), Breach (2007), Crash (2004), Igby Goes Down (2002), Gosford Park (2001), Antitrust (2001)
Clive Owen
8.  Clive Owen


Best Recent
Performance:  Closer (2004)
Other Great Performances:  Duplicity (2009), The International (2009), Children Of Men (2006), Inside Man (2006), Sin City (2005), The Bourne Identity (2002), Gosford Park (2001)
Christian Bale
7.  Christian Bale


Best Recent
PerformanceThe Fighter (2010)
Other Great Performances:  The Dark Knight (2008), I’m Not There (2007), 3:10 To Yuma (2007), The Prestige (2006), Batman Begins (2005)
Matt Damon
6.  Matt Damon


Best Recent
Performance The Bourne Supremacy (2004)
Other Great Performances:  Green Zone (2010), The Bourne Ultimatum (2007), The Departed (2006), Syriana (2005), The Bourne Identity (2002), Ocean’s Eleven (2001)
Robert Downey Jr
5.  Robert Downey Jr


Best Recent
Performance Kiss Kiss, Bang Bang (2005)
Other Great Performances:  Due Date (2010), Sherlock Holmes (2009), Tropic Thunder (2008), Iron Man (2008), Zodiac (2007), A Scanner Darkly (2006), Good Night, and Good Luck (2005)
Leonardo DiCaprio
4.  Leonardo DiCaprio


Best Recent
Performance Catch Me If You Can (2002)
Other Great Performances:  Inception (2010), Shutter Island (2010), Revolutionary Road (2008), Body Of Lies (2008), Blood Diamond (2006), The Departed (2006), The Aviator (2004), Gangs Of New York (2002)
Russell Crowe
3.  Russell Crowe


Best Recent
Performance:  A Beautiful Mind (2001)
Other Great Performances:  The Next Three Days (2010), State Of Play (2009), Body Of Lies (2008), American Gangster (2007), 3:10 To Yuma (2007), Cinderella Man (2005), Master & Commander (2003)
Philip Seymour Hoffman
2.  Philip Seymour Hoffman


Best Recent
Performance Capote (2006)
Other Great Performances:  Doubt (2008), Charlie Wilson’s War (2008), Before The Devil Knows Your Dead (2007), The Savages (2007), Cold Mountain (2003), Owning Mahowny (2003), 25th Hour (2002), Red Dragon (2002), Punch-Drunk Love (2002)
George Clooney
1.  George Clooney


Best Recent
Performance Michael Clayton (2007)
Other Great Performances:  Fantastic Mr Fox (2009), Up In The Air (2009), Burn After Reading (2008), Leatherheads (2008), Syriana (2005), Good Night, and Good Luck (2005), Intolerable Cruelty (2003), Confessions Of A Dangerous Mind (2002), Ocean’s Eleven (2001)