Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 03 February 2013

West Of Memphis is the first documentary to be released in Brisbane cinemas in 2013 and it’s a damn good one. Those who have seen any of the films in the Paradise Lost trilogy will already be familiar with the subject matter. For everyone else… get ready to have your eyes opened.

On 5 May 1993, three 8-year-old boys were murdered in West Memphis, Arkansas. They went missing after school and their bodies were subsequently found in a shallow creek. A month later, three young men were arrested for the crime – 18-year-old Damien Echols, 17-year-old Jessie Misskelley, and 16-year-old Jason Baldwin. They became known as the West Memphis Three.

As you’d expect, this was a high profile case. The fact that police believed the murders to be part of a Satanic ritual, based on wounds found on the bodies, only heightened the public’s interest. Despite pleading otherwise, all three men were found guilty of the crime. Misskelly and Baldwin were sentenced to life in prison. Echols was sentenced to death by lethal injection.

Two years later, an Emmy Award winning documentary entitled Paradise Lost: The Child Murders at Robin Hood Hills raised concerns about the way in which the case had been handled by the police. Evidence had been mishandled, confessions had been coerced, and leads had not been fully investigated. Could it be possible that these three men were innocent?

West Of Memphis runs for just under two a half hours, lengthy for a big screen documentary, but there’s a good reason for that – there’s so much material to cover! The film chronicles the crime and then follows the pursuit of these three men to clear their name. They had help from some powerful people, moved by the original documentary, but you’ll be left shaking your head at the rigidity of the Arkansas legal system and the inability of the authorities to admit they made mistakes.

Academy Award winning director Peter Jackson (The Lord Of The Rings) and his wife, Fran Walsh, have long shown an interest in the West Memphis Three. They paid for their own private investigators to re-examine existing evidence and perform additional forensic testing. They were also responsible for putting up the money for this film. This is a story they want heard by as many people as possible.

Impressed by her work on the 2006 documentary Deliver Us From Evil, an alarming look at child abuse within the Catholic Church, Jackson brought in Amy J. Berg to direct to West Of Memphis. I remember being blown away by the revelations in Deliver Us From Evil and I’ve never been able to shake its disturbing content. You can expect a similar reaction here. West Of Memphis isn’t afraid to show us the graphic nature of the crime and more importantly, it isn’t afraid to point fingers at those whose actions deserve to be questioned.

It’s kind of funny that that we have a genre of film known as “horror” that is supposed to provide frights and scares. Seldom does it do so. Films in the Saw and Paranormal Activity franchises rely on the same tricks again and again. We all know it’s not real. If you want to a truly horrifying film-going experience, check out West Of Memphis. It will leave you stunned.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 24 January 2013

Put simply, Zero Dark Thirty recounts the events that led to the capture of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.  We begin in September 2001 and hear telephone calls from those trapped atop the burning World Trade Centre towers and pleading for help.  Two and a half hour later, we finish with a group of elite Special Forces operatives storming bin Laden’s compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan and killing him.

Given it is one of this year’s awards season contenders, Zero Dark Thirty has been subjected to a huge degree of scrutiny by journalists and some members of the public.  No one would blink an eyelid if this were a direct-to-TV movie or an episode of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation.  They’d realise Hollywood’s cosmetic brush had been applied (thankfully not as much as in Argo) and go along with it.

That’s not the case here.  This latest collaboration from director Kathryn Bigelow and writer Mark Boal (The Hurt Locker) is engaging, persuasive and believable.  It’s as if you’re standing in the same room as these characters and watching them go about their day-to-day lives.  The bottom line is that it feels real, almost documentary-like in style.

This has worried some.  The Acting Director of the CIA recently made a public statement reminding audiences that “the film takes significant artistic license, while portraying itself as being historically accurate.”  I can’t remember the CIA ever having issued such a statement before!  A few United States senators have also voiced their concerns and criticism.

The biggest talking point has been around the subject of torture.  In the early scenes, we see CIA agents using torture to extract information from an al-Qaeda detainee.  The most extreme technique depicted is that of waterboarding – continually pouring water over the face of an immobilised person to create the sensation of drowning.  It ultimately leads to the detainee revealing the name of bin Laden’s most trusted courier.

I have read numerous articles proclaiming that the film is either pro-torture or anti-torture.  For me, this is proof that the script of Mark Boal has been effective.  Boal hasn’t taken a one-sided viewpoint on this highly provocative issue.  What he’s done is generate a much-needed debate.  Even if you don’t believe the film portrays events as they happen, you’d be naive to think that (1) the U.S. didn’t torture anyone and (2) they didn’t gain any valuable information through such techniques.

Many people were involved in capturing Osama bin Laden but given the natural time constraints of a movie, Zero Dark Thirty focuses on just one – a CIA agent known as Maya.  Bigelow has acknowledged the character is based on a real person but she’s still working for the CIA today and so her true identity has been hidden.  Not even Jessica Chastain (The Help) had the chance to meet her.

It’s a brilliant performance from Chastain who portrays Maya as a woman who is smart, passionate and level-headed.  She’s not a “super hero” though.  She has doubts and insecurities just like anyone else.  Two years ago, I’d never heard of Chastain.  Now, I consider her one of the best actresses working in Hollywood today.  She’s guaranteed to earn a second consecutive Academy Award nomination (after The Help last year) and she’s a strong chance to be holding the famed 13½ inch statue in her hands on Oscar night.

Boal’s screenplay and Chastain’s performance reminded me of the tagline from the terrific David Fincher film Zodiac – “there’s more than one way to lose your life to a killer”.  Most of us go to work each day and we come home with some sort of accomplishment – we’ve met a sales target or we’ve finished a set number of jobs or reports.

Maya has devoted her life to just one task – finding Osama bin Laden.  She goes to sleep each night not knowing if she is any closer to completing that task.  Coupled with the increasing pressure from the public, the government and her superiors, you get a clear sense of the role’s heavy emotional burden.  With the film spread across a full decade, we see many instances where the agents struggle to maintain their cool temperament.  There’s a particularly strong moment when a CIA official (Mark Strong) grills his team about their failure to get results.

We all know this story ends but Zero Dark Thirty’s finale is still gripping and action-packed.  Watching the Special Forces guys navigate their way through bin Laden’s hideaway, working to a strict timeline, highlighted the perilous nature of the operation.  The fact that the Pakistan military hadn’t been informed also contributed to the difficulty.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 28 January 2013

Politics is the art of compromise.  In pursuit of a greater good, there are times when you have to lie and there are times when you have to manipulate.  It’s a delicate balancing act and the trick is to not get caught.  You only have to follow the news or social media to see the way a politician is attacked when they break an election promise or become involved in a cover up.

The story in Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln is more than 150 years old but its message is just as relevant in today’s age.  It is set in January 1865 and follows President Lincoln’s attempt to pass the 13^th Amendment to the United States Constitution.  The amendment would fulfil two of Lincoln’s highly sought after goals.  It would abolish slavery and in the process, put an end to the bloody civil war between the north and south, which had now run for close to 4 years.

President Lincoln had already obtained the necessary two-thirds majority in the Senate.  His next, more challenging task was to obtain a two-thirds majority in the House of Representatives.  Given that his Republican party controlled just 56% of the seats, Lincoln knew that he’d have to convince at least 20 Democrats to vote against their own party’s position.

Some of his closest advisors though it to be an impossible task but the softly-spoken Lincoln had a plan.  He knew that some of the Democratic Congressmen has lost in the recent election and they would have to vacate their seats following the upcoming inauguration.  Lincoln wasn’t prepared to bribe these guys… but the promise of a cushy, high-profile job might be just enough to swing their vote.

History tells us that President Lincoln pulled off the improbable and obtained the votes required.  It was one of the most important pieces of legislation in the history of the United States.  I realise this subject matter is a little dry and like Zero Dark Thirty, we know how the story ends, but this is still interesting to watch.  It highlights that the tactics of politicians today really aren’t that different from those of yesteryear.

Much has been said about the terrific performance of Daniel Day-Lewis (My Left Foot, There Will Be Blood) and he’s on the verge of becoming the first man in history to win three Oscars for best actor.  His portrayal of President Lincoln is based on fact but still may surprise some.  He wasn’t a confident orator and he didn’t have a loud, authoritative voice.  You could even say he was a shy man.

The remaining cast is a who’s who of Hollywood and includes everyone from 31-year-old Joseph Gordon Levitt (The Dark Knight Rises) to 87-year-old Hal Holbrook (Into The Wild).  You’ll probably get a laugh out of their hair styles – both on top of their head and below their chin.  The standout amongst the supporting players is Tommy Lee Jones as a Republican congressman with very strong views.  The moral dilemmas asked of his character make him just as intriguing, if not more so, than President Lincoln.

The production values are superb and the film has been recognised with 12 Academy Award nominations – more than any other film this year.  It’s also reeled in $167m so far at the U.S. box-office which is pretty damn impressive given it’s a political, period-piece drama.  A few plot developments seem forced (such as an early scene where Lincoln talks to a husband and wife about a toll booth) but for the most part, this is a solid, nicely-paced film from Spielberg and screenwriter Tony Kushner (Angels In America).

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 23 January 2013

You only have to spend 5 minutes with Pat Solitano (Cooper) to realise that he’s struggling.  He battles bipolar disorder and is clearly not in control of his emotions.  Having spent 8 months in a mental care facility, Pat is now back living with his parents (DeNiro and Weaver).  They can see that their strong-headed son isn’t taking his medication and they’re worried that he’s not getting any better.

Pat wasn’t institutionalised of his own volition.  He was placed there by the court after a violent incident involving his ex-wife (which isn’t shown to us until mid-way through the film).  She subsequently took out a restraining order against her husband and left Philadelphia for good.  The two haven’t spoken since.

It’s this broken relationship that Pat can’t come to grips with.  When he speaks to others, he confidently professes that he and his wife will soon get back together.  It’s as if he’s forgotten about his past indiscretions and thinks that all has been forgiven.  His family and friends don’t know how to react.  They’re concerned about Pat’s delusional comments but they don’t want to react negatively and risk upsetting his delicate mental state.

With the stage set, writer-director David O. Russell (The Fighter) introduces a new love interest to further complicate the situation.  Her name is Tiffany (Lawrence) and she’s battling her own mental demons following the unexpected death of her young husband.  They meet for the first time at an impromptu dinner party and have a humorous exchange where they contrast and compare their medication.

What develops is a one-sided relationship.  Tiffany is “head over heels” for Pat and is using every trick in the book to spend time with him.  Unfortunately for her, Pat is still wearing his blinkers and only has eyes for his ex-wife.

If there’s one reason why you should see this film, it’s to admire the wonderful performances from Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence.  Both actors have created troubled characters that are also immensely likeable.  We can see their flaws and their propensity to irritate… but we appreciate their problems and hope they can find comfort, happiness.

Silver Linings Playbook has received 8 Academy Award nominations and in the process, has become the first film is 31 years to be nominated in all four acting categories.  Both Cooper and Lawrence will be there on Oscar night alongside Robert DeNiro and Australian Jacki Weaver.  It’s nice to see Weaver recognised again (after Animal Kingdom two years ago) but I’m a little surprised about her nod.  It’s a sweet performance but it doesn’t require much more than an American accent and a concerned look on her face.

There’s so much to love about this film during its first two-thirds including the “getting to know each other” scenes between Cooper and Lawrence and the light-hearted exploration of their mental condition.  Unfortunately, the film changes tact in the final third and becomes a safe, silly, unrealistic romantic comedy.  The actors were the same but it felt like I was watching a different movie with different characters.  Oh, and if anyone can explain the purpose of Chris Tucker’s character, I’m all ears.

It’s been showered with honours, including the prestigious Audience Award at the Toronto Film Festival, but I’m happy to sit just outside of the main group when it comes to Silver Linings Playbook.  Most will describe it as “great”.  I’m describing it as “good”.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 26 January 2013

Once upon a time, there was a boy called Hansel and a girl called Gretel.  Wandering through the woods, they came across a house made of candy and gingerbread.  What they didn’t know… was that house belonged to an evil witch who liked to cook and eat small children.  Hansel and Gretel had the last laugh though.  They shoved the witch into the oven and she burned to death.

The entirety of this German fairy tale is covered before the opening credits even begin in Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters.  It sets the stage from which writer-director Tommy Wirkola has tried to create an 80 minute epilogue to this famous story.

It turns out that Hansel and Gretel weren’t satisfied with the death of just one witch.  Now that they’ve grown up (and look like Jeremy Renner and Gemma Arterton), they want to rid the whole world of these villainous creatures by “setting their ass on fire”.  Oh, and get paid handsomely in the process.  It’s a creative but still dangerous way to make a living.

For their latest assignment, they’re been brought in by the mayor of a small town who is worried about the number of children who has recently gone missing.  Hansel and Gretel will have to battle more than the witches responsible though.  The local sheriff (Stormare) isn’t happy that this authority is being trumped.  He’d like to continue his evidence free, Crucible-like strategy and pick women at random to burn at the stake.

We’ve seen a few attempts over the past year to revive a simple fairy tale and transform it into a big screen action-adventure.  I preferred the more intricate story in Snow White & The Huntsman over Mirror Mirror but both films showed that such an adaptation can appeal to audiences.  A sequel is planned for Huntsman given its success at the international box-office.

There’ll be no such sequel to Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters.  This movie is terrible.  There’s graphic violence, coarse language and even a splash of nudity.  It’s all been included to help sell this film to the young adult crowd.  If you like the thought of a giant troll stamping on a man’s face and squashing it into a million gooey pieces, make sure you buy a ticket to opening weekend.

I’ve got no issue with the inclusion of violence, language and breasts… but the film’s problem is that this all seems more important that actually telling a story.  The forgettable premise revolves around some ancient legend that will allow the witches to become immune to the effects of fire.  Famke Janssen plays the “lead” witch but she’s not particularly scary or threatening.

There’s also a lack of witty banter between the characters.  If you’re going to create such a silly story, why not make it funny?  For the record, the dropping of an unexpected f-bomb does not count as humour.  Don’t expect any romance either.  They’ve cast Jeremy Renner and Gemma Arterton (both easy on the eye) but keep in mind that their characters are brother and sister.  Part of me thinks they'd have been better casting Jason Statham and Milla Jovovich given the film's theme of action first, plot second.

It’s certainly not for kids… and I’ve got doubts about whether Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters is fit for anyone else.