Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 13 January 2013

I admire Judd Apatow.  He’s a guy who wants to make successful comedies but he doesn’t always bow to Hollywood conventions.  He’s not afraid to take a few chances and think outside of the square.  Apatow’s best writing credits over the past decade include The 40 Year Old Virgin, Knocked Up, You Don’t Mess With The Zohan and Pineapple Express.

This Is 40 is something slightly different from Apatow.  Yes, there’s comedy but there’s a more serious, a more personal undercurrent to the story.  It centres on two characters that have just celebrated their 40^th birthday and are stumbling into the next chapter of their lives.  They’re not sure where they’re heading and it’s left them questioning the future of their relationship.

Why I’m describing this film as “personal” to Apatow is that he’s cast his wife, Leslie Mann, in the leading role alongside Paul Rudd.  Further, he’s used his two daughters to make up the rest of this on-screen family.  When you throw in the fact that recently turned 45 years of age, you’d have to ask yourself the question – how close to home is this storyline?

Apatow actually describes his life as “pretty boring” and not quite as exaggerated as what you’ll see in the movie.  That’s not to say that a few of these scenes aren’t based on actual events.  He wants to make us laugh... but he also wants us to reflect on our own lives and our own connections.

When you break it down, This Is 40 highlights the difficulties that come with being in a long-term relationship.  It’s not meant to be dramatic and depressing.  Rather, it’s a movie that wants to provide comfort.  When you’re spending every day with the same person for the rest of life, there are always going to be a few bumps along the way.  That’s normal and you’d be naive to think otherwise.

Fans of the 2007 film Knocked Up may already be familiar with these characters.  Pete (Rudd) and Debbie (Mann) were the two best friends of the lead couple – played by Seth Rogen and Katherine Heigl.  Some might describe this as a “spin off” but there’s no real need to have seen the earlier film, which is terrific I must point out, before this one.  There’s very little overlap.

To give you a flavour of the film’s content, the opening scene sees Pete and Debbie having sex in the shower.  It’s all going fine until… Pete admits to taking a Viagra tablet beforehand.  Debbie then kick starts a heated debate about why he can’t maintain a “non-assisted” erection and whether he still finds her attractive.  Whilst many of us won’t be able to relate the specifics of such a moment, you will understand what’s going through each of their heads during the argument.

Whilst I like what Apatow is trying to do in this film, I’m not 100% sold on the delivery.  Every conversation feels like it’s a minute too long.  It’s as if these characters are trying too hard to demonstrate their flaws and insecurities.  I got the message early on and when you drag it out into 134 minutes, a lengthy gamble for a comedy, you’re going to struggle to hold my attention.

The secondary cast includes the likes of Albert Brooks, who plays Pete’s financially struggling father, and John Lithgow, as Debbie’s long-lost dad who unexpectedly re-enters her life.  They’re not particularly exciting subplots and I’d question their necessity.  There’s a scene-stealing moment from Melissa McCarthy (Bridemaids) during, strangely enough, the closing credits.  It generated more reaction at my preview screening than any other part of the movie.

While I’m sure there are some who will respond to the film’s “close to home” style of comedy, This Is 40 didn’t connect as well as I’d hoped.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 01 January 2013

Most people will be familiar with Alfred Hitchcock’s Psycho, first released in June 1960.  It is regarded today as one of the greatest thrillers ever made.  It’s ranked inside the “all time” top 30 on the Internet Movie Database and inside the top 20 by the American Film Institute. In terms of box-office, it was Hitchcock’s most successful film – grossing $32m in the United States (the equivalent of roughly $400m today).

Fewer people will be familiar with the story “behind” Psycho.  You could easily pick up a copy of the non-fiction book by author Stephen Rebello but for those with shorter attention spans, this new film, simply titled Hitchcock, will at least whet your appetite.  It seems to oversimplify the material but it’s still an interesting subject matter and I know many people will be keen to see it.

He may have been a highly-praised director but the 60-year-old Hitchcock had a lot of trouble getting Psycho off the ground.  Paramount Pictures were horrified by the storyline.  They didn’t understand why a man with Hitchcock’s reputation would want to create a cheesy horror flick.  They also had doubts as to whether it could get past the strict censorship board, especially given the nudity and bloody murder.  In the end, Hitchcock decided to fund the $800,000 film himself… and as we now know, it was a very good decision.

We saw it with Argo and there’s been a similar debate regarding Hitchcock.  When you’re trying to recreate a real-life event, how much poetic licence can you take?  I’m not an expert on this particular subject matter but there are long-time fans of Alfred Hitchcock who believe this film is horribly misleading.

The movie would have us believe that Hitchcock had to mortgage his house and limit his household spending to get the funding.  It suggests that his wife, Alma Reville, was a huge creative influence and even directed parts of Psycho when Hitchcock was at home on sick leave.  It implies that Hitchcock had a violent streak and used it to help extract a frightening performance from star Janet Leigh.  Would such assertions have Alfred Hitchcock rolling his grave?  There are many who would suggest so.

The film also struggles with the breadth of material it is trying to cover in its 98 minute running time.  There are some intriguing subplots including the “mamma’s boy” persona of star Anthony Perkins, the work of screenwriter Joseph Stefano and the awkwardness between Hitchcock and co-star Vera Miles.

All of these play second fiddle however to the main subplot – the not-so-interesting relationship between Alma Reville and a boring screenwriter named Whitfield Cook.  I realise that Alma is a key character but too much time is wasted following her efforts to step out from behind her husband’s shadow and create her own name.

It’s the performances that you’re most likely to remember about Hitchcock.  With the help of his talented make up crew, Anthony Hopkins (Silence Of The Lambs) is terrific as the overweight director.  It’s a nice touch to see him address the audience at the start and end of the film – just like the real Hitchcock.  Helen Mirren (The Queen) is strong as Alma and Scarlett Johansson (Lost In Translation) has been well-cast as Janet Leigh.

Many will leave the theatre with a smile on their face but in my eyes, Hitchcock focuses on the wrong characters and tries too hard to please.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 10 January 2013

There are few filmmakers working today who can generate as much buzz as Quentin Tarantino.  It’s not a question of “if” you will see a new Tarantino movie but rather a question of “when” you will see it.  You don’t even need to know the actors’ names or have an idea of the story.  The fact that Tarantino is sitting in the director’s chair is the only impetuous required to get you inside a darkened theatre.

Django Unchained is Tarantino doing what he likes – reviving an old genre and throwing in (1) a few surprises, and (2) plenty of violence.  He treated us to a martial arts flick with Kill Bill and a 70s-style exploitation film with Death Proof.  This time around, he pays homage to the American western… and has a lot of fun in the process.

Set in Texas 1858, the first character we meet is Dr King Schultz (Waltz).  He was once a dentist but he’s now found a more lucrative profession.  In his own words, Schultz “kills people and sells their corpses for cash”.  That may give the impression that he’s a crazed murderer but nope, that’s not the case.  This is all above the law.  Schultz is a bounty hunter.  He captures those criminals, whether it be dead or alive, that are highly sought by the authorities.

Usually a one-man operation, Schultz has taken on a partner to help with a particular assignment.  There are three violent brothers involved in cattle rustling and stagecoach robberies.  The problem is that Schultz doesn’t know how to identify them.  He only knows their names.

This is where a black slave named Django (Foxx) will come in handy.  Schultz purchases Django from a slave trader (a humorous opening scene) and agrees to give him freedom if he can help locate the three criminals he seeks.  It’s an easy choice for Django – “I kill white people and get paid to do it. What’s not to like?”

The two soon become a formidable team.  The liberal, well-spoken Schultz seems to enjoy having an African American as his partner.  He’s not actively trying to abolish slavery… but Schultz is an affable attention-seeker who likes stirring the pot.  He loves the quizzical expressions when he and Django ride into a small town side-by-side.  Onlookers can’t believe they’re looking at a black man on a horse.  Such a thing was unthinkable at the time.

Django appreciates his newfound wealth and freedom but there’s something more important he seeks – his wife, Broomhilda (Washington).  She was recently sold as a prostitute to Calvin Candie (DiCaprio), a wealthy Mississippi plantation owner with a fetish for gladiator-type fighting.  Schultz and Django concoct a risky plan to visit Candie’s estate and rescue Broomhilda from his villainous ownership.

Django Unchained drags on a little too long at the end (clocking it at a total of 165 minutes) but it’s still a wildly amusing ride.  The brutal action is mixed with lengthy dialogue-driven sequences.  If there’s one guy who knows how to create great conversation between characters, it is Quentin Tarantino.  Schultz and Django find themselves in many tricky situations and it is more fun watching them talk their way out of trouble as opposed to getting involved in a shoot-out.

Tarantino can’t take all the credit though.  You won’t find many other films this year with a better collective group of performances.  Christoph Waltz is again an ideal fit for the lead role (he won an Oscar last time he worked with Tarantino on Inglourious Basterds) but he can’t be singled out.  That’s because Jamie Foxx, Leonardo DiCaprio and Samuel L. Jackson are just as good.

Whilst there are a bunch of wonderful individual scenes (the Ku Klux Klan bit springs to mind), I felt the broader story needed more meat on the bone.  I never quite understood the mindset of Dr Schultz.  He’s a guy driven by wealth and notoriety (with no competition in the bounty hunter trade) and yet he keeps throwing himself into dumb, ridiculously life-threatening situations.  Why he so willingly agreed to help Django rescue his wife is also something that didn’t sit right.

This is a minor nit-pick though.  If only all films could contain such precise dialogue and such distinctive characters.  I’d be entertained every time I went to the cinema.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 21 December 2012

How do you prefer your big-budget Hollywood musicals?  Do you prefer them light or heavy?  Do you like colour, comedy and razzle-dazzle?  Or would you rather something darker, deeper and more emotional?

The public’s preference over the past decade has been towards “lighter” musicals.  Mamma Mia! (2008) took a staggering $609m at the international box-office and not far behind have been the likes of Chicago (2002) with $306m, High School Musical 3 (2008) with $252m, and Hairspray (2007) with $202m.

Heavier musicals haven’t been as popular.  Dreamgirls (2006) managed $155m internationally but it’s the best of a bunch that includes The Phantom Of The Opera (2004) with $154m, and Sweeney Todd (2007) with $152m.

Les Misérables is trying to buck that trend.  Given its reputation, you’d like to think it has a good chance.  The English-language version of the live musical opened in London back in October 1985.  It is still showing today and holds the records as the West End’s longest running production.  In total, it has now been seen by more than 60 million people in 42 countries.

For those unfamiliar with the story, it comes from the 1862 novel written by Victor Hugo and is set in the first half of the 19^th Century.  It opens with Jean Valjean (Jackman) finally been released from prison after serving a 19 year sentence.  His crime?  Stealing a loaf of bread to feed his sister’s starving family.

Valjean is looking for a clean start, a new life.  The man determined to stop him is Inspector Javier (Crowe).  He doesn’t believe that a “leopard can change his spots” and is convinced that Valjean will reoffend.  This is further confirmed when Valjean fails to visit his parole officer and then disappears.  It sets Javier on a quest, spread across many years, to find Valjean and bring him back into the custody of the Parisian authorities.

There are other players in this ensemble.  They include Fantine (Hathaway), a young woman who loses her job and is forced into a life of prostitution.  Her only daughter, Cosette (Seyfried), will grow up and fall in love with a student (Redmayne) who is part of the revolution to overthrow the French government.  There’s also Thenardier (Baron Cohen) and his wife (Bonham Carter) – two thieves without a shred of moral fibre.

With a handful of exceptions, every piece of dialogue is sung.  Academy Award winning director Tom Hooper (The King’s Speech) made a few small trims (only one whole song needed to be cut) and has managed to squeeze it into a two and a half hour running time.

Hooper also made the interesting decision to have the actors sing the songs as they were performing, as opposed to recording them in a music studio.  It’s a good move and gives the film an added layer of authenticity.  This is highlighted by a heartfelt moment when Anne Hathaway delivers her big solo number.  The camera zooms in on her face and does not move.  We see the tears in her eyes and can hear the desperation in her voice.  Such a shot would not be possible if forced to mime.

It’s the performances that are the key to this cinematic version of Les Misérables.  It took me a while to warm to the gloomy premise but the beautiful voices, coupled with the famous lyrics, bring out the emotion of the situation and make us appreciate the hopeless plight of these characters.  It’s been a few days since I saw the film but the memorable songs are still washing around inside my head.

Hugh Jackman (X-Men) is superb and he is matched by a surprising performance from Russell Crowe (Gladiator).  You may not see Crowe singing the high notes in a church choir but his rough voice makes him a worthy choice as Inspector Javier.  Anne Hathaway (The Devil Wears Prada) dominates every scene in which she appears and is on track to win the supporting actress Oscar.  Perhaps the biggest shock for me was hearing the sweet, delicate voice of young English actor Eddie Redmayne (My Week With Marilyn).

The film makes the most of the cinematic medium, particularly through the use of close ups, and is a worthy adaptation of this much beloved musical.  It’s heavy-going and there’s not much in the way of comedic respite but Les Misérables is a captivating tale of love, forgiveness and redemption.

You can read my interview with director Tom Hooper by clicking here.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 01 January 2013

There have been a surprising number of “spooky” animated features over the past 6 months.  It started with Hotel Transylvania (September 2012), was followed by Frankenweenie (October 2012) and now we’re being treated to ParaNorman.

This film is a little different though as it uses the torturous style of stop-motion animation.   When I use the term “torturous”, I’m not referring to the audience’s reaction.  Rather, I speak of the work that goes on behind the scenes to bring the film to life.  It took two full years to complete the animation with roughly 400,000 individual frames of footage required.

Our central character is Norman Babcock (Smit-McPhee) – a young boy who is bullied at school and doesn’t have many friends.  This isn’t because he’s shy or social awkward.  Norman is ridiculed because he tells everyone that he can see ghosts and communicate with the dead.  He even speaks with his late grandmother on a regular basis.

The joke will soon be on everyone else though.  Norman is telling the truth.  The town is about to be overrun by an army of zombies!  They have returned from the dead to avenge a “wrong” from 300 years ago.  It forces Norman to team up with his new friend, Neil (Albrizzi), and concoct a plan that will stop the zombies and save the townsfolk.

ParaNorman has a good sense of humour which is summed up in the film’s tagline – “It’s all fun and games until someone raises the dead.”  There’s a great scene where Neil and Norman first become friends.  Neil tells his older brother “that we’re going to go play with the dead dog in the garden and we’re not even going to have to dig him up first!”  Suffice to say that such a statement gets a very curious look back in response.

The well-chosen voice cast includes the likeable Jeff Garlin (Curb Your Enthusiasm), the sweet Anna Kendrick (Up In The Air) and the recognisable Christopher Mintz-Plasse (Superbad).  It’s a good group.  Headlining the cast though is 16-year-old Australian Kodi Smit-McPhee (The Road, Let Me In).  It’s great to see another Aussie making a mark in Hollywood and films like ParaNorman will continue to push his career in a forward direction.

I’m not sure if young children will embrace this film in the same way they would Wreck-It-Ralph, Ice Age 4 or Madagascar 3.  The supernatural themes could be tricky and there seem to be a few more jokes/references targeted at adults as opposed to kids.  That said, I still liked ParaNorman and it deserves to be seen for its wit and the work of its passionate animators.