Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 07 November 2012

A key aspect of any movie is how quickly it can reel you in.  In the case of Skyfall, this box is ticked in the opening few minutes.  The film begins with an elaborate action piece that is both exhilarating and suspenseful.  It surpasses the foot chase sequence (complete with the use of cranes) that I remember so vividly from 2006’s Casino Royale.  Coupled with the traditional opening credits, to the backdrop of a new song from Adele, you’ll realise early on that this is a very good Bond movie.

The premise is somewhat darker than we might expect.  A hard drive that contains the identity of every undercover operative within MI6 has been stolen by an unknown adversary.  M (Dench) isn’t sure who is responsible and what they plan to do with this incredibly valuable information.  Things get even worse when a bomb is detonated within MI6 that kills 6 civilians.

These incidents have left the British Government questioning the security within MI6 and whether the aging M is still the right person to sit at the top.  Is it time to bring in some fresh blood with some fresh ideas?  That seems to be the opinion of the Chairman of the Intelligence and Security Committee (Fiennes) who has told M that it’s time to retire.

I’m sure she’d pick up a nice redundancy package but M has no plans of giving up her title just yet.  She’s called upon her most loyal agent, James Bond (Craig), to discover who is behind the attacks on MI6 so that she can restore the public’s credibility in the organisation she has long helmed.

Sam Mendes is a gifted filmmaker but he was a curious choice to director Skyfall given his background has been in critically acclaimed dramas such as Road To Perdition, Revolutionary Road and American Beauty (which won him an Oscar in 2000).  Burned with the weight of public expectation and the pressure of $150m budget, Mendes has delivered!  There’s a “style” about this film that elevates it above a traditional Bond flick.

It feels odd saying this about a James Bond movie but what impressed me most was the cinematography from 9-time Academy Award nominee Roger Deakins (The Shawshank Redemption, No Country For Old Men).  His work is highlighted by a beautifully shot action scene atop a Shanghai office building that uses reflected light to great effect.  Can someone please give this guy an Oscar before it’s too late?

Daniel Craig is again superb with his portrayal of Bond as a man who looks cool, calm and collected on outside but does have a few insecurities on the inside.  Judi Dench gets a lot more screen time than you might expect and is also terrific.  The playful banter between Dench and Craig is great and credit belongs with the screenwriting team.

Ben Wishaw (Bright Star) deserves a mention as stylishly dressed Q, the man within MI6 who provides Bond with his firepower and necessary gadgets.  The moment where he meets Bond for the first time will leave you smiling.  The character you’re most likely to remember though is the villain.  We don’t meet him until about half-way through the film but Javier Bardem (No Country For The Old Men) brings a camp-ness to the role that will surprise.

There’s a running theme throughout Skyfall about old versus new.  This is the longest running movie franchise in history (with 23 films over 50 years) and it’s a nice touch to see this added to the screenplay.  I don’t want to spoil too much but you’ll get the picture once you see the weaponry and cars that are used.  The plot involving M being replaced and Bond being past his prime also fits suitably within this message.

My excitement and enthusiasm started to wear off a little in the film’s second half and more could have been made of the finale but this is still one of the best Bond films ever made.  I can’t wait to see what they come up with next!

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 30 October 2012

The early stages of End Of Watch reminded me of an episode of Cops.  We’re following around two police officers, Brian (Gyllenhaal) and Mike (Pena), as they uphold the law on the streets of Los Angeles.  We see the action from an array of carefully placed cameras that create the feel of a documentary.  There are cameras attached to their shirts and affixed to their car.  Brian even has a handheld camera that he’s carrying around as a training development tool.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 05 November 2012

The Sessions takes us inside a world that only a small few would be familiar with.  It’s based on the true story of Mark O’Brien (Hawkes) – a 38-year-old man who has been paralysed from the neck down, due to the effects of polio, since he was a young child.  He relies heavily on an iron lung to survive and requires constant care.

The premise centres on Mark’s hopes to lose his virginity.  He’s never had a girlfriend and he’s never had an intimate contact with a woman.  That’s about to change.  Thanks to the advice from a good friend, Mark has been given the details of woman who can help.  Her name is Cheryl (Hunt) and she’s a professional sex surrogate.

It’s a job that I was previously aware of.  Cheryl isn’t a prostitute – a point she makes clear at the very start of their sessions together.  Her role is to teach Mark the “basics” and to help him explore his sexual potential.  He will then the confidence and experience to increase his sexual activity in the future.

Writer-director Ben Lewin has made the decision to position the film somewhere between the comedic and dramatic genres.... and it works.  If you were to hear Mark’s story from a complete stranger, you might think of it as a terrible tragedy.  This is a guy who has almost no quality of life.  He spends every moment confined to a bed and struggling to breathe.  Not once has he experienced the sensation of an orgasm.

Mark has found a way to deal with the situation as best he can – by having a sense of humour about it.  He’s not afraid to make a joke and he seems to take great pleasure in stirring a local priest (Macy) with whom he has become friends.  Mark enjoys putting him to the test by asking what God would think of his use of a sex surrogate.

There’s another side to this story however.  We also see things from Cheryl’s perspective and it gives us an insight into this tricky profession.  She needs to establish trust with her clients and help them deal with problems that they’ve long suppressed.  At the same time, she has to be careful not to get too close from an emotional perspective.  It’s not easy.

The Sessions premiered at the Sundance Film Festival back in January and the performances have been talked up as “awards worthy” ever since.  John Hawkes (Winter’s Bone) is excellent in the leading role and deftly illustrates his character’s deep insecurities.  Hunt is also very good with her soothing voice and comforting disposition.  The scenes they share in bed together are both awkward and humorous.

The film skirts around a few issues and its look into Cheryl’s home life is a good example.  We see small glimpses of her interacting with her husband and son but they don’t offer as much as you’d expect.  As the priest, William H. Macy’s character could have also used a little more depth.  He pops in and out of the story for the sole purpose of proving a few laughs.

It can’t match the emotive power of films such as The Sea Inside and The Diving Bell & The Butterfly but The Sessions is still a nicely told story that makes you appreciate the things we take for granted.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 28 October 2012

I found an entry on Wikipedia that lists the feature films that most frequently use the “F-word”.  Excluding a documentary on the subject matter (yes, one exists), the top entry is Gutterballs (with 625 uses) followed by Summer Of Sam, Nil By Mouth and Casino.  It’s amusing to see another of this week’s cinema releases, End Of Watch, in the top 10.

I didn’t attempt to count the F-bombs in Housos Vs. Authority but if someone has the patience to do so, I’d be curious to know the final number.  It feels like none of these characters can complete a sentence without uttering the word.  It’s repetitive to the point of being infuriating.  While the film won’t be winning any awards of any kind, it will at least earn a high ranking when that Wikipedia article is next updated.

The story is set in the fictitious suburb of Sunnyvale, regarded as the worst place to live in Australia.  We follow a few of the foul-mouthed, dim-witted residents (known as Housos) who enjoy their bludgy lifestyle and do whatever it takes to avoid any real responsibility.

To give you a flavour for this film’s style of “comedy”, their adventures include (1) consuming illegal drugs, (2) attacking police officers and destroying their cars, (3) starting unnecessary brawls, (4) falsely claiming welfare from Centrelink, and (5) defacing national landmarks.  They’re just a great bunch of people (note: sarcasm).

While watching this film, I thought of the politically incorrect musings of Sacha Baron Cohen in films such as Borat, Bruno and The Dictator.  His comedy is designed to be provocative and offensive… but there’s often an underlying subtext and a point he is trying to make.  There’s a great scene late in The Dictator where he draws comparisons between a Middle Eastern dictatorship and the United States.

The problem with Housos Vs. Authority is that I don’t understand its point.  Is it supposed to be celebrating the lifestyle of these bogans?  Should I happy that these lazy, offensive bums stand up to the “shackles” of authority and get away with it?  Is flashing one’s tits in public the true answer to life’s problems?

The film is a spin off from the 9-episode television series that aired on SBS in late 2011.  The show generated its fair share of controversy and it led to a petition being presented to the New South Wales Parliament to have the show banned.  I don’t advocate censorship and I’m more than happy for the show to be seen but again, I have questions – who watches this show and who finds it funny?

Even if I could find a way to admire this film for its attack on political correctness, the tiresome nature of the comedy wears thin very quickly.   It’s just the same easy jokes over and over again.  Cameos from the likes of Angry Anderson, Barry Crocker and Chopper Read couldn’t save it for me.  Fans of the TV series (whoever you are) can check it out but everyone else can steer clear.  Watching the two-minute trailer is bad enough.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 04 November 2012

The Master marks the sixth film of the brilliant writer-director Paul Thomas Anderson (Magnolia, There Will Be Blood) and it is perhaps his most inaccessible to the wider public.  Anderson himself has said that “there’s not a lot of plot but hopefully we make up for it with an abundance of character.” 

I can’t believe I’m making this comparison but Anderson’s approach reminds me of the Big Brother television series.  There’s no strict narrative.  Rather, we simply watch the characters go about their day-to-day lives.  That’s not to say that it’s boring.  It’s just that our focus is different.  Instead of wondering what’s going to happen next in the story… our focus is on the characters and trying to understand who they are and what they’re thinking.

Part of my fascination with The Master is that it centres on such an aimless character.  Set in the early 1950s, Freddie Quell (Phoenix) is a solider who served in World War II and is struggling to assimilate back into society.  He has no friends, he can’t hold down a job and he has no interest in being social.  The only two things on his mind would appear to be sex and alcohol.

Roaming the streets late one night, he sees a lively party being held on a moored yacht.  He sneaks onboard and meets Lancaster Dodd (Hoffman), a published author and leader of a small philosophical movement.  The centre point of Dodd’s teachings is a technique known as “processing”.  He will ask someone a series of questions and then use the information to reveal details about their prior lives.

Dodd senses that Freddie has “wandered from the proper path” and takes him under his wing.  There’s an intense moment early in the film where Freddie submits himself to “processing” and Dodd tries to unlock his past.  It’s the first chapter in an ongoing battle between these two.

There are scenes that show us the bizarre nature of mind controlling cults.  There are scenes that highlight the difficulty of a solider coming back from war.  As I’ve alluded to above, that’s not what the film is really about though.  At its heart, The Master is a two hour journey that explores the relationship between Freddie and Dodd.

Why is the directionless Freddie allowing himself to be subjected to Dodd’s manipulative teachings?  Is it because he’s in search of a father figure?  It is because he’s mentally unstable?  Why does Dodd keep Freddie around, despite the misgivings of his wife (Adams) and close friends?  Does he see him as the ultimate challenge?  Does he enjoy the sense of the control?  These are questions you will ask yourself as opposed to the traditional “how will this story end?”

The Master is the first major film to be shot using 65mm film since Kenneth Branagh’s Hamlet back in 1996.  It involved using cameras that were decades old and with the support of cinematographer Mihai Malaimare Jr (Youth Without Youth), Anderson has created a beautiful looking film that comes with a 1950s feel.  Jonny Greenwood’s moody, uneasy score further enhances the experience.

Joaquin Phoenix (Gladiator) and long-time Anderson collaborator Philip Seymour Hoffman (Capote) have been touted as Oscar contenders for good reason.  The film draws much strength from the exceptional performances of both Phoenix and Hoffman and the riveting interplay between their characters.

You could argue there a few unnecessary scenes during the final 45 minutes but The Master is still an engrossing character study that again demonstrates the talents of Paul Thomas Anderson.

You can read my interview with Paul Thomas Anderson by clicking here.