Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 21 March 2012

I should start with a disclaimer – please note that Matthew Toomey has not read the books.  It seems everyone else has (well, at least judging from Twitter) but alas, I haven’t been able to squeeze them into my hectic schedule.  Do not despair however.  I took a well-read fan with me to the Brisbane premiere to make sure that I covered both perspectives.  Funnily enough, we both wound up with the same conclusion.

Now that the Harry Potter and Twilight franchises have reached their conclusion, The Hunger Games is trying to fill the void and become “the next big thing” in the teen movie market.  It certainly has the potential to do so and I’m a big fan of the concept.

If you haven’t seen the trailer (which has been shown before every movie in the past 3 months), the story revolves around a futuristic world that consists of 12 districts and a controlling capital city.  Every year, the poor districts are ordered by the wealthy Capitol to choose one boy and one girl for the annual Hunger Games.

As you’ll see from the opening scenes, this is not a competition you want to be selected for.  The 24 teenagers chosen are placed inside a life-like arena and they must fight to the death.  Only one can be left standing at the end.  Every moment is televised and the public can watch and place bets from the comfort of their homes.  To further spice things up, generous sponsors and cunning game controllers have the power to influence the result by changing the conditions inside the arena.  It’s like a deadly version of The Truman Show.

The central character in The Hunger Games is a strong-willed 16-year-old named Katniss Everdeen (Lawrence).  The name of her younger sister was drawn from the dreaded glass bowl but Katniss has made the ultimate sacrifice and volunteered to take her place.  She will be joined by Peeta Mellark (Hutcherson) as the two representatives from the coal mining District 12.

On arrival at the Capitol, the competitors go through a rigorous training and grooming program in preparation for the Games.  This isn’t because the organiser’s are nice.  Rather, it’s because they want to turn the games into a huge spectacle that captivates those in the Capitol and instils fear amongst those in the districts.  The competitors even appear on a talk show where they try to promote their skills and help lure sponsors.

The opening half of this film is the most interesting.  It wastes no time getting started and you’ll be quickly immersed into this strange world.  There are some terrific conversation-driven pieces that explain the purpose of the Hunger Games and the best strategy to be adopted by those competing.  There’s a particularly good scene where Jennifer Lawrence and Josh Hutcherson sit on the window ledge and open up about their worries.

You’ll also be struck by the sets, make up and costume design.  Director Gary Ross (Pleasantville, Seabiscuit) has worked closely with author Suzanne Collins to bring this story to life.  From the décor in the luxurious apartments to the little curls at the end of Wes Bentley’s beard, this is a film with a strong visual footprint.

As we all know, the problem with any book adaptation is trying to work out how to condense all the material into the running length of a feature film.  The approach adopted by screenwriting team in this instance seems to be an aggressive one – they’ve tried to cover as much as possible.  I’m not sure it works and it felt like we were rushing through several key scenes (particularly the ending) to squeeze it all in.

My other major qualm was with the downplaying of the violence.  You’ll see a quick shot of someone getting stabbed but the camera then pulls away as if not to confront the audience.  I realise this is unavoidable (to ensure an M rating in Australia) but I have to say it.  It lessens the film’s emotional impact and you don’t get a strong enough sense of the brutal nature of the competition (which I believe comes through in the novel).

It’s far from perfect but The Hunger Games is still a good film with a well chosen cast.  I’m very excited about the prospects of this series going forward.  A few subplots are deliberately left unresolved to generate interest in the next film.  For those who won’t be able to wait that long (such as myself), a trip to the bookstore will be necessary.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 12 March 2012

J.C. Chandor graduated from college in 1996 and spent the first decade of his career directing commercials and music videos.  He’d tried to make the move into feature films without success.  Looking for a fresh start, he gave up on his filmmaking dreams and decided to enter the property market.  He spent three years transforming a commercial building in New York City into residential apartments.

I know how this story ends… and it’s hard not to smile.  I love rooting for the underdog.  Inspired by the 2008 global financial crisis and his own experiences with the real estate industry, a reinvigorated Chandor had the perfect idea for a movie.  Margin Call is the end result.  It premiered at the Sundance Film Festival in January 2011 and it has been showered with praise ever since.  Chandor’s amazing journey culminated with a nomination for best original screenplay at last month’s Academy Awards.

It’s a subject matter close to my heart (so I’m a little biased) but Margin Call is a riveting drama that looks at 36 hours in the life of a huge investment bank that is on the brink of collapse.  The trouble begins when a young analyst (Quinto) takes a close look at some financial projections left to him by his ex-boss (Tucci).  The picture they paint is far from rosy.

Instead of confusing the audience with “financial speak”, Chandor finds a humorous way of informing the audience about the situation.  It begins when the Chief Executive Officer (Irons) calls a late-night meeting of his senior executives.  He asks the analyst to “explain it to me if I were a 6-year-old child or a golden retriever.”  He is paid more than $80m a year but it’s clear that he doesn’t know the intricacies of the business.

The analyst puts forward his bleak scenario.  The firm has invested in a large number of dodgy financial products which are almost worthless.  The only way of saving the company will be to offload them to unsuspecting investors before anyone is the wiser.  Tired and stressed, the executives have only a few hours to reflect on the gravity of the moment.  Any decision they make is likely to have huge consequences.

Margin Call features some of they year’s best dialogue.  The highlight for me was a scene in a car where senior trader Paul Bettany justifies the questionable actions of the firm to a young risk analyst played by Penn Badgley.  He talks about whether “fairness” is something that can ever be truly achieved and it will leave you with much to reflect upon.

With a script void of shouting matches and preachy monologues, J.C. Chandor makes the brave decision not to demonise these characters.  It’d be easy to portray them as greedy “monsters” without a single ounce of moral fibre.  Instead, he shows them as level-headed human beings who must decide if they should they put their own interests ahead of others.  In the end, you still may not like these guys… but that’s a conclusion that you should reach on your own.

It may be his first feature film but J.C. Chandor has pulled together an impressive ensemble cast.  Considering the film’s total budget was less than $4m, I’m guessing they all worked at rates well below their normal asking price.  Their participation is a testament to the sharp, intelligent script and they all get a chance to shine.  Not a single scene is wasted.

It’s only receiving a limited release in Australian cinemas but Margin Call is not to be missed.  It’s an engrossing, informative piece of cinema.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 21 March 2012

Put simply, The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel is an intertwined group of short stories about some elderly British folk who go on a holiday to India.  They’re all there for different reasons.  Muriel (Smith) needs a medical operation, Graham (Wilkinson) has gone in search of an old friend, Evelyn (Dench) is looking for fresh start, Madge (Imrie) seeks a wealthy husband, Norman (Pickup) is after romance and Douglas (Nighy) and Jean (Wilton) are simply on a holiday.

They’re all in for a surprise as the hotel looks nothing like the brochure.  It’s filthy!  Jean guests walks into their bedroom to find a flock of birds has made a home there.  Coupled with the fact that there are no other guests and the hotel is on the verge on financial ruin, it looks like being the trip from hell.

It takes a little while for them to size up the situation but in the end, they decide to make the most of it.  Well, that’s everyone except for Jean who refuses to leave the comfort of her hotel.  The rest discover some of India’s wonderful sights and interact with a few of the locals.  It gives them all a fresh perspective on what is a very interesting part of the world.

The film’s biggest asset is its stellar cast.  Bill Nighy, Judi Dench, Tom Wilkinson, Celia Imrie, Ronald Pickup and Penelope Wilton are all very good.  They don’t have the strongest of scripts to work with but they all generate the charm necessary to win the affections of the audience.

I haven’t mentioned Maggie Smith yet… but that’s because I wanted to single her out.  The 77-year-old was my pick of the cast as a politically incorrect woman who is slowly won over by the country’s culture.  You always know that’s going to happen but it’s the humour that Smith brings to the character that makes her so endearing.

Despite the strong performances, the film does feel stuffy with its forced, predictable storyline.  There’s not a lot of depth to any of the characters (most could be described as stereotypes) and the plot meanders along with few surprises.  I was also disappointed that we didn’t get to see more of the Indian landscape.  The characters talk about their amazing experiences but too much time is spent within the confines of the dingy hotel.

The forced ending didn’t win me over either.  I’ve nothing against happy, feel-good finales but considering the complicated lead up, it’s hard to believe some of the subplots resolve themselves so neatly.  It’s clear that director John Madden (Shakespeare In Love) wants us to leave the cinema with a smile on our face.  I personally think he’s tried a little too hard.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 07 March 2012

Swedish cinema has taken off in recent years with the success of films such As It Is In Heaven, Let The Right One In and the Girl With The Dragon Tattoo franchise.  Perhaps the time has come for their next-door neighbours in to find a place on the world’s cinematic stage.

Headhunters has come to us from Norway but it’s been packaged as a slick, commercial thriller.  Roger Brown (Hennie) has forged a successful career in the job recruitment industry.  With his hard earned cash, he has bought a spacious home and plenty of expensive gifts for his beautiful wife (Brown).

Well, that’s not entirely true.  I think we all know that the recruitment industry isn’t quite that lucrative.  Roger makes most of his money as an art thief.  He doesn’t quite have the charm as Pierce Brosnan in The Thomas Crown Affair but Roger is still a smart man.  He sneaks into people’s homes, replaces their valuable paintings with forgeries, and then sells them on the black market before anyone is the wiser.

Roger’s next job will be his last.  If he can pull it off, he’ll have more than enough money to retire.  If he is caught, he’s likely to be spending many years behind bars.  The target is a painting that could fetch as much as $100m.  It is currently being kept in the home of a former mercenary who has recently moved into the area.

There are plenty of twists and turns in this tale.  To be honest, there are too many.  The first act left me intrigued but as the story progressed, it became less and less believable.  Perhaps they’ve been constrained by the novel (on which the film is based) but my first reaction on leaving the cinema was that the screenwriters have tried too hard to outsmart the audience.  It’s an “ok” film but it had the potential for something better.

As further proof that Hollywood has run out of ideas, an American remake has been floated for Headhunters.  Mark Wahlberg mentioned in a recent interview that he would love to take the leading role if the remake goes ahead.  With a few tweaks to the script, I’m confident that an English-language version would do nicely at the box-office.

If you’re allergic to subtitles, I’d suggest you wait for the remake.  For everyone else, Headhunters is now in cinemas.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 14 March 2012

I wasn’t a huge fan when I first saw it… but Terry Gilliam’s Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas is a film that I have now watched many times.  It was adapted from Hunter S. Thompson’s autobiographical novel and followed two guys on a drug-fuelled bender in Las Vegas.  It helped inspire a part of my own recent holiday in the United States.  Travelling with two friends, we hired a convertible in Los Angeles, pulled down the roof and set off for the glittering lights of Vegas.

When the film was released back in 1998, Thompson released another book – The Rum Diary.  He’d written it back in the 1960s but wasn’t able to find a publisher at the time.  The story is based on his own experiences whilst trying to forge a career as a journalist in San Juan, Puerto Rico in 1960.  It’s a lot tamer than Fear And Loathing but fans of Hunter S. Thompson will be keen to see it.

The central character is named Paul Kemp (once again played by Johnny Depp) and he has accepted a position as a sports reporter for a struggling newspaper.  Kemp’s initial excitement quickly wears off.  He learns that he was the only applicant for the position and that the company is likely to go bust before the year is out.  It’s an organisation filled with tired writers who are well past their prime.

On his first day at the paper, Kemp meets Hal Sanderson (Eckhart), a wealthy businessman with a stunning beach-side home and a gorgeous girlfriend (Heard).  Sanderson is particularly friendly – not because he’s a nice guy but rather, because he has ulterior motives.  He needs Kemp and his journalistic skills to help promote a multi-million dollar business proposal.

It’s all a huge learning curve for Kemp.  There’s a lot of dodgy stuff going on in San Juan and he’s not quite sure what to do about it.  Part of him wants to publish stories in the paper, against the wishes of his boss (Jenkins), highlighting the heavy American influence within the country.  And the other part of him?  Well, he wants to be drinking rum, partying hard and seducing beautiful women.

The Rum Diary is a little too long at 120 minutes but it’s still nice to something new from the creative mind of Hunter S. Thompson (who passed away back in 2005).  Johnny Depp is great but Michael Rispoli (Kick-Ass) turns in the film’s best performance as the newspaper’s jaded photographer.

The film’s biggest weakness seems to be its screenplay.  For the most part, it’s just plodding along with the occasional dash of humour.  Perhaps I’d set the bar too high after Fear And Loathing In Las Vegas but I was expecting something with a bit more of an edge.