Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 13 November 2011

Australian director Jonathan Teplitzky is putting together an impressive resume.  I was a huge fan of his debut feature, Better Than Sex, and equally enjoyed his follow up, Gettin’ Square.  Both films earned him an AFI Award nomination for best director and I strongly suggest you track them down if you haven’t seen them already.

After an eight year absence from the big screen, Teplitzky has returned with Burning Man.  He has described it as a very “personal film” because he has drawn heavily from his own life experiences in putting together the screenplay.  His partner, costume designer Amanda Lovejoy, died roughly 10 years ago from breast cancer.

Teplitzky hasn’t set out to make a sentimental tear-jerker.  Do not go along thinking you’re in for a remake of Terms Of Endearment.  You’ll realise from the very opening scene – that of star Matthew Goode masturbating in front of a prostitute – that Burning Man is a far more challenging filmgoing experience.

It’s most obvious trait is an extremely fragmented narrative.  Instead of going from point A to point B in a straight line, Teplitzky takes us there through a myriad of roundabouts and u-turns.  We jump back and forth in the timeline and it will take audiences a little while to get a clear picture of the story and its characters.  You’ll need to be paying attention all the way through.

The style illustrates the psyche of the leading character – a chef named Tom (Goode) who is trying to overcome the death of his wife (Novakovic) whilst faced with the responsibility of raising his young son on his own.  It’s a situation he’s struggling to deal with and his reckless actions illustrate that fact.  None of Tom’s friends want to criticise however – they excuse his erratic behaviour as part of the grieving process.  It effectively gives him a leave pass to do whatever he wants.

I’ve a hunch the film’s fragmented nature will frustrate some viewers but the remainder should see this as a powerful piece of cinema.  The death of a loved one is a topic often explored on the big screen but Burning Man finds a way of telling it in a realistic and heartfelt manner.  It came as no surprise to see it selected at the Toronto Film Festival for its world premiere.

Matthew Goode (A Single Man, Match Point) delivers a wonderful performance as Tom.  He’s a character that you want to sympathise with but he makes it difficult with some of his not-so-likeable outbursts.  It left me wondering how I’d reaction if a friend found himself in a similar state.  Do you give them space and let them “get it out of their system” or do you haul them into line?  Perhaps buying a ticket to see this movie would be a good start.

You can read my interview with director Jonathan Teplitzsky by clicking here.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 02 November 2011

Anonymous puts forward a curious theory – William Shakespeare was not one of history’s greatest storytellers.  The plays and sonnets that carry his name were actually written by a man born into royalty – the Earl of Oxford.

The reason Oxford didn’t want his name attached was because they were part of a cunning plan to cause division within the English monarchy.  Queen Elizabeth had grown old and there was much speculation about who would succeed her on the throne.  Oxford was worried that she was being overly influenced by her chief adviser, William Cecil, who wanted to see a Scotsman next wear the crown.

Many of the plays featured political messages and Oxford hoped that it would subtly turn the public against Cecil and his henchmen.  The reference is made early in the film that this is a fight that can be won with words as opposed to swords.

Perhaps there is an element of truth in this tale but director Roland Emmerich makes it very hard to believe with this muddled story.  The film begins in the 21^st Century with Derek Jacobi standing on a stage and giving us a quick history lesson.  I’m not sure what purpose this serves.

We are then whisked back into Shakespearean times for a lengthy and confusing introduction.  Writer John Orloff has tried to tell this tale using a mix of flash backs and flash forwards.  It doesn’t work.  It makes it tough to identify each character and work out their role in the larger story.  Not helping matters is the fact that for both Queen Elizabeth and the Earl of Oxford, two different actors play the role – one for the “young” version and one for their “old” version.

I’ve had the luxury of seeing Anonymous twice – once at the Toronto Film Festival and once here back in Brisbane.  You may ask why I wanted to see it again if I disliked it so much on a first viewing.  I’ve read a couple of positive reviews over the past few weeks and I felt it deserved another chance.  Perhaps I wasn’t in the right frame of mind when I saw it in Toronto.

I admit that I enjoyed it a touch more the second time around.  I now knew all the characters and could understand their motives from the beginning.  That was the only major improvement though.  I still disliked the finale which gets bogged down in melodrama.  Did we really need one the characters to tell the Queen just how highly regarded these plays would become?  It’s cheesy and unnecessary.

The film’s best performance is provided by Edward Hogg who plays Robert, the hunchbacked son of William Cecil.  He is a sly yet awkward individual who is trying to follow in his father’s vindictive footsteps.  Also impressive was Jamie Campbell Bower (Sweeney Todd) as the young Earl of Oxford.  I didn’t know what to make of Rafe Spall as William Shakespeare.  He plays him as such a silly oaf that it’s hard to believe that anyone though him responsible for these plays.

Clocking in at just over two hours, Anonymous moves along at a surprisingly brisk pace.  This is an interesting story but it’s just a shame it hasn’t been told a little better.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 08 November 2011

Not a single “Christmas themed” film was released during the festival season in Australia last year.  The gaping hole has quickly been filled in 2011 with two movies being released over the space of a fortnight – Santa’s Apprentice and Arthur Christmas.

Santa’s Apprentice is a unique animated film in the sense that it’s been financed by companies in both Australia and France.  Between them, they’ve tried to come up with a movie that could appeal to audiences in both countries.

There are actually two versions of the film in existence – one with French voices and one with Australian voices.  It makes sense given the movie is targeted squarely at young children.  Subtitles would not have worked.  Voices you’ll recognise in this Australian version include Shane Jacobson, Delta Goodrem, Georgie Parker, Hugh Sheridan and the always distinctive Magda Szubanski.

I often find myself hesitating when it comes to reviewing kid’s films.  I need to find my “inner child” and try to see the movie from a younger perspective.  If I were taking an 8 year old to see Santa’s Apprentice, would they enjoy it?

The answer I’ve come up with is… no.  The story is tricky to follow and there are hardly any laughs (for both adults and kids).  It revolves around an ageing Santa Claus who has been told it’s time to retire and hand over the reigns to someone new.  You’d think he’d be ready for a break after more than a century in the role but it turns out that this Santa is a control freak.  He even tries to sabotage the process of finding his successor.

I’m not sure why Santa is portrayed as such as a schmuck early on and this is part of the reason why I think kids will be sitting there with a blank stare on their face.  Anyway, Santa is finally forced to take on an apprentice.  He finds a young orphan named Nicholas and arranges for his trusty elf to “steal” Nicholas from the orphanage and bring him to the North Pole.  It kicks off a silly subplot where the police come in to investigate his disappearance.

Nicholas is a shy boy with a few self esteem issues.  He doesn’t think he’ll be up to the challenge of being Santa and distributing gifts to millions of kids around the world.  He has a full year to prepare however and as the time passes, he slowly starts learning the ropes.

I’m yet to see this year’s other Christmas release, Arthur Christmas, but it looks more interesting.  The characters appear to be cuter and the plot seems to have a lot more substance.  My impression has come solely from the trailer (and so I could be wrong) but if you can hold out for another two weeks, you may find Arthur Christmas offers something more entertaining for your kids.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 30 October 2011

Liz (Mortimer) is a stay-at-home mother who hasn’t had sex with her husband (Coogan) in over a year.  Miranda (Banks) is a wanna-be journalist who can’t seem to find an exclusive story to launch her career.  Natalie (Deschanel) is struggling comedian living in a small New York apartment with 6 other people.

These three sisters all have problems.  They also have, as so appropriately described in the film’s title, an idiot brother named Ned (Rudd).  His stupidity is illustrated in the film’s first scene.  A uniformed police officer comes up to his stall at an open street market and asks if he has any cannabis for sale.  You’d think the alarm bells would be ringing in Ned’s head but not so.  He hands over the weed and is promptly arrested.

On being released from prison, Ned finds himself with nowhere to live.  He was hoping to return to his “hippy” lifestyle at his girlfriend’s biodynamic farm but she’s moved on and found a new guy.  He tries moving back home with his mother but her smothering nature wears thin very quickly.

His sister’s begrudgingly offer Ned a lifeline but that doesn’t go well either.  He moves in with each one of them and in the process, turns their lives into a complete mess.  He’s not doing it deliberately but he has his uncanny knack for causing tension and brining everyone’s problems into the open.  No one wants him.  No one knows what to do with him.

Our Idiot Brother wants to be a quirky comedy but I don’t think it delivers enough laughs.  These characters and situations are all very eccentric but you won’t be laughing heartedly like in a Coen brothers movie.  The writing wasn’t sharp enough and you always have a hunch where the story is heading.  In its defence, the ending isn’t too bad and the film’s message comes through strongly.

The cast are good as opposed to great.  With his sloppy attire, ungroomed beard and lethargic nature, Rudd reminded me of Jeff Bridges’ iconic performance in The Big Lebowski.  The key difference being that Bridges was funny.  Rudd is not.  There’s a strong female presence with Emily Mortimer, Zooey Deschanel and Elizabeth Banks but again, the screenplay doesn’t ask enough from them.

Our Idiot Brother made it in the top 3 of the audience vote at the Melbourne International Film Festival (just ahead of the crowd-pleasing Red Dog) which suggests that it is tickling the funny bone of most filmgoers.  I guess I’m in the minority with this one.  It has its moments but, for the most part, I found it to be flat and disappointing.     

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 05 November 2011

We see a bunch of feel-good sporting flicks released every year.  They generally focus on an athlete or team that has hit rock bottom.  They then find some way of overcoming adversity and achieve the ultimate victory.  I’ve mentioned before that I’d love to see the reverse film made (where a successful team disintegrates) but I don’t think it’d sell as many tickets.

Whilst it doesn’t quite go that far, Moneyball is something different.  The filmmakers haven’t given in to traditional formulas.  They’re trying to pull back the curtain and show the world of baseball from a different perspective.  I read a quote from Tommy Craggs in GQ magazine that best summed up the film – “it’s Rudy meets Microsoft Excel!”

Instead of the focus being on the coaches or the players, Moneyball’s two central characters are a general manager and a statistician.  The year was 2002 and the GM for the Oakland A’s, Billy Beane (Pitt), found himself with his back against the wall.  The club was struggling financially and they had the lowest available payroll in the entire league – just $38m.  This left them well below the successful New York Yankees who had more than three-times that amount to spend.

It was a tough reality for Beane to face.  Even if the Oakland A’s could find and develop talented players, they’d likely get snapped up a year or two later but a more profitable team.  This problem isn’t as big in Australia given many of our sports have a “salary cap” but I realise how frustrating it can be.

For example, there are 20 teams that compete each year in the English Premier League football and yet just 3 teams (Manchester United, Chelsea and Arsenal) have won the title over the past 16 years.  They have the power to dominate with their huge bankroll and it must be disheartening to fans from other clubs.

Beane came across a young statistics guru (Hill) and together, they combined to change the sport.  They crafted a complicated statistical formula that could value players on the open market.  This could then be used to snap up undervalued players and pull them together to create a winning team.  This didn’t sit well with the scouts who felt the system overlooked key criteria such as injuries and confidence.  The coach (Hoffman) also rebelled against Beane and his “fortune cookie wisdom”.

How did it all end up?  Those with a close knowledge of baseball should know the answer but for those unfamiliar, I’ll let you see the movie and find out for yourself.  Keep in mind what I said earlier – it is a little different.

I admit that a movie that shines the spotlight on the “business” nature of sports could have been a tough sell to wider audiences.  In Moneyball’s instance, this argument has been countered by casting Brad Pitt in the leading role.  He’s still one of Hollywood’s most bankable actors and the film’s healthy $70m take in the United States highlights this fact.

He’s not just a pretty face.  Over the past 5 years, Pitt has crafted a resume of which any actor would be jealous – The Tree Of Life, Inglourious Basterds, The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button, Burn After Reading and Babel.  Moneyball will most likely earn him a third Academy Award nomination.  It’ll be well deserved too.  He portrays Beane as confident guy with a great sense of humour.  Equally impressive is Jonah Hill (Superbad) who proves he can make the transition from comedy to drama.

I’m a sucker for sporting flicks and I was lucky enough to attend this film’s world premiere at the Toronto Film Festival back in September.  It reeled me in very quickly with its interesting story, a few surprising twists and an unexpected number of laughs.  I’m confident that you’re going to like it!