Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 25 June 2011

Terrence Malick.  Hearing that name in any sentence fills me with intrigue.  It’s not because he’s one of the world’s most highly regarded directors (having made The Thin Red Line, Days Of Heaven and Badlands).  Rather, it’s because he’s such a recluse.  He doesn’t turn up at premieres, he doesn’t turn up on talk shows and he doesn’t turn up at award ceremonies.  His last public interview was in 1973.

I’ve heard that he’s shy but perhaps it’s part of a grand plan.  A friend summed it up best when he said “privacy is the new celebrity”.  Knowing so little about Malick only heightens our interest in his movies.  When you throw in the fact that he filmed The Tree Of Life in 2008 and then spent close to three years in the editing room, it’s no surprise that the buzz was electric when it premiered at the Cannes Film Festival last month.

It’s at this point of the review that I need to throw out a warning.  Yes, the film won the top prize at Cannes and yes, the film stars Brad Pitt and Sean Penn.  HOWEVER, do not under any circumstances think that this is a movie for the mainstream public.  Many will be dissatisfied because (1) there is no coherent plot, and (2) Brad Pitt couldn’t be any less sexy.  I hope cinemas are adopting a “no refunds” policy or else there could be a sudden rush to the exit at about the 30 minute mark.

I saw The Tree Of Life with two learned friends and we debated it for a solid hour afterwards over dinner.  This statement alone makes it a very unique film-going experience.  How often does a movie come along with the power to generate so much discussion?

Everyone is entitled to their opinion but for what it’s worth (and it may not be much), let me add my two cents through this review.  The Tree Of Life is a film without a traditional narrative.  Instead of telling us a conventional story, Malick has provided a series of fragmented scenes to leave us reflecting on our life, our own loves and our own stories.

We are prompted through striking imagery, a beautiful soundtrack and strong religious overtones.  There’s one lengthy sequence where we go back to the beginning of time and see how the world was created.  Not a single word is spoken during this part – it’s just music and visuals.  There are other scenes shot in a modern day setting that show a middle aged man (Penn) looking lost as he goes about the monotony of his daily routine.

The crux of the film is set in 1950s Texas and loosely centres on a boy (McCracken) growing up under the guidance of his strict father (Pitt) and his nurturing mother (Chastain).  There are moments when he rebels against his parents and gets into trouble.  There are other moments where he shows a softer side and is there to support his two younger brothers.

Whilst it’s wonderful to see a filmmaker trying to pull off such an ambitious project, I confess to being disappointed by The Tree Of Life.  There are some touching scenes between father and son but the rest of the film felt too heavy-handed.  Did we need the endless number of shots looking up at the sun?  Did we need the random quotes that were whispered by the actors?  Did we need to go back to an age when dinosaurs existed?

Cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki recently revealed that the first cut of the film was 8 hours long.  He said Malick was working on a 6 hour version that will be released soon.  I don’t know if I should be excited or terrified.  This 2 hour version was exhausting enough but perhaps a longer version might help the “story” flow a little better.

Based on other reviews I’ve read, it looks like The Tree Of Life will feature in many top 10 lists at year end.  Not mine though.  Perhaps I just didn’t get it.  I really wish I could ask Terrence Malick a few questions.  Does anyone have his phone number?

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 13 June 2011

It’s become an annual tradition.  Each year, the same group of friends leave their busy lives in Paris and go on a holiday together.  One of them owns a nice beach house and it’s the perfect venue to drink, eat and be merry.  They sit on the back deck and tell stories until the wee hours.

Things are different this year however.  A member of the regular group, Ludo, was recently involved in a horrific motorcycle accident.  Badly disfigured and unable to speak, he’s now recuperating in the intensive care unit of a Parisian hospital.

The others debate whether they should go ahead with the holiday.  Is it right to be relaxing and celebrating while one of their best friends is suffering so badly?  After much debate, they agree to go on a shortened trip.  They figure there isn’t much they can do for Ludo at the moment and so they’ll go on a two week holiday and then be back to spend time with him before they all go their separate ways.

The title of this film should give you a fairly good idea what it’s all about.  These people have secrets they do not wish to share and problems they do not wish to confront.  Ah, but now that they’re all spending two weeks couped up in the same house, things will slowly come out into the open.

It’s too long at 154 minutes but Little White Lies is a thought-provoking French drama.  As I left the theatre and starting walking to my car, many thoughts were rattling around in my mind.  The movie has a lot to say about people in the 21^st century and our self-centred behaviour.  How much do we really care about our friends and family?  Or are we more interested in our own appearance, possessions and social status?

The film features a string of quality performances, headlined by Francois Cluzet (Tell No One, French Kiss) and Marion Cotillard (La Vie en Rose, Inception).  Cluzet plays a wealthy restaurant owner who can’t seem to get past his controlling tendencies.  He often uses his wealth and power to asset authority over others.  Cotillard plays a vulnerable young woman who exudes charm but has a deep-seeded fear of commitment.  When her latest boyfriend calls to say that he’s coming down to visit, she’s running scared.

Some of the film’s themes are a touch overdone but I’d strongly recommend this for lovers of great French cinema.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 21 June 2011

In the last Kung Fu Panda flick, Po (Black) mastered the art of kung fu and defeated an evil snow leopard.  This time around, there’s a new adversary – a peacock named Shen (Oldman).  He has plans for world domination and so goes on a bizarre mission to eliminate our cuddly panda and rid the world of kung fu.

It’s going to be a challenging assignment for Po and the other members of the Furious Five.  He sums it up when he asks “how can kung fu stop something that stops kung fu?”  To find the answers, Po takes the advice of Master Shifu (Hoffman) and goes in search of inner peace.

There’s another element to this story and that’s Po’s quest to learn the identity of his parents.  Not longer after he was born, Po was left in a crate near the back of a noodle restaurant.  He was found by a loveable goose named Mr. Ping (my favourite character in the movie) and raised as his own.  Po wants to know what happened to his family and why he was abandoned.

I really enjoyed the first film but I felt a tad underwhelmed by this sequel.  It focuses too heavily on flashy action sequences and lacks the amusing banter that I remember fondly from the original.  Part of my love for Kung Fu Panda was the character development of the relationship between Po and Master Shifu.  Sadly, we don’t get that this time around and Master Shifu has been strangely shoved into the background.

I also believe that too much screen time has been devoted to the new enemy.  I’m sorry but a nasty peacock voiced by Gary Oldman just doesn’t do it for me.  I didn’t find Shen threatening or intimidating at all.  The way he kept escaping with nonchalant ease was tiring.  It’s like watching Dr Claw in an episode of Inspector Gadget.  I realise this is an animated family flick but I wish the writers had of come up with something a little more suspenseful.

Turning to the positives… the quality of animation is top-notch once again.  The 3D effects are superfluous but that seems to be the case with every animated flick these days (and I don’t want to sound like a broken record).  Jack Black charms the audience as Po and he has enough one-liners to keep you chuckling.

Tracking well behind the original film at the box-office in the United States, perhaps this is a franchise with a limited shelf life.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 12 June 2011

I recently had to fill out an application form to obtain online access for a work bank account.  As part of the process, I was asked to provide answers to a few security questions (in case I ever forgot my password).  One of the questions was – “what is the name of your best friend?”  It certainly left me thinking.  Do I have someone in particular who I would consider a “best” friend?  Or do I just have a group of really great friends, with no standout?

This very same question is explored with comedic effect in Bridesmaids.  Lillian (Rudolph) is engaged to be married and she has asked Annie (Wiig) to be her maid of honour.  The two have been close friends since they were kids and have always shared their inner-most thoughts and secrets.  Unfortunately, with Lillian moving to a new city, they no longer get to see each other very often.

As the wedding preparations begin, Annie suddenly finds herself competing for Lillian’s attention.  It’s not the groom who is getting in the way.  Rather, it’s one of Lillian’s new work colleagues, Helen (Byrne).  Helen comes from a very wealthy family and has been spending a lot of time with Lillian over the past few months.

The fireworks begin during the speeches at the engagement party.  Annie steps up and delivers a short, simple toast.  Helen then steps to the stage and goes one better – delivering a heartfelt account of the bond between herself and Lillian.  Annie then returns to the stage… and, well… you can probably see where this is going.  Both are trying to outdo the other and prove that they’re Lillian’s true best friend.  The awkwardness of the situation will leave some audience members laughing hysterically and others cringing with horror.

It’s a contest that Annie wishes she wasn’t involved in.  She’s got enough problems as it is.  Annie lost all her savings in an unsuccessful cake shop business and she’s now living with two rude, inconsiderate flatmates.  Her love life is perhaps the biggest mess.  She’s current seeing a guy (Hamm) who isn’t even remotely interested in a long-term relationship.

Bridesmaids has been aptly described as “The Hangover for women”.  Spurred on by strong word of mouth, the film has pulled in more than $100m at the U.S. box-office in its first 4 weeks.  That’s not bad for a film with no big name actors!  I’m sure many will see it for its gross-out moments but I was more impressed with how the film captures the fragility of its imperfect characters.

It’s the first time we’ve seen Kristen Wiig (Paul, Whip It) in a leading role and she is fantastic.  Annie is a sweet girl and you want her to be happy but it’s hard to feel too sympathetic given so many of her problems are self-inflicted.  The film’s other memorable performance comes from Melissa McCarthy as Megan, sister of the husband-to-be and a member of the bridal party.  She gets the best of the lines and is funny throughout the entire movie.

The film’s only weakness is its length.  It’s not often we see a comedy clock in at over two hours and I don’t think there was enough material to justify it in this instance.  A few of the jokes are overly drawn out and some of the subplots (such as the annoying flatmates) didn’t seem to add much value.

With plenty of laughs for both guys and girls, Bridesmaids is going to please a lot of people.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 19 June 2011

It is a great honour for any director to have their film selected for the official competition at the Cannes Film Festival.  Roughly 20 movies are shortlisted each year and they are judged by a jury of high-profile actors and filmmakers.  The winner takes the Festival’s most lucrative prize – the Palme d’Or (or Golden Palm).

Not since Baz Luhrmann’s Moulin Rouge has an Australian film been chosen as part of the official selection.  The ten year drought was broken this year with Julia Leigh’s Sleeping Beauty earning a starting spot in the line up.  The achievement is even more impressive considering the film marks Leigh’s directorial debut.  Those on the selection committee were clearly impressed.

Unfortunately, I was not.  Sleeping Beauty is a tiring, emotionless experience.  I can best describe it as a film that is “all style and no substance”.  You’d be hard pressed to find anyone who could fault the beautiful set direction and the distinctive cinematography.  The lack of dialogue and music will also keep your attention focused.

My problem with the movie is that I don’t know what it’s trying to say.  It feels like it wants to be some kind of classy, plot-driven porno in the same vein as Stanley Kubrick’s Eyes Wide Shut.  I kept waiting for something interesting to happen but that moment never presented itself.  The closing credits started rolling, murmurs were heard from those around me and I left the cinema with a bewildered look on my face.

It centres on a young university student named Lucy (Browning) who is struggling to make ends meet.  She accepts a job with a secretive escort agency that specialises in fulfilling people’s fetishes and fantasies.  Lucy’s not quite sure what she’s got herself into but getting paid $250 an hour is an opportunity too attractive to pass up.

For her first assignment, Lucy turns up a lavish mansion, changes into revealing white lingerie and then serves drinks to a group of elderly, well-dressed men.  As this goes on, other scantily clothed women walk around and sit on the floor for “decorative purposes”.  It’s just the start of a series of very bizarre events.

What’s the point though?  Is this supposed to open my eyes to a mysterious world that is kept from public view?  Am I meant to feel sorry for this sweet, innocent girl and the way in which she has been corrupted?  Should I be shocked and aroused by all the nudity?  I don’t know the answer.

The strange plot and equally strange direction makes it hard to feel anything for these characters.  There are only so many times I can watch Lucy photocopy papers in an office or clean tables in a café.  Perhaps the most confusing element is her sick friend and the numerous times she visits his house.

I can remember a cinema owner once telling me that no matter how much I dislike a movie, there’s always someone out there who will like it.  He’s right and I always try to reflect that in my reviews by identifying the target audience.  I’m sorry but I’m not sure what to say in the case of Sleeping Beauty.  As a critic, consider me both deflated and defeated.