Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 29 January 2010

Actually, popcorn is probably a bad idea.  Not just for your own physical wellbeing but because this is not exactly a “popcorn movie”.  It’s the confronting story of a 16-year-old girl named Precious (Sidibe).  To say her life is a living hell would be an understatement.  She has been raped by her father since just a child.  She is continually abused, both verbally and physically, by her mother (Mo’Nique).  She has problems with her weight and is teased at school.  She can’t even read or write.

I admit it sounds about as bleak as a movie can be and yes, there are some scenes which are tough to watch.  Director Lee Daniels wants to take the audience into a black hole of unhappiness.  He’s not doing this to torture us though.  This story is one of hope.  He wants to show that no matter how bad life is, we all have the ability to change it.  All you need are big dreams and determination.

Precious has those qualities.  Forced to leave her regular school after falling pregnant, Precious enrols at Each One / Teach One.  It’s a special education facility which tries to help troubled kids.  Guided by a passionate teacher (Patton), Precious sets herself some lofty goals.  Not only does she want to learn how to read, she wants to gain her high school diploma and go to college!  She knows that education is power.

The film has received much acclaim and its strength lies within the performances.  As the mother, Mo’Nique is unspeakably cruel and I understand why she’ll win the best supporting actress Oscar next month.  There’s a scene late in the movie where she speaks with Precious and a social worker (played nicely by Mariah Carey) that will leave a lasting impression.

Just as good is Gabourey Sidibe in the leading role.  Two years ago, she was a receptionist from Harlem with no acting experience.  She didn’t hold out much hope when she auditioned but the rest is now history.  Her quiet, restrained performance suits the character perfectly.  I also liked Paula Patton (Mirrors) as the school teacher.  There are some light hearted moments in the class room which help brighten the film’s dark undertones.

The elements of the story I didn’t like were Precious’ “dream sequences”.  They’re a distraction and I don’t know what purpose they served.  The part where Precious and her mother appear in a black and white, subtitled Italian movie was strange indeed.

Before I go, let me mention the title again – it’s Precious: Based On The Novel Push By Sapphire.  Just wanted to make sure you remember… and I also wanted to say it again myself.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 19 January 2010

In The Loop begins in London with the Minister for International Development, Simon Foster (Hollander), making a foolish “off the cuff” comment.  When asked in a radio interview about his thoughts on a possible military action in the Middle East, he responds by saying the war is “unforeseeable”.

When Malcolm Tucker (Capaldi) from the Prime Minister’s Press Office hears the interview, he’s none too pleased.  Well, that’s actually an understatement.  He storms over to Foster’s office commences a tirade of abuse at both him and his staff.  I don’t think there’s an expletive he doesn’t use.  The British Government has no plans of going to war and Foster’s remarks fully contradicted the party’s policy.

Across the Atlantic, the Americans see this as an opportunity.  The Assistant Secretary of State, Linton Barwick (Rasche), has set up a secret war committee and is drumming up support to send troops to the Middle East.  Barwick has seized on Foster’s comments and is proclaiming that the U.S. now has support from the UK government.

It’s going to get a lot messier.  There are at least a dozen characters in this ensemble and they’ve all got an agenda to push.  Who is pulling the strings?  Who ultimately has the power?  Who will make the final decision about whether to go to war?

In The Loop is an unusual film in that whilst it’s a comedy, none of the characters are likeable.  There’s no “good egg” amongst the mayhem who you’re secretly cheering for.  They’re all evil, narcissistic people.  Just when you think you might like a particular character, they’ll do something to quickly change your mind.

The first thought I had as the credits started to roll was – how much of this is true?  Does all this go on behind closed doors without the public’s knowledge?  Is politics really this bad?  Or is this all an over-exaggerated send up?  I don’t know the answer to those questions and that kind of scares me.

It’s a film which will keep your attention but I tired of the offensive conversations.  It’s as if the screenwriters were engaged in contest to see who could come up with the most insulting one-liners.  Yes, I chuckled at times but they were too “over the top” and detracted from the story.  Will people remember this film more for its political insight or more for its coarse language?  I hope it’s not the later because it does have some interesting things to say.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 26 January 2010

The answer was Daybreakers, a new vampire movie starring Ethan Hawke, Willem Dafoe and Claudia Karvan.  I’ve been following its progress on the internet since that date and after a long wait, it’s finally being released in cinemas.  I’m describing it as an ideal movie… for those who didn’t like Twilight.  There’s no lovey-dovey romance here.  It puts the “bite” back in vampire flicks!

It’s set in the not to distant future where the world has been overrun by vampires.  They’ve stuck their fangs into every almost every human.  Unfortunately, this has created a rather obvious problem.  If the blood is sucked from every human, that’ll be the end of the vampires’ food source.  Without food, well, you get the picture…

Charles Bromley (Neill) runs the major blood bank and is fully aware of this issue.  One of his leading scientists, Edward (Hawke), has been creating a blood substitute to satisfy the masses and save the vampire population.  Unfortunately, it’s still in the testing phase and time is running out.  The public are starting to panic.

I should make mention that Edward is not your normal, blood thirsty vampire.  He has sympathy for the humans and so quenches his own thirst with blood from animals.  Following a freak car accident, he meets one of the world’s last remaining humans – a woman named Audrey (Karvan).  She takes him to a secret hideout and there, Edward meets Elvis (Dafoe) – another human who was once a vampire.  How did he transform back?  Is there still hope for the human race?

Back in 2003, Michael and Peter Spierig made a low-budget horror flick called Undead.  It didn’t make much money but it attracted the attention of some Hollywood heavyweights.  When they put forward a 16 page treatment for a new vampire movie, Lionsgate jumped on board.  This is big stuff for the Spierig brothers.  We often struggle to get our local product released abroad but Daybreakers is set to be shown in quite a few countries.

It won’t mean much to those unfamiliar with Brisbane, but it’s great to see some of our city sights on the big screen.  There’s Riparian Plaza, Post Office Square and the underground walkways leading to Central station (which look creepy enough in a non-vampire world).  It’s also fun seeing Adelaide Street deserted during the day (because, of course, the vampires don’t come out at night).

The film itself is definitely worth seeing.  It’s an interesting world that the Spierig brothers have created.  I liked some of the nice touches – from the coffee shop on the train platform (which includes blood with the coffee) to the blood bank (which allows people to store humans for later consumption).  The vampire cars are pretty cool too with their UV light protection.

People have been critical of Australian cinema in recent months.  Their concerns are that many of our films are “not commercial.”  Hopefully this one will prove them wrong.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 13 January 2010

In 1982, a musical version of Fellini’s movie debuted on Broadway with the late Raul Julia in the leading role.  It too was highly regarded and won five Tony Awards including best musical.  The show has since been performed countless times across the globe – everywhere from Argentina to Tokyo.

It’s now time for Fellini’s tale to return to the big screen once again.  This adaptation of the musical has been directed by the brilliant Rob Marshall.  If you’re looking for an example of Marshall’s artistry, make sure you check out Chicago.  It was my favourite release of 2003 – a gorgeously colourful film which seamlessly mixes story and song.

In Nine, Marshall once again proves his worth from behind the camera lens.  He weaves the narrative amongst the beautifully directed musical numbers.  Some sequences are shot in black and white, as if in reverence to Fellini’s masterpiece.  With a dazzling set and an alluring cast, all the ingredients are in place to make this movie a true spectacle.

But alas, something is missing.  I found the songs to be somewhat unmemorable.  That may sound puzzling given all the awards which the original musical took home but it’s just how I felt.  There were very few scenes that had me clicking my fingers or wanting me to stand up and sing.  This was a distinct contrast from the more “commercial” Chicago.  I could listen to the “Cell Block Tango” all day long.

I should provide a quick plot overview for those unfamiliar with the storyline.  Daniel Day Lewis plays Guido Contini, an iconic film director who is about to start shooting his latest movie.  It’s not looking good though - he hasn’t even written a script!  In a last ditched attempt of overcome his writer’s block, Contini flees Rome and heads to the coastal village of Anzio to clear his thoughts.

Over the next few days, he will confront many of the women who have shaped his life.  They include his wife (Cotillard), his mistress (Cruz), his loyal costume designer (Dench), his leading lady (Kidman) and his mother (Loren).  Can Contini use their wisdom to pull himself together and get his new movie finished on time?

With such a terrific cast, it’s a shame that we don’t get to see more of them.  Daniel Day Lewis is amazing in the lead but most of the female cast are limited to one song each.  Marion Cotillard outshone them all with my favourite moment in the film – her heartfelt rendition of “My Husband Makes Movies”.

I’m giving Nine an overall “thumbs up”.  I’ve a hunch that it’ll take multiple viewings to fully appreciate the songs and their lyrics.  Keen to see it again, I am.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 24 January 2010

I’m describing The Road as the “realistic” equivalent.  If our world did face annihilation, this film paints a far more accurate picture of what would really happen.  Be warned though.  The movie is heavy, heavy going.  It’s grim and it’s depressing.  When the end credits started to roll, the patrons at the preview screening sat there in silence.  No one wanted to leave and you could hear a pin drop.

The central characters are a father (Mortensen) and his young son (Smit-McPhee).  They are two of the last remaining creatures in a world which has fallen apart.  I use the term “creatures” because I’m referring to everything.  There are no birds, no animals and no insects.  The apocalypse has wiped almost every skerrick of life from the planet.

In freezing temperatures, this duo are trekking south across the United States in search of food and in search of hope.  The father has a sense that their plight is doomed but he pushes on regardless.  He’s not going to give in.  He loves his son dearly and is determined to give him every chance of survival.

We quickly learn that their biggest concern is not the lack of food.  Rather, it is a small army of other humans who have reverted to cannibalism in order to survive.  The father knows they must evade capture or else they’ll end up as someone’s dinner.  That may sound sickening but it’s reality.  In desperate times people will do desperate things (for better or worse).

Above all else though, the film is about the relationship shared between father and son.  The elder statesman knows he can’t protect his son forever and that he must teach him how to survive.  This isn’t easy to do.  They are both very different people.  The father has been left jaded by bad experiences and is fearful of anyone he encounters.  The son still has his youthful innocence and is not familiar with the “old” world left behind. 

For the most part, I liked this movie.  There were some intense scenes which left me on the edge of my seat.  It also raised some interesting questions that gave me plenty to think about afterwards.  Did the father always do the right thing?  What would I have done in the same situation?

My major grievance was with the film’s ending.  I wasn’t sure what to make of it.  Is there a message which I didn’t pick up on?  It just seemed out of place given everything which preceded it.  Perhaps I need to read Cormac McCarthy’s novel (also the author of No Country For Old Men) to gain a deeper understanding.

I want to finish on a positive note and praise the vision of Australian director John Hillcoat (The Proposition).  Helped by a terrific performance from Viggo Mortensen (A History Of Violence), Hillcoat has created a distinctive film with plenty of emotion.  I understand it won’t suit everyone’s tastes with its gloomy subject matter but it’s a strong film nevertheless.