Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 15 March 2008

Andy (Hoffman) and Hank (Hawke) are two brothers with money problems.  Andy is the payroll clerk at a large real estate agency and has been stealing cash to fuel his drug addiction.  He has just learned that the business is to be audited by the IRS and that if they find that money missing, he’ll be in huge trouble.

Hank works at the same real estate agency.  I guess it’s not a high paying position as he owes a substantial amount to his ex-wife for rent and child support.  It seems that every day, his ex-wife (who lives in the same apartment building) is nagging him for the cash.

Andy comes up with a hair-brained scheme to solve their financial dilemmas.  Their elderly parents (played by Finney and Harris) own a small jewellery store in a shopping complex.  They plan to rob the store, sell the jewels and make out with roughly $600,000.  Andy justifies the crime by saying that the insurance policy will cover his parents’ losses.

It’s a stupid plan and neither has the courage to go through with it.  Andy comes up with a lame excuse to avoid involvement in the actual theft.  He says that he was involved in a recent real estate deal in the area and that someone might recognise him.  He wants Hank to do it alone.  Hank doesn’t think he has the guts to pull it off and so asks a dodgy friend named Bobby to help out.  Hank will drive the get away car while Bobby performs the robbery.

As you can expect, it all goes terribly wrong for Andy and Hank.  It turns out that their mother, Nanette, is the only one working in the store on the morning of the crime.  She is filling in for someone.  As Bobby prepares to leave the store with his stolen back of jewels, Nanette takes a gun from under the cash register and shoots him.  He then responds by shooting Nanette.

The tagline from the film’s poster says it all – “no one was supposed to get hurt”.  This was meant to be a quick and easy grab for cash.  Andy has already lined up a crooked dealer to help offload the stolen jewels.  Now they’re in a position where their mother is in hospital fighting for her life, a trail of evidence threatens to expose them and oh yes, their money problems are even bigger.  What are they going to do?

My friend described this film best when he used the term “depressing”.  It’s the perfect word.  This is a grim story for which there cannot be a happy ending.  You aren’t going to leave the cinema with a warm, fuzzy feeling.

It’s still a great movie though.  The reason it is so depressing is because it is so believable.  I could see this kind of thing happening.  This isn’t like your normal heist flick where every detail has been carefully planned and some incredible detective puts all the pieces together to solve the crime.  Andy and Hank are just two stupid guys doing some really stupid things to get their lives back on track.  I almost felt sorry for them.

Academy Award winning director Sidney Lumet (12 Angry Men, Dog Day Afternoon, Network) is 83 years of age.  You’d think he’d want to sit back and enjoy his retirement.  I guess he just loves making movies.  He’s done a great job here and I do like the film’s style.  We start by seeing the crime itself and then we take flashbacks to see how it came about.  It’s creative storytelling.

Before The Devil Knows Your Dead received a terrific response from the public and from critics when it premiered at last year’s Toronto Film Festival.  The fact that it’s a small, low-budget film saw it get lost amongst the bigger releases during the recent awards season.  I like the movie and I like the title.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 06 March 2008

Man landing on the moon has always fascinated me.  With the limited technology we had in 1969, I can’t believe that we were able to fly someone 384,000 km to a satellite with no atmosphere and have them return safely.  That moment when Neil Armstrong first set foot on the moon was one of the greatest events of the 20^th Century.

In The Shadow Of The Moon is a documentary which looks at the Apollo program.  It was kick started by John F. Kennedy (in a famous speech) and ran from 1961 to 1975.  There were ten missions in total.  The film focuses largely on Apollo 11, the mission in which Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin stepped into history.

Director David Sington has reunited most of the astronauts who were involved in the Apollo program.  We get to hear them reflect on their experiences and how their lives changed as a result.  There are some very interesting stories (some serious and some comical) to be heard.  You’ll be surprised to know what Buzz Aldrin was thinking to himself as he walked down the ladder of the lunar module to become the second man on the moon.

Sadly, Neil Armstrong does not appear in this documentary.  Sington tried to convince him but said that Armstrong was reluctant to do interviews in front of a camera.  They did converse via email however.  Whilst I don’t think Armstrong’s non-appearance hurts the film, I still wish I could have heard his own thoughts.  I’ll have to read his authorised biography (written by James Hansen) which was released in 2005.

The film includes a bunch of “never before seen footage”.  For those interested in the space program, this will make it must see viewing.  For me personally, the highlight was watching the old news stories (with anchormen such as Walter Cronkite) commentate the events as they happened.  I also liked seeing the footage of people glued to their television screens across the globe.  It was a story that united the planet.

I liked In The Shadow Of The Moon but it was a little repetitive in places.  The astronauts all seemed to have similar thoughts about what it was like to travel through space and to see the Earth from such as great distance.  As I’ve already alluded to above, I preferred watching the old archival footage as opposed to listening to the modern day interviews.  It’s just a matter of personal preference I guess.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 11 March 2008

The President of the United States is in Spain for a world summit to help stop terrorism.  His first appearance is in an enclosed piazza where he will be introduced by the Mayor in front of thousands of people.  As the President steps to the podium, he is shot twice in the stomach.  The crowd flees in panic and the Secret Service agents start an immediate search for the assassin.  Minutes later, a bomb is detonated from beneath the main stage.  This was a carefully orchestrated attack.

On face value, this is a sub-par Hollywood thriller.  The plot is ridiculous and the more you think about it, the less sense it makes.  There were way too many coincidences for my liking and I’d be hopeful that the real Secret Service could do a better job of protecting the President.  There are also some sub-lots (such as a request for the President to retaliate) which have no purpose.  Let’s not forget the sappy dialogue (particularly near the end) which left many audience members at my screening laughing openly.

What saves the film from being a complete disaster is the way it has been told by writer Barry Levy.  As the poster promises, we see the film from the “vantage point” of 8 different people.  This will frustrate some viewers but I like the audacious style.  You may think it sounds boring to be watching the same event over and over again but it’s not like that.  It only increases the suspense.  Each new perspective reveals fresh pieces of the puzzle.  Some of the twists (as unbelievable as they were) did catch me off guard.  I also liked the car chase sequence.

From my vantage point in the 3^rd back row of Cinema 8 in the Myer Centre, I sized up the evidence and declared that the film was worthy of a B-.  Did other people see it differently?  What about that couple sitting in the front row because they turned up late?  Were they wooed by the big-name cast?  Did they believe that the story was possible?  I guess you’ll have to ask them.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 04 March 2008

In The Valley Of Elah begins with a phone call.  Retired army man Hank Deerfield (Jones) picks up the receiver and is told by a military official in New Mexico that his son, Mike, has gone AWOL.  He hasn’t been seen on base since last Saturday.  This comes as a shock to Hank and his wife Joan (Sarandon).  They didn’t even know that their son was back in the U.S. – they thought he was still on a tour of duty in Iraq.

Hank drives from his home in Texas to the base in New Mexico to find out what’s going on.  He suspects something is wrong – it’s not like his son to run off and not contact anyone.  Hank’s worst thoughts are confirmed when Mike’s body is found in scrub off an isolated road.  The body was almost unidentifiable – it had been set on fire and cut into several pieces.

As the reality sets in, Hank finds himself on a pursuit for the truth.  Who could have done this to his son?  He finds a sympathetic friend in a young police detective named Emily Sanders (Theron).  Not happy with the investigation being conducted by the army police, Emily and Hank do their own sleuthing.  They realise there were inconsistencies in the witness statements and problems with the way the crime scene was examined.

Their quest for answers won’t be easy however.  The army police don’t like being “shown up” by a retired officer and an inexperienced police detective.  Furthermore, there are those who know the truth that are doing their best to throw Emily and Hank off their trail.

We’ve all seen these who-done-it thrillers before.  Most of the time, a brainy detective picks up on a bunch of clues (that no one else sees) and solves the crime.  I’m often critical that it’s just too easy.  In The Valley Of Elah is a little different and this is what elevates it above those predictable thrillers that I just spoke of.  There are a few “red herrings” and Emily and Hank make their fair share of mistakes along the way.  You can sense that Emily is a little out of her depth and that Hank sometimes acts with his grieving heart instead of his head.  They’re an interesting duo.

The writer-director of the film is Paul Haggis.  Haggis is one of the best screenwriters in the business today.  In the last four years, he’s penned the scripts for Million Dollar Baby, Crash, Letters From Iwo Jima, Flags Of Our Fathers and Casino Royale.  He’s a very talented craftsman and this film further solidifies this reputation.  Haggis avoids standard clichés and has a knack for writing plausible dialogue.

In The Valley Of Elah earned Tommy Lee Jones an Academy Award nomination for best actor (he lost to Daniel Day Lewis in There Will Be Blood).  It’s a terrific performance from Jones and having recently praised him No Country For Old Men, I’m convinced that he’s in the best form of his career.  He never over acts and keeps things simple.  Jones is a class act.

We don’t usually see a lot of quality movies in the post-Oscars slump but here we have an exception.  It’s a good one.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 07 March 2008

When I was in grade 9 at high school (back in 1991), I had a choice of studying either history or geography.  I chose geography.  History sounded boring.  What as the point of learning about all these ancient people and events and then having to sit exams about them?  Geography felt more relevant and topical.

Funnily enough, my appreciation for movies has also developed my appreciation for history.  Last November, I saw Elizabeth: The Golden Age starring Cate Blanchett.  Whilst I wasn’t a huge fan of the film, it raised my interested in the subject matter.  I did a lot of internet research after I saw the movie to find out more about Queen Elizabeth and her 45 year reign as England’s monarch.  They were turbulent times.

For those who have seen the two Elizabeth movies, The Other Boleyn Girl is best described as a prequel.  It looks at the relationship between her father, King Henry VIII (played by Eric Bana) and her mother, Anne Boleyn (played by Natalie Portman).

Henry VIII ascended the throne in 1509 but came under increasing pressure from the public when his wife, Catherine, could not provide a male heir.  It was suggested to the King that he take on a mistress.  Thomas Boleyn (Rylance) put forward both of his daughters, Anne and Mary (Johansson) as suitable candidates.

This may sound like a strange proposition but it was a sign of the times.  It was considered to be an honour to be the mistress of the King and Thomas thought that it would provide wealth and stability for his family.  Anne relished the opportunity.  She used her intelligence, beauty and charm to win the King’s favour.  Mary was reluctant on the other hand.  She preferred a simple life in the country and wasn’t too keen on fame and fortune.

Those familiar with the story will know how it ends.  I won’t reveal it for those less knowledgeable of 16^th Century English history (like me).  Like a great Shakespearean tragedy, there’s love, greed and betrayal.

I was sceptical about the film going into the cinema because of the casting of Australian Eric Bana (Chopper) and Americans Natalie Portman (Closer) and Scarlett Johansson (Lost In Translation).  Couldn’t they have found some English actors to play these roles?  It looked to me like the producers were casting some big name Hollywood stars to boost its exposure and box-office takings.

With the luxury of hindsight, I can safely say that all the performances are solid.  Writer Peter Morgan (The Queen) and director Justin Chadwick have done a great job in distinguishing each member of the cast.  There are a lot of characters but the story is easy to follow – that’s not an easy achievement.  The standout for me was Natalie Portman and her emotionally energetic performance.  She’s fantastic.  Also worth a mention are the great costumes from Academy Award winner Sandy Powell (Shakespeare In Love, The Aviator).

There’s a lot more this story and I’m sure a few people will be disappointed that certain details have been omitted to squash the film into its 115 minute running time.  It didn’t bother me though and I liked what I saw on screen.  If you’re looking for more detail, you can read the novel from Philippa Gregory (with the same title) on which the film is based.