Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 17 October 2007

In January 2002, American journalist Daniel Pearl was kidnapped in Pakistan.  He worked for the Wall Street Journal and thought that he had secured an interview with a high-profile Sheikh.  It turned out to be a trap.  He was held against his will by an organisation with links to Al Qaeda.  The story made headlines across the globe and the world waited to see if he would be released.

A Mighty Heart brings Daniel’s story to the screen but it is not told from his perspective.  Instead, we see it all through the eyes of his wife, Mariane (Jolie).  Mariane was a Frenchwoman who also worked as a journalist.  They were in Pakistan to cover the “war on terror” in the aftermath of September 11, 2001.  Just prior to the kidnapping, they were making preparations to return to the United States.  Mariane was five months pregnant and the time was right to head home.

Those familiar with the work of director Michael Winterbottom (Welcome To Sarajevo, In This World) will recognise the film’s style.  It is shot like a documentary and you’ll feel like you are watching events as they actually happened.  You’ll take Mariane’s journey and sense how difficult it was for her.  The Pakistani police, the American officials and her close friends are all doing their best to give her hope.  As each day passes however, the lack of news starts to take its toll.

I’ve often been critical of Angelina Jolie (Girl, Interrupted) but this is her finest role.  She is tipped to earn an Academy Award nomination and if so, it will be well deserved.  Jolie shows Mariane Pearl as a woman of great strength.  Her husband may have been kidnapped but she keeps her emotions in check, puts on a brave face and does whatever she can to help find him.  On a lesser note, I have to add that I liked Jolie’s French accent.

My main criticism is that the film doesn’t maintain a solid pace throughout.  There are lengthy sequences where little is happening and I felt like I was watching nothing more than people talking on their mobile phones.  Perhaps a few minutes could have been trimmed from the 100 minute running time.

A Mighty Heart is not the easiest film to watch but those interested in the subject matter, should make sure they don’t miss it.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 05 October 2007

When it comes to comedy, few people do it better than the English.  Each year, they seem to come with an array of riotous movies and television shows.  I’d name some examples but that would be unfair to the great comedies that I forget to mention.  If you give it some thought for a moment, I’m sure you’ll come up with a worthy list of your own.

Death At A Funeral is made in the same vein of many great English comedies.  It takes a serious situation and turns it into a complete farce.  I’m not surprised that the script attracted the attention of director Frank Oz.  He’s made some hilarious movies in his long career including Bowfinger, In & Out and Dirty Rotten Scoundrels.  Oz is most famous though for his voice.  He is the man behind such characters as Miss Piggy and Fozzie Bear on The Muppet Show Bert and Bert and the Cookie Monster on Sesame Street.  He is also the voice of Yoda in the Star Wars movies.

With a script from young writer Dean Craig, Oz has created a film where each scene is more outrageous than the last.  As the title suggests, it all takes place at a funeral.  A small group of family and friends have come together to pay their respects to a man who recently passed away.  The day doesn’t start well with the funeral company accidentally bringing the wrong coffin to the service.

That’s just the start of what becomes a chaotic afternoon.  I won’t go into too much detail because I’d hate to spoil the jokes.  Many people have compared the film to Four Weddings & A Funeral and it’s a good analogy.  I don’t think Death At A Funeral is as witty but it features the same type of humour.  That should give you a fair indication of what to expect.

I will mention one cast member – Alan Tudyk (A Knight’s Tale) stands out with an extremely funny performance.  Whilst stressing out in the lead up to the funeral, his girlfriend gives him a valium tablet from a bottle she finds on her brother’s kitchen table.  It turns out that it’s not valium – it’s actually acid.  Over the next few hours, he will behave like he’s never behaved before.  His actions during the funeral service left me cringing in my seat and covering my eyes.

This is a very enjoyable film but I admit that some of the jokes were a little too obvious.  You could see them coming from a long way away (well, at least I could).  The finale with the coffin is a good idea.  Still, it’s not easy putting together a great comedy and young screenwriter Dean Craig has done an admirable job.  For the most part, this film is a “crowd pleaser” in every sense of the word.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 15 October 2007

I enjoyed this quote from writer-director Tony Gilroy – “I heard a story about a firm involved in a huge corporate litigation that had gone on for almost a decade.  The case had been essentially settled, and the firm had prevailed.  The settlement was over a billion dollars.  Two days before the final signing, at four o’clock in the morning, a third-year associate found a document that had never been placed in discovery.  It was a very bad document, which would’ve meant a complete reversal of the case.  The document never saw the light of day, and that associate had the fastest partner promotion in the history of the firm.”

Do I believe the story?  Absolutely.  We live in a world where it’s considered acceptable to deny any wrong doing until unequivocally proven otherwise.  Does anyone take responsibility for anything any more???  Sorry, I’m going too far now.  I do believe that people are inherently good.  I just think that when it comes to legal proceedings, it’s not about right and wrong but who has the best lawyers.  I’m sure that my legal friends (and there’s a few of them who will be reading this) will be prepared to argue otherwise.

Michael Clayton has worked for a huge law firm in New York for almost 20 years.  He’s never made partner however.  That is because his position is very low-profile.  He is a “fixer”.  When clients do things that might get them into trouble, Michael sets things right.  In the film’s opening, we see him in action.  He gets a call in the middle of the night to assist a wealthy man who was the guilty party in a hit and run accident.  Michael meets the client, finds him the best lawyer and then tells him what not to say if the police should knock on his door.

Michael is about to become involved in his most important assignment.  One of the firm’s top litigators, Arthur Edens (Wilkinson), appears to have had a mental breakdown.  For six years, Arthur had been helping defend a large corporation called U/North against a $3 billion class action.  Whilst taking depositions, Arthur stripped naked and then chased a group of plaintiffs in the parking lot (wearing only his socks).

It is bad publicity for the firm but the real problem is much bigger.  Arthur’s conscience has gotten the better of him.  He has come into the possession of a damaging memo in which directors of U/North have admitted guilt.  Instead of hiding the document and protecting both the firm and the client, Arthur is going to expose it.  He doesn’t care about his career anymore – he just wants U/North to pay.

One of the founding partners of the firm, Marty Bach (Pollack), wants Michael to talk sense into Arthur.  He knows that they’ve been friends for a long time and he believes Michael can deal with this tricky situation.  There’s a lot riding on it.

Michael Clayton is an intelligent legal thriller.  There’s a lot going on in this film and my plot overview merely scratches the surface.  There are some unexpected twists and your interest will be maintained until the very end.  By the way, I loved the closing credits sequence.

It’s the directorial debut of Tony Gilroy who has had a very successful screenwriting career in Hollywood.  Gilroy was responsible for all three Bourne movies as well as films such as Proof Of Life (with Meg Ryan and Russell Crowe) and The Devil’s Advocate (with Al Pacino and Keanu Reeves).  What struck me most about Michael Clayton was the way in which Gilroy has captured the essence of each character.  When you see Tilda Swinton practicing her speech in front of a mirror, you sense her vulnerability.  When you hear Tom Wilkinson open up to George Clooney on the street, you feel his liberation.

I’ve seen films with similar themes (e.g. anything from John Grisham) but I don’t know if I’ve seen one with such smartly written dialogue.  With a likeable style and a very strong cast, Tony Gilroy has conjured up one of the most satisfying two hour experiences of my movie-going year.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 30 September 2007

Grant (Pinsent) and Fiona (Christie) have been married for almost half a century.  They’ve always thought that they’d be together until the very end.  It will not be the case however as Fiona’s is showing signs of having Alzheimer’s Disease.  Her short-term memory is failing and Grant is becoming increasingly concerned.

A doctor strongly suggested that Fiona be put into an aged care facility.  There, she will be able to get the increased level of care which is required by someone in Fiona’s condition.  It’s perhaps the hardest decision that Grant has ever had to make in his life.  He knows that once she is admitted, it’s very unlikely that she will ever return home.

Fiona too understands the situation.  She tells Grant that he has to let go and put her in the home.  She knows it’s the right thing to do and she doesn’t want to be a burden for the rest of his life.  The decision is made.  After 44 years together, Grant and Fiona will now live their lives apart.

Grant regularly visits Fiona at the hospital but as expected, her memories continue to fade.  The only thing that seems to give her pleasure is the company of a wheelchair-bound mute (Murphy) who also lives at the home.  Grant is somewhat jealous of the attention that Fiona gives this other man.

To help deal with the situation, Grant develops a friendship with a young nurse named Kristy (Thomson).  He expresses his emotions and she does his best to comfort him.  As a nurse at the home, it’s a situation that Kristy has seen all too frequently.  It’s not easy to see a loved one slip slowly away.

Away From Her is a love story above anything else.  The film doesn’t dwell on the effects of Alzheimer’s Disease or any possible cures or experimental medial treatments.  It’s the simple tale of two people who have realised that their time together is coming to an end.

It has been nicely told by 28-year-old writer-director Sarah Polley.  Polley has been acting since she was a child and has starred in some of my all time favourite films including The Sweet Hereafter (my favourite film of 1998) and Go.  Having been directed by the likes of Atom Egoyan, Doug Liman and David Cronenberg, it seems Polley has learned a great deal.  This is the first major film she has directed and it has been well received at film festivals across the globe.  It cost just $3.4m to produce.

The reason this film will touch audiences is because of the performances of its two stars – Julie Christie and Gordon Pinsent.  Few words are shared between them but you’ll understand their connection by looking at their actions and emotions.  Christie is tipped to earn an Academy Award nomination early next year for her role (she won an Oscar back in 1965 for Darling).

There are a few elements to the story that I didn’t understand (such as why the home wouldn’t allow Grant to visit Fiona in the first 30 days) but I still enjoyed Away From Her.  I think a lot of other people will too.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 10 October 2007

A terrorist attack has taken place in Saudi Arabia.  A bomb was detonated inside an American housing compound in the city of Riyadh.  As medical teams helped the injured and detectives looked over the scene, a second bomb was detonated.  This was a carefully planned attack and many lives were lost as a result.

Back in the United States, Special Agent Ronald Fleury (Foxx) of the FBI wants to take a team to Saudi Arabia to help with the investigation.  His first request is denied.  The Saudi authorities don’t want to be seen as requiring assistance from the United States – it will make them look weak.  After lobbying some influential people, Fleury gets his permission.  He takes 3 other agents (played by Cooper, Garner and Bateman) and leaves on a top-secret flight.

Their first day in Riyadh isn’t as productive as they’d hoped.  They are given only limited access to the crime scene and the Saudi military are keeping a very close eye on them.  Despite this, they still manage to make some key breakthroughs.  With the help of Colonel Ghazi (Barhom), the four Americans are closing in on the terrorists responsible.

The Kingdom started promisingly enough.  The early scenes highlighted the difficulties that FBI agents face when investigating a crime in another country.  From about the half way point though, the film deteriorated rapidly.  I realised that this wasn’t a serious thriller but rather a standard Hollywood action flick.  Bullets and clichés were flying everywhere.  How can someone can be shot at 100 times and not get hit once?  I’ve been asking this question for a long time and I haven’t found an answer yet.

Some viewers won’t be perturbed by this criticism and won’t mind that this is filled with predictable action.  It all depends on who you are.  Still, with a cast including the likes of Jamie Foxx, Chris Cooper and Jennifer Garner, I expected better value for money.