Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 26 November 2006

I saw The Guardian at a special charity screening to raise money for Surf Life Saving in Queensland.  It’s worth noting because the job our surf lifesavers do is very similar to that of the U.S. Coast Guard, the group of brave men on which the film is based.

Ben Randall (Costner) is one of the best rescue swimmers in the Coast Guard.  Over the course of his long career, he’s saved hundreds of people in treacherous situations.  Putting his life on the line every week has strained his relationship with wife, Helen (Ward).  She’d prefer that he retire or take an easy desk job.

Ben is in for a change but it’s not one he was looking for.  After seeing his long-time partner die in the field, Ben is asked to take a break by the powers that be.  They think he needs time to recover from the emotional scarring that comes with such an event.  Ben disagrees of course but orders are orders.

Asked to help train the latest Coast Guard recruits, Ben reluctantly accepts.  It is here where most of the film is set.  Ben toughens the recruits with an unorthodox training regime which separates the best from the rest.  Along the way, he becomes particular close to one – a gun swimmer named Jake Fischer (Kutcher).  There’s no doubt that Jake has talent but Ben can’t quite figure him out.  Why has he joined the Coast Guard when he could just as easily be an Olympic swimmer?

The film has a climax but it takes a long time to get to.  The bulk of the film is spent getting to know the characters during the training regime.  There are some light-hearted moments but this area of the movie should have been shortened.  You may also agree when you consider the running time is 136 minutes.

It wasn’t until after I’d seen the movie when I first saw the trailer.  Like so many films these days, it gives away 99% of the story.  Why do studios keep doing this?  Given that it’s a fairly standard Hollywood blockbuster, the advertisers should be looking for any way possible to make it look fresh and unpredictable.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 19 November 2006

I have not been a fan of the recent James Bond films.  GoldenEye, Tomorrow Never Dies, The World Is Not Enough and Die Another Day were all disappointing.  If you asked me anything about these four Pierce Brosnan flicks, I’d be looking at your blankly.  All I can remember is over-the-top, repetitive action and ridiculous storylines (two pet hates).

Casino Royale was the first Bond book ever written by Ian Fleming.  If it sounds familiar, a film of the same title was released in 1967.  Starring Peter Sellers and David Niven, the movie was a spoof of the James Bond series – it was the 60s equivalent of Austin Powers.

What’s great about the story is that we go back to the start of Bond’s career.  We see how he first earned his 007 status and we see why he treats women with such distain.  These additional elements to the story came as a great relief.  It allows more time to be spent on the story and less on the action (there are only 2 major action sequences in all).

In a similar vein to last year’s Batman Begins, the studio has successfully revived a tiring franchise by creating a prequel as opposed to a sequel.  As his first assignment, M (Dench) sends Bond (Craig) to Madagascar to keep an eye on a suspect linked to a terrorist organisation.  It doesn’t go as plan and M worries that her faith in Bond has been misplaced.  She suggests he take a vacation to regroup.       

Bond flies to the Bahamas but it’s not for any holiday.  He’s determined to redeem himself and goes to follow up on a lead.  Sure enough, Bond locates his man.  Le Chiffre (Mikkelsen) is a wealthy individual who acts as a bank for the world’s terrorists.  He holds their money, invests it wisely, and then takes a large slice of the profit.  Considering he knows when the terrorists are going to act, it’s no wonder that he’s so successful in judging the ups and downs of the stock market.

After Bond foils an act of terrorism, Le Chiffre is out of pocket.  Desperate to get his losses back, he travels to Montenegro to compete in a Texas hold ‘em poker tournament.  Each player invests $10m with the winner taking the total prize pool of $120m.  Financed by his own agency, Bond enters the tournament to ensure Le Chiffre isn’t victorious.

Twelve months ago, there was intense speculation as to who would replace Pierce Brosnan as Bond.  Many were sceptical about choosing Daniel Craig (Layer Cake) over more high profile stars such as Clive Owen and Ewan McGregor.  Others were critical simply because he was a blonde (no other Bonds have been).  Craig’s performance in Casino Royale will dispel many nay sayers.  With a steely glare, he delivers his jokes with just the right mix of seriousness and sarcasm.  He also shows his character’s vulnerability.  These characteristics make him far superior to Brosnan who was more an improbable super hero.

As the best Bond film in some time, Casino Royale is a two and a half hour adventure ride that will be enjoyed by most audiences.  Shuffle up and deal!

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 26 November 2006

What’s the most offensive thing you can say to someone?  There was once a time when the answer that question was to use profanity.  More specifically, you use particular words starting with the letter “f” or “c”.  In today’s politically correct society however, racism and discrimination top the list.  A single comment (innocent or not) is sometimes deemed unforgivable.  Your reputation can be ruined.

This culture shift hasn’t gone unnoticed by comedians.  For those who like to shock their audience (in an attempt to get laughs), it’s provided a new raft of material.  UK born Sacha Baron Cohen (aka Ali G) has mastered the art of offensive comedy.  He has been seen on television screens since 1998 and his first movie, Ali G Indahouse, was made in 2002.  Whilst we had the chance to see it here in Australia, the film was not released in the United States (it went straight to video).  Most Americans did not know who Sacha Baron Cohen was.  

Times have changed.  His latest character creation, a Kazakhstan born journalist named Borat Sagdiyev, has turned Cohen into a world wide star.  When released in the United States in early November, this film’s stellar box-office performance stunned everyone.  Sold out sessions were reported across the country.

Borat’s key to success is its level of offensiveness.  I can’t think of any other film which has gone this far.  This sounds like a contradiction.  If the film is so distasteful, why would anyone pay to go and see it?  Therein lies its genius.  The world has become so politically correct, that we need a way of letting off steam.  We need to laugh about it.

In the film, Borat Sagdiyev travels to the U.S. on assignment.  He plans on studying American culture and then putting it to use in his home country.  The film caused controversy in Kazakhstan as it portrays its people as bumbling hillbillies.  I don’t see the problem to be honest.  Audiences will know it’s a joke and if anything, the country will benefit from the publicity.  If anyone should be worried about image, it’d be the United States.

Once in the “U, S and A”, Borat buys an old ice-cream truck and goes a road trip from New York to Los Angeles.  He is accompanied by his producer, Azamat (Davitian), and a grizzly bear.  I won’t detail the crazy situations Borat gets himself into because I’d be spoiling the best of the jokes.  I can reveal that your reaction will be one of laughter and shock.

In a way, Borat reminded me of the recently released Jackass: Number Two.  It generated a reaction (I squirmed in both films) but when you break it down, there’s not a lot else.  Borat is little more than an 82 minute skit show.  The plot is weak and I’m uncertain if there’s a message to be taken from it.  I’d also like to know which events in the film were staged and which were real.

On the whole, Borat deserves a wrap as one of the year’s most adventurous comedies.  I don’t know if it’d be as funny when seeing it for the second time but it is a film you should at least see once.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 15 November 2006

I like reading books but have trouble finding the time to do so.  I could count on one hand the number of novels I’ve read this year.  Last November though, I read The Black Dahlia.  I was inspired after seeing a brief plot overview on the Internet Movie Database.  It wasn’t the best book I’ve read but it helped pass the time on the train to and from work.

I couldn’t remember the intricacies of the story but I was looking forward to seeing what this cinematic version had to offer.  I needn’t of bothered because this film is a mess.  I had trouble following the story (despite having read the novel) and the long-winded, deliberate passages of dialogue were annoying.  I fear that many audience members will look bewildered en route home from the cinema.

The Black Dahlia is a work of fiction but it is based around a real-life event.  In 1947, a wanna-be actress named Elizabeth Short was murdered in Los Angeles.  Her body was cut in two and her organs had been removed.  The brutal nature of the crime made in front page material.  Despite a massive police investigation, the crime was never solved.

Author James Ellroy (L.A. Confidential) used the murder as the backdrop of his imaginary tale of two cops trying to solve the case.  Lee Blanchard (Eckhart) and Bucky Bleichert (Hartnett) were once successful boxers.  They found their way into the police force and their popularity saw them appointed to the high-profile warrants division.  Nicknamed Fire and Ice, they developed a reputation for always “getting their man”.

In the days following the murder of Elizabeth Short however, their partnership would unravel.  The crime was too much for the usually tough Blanchard to deal with.  It consumed him to the point where he would think about it day and night.  It was also affecting the relationship with his long-time girlfriend, Kay Lake (Johansson).

In conducting his own investigations, the steady-headed Bleichert uncovered a lead in Madeleine Linscott (Swank), the wealthy daughter of a property developer.  Linscott knew Elizabeth Short and also had an uncanny resemblance to her.  Bleichert finds his own judgment impaired when he falls for Madeleine’s seductions.

The film looks great with its 1940 costumes and set direction but it fails with its poor story and questionable performances.  Why did they need to show all the video footage of Elizabeth Short?  Why did we need the scenes with Bucky and his father?  They don’t add much to the story if you ask me.  The time would have been better spent either: (a) exploring the strange three-way relationship between Lee, Bucky and Kaye, (b) looking more intently at the corruption in the police force, (c) explaining the story of Bobby De Witt.

The characters are as stiff as a board.  Rarely emotive and always smoking a cigarette, their lifeless personalities bored me to tears.  The sex scenes are laughable.  I also had trouble understanding the dialogue at times.  Either they were speaking too softly (Hartnett in particular with his narration) or the film score and sound effects were too loud in the background.  How could the director of a $50m film let this happen?  Maybe I’m just going deaf.

Like poor Elizabeth Short, this story has been murdered.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 23 November 2006

Since 2002, roughly 775 “enemy combatants” have been brought by the United States government to a prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.  Most were suspected as having links to the Al-Qaeda terrorist network.  Many in Australia will know of the prison given the publicity of David Hicks, who has been imprisoned for over four years.

The Road To Guantanamo is the true story of four friends, Ruhel, Shafiq, Asif and Monir, who travel to Pakistan in September 2001 so that one can be married (to a bride selected by his mother).  Whilst in Pakistan, they cross the Afghanistan border and travel to the capital city of Kabul to help with the human aid effort.

They find the country in a state of confusion.  There’s very little they can do to help and given the constant bombings and the language barriers, they decide to return to Pakistan.  They mistakenly board a mini-bus which takes them to Konduz, one of the last remaining Taliban strongholds.

The Northern Alliance soon takes control of the city and Ruhel, Shafiq and Asif are taken prisoner under the belief that they are members of the Taliban.  Within a month, they are transported to Guantanamo Bay.  The fourth member of the quartet, Monir, was separated from the others in Konduz and was never heard from again.

At the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, Ruhel, Shafiq and Asif were treated worse than animals (at least in my opinion).  On arrival, they were locked in small cages, were not allowed to talk, were not allowed to pray and were not allowed to even stand up.  They were tortured hundreds of times in an attempt by the United States government to have them confess.  They were never allowed a lawyer and could not contact their families.

In all, the trio spent over two years in Guantanamo Bay.  In March 2004, the U.S. government realised they had no evidence with which to charge them.  After a few more dramas, they were handed over to the London Anti-Terrorist Squad and subsequently released.

Your first reaction to this tale may be one of scepticism.  Were these four young men really in Pakistan for a wedding?  Are they conning us just like they did the U.S. government?  Each will have their own opinion but I’m 99.9% confident in their innocence.  The arrogance of the foolish interrogators only increased my sympathy towards their plight.

The film is part documentary and part drama.  It is filmed like a documentary but the people in the film are actors.  The real Ruhel, Shafiq and Asif were interviewed extensively and their comments helped director Michael Winterbottom create the film’s structure.  The end result is a mix of re-enacted scenes and interviews with the actors (where the intimate thoughts of the real characters can be revealed).

Whilst I haven’t enjoyed all of works, I am a fan of Michael Winterbottom.  He brings stories to the screen which simply must be heard.  He won the top prize at the prestigious 2003 Berlin Film Festival for In This World and he won the best director award at the same festival in 2006 for this film.  Other credits include Welcome To Sarajevo, 24 Hour Party People and 9 Songs.

I didn’t know a lot about the Guantanamo Bay prison before seeing this film.  Michael Winterbottom has changed that.  The sub-standard conditions at the facility had been reported in the media but it wasn’t a problem I concerned myself with.  I mean, the prisoners are all in there for a reason, right?  They wouldn’t be locked up without some suspicion of guilt, right?  Right?