Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 11 November 2006

Shortbus is the most sexually explicit movie I have seen in a cinema (surpassing 9 Songs which was released last year).  It shows actual penetration and ejaculation.  It includes both heterosexual and homosexual intercourse.  It explores a range of fetishes and fixations.

By this point, I’m sure you’re either intrigued or repulsed.  If you fall into the later category, this film is simply not for you.  I could recommend at least 200 other films this year which will provide more enjoyment.  It’s a matter of taste.  You can stop reading now.

For those who are interested, don’t go along thinking this is a porno.  It includes two things that you won’t find in any porno – insightful commentary and a decent script.  Its content alone makes it a “must see” for those who appreciate alternative styles of filmmaking.  You may not like it but I guarantee that it’s something different.

The film revolves around a group of complicated people living in New York City.  James (Dawson) is a depressed filmmaker who loves his boyfriend (DeBoy) but struggles with intimacy.  Severin (Beamish) is a dominatrix who finds it easier to push people away than to get to know them.  Sophia (Lee) is a married sex therapist who has never had an orgasm.

They all come together (either interpretation will do) at an underground nightclub known as Shortbus.  It is a place where people can relax, talk and explore their sexual inhibitions without judgement.  A place detached from the outside world.

It’s hard to articulate exactly what these folk are feeling but I’ll try by describing it as a mix of unhappiness and confusion.  Is their frustrating sex life contributing to their problems?  Or is it the other way around?  Interesting conversations are shared between the leading characters as a result.  Some are humorous but others, particularly late in the film, are more poignant.  The best scene is found at the very end - Jamie consummately articulates his pain to a new friend, Caleb (Stickles).

Shortbus is the second feature film of director John Cameron Mitchell.  His first feature, Hedwig And The Angry Inch, won numerous honours around the globe.  When released in Australia in 2001, I described it as a film “that stands out in a year of lifeless releases.”  The same comment applies here.  Mitchell is a director who knows how to stand out.  His unconventional films leave an impression and a memory that most others do not.

Too much time is spent on certain plotlines (Sophia’s orgasm quest for example) but I’m willing to forgive Mitchell because the film has so many redeeming qualities.  The soundtrack is awesome and the musical montage at the end of the film (where we see how each character has changed) provides a well-time chance to reflect.

In the words of the club’s owner, “voyeurism is participation”.  An apt way of describing the 90 minutes you’ll spend in the theatre.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 30 October 2006

On the 23^rd of February 1945, Joe Rosenthal took a simple black and white photograph.  It was of 6 soldiers raising the U.S. flag atop Mount Suribachi, on the Japanese island of Iwo Jima.  This Pulitzer Prize winning photo has become one of the most famous images of all time.  At the Marine Corps War Memorial in Virginia, you can find a 30 metre high bronze statue (dedicated by President Eisenhower) which is an exact replica.

John “Doc” Bradley was one of the six men in that photograph.  After passing away in 1994, his son uncovered boxes of World War II memorabilia left in his father’s house.  James Bradley was amazed by what he found but couldn’t understand why his dad never mentioned his time on Iwo Jima.  He needed to know more.  After tracking down the family members of the other five soldiers in the photo, James was inspired to write a book about his father’s role in the war and the flag raising itself.

First published in 2000, James’s novel grabbed the attention of director Clint Eastwood (Million Dollar Baby) and screenwriters Paul Haggis (Crash) and William Broyles Jr (Apollo 13).  Together, they have adapted it for the big screen.

Every time a new war film is released, I can’t help but think that I’ve seen it all before.  More often than not, I am wrong.  It’s hard to believe how many tales (both inspiring and disheartening) have come out of World War II.  It was, without doubt, the most significant event of the 20^th Century and it is no wonder that cinematic storytellers are drawn to it.

Clint Eastwood’s film features some frighteningly dramatic action sequences but this isn’t its focus.  Rather, the movie looks at the three surviving soldiers from the infamous photograph and what happened in its aftermath.  John, Rene and Ira (played by Ryan Phillippe, Jesse Bradford and Adam Beach) were paraded around the United States like heroes.  It lifted the spirits of the tiring public and encouraged them to invest in the government’s war bonds.

The intense media spotlight came with side effects.  Ira couldn’t understand how raising a flag made him a hero.  He felt guilty for leaving his comrades behind and longed to return to the battlefield.  Rene, on the other hand, loved being in front of the cameras.  He hoped to use the attention to kick-start a successful business career.  Falling somewhere in between was John.  The quiet John always put on a brave face but his mind had been scarred by the events from Iwo Jima.  The loss of his best friend, Iggy (Bell), will forever torture him.

The film begins a little slowly and I’m not sure why the opening is so fragmented (with flashes back and forward in time).  Once it settles though, Flags Of Our Fathers becomes a very interesting motion picture.  It makes you think about the importance of heroes in dark times.  It makes you think about the power of a solitary image.  It makes you think about memories that can never be forgotten.

The emotional impact sinks in during the final 10 minutes.  The lose ends are tied together and we learn what became of the people involved.  I haven’t read James Bradley’s novel but this is one of the rare instances where the movie has motivated me to do so.  I need to know more.

Perhaps the most attention-grabbing fact about the movie is that in February 2007, Eastwood is releasing another film called Letters From Iwo Jima.  It is also based on the battle of Iwo Jima but instead, is told from the Japanese perspective.  It stars Ken Watanabe (The Last Samurai) and is based on the letters of Tadamichi Kuribayashi, the commander of the Japanese army.  I can’t remember this being done before but think it’s a wonderful idea.  Too often we forget that there are two sides to every war.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 09 November 2006

I am a big fan of Ridley Scott, the director of Gladiator, Black Hawk Down and Matchstick Stick.  Further, I recently included Russell Crowe in my favourite actors list (at number 4) on the basis of his work in A Beautiful Mind, Cinderella Man and The Insider.  How then, is this film so awful?

It begins in London with Max Skinner (Crowe) leading a successful stockbroking team.  He was the mastermind behind a series of unethical transactions which netted the firm $77m.  He doesn’t care that he’s breaking the rules.  All he wants is to be a winner and create as many enemies as he can along the way.

I hated Max Skinner.  I hated his personality, I hated his accent and I hated his smugness.  This wouldn’t ordinarily be a criticism (since there are lots of films with dislikeable people) but the problem is that the film wants me to like him (at least in the end).  My opinion never changed.

Max’s transformation begins when he receives word that his Uncle Henry (Finney) has passed away.  They were like father and son with the parentless Max growing up on his uncle’s French vineyard.  Over time though, they slowly drifted apart.  Max’s demanding life in London meant that there was no longer time to visit, or even communicate, with Uncle Henry.

Max soon learns that as his uncle’s closest living relative, it is he who will inherit the estate.  After travelling to France to inspect his new property, Max finds himself flooded with memories of his childhood.  The sentimentality isn’t enough to change his mind about the property however.  He has little use for it and intends to sell it, despite the protests of Uncle Henry’s dearest friends and employees.

Fate then arrives.  A coincidental series of events leaves Max stranded at the vineyard.  An unknown cousin and an attractive waitress will then enter his life.  The more time they spent together, the more Max doubts himself.  Should he sell the estate?  Is the life in London worth returning to?

If you want to know the answer, you can see the film for yourself.  I didn’t care however.  The story was artificial and too hard to believe.  I haven’t read Peter Mayle’s novel, on which the film is based, but it has to be deeper than this simplistic film.

Reminiscent of 2003’s Under The Tuscan Sun (with Diane Lane), A Good Year is a muddled mix of comedy and drama.  I didn’t laugh at Russell Crowe’s not-so-subtle attempts at humour nor was I moved by the myriad of 1980s flashbacks.  Furthermore, what’s with Max’s secretary, Gemma?  There are a multitude of wasted scenes where the two yammer back and forth on the phone (particularly in the first half hour).

They may think it’s a good year but in reality, it’s nothing more than two wasted hours.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 29 October 2006

Katrina Skinner (Barclay) is the kind of girl I hate.  She must always be the centre of attention, she has to have everything she wants, and she can be very, very manipulative.  The 19-year- old has a daughter but she seldom takes care of her.  It’s all too inconvenient for this “little princess” and so her father (Morgan) and boyfriend (Dornan) bear most of the parenting responsibilities.  Worst of all, Katrina wants money from everyone.  She expects a continual hand-out from her father to fund her swanky lifestyle.

As much as I hate her, she’s not someone you want to make an enemy of.  Her over-protective older brother, Danny (Bruels), is in prison for killing a shop attendant.  That in itself says enough about her family but the reason makes it all the more chilling – the attendant (rightfully) called Katrina a whore.

She’s a terribly dislikeable character but Emily Barclay’s performance is something to behold.  Katrina really got under my skin.  I just wanted to get up and slap her in the face (but I wouldn’t of course because that's assault).  This is a complement to Barclay and it’s no surprise to see her nominated alongside Laura Linney, Abbie Cornish and Teresa Palmer in the best actress category at this year’s AFI Awards.

The film enters a more sinister chapter when Katrina plots to kill her father.  She intends to use the inheritance to help get her brother out of jail.  With her domineering influence over others, it shouldn’t be a problem getting her friends to help out.

Director Paul Goldman has made two previous Aussie flicks – Australian Rules and The Night We Called It A Day.  Suburban Mayhem is his most interesting flick to date.  Others agree given that it was selected to screen at both the Cannes and Toronto Film Festivals.

If found the storyline a little hard to believe at times but from what I understand, it is based on truth.  28-year-old writer Alice Bell was inspired after attending a series of murder trials.  The accused were often “cold-blooded and callous” and she couldn’t believe it given the circumstances they were in.  So she took the traits and facts from a range of trials and came up with the script.

Last week, Suburban Mayhem was nominated for 12 AFI Awards, the most of any movie this year.  Strangely though, the film was overlooked in the best picture category (which is voted upon by all AFI members as opposed to industry specialists).  I’m tired of saying it but this is yet another great film in what has been a top year for Australian cinema.  May the good times continue.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 08 November 2006

The Wrong Man, released in America under the title, Lucky Number Slevin, is a craftily written tale of mistaken identity.  Slevin Kelevra (Hartnett) recently lost his job, got kicked out his termite infested apartment and found his girlfriend sleeping with another man (her excuse is priceless).  Looking to change his fortunes, Slevin has flown to New York to visit an old friend, Nick Fisher.

On setting foot in The Big Apple, Slevin’s luck is about to go from bad to worse.  After getting mugged en route from the airport, he arrives at Nick’s apartment to find the front door wide open.  Nick is no where to be found.  His excitable neighbour, Lindsey (Liu), suspects foul play and wants to investigate further.

The mystery deepens when two oafish looking goons turn up at the apartment.  They think that Slevin is Nick and have come to collect a $96,000 gambling debt which is outstanding.  They don’t believe Slevin cry of innocence and so they take him to meet The Boss (Freeman).  The Boss threatens does buy his story either but is prepared to offer him an out.  If he can kill the son of a rival crime lord known as The Rabbi (Kingsley), the debt will be waived.

There’s a lot more to this story but I can’t continue on.  It’s not that I don’t want to spoil it, rather it would take me many more paragraphs to describe the convoluted plot.  I’d only confuse you.  This characteristic of the film is both a positive and negative.  I love a well written movie and the interaction between these characters is fantastic.  The one-liners and metaphors are incredibly well thought out.  There’s certainly no room to ad-lib.

On the other hand, the story is so complex, that it takes a long time to explain all the twists and turns in the end.  It’s not that I didn’t like the ending but I’d have preferred to see something sharper that is wrapped up a little quicker.

The cast is strong with all pulling an equal weight.  It boosts my opinions of both Josh Hartnett and Lucy Liu, two actors who I think have talent but who have trouble finding the right roles.

In the tradition of Brick and Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, The Wrong Man is a nice blend of mystery and humour.