Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 01 February 2014

They’ve been best friends for 60 years but time is finally starting our four protagonists. Sam (Kline) has enrolled in a water aerobics class to try to get back into shape. Archie (Freeman) is recovering from a mild stroke and is dealing with his overprotective family. Paddy (DeNiro) has become a depressed couch potato following the death of his wife. Billy (Douglas) is worried about dying alone and has decided to take the plunge and marry someone less than half his age.

What better way of getting over their problems… than spending a wild weekend in Las Vegas! They can dance, play blackjack, drink martinis, judge swimsuit competitions, get laid, and generally have a good time. It’s designed to be an impromptu bachelor party for Billy before he finally ties the knot.

These are shallow characters. They’re loveable/sleazy (take your pick) and they all have some kind of magic epiphany over the course of the weekend that has them re-evaluating their lives. It’s a stretch. We never really get to know them. There are problems with the ending too. Writer Dan Fogelman (Crazy Stupid Love, The Trip) has created such a convoluted scenario that it’s really hard to come up with a plausible conclusion where everyone is “smelling like roses”.

That’s not to say that the film isn’t entertaining. Robert DeNiro, Michael Douglas, Morgan Freeman and Kevin Kline – all Academy Award winning actors – share the jokes around and have a good sense of comedic timing. They generally poke fun at themselves (describing the weekend as the “first bachelor party covered by Medicare”) but they also find time to mock those a little younger.

It's far from perfect but there's a layer of sentimentality that makes Last Vegas easier to digest. These guys reflect back on their lives and the enduring power of friendship. There are no Earth-shattering revelations but it’ll still win over the majority of cinema-goers. That’s evidenced from the film’s box-office take thus far – more than $120m internationally on a budget of just $28m (me thinks our leading men didn’t get paid huge dollars).

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 21 January 2014

The release of The Great Beauty in Australia couldn’t be timelier. Over the past two weeks, the film has won the Golden Globe for best foreign language film and picked up an Academy Award nomination in the same category (we won’t know if it wins until March). It also picked up the European Film Award for best picture at the back end of 2013.

The title feels appropriate because this is a film to be enjoyed as much for its beautiful imagery as its stimulating storyline. The central character is Jep Gambardella (Servillo) – a 65-year-old Italian who has more money than he knows what to do with. Forty years ago, he wrote an acclaimed novel and he’s been living off its royalties and its reputation ever since. He has no wife, no kids. He lives in a stunning apartment that overlooks the Colosseum, he regularly throws lavish parties and he’s almost always mingling with the upper echelon of Italian society.

I wouldn’t describe it as an “epiphany” but Jeb has started to rethink his life in the aftermath of his recent birthday celebrations (which provide an amazing, fast-paced opening to the film). He reflects on his career and wonders whether he could have achieved more. He reflects on his friends and whether he helped them enough. He reflects on his first love and what his world would have been like they’d have married.

As strange as it may sound, the film is a little too beautiful at times. I became so enamoured with the setting and gorgeous cinematography that I often didn’t pay enough attention to the subtitles. Perhaps this is why I was a little confused by some subplots in the later stages involving a high ranking cardinal and a 104-year-old nun who sleeps on the floor and only eats roots. One group that won’t be complaining are the tourism promoters in Rome. The city looks so very, very alluring.

In trying to pinpoint in this film’s target audience, I can help but make comparisons to one of my favourite releases from 2009 – Luca Guadagnino’s I Am Love. Both movies are heavy on visual imagery and light on conversation. I didn’t find the collective group of characters in The Great Beauty quite as interesting but if you were a fan of Guadagnino’s film, add this to your “must see” list.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 29 January 2014

There’s a great non-fiction work from Lebanese American writer Nassim Nicholas Taleb entitled The Black Swan that looks at the nature of random events and the way we analyse them. A book that influenced him heavily as a child was a published diary from a journalist working in Berlin during the early stages of World War II.

Taleb wrote about the concept of “retrospective distortion”. Our memories are limited and so our perception of events can change over time. There’s also the benefit of hindsight. What drew Taleb to this diary was the fact that it was describing events as they took place. The writer didn’t know what was going to happen next. It revealed that many in France thought Hitler was a fleeting phenomenon and that any conflict would be quickly resolved.

I was thinking about Taleb’s writings while watching 12 Years A Slave – the third feature film from British director Steve McQueen (Hunger, Shame). The story is based on the novel of the same name that was authored by an African American slave back in 1853. It provides an important perspective because (1) it was written well before slavery was abolished by the U.S. Government in 1865, and (2) only a small number of slaves were able to read and write.

McQueen had been looking to make a movie about slavery in the 19^th Century (there aren’t a lot of them when compared to say WWII movies) and it was his wife who stumbled across a copy of Solomon Northup’s 12 Years A Slave. He has compared it to The Diary Of Anne Frank and can’t believe that it’s not widely read in schools across the United States. That fact may change as this powerful cinematic adaptation is likely to build interest in the subject matter.

The film begins in 1841 and introduces us to Solomon Northup (Ejiofor) – a well-to-do African-American living in New York with his wife and two children. Approached to work as violinist for a travelling circus troop, Solomon is drugged and kidnapped by two men looking for some “fresh niggers”. They steal his identification papers and ship him to New Orleans to work as a slave on a cotton plantation.

What follows is a decade long journey of survival. He was whipped, beaten, worked to the bone. He saw fellow slaves tortured, raped and killed. The movie is tough to watch at times (there were a few walkouts at my preview screening) but you’ll know exactly what Solomon went through and you’ll feel the uncontrollable sense of hopelessness that engulfed him. Twelve years is a long, long time to be held against your own free will.

Similar to McQueen’s previous two films, dialogue is kept to a minimum. It’s as if he doesn’t want the characters to speak unless words are absolutely necessary. It’s an approach that suits this subject matter as it gives you time to observe and reflect as opposed to just listening to constructed dialogue. The subtle music of Hans Zimmer (Inception) also helps in this regard.

The film recently received 9 Academy Award nominations – 3 of which were in the acting categories for first-time nominees. Chiwetel Ejiofor (Children Of Men, Kinky Boots) and newcomer Lupita Nyong’o were recognised for their passionate performances as African American slaves. Michael Fassbender (Shame, Prometheus) received a nod for his portrayal as a ruthless, vengeful plantation owner. I’d argue he’s the film’s most interesting character.

12 Years A Slave has been the Oscar front runner since it won the prestigious People’s Choice Award at the Toronto Film Festival back in September. It’s a heavy, depressing film but it’s also one that’s hard to discredit.

You can read my chat with director Steve McQueen by clicking here.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 21 January 2014

The first corporations in the UK and the US were subject to very strict rules and regulations so as to prevent them from becoming too powerful. They could only engage in specific activities allowed for by the government (which were often for a public good). They could not own stock in other corporations. Their members could be personally liable if losses were incurred. It wasn’t until the late 19^th Century that the first states in America started relaxing laws so as to stimulate business activity.

Let’s fast forward to the year 1987 and I’ll introduce you to 22-year-old Jordan Belfort (DiCaprio). It’s his first day working for a big stockbroking firm and he’s been taken out to lunch by his millionaire boss (McConaughey). Belfort is given two important tips to succeed – masturbate regularly and start doing cocaine. Both will keep him relaxed so that he can smooth talk investors into buying stock.

Does it matter that he knows nothing about the corporations that he’s recommending to his clients? Nope. The stockbroking game is not about picking winners and losers. It’s not about increasing the wealth of investors. Belfort is told the only thing he has to worry about is commissions. You see, brokers get their fee up front. They don’t care what happens after you’ve invested. Somehow, I don’t think this was envisioned by those who first came up with the idea of a “corporation”.

It’s hard to believe this is a true story. I’m sure a few elements have been embellished (the screenplay is based on Belfort’s autobiography) but the key facts have been proven. Within the space of a few years, Belfort created one of the world’s largest stockbroking companies and was worth roughly $200 million. A Forbes magazine article exposed some of his firm’s dodgy practices… but this only made Belfort more popular! Everyone wanted in. Everyone wanted to be rich. It was like pigs at a trough.

Brought to the screen by iconic director Martin Scorsese (Goodfellas, The Departed), The Wolf Of Wall Street has generated controversy. Detractors believe that the film glorifies Belfort’s actions given its many comedic scenes and its lack of a moralistic conclusion. That was certainly not Scorsese’s intention. He didn’t want audiences to leave the cinema feeling better and thinking that the problem has been solved. He “wanted them to feel like they’d been slapped into recognising that this behaviour has been encouraged.” The film’s final scene is haunting in that regard.

Some might argue about the perverse content, the excessive coarse language (there are more than 500 f-bombs), the frequent drug use, the workplace sex, the orgies, the nudity, the misogyny, the discrimination… but it’s hard to fault the performance of Leonardo DiCaprio. He starts out as an ordinary guy and transforms himself into someone so powerful, so influential that he could “sell lube to a convent full of nuns”. His passionate monologues will be remembered.

My only qualm with the film is its length. At 180 minutes, it’s the longest of this season’s award contenders. The first hour is fast, tight and you can see the great work done my Scorsese’s long-time editor Thelma Schoonmaker to keep the story moving. Things start to slow from thereon and a splash of repetition creeps in. Perhaps this was also part of Scorsese’s plan? Maybe he wanted to push filmgoers to the point of exhaustion.

There’s an extra reason for Australian audiences to see the movie and that’s to admire 23-year-old Margot Robbie who deservedly gets plenty of screen time as Belfort’s second wife. Robbie graduated from Somerset College on the Gold Coast in 2007, landed a role in Neighbours, picked up a smart part in Richard Curtis’ About Time, and now looks set for very big things.

Nominated for 5 Academy Awards including best picture, The Wolf Of Wall Street is not so much a film… but more of an examination paper. When you leave the room after three hours, you’ll know if you’ve passed.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 29 January 2014

We’ve witnessed some great boxing rivalries over the past century – Muhammad Ali versus Joe Frazier, Tony Zane versus Rocky Graziano, Arturo Gatti versus Micky Ward. The screenwriters for Grudge Match have come up with a new pairing to “rival” them all. In the red corner we have Henry “Razor” Sharp played by Sylvester Stallone. In the blue corner we have Billy “The Kid” McDonnen played by Robert DeNiro.

Three decades ago, these guys were at the top of the sport. They fought in front of two huge crowds and the honours were shared – The Kid won the first bout over 15 rounds but Razor took the title back in a shorter second fight. Their adoring fans for ready for a “winner takes it all” third fight but Razor stunned almost everyone by announcing his retirement. That was that. Their record would forever remain at 1-all.

Well, until now. Razor has just lost his job at a shipyard and is in desperate need of cash (he lost all his boxing winnings). The Kid has no financials concerns but he’s always wanted to prove himself as the better boxer. When approached by a self-promoting promoter (Hart) looking to make a quick buck, the pair agree to a one-off rematch. They’ve got 12 weeks to get into shape for a rematch that’s been 30 years in the making.

As is often the case with a sporting flick, the focus can’t solely be on the contest itself. Grudge Match contains a few subplots to help us get to know the characters and their plight. Razor is reunited a former flame (Basinger) and his foul-mouthed trainer (Arkin) who offers some fair advice – “if you go down, it’s safe to say that you’ve fallen and can’t get up.” The Kid discovers that he has not just a son (Bernthal) but also a grandson.

The story here is fairly loose. For starters, it’s hard to believe that two renowned boxers would have so much trouble pulling in a crowd. There are a few scenes in the film where they go out and perform cheap, gimmicky stunts to help publicise the event. I’m sure if Mike Tyson and Evander Holyfield announced a rematch today, there’d be enough interest (as well as a few laughs).

I probably shouldn’t get too hung up on plot specifics since this film is clearly designed as a comedy as opposed to a drama. A few jokes will put a smile on your face but there’s not enough to warrant a “must see” recommendation. I’d also argue that Alan Arkin’s political incorrectness and Kevin Hart’s hyperactivity personality are overdone.

The film’s big fight finale doesn’t quite generate the excitement that you might expect (it’s formulaic at best) but make sure you do stay through the early part of the closing credits. There’s a surprising sequence that provides the film’s most memorable moment. For a boxing fan, it’s almost worth the price of admission.