Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 29 September 2010

For many years, Tim (Rudd) has been working hard on the 6^th floor of his private equity firm.  He’s been biding his time, waiting for an opportunity to earn a promotion and move up to the lucrative 7^th floor.  His chance has now arrived.  He’s impressed the big boss (Greenwood) with a creative idea to earn the trust of a wealthy Swiss businessman.  It’s earned Tim an invite to a special dinner that the boss is hosting.

This is no ordinary dinner however.  Instead of bringing a bottle of wine or some appetisers, all the guests are asked to bring along an “idiot”.  The reason is solely for entertainment.  The other guests will laugh and mock these lower-class individuals (who won’t be in on the joke).  The biggest idiot will be awarded a special trophy at the end of the night.

I had a problem with this film and it stems from this strange storyline.  Is this supposed to be a farcical comedy or is it supposed to be a black comedy?  As you may have detected from my plot overview, the characters behind this dinner are quite sinister.  It is one thing to laugh at another’s misfortune but to set up such an elaborate sham is cruel.

I hoped this would be a dark comedy.  The premise reminded me of a brilliant 1997 film called In The Company Of Men which was directed by Neil LaBute.  It was about two guys looking for show their dominance over the female race.  They picked the most innocent woman they could find and set up an elaborate plan to crush her heart  It was a powerful film but very difficult to watch.  It’s why I can still remember it so vividly today.

Unfortunately, director Jay Roach (Meet The Parents) has gone with a much softer option with Dinner For Schmucks.  The “schmuck” that Tim has chosen is a random guy he ran into (literally) on the street.  His name is Barry (Carell) and he works as a taxidermist (mounting dead animals for display).  His favourite animal is the mouse and he’s got plenty of them stuffed at home.  He calls them his “mouse-terpieces”.

Barry is a complete nightmare.  He’s like the friend you just get rid of.  He comes across as well-intentioned but everything Barry’s involved with becomes a disaster.  Tim’s current girlfriend now hates him and his ex-girlfriend is now stalking him.  Is it all worth it?  Has he gone too far in order to earn this promotion?  I think we all know the answer to that question.

You can tell from the film’s tone that everything will work out in the end.  Trust me, I’m not giving much away there.  I didn’t like Steve Carell as Barry.  It’s hard to feel sorry for someone who seems to instigate so many of his own problems.  Paul Rudd isn’t any better.  The best characters are those who are supporting.  Jemaine Clement provides most of the highlights as a performance artist with an insatiable sex drive.

If you see this film as a simple farce, you’ll probably have some fun.  Even I had to laugh at a great scene where Tim has brunch with the Swiss businessman.  It’s not enough though to warrant a positive review.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 10 September 2010

Twenty years ago, Gordon Gekko lived by the mantra that “greed is good”.  Those three simple words have been echoed by many in the business world since the original Wall Street was released.  The recent global financial crisis has shown us that.  Major banks in the United States were lending money to practically anybody.  You didn’t need collateral or proof of income.  The whole system was driven by greed.  Company boards wanted to push up the share price.  Staff wanted big bonuses.

It’s now time for another apt saying – “what goes up must come down”.  Gordon Gekko knows that one too.  Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps begins in 2001 with Gordon being released from prison.  He spent 8 years behind bars after being found guilty of insider trading.  Is he a changed man?  It would appear so.  We quickly pan to the year 2008 and see Gordon promoting his new book.  It’s entitled “Is Greed Good?”

He’s the most interesting character but Mr Gekko isn’t centre stage this time around.  The camera’s lens is focused squarely on Jacob Moore (Shia LaBeouf), a successful young trader with a growing reputation.  Jacob has developed a keen interest in “green energy” and he’s looking for investors to fund a start-up company that is developing laser fusion technology.

There’s a link between these two guys.  Her name is Winnie (Carey Mulligan) and she’s daughter to Gordon, fiancé to Jacob.  Winnie hasn’t spoken to her father in many years however.  Their family fell apart while Gordon was in jail and she places the blame firmly on his shoulders.  She has made a life for herself promoting environmental issues for a non-profit organisation (no points for subtlety).

Michael Douglas is the film’s biggest positive.  He won an Academy Award playing Gordon Gekko in the original Wall Street and you can tell he had fun reprising the role.  There’s a wonderful line (which I won’t spoil) when he speaks to an old rival (Josh Brolin) about telling the truth and telling lies.  I’ve got to find a way of weaving into one of my own conversations.

Whilst it was great to catch up with Gordon once again, I didn’t think much of these new characters.  I wasn’t sure what to make of Jacob.  He introduces himself to Gordon and tries to repair the gap between father and daughter.  Why is he doing this?  Is it for the benefit of his fiancé?  Or is he more interested in having Gordon as a mentor?  Jacob is portrayed as a nice guy (he’s successful, good looking, loves green energy) but I wasn’t convinced.

There were others players in this ensemble who I found puzzling.  What did Winnie see in Jacob?  Given her family problems, I couldn’t understand why she’d marry someone so much like her father.  Jacob’s mother (Susan Sarandon) pops into the story for a handful of scenes but for what purpose?  Is it just to show the effect that the collapse of the housing market has had on people?  Don’t we know this already?

While on the subject, the film fails to get a message across in relation to the global financial crisis.  All it offers are a couple of lame scenes where the big banks get together and discuss a bail out policy with the U.S. treasury.  This could have been a gritty, realistic drama but the writers have gone with a safer, more commercial option.  The unsatisfying ending is proof of that. 

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 27 September 2010

Do you like a challenge?  If so, you should see this movie and try to identify the Australian actors who have leant their voices to its characters.  There are more than 15 by my count.  I guess the casting agents had a thing for Aussies.  Then again, maybe it was just for convenience given the film was shot at Fox Studios in Sydney.

That’s not the end of the local connection.  Australia company Animal Logic was behind the incredibly detailed animation that you’ll see on the screen.  They rose to prominence in 2006 with Happy Feet and this latest effort will only further enhance their reputation.  I don’t even want to guess how many man-hours it took to create some of these scenes.

Unfortunately, my love for the animation doesn’t extend to the direction and storyline.  I found certain elements of the plot difficult to understand.  How does “moon blinking” work?  What’s with the metal flecks machine thingy?  I also had trouble keeping up with all the characters.  Did we really need so many of them?  It’s hard to tell who’s fighting who in certain fight sequences.

Given my grievances as a 33-year-old adult, I’m not convinced this film will engage its target audience.  It’ll be a struggle to maintain kids’ short attention spans.  I’ve also concerns about the marketability of these animals.  Are owls exciting enough to warrant their own movie?   They didn’t do it for me.  I had a lot more fun earlier in the year watching talking toys and fire-breathing dragons.

To quickly encapsulate the story, it’s about a group of good owls who are trying to stop a group of bad owls from taking over their world.  That’s about all I took away from it.  I haven’t read Kathryn Lasky’s novel but I’m guessing this is yet another case where something was lost in translation.

The film opened in the United States last weekend with a poor box-office take of $16.3m.  Considering the film’s $100m budget, I suspect this will be the first… and last time we see the owls of Ga’Hoole on the big screen.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 07 September 2010

I wasn’t sure what to expect from the unorthodox pairing of Will Ferrell and Mark Wahlberg but it turns out they make a likeable comedic duo.  They’ve teamed up in The Other Guys to play two goofball police officers.  Ferrell plays Allen Gamble – a forensic accountant who loves to sit at his desk and fill out pointless paperwork.  He’s a nerd, pure and simple.  Wahlberg plays Terry Hoitz – an action-loving detective who was demoted after accidentally shooting a big-name baseball player.  He has serious anger management issues.

Tired of being the “losers” in the office, Allen and Terry want to make a name for themselves.  They want to get out on the street and bring down some hardened criminals.  I should point out that these guys are not like the super-intelligent detectives you might see on CSI: New York.  They have absolutely no idea what they’re doing.  There’s one moment where they turn up at a crime scene and accidentally drive their car over a dead body.  There’s another segment where they get confused with the good-cop / bad-cop routine.

Despite all their deficiencies, they miraculously find themselves on the tail of a high-profile businessman (Coogan) who is up to something dodgy.  They just need to figure out what it is and who is involved.  This is their chance to impress.

I think I suffer from biopolar disorder when it comes to Will Ferrell comedies.  I hated Talladega Nights and I didn’t care much for Anchorman.  Both those films were written and directed by Adam McKay, the same guy responsible for The Other Guys.  For whatever reason (probably because I took my correct medication), I found this much funnier.

Ferrell and Wahlberg are great alongside each other.  I’ve become accustomed to seeing Wahlberg in dramatic/action roles but he’s branched out in 2010 with his humorous performance in The Other Guys and his scene-stealing efforts in Date Night.  The film is further strengthened by its quirky supporting characters.  Michael Keaton stands out as a police captain who works a second job at a bedding store so he can send his bisexual son to college.  Need I say any more?

I started to tire during the film’s second half but The Other Guys deserves inclusion in my list of Will Ferrell comedies that I’m willing to endorse.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 22 September 2010

Having taken in $5.5m at the Australia box-office, The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo has been one of this year’s big success stories.  I realise that it’s based on a best-selling novel but it’s still an impressive total considering that it’s Swedish.  It’s actually the highest grossing foreign language film in this country since Hero in 2004.

For fans of the original movie, the good news is that you’ve only had to wait 6 months for this sequel.  You can find out what’s next in store for the journalist Mikael Blomkvist and computer hacker Lisbeth Salander.  The bad news is that this film is somewhat of a let down (which I seem to say 95% of the time when reviewing sequels).  It’ll be interesting to see if this instalment is as successful at the box-office.

The film begins with Blomkvist on the verge of publishing a huge story in his Millenium magazine.  A budding journalist has put together a well researched article on the sex-trafficking industry.  Just prior to publication, the journalist and his girlfriend are shot dead in their apartment.  The article named some very powerful officials and Blomkvist believes that one of them may be behind the killings.

The police think otherwise.  The murder weapon was left at the scene and it contains fingerprints belonging to… Lisbeth Salander!  She becomes the prime suspect and the hunt is on to find her.  Blomkvist doesn’t believe that Salander is the killer but he can’t work out how her fingerprints ended up on the gun.  He’d love to be able to ask Salander but she disappeared over a year ago and he hasn’t heard from her since.

What’s missing from this film is the great interaction between Blomkvist and Salander.  I realise that screenwriter Jonas Frykberg has to remain faithful to Stieg Larsson’s novel but it’s disappointing that they spend so little time together in this film.  We follow both of their stories but it’s just not the same.  I was also a little disappointed with the performance from Noomi Rapace.  I’m hoping she’ll earn an Oscar nomination for her role in Dragon Tattoo but she didn’t seem to have the same spark this time around.

Whilst it’s not as memorable as the original, I’ve always got time for a well-written thriller.  There are plenty of characters involved and you’ll be cheering (on the inside) for Blomkvist as he fits the pieces of the puzzle together.  He’s such a likeable hero with his mild-mannered demeanour.

I dare say that we won’t be waiting long for the final film in this trilogy – The Girl Who Kicked The Hornet’s Nest.  No release date has been set in Australia but the film is complete and has already been released in a few other countries.  I hope it’s a fitting finale.