Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 10 November 2008

Are you tired of unrealistic teen-orientated comedies?  You know what I’m talking about, right?  I speak of films where every teenager has perfect looks and an IQ of 220.  They also have an uncanny ability to solve any problem.  It’s not that I don’t like the genre – the problem is that almost every movie feels the same.  Storylines are rehashed and familiar stereotypes appear.

American Teen tries to break that mould by tackling the subject matter in a very different way.  Filmmaker Nanette Burstein wanted to make a “realistic” teen flick and the best way of doing this... was to create a documentary.  Burstein picked out a high school in Indiana and focused her camera lens on five diverse students undertaking their senior year.

Megan is the princess – a popular girl with good looks and an “up herself” attitude.  Colin is the jock – a basketball star trying hard to earn a college scholarship.  Hannah is the rebel - a moody girl who can’t wait to finish school and follow her lofty dreams.  Mitch is the heartthrob - a perfect guy who all the girls have a close eye on.  Jake is the nerd – a kid with acne, a bad haircut and no social skills.

During the film, you’ll watch these five individuals go about their lives both inside and outside the school’s walls.  They also open up to Burstein with a series of one-on-one interviews that were conducted throughout the year.  It’s not easy for people their age to open up about their inner feelings and I applaud their courage for participating.   I’d be interested to know what they think and what they’ve learned when they look back on the film in say, ten years time.

Opinions on the film have been mixed.  Some have loved it but others have been extremely critical.  They feel that certain scenes were “staged” and that in reality, it isn’t a true documentary.  Having seen the film and done some research on the internet, I believe those criticisms are justified.  It does feel fake at times and I’m positive that some scenes were re-enacted.

However, to use a popular phrase, I believe that “the means justifies the end”.  Yes, it’s had a touch-up with Hollywood’s cosmetic brush, but the essence of the characters is not lost.  When you see these teenagers being interviewed, you know that they’re speaking from the heart.  It will bring back memories from your own schooling years and remind you about the difficulties that kids face at that age.  Life ain’t easy.

What I took away most of the film was its exploration of American culture.  We don’t often use the words “United States” and “culture” in the same sentence but they are a very interesting country with their own unique quirks.  There’s the extreme pressure placed on kids to get a scholarship and go to the best college, there’s the obsession that final year students have with their senior prom, and there’s the incredible popularity and rivalry that comes with college sport.

If you want to know how hard it is to make a documentary, know that Nanette Burstein took close to 1,000 hours worth of footage.  She then had to cut this down to a 100-minute film while still getting her message across.  That’s not easy to do considering that more than 99.8% of your film has to be left on the cutting room floor.  Burstein has done a terrific job.  I also like the small animated segments that have been included and the snazzy soundtrack.

Even if you don’t like the movie, I’m confident that it will leave you with some talking points. 

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 02 November 2008

I first saw Hunger at the Brisbane International Film Festival back in August and I’m very glad to see it getting a cinematic release across Australia.  Put simply – it blew me away.  It is one of the few films I’ve seen this year that left a real emotional impact.

The story is based around actual events.  In 1981, Bobby Sands was an inmate at the Maze Prison in Northern Ireland.  He was a member of the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) and several years earlier, he had been convicted of possessing firearms and sentenced to 14 years in jail.  He wasn’t alone inside the prison’s walls.  It was home to a large number of other “republican prisoners” who had been found guilty of various offences.

Those in the Maze Prison felt that they should be treated as political prisoners.  They had been had been fighting for independence against the British rule of Northern Ireland.  If they were granted such status, would not have to engage in prison work, would be provided additional servings of food and would be allowed additional visits from family.  They were previously granted this political status in 1972 by the British Government but it was withdrawn in 1976.

Bobby Sands was a highly regarded member of the IRA and in March 1981, he commenced a hunger strike to help publicise their demands and the deteriorating conditions with the prison.  More than 20 of his fellow inmates would do the same and the event garnered media attention around the world.  Would the British Government, led by Margaret Thatcher, bow to their demands?

There are essentially three parts to this film.  In the first, we see the prison through the eyes of one of the guards, Ray Lohan (Graham).  It’s a very strong opening because of the fact that there is virtually no dialogue.  Director Steve McQueen did this as he wanted the audience “to know what it felt like to be in the Maze at that time – to capture what is not written about in history books”.  We do this not by listening to the characters but by watching them go about their daily routines.  It’s a very effective introduction by McQueen and it will create an eerily quiet atmosphere if you see it in a packed movie theatre.

In the second part of the movie, Bobby Sands (Fassbender) shares a conversation in the visitor’s room of the prison with a priest by the name of Dominic Moran (Cunningham).  They debate the merits of the hunger strike and the plight of the prisoners.  This is the most powerful scene in the film.  The conversation lasts for 22 minutes and of this, 17 minutes was shot in a single take (without editing).  These two protagonists try to make the other understand their point of review.  It’s riveting.

The final sequence follows the hunger strike itself.  The actual shooting of the movie was halted for several months so that actor Michael Fassbender could lose the necessary weight.  I’ll say it’s a brave performance but he looks sickly thin in the later stages.  He lost 14 kilograms in total and his lowest weight was a mere 58kgs.  It’s tough to watch at times but I think that’s the point the filmmakers are trying to emphasise.

It’s hard to believe this is the feature film debut of English-born director Steve McQueen.  It won the prestigious Camera D’or prize at the 2008 Cannes Film Festival for best first feature.  It may relate to a period of history but the points it has to make on political prisoners are just as relevant in today’s times with the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  Hunger will generate debate… but that’s a good thing.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 09 November 2008

I saw Lemon Tree back in July as a preview to the 2008 Brisbane International Film Festival.  I went with a friend and I can remember our reactions walking out of the cinema.  We were both disappointed and couldn’t understand what all the hype was about.

Nearly a month later, I went along to the closing night screening of the Festival.  Prior to the film commencing, the Festival Director revealed the top 10 movies as voted by the audience.  You could tell from the stunned look on my face that I was surprised to see Lemon Tree ranked in 2^nd place.  My first reaction was… what were these people thinking?  Now that I have to write up a review for Lemon Tree, I feel I should by asking myself this question.  Why didn’t I like it?  What was it that I missed?

The story is about a Palestinian widow named Salma (Abbass) who lives near the border between Israel and the West Bank.  She lives a simple life and makes a living by selling lemons.  Her property has a nice lemon grove and it has provided an income for decades.

Her world is turned on its head when the new Israeli Defence Minister, Israel Navon (Tavory), moves into the house next door.  Given his position, a large number of security men have been entrusted to guard both him and his family.  A lookout tower is immediately built in the backyard so that the guards can see who is approaching.

The problem is that Salma’s lemon grove is obscuring the view from the tower.  Security is worried that that the Minister’s enemies could use the grove as a hide-out before launching an attack.  The Minister therefore orders that the lemon trees be cut down.

The tale now becomes one of David versus Goliath.  With little money to spare, Salma finds an understanding lawyer and takes the case to the Israeli Supreme Court.  It makes newspaper headlines across the world with the Defence Minister portrayed in a negative light.  Who will be the first to back down?

What I haven’t yet touched on are the relationships in the film.  Salma’s developing friendship with her lawyer, Ziad (Suliman), has attracted unwanted attention from people in her community.  There’s also the deteriorating relationship between the Defence Minister and his wife (Lipaz-Michael), who doesn’t agree with some of his decisions.

Those that enjoy Lemon Tree will develop a connection with Salma and feel passion for her story.  I did not however.  I thought the story was “too manufactured” – it was like something that you’d see from Hollywood.  Security is so tight at the Defence Minister’s house and yet the guard in the lookout tower never seems to be paying attention.  This is meant to be a joke but they keep using it over and over again.

I see the importance of the film given that it highlights some of the problems between Israelis and Palestinians.  I’ve been extremely impressed with some of the movies in recent years which have focused on this part of the world.  Lemon Tree wasn’t for me however and to use a cliché, it left a rather sour taste in my mouth.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 29 October 2008

If you look at the poster for Choke, it has the following written in large font – “from the author of Fight Club”.  Let me say that this is a marketing gimmick to try to get you to see this film.  The only similarity between the two movies is that author Chuck Palahniuk’s name appears in the credits.  They have been made by different people and there is no plot or message overlap whatsoever.

Choke centres on a middle-aged guy named Victor Mancini (Rockwell) who has an addiction to sex.   He goes to a self-help group but Victor isn’t making a lot of progress.  He doesn’t seem too keen and he’s made no effort to get started on the “fourth step” in his road to recovery.

Victor lives a peculiar life.  He scams money off people by pretending to choke on food in restaurants.  He works at a colonial theme park where is boss requires him to continually dress and speak like a low-class Irish servant.  He visits his sick mother (Huston) in an aged care home and pretends to be someone else to get her to open up about his father’s identity.

I was never really sure where this film was going.  I often like these quirky, off-beat comedies but this one was too strange for me.  There wasn’t a lot to laugh about and a many scenes felt repetitive.  The dialogue was also very stiff – as if the characters were reading it straight out of a book.  No one in the film is very likeable either.

The film is rated R in Australia for it sex scenes and sexual references.  I see it having very little appeal and my unenthusiastic review won’t help its chances either.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 05 November 2008

I’m struggling to review this film.  Like any good thriller, it contains a key twist in the later stages which is supposed to catch you off guard.  I can’t talk about it in detail however as I’d be ruining the movie for you.  What I will say is that I found the “twist” to be very predictable.  I had it picked within the opening 10 minutes and I think other people will do the same.  This leaves me asking the question – was it this obvious for a reason?  I don’t know.

Our main protagonist is Samir Horn (Cheadle).  To steal a line from Austin Powers, I can best describe Samir as an “international man of mystery”.  He was born in Sudan where he saw his father killed in a terrorist explosion.  He was raised in the United States and would become a member of the U.S. Army.  Now, Samir is in Yemen and has been linked to major terrorist organisations.  Whose side is he on?  Does he even have a side?

Trying to answer these questions is FBI Agent Roy Clayton (Pearce).  A number of serious terrorist attacks have taken place across the globe in recent months and Clayton believes that Samir is involved.  He needs to track him down.  The situation becomes even more critical when word comes through of an imminent attack on home soil.

An interesting piece of trivia about Traitor is the original idea for the film came from actor Steve Martin.  He shared his ideas with a producer on the set of Bringing Down The Hosue and that starting the ball rolling.  The concept also grabbed the attention of Don Cheadle (Rotel Rwanda) and Guy Pearce (Memento).  Under the direction of Jeffrey Nachmanoff, they have produced two strong performances.

Look, it’s not that bad a film, but I can’t help but reflect on the disappointing ending.  I think I was expecting more realism and less action.  There’s a scene on a bus at the very end which I’ll use as an example.  How could this really happen?  You’ll understand what I mean if you see the movie.