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.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 29 October 2008

The film Lock, Stock & Two Smoking Barrels was released 10 years ago but many people will remember it if you asked them.  It started a wave of similar movies which I can best describe as “English gangster comedies”.  Director Guy Ritchie followed up his Lock, Stock success with Snatch in 2000.  I didn’t think it was as good but it was still worth a look.

Now, in 2008, Guy Ritchie is re-entering this genre for the third time.  The film is called RocknRolla.  I’ll be upfront and say that I was disappointed.  The storyline is confusing and there is an abundance of boring characters.  It just wasn’t good enough.

As I just mentioned, there are a lot of people in this film so let me do my best to provide my usual plot overview.  Lenny Cole (Wilkinson) rules London’s criminal underworld.  If you need something done, Lenny is your man.  He has been approached by a Russian (Roden) for his assistance in fast-tracking a major property redevelopment.  Lenny’s fee is 7 million euros and once he’s finished bribing the city’s councillors, there’ll be plenty of money left for him.

It won’t be that easy however.  Uri’s accountant, Stella (Newton), is one of the few people aware of this illegal deal.  She knows where and when the money will be exchanged and that security will be minimal.  Not content with her salary, she decides that she wants the money for herself.  She organises a robbery with the help of some hired goons.

As all this goes on, a “lucky” painting is stolen from Lenny’s office.  His right-hand man, Archie (Strong), is charged with the responsibility of finding out who took it.  All the evidence points to Lenny’s son, Johnny Quid (Kebbell), a drug-addicted musician who likes to fake his own death.  Yes, he is a strange one.

If you need proof that there are too many people in this flick, I’ll use actors Jeremy Piven (Entourage) and Ludacris (Crash) as an example.  These are the only high-profile Americans in the film and I have a strong inkling that they’ve been brought in to help the film’s marketability in the United States.  They play Johnny Quid’s music managers but I have to ask the question, what is the point?  They only appear in a handful of scenes and they contribute very little to the overall plot.

Misgivings aside, there are a few scenes which will get some laughs from the audience.  There’s a humorous subplot involving two of the men that Stella has hired for the robbery – One Two (Butler) and Handsome Bob (Hardy).  Unfortunately, these highlights are limited.  RocknRolla is a lacklustre affair that will never be remembered as fondly as Lock, Stock… or a great number of other films for that matter.

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: 21 October 2008

Brideshead Revisited is based on the novel written by Evelyn Waugh.  This isn’t the first time that it has been adapted.   In 1981, an 11 part television mini-series was produced by Granada Television.  It starred Jeremy Irons, Diana Quick and Roger Milner.  I never saw it myself but it must have been pretty good.  It won a Golden Globe Award and a BAFTA Award for best television movie.

I guess you could call this new movie the “abbreviated version” of Waugh’s lengthy book.  It has been condensed into 133 minutes by screenwriters Andrew Davies (Bridget Jones’ Diary) and Jeremy Brock (The Last King Of Scotland).  Again, I haven’t read the novel, but I was fairly impressed with what I saw on screen.  There was ample time for both plot and character development.  I’d be curious to know what was left on the cutting room floor.

The central character is Charles Ryder (Goode) and the story is set in England in the years leading up to World War II.  Charles’s mother died when he was young and he now lives with his father in a small flat in Paddington.  Their relationship is rather peculiar and they share few words.  Despite his low-class background, Charles has set himself some high ambitions and is about to leave home for the first time.  He’s off to Oxford University to study history.  His real love, however, is for art.

At Oxford, Charles is befriended by Sebastian Flyte (Whishaw), a flamboyant individual who loves to drink.  Sebastian comes from a very wealthy upbringing.  He lives with his sister and mother in an enormous castle known as Brideshead.  From the moment he lays eyes on it, Sebastian is entranced by its beauty.

Sebastian doesn’t like to talk about his family and Charles will soon learn why.  The Lady Marchmain (Thompson) is a devout Catholic who rules the household with an iron fist.  I’m not really sure how to describe her.  You could say that she’s a manipulator and that she uses religious as a weapon to control her children’s lives.  On the other hand, you could say she’s just a passionate believer in God and the Catholic Church.

This leads into what I liked about the movie and that is the “texture” of these characters.  None of them seem to say what they really think and as a result, this left me thinking.  What are these people really after and what is driving them?  Their true colours will be revealed when Charles’s friendship with Sebastian’s sister, Julia (Atwell), develops into something deeper.  It threatens to tear the family apart.

Whilst I enjoyed most of the film, my attention did wain during the closing stages.  The ending felt drawn out and there wasn’t much of an emotional impact (at least for me).  I was still impressed though by the great costumes and set decoration.  Fans of the book will definitely be interested but I’m not sure how much appeal it will have with other audiences.

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.