Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 04 November 2007

A successful painter (Auteuil) from Paris has returned to his childhood home in the French countryside.  It’s allowed him to get away from his wife, who is looking to divorce him.  He is also hoping that the beauty and serenity of the area will help him get over his “painter’s block”.  He’s looking for inspiration.

There is a small vegetable garden at the home which has become overrun with weeds.  The painter hires a gardener to plant some new crops and bring it back to its former glory.  When the gardener arrives on the first day, memories come flooding back.  It turns out that they were good friends at school and haven’t seen each other in roughly 40 years.

Three times a week, the gardener pays a visit to the painter to help look after the growing vegetables.  Each time, the pair reflect on their past and talk as if they’d been best friends for ever.  They may have different backgrounds and different personalities but being in each other’s company has given them both something to feel happy about.

Conversations With My Gardener is a simple film about the power of friendship.  Much of the film is spent listening to these two guys talk about a range of simple things.  There’s the baker from the village who just died.  There’s the painter’s daughter who is marrying a man old enough to be her father.  There’s the annual 3-day trip to Nice that the painter takes with his wife each year.

I think this is one of the finest French films of the year and two touching performances are turned in by Daniel Auteuil (Hidden) and Jean-Pierre Darroussin (A Very Long Engagement).  A benchmark I often use at the cinema is how many times I look at my watch during the movie.  The enjoyed the interaction between these two characters and I can happily report that I looked at my watch just twice (that’s a lot less than normal).  It meets the definition of a “feel good” movie.

I understand that this film won’t be for everyone.  There’s no violence, no horror, no sex and no nudity.  What it does have though… is my recommendation (for what it’s worth).

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 22 October 2007

Joy Division were a post-punk English band that formed in late 1970s.  They released just two albums – Unknown Pleasures in 1979 and Closer in 1980.  Whilst they didn’t achieve much in the way of financial success, the band developed a cult following.  They performed in front of thousands of passionate fans at concerts in both the United Kingdom and Europe.

It all ended on May 18, 1980.  Ian Curtis, the lead singer and songwriter, committed suicide at the age of 23.  News of his death sent shockwaves through the music industry.  It was simply too hard to believe.  In the aftermath of the tragedy, the band renamed themselves New Order and they are still around today.

The most well known Joy Division song is “Love Will Tear Us Apart”.  It was ranked number 1 in the Triple J Hottest 100 here in Australia in both 1989 and 1990.  Other songs include Transmission, She’s Lost Control and Atmosphere.

With that background information out of the way, it’s time to start talking about Control.  It’s a film from Dutch director Anton Corbijn which looks at the life of Ian Curtis and the events which led to his suicide.  You won’t be alone if you haven’t heard of Anton Corbijn but his credentials make him the perfect man to direct this film.  He started his career as a music photographer and one of the first bands he worked with was Joy Division.  Over the past 30 years, he has worked with an array of famous artists and has directed numerous music videos.

Control is his first major film and it’s a terrific achievement.  It premiered at this year’s Cannes Film Festival and has been receiving rave reviews ever since.  Shot in black and white, Corbijn transports us back to the late 1970s and takes us into the mind of a troubled individual.

Ian Curtis was a gifted musician but this movie doesn’t focus on talents in that regard.  Rather, we look at his troubled relationship with his wife (the film is based on her autobiography), his battle with epilepsy and the difficulties he faced in coming to grips with the band’s success.  What struck me most was that Curtis had a very introverted personality – not what you’d expect from the lead singer in a popular band.  Music gave him an outlet by which he could express himself but in the process, it created a level of “fame” that he didn’t know how to deal with.

An unknown English actor by the name of Sam Riley plays Ian Curtis.  You’ll quietly chuckle when you see the way that he replicates Curtis’ dance moves on stage.  There’s a lot more to this performance though.  He does what I like to see a great actor do – express himself through actions and emotions rather than dialogue.  He doesn’t say much (particularly in the later stages) but you know exactly what thoughts are going through his mind.

I know very little when it comes to music (the facts above required much research).  I do know a lot about movies however and I can tell you that this is a good one.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 30 October 2007

History was never my strong suit at school and before seeing this film, I didn’t know much about the life of Jesse James.  The name of the movie told me something though - he was killed by the “coward” Robert Ford.  It’s an interesting title, isn’t it?  It makes it very clear what the filmmakers (at the very least) think of Robert Ford.  Furthermore, of the 2,244 movies I’ve critiqued on my website to date, none have a longer title.

If you think this is an action-packed robbery movie, think again.  Whilst Jesse James was one of history’s most famous outlaws, you only get to see him “at work” in the opening half hour.  James and his crew rob a train in Missouri.  It’s an unsuccessful operation and they get very little cash from the people on board.  Following the heist, the state authorities put out an arrest warrant for Jesse James and offer a reward for anyone who can help find him.

The next hours (yes, it’s a long one) are spent watching Jesse evade his potential captors.  He kept on the move and confided in no one.  He was worried about the police but even more worried by his friends – would they sell him out for the reward money.  No one could be trusted and the self-doubt started to take its toll.

Robert Ford was the man who would kill James.  He was a member of his gang and just 20 years of age.  Ford had idolised Jesse growing up and had read all about him in the papers and in books.  It’s hard to believe that he was the man who pulled the trigger.  This film focuses on Ford as much as it does James.  We see things from both perspectives in the lead-up to the assassination on April 3, 1882.

To be honest, I found it all rather boring and tedious.  Not a lot happens and not much is said for the 160 minute duration.  I also had trouble following who was who and what their relationship was with other characters.  Perhaps I should have been paying more attention.  The cinematography and soft music score make it a beautiful-looking film but there isn’t enough substance.

It may be a legendary American tale but an Australian is sitting in the director’s seat.  It has been written and directed by 40-year-old Andrew Dominik.  This is only his second film after having made the much loved Chopper in 2000.  There’s a similarity in both stories in that Dominik is trying to take a real-life “bad guy” and show him in a different light.

I liked Casey Affleck’s performance most as Robert Ford.  Brad Pitt didn’t quite do it for me as Jesse James.  I was surprised to learn that he won best actor at the recent Venice Film Festival.  I’m confident that it won’t be replicated at next year’s Oscars.

The best part of this film is its ending.  We find out what happens to Robert Ford in the aftermath of Jesse James’s death.  It gave me a few things to think about.  Whether you’re prepared to sit through the first two and a half hours of this film to get to this finale, is up to you.   

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 17 October 2007

In January 2002, American journalist Daniel Pearl was kidnapped in Pakistan.  He worked for the Wall Street Journal and thought that he had secured an interview with a high-profile Sheikh.  It turned out to be a trap.  He was held against his will by an organisation with links to Al Qaeda.  The story made headlines across the globe and the world waited to see if he would be released.

A Mighty Heart brings Daniel’s story to the screen but it is not told from his perspective.  Instead, we see it all through the eyes of his wife, Mariane (Jolie).  Mariane was a Frenchwoman who also worked as a journalist.  They were in Pakistan to cover the “war on terror” in the aftermath of September 11, 2001.  Just prior to the kidnapping, they were making preparations to return to the United States.  Mariane was five months pregnant and the time was right to head home.

Those familiar with the work of director Michael Winterbottom (Welcome To Sarajevo, In This World) will recognise the film’s style.  It is shot like a documentary and you’ll feel like you are watching events as they actually happened.  You’ll take Mariane’s journey and sense how difficult it was for her.  The Pakistani police, the American officials and her close friends are all doing their best to give her hope.  As each day passes however, the lack of news starts to take its toll.

I’ve often been critical of Angelina Jolie (Girl, Interrupted) but this is her finest role.  She is tipped to earn an Academy Award nomination and if so, it will be well deserved.  Jolie shows Mariane Pearl as a woman of great strength.  Her husband may have been kidnapped but she keeps her emotions in check, puts on a brave face and does whatever she can to help find him.  On a lesser note, I have to add that I liked Jolie’s French accent.

My main criticism is that the film doesn’t maintain a solid pace throughout.  There are lengthy sequences where little is happening and I felt like I was watching nothing more than people talking on their mobile phones.  Perhaps a few minutes could have been trimmed from the 100 minute running time.

A Mighty Heart is not the easiest film to watch but those interested in the subject matter, should make sure they don’t miss it.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 28 October 2007

At the start of the year, I remember seeing trailers for a new film called Grindhouse.  It was interesting experiment.  Directors Quentin Tarantino (Pulp Fiction) and Robert Rodriguez (From Dusk Till Dawn) each made a 90 minute movie and they were shown back-to-back (complete with fake movie trailers in between).

Both films were a tribute to “grindhouse cinema”.  In the 1970s, a style of filmmaking was born where studios made really cheap B-grade movies and showed them largely in drive-in movie theatres.  They attracted young audiences by throwing in heaps of sex, nudity, violence, horror and drug use.  The genre died out in the early 1980s with the arrival of home video.

Anyway, Grindhouse failed to set the box-office alight when released in the United States back in April.  The decision was then made to split the films up when distributing them overseas.  This was due to concerns that international audiences had no concept of grindhouse cinema and that they’d struggle to sit through a 191 minute movie.

Death Proof is the first of the two films to be released in Australia and we’ve been waiting a long time for it.  Given that it is being shown as a separate movie, roughly 20 minutes worth of additional footage has been included.  The general consensus from the U.S. was that Quentin Tarantino’s Death Proof was the better of the two movies and perhaps this is why it is being shown in Australia first.  At the date of this review, no release date has been set for Robert Rodriguez’s film, Planet Terror.

After seeing Death Proof in a packed cinema, I can say it is an insanely crazy movie.  A loud round of applause was given after the abrupt (and incredibly violent) final scene.  In terms of its style, I’ve seen nothing like this all year.  It certainly looks like a B-grade flick – the film reel jumps in certain places, the editing looks poor and there are often scratches on the screen.  You’ll pick all this up in the first few minutes.  You’d think it actually was a film from the 1970s (except for the fact that characters use mobile phones and iPods).

What elevates the film above its genre is the smartly written dialogue and cool plot.  The story centres on a stunt-man named Mike (played by Kurt Russell).  He loves killing women.  He finds a target, waits until they’re on the open road and then smashes his car into them at high speed.  Mike always survives because he’s driving a special stunt-man car with many safety features.  The women are not so lucky.  He can get away with his crimes because a car accident looks exactly like that – an accident.

Despite what you might think, this isn’t a non-stop, blood-thirsty, action fest.  Most of the film is spent listening to people engage in conversation.  It’s reminiscent of other Tarantino films including Pulp Fiction and Jackie Brown.  Listening to the chit-chat adds to the film’s suspense.  You know something bad is about to happen – it’s just a matter of when.  I do think that a little too much time is spent though on these conversational pieces and that the film would be better served if 10 or so minutes were cut.

It all ends with a great finale which has to be seen on a big-screen.  The adrenalin-pumping car chase sequence left me on the edge of my seat.  Don’t ask me how but the film has escaped an R rating in Australia.  It’s rated MA (for 15 year-olds and above) but be warned – those adverse to graphic violence might be best to stay home.  For the rest, sit back and enjoy the ride!