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!

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 15 October 2007

I enjoyed this quote from writer-director Tony Gilroy – “I heard a story about a firm involved in a huge corporate litigation that had gone on for almost a decade.  The case had been essentially settled, and the firm had prevailed.  The settlement was over a billion dollars.  Two days before the final signing, at four o’clock in the morning, a third-year associate found a document that had never been placed in discovery.  It was a very bad document, which would’ve meant a complete reversal of the case.  The document never saw the light of day, and that associate had the fastest partner promotion in the history of the firm.”

Do I believe the story?  Absolutely.  We live in a world where it’s considered acceptable to deny any wrong doing until unequivocally proven otherwise.  Does anyone take responsibility for anything any more???  Sorry, I’m going too far now.  I do believe that people are inherently good.  I just think that when it comes to legal proceedings, it’s not about right and wrong but who has the best lawyers.  I’m sure that my legal friends (and there’s a few of them who will be reading this) will be prepared to argue otherwise.

Michael Clayton has worked for a huge law firm in New York for almost 20 years.  He’s never made partner however.  That is because his position is very low-profile.  He is a “fixer”.  When clients do things that might get them into trouble, Michael sets things right.  In the film’s opening, we see him in action.  He gets a call in the middle of the night to assist a wealthy man who was the guilty party in a hit and run accident.  Michael meets the client, finds him the best lawyer and then tells him what not to say if the police should knock on his door.

Michael is about to become involved in his most important assignment.  One of the firm’s top litigators, Arthur Edens (Wilkinson), appears to have had a mental breakdown.  For six years, Arthur had been helping defend a large corporation called U/North against a $3 billion class action.  Whilst taking depositions, Arthur stripped naked and then chased a group of plaintiffs in the parking lot (wearing only his socks).

It is bad publicity for the firm but the real problem is much bigger.  Arthur’s conscience has gotten the better of him.  He has come into the possession of a damaging memo in which directors of U/North have admitted guilt.  Instead of hiding the document and protecting both the firm and the client, Arthur is going to expose it.  He doesn’t care about his career anymore – he just wants U/North to pay.

One of the founding partners of the firm, Marty Bach (Pollack), wants Michael to talk sense into Arthur.  He knows that they’ve been friends for a long time and he believes Michael can deal with this tricky situation.  There’s a lot riding on it.

Michael Clayton is an intelligent legal thriller.  There’s a lot going on in this film and my plot overview merely scratches the surface.  There are some unexpected twists and your interest will be maintained until the very end.  By the way, I loved the closing credits sequence.

It’s the directorial debut of Tony Gilroy who has had a very successful screenwriting career in Hollywood.  Gilroy was responsible for all three Bourne movies as well as films such as Proof Of Life (with Meg Ryan and Russell Crowe) and The Devil’s Advocate (with Al Pacino and Keanu Reeves).  What struck me most about Michael Clayton was the way in which Gilroy has captured the essence of each character.  When you see Tilda Swinton practicing her speech in front of a mirror, you sense her vulnerability.  When you hear Tom Wilkinson open up to George Clooney on the street, you feel his liberation.

I’ve seen films with similar themes (e.g. anything from John Grisham) but I don’t know if I’ve seen one with such smartly written dialogue.  With a likeable style and a very strong cast, Tony Gilroy has conjured up one of the most satisfying two hour experiences of my movie-going year.

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: 10 October 2007

A terrorist attack has taken place in Saudi Arabia.  A bomb was detonated inside an American housing compound in the city of Riyadh.  As medical teams helped the injured and detectives looked over the scene, a second bomb was detonated.  This was a carefully planned attack and many lives were lost as a result.

Back in the United States, Special Agent Ronald Fleury (Foxx) of the FBI wants to take a team to Saudi Arabia to help with the investigation.  His first request is denied.  The Saudi authorities don’t want to be seen as requiring assistance from the United States – it will make them look weak.  After lobbying some influential people, Fleury gets his permission.  He takes 3 other agents (played by Cooper, Garner and Bateman) and leaves on a top-secret flight.

Their first day in Riyadh isn’t as productive as they’d hoped.  They are given only limited access to the crime scene and the Saudi military are keeping a very close eye on them.  Despite this, they still manage to make some key breakthroughs.  With the help of Colonel Ghazi (Barhom), the four Americans are closing in on the terrorists responsible.

The Kingdom started promisingly enough.  The early scenes highlighted the difficulties that FBI agents face when investigating a crime in another country.  From about the half way point though, the film deteriorated rapidly.  I realised that this wasn’t a serious thriller but rather a standard Hollywood action flick.  Bullets and clichés were flying everywhere.  How can someone can be shot at 100 times and not get hit once?  I’ve been asking this question for a long time and I haven’t found an answer yet.

Some viewers won’t be perturbed by this criticism and won’t mind that this is filled with predictable action.  It all depends on who you are.  Still, with a cast including the likes of Jamie Foxx, Chris Cooper and Jennifer Garner, I expected better value for money.

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.