Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 27 August 2012

Moonrise Kingdom is a film that’s growing on me.  The first time I saw it, I liked it.  The second time I saw it, I really liked it.  We should expect nothing less than from the gifted Wes Anderson – a wonderful storyteller who has developed a knack for creating characters that are both distinctive and memorable.  A list of his best works would include Rushmore, The Royal Tenenbaums and The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou.  All three films feature Bill Murray – another reason why you should have them in your personal DVD collection.

It boasts one of the strongest casts of the year but the two central characters in Moonrise Kingdom are actors you won’t be familiar with – Jared Gilman as Sam and Kara Hayward as Suzy.  For both, it’s their very first acting credit.  Not a bad way to start their career, huh?

They play two 12-year-olds who are part of the small community that live on New Penzance Island.  The year is 1965.  To bring us up to speed, the film’s self-aware narrator (Bob Balaban) provides a humorous overview about the island.  He also provides an ominous warning about a “well documented” storm that will occur in three days time.

You could probably label this as a romantic-comedy but it’s always tricky trying to fit Wes Anderson’s films into a specific genre.  Having fallen in love (or so they think), these two socially awkward kids have decided to run away from their respective homes and start their own, independent life together.  They have everything they think they’ll need – a tent, food, books and a battery-operated record player.  It’s all very cute.

It doesn’t take long for their disappearance to cause mayhem on the island.  A search party is immediately established consisting of Bill Murray and Frances McDormand (as Suzy’s parents), Bruce Willis (as the town’s sheriff) and Edward Norton (as Sam’s scout master).  A group of young scouts, referred to at one point as the “beige lunatics”, are also on the trail and are eager to their put their merit badge training to good use.

The best adjective I can use to describe this storyline is “strange”.  That’s not a negative.  The first two-thirds is “strange” in a funny, off-beat, loveable kind of way.  So many scenes will leave you with raised eyebrows and a wry smile.  Anderson, along with co-writer Roman Coppola (The Darjeeling Limited), deserve praise for creating this absurd premise and filling it with such witty dialogue.  The light, bubbly film score from Alexandre Desplat (Fantastic Mr. Fox) is one of the year’s best and perfectly suits the movie’s tone.

All of that said, the film’s last third is “strange” in a “strange” kind of way.  It starts veering off its comedic path and becomes a little too silly and fanciful.  They’ve tried too hard to create an over-the-top, dramatic finale.  There’s one event in particular (a lightning strike) that I’m still struggling to compute.

That’s about the only weakness I can find though.  It would have been nice to see some of the adult cast members get more screen time (e.g. Bill Murray, Frances McDormand) but I wasn’t too bothered given the terrific performances turned in by the younger actors.  At its core, this is a sweet, endearing tale about two prepubescent kids who think they’ve discovered love for the first time.  They’re a delight to watch.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 15 August 2012

Set in the 1990s, Bernie is based on a true story… and it’s very interesting one at that.  Bernie Tiede worked as an assistant funeral director in the small town of Carthage, Texas.  With a population of less than 7,000, you can get the feeling that it’s the kind of place where everyone knows everyone.

Bernie had always been one of the most loved members of the community.  If you wanted to prepare for a funeral, he was the man you went to see.  Every tiny detail was covered and he was renowned for his dedication and impeccable service.  Bernie was also a regular churchgoer and did his best to boost the cultural profile of the area.

That’s not to say people didn’t gossip behind Bernie’s back.  People were quick to speculate as to why a thirty-something guy lived alone and didn’t have a girlfriend.  They also found it strange that he spent so much time in the company of elderly, widowed women.  He’d comfort them after the death of their husbands and visit their homes regularly with gifts of flowers and soaps.

The rumour-mill ran riot when he struck up a friendship with Marjorie Nugent, a wealthy widower in her late 70s.  You’d be lucky to find anyone in Carthage who liked Marjorie.  A character in the film sums her up best when she says “that people in town would have shot her for $5.”  Bernie and Marjorie became very close and were always seen in each other’s company.  They also went on numerous overseas holidays together.

So what was really going on?  Why would a nice guy like Bernie be spending so much time with a cranky old lady who had isolated herself from everyone?  Was he interested in her money?  That’s the first conclusion that many people reached.  Maybe he was just being friendly?  Perhaps there was something romantic between them?

Whilst this is based on actual events and you can find out how it ends through a simple internet search, I’ll keep my mouth shut and not reveal anything more in this review.  I wasn’t familiar with the story myself and was shocked by the developments in the film’s second half.

Inspired by a magazine article, writer-director Richard Linklater (Dazed & Confused, Before Sunrise) has adapted this story for the screen.  He could have told it as a straight forward drama but instead, he’s made it as a dark comedy that somewhat resembles a documentary.  It includes interviews with actual residents of Carthage who share their thoughts on events as they unfold.

Jack Black plays Bernie Tiede and is a good fit for the part.  He’s not the zany, over-the-top Jack Black that you’ll remember from films like School Of Rock and Nacho Libre.  Yes, there are laughs but the role also requires subtlety and mystery.  Black proves that he has the range and seems to thrive working alongside the legendary Shirley MacLaine (Terms Of Endearment, The Apartment).

Whilst it feels a little too one-sided, Bernie is still an intriguing film that has something to say about justice and the importance of how we are perceived.  It’s provided me with several decent conversation starters that I can’t wait to share.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 22 August 2012

A “film” is defined on Wikipedia as a series of a still or moving images.  Holy Motors meets that basic definition.  I can’t argue with that.  However, there are many people who will have a more elaborate, a more precise definition.  They’re accustomed to a “film” containing a clear narrative, identifiable characters and a strong resolution.

If you have similar thoughts then you can forget about seeing Holy Motors.  I’m describing it more as an “experience” than a “film”.  Instead of sitting back, relaxing and enjoying my popcorn, I spent two hours trying to work out what the hell I was watching.  At the preview screening I attended, the stunned murmur from the audience as the closing credits started to roll said it all.

The whole movie takes place over a 24 hour period and follows a guy (Lavant) who is being driven around Paris in a limousine.  That’s my attempt at a simple, one-sentence definition.  From this point on, the more I reveal, the more confused you will become.

This guy has been given 9 jobs to complete.  The details are contained in separate paper files that are handed to him by his loyal driver (Scob) before reaching each destination.  Each job requires him to change his appearance and play a certain role.  The limousine is therefore armed with an array of costumes, wigs, masks and mirrors.

As an example, his first job sees him dress up as a crippled old lady who can barely walk.  Followed by two security guards in black suits, he sets himself up on a busy Parisian street and begs for money.  When he’s finished, he gets back into the limousine, changes his costume and sets off for the next assignment.

So why is he doing this?  What is he being paid?  Who else knows what’s going on?  Is this reality or fantasy?  If you’re expecting answers to these questions, think again.  It’s as if each “job” is stranger than the last.  The finale (which I won’t reveal) left me completely befuddled.  I’d recommend you don’t see this alone – for the sheer reason that you’ll need someone to talk it through with afterwards.

The film’s hypnotic tone and beautiful cinematography reminded me of Gaspar Noé’s Enter The Void (which premiered back in 2009).  You could also draw parallels with films such as Mulholland Drive and The Tree Of Life.  There’s no question that director Leos Carax wants to challenge the audience.  When asked about the public’s response at the Cannes Film Festival he said “I don't know who the public is, except a bunch of people who will soon be dead.”

Carax’s cryptic answers to press questions only add to the film’s mystery.  Instead of a director justifying his choices and explaining his rationale, Carax is giving nothing away.  I wouldn’t be getting my hopes up for any director’s commentary on the DVD!  It would appear that Carax wants audiences to formulate their own opinions, however varied they may be.

I’ve scoured the internet for a few interpretations and they make for good reading.  Perhaps there is a method in his madness.  Perhaps there is a “point” to this movie that I missed on a first viewing.  Does the last conversation in the film (as strange as it may seem) shed some light on what came before?  That’s up to you to decide.

Given that he takes on 11 different personalities, it came as no surprise to see audiences raving about the performance of Denis Lavant when it premiere at Cannes back in May 2012.  He’s terrific.  Those looking for more familiar names will spot cameos from Eva Mendes and Australian Kylie Minogue.  The bizarre nature of all the characters has stuck in my mind long after leaving the theatre.

Whilst I’m not completely sold on Holy Motors, I have to admire its audacity.  It's like a really difficult Sudoku puzzle - you'll love the challenge but will be irriated if you can't solve it.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 13 August 2012

The late Robert Ludlam wrote three novels that took us into the world of secret agent Jason Bourne – The Bourne Identity, The Bourne Supremacy and The Bourne Ultimatum.  All three were adapted into cinematic form and it’s become one of my favourite movie franchises.  In each instance, we saw exciting, fast-paced action sequences interwoven with a credible, suspenseful plot.  It’s the ideal combination for anyone who loves a good conspiracy thriller.

Given that Ludlam’s books have now been adapted, the decision has been made to move this franchise in a different direction.  Writers Tony and Dan Gilroy were charged with the task of creating a new story that maintains the “essence” of the earlier films whilst given the audience something fresh.  In that regard, I think they’ve done an admirable job.

His name appears in the title (largely for marketing purposes) but you won’t see Jason Bourne in this instalment.  Both Matt Damon and director Paul Greengrass (who made the last two films) have decided to take a break from the series.  Bourne’s absence is explained by the fact his character has gone into hiding.  If anything, it at least keeps the door open for him to return down the track.

For those who remember the earlier films, Bourne was part of Operation Treadstone – a highly secretive CIA initiative where agents’ behaviours were modified with the intention of making them expert assassins.  Ah, but it wasn’t the only such program.  As we learn at the start of The Bourne Legacy, the CIA has another illegal operation hidden away.  Six agents are being provided revolutionary medication that improves their mental prowess and gives then a noticeable advantage in the field.

Unfortunately, the bad press that surrounded Jason Bourne threatens to expose this program and further damage the integrity of the CIA.  A retired U.S. Air Force Colonel, Eric Byer (Norton), has been brought in by the CIA and charged with the responsibility of cleaning up this mess.  His solution is straight-forward – shut down the program and eliminate these six agents before word gets out.

Five are killed.  One is not.  His name is Aaron Cross (Renner).  What follows is the intricate game of cat and mouse that we’ve come to expect from this series – one guy trying to outrun and outsmart those at the top of the CIA.  His only ally appears to be an experienced scientist (Weisz) who has been helping create the program’s performance enhancing drugs.

There’s a sense of familiarity about The Bourne Legacy that’s difficult to shake.  Whilst it’s great to see the series taking a chance and introducing new characters, this film does have a “seen it all before” vibe.  We’ve got the same cover-ups and conspiracies and they’re not advanced any further than they were in the earlier movies.

That’s not to say the film isn’t entertaining.  The finale too long but the chase sequences, shot in several countries, have been skilfully directed by Tony Gilroy (Michael Clayton, Duplicity).  I also enjoyed the scenes within CIA headquarters as we watch the “villains” strategize their plans to capture Cross.  It’ll again leave you wondering if there’s a strong element of truth to this tale.

Jeremy Renner (The Hurt Locker) can’t quite match the charm of Matt Damon in the leading role but it’s hard to fault his passionate, energetic performance.  Academy Award winner Rachel Weisz (The Constant Gardener) gets plenty of screen time herself (she’s not just a token love interest) and the duo share some well thought out conversations.

It’ll be interesting to see where the series goes next.  The idea of bring Damon and Renner together seems perfect.  It’s just a question of whether the money is available and if it can be arranged.

You can read my interview with star Jeremy Renner by clicking here.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 19 August 2012

It’s an important subject matter worthy of big screen documentary.  However, all the initial talk about Bully surrounded its rating as opposed to its content.  Perhaps this was a cunning move on the part of The Weinstein Company, the film’s distributor, to generate publicity.

The reason for the hoo-ha was that Bully was given an R-rating in the United States.  This meant that no one under the age of 17 could see the film unless they were accompanied by a parent or guardian.  So what was the reason provided by the Motion Picture Association of America?  The film was deemed to contain “some language” due to the “f-word” being mentioned on 6 occasions.

Suffice to say there was a public outcry.  We’re talking about a movie that shines the light on the prevalence of bullying in schools and the effect that it can have on kids.  If anyone should see this film, shouldn’t it be the kids themselves?  It was an argument put forward by many and petitions were organised to help overturn the R-rating.

It took a little while but a compromise was reached.  A few of the expletives (but not all) were muted and the rating was downgraded to PG-13.  Here in Australia, we haven’t had to worry about such controversy with the film earning an M-rating.  Whilst our ratings board acknowledges that there are “mature themes and course language”, there is nothing to stop anyone from seeing Bully.

It’s clear that director Lee Hirsch has made this documentary to instigate change.  He wants people to wake up to this issue and do something about it.  There are some who hold the view that bullying is inevitable and that it’s an unavoidable part of growing up.

Is it though?  As an adult, what would happen if I went to work and punched my staff because I didn’t like them?  What if I taunted them about being fat or about being gay?  Would this be considered acceptable behaviour?  Or would it be considered abuse?

Admittedly, kids lack maturity and don’t always understand the consequences of their actions.  Where’s the line though?  What do you say to the parents of 11-year-old Ty Smalley?  Their son committed suicide in 2010 after being continually bullied at school.  The father, Kirk Smalley, is interviewed in the film.  His way of dealing with the grief has been to co-ordinate numerous anti-bullying rallies with the hope that such a tragedy will never happen again.

I’m appreciative of the issue but unfortunately, I do not approve of Lee Hirsch’s approach in this documentary.  We meet a small group of students from across America and talk with both them and their families.  To add further weight, we see covert footage of these children being harassed at school and on the bus.  There’s one particular teacher who comes off looking very bad.  She features prominently throughout the film and her “head in the sand” attitude will leave you gasping with shock.

My problem is that this film needed more perspective.  Why didn’t they interview a group of bullies?  I wanted to gather an understanding of the mindset of the instigators.  Further, why couldn’t we be taken into schools where bullying is not so much of a problem?  It’s eye-opening to look at the “bad” schools but I was also hoping to see the “good” schools and learn about the initiatives that they’ve taken to address the issue.

It’s hard not to be moved by some of the tragic stories in Bully and I sincerely hope that the film does help make a difference but in my eyes, it could have offered so much more.