Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 27 October 2019

It’s as straight forward as movie titles get.  This is a film about a person named Brittany who runs a marathon.  Her decision is driven by her waistline and her wallet.  Brittany’s doctor suggests she lose 25kgs for the betterment of her long-term health and, too poor to afford a gym membership, she takes up running with the goal of completing the prestigious New York City Marathon.

In that regard, this a feel-good, inspirational flick.  There are plenty of us out there (myself included) who could lose a few kilograms but we lack the motivation to do so.  Star Jillian Bell shed 18kgs herself as part of her preparation for playing the titular character.  It provided insight into the changes required to one’s diet and exercise regime to lose such a substantial amount of weight.

There’s a lot more to this film however.  Yes, it’s about a physical transformation but given just as much prominence is the exploration of Brittany’s prickly, uneven personality.  She’s rude to her newfound running buddies, she disrespects family members, and there’s a shocking sequence where she taunts another woman with weight issues.  She’s a really, really hard person to like.

Writer-director Paul Downs Colaizzo, in what is his debut feature film, gives audiences plenty to digest in scrutinising the troubled Brittany.  She’s lacking in confidence and she’s quick to push people away who offer assistance.  Many of Brittany’s self-inflicted problems can be easily solved but it’s as if she’s addicted to self-pity and a continual “woe is me” attitude.

Jillian Bell is outstanding in the way she captures her character’s fragile nature and also in the way she balances laughs with poignancy.  It’s a darker comedy than some might expect.  Bell has built a steady resume of supporting comedic performances in films such as Office Christmas Party, Fist Fight and Rough Night and this provies she proves she’s more than up to the task when it comes to leading roles.

The film premiered at the Sundance Film Festival back in January where it won the lucrative audience award for the best U.S. feature film.  A bidding war ensued involving the likes of Lionsgate and Netflix but in the end, it was Amazon Studio who were wowed by its “hilariously rich story” and who snapped up the bidding rights for $14 million.  It may lack the star power of other big-screen Hollywood comedies but this is one movie you must see.

You can read my chat with star Jillian Bell by clicking here.   

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 15 October 2019

As tends to be the case with fairy tales, Maleficent (2014) culminated with its heroic characters living happily ever after (or so we thought).  Princess Aurora (Fanning) was rid of a nasty curse and crowned as the new Queen.  Prince Philip fell in love and was able to win the affections of his dream woman.  Maleficent (Jolie) was reunited with her precious wings and embraced the light as opposed to the dark.

With it all culminating so harmoniously, what could the writers do to create drama for this sequel?  The answer – fake news!  As we’re told by the narrator during the opening few minutes, Maleficent has somehow become the villain again.  She earned redemption five years ago but because of misinformation and rumour mongering, humans are again scared of her presence and question her motives.  It’s a weak plot device.

If you think that’s suspect, wait until you meet the real baddie.  Queen Ingrith (Pfeiffer) is intent on destroying every creature across the kingdoms that isn’t human.  The problem is that she’s all bluster and no depth.  She’s a one-dimensional character who acts like a crazed super villain purely because she’s a racist.  Why couldn’t they create a more intriguing backstory?  It’s also surprising that no one picks up on her bizarre plans given how obvious they are to the audience.

In terms of the returning cast, all have reprised their roles with the exception of Australian Brenton Thwaites who was busy shooting his web television series, Titans.  British actor Harris Dickinson (Beach Rats) steps into the shoes of Prince Philip as his replacement.  Angelina Jolie remains the “pick of the bunch” as Maleficent but that’s largely because she’s the only character required to make tough choices and hence, the most interesting.

Director Robert Stromberg didn’t return this time around and so the reins were handed to Norwegian director Joachim Rønning (Kon-Tiki).  His visual effects team have created some colourful locations and cute creatures but the big action finale in underwhelming.  It’s just a lot of chaotic fighting from a confusing mix of camera angles.  The lengthy epilogue was also unnecessary.

We’ve seen some strong family films this year such as Toy Story 4, Missing Link, Dora and the Lost City of Gold and Fighting with My Family.  These movies have offered a mix of laughs, emotion and creative storylines.  Maleficent: Mistress of Evil is likely to have its fans given their admiration for the original but when compared to the aforementioned films, it’s sorely lacking.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 24 October 2019

There are many reasons to hate one’s in-laws but Ready or Not is going for something rather extreme.  The film opens with Grace (Weaving) about to marry the man of her dreams.  Alex (O’Brien) is smart, kind and good looking.  It also helps that his family is “richer than God” with the wedding festivities set to take place at their expansive country mansion.

The ceremony goes to plan but a few hours later, Grace finds herself at the centre of an odd tradition.  Every time someone new becomes part of the Le Domas family, they all congregate in a special room at midnight and play a game together.  Grace has the honour of drawing a playing card from an old box and flipping it over, the choice of game is revealed – hide and seek.

How do you make a movie out of such a simple, childish game?  Writers Guy Busick and R. Christopher Murphy have done so by raising the stakes and the consequences.  There’s some weird supernatural stuff going on inside the house (it’s hard to explain) but it boils down to this – Grace has to stay hidden and avoid capture until sunrise.  If she wins, she gets to keep her life.  If she loses, she will be brutally killed.

It’s never easy creating something fresh within the well-worn horror genre but Ready or Not deserves praise for its cool concept.  You’ve got a traumatised young woman being chased by some deranged family members in a giant house that has secret rooms and passageways.  When you throw in ancient weapons, clueless servants and a myriad of security cameras, there are lot of directions in which the story could go.

The execution is a touch clumsy.  The film is at its best when it’s creating tense sequences (such as a scene in a butler’s kitchen) where you’re not sure how the protagonists will extricate themselves.  These moments are a little clichéd but they’ll still have an impact on audiences.  The film is at its weakest when it tries to transition from horror to comedy.  There are a few well-earned laughs but for the most part, the gags feel unnecessary and they detract from the menacing tone.

27-year-old Australian actress Samara Weaving (Picnic at Hanging Rock) will win fans with her emotion-charged performance as Grace.  She’s created an authentic lead character who makes the odd mistake and who reacts/overreacts to situations in a way that we can relate to.  The make-up artists deserve praise for their key part in creating the cuts, bruises and injuries that mount up with each passing hour.

More could have been made of the villainous Le Domas family (the likes of Andie MacDowell are wasted) and the decisions of some characters lack logic but on the whole, Ready or Not offers more pros than cons.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 13 October 2019

Ever seen Peter Weir’s The Truman Show? It’s one of the great films in the history of cinema. Jim Carrey’s character is, unknowingly, surrounded by paid actors in a fake world. He doesn’t have a life of his own and there isn’t an opportunity for the true Truman Burbank to evolve.  He’s being controlled like a science experiment and his sole purpose is to entertain millions of people around the world on TV.

There are parallels with the real-life story of Judy Garland. Born in 1922, Garland was just 2 years of age when she first performed on stage at her father’s movie theatre. By the time she was 18, Garland had appeared in 11 feature films and won a special Academy Award for her iconic performance as Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz (1939).  In the same vein as Truman Burbank, she spent almost her entire life in the public eye and was controlled by studio executives like a puppet.

Based on the stage play by Peter Quilter and adapted by Tom Edge, Judy covers Garland’s teenage years by way of intermittent flashback.  She was prohibited from eating fatty foods and given special tablets to supress weight gain.  She was forced into arranged friendships/relationships to boost her notoriety in the tabloids.  She worked ridiculously long hours for bossy directors.  If she ever complained, studio big-wigs would threaten to fire her and bring in fresh talent.

These scenes are informative but they’re not the crux of Rupert Goold’s film.  Rather, the movie focuses on a period in 1969 when a 46-year-old Garland (played Renée Zellweger) travelled to London to perform a series of stage shows for her adoring fans.  It was a trip of necessity as opposed to desire.  Her celebrity had waned in the United States and, as a result of some bad financial decisions, she was both homeless and penniless.  The London gig was offering £2,500 a week and it was a chance to reignite her sagging career.

Judy is an interesting character study.  There are times when we see Garland at her best.  Despite nerves and apprehension, she gathers her composure for a beautiful rendition of “By Myself” as her first song on the London stage.  Director Rupert Goold captures the emotion of that moment by shooting it with a single camera and no edits.  There’s another nice scene where she spends an evening with two fans who have worshiped her for decades.

On the flip side, there are times when see Garland at her worst.  She has an addiction to alcohol and prescription medication that is clearly affecting her life.  She also comes across as spoilt, self-entitled and unreliable.  She’s rude to her obliging assistant (Buckley) and often disrespectful to audience members who have bought tickets to her shows.  Are her problems self-inflicted?  Or are they the result of a tough upbringing and career?  I’m sure audiences will be divided.   

Judy struggles in connecting the 1960s narrative with the 1930s flashbacks.  Goold is trying to help us “get inside” Garland’s head and explain why she’s become such an anxious, complex person.  These scenes are promoting empathy but I’m not sure they fully explain the version of Garland we know by film’s end.  It feels like we’ve only scratched the surface and her troubles are far deeper.

However, the weaknesses in the script are negated by the stunning performance of Renée Zellweger (Cold Mountain, Chicago).  The casting is perfect and she does a wonderful job capturing Garland’s blend of egotism and insecurity.  It’s also worth noting that Zellweger performed all the songs herself after a full year of training with high-profile vocal coach Eric Vetro.  An Oscar nomination is a certainty and if you believe the current bookmakers’ odds, a victory speech will be required.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 21 October 2019

After the Wedding joins the likes of Cold Pursuit, The Kindergarten Teacher and Gloria Bell as foreign language movies to have been recently adapted into English to appease those who dislike subtitles.  In this instance, the original was a Danish drama directed by Susanne Bier which earned an Academy Award nomination for best foreign language film in 2007 (losing to The Lives of Others).

The setting and character names have been changed but for the most part, this is a close remake.  Isabel (Williams) is a middle aged American woman who has spent the last chunk of her life running an orphanage for abandoned children in India.  Isabel and the other volunteers are passionate about their work but they lack the financial resources to provide a better life for the kids who reside there.

Their prayers appear to be answered when contacted by Theresa Young (Moore), an extremely wealthy businesswoman who controls the biggest media placement company in the United States.  Theresa is keen to donate $2 million towards the orphanage but before doing so, she’s asked Isabel to travel to New York so they can meet face-to-face and discuss plans.

It’s at this point where things get a little strange.  The pair meet on a Friday morning but instead of Theresa signing the deal and writing out a cheque, she asks for extra time to fully consider the proposal.  Realising that Isabel has been inconvenienced and cannot immediately return to India, Theresa provides an invitation to her daughter’s wedding which is scheduled to take place the next day.  It’s an odd request and Isabel is somewhat troubled by the fact she’s attending a wedding where she doesn’t know a single guest (including anyone in the bridal party).  Theresa even offers to buy her a dress!

There are a few twists in this tale and so it’s unfair for me to reveal the surprises for those unfamiliar with the Danish original.  What I can say is that there are plot developments that come across as artificial and manufactured.  Highlighted by a meeting between Isabel and Theresa’s daughter (Quinn), it feels like all these characters are tiptoeing around certain subject matters for the purpose of prolonging the narrative.  Why are they so afraid of asking obvious questions?

It’s hard to point the finger of blame at Julianne Moore (Still Alice), Michelle Williams (Brokeback Mountain) and Billy Crudup (Almost Famous).  They’re doing their best with the limited material and it’s nice to see such a quality group of actors sharing the screen together.  I only wish that the emotion displayed by their respective characters was the equal of that experienced by the audience.