Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 07 November 2018

Claire Foy has already made her mark in the world of television but winning a Golden Globe and Emmy Award for her performance as a young Queen Elizabeth in the Netflix series The Crown.  She’s now using her newfound stardom (and her immense talent) to break into Hollywood.  So far this year, she’s given an intense performance as a woman incarcerated in a psychiatric ward in Steven Soderbergh’s Unsane.  That was followed by her portrayal as Neil Armstrong’s strong willed yet worried wife in Damien Chazelle’s First Man (which looks set to land her an Oscar nomination).

Her latest challenge is to step into the shoes of a character already made famous by other actors.    Computer hacker extraordinaire Lisbeth Salander was portrayed by Noomi Rapace in the Swedish trilogy released back in 2009 and by Rooney Mara in the 2011 remake from director David Fincher.  Author Stieg Larsson never had the chance to see his creation come to life on screen given he passed away a year before his famed novel, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, was first published back in 2005.

The catch with The Girl in the Spider’s Web is that it’s the first movie in the franchise to not be based on one of Larsson’s three novels.  Rather, it’s the creation of David Lagercrantz, a Swedish author engaged by the publishing company to write two more books in the Millennium series.  We can never be sure if Larsson would have approved of the work but at least these new novels will satisfy those looking to know more about the adventures of Lisbeth Salander and her investigative journalist friend, Mikael Blomkvist.

The good news for Claire Foy fans is that she’s the best thing in this.  She portrays Salander as depicted in the novels – a person with a brilliant mind but who struggles when it comes to social skills.  When you see her goth look and rugged accent, it’s hard to believe it’s the same actor who played the prim and proper Queen Elizabeth in The Crown.  Salander has already been an intriguing character.  As we see in the opening scene, she relishes her reputation in the media as a Batman-style “vigilante” and has no intention of going into permanent hiding.

The problem with this film is its farcical, fragmented script.  Everything feels like it comes far too easily to Salander.  She can hack networks a heartbeat, she can evade capture when surrounded by bad guys, and she has an uncanny sixth sense that alerts her to imminent danger (such as a chaotic scene where she helps a reckless National Security Agency official escape confinement).

The other players in this ensemble have little to offer.  Frans Balder (Merchant) is a careless computer programmer who has engaged Salander’s services to help protect a valuable tool that could destroy the world.  Mikael Blomkvist had a strong presence in the earlier movies but he’s a helpless, pointless observer this time around.  There’s also a subplot involving Salander’s family history that comes as too much of a surprise given her acute awareness of all things in the world.

The cinematography from Pedro Luque (Don’t Breathe) deserves a mention but it’s not enough to compensate for the weak premise and lacklustre performances (Foy excluded).  If you want to see how good this series can be, hunt down the original The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo from 2009.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 26 October 2018

In 2008, two members from the same family published a book.  Journalist David Sheff wrote a non-fiction account of his efforts to connect with his drug-addicted son and how it affected their relationship.  It made such an impact that David was named one of Time Magazine’s “Top 100 Most Influential People” in 2009.  His son, Nic, also penned a memoir that looked at events from his perspective.  It provides insight into his mindset of a drug user and the difficulties of beating the addiction.

Both books are credited as being the source material for Beautiful Boy but it’s clear the focus of the movie is on the father (played by Steve Carell) as opposed to the son (played by Timothée Chalamet).  The film occasionally picks up Nic’s timeline but for the most part, we see the world through the eyes of the forlorn, helpless David who seeks answers to unanswerable questions.

The narrative is spread over a number of years but David first realises his son is a habitual drug user when 18 years of age.  Nic is a budding writer who has been offered a place in 6 different colleges but all of that unravels because of addiction to crystal meth (amongst other things).  Nic is somewhat reluctant but David convinces him to spend 28 days in a rehabilitation centre which offers a dubiously wide success rate of between 25% and 80%.

It’s hard not to feel sympathy for David as he struggles with how to respond.  There’s self-doubt as he wonders whether he could have raised his son differently to produce a better outcome.  There’s hope after he sees Nic make substantial progress and naively think his addiction has been cured.  There’s worry after Nic relapses and goes missing for lengthy periods of time.  There’s even an element of acceptance as David comes to grips with the reality that perhaps he will never be able to help.

It’s an important subject matter but the fast-paced nature of the screenplay doesn’t allow the emotional impact to sink through.  There are many flashbacks as the film slips back-and-forth between Nic as an adult and Nic as a child.  It’s designed to show the contrast in his actions and personality but the technique is used so many times that it becomes a distraction.  There were even a couple of moments where I was unsure of the timeline.

This could have been a more powerful film if the emphasis was placed on just a handful of days in David’s and Nic’s respective journeys.  The decision to include events over several years gives it a fragmented feel.  We skip quickly between events and we don’t get an appreciation of what happened in the middle to fully understand each character.  I wasn’t sure about a few of the song choices either and the way they fit with the material.

All of that said, Beautiful Boy deserves praise for the performances of its two leading men.  Steve Carell began his career in comedy but his performances in films such as Foxcatcher, The Big Short and Last Flag Flying highlight his ability to easily change genres.  There are lengthy dialogue-free sequences where Carell’s body language is left to do the talking.  Timothée Chalamet rocketed to stardom with his Oscar-nominated performance in Call Me by Your Name and he proves that he’s anything but a “one hit wonder” as the confused, fidgety Nic. 

Co-written by Australian Luke Davies (Lion) and directed by Belgian Felix Van Groeningen (The Brocket Circle Breakdown), Beautiful Boy has lofty goals but is a touch disappointing.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 05 November 2018

In 2004, 19-year-old Garrard Conley spent two weeks at a gay conversion facility in Memphis, Tennessee at the firm request of his religious parents.  The concept may sound farcical but roughly 700,000 people in the United States, many of them teenagers, have been subjected to this dubious practice going back to the early 20^th Century.

Conley first wrote about his experiences as part of a college assignment and, realising how shocked and fascinated his fellow classmates were, it inspired him to write a full memoir.  Boy Erased was published in 2016 and the film rights were quickly snapped up by Focus Features – a company with a commitment to telling LGBT stories having previously been involved with films such as Brokeback Mountain, Milk, Beginners and Dallas Buyers Club.

Boy Erased opens with powerful words from its lead character – “I wish this had never happened but sometimes I thank God that it did.”  This signals to audiences that the film will be tough to watch at times but there is light at the end of the tunnel.  The fact Conley survived the experience and published his book is further proof.  It’s also worth noting that Conley has been renamed “Jared Eamons” for the purposes of the movie.

It’s not the first time this subject matter has been explored this year.  The Miseducation of Cameron Post won the Grand Jury Prize for US Drama at the Sundance Film Festival and received a limited release in Australian cinemas two months ago.  In that film, the protagonist (played by Chloë Grace Moretz) was able to deal with the absurdity of gay conversion therapy by forming a valuable friendship with two fellow “patients” and plotting a means of escape.

Boy Erased is a slightly different story in that Jared is a more isolated character who doesn’t have a group of friends to fall back on.  Writer-director Joel Edgerton (The Gift) effectively uses flashbacks to show how the questionable therapy has impacted Jared’s personality and spirit.  He was once a chatty, outgoing teenager but as a result of the treatment, he’s become quiet and reserved.  It’s heartbreaking to watch this young man supress his emotions and have no one to reach out with wise words and a helping hand.  Academy Award nominee Lucas Hedges (Manchester by the Sea) plays the character with great skill.

The inner workings of the facility and its “clients” will be an eye-opener to many.  All of Jared’s personal belongings are confiscated on entry and he’s subjected to a very strict set of rules.  He cannot make physical contact with any other person, he must always be accompanied by a member of staff when going to the bathroom, and he cannot discuss the treatment with anyone from the outside (including his parents).  There’s also a strong religious ethos which is continually reinforced by the head therapist (played by Joel Edgerton).

It’s repetitive during the second act but the themes come through strongly during the emotional finale.  The most interesting character is Jared’s mother (played by Nicole Kidman) as she tries to reconcile religion with reality.  She wants to be loyal to her religious husband (Russell Crowe) who is protective of his reputation as a Baptist pastor.  However, she also sees the damage being done to her son as he withdraws further and further into his shell.

The world is a messed-up place but Boy Erased provides hope that common sense can sometimes triumph over stupidity.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 24 October 2018

There’s no shortage of long-running film franchises but one which ranks highly (in terms of output) is Halloween.  The original was one of the highest-grossing films of 1978 and was followed by 9 sequels between 1981 and 2009.  There was a problem though.  Given there have been 7 directors and 16 credited writers, the series has struggled when it comes to continuity.  If you watched all the movies back-to-back, many plot developments wouldn’t make sense.

For that reason, the screenwriting team behind this new Halloween flick have pressed the “reset” button and gone back to the beginning.  It’s a little odd given they share the same title but Halloween (2018) is intended to be a direct sequel to Halloween (1978).  You can forget about the other movies and ignore the fact that Jamie Lee Curtis’ character has died twice previously!

To provide some quick background information for newcomers, the original Halloween was about a mute, mask-wearing serial killer named Michael Meyers who escaped from a sanatorium and brutally killed a bunch of people in a small American town on Halloween night.  This sequel picks things up 40 years later and we learn from the pre-credits sequence that Meyers has spent all of that time in a maximum security prison.  More than 50 psychiatrists have tried to diagnose Meyers but the general consensus is that he’s “pure evil”.

A plot twist is required to accelerate the drama and it arrives when a prison bus, escorting Meyers to a new facility on the night before Halloween (not exactly a great idea), unexplainably crashes into a ditch on the side of the road in the middle of the night.  Meyers escapes and the bloody mayhem is about to begin again.  As you’d expect given the genre, don’t get too attached to the characters as many will not survive.

Halloween (1978) was the first on-screen role for a then 19-year-old Jamie Lee Curtis and, after a lengthy and successful career, it’s nice to see her reprising the role of Laurie Strode.  Laurie was a naïve babysitter in 1978 but we now we see her as a very different person – a paranoid grandmother who lives in constant fear of Meyers’ return.  She’s created secret hiding spots in her well-fenced home and her front door has at least three locks.  Some see her crazy but her 40 years of preparation have value during the film’s big climax.

Characters are always going to make dumb decisions in horror movies to help prolong the story but those in Halloween lack credibility.  Audiences at my packed preview screening were laughing at the stupidity of some scenes and the incompetence of local police officers.  I won’t spoil too much but as an example, I don’t know why Laurie doesn’t reveal her strong suspicions about Meyers’ return when she breaks into the house of her daughter (Greer) to complain about her lax security.

Despite the not-so-perfect screenplay, Halloween still delivers as a cinematic experience.  It pays homage to its predecessor through its unsettling opening titles and the unforgettable film score created by John Carpenter.  It’s also not afraid to be gruesome and gory.  There are a few sequences that will catch audiences off guard as Meyers makes his move on unsuspecting prey.

Director David Gordon Green (Pineapple Express) is a newcomer to the genre but he’s clearly done his homework.  He makes great use of light and camera angles to heighten tension at just the right moments.  Considering the movie just had the second biggest box-office opening for an R-rated horror film in the United States (it made $76 million in 3 days), you’d like to hope that Green will be involved for more instalments to come.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 29 October 2018

I’m going sound terribly naïve but as someone who isn’t a huge music devotee, the first takeaway from Bohemian Rhapsody is the quantity and quality of songs written by Queen through the 1970s and 80s.  It would be hard to name them all in a single breath but the list would include Bohemian Rhapsody, Somebody to Love, You’re My Best Friend, We Are the Champions, We Will Rock You, Don’t Stop Me Now, Crazy Little Thing Called Love, Another One Bites the Dust, Under Pressure, I Want to Break Free and I Want It All.  Most artists would be happy to have just one of those songs on their resume let alone the whole collection.

A fair chunk of time in this biopic is dedicated to celebrating the songs of Queen and the artistry of the four band members – lead vocalist Freddie Mercury (Malek), drummer Roger Taylor (Hardy), and guitarists Brian May (Lee) and John Deacon (Mazzello).  It’s a little over-romanticised in places but we go behind the scenes and learn how some of the songs came to be written and first performed.

As an example, there’s a great backstory behind the high pitched notes in “Bohemian Rhapsody” and the many attempts it took to perfect – “If I go any higher, only dogs will hear me!”.  There’s also a humorous scene with a music executive who has serious concerns about the song’s length and radio playability (although it’s noted this character never actually existed and is more an amalgamation of Queen-doubters).

The concert re-enactments are also energizing to watch – particularly during the film’s huge musical climax which takes place at the Live Aid concert at Wembley Stadium in July 1985.  It’s hard not to feel a tingle down the back of your spine as you watch Freddie Mercury sing the very best of Queen’s collection in front of 72,000 screaming, adoring fans who are singing straight back to him.  The visual effects teams deserve praise for making it look so real.

The other side of the film is a deeper, darker exploration of Freddie Mercury as a person.  It’s a life-changing role for actor Rami Malek (Mr. Robot) and it’s easy to see why he’s being touted as a possible awards season contender.  It’s not solely his voice during the singing scenes (Malek has said they used an “amalgamation of voices) but he mirrors Freddie’s look and mannerisms.  Above all else though, he has created an interesting character.

I was particularly intrigued by the contrast in Freddie’s professional and personal lives.  As a singer/songwriter, he was supremely confident in his talent and ability.  He wasn’t afraid to take risks, buck convention and be “more outrageous” than anyone else.  His personal life was very different.  He struggled to come to grips with his sexuality, felt insecure when left alone, and yearned to be loved as part of a “family”.

The film does enough to provide us with the “essence” of Freddie but is weighed down by the breadth of material.  It feels like it’s only scratching the surface when it looks at his relationship with his parents and his long-time boyfriend, Paul, who becomes an overly simplistic villain.  Further, several events are rushed such as an argument between Freddie and his manager (Gillen) over his option to pursue a solo career.

Bohemian Rhapsody endured a troubled production in that director Bryan Singer (X-Men) was fired and replaced by Dexter Fletcher (Sunshine on Leith) part way through the shoot.  Singer still gets the official credit as director given he was there for about two-thirds of principal photography.  Despite all the problems and rumoured on-set arguments, the good news is that Bohemian Rhapsody still provides comedy, tragedy and a killer soundtrack.

You can see my chat with star Rami Malek by clicking here.