Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 20 January 2025

When it comes to 3 ½ hour epic period piece movies worthy of multiple Oscar nominations, Martin Scorsese (The Irishman, Killers of the Flower Moon) has cornered the market.  Until now.  Director Brady Corbet, who got into the industry as a child actor in the early 2000s, has wowed festival audiences with The Brutalist and it’s currently a serious contender for several Academy Awards including best picture (where it’ll be the 3rd longest nominee in history).

Corbet, working with co-writer Mona Fastvold (director of The World to Come), has split his creation into two distinct chapters with a 15-minute intermission for the film’s cinema release.  It’s a fun, old-school novelty and when I caught this at the Brisbane International Film Festival back in October 2024, there was a hurried rush for the exits at the midway mark as patrons sought bathrooms and the candy bar.  They’d return to a countdown clock informing them of the second half kick-off time.

The Brutalist is set in Philadelphia in the years following the conclusion of World War I.  László Tóth (Brody) is a Hungarian-Jewish architect who, on surviving the Holocaust, fled his home in a Budapest and moved to the United States.  He’s a sharp, well-educated man but as he’s looked down upon as an immigrant foreigner, the only work he can find is designing simple desks and chairs for his cousin’s (Nivola) small furniture store.  The scales seem heavily stacked against László in his pursuit of the “American Dream”.

His big break arrives when engaged to design and build a library for a wealthy businessman, Harrison Lee Van Buren (Pearce).  The project is celebrated (although not at first) and years later, Harrison ambitiously seeks to build a multi-purpose community centre to solidify his nice-guy image and philanthropic legacy.  László is brought in as architect who, with a few more dollars in the bank, now lives with his wife (Jones) and niece (Cassidy).  It sounds like a dream job but László still can’t shake the fact he’s seen as a second-class citizen to those who wield the power and control the purse strings.

The runtime may be a deterrent, but The Brutalist is one of the year’s best movies and worthy of the acclaim it has received since its world premiere at the Venice Film Festival last September.  Adrian Brody (The Pianist) is terrific in creating a multi-dimensional lead character who is both heroic and flawed.  There are times when he is unfairly treated and discriminated against but on the flip side, there are times when he’s his own worst enemy because of drug use and an inflexible disposition.  Guy Pearce (Memento) is equally impressive as the entrepreneur who is as charming as he is manipulative.

Filled with great conversations (loved the one between Brody and Pearce at a library launch party), the themes within The Brutalist are as relevant today as they’ve ever been.  So much of the first world has been built on the back of immigrant labour and yet it’s easily forgotten.  The film also has something to say about architecture, the way it is shaped by the time, and the legacy it leaves.  Here in Brisbane, many old Queenslander homes were built 100+ years ago and while their designers are long dead and forgotten, what they left behind still shape the culture and way-of-life in suburbs today.

With cinematography and music that elevate the material even further, The Brutalist is a powerful piece of cinema.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 06 January 2025

German director Edward Berger thrust himself into the Hollywood spotlight with All Quiet on the Western Front, a surprise streaming hit from 2022 which won four Academy Awards including best international feature.  He’s followed that with Conclave.  It marks his first English-language film and has been adapted from a 2016 fictional novel from British author Robert Harris.

Given the ritual and secrecy which surrounds papal elections, it feels like the perfect subject for a drama-thriller.  It opens with the death of the reigning pope and his close confidant, Cardinal Lawrence (Fiennes), has been tasked with leading the traditional conclave.  Cardinals will travel from around the globe, be sequestered inside the Vatican City’s Sistine Chapel, and vote until one of the Cardinals has the required two-thirds majority to be elected as the new Pope.

Knowing audiences will have a heightened curiosity about the conclave’s inner workings, the screenplay of Peter Straughan (Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy) is heavy on process.  We see cardinals write their choice on a simple white sheet of paper and place it inside a silver urn.  We observe three appointees count the votes publicly, tie them with string, and burn them in an incinerator.  We watch the men have dinner together while being served by eavesdropping nuns.  For those interested in knowing how the world’s most powerful Catholic is chosen, the film is an eye-opener.

A narrative is required, and it’s largely centred on the power struggle in selecting a new Pope.  You might want to think it’s all nice and ho-hum given they are men of God but there are several contenders and they each have different views about the direction the Church should take.  Some want to continue its progressive evolution (however slow) while some wish to return to a more strict, traditional Catholic doctrine.

It gets a little too “twisty” at times (I’m not sure I bought into the ending and events which take place outside which we never see) but Conclave is an engaging film that holds your attention from start to finish.  Just like a Knives Out-style whodunit, you’ll be speculating throughout about who’s playing who, and which Cardinal will outmanoeuvre the others and don the papal robes.  It also has something to say about “doubt” and the role of religion in society.  Berger maintains a serious tone but isn’t afraid to throw in moments of unexpected levity to make key points (not always flattering for the Church).

The music, cinematography, and production values are superb with Berger and his crew doing a stellar job in convincing us this was shot inside the Vatican City’s walls (it wasn’t).  I love the focus on small details.  Ralph Fiennes (Schinder’s List) is terrific in the lead role and, without going too heavy on dialogue, deftly illustrates the stress of leading the conclave while also creating a sense of mystery about his own ambitions.

Touted as an awards season contender, Conclave has a lot to offer.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 16 January 2025

Premiering in 1941, The Wolf Man was a successful horror film about a man bitten by a werewolf and subsequently transformed into one.  The creature never garnered the same popularity as Dracula or Frankenstein, but Hollywood still had two cracks at reinvigorating the character for 21^st Century audiences.  Van Helsing (2004) featured Will Kemp in a supporting role, whereas The Wolfman (2010) saw Oscar winner Benicio del Toro front and centre.

After the critical and commercial success of The Invisible Man, released in early 2020, Australian writer-director Leigh Whannell (Saw) now gets his chance to tell an origin story about the famed character.  Set in the current day, it’s centred on a married couple and their young daughter.  Charlotte (Garner) is a journalist, Blake (Abbott) is an unemployed writer, and Ginger (Firth) is their fun-loving child.  The trio have taken a short holiday to a remote, forested location in Oregon so that Blake can show his family the small house where he grew up.

Suffice to say the trip doesn’t go as expected.  They crash their mini truck on route, Blake is bitten by something, and… well… I think you can guess what happens next.  As Charlotte, Emmy winner Julia Garner (Ozark) is the film’s prominent character.  She doesn’t know what to make of the situation at first – are the greater risks inside or outside the house?  With no mobile phone reception to alert the authorities (surprise, surprise), the burden falls on her shoulders in keeping their daughter safe.

Whannell gives it his best shot with the creepy setting and noises (thumbs up to the sound engineers) but, in the same vein as previous Wolfman flicks, I didn’t find the character that interesting.  There’s nothing particularly sinister about his actions or motives (he can’t control what he’s doing) and he’s just someone who transforms from human to wolf.  I prefer villains who are more cunning, calculating, and worthy of rooting against (like what Whannel brilliantly created in The Invisible Man).

I also struggled to buy into the nuances of the screenplay.  Given her life is in danger, I was surprised by Charlotte’s lack of urgency and awareness at times.  Where’s the stress?  Where’s the panic?  She knows there’s something bad outside so why be so slow to close the front door?  I’ve no issue with Charlotte being the film’s hero and so why not give her more dialogue and emotion?

Wolfman isn’t a bad film but it’s not a particularly good one either.  Middle-range horror.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 31 December 2024

Vampire movies feel like “a dime a dozen” these days but they had to start somewhere, right?  If we exclude a little-known Austrian film which has now been lost, the first cinematic adaptation of Bram Stoker’s Dracula was released in 1922.  Entitled Nosferatu, it was a silent, black and white flick directed by German F.W. Murnau and starring Max Schreck in the title role.  It’s worth a look-see and so too is the 2000 release, Shadow of Vampire, which provides a fictionalised account of the film’s creation.

American Robert Eggers was roughly 9 years old when he first saw a photo of Max Schreck as Nosferatu.  His mum helped track down the full movie from a nearby video store and he’s been enthralled by the story ever since.  It’s taken a few decades to get to this point, but the 41-year-old has now been given the chance to write and direct his own adaptation.

If you’ve seen Eggers’ previous works, you’ll know he’s a filmmaker who likes gritty, stylish, folk tale-like period pieces.  The Witch was a horror film set in 17^th Century New England, The Lighthouse was an 1890s thriller with just two characters, and The Northman was an action epic about Vikings from the Early Middle Ages.  Nosferatu continues the trend with Eggers taking us back to a dark, grim Germany in the year 1838.

Thomas (Hoult) is a budding, naive real estate agent who has been asked to make the lengthy trek to Transylvania to settle a property transfer.  It’s there he meets Count Orlok (Skarsgård), a mysterious man who lives alone.  It’s clear from the outset he’s no ordinary person – his voice, his conversation topics, his dress sense – and Thomas soon realises Orlok is more than just a weirdo.  As this transpires, Thomas’s wife (Depp) waits patiently at home for her husband’s return but based on own her dreams and visions, she is not immune to Orlok’s influence.

Vampire films/TV shows have become so “commercial” in today’s age that I admire Eggers’ ambition of crafting something with a harsh, old-school vibe.  It’s not trying to sell big laughs, easy scares, and/or gruesome deaths.  It’s more of a psychological drama about the way in which Orlok, who always has the upper hand, manipulates others in pursuit of his own desires.  This approach may alienate some audience members, but I like what this film wants to be.

The production values will get your attention.  From the dimly lit castle through to the slow reveal of Orlok’s face, Eggers does a great job building interest and intrigue.  The plot is a touch thin, however.  I’m not sure there’s enough narrative to drag this out to 132 minutes.  That quibble is not enough to distract from the fact this is an above-average entry within the vampire genre.  Worth a bite.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 13 January 2025

There’s at least one in every awards season.  I’m talking about an Oscar-touted flick which, for whatever reason, I think is overrated.  They’re not particularly bad films but, out of the 200 odd movies I’d see each year, they’re not even close to making my annual top 10.  Recent examples which spring to mind include Elvis, CODA, Promising Young Woman, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, and Bohemian Rhapsody. 

The movie which fills that spot from the current crop is Emilia Pérez, the latest from 72-year-old director Jacques Audiard (A Prophet), which has been hyped since it won the Jury Prize (quasi 3^rd place) at the Cannes Film Festival last May.  It recently won the Golden Globe for best musical/comedy and is likely to be showered with Oscar nominations when soon released.

There aren’t a lot of songs, but the film is classified as a “musical” and is centred on a powerful Mexican gang leader, Manitas (Gascón).  Background details are scant but from what we see in a quick introduction, he’s a much-feared individual with a small army of henchmen who help carry out illegal drug trades and murders.

What happens next is not something I’ve seen in a gangster flick before.  Manitas wants “out” of the crime business, and he also wants to fulfill a long-time ambition of having a sex change operation.  He engages the services of as astute lawyer, Rita (Saldaña), to serve as organiser and confidant.  The plan is to fake his own death, have the required surgery, and begin a completely new life.  Manitas will completely leave his past behind – including his wife Jessi (Gomez) and two young children.

We then skip four years ahead where Manitas, now a woman named Emilia Pérez, is happy with life… with one exception.  She misses her kids!  To fix this issue, she weaves her way back into their world by pretending to be Manitas’s long-lost cousin and moving back in with the family.  It’s like a darker retelling of Mrs. Doubtfire – not even Jessi realises the woman living in her home is the husband she believes is dead.

It’s a convoluted narrative which I struggled to buy into.  Why did Manitas want to live life as a woman and leave the family behind?  Was it that easy to fake a death and disappear without a trace?  What had Emilia been doing for the last few years?  Did no one suspect anything?  Stars Karla Sofía Gascón and Zoe Saldaña deliver credible performances but it’s not enough to overcome the limitations of the screenplay.

My biggest grievance is the redemptive character arc provided to Manitas/Emilia.  The current day individual is a kind-hearted person who starts a charitable business but why?  Does having a sex change operation also transform your personality?  Given Rita knows Emilia’s murderous past, why does she keep working with them?  Jacques Audiard pushes too hard in making the title character a likeable hero.  I wanted to them judged more harshly.  If you murder someone and then show the cops where the body is buried, does that make you a nice guy?

I’ll applaud the film’s cinematography and unorthodox musical approach.  It’s weird… but in an entertaining, attention-grabbing way.  I only wish I felt as positively about the script.