Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 23 February 2019

A Danish film about a guy who sits at a desk in an office and talks on the phone for 80 minutes.  It may sound dreadfully dull but The Guilty is one of the best releases of 2019.  I’m not the only one who thinks that!  It won the Audience Award for World Cinema (Dramatic) at the 2018 Sundance Film Festival and it made the 9-film shortlist for the best foreign language film category at this year’s Oscars (it was unlucky to miss a nomination).

Directed by relative newcomer Gustav Möller, the film delves into an occupation seldom explored on screen – the emergency call-takers who receive and process phone calls when people are looking for police, fire and/or ambulance services.  Asger (Cedergren) normally serves as an experienced police officer but we learn during the opening scenes that he’s been reassigned to the call centre pending an upcoming court case (something went wrong in the field).

It’s clear that Asger doesn’t want to be there.  It’s the end of a lengthy shift, he’s tired and he’s got other things on his mind.  That changes when he receives a call from a woman who has been abducted by her ex-husband.  She speaks in a cryptic manner because the ex-husband, sitting beside her in the front seat of their vehicle, thinks that the woman is talking to her 6-year-old daughter.  Asger is able to gauge the seriousness of the situation through a series of “yes” or “no” questions so the ex-husband is none the wiser.

Asger immediately passes this information onto the local police officers.  That’s all he is required to do and if following his job description, he should sit at his desk and wait for the next call to come through.  That’s not how it plays out though.  Given his background as a police officer, Asger has a strong desire to take matters into his own hands and help this woman.  He calls her home to speak with the 6-year-old daughter and it even reaches the point where he’s calling the mobile phone of the ex-husband.

What makes The Guilty so thrilling is that everything is shown from Asger’s perspective.  We don’t get to see events unfold outside his office and we don’t get to see the characters that he’s interacting with on the phone.  It helps us relate to what life is actually like for an emergency call-taker.  They must gather information as quickly as possible, assess the magnitude of the situation, and often calm the emotions of the person they’re speaking with.  There’s a lot of pressure that’s compounded by the fact they can’t see what’s happening at the other end of the phone line.

The Guilty will have you hooked from the opening scene to the closing credits.  There’s so much to think about.  The fate of the abducted woman is important but the more interesting element is Asger and his actions.  He’s clearly a flawed character who has made mistakes in the past and seems to be making more and more as the film progresses… but is it possible that his unorthodox, emotion-driven approach will still achieve a positive outcome?

Given the strong, original premise, a production company based in Los Angeles has snapped up the rights and intends to make an English language version with Jake Gyllenhaal in the lead role.  You’re welcome to wait for its release but if you do, you’ll be missing this riveting piece of Danish cinema.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 08 February 2019

In 2013, filmmaker Barry Jenkins felt his head was in a “really good place” and, on the advice of a friend, he took an impromptu trip to Europe to help spur his creative juices.  Over 10 days in Brussels, he wrote the screenplay for Moonlight, a stunningly good drama about a young man in search of love and his place in the world.  It made history by becoming the first movie with an all-black cast and the first movie with an LGBT story to win the Academy Award for best picture.  Jenkins himself took home an Oscar for best adapted screenplay (shared with Tarell Alvin McCraney) and was also nominated for best director.

Amazingly, Jenkins came from Europe with not one but two incredible scripts.  After finishing up in Brussels, he spent 6 weeks in Berlin where he wrote an adaptation of James Baldwin’s 1974 novel If Beale Street Could Talk.  He didn’t own the rights but after sending a copy of his script to the trustees of the Baldwin estate, he was able to build their trust and get the green light for his highly anticipated follow up to Moonlight.

Set within an African American community in 1970s New York, Beale Street offers up two distinct narratives that have been perfectly woven together by Jenkins.  On one hand, this a beautiful love story about two warm, kind-hearted people.  22-year-old Fonny (James) and 19-year-old Tish (Layne) have known each other since kids but only recently has their closeness developed into something deeper.  They’re hired actors but you could be forgiven for thinking Kiki Layne and Stephan James were a real-life couple given their on-screen chemistry.  The way they speak and look at each other creates an authenticity that will win over any cynic when it comes to romance.

On the other hand, this is sad story about the oppression of black people in America.  There’s a powerful, unforgettable scene where Fonny catches up with an old friend, Daniel (Henry), who opens up about his deepest, darkest thoughts after spending two years in prison for a crime he didn’t commit.  Fonny also finds himself on the wrong side of the law (undeservedly so) but there’s little that he and his passionate family can do given the depth of corruption within the white, racist police force.

There is so much to admire about If Beale Street Could Talk.  There’s a gorgeous love-making sequence involving Fonny and Tish that best encapsulates Jenkins skills as a director.  It features a long continuous take (applauds the editor), a slowly moving camera that oscillates between the characters (applauds the cinematographer), the soothing sound of heavy rain on the roof (applauds the sound technicians), and a jazz-laden music score that encapsulates the era (applauds the composer).  The poetic narration adds another important layer.  

It’s hard to fault any performance.  The two leads are outstanding and the supporting players all pull their weight when called upon.  Regina King (Ray) has garnered the most attention, including an Academy Award nomination, for her tender performance as Tish’s mother.  She shines during an early, entertaining scene when she invites Fonny’s family into her home to reveal some big news.  There’s another moment involving Dave Franco that highlights the skilful way in which Jenkins balances the heavy material with splashes of comedy.

If you’re putting together a list of the 10 best films of the year, see If Beale Street Could Talk and you’ll only need 9 more.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 17 February 2019

At a first glance, it’s an odd title.  If making a movie about one of the world’s most successful comedy duos, who were known to everyone as Laurel and Hardy, why use their first names instead?  It was a decision made at the very early stages of this British production and it signifies that we’ll see a different side to these well-known characters.  The focus of Oscar nominated screenwriter Jeff Pope (Philomena) is on their “off-screen personas” as opposed to what audiences saw in their movies.

That’s not to say the film ignores their box-office draw.  Between 1927 and 1933, they were making more than 10 films a year on average (one of them won an Academy Award) and their comedic stylings made them the biggest act in Hollywood.  This film picks up their tale in 1937 as we watch them prepare and shoot a scene for the MGM movie, Way Out West.

If there’s one thing this opening sequence highlights, it’s how much comedy has changed over time.  It’s cute watching them sing and make bad jokes but it’s impossible to think that these two guys could find fame and fortune today.  Jokes that seemed funny and edgy back then would be the sort of lame stuff you’d find in Christmas crackers today.  I’d hate to imagine what people of that era would make of Hannah Gadsby or the Coen brothers.

With the introduction out of the way, the film slips forward to the year 1953 and follows Stan Laurel (Coogan) and Oliver Hardy (Reilly) as they travel across the United Kingdom in what would be their final tour together.  They were both in the early 60s and their brand was starting to fade.  It took a little while for the publicity to ramp up but thanks to a few important public appearances, word got around and they were soon performing in front of adoring crowds in large, sold-out theatres.

There are laughs to be had watching Stan & Ollie but at its core, this is a story about friendship.  Laurel and Hardy were two men who came together by chance and then became inseparable.  They brought out the best in each other when it came to creativity (you’ll chuckle as they write gags for a Robin Hood spoof).  They were also a shoulder to lean on as times got tough.  It wasn’t all smooth sailing though and the arrival of their wives (Arianda and Henderson) in the film’s second half brings a few bubbling issues to the surface.

John C. Reilly (Chicago) spent roughly 4 hours in the hands of make-up artists each day as they re-created his character’s distinctive ears and chin.  They deserve applause but so too does Reilly in portraying Hardy as such a softly spoken, endearing character.  It’s a great performance which earned him a Golden Globe nomination.  Steve Coogan can’t be ignored with his strong performance and if you’re looking for a scene-stealer, Rufus Jones delivers as their cunning manager who is part fool, part genius.

This isn’t a particularly adventurous script and it plays out as you might expect but Stan & Ollie does a nice job keeping alive the memory of two gifted comedians whose work should never be forgotten.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 03 February 2019

It was always a matter of when rather than if a major Hollywood studio would make a horror flick set in an escape room.  The fad began in Japan roughly 10 years ago and there are now estimated to be close to 10,000 rooms around the world (including about 200 here in Australia).  As a fan of puzzles, I’ll admit that I’ve given them a go several times and have never had a bad experience.

Turning to the movie… we need a way to bring this random group of characters together and so screenwriters Bragi F. Schut and Maria Melnik use money as the hook.  Six strangers have been given a box that invites them to participate in one of the best escape rooms going around.  They’re told that no one has been able to complete it within the required time frame but if they do, they will each receive $10,000.  It’s an offer that too hard to refuse.

They are escorted into a waiting room and they get to know each other with a few quick, probing questions.  Danny (Dodani) is the brains having completed close to 100 rooms, Mike (Labine) is the old guy who doesn’t know the game works, Ben (Miler) is the joker who badly needs the money, Jay (Ellis) is the smartly dressed know-it-all who asserts his authority, Amanda (Woll) is the strong, tough woman who can take it up to the guys, and Zoey (Russell) is the shy introvert who is scared of new things.

It takes about 15 minutes to set up the premise but once that’s out of the way, it’s time for the fun to begin.  I don’t want to give too much away (similar to a real-life escape room) but suffice to say these characters will have to solve difficult puzzles and navigate their way through a series of intricate rooms.  This is no standard game and instead of trying to win $10,000, they’ll soon be fighting to stay alive.

You can’t take a movie like this too seriously.  There are a lot of plot holes and a lot of convenient moments that fall into place to help prolong the narrative.  As an example, did none of them tell a friend or family member exactly where they were going?  How did those behind the game expect to cover up the death of certain people so easily?  I guess it’s calling upon the old movie cliché of an incompetent police force.

That’s not to say you can’t have fun watching this.  I was surprised by how engaged I became in the storyline and like the characters themselves, you’ll be wondering what they need to do to escape each room.  The film moves at a quick pace which is both a positive and a negative.  It allows for plenty of scenarios to be put to the audience but the rush to solve them becomes too chaotic in places.

Director Adam Robitel (Insidious: The Last Key) makes a few stylistic choices that feel unnecessary.  This includes the introduction (which gives away part of the finale) and a bunch of quick flashbacks that provide a visual representation of each character’s chequered past.  Still, he deserves big praise for pulling together such an elaborate project, which includes many cool sets, on a budget of just $9 million.  The fact it was shot in South Africa with a largely no-name cast helped keep costs down.

There are similarities with the successful Saw franchise and given that has been milked for 8 movies in total, I’ve a hunch we’ll be seeing more from the Escape Room franchise in the coming years.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 12 February 2019

It was roughly 15 months ago that Australian audiences had the chance to admire the first fully painted animated film, Loving Vincent.  It was set in the late 19^th century and followed a postman who was intrigued by Vincent van Gogh and was investigating the circumstances that led to his apparent suicide.  The unique visuals and unorthodox narrative (telling it from the perspective of the postman) made it one of the year’s most original films.

The style is different but there’s still a sense of familiarity with At Eternity’s Gate, a live-action release that also delves into the final years of van Gogh’s life.  It’s brought to the screen by Oscar nominated director Julian Schnabel (The Diving Bell and the Butterfly) and you only have to look at his resume to see his passion for creative activity.  He has made films about New York Street artist Jean Michel Basquiat (Basquiat), Cuban poet Reinaldo Arenas (Before Night Falls) and singer-songwriter Lou Reed (Berlin).

If you’re unfamiliar with Vincent van Gogh, a quick internet search provides plenty of fascinating titbits about his life and legacy.  He severed his own ear with a razor blade, he spent time in a mental asylum, and he completed hundreds of paintings and drawings.  When he died in 1890 at the age of 37, van Gogh was near-penniless man who had only sold one painting in his entire career.

It wasn’t until after his passing that the world became enamoured with his toil.  One of his most famous works, Portrait of Dr. Gachet, was purchased at an auction house in 1990 for $82.5 million USD.  The Starry Night is another iconic, near-priceless painting which can be seen by those visiting the Museum of Modern Art in New York City.  Other works include Irises, Sunflowers, and the appropriately titled Self-Portrait with Bandaged Ear.

It’s clear that Schnabel doesn’t want this to be a by-the-book history lesson about van Gogh.  He wants to dig deeper and explore the reasons for his incredible talent.  What drove him?  What made him tick?  The first half of At Eternity’s Gate is particularly impressive as we watch van Gogh (Dafoe) go about his craft.  He looks for the perfect location, sits down with a pencil or paintbrush, and then pours every ounce of energy into his creation.  Schnabel keeps the dialogue to a minimum and, like a good painting, lets the visuals do the talking. 

The second half is less compelling.  The film delves into van Gogh’s fractured, tortured mindset during lengthy scenes where he speaks with a doctor and then later with a priest (Mikkelsen).  It feels like van Gogh is trying too hard to explain his thoughts and it becomes tiresome.  That said, it’s hard to say a bad word about Willem Dafoe who has earned his 4^th Academy Award nomination for his fervent performance.

Shot on location in the same French towns visited by van Gogh, At Eternity’s Gate allows us to reflect on the life of this brilliant artist but lacks something powerful to take away.