Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 31 January 2017

It hasn’t been long since the events of 15 April 2013.  I can still remember following the tragedy and subsequent manhunt through news websites.  Two bombs were detonated near the finish line of the Boston Marathon.  Three people were killed and roughly 260 other spectators in the area were injured.  The authorities faced increasing pressure to identify those responsible and after a speedy yet thorough investigation, they got the two men they were looking for.

It’s no surprise to see this story brought to the screen by writer-director Peter Berg and star Mark Wahlberg.  It marks their third collaboration after Lone Survivor, the tale of Navy SEALs trying to kill a Taliban leader in Afghanistan, and Deepwater Horizon, the story of workers on an oil rig who had to battle for survival after a huge explosion.  These two are clearly attracted to real-life action-thrillers about heroes and the American spirit.

Berg begins his film by introducing us to all the characters up front.  We don’t know what part they’ll all play but he wants to create a splash of intrigue.  Most of it revolves around Mark Wahlberg – a sergeant with the Boston Police Department who has been disciplined for past indiscretions (which we’re not told about).  He’s been stationed at the finish line and his role is simply to make things run smoothly and deal with any issues that arise.  He’s not particularly keen to be there.

John Goodman is the friendly Police Commissioner.  J.K. Simmons is a laid-back sergeant from a nearby city.  Vincent Curatola is the no-nonsense mayor.  Michelle Monaghan plays Wahlberg’s wife who watches things unfold at home.  Jimmy Yang is a uni student trying to find a girlfriend.  Rachel Brosnahan and Christopher O’Shea are a married couple watching the marathon.  Kevin Bacon is an FBI Special Agent.  Alex Wolff and Themo Melikidze play the two terrorists responsible for the bombings.  We see things unfold from all of their perspectives.

The film’s most interesting element is the behind-the-scenes look at the unfolding investigation.  One of the most pivotal scenes involves different authorities arguing about whether to release photographs of the two suspects.  They could not be identified from the grainy CCTV footage and the hope was that a member of the public would recognise them and come forward.  However, the photos’ release could come at a cost if it spooks the suspects into fleeing or detonating more bombs.

There’s a nice moment at the end of Berg’s film where hear from the real-life people who are depicted in the movie.  They speak of the great city of Boston and the resilience shown in the aftermath of the attack.  One person noticeably absent is the police sergeant played by Wahlberg.  That’s because no such person actually existed.  Many police officers were involved but in the interests of condensing the narrative into two hours, their actions were melded together into a single fictional character.  It explains why he’s always in the right place at the right time.

The backstory to Wahlberg’s character and the interplay with his wife is a little dull and clichéd.  Putting that aside, Patriots Day is a watchable film that tries not to delve into politics (although it goes close some times) and pays tribute to those who risk their lives to keep us all safe from harm.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 24 January 2017

After years of underrepresentation on screen, the plight of black actors and filmmakers became international news at the time of last year’s Academy Awards.  The #OscarsSoWhite hashtag helped inform the public that for the second consecutive year, not a single black actor had filled one of the 20 nominations spots available in the acting categories.  On top of that, a black director had never won in 88 years of Oscars’ history.

The public outcry created almost immediate change.  The Academy announced that they were “going to lead and not wait for the industry to catch up.”  Their goal was to double the number of women and diverse members within the Academy by 2020.  Whilst well-intentioned, the decision raised a fresh batch of questions.  Were black actors and filmmakers not being recognised because the existing membership was racist?  That could easily be inferred.

Such controversy will be largely avoided this year.  While the scales are not yet balanced, African American films and performances are major players in the 2016-17 awards season.  Directed by Denzel Washington, Fences is based on the Tony Award winning play and will see Viola Davis win an Oscar for best supporting actress.  Hidden Figures is about the suppression of African-American women working for NASA in the 1960s and topped the U.S. box-office in its week of release.  Set in the same decade, Loving stars Joel Edgerton and Ruth Negga as a couple looking to overturn archaic laws prohibiting interracial marriage.

As good as all of those movies are, the one most supported by critics is Moonlight.  It took home the Golden Globe for best motion picture (drama), it won a plethora of critics’ awards, and it has comfortably featured on more critics’ “top 10 lists” than any other movie in 2016 (according to Metacritic).  The buzz has been strong since it premiered at the Telluride Film Festival in early September.

The story is based on a work from African American playwright Tarrel Alvin McCraney.  It was a semi-autobiographical piece written back in 2003 (when just 23 years of age) as part of an application to get into graduate school.  It was never published and never performed.  Budding director Barry Jenkins came across the work by chance and felt it had the makings of a great movie.  His judgement was spot on.

A small comparison could be made with Richard Linklater’s Boyhood – a film spread across 12 years that chronicled the upbringing of a boy from Texas.  It was a brilliant drama that tapped into the emotional journey one takes in becoming an adult.  Moonlight has similar themes and is equally broad in terms of its timeframe but the approach is noticeably different.

Jenkins’ film follows a kid named Chiron who is from a poor, troubled neighbourhood in Miami, Florida.  It is split into three segments with each providing a glimpse of Chiron’s at key points in his life.  In the opening chapter, he’s a quiet boy (Hibbert) who is bullied at school by his classmates and is neglected at home by his drug-addict mother (Harris).  In the middle act, he’s an introverted teenager (Sanders) who is battling his sexual orientation.  In the final part, he’s a buff, twenty-something year-old drug dealer (Rhodes) looking to distance himself from his past and the poverty line.

This is a remarkably good movie about one man trying to find love and his place in the world.  It’s made all the better by the heartbreaking performances delivered by the three leading actors and the outstanding supporting cast.  It’s heavy, dark and depressing but many will appreciate and/or relate to the situation.  It all leads up to a powerful final scene where the emotion truly hits home.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 29 January 2017

Kenneth Lonergan is a filmmaker I admire.  His directorial debut, You Can Count On Me (2000), was a beautiful tale of love, friendship and family.  It earned him much praise and an Academy Award nomination for best original screenplay.  The path of his follow up film, Margaret (2011), was not so smooth.  It was shot in 2005 but spent a ridiculous 6 years in the editing room due to “creative differences” with the producers.  For what it’s worth, I still liked the finished product.

Having spent the last few years working on plays, a television mini-series, and a few scripts that didn’t get off the ground, Lonergan is back in the spotlight with Manchester by the Sea.  It premiered at the Sundance Film Festival over a year ago and is now one of the frontrunners for the upcoming Academy Awards.  It’s a film he’ll be remembered for and deservedly so.

Lee Chandler (Affleck) is a self-employed janitor from a small town in Massachusetts.  He’s currently working for 4 separate apartment buildings just to make enough cash to get by.  He lives alone in a tiny basement “studio” with not much in the way of furniture or possessions.  It may sound like a sad, lonely existence but you got a strong sense this is what he wants – to simply switch off from the world around him.

That plan is disrupted when he receives an unexpected phone call.  His older brother, Joe, has passed away due to congestive heart failure.  Lee must return to his childhood home in Manchester-by-the-Sea, a tiny community where everyone knows everyone, and organise the funeral.  He must also help care for Joe’s 16-year-old son, Patrick (Hedges), who is in need of a legal guardian.

This is an exquisitely well-told tale about the way we deal with trauma and loss.  While Lonergan deserves full credit as the writer-director, the original idea for the film came from actors Matt Damon (who serves as one of the producers) and John Krasinski.  He wanted to explore the idea of tragedy and that no matter how hard we try we cannot shut ourselves away and avoid it. 

Casey Affleck could win an Academy Award later this month and it’s easy to see why with his strong performance.  He portrays Lee as an “emotional vacuum”.  Even when he learns of his brother’s passing and has to visit the hospital to take care of a few things, his voice never changes pitch.  His tough exterior is visible but it’s hard to gauge how soft he is on the inside.

That leads into another of the film’s positive attributes – intrigue.  On arriving back in Manchester, there’s a moment when an onlooker whispers “is that THE Lee Chandler?”  It’s clear that Lee has been affected by events from his past but Lonergan’s screenplay is careful in how this is revealed.  Answers are provided via short, powerful, well-timed flashbacks that involve his brother (Chandler) and wife (Williams).

Given the heavy material, the biggest surprise offered by the movie is its comedy.  The 16-year-old Patrick, played brilliantly by newcomer Lucas Hedges (Labor Day), has his own way of dealing with grief that involves several “girlfriends” and getting laid.  He shares some entertaining conversations with Lee as they each try to get a feel for the other.  A highlight is a hilariously awkward exchange where Patrick introduces Lee to a friend’s mother.

I’m not an Academy member (despite my yearnings) but if I had the chance to vote this year for best picture, Manchester by the Sea would be my pick.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 14 January 2017

At last year’s Academy Awards, Mad Max: Fury Road broke a 14 year drought and became the first Australian film to be nominated for best picture since Moulin Rouge!  Perhaps the floodgates have opened.  There’s been strong hype for Lion since it took runner-up honours (behind La La Land) at the Toronto Film Festival in September.  It has since picked up 4 Golden Globe nominations and appeared on numerous “best of the year” lists.

This is a true story and it’s also a very emotional story.  When we first meet Saroo (Pawar), the year is 1986 and he’s a 5-year-old boy living with his mother (Bose) and older brother in a Khandwa, India.  Like so many around them, they’re a poor family struggling to make ends meet.  This is best illustrated by a scene where Saroo steals coal from a nearby construction site which he then trades in the marketplace for a small bottle of milk (a luxury item to him).

Saroo’s life is forever changed when he falls asleep on an empty train parked at the local station.  He was there waiting for his brother to return from a short trip.  On waking up, Saroo finds the train is locked, empty and moving at high speed.  He screams for help but the driver can’t hear him over the sounds of the rattling carriages.  Two days pass before the train finally comes to a halt in Calcutta, close to 1,500km away, and he is able to escape.

It’s a pretty bleak scenario for Saroo.  He’s a 5-year-old with no sense of geography who doesn’t know the name of his town and doesn’t know how to find a way home.  He is preyed upon by people smugglers and the police offer next-to-no assistance.  He ultimately ends up in an orphanage from which he is sent to a couple in Hobart, Australia (played by David Wenham and Nicole Kidman) who are looking to adopt a child.

This is a film of two distinct parts.  The first half chronicles Saroo’s early life in India and his upbringing in Australia.  The second half follows the older, twenty-something-year-old Saroo (now played by Dev Patel) as he reflects upon his past and his identity.  While he’s had a great, loving upbringing in Australia, he yearns to track down his biological family.  What seemed impossible two decades ago may now be distinctly possible with websites like Google Earth acting as a guide.

It’s hard not to feel a tingle down your spine as the film’s reaches its climax.  My eyes were moist and I wasn’t the only one in the audience with that same reaction.  It’s an impressive debut feature from Australian director Garth Davis who has made a career up until this point specialising in television commercials. I strongly suspect those days are behind him as Lion proves that he can take a great story and translate it into a great movie.  Also deserving praise is writer Luke Davies (Candy, Life) who adapted Saroo Brierley’s autobiographical novel in creating the screenplay.

8-year-old Sunny Pawar will melt hearts with his performance as the young Saroo.  A small team scoured schools across India and auditioned roughly 2,000 children.  It’s easy to see why Pawar got the nod given he’s so natural on screen.  Dev Patel (Slumdog Millionaire) is also superb as the older Saroo.  He character internalises his problems but Patel still lets us see through into his tortured soul.

A few elements are slightly undone such as Saroo’s troubled relationship with his adopted brother (which could be a whole other film).  Still, this is a powerful true story about one man’s never ending search for answers.

You can read my interview with director Garth Davis by clicking here.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 25 January 2017

Split begins with a kidnapping.  A man (McAvoy) drugs three teenage girls while they waiting in the carpark of a shopping centre.  When they wake, they find themselves locked in a small, windowless room with no idea what’s going on.  They try to fight their way out but it’s clear that the man is far too strong.

At a first glance, the kidnapper appears to be a sadist monster.  It’s not quite that simple though.  He suffers from dissociative identity disorder and has 23 different personalities that appear at different times.  Some are cruel whilst others are kind.  He’s one of the more interesting villains that we’ve seen in recent times.  Despite his crimes, there are times when you may actually like and empathise with some of his personas.

This isn’t your standard Hollywood thriller.  Just when you think it’s about the girls and their escape plan, another subplot becomes the focus.  Dr Karen Fletcher (Buckley), the man’s psychiatrist for a number of years, has become fascinated by his condition.  For example, she can’t fathom how one identity can be allergic to bee stings while the other is not.  It implies that a mind can have more power over the body and she’s keen to her findings with her counterparts.

If you love your movies, you’ll know that have to be paying attention when watching any film from director M. Night Shyamalan (The Sixth Sense).  Not all of his films work but he thinks outside the square and keeps audiences on their toes.  Split is no different.  I thought to myself numerous times – “where is this going?”  Are the girls going to find a way out?  Is the doctor going to supress the man’s darker personalities?  I had no idea.

The film’s most positive quality is the performance turned in by James McAvoy.  It’s a dream role given he plays so many different characters.  I actually lost count.  Betty Buckley and Anya Taylor-Joy also impress with their respective roles.  He’s not on quite the same level as the Coen Brothers but Shyamalan has a knack for finding largely unknown actors and using them to create distinctive, memorable characters.

There’s a lot of great foreplay on offer here but whilst I commend Shyamalan for his creativity, the rushed ending is a letdown.  Not everyone will agree with that statement and I sense there will be varying opinions.  It’s hard to say too much without using spoilers so I’ll be as cryptic as I can.  The film offers an eye-raising punchline but it’s a shame it ends so abruptly.  I could easily have watched another half-hour.