Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 22 May 2016

Born and raised in New Zealand, 40-year-old Taika Waititi has 3 previous writer-director credits to his name – Eagle vs Shark, Boy, and What We Do in the Shadows.  He’s quickly developed as reputation as wonderful storyteller.  Don’t just take my word for it.  Marvel has entrusted him to direct the new Thor movie (slated for release in 2017) that comes with a $170 million price tag.

Hunt for the Wilderpeople is his latest creation and when it opened in New Zealand last month, it set a new record for the highest grossing opening weekend for a locally made film.  It’s easy to see why the public has reacted so positively to it.  You’ll understand too if you find the time to see it over the next few weeks.  Audiences in the United States will get their chance when it opens there in late June.

The film begins by introducing us to a young kid, Ricky (Dennison), who has no parents and has had more than a few run-ins with the law.  He’s on the verge of being placed into juvenile detention but his social worker (House) has decided to give him one last opportunity.  A couple who live in a remote part of New Zealand have agreed to take him under their wing and help get his life back on track.

It’s a curious dynamic shared by these three characters in the early stages.  Bella (Te Wiata) could not be any more loving.  She talks a lot, she makes jokes, and there’s a great interlude where she catches a wild pig for dinner.  On the flip side, Uncle Hec (Neill) is a “scruffy white drifter who smells like methylated spirits.”  He was never interested in becoming a foster carer and is a “closed book” who would rather keep to himself.

A series of events brings Ricky and Uncle Hec together and the pair set out on a lengthy hike throughout New Zealand’s remote mountain ranges.  It’s here when the bulk of the film takes place.  They meet an assortment of odd characters and learn a lot more about each other.  Oh, and they’re also being pursued by the police for reasons that I won’t reveal in this review.

This is Waititi’s best film yet.  The way he mixes tones throughout the film is a thing of beauty.  This is best illustrated by a moment at a funeral where an unprepared priest (played by Waititi) is bumbling his way through a eulogy.  It should be a moment of great sadness but you’ll find yourself laughing at the same time.  As crazy as the scene appears, it was inspired by an actual funeral that Waititi once attended.

The film should also be praised for its cast.  I liken it to a Coen Brothers comedy where every character has a splash of quirkiness that makes them distinctive and memorable.  Rachel House is the ruthless social worker whose actions often contradict her words.  Oscar Knightley is the dopey police officer who is clearly out of his depth.  Rhys Darby is a crazy drifter who subscribes to every conspiracy theory ever written.

The main players deserve recognition also.  Defying his age, Julian Dennison has a great sense of comedic timing and has an array of funny facial expressions that he calls upon throughout the film.  Sam Neill is endearing as the grumpy uncle and Rima Te Wiata is adorable as the aunt who goes “above and beyond” to make Ricky feel welcome.

A fan of Australian films from the 1980s, Waititi has borrowed a few elements for his own use here.  This includes the electro-type film score and several scenes that involve a rotating camera.  It all adds up to a wonderful adventure fantasy that I can’t wait to see again.

You can read my chat with writer-director Taika Waititi by clicking here.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 02 May 2016

Based on actual events, this film is the true story of Florence Foster Jenkins – a wealthy heiress from New York who became a renowned opera singer in the early 20^th Century.  Jenkins was not known for her talent.  Rather, people flocked to see her perform because of how bad she was.

It’s odd to be talking about this story so soon after the release of Marguerite.  The narrative is largely the same.  My plot overview in the opening paragraph is largely a “cut and paste” job from my review two weeks ago.  The major point of difference is that Florence Foster Jenkins has been shot in the English language and comes with star power.  Both factors will have a positive impact on the box-office.

She’s flooded with scripts every year but Meryl Streep chose this particular role because her character is so “heartbreakingly funny”.  Jenkins liked to sing and her husband (Grant) allowed her to do so at small parties and get-togethers.  Friends of Jenkins applauded at her performances because they admired her courage.  Critics wrote positive reviews because they were paid to do so.  It was a giant charade that continued for years.

Things became immensely more complicated when Jenkins’ started to believe more in her own ability.  At the age of 76, she agreed to perform at New York City’s Carnegie Hall in front of 3,000 people on 25 October 1944.  It would be her one and only public appearance.  Despite the rumours of her dreadful singing voice, the event sold out weeks in advance and attracted celebrities such as Marge Champion and Cole Porter.

While Marguerite had darker undertones, writer Nicholas Martin and director Stephen Frears (The Queen, Philomena) have gone with a “lighter” approach for their adaptation.  It’s designed more as a crowd-pleaser and doesn’t want to probe too deeply into the intent of the respective characters.

The performances make the film more than worthwhile though.  Hugh Grant plays the charming husband who keeps his cards very close to his chest.  Meryl Streep has the fun of signing as poorly as possible.  As hard as it is to believe, both leading actors are overshadowed by comedian Simon Helberg who steals every scene as Jenkins’ well-paid pianist.  A mix of both nerves and giggles, he struggles to keep a straight face during rehearsals.

Two films is probably enough to sum up the life of Florence Foster Jenkins.  In the same vein as film director Ed Wood, she will be remembered for reasons she probably wouldn’t appreciate.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 18 May 2016

I was chatting to a cinema manager tonight who noted that pre-release ticket sales for X-Men: Apocalypse have been a little soft.  One could argue that some filmgoers are suffering from superhero fatigue.  Over the past two months, we’ve been following the exploits of Batman, Superman, Wonder Woman, Iron Man, Captain America and, for a fleeting moment, Spider-Man.

As a quick refresh, the X-Men franchise is part of the Marvel universe and is set in a world where humans and mutants live side-by-side.  The Professor (McAvoy) reminds us in an opening monologue that sometimes “gifts can be a curse.”  Having super powers sounds really cool… but many mutants have to keep a low profile because of the fear that exists within society.  It’s easy to see why the humans feel a little uneasy.  As we’ve seen in prior films, a few mutants have been “not so nice.”

The evil element in this instalment is En Sabah Nur (Isaac) who, like so many villains before him, is intent on destroying the world.  It’s a popular theme in movies because it doesn’t get any bigger.  He could have run FIFA, accepted bribes, and awarded the World Cup to Qatar.  That would have been a more realistic scenario… but I guess it’s not quite on this scale.

We learn during the opening sequence that En Sabah Nur is a mutant who has lived on Earth since the dawn of time.  He’s not immortal but he’s found the next best thing.  When he gets old, he uses a special device (don’t ask me how it works) and that allows him to take on the body of someone much younger.  Over several millennia, he has used several mutant bodies and has accumulated their powers along the way.  Suffice to say he is now very, very powerful.

Unhappy with how the greed and selfishness that exists within the world today, he’s decided to put it through a “cleansing” process.  He wants to destroy every building, every computer, and every man-made device that exists on the planet.  A large percentage of the population will be killed along the way.  For the few that survive, they can start the rebuilding process and look up to En Sabah Nur as their God.

He’s a stereotypical villain but Oscar Isaac (Inside Llewyn Davis) does a great job fleshing out his character’s motivations.  For example, there’s a scene where he uses his powers to disarm all of the world’s nuclear weapons.  This may sound completely crazy but let’s not forget who created these missiles in the first place.  His actions highlight that the human race is often its own worst enemy.  The more weapons that are created… the greater the likelihood that they’ll fall into the wrong hands.

Turning our attention to the good guys, there are a lot of heroes fighting for screen time.  As this is set in 1983 and prior to some of the earlier X-Men flicks, it serves as an origin story for the likes of Cyclops, Phoenix, Quicksilver and Nightcrawler.  We see how they first ended up at Professor Xavier’s school and how they harnessed their powers for a greater good.  It’s a rush to squash it all into 144 minutes but writer Simon Kinberg has done an admirable job.

The most interesting players in this ensemble are those that aren’t wholly good or wholly bad.  There’s “greyness” to the likes of Magneto (Fassbender) and Mystique (Lawrence) who don’t always concur with Professor Xavier’s more positive views.  Unfortunately, the internal conflict is kept to a minimum and the battle scenes remain the focus.

With 9 films now complete and 3 more in the works, there are no indications that the X-Men will be wrapping up their adventures any time soon.  The next cab off the rank is a new Wolverine movie scheduled for release in March 2017.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 02 May 2016

There’s a scene in Good Will Hunting where maths professor (Stellan Skarsgård) is trying to convince a psychologist (Robin Williams) to take on a new patient (Matt Damon).  As part of his argument, he compares Damon’s character to an Indian mathematician from 100 years earlier who he describes as an “unparalleled genius” despite having no formal education.  The guy’s name was Srinivasa Ramanujan and now, 20 years after the success of Good Will Hunting, he finally gets his own movie.

The story of Ramanujan will be new to many.  He doesn’t quite have the profile of other 20^th century masterminds such as Alan Turing and Stephen Hawking (who were both subject to biopics in 2014).  It’s easy to see why first-time writer-director Matt Brown was attracted though.  Ramanujan was the ultimate underdog and had to jump many hurdles on the path to recognition.

Dev Patel (Slumdog Millionaire) takes on the title role and the film begins in India where a young Ramanujan is trying to find work as an accountant in southern India.  It’s clear that he has an incredible gift when it comes to numbers.  He doesn’t need an abacus but his boss asks him to keep one on his desk to at least give the impression that he knows what he’s doing.

With no access to a proper education in Indian, Ramanujan had gathered most of his knowledge through books.  He read an array of mathematical textbooks and started developing his own theorems and equations.  The founder of the Indian Mathematical Society recognised Ramanujan’s gift and used his contacts to get Ramanujan a place at the University of Cambridge in England.  He would study under the tutelage of mathematician G.H. Hardy (played by Jeremy Irons).

It’s at Cambridge where most of the film takes place.  From his first day on campus, Ramanujan is itching to get his works published but others propose a more cautious approach.  Hardy wants him to prepare detailed proofs so that his theories can be checked and verified.  In contrast, Ramanujan sees himself as an “artist” and doesn’t want be bogged down with remedial paperwork.  It’d like watching Picasso painting a masterpiece and then asking him for a 100 page essay on how he did it.

That wasn’t the only hurdle Ramanujan had to overcome.  On campus, he was continually belittled by other professors for his Indian heritage and his lack of education.  A lack of friends and strong sense of homesickness only compounded his troubles.  In travelling to England in search of a career, he had left behind a loving wife (Bhise) and meddling mother back in India.

Patel and Irons both give strong performances but the arguments between their respective characters become repetitive.  Neither wants to yield despite obvious merit in each other’s position.  Further, the subplot involving his family back home in India is distracting and needed to be cut or given more importance.

The Man Who Knew Infinity is an interesting tale on paper but Matt Brown struggles to bring that same sensation to the screen.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 05 May 2016

Located on the eastern outskirts of Central Park in New York City, the Metropolitan Museum of Art is the largest art museum in the United States.  A record 6.3 million people walked through its front doors in 2015.  The Met, as it is more commonly known, is closed on only 4 days each year – Thanksgiving Day, Christmas Day, New Year’s Day, and the first Monday in May.

While those first three dates will make sense, the last may leave some scratching their heads.  The reasons are explored in this riveting documentary from director Andrew Rossi.  Page One: Inside The New York Times showed that Rossi is intrigued by major institutions and what goes on behind the scenes.  That same curiosity was the key reason why he “yes” to this equally interesting opportunity.

The First Monday in May is centred on The Costume Institute, one of the numerous departments within the Met.  We follow curator Andrew Bolton as he plans a huge 2015 exhibition highlighting the influence of Chinese aesthetics on Western fashion.  The work begins months in advance and it’s fascinating to learn how many issues need to be resolved and how much thought goes into each tiny detail.  Bolton is a smooth, sharp operator.

The film’s other major narrative relates to the title itself.  On the first Monday in May each year, the Met hosts a fundraising gala to benefit the Costume Institute.  It is described as “the Super Bowl of social fashion events” and brings together a seemingly endless list of celebrities, politicians and sports stars.  Members from the public can attend (provided they have a spare $25,000) and the event raises more than $10 million each year.  It is all organised by Vogue editor-in-chief Anna Wintour and a team of passionate staffers.

Andrew Rossi has shot some amazing footage that makes this a compelling view from start to finish.  There’s seldom a dull moment.  Many would be familiar with the parodied version of Anna Wintour in The Devil Wears Prada (played by Meryl Streep) but here we see the real Anna and are offered an insight into her world.  She even touches on her reputation as an “ice queen” and speaks of the difficulties of being a woman trying to make it in a man’s world.

The film is also trying to stimulate a discussion about art, fashion and commerce.  Does fashion belong in a museum?  Can all fashion be described as art?  Does the hosting of a celebrity-filled ball drag undermine the artistic intentions of the Met?  Those weighing into the debate include designers Jean-Paul Gaultier and John Galliano, and filmmakers Baz Luhrmann and Kar-Wai Wong.

It’s hard to believe how much access was granted during the filmmaking process.  We see Wintour keenly discussing seating arrangements for the Met Gala (poor Josh Hartnett).  We see boardroom meetings where Bolton debates the exhibition’s content and design.  We see technicians accept delivery of dresses from around the world and prepare them for display.  We see celebrities arrive on the red carpet (Larry David a highlight) and then view the newly opened exhibition.  All of this has been skilfully edited into a tight 90 minutes.

I was in New York City last month but didn’t get a chance to visit The Met.  Having now seen The First Monday in May and been energised by the museum’s content, it’s a decision I regret.