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: 20 April 2016

Florence Foster Jenkins will be released in Australian cinemas in two weeks.  Based on actual events, it tells the true story of a wealthy heiress from New York (played by Meryl Streep) 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.

The story won’t be new to anyone who sees Marguerite, a French film that is also based on Jenkins’ life.  Characters names have been changed but the essence of the story has been retained.  The release strategy in this country is intriguing.  I can’t ever recall two films based on the same person screening in Australian cinemas at the same time.

As the film opens, we see Marguerite (Frot) singing in front of a large collective of friends in the comfort of her own home.  A journalist asks if she always sings this badly to which a fellow guest sarcastically responds – “no, she’s come a long way.”  It’s clear that most don’t want to be there.  Even her husband (Marcon) faked a car breakdown so as to avoid attending the performance.

I saw a fellow critic make an apt reference to the Hans Christian Andersen fairy tale The Emperor’s New Clothes.  Marguerite is being duped in the same manner.  As she is a woman of wealth and influence, her friends lack the courage to be honest when appraising her singing voice.  A few critics have written scathing reviews in local newspapers but her husband and loyal assistant (Mpunga) ensure she never reads them.

It may all sound very mean-spirited but there’s a beautiful complexity to Marguerite’s character that’s hard to resist.  On one hand, you hope that she finally wakes up to herself and realises she is tone deaf.  Why should a rich socialite be given opportunities that should be provided to others who are far more deserving?

On the flip side, there are moments where you hope she never learns the truth.  It’s like watching an adult teach music or sport to a child for the first time.  They offer encouragement regardless of ability because having fun is more important than winning a competition.  You can see that Marguerite lives a lonely, loveless life and this is the only part of it that provides joy and satisfaction.  Why should others spoil it?

Catherine Frot took home the best actress trophy at the 2015 César Awards (the French equivalent of the Academy Awards).  It’s easy to see why given the nuance she brings to the leading role.  She also had the tricky task of singing so poorly on screen.  There were fleeting moments where I looked away from the screen because I was so embarrassed for her character.

The ending didn’t work for me but it’s hard not to be lured into such an unusual story.  The eclectic group of supporting characters only add to its charm.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 27 April 2016

Tired of superhero movies?  Brace yourself because there’s a lot more to come.  Captain America: Civil War marks the first movie in “phase three” of the Marvel cinematic universe.  A total of 10 movies will be released over the next 3 years with everything coming together in a two-part Avengers flick entitled Infinity War.

The opening third of this latest instalment has a strong political flavour.  It’s becoming an overused theme in superhero films but The Avengers find themselves losing favour with the public.  It may sound hard to believe given the number of times they’ve saved the world and defeated a zealous villain.  The problem is the rising civilian death toll.  The King of Sokovia sums it up best – “victory at the expense of the innocent is no victory at all.”

A proposition is therefore put to The Avengers by the United States Secretary of State.  He sees the danger in them having “unlimited power with no supervision.”  In searching for a middle ground, he is happy for The Avengers to continue operating but they must now follow a set of rules and take direction from a governing body controlled by the United Nations.  More than 100 countries around the world support the idea.

It’s at this point where the division begins.  Iron Man (Downey Jr) knows of the dangers of too much power (refer back to Age of Ultron) and is happy to endorse the concept.  He is joined by Black Widow (Johansson), War Machine (Cheadle) and the Scarlet Witch (Olsen).  Vision (Bettany) shares a similar view and puts forward an compelling argument about the growing number of villains looking to take down The Avengers.  Does strength breed challengers?

On the other side of the fence is the faction led by Captain America (Evans).  He’s a little more “old fashioned” and believes that having been gifted with super powers, he should have the right to choose where and when he can use them.  Those loyal to his cause include Falcon (Mackie), Hawkeye (Renner) and Ant-Man (Rudd).

When watching an AFL or NRL match, there are brief moments where a fight breaks out between the two teams.  It normally involves a bit of pushing, shoving, and jumper grabbing.  There’s a lot of passion involved but the players are smart enough not to do anything silly or life threatening.  They’ll often shrug it off and shake hands at the end of the game.

That’s not the case in Captain America: Civil War and it makes for strange viewing.  There are several action sequences where these characters are beating each other as hard as they can.  I’m not sure what they’re trying to achieve.  Are they trying to kill their friends… or merely injure them?  It’s hard to take seriously and there’s not much in the way of tension.

The good news is that there is a more interesting storyline running in parallel.  The Winter Soldier (Stan) has been accused of being the mastermind behind a terrorist attack in Vienna.  He proclaims his innocence but few believe him.  It sets in motion an elaborate manhunt that involves two new additions to the series – Daniel Bruhl as Helmut Zero and Chadwick Boseman as the Black Panther.

There are more characters and subplots that a Game of Thrones episode but somehow, directors Anthony and Joe Russo have managed to mash it all together into something that works.  The political elements grabbed me most but there are still plenty of laughs for those looking for light hearted entertainment.  Spider-Man (Holland) stands out best in that regard and is hilariously chided for talking too much during the fight sequences.

With many storylines left open as the closing credits start to roll, Captain America: Civil War feels like the first episode in a lengthy mini-series.  It sets the stage, offers a few surprises, and teases audiences with a glimpse of what lies ahead.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 18 April 2016

When asked about my favourite sporting movies, one of the first that comes to mind is Rudy.  The 1993 drama told the true story of Daniel ‘Rudy’ Ruettiger who dreamed of playing college football for the University of Notre Dame.  It would take too long to detail the huge adversity that he had to overcome.  After years of hard work and perseverance, he was finally given a few seconds on the field during the final game of the season in his final year at college.

Part of the reason that the film has stuck with me is that it’s not a movie about a team or a player that reaches the top of their sport.  Rudy was not the best.  He was never going to be the best.  It stop him from trying though.  He had a love for the game that could not be quashed.  If you haven’t seen the film, do your best to track it down.  It also features a powerful and inspiring film score from the late Jerry Goldsmith.

The reason I refer to the tale of Rudy is that is has parallels with Eddie The Eagle.  One of my first Olympic memories is from the 1988 Winter Olympics in Calgary and the publicity generated by Michael “Eddie” Edwards, a 20-something-year-old ski jumper from Cheltenham, England.  The country wasn’t known for their prowess in ski jumping.  In fact, they conducted no trials and Edwards was the first ski jumper to ever represent Great Britain. 

The film culminates with the Games in Calgary but there’s a lot of material to cover in the lead up.  We see in the early scenes that Eddie has a single dream that dominates his life.  Most athletes pick a sport and then strive to compete at an Olympic level.  Eddie took the reverse approach.  He knew he wanted to represent his country at the Olympics… he just had to find a sport first.

There was no shortage of people trying to stop him.  Eddie still lived at home with his parents and his father wanted him to follow in his footsteps and earn a regular living as a plasterer.  The British Olympic Association didn’t want to use taxpayer dollars to fund an athlete with zero chance of winning a medal.  Fellow ski jumpers saw Eddie as a laughing stock and were concerned that he would direct attention away from elite ski jumpers who had spent years training for the event.

All of those groups had a point but it’s clear that director Dexter Fletcher (Sunshine on Leith) wants audiences to fall in love with Eddie and his “never give up” attitude.  The tone of the film is light and it chooses not to shine a harsh spotlight on Eddie and his motivations.

Eddie’s only major supporter in the movie is Bronson Peary (Jackman), a former ski jump champion who threw his career away and is now a washed up alcoholic looking for redemption.  He reluctantly takes Eddie under his wing and becomes his coach.  You may be disappointed to learn that no such character existed.  The writers have tried to craft the ultimate crowd-pleaser but they’ve got a few steps too far.  Some parts feel unbalanced and don’t ring true.

I’m a fan of Taron Edgerton (Kingsman: The Secret Service) and he’s commendable in the lead role.  He’s created a likeable character who looks and sounds very much like the real Eddie Edwards.  You may cringe at some of the cheesy dialogue but you can see Edgerton and Hugh Jackman are giving it their best shot.  Oscar winner Christopher Walken makes a brief cameo but his confusing subplot adds little-to-no value.

It turns out there was no shortage of material that came out of the 1988 Winter Olympics.  It was at the same time when a group of Jamaicans found fame while competing in the bobsled competition.  Their tale was chronicled in 1993’s Cool Runnings when even the ending was changed to help make it more audience friendly!  Two decades have passed by the same adage applies – never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 26 April 2016

Screenwriters use plot devices to further the storyline.  Sometimes they feel credible.  Sometimes they do not.  The main device in A Month Of Sundays fits into that later category.  Frank (LaPaglia) is a real estate agent who gets a phone call from a woman who sounds like his mother.  That itself isn’t unusual until we learn that Frank’s mother has been dead for more than a year.

No, this isn’t some sci-fi time travel movie.  The person at the other end of the phone is an elderly woman named Sarah (Blake) and she called his number by mistake.  Frank could have spoken, hung up, and left it at that.  It’s what I’d do.  Instead, he’s intrigued by this person who brings back memories of his mother and he decides to meet her.

It’s a bizarre way of bringing two characters together but thankfully, it does develop into something meaningful.  Frank is in need of change, direction.  He’s not particularly good at his job despite the encouragement of his friend/boss, Phillip (John Clarke).  He recently separated from his wife (Justine Clarke) and he’s losing touch with his teenage son (Crowther) who grows more distant each week.

Frank and Sarah are from different worlds but they find comfort in opening up about their respective troubles.  Director Matthew Saville (Felony) is following in the footsteps of other filmmakers and highlighting the value and importance of human interaction.  Internalising our problems is seldom the right approach to take.

Parts of the film don’t come quite come together.  The relationship between Frank, his son, and his ex-wife is the best example.  Given these characters are so critical to his life going forward, it’s strange that they appear in so few scenes.  There’s also a noticeable lack of backstory to explain why their relationships are fractured. 

That aside, the interaction between Anthony LaPaglia and Julia Blake in the leading roles makes the film more than worthwhile.  You’re watching two gifted actors work beautifully alongside each other and it adds up to a moving climax.  To help lighten the film’s tone, John Clarke also wins points as a real estate agent kingpin (complete with a giant billboard) who doesn’t mince his words.

Shot in Adelaide and selected to screen last year at the Toronto Film Festival, A Month of Sundays may not leave a lasting impression but it’s likely to hold your attention.