Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 04 July 2015

In the space of a month, we’ve had the chance to see two films that have been set in the mid-to-late 19^th Century and that centre on a young woman pursued by multiple suitors.  The first was Far From The Madding Crowd, based on the novel by Thomas Hardy and starring Carey Mulligan.  The second is Madame Bovary, based on the novel by French writer Gustave Flaubert and starring Australia’s own Mia Wasikowska (Alice In Wonderland, Tracks).

Emma (Wasikowska) is a well-educated woman who has married Charles (Lloyd-Hughes), a successful doctor (well, her father helped set them up).  They have a nice home with beautiful views in a small French town.  It comes complete with a hard-working maid and a finely tuned piano.

It may sound like an idyllic life but Emma is bored stupid.  She laments that “every day is the same.”  Charles works hard and when he finally gets home, he’s usually tired with little to say.  Emma is also frustrated by her husband’s lack of ambition.  She wants him to start a business in a bigger town like Rouen as it would give her so much more to do and to see.  It’s not Charles’ desire however.  He’s content with his quiet country life.

As the famous saying goes – “idle hands are the devil’s playthings.”  Emma finds herself interested in two men who appear to be much more sophisticated than her husband.  The first is Leon (Miller), a young law student with a fondness for literature, theatre and music.  The second is a wealthy, handsome nobleman (Marshall-Green) who loves to mingle with the upper echelon of society.  Both men leave her confused and vulnerable.  Should she leave her reliable Charles and take a chance on someone new?

Adding Emma’s woes is her penchant for shopping.  She has been seduced by a local merchant (Ifans) into buying beautiful clothes and homewares using the newfound concept of “credit”.  The debts are piling up and it’s become yet another secret that Emma must keep from her husband.  She’s finally found a way of filling her free time – with stress and worry.

The story may be 160 years old but the messages contained in Madame Bovary feels just as relevant today.  Just like Emma, too often we think “the grass is greener on the other side.”  We lament about our imperfect lives and we forget about all the good stuff.  It also explores the flawed concept that money makes you happy.  Emma’s attempts to appear rich and successful only further add to her demise.

French-born writer-director Sophie Barthes has done a wonderful job fleshing out the novel’s themes inside of two hours.  Mia Wasikowska deserves praise for her leading performance which skilfully shows her character’s strengths and weaknesses. It’s also great to see the sharp Ezra Miller on screen for the first time since 2012’s The Perks Of Being A Wallflower.

The film’s hasn’t been particularly well received by critics since its premiere at Telluride last August but as someone new to the story of Madame Bovary (I haven’t read the novel or seen any of the earlier films), I was lured by its setting, its colours, and its ideas.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 24 June 2015

A low brow comedy about a drug-taking, foul-mouthed teddy bear.  It may like a moronic idea but Ted was 2012’s highest grossing comedy at the box-office.  It took in $218 million in the United States and an additional $330 million overseas.  Such was the love for Seth MacFarlane that the Academy gave him a gig hosting the Oscars a few months later.

A sequel was inevitable.  Mark Wahlberg returns as John but you won’t see him alongside his wife (played in the original film by Mila Kunis).  We’re told they went through a messy divorce – a fact that John hasn’t yet recovered from.  He’s too depressed to even go on a date with another woman.  He’s just sitting at home, smoking weed and watching old episodes of Law & Order.

Life isn’t going all that well for Ted either.  He’s now married to Tami-Lynn (Barth) but the two encounter difficulties when they try to adopt a child.  Ted is told that, under the law, he is considered a piece of property as opposed to a real person.  This mean that he cannot adopt, he cannot have a job, he cannot have a bank account, and, worst of all, he cannot be married.

It’s time to head to court in search of justice.  Given their lack of funds (they spend most of it on drugs), John and Ted go in search of a lawyer who can help them out pro bono.  The best they can find is Samantha – a 26-year-old who has just finished law school and has zero work experience.  She doesn’t exactly do things by the book but by the time the trial gets underway, she’s fully prepared and is ready to fight for her new best friends.

Most would agree this isn’t as funny as the original.  I’d add that it’s not as crude or random (which works against the film).  There are laughs… but the best already appear in the film’s trailer.  There’s also an element of repetitiveness such as the use of Patrick Warburton’s mean-spirited character at Comic-Con and an overused joke about internet searches.  One moment left me smiling though and it involves a timely reference to Jurassic Park (thanks John Williams).

The storyline isn’t all that interesting either.  Giovanni Ribisi returns as Donny – a janitor at a toy company who wants to kidnap Ted and use his secrets to make his own talking teddy bear.  It’s all too similar to the earlier film.  The CEO at the toy company, who is keen to go along with Donny’s plans in pursuit of profit, is also a flakey character who doesn’t have any idea what he’s doing.

The success of Ted will ensure crowds flock to this sequel but when you put the films side by side, it’s each to see which one generates the most laughs.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 01 July 2015

Senna, released in Australia back in 2011, was a brilliant documentary that recounted the life of the late Ayrton Senna.  Director Asif Kapadia included no narration track, no re-enactments and no modern day footage.  He utilised previously unseen footage, and he made something that felt more like a drama than a documentary.  It was riveting from start to finish.

I had the chance to speak to Kapadia back in 2011 and he spoke about his interest in the documentary genre.  Kapadia has directed several dramas (The Warrior, The Return, Far North) but he gravitated towards documentaries because of their simplicity.  You don’t need to rely on actors, writers, set designers and visual effects artists.  A doco can be put together in a shorter time frame with a smaller unit and a smaller budget.

It’s therefore no surprise to see Kapadia sticking with what he does best.  Amy is a 2-hour documentary that focuses on another high profile individual who passed away far too young – Amy Winehouse.

In the mid-2000s, the world put Winehouse on a pedestal.  She was a talented British singer-songwriter who won several Grammy Awards and played in front of sold-out crowds.  When her addictions to drugs and alcohol became widely known, the world laughed and tore her down.  She was hounded by the paparazzi and became a subject of amusement to comedians such as David Letterman and Jay Leno.

Kapadia follows Winehouse’s career using a chronological timeline.  In one of the film’s early scenes, we see a 14-year-old Winehouse hanging out with her best friends, making jokes, and singing Happy Birthday.  It’s surreal to think that this footage, shot on an old hand-held camera at home, is now part of a film that premiered at the Cannes Film Festival.  No one knew then how famous she would become.

Just as he did in Senna, Kapadia avoids “talking head” style interviews.  He has conducted recent interviews with those close to Winehouse (her father, her husband, and her best friends) but we don’t see them on screen.  Rather, we hear their voices as we watch archival footage of Winehouse at her best… and also at her worst.

It’s not an Earth shattering message but Amy firmly reiterates that “celebrities” are no different from the rest of us.  Fame and fortune doesn’t exempt you from the effects of addiction and depression.  Winehouse was a troubled woman forced to endure her problems publicly.  The film also points the finger at those close to Winehouse and asks whether they did enough to help.

It wasn’t easy getting everyone to talk but Kapadia conducted roughly 80 interviews as part of the filmmaking process.  Like any good documentarian, he wanted to ensure his representation of the subject matter was “honest and truthful”.  Not everyone agrees.  Amy’s father, Mitch, has voiced his disapproval for the way that both he and Amy are portrayed.  He stated on BBC radio that he may even “sue for damages.”

There’s plenty to take away from Amy.  It’s a celebration of her musical talents and the way in which her song lyrics have created a soundtrack to her life.  It’s also shows us the world of a mega-celebrity and the difficulties they face in remaining sane and grounded.   

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 23 June 2015

A great biopic can generate interest in a subject matter that you’d never think about otherwise.  Before walking into this film, I knew The Beach Boys were a popular band who rose to fame once upon a time but that’s about it.  I couldn’t sing you any of their songs.  I had never heard of the name Brian Wilson.

Love & Mercy begins in the 1980s by introducing us to the middle-aged Wilson (played by John Cusack).  This isn’t a guy who is enjoying fame and fortune.  He comes across as someone who is sleepy and aloof.  Looking for a new set of wheels, he wanders into a car dealership and strikes up a conversation with one of the sales staff, Melinda (Banks).  She hands Wilson and a business card and on the back he writes three words – lonely, scared and frightened.

To help understand what led Wilson to this point, writers Oren Moverman and Michael A. Lerner slip back to the 1960s and show us how The Beach Boys came to be.  It was the release of their second album, Surfin’ U.S.A., they helped them become household names.  Unlike the other members of the group though, Wilson wasn’t interested in touring the globe and performing on stage.  He was more comfortable working behind the scenes, writing the lyrics, and crafting their distinctive instrumental sounds.

For the first half of the film, it’s these flashbacks that provide the most interesting material.  Thanks to a superb performance from Paul Dano, who plays the younger Wilson, we’re able to get inside his character’s head and appreciate his creative vision.  You’ll be amazed when you see his thought process behind Pet Sounds, ranked by Rolling Stone Magazine as the second greatest album of all time.  Wilson was an artist who did things differently.

The 1980s storyline takes more prominence in the film’s second half.  Wilson is now divorced and has been through a lengthy addiction to drugs and alcohol.  He hasn’t seen his parents and his children in years.  He’s no longer writing music and he spends most of his day in bed.  It’s clear that he’s battling depression.

The man he thinks is helping him is Eugene Landy (Giamatti), a California-based therapist who is treating Wilson 24 hours a day.  Landy is an extremely controlling individual.  At a back-yard barbeque, he shouts repeatedly at Wilson just for eating his hamburger before everyone else.  When Melinda (the car salesman) and Wilson go on a date, Landy demands a full report on the night’s events.  If this was East Germany, you’d assume he was working for the Stasi.

It’s a “truth is stranger than fiction” kind of tale.  A world-famous song writer had given up control of his well-being to a questionable psychologist.  Everyone seemed too afraid to question the situation and it went on for several years.  At first, I thought Giamatti was over playing the character (he’s that villainous) but I read a recent review with Brian Wilson where he noted that he was “scared to death” when he first saw Giamatti’s performance.

Parts of the film tend to drag a little and I’m quite sure the screenplay gets to the heart of Wilson’s relationship with his father and other members of the band.  Still, this is an enlightening true story that provides insight into the ups and downs of a one-of-a-kind individual.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 30 June 2015

Terminator Genisys is set in 2029 and follows a guy who travels back to 1984 to tell someone to travel forward to 2017, as opposed to 1997, so as to save the human race.  Make sense?  It’s a head scratcher reminiscent of Inception or Predestination... but not quite as interesting.  Writers Laeta Kalogridis (Night Watch) and Patrick Lussier are trying to put their creative spin on a time travel movie.

The earlier Terminator flicks were based on the premise that autonomous robots took over the world in the not-to-distant future.  Billions of humans were killed as the robots considered them a threat to their own existence.  Those that survived were forced into hiding.

The good news was that the humans would win the war.  A man named John Connor would lead them to victory.  The bad news was the robots weren’t done.  They sent a cyborg assassin back in time to kill John’s mother, Sarah.  That way, he would never be born, he would never lead the human resistance, and the future would be altered in the robots’ favour.  This was the plot for the original Terminator, released in 1984, and it was followed by three more films in 1991, 2003 and 2009.

Terminator Genisys is an innovative cross between a sequel and a reboot.  It assumes that all of those previous events occurred… but it takes us back to 1984 for an alternate timeline.  Let me try to explain.  The cyborg went back in time to kill Sarah Connor.  Kyle Reese then went back in time to kill the cyborg.  This changed the future… but not enough apparently.  The robots have decided to have a second crack and have sent another cyborg back to 1984 to get the job done.  It forces Kyle Reese (from the updated timeline) to again travel back in time to protect Sarah and the fate of mankind.

As a friendly Terminator, Arnold Schwarzenegger is the only returning cast member.  He’s catchphrase in the film is that he’s “old but not obsolete.”  It sums up both his character and his acting career.  Added to the cast are two Aussies – Jason Clarke (Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes) and Jai Courtney (Divergent) – along with Emilia Clarke (Game Of Thrones) and recent Oscar winner J.K. Simmons (Whiplash).

The film is confusing at times.  It will help if you’ve seen the earlier Terminator movies (at least the first two) as there’s not much here in the way of background or character reintroductions.  The villainous activities also feel half-baked.  There’s an Apple-like company that has developed an operating system that will link all your electronic devices.  The government is even using it for its military program.  That couldn’t end badly, right?

The action sequences are decent.  It’s repetitive but it’s still cool to watch the cyborgs shot with heavy artillery and then regenerate.  The visual effects artists have earned their salary.  The same can be said for the sound technicians who have created some freaky audio effects during the battle scenes.  Director Alan Taylor is no stranger to the genre given he made Thor: The Dark World two years ago.

I don’t know if there’s quite enough here to reinvigorate the franchise (i.e. make a truckload of money) but the door has been left open for sequels should they be required.  A glimpse of something is provided midway through the closing credits but it’s obscure and adds no value.