Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 03 February 2015

When it comes to making action films, English director Matthew Vaughn doesn’t like to take things too seriously.  Kick-Ass was about a shy, nerdish kid who took to the streets and tried to become a superhero (complete with a ridiculous green costume).  X-Men: First Class fabricated and put a lighter spin on the events behind the 1962 Cuban missile crisis.

Kingsman: The Secret Service follows in the same vein.  Drawing from a comic book series that was first published in 2012, Vaughn and co-writer Jane Goldman have created a light-hearted spy film that tries to offer something a little different from the heavier James Bond films with which we are all familiar.

It centres on a super-secret crime fighting organisation known as the Kingsman.  I’m not quite sure how the fund their elaborate headquarters but they operate outside the realms of the government (so that they can’t be interfered with).  They travel across the world, collate valuable intelligence information and yep, they kill a few bad guys.

Following the recent death of a Kingsman, the organisation is going through a recruitment phase.  A group of young men and women are being put through a series of high-pressure trials to see if they have the required physical strength and mental toughness to make it through.  The most unlikely of the candidates is Eggsy (Egerton) – a guy fresh out of high school who has had somewhat of a troubled upbringing.

There’s another story that runs concurrently through the film.  An experienced Kingsman, known by the codename of Galahad (Firth), is trying to find who is responsible for the death of a close friend.  It leads him to the home of Valentine (Jackson), an insanely wealthy telecommunications tycoon who has developed a sinister plan to solve the world’s climate change problem.

It’s not a full-on spoof like Austin Powers but Kingsman: The Secret Service is very aware of the clichéd world in which it operates.  It makes reference to other spies such as James Bond and Maxwell Smart.  It also throws in a few plot twists that you won’t find in the well-used “spy movie” textbook.  It’s invigorating to see a movie that takes a few chances.

There’s not a lot of coherence to the storyline.  If you think about it for more than a few seconds, you’ll realise that it makes even less sense than a traditional comic book adaptation.  There’s a method to the madness however.  The film culminates with a final half-hour that is so wonderfully absurd that it will leave many laughing loudly and repeatedly.

Kingsman: The Secret Service is quite violent and it pushes the boundaries of political correctness… but if you’re not upset by either of those attributes, you should find it a lot of fun.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 15 January 2015

In 1995, a 26-year-old woman named Cheryl Strayed embarked on a 1,800km trek through California and Oregon in the United States.  To put that into perspective for those living here in Brisbane, it would be the rough equivalent of walking south to Melbourne or north to Cairns.  It took three months in total and Strayed wrote about her journey in a memoir first published in 2012.  Thanks to the endorsement of Oprah Winfrey, it spent 7 weeks atop the New York Times Best Seller list (in the nonfiction hardcover category).

As part of a panel discussion at last year’s Toronto Film Festival, Witherspoon lamented that Hollywood hasn’t been making enough great parts for women.  It’s something she’s hoping to remedy through her own film company.  It was actually Witherspoon who bought the rights to Gillian Flynn’s Gone Girl.  With the skilful direction of David Fincher and a fantastic performance from Rosamund Pike, it was a huge box-office success and one of 2014’s most talked about movies.

Witherspoon didn’t take the role of Amy Dunne in Gone Girl.  She freely admits that Fincher was looking for “a certain type of woman” and that she did not quite fit that vision.  That’s not the case with Wild.  Witherspoon purchased the rights to Strayed’s book before it had even been released (she’d read an advanced copy) and immediately had herself in mind for the lead.  Tired of playing romantic love interests, this was her chance to create a character that she describes as “flawed, complex, embarrassed, humbled and fierce.”

Adapted for the screen by Nick Hornby (About A Boy), the film’s early sequences portray Strayed as someone who is ill prepared and out of her depth.  She’s brought the wrong fuel for her stove and so cannot cook a warm meal.  She also struggles to erect her small tent (it requires a thorough reading of the instructions).  What the hell was she thinking?  I remember asking that same question during Into The Wild, a similar tale of self-discovery released back in 2007.

Director Jean-Marc Vallée (Dallas Buyers Club) provides the answer by taking us inside Stayed’s head through a series of quick flashbacks.  She hadn’t gone on this epic hike to improve her fitness.  She wasn’t doing it to raise money for charity.  The truth was that Stayed had nowhere else to go.  She was a recovering drug addict with no fixed address.  She had few friends, few family and a husband who had recently filed for divorced (she cheated on him constantly).

Stayed’s journey could therefore be described as a “cleansing exercise”.  She wanted to escape her old life and transition into a better one.  She meets an odd assortment of characters along the way but strangely, these interactions don’t add much to the overall story (aside from providing a bit of conversation to break up long silences).  Aside from a few early stumbles, I’d also argue there isn’t much in the way of “drama”.  The trail is relatively safe and is used by thousands of hikers each year.

Wild is at its most interesting when it delves into Stayed’s past and explores her relationship with her mother (Dern) and ex-husband (Sadoski).  This is ultimately what the film is about – realising who you are and what you want out of life.  Completing the trek was a great physical achievement… but it would have meant nothing if it didn’t change her as a person.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 26 January 2015

What do Kim Basinger, Hilary Swank, Catherine Zeta-Jones and Nicole Kidman have in common?  They’ve all prevented Julianne Moore from taking home a coveted 13 ½ inch gold plated statuette.  However, after two decades of great performances, it seems the “movie gods” are finally set to smile on Moore.  Having won a string of lead-up awards, she’s a ridiculously short priced favourite to win the Oscar next month for her lead performance in Still Alice.

The film centres on a 50-year-old woman who is battling the early stages of Alzheimer’s disease.  When we first meet Alice (Moore), we learn that she’s a highly regarded linguistics professor at Columbia University.  Her husband, John (Baldwin), is also a college professor and they have three children who have all moved out of home.

Alice is sharp enough to realise that something isn’t quite right with her memory.  She loses her train of thought while giving an important lecture.  She becomes disorientated while going out for a late afternoon jog.  Several trips to a specialist confirm Alice’s deep-seeded fears.  The indignity she soon feels is summed up in a comment to her husband – “I wish I had cancer.”

This film is about more than just feeling sad and sorrowful.  It’s provides an insightful look at how such a disease can affect the family dynamic.  Alice is told that Alzheimer’s is genetic and that there’s a 50/50 chance that each of her children will go through the same experience.  The moment she shares this news with her kids makes for tough viewing.  If you were in their shoes, would you want to know this?  Would then want to have a genetic test to know for sure?

The disease also puts a strain on John.  He wants to be there and support his wife… but there’s only so much time he can take off work (particularly since he is now the sole breadwinner).  When a lucrative job offer arises in another state, he’s left with a tough decision to make.  How much of his own life and career is he prepared to sacrifice?  When is the right time to get a live-in carer or perhaps even put Alice in a nursing home?

Julianne Moore is wonderfully good as Alice and her performance will bring a tear to many eyes.  As part of her four months of research, she met with not just those suffering from the disease but also researchers, clinicians and therapists who deal with it every day.  She wanted to create a credible character that depicts the effects of Alzheimer’s as accurately as possible.  Moore is helped by a great supporting cast that includes Alec Baldwin, Kristen Stewart, Kate Bosworth and Hunter Parrish.

Based on the novel by Lisa Genova, Still Alice has been brought to the screen by the writing-directing team of Richard Glatzer and Wash Westmoreland.  It’s a neat twist of fate that the film is being released in Australia on the same date as The Theory Of Everything.  Just like Stephen Hawking, Glatzer suffers from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).  He has lost the ability to speak and can no longer use his hands.  The only way he could communicate with the cast and crew was by typing on an iPad using his right toe.  The fact he was able to make such an affecting movie is inspiring.  There’s no other word for it.

It’s a shame the film itself hasn’t received more recognition during the awards season.  I’d argue that it’s a lot more balanced, engaging and moving than the likes of The Imitation Game and American Sniper.  Put it high on your “must see” list.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 15 January 2015

American Sniper tries to juggle too many balls and ends up dropping every one of them.  One third of the film wants to celebrate a brave, real-life American hero.  Trained as a Navy SEAL, Chris Kyle (Cooper) was a proficient marksman who went on four tours of duty during the recent Iraq War and was credited with 160 enemy kills (more than any other sniper).  He was so successful that a group of Iraqi insurgents placed a lucrative bounty on his head.

In the opening half hour, we see Kyle’s first kill in the deserted Iraqi town of Nasiriya.  Lying patiently atop a multi-story dwelling, he spots a mother and child holding a grenade.  Do they intend to hand it over as a gesture of goodwill?  Or are they planning a suicide bombing?  When the child starts moving towards a group of U.S. soldiers, Kyle takes him out with a single gunshot.

It turns out to be the correct decision as the film is very clear to point out that the kid was “evil like I’ve never seen before.”  Why does everything have to be so simplistic though?  I realise he helped save a lot of soldiers (we see him honoured repeatedly) but did Kyle ever kill someone he wasn’t sure about?  Did he take pleasure from killing people (like he did animals)?  It feels like we’re getting a sheltered, overly patriotic view of who this man was.

Another third of the film wants to be a Hollywood-style action thriller.  Several scenes involve Kyle hunting down a Syrian born sniper named Mustafa who was once an Olympic shooter.  This never happened though.  It’s a largely fictional subplot that has been created by screenwriter Jason Hall because all action films need a keynote “villain”.

There’s no chance that you’ll sympathise with Mustafa since we know nothing about his past or his motivations.  He’s just a bad guy with a big gun who doesn’t say a word throughout the whole movie.  Bradley Cooper has described the film as “character study” as opposed to a “political movie” but it is noticeably unbalanced given the lack of time spent exploring the mindset of the insurgents.  If you want me to celebrate Kyle as a hero, at least show me what he’s fighting for and who he’s up against.

The other third of the film is trying to be a relationship drama that explores the heavy emotional toll that often comes with military service.  Kyle found it difficult to return to a “normal life” after his lengthy tours.  Part of him was glad to be home with his family but another part wanted to be back in Iraq and doing what he loved.  There’s a powerful moment when his wife (Miller) puts him on the spot and says “even when you’re here, you’re not here.”

The troubled connection between Kyle and his wife is the script’s most interesting element.  We finally get to see him as a human as opposed to an action hero.  He suppresses his suffering and refuses to talk about his work.  She tries to get him to open up and seek professional help.  Sadly, this area isn’t given enough screen time and is used more as a quick interlude to break up the numerous wham-bam shooting sequences.

I won’t spoil American Sniper’s climax except to say that it is laughably bad.  After discussing various possibilities, director Clint Eastwood decided to wrap up Kyle’s story before a particularly significant event.  It’s just another example of the film going with simplicity over complexity.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 25 January 2015

A college guy arrives at a party, looks across the room, and sees a beautiful young lady.  He finally summons the courage to speak with her but it’s an awkward exchange.  He’s nervous and can barely look at her in the eye.  His confidence slowly builds as the night finishes with the exchange of phone numbers.

It’s a somewhat unexpected opening to The Theory Of Everything – a two-hour drama that encompasses the life of the renowned British physicist and cosmologist Stephen Hawking (Redmayne).  Instead of concentrating on his many scientific achievements, which have already been well documented, the film focuses on his personal life and the relationship with his wife, Jane (Jones).  The story begins at the precise moment they first met – at a Cambridge party in 1963.

They were just an ordinary couple at first.  They spent time together, went on short trips, and chatted about meaningless things.  All of that changed when Hawking was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) at the age of 21.  Doctors estimated he had 2 years left in live and in that time, he’d lose the ability to walk, to speak and to eat.

Recently nominated for his first Academy Award, British actor Eddie Redmayne (Les Misérables) delivers a knockout performance as Stephen Hawking.  You get a strong sense of the suffering, both physical and mental, that his character had to endure.  This is highlighted in a powerful scene where he tries to climb up the staircase at home after a small dinner party.

I’d argue though that the more interesting character is Jane, played beautifully by Felicity Jones (Like Crazy).  The film asks an age-old question – how far would you go for the person you love?  Instead of giving us a fairy-tale style answer, The Theory Of Everything shows just how tough things were for Jane.  She had to give up her own career aspirations and become her husband’s full-time caregiver.

It’s a decision that would take its toll.  Jane opened her soul in a 1999 biography where she said that “it was becoming very difficult – unnatural, even – to feel desire for someone with the body of a Holocaust victim and the undeniable needs of an infant.”  She also had to grapple with Stephen’s rise in fame.  He was winning awards around the globe.  She was still feeding, bathing and dressing him each morning.

Director James Marsh will be more widely known for his work as a documentary filmmaker.  His credits include the brilliant Man On Wire (which won him an Oscar in 2009) and the highly acclaimed Project Nim.  The Theory Of Everything is a well-polished production that showcases the work of two crew members in particular – French cinematographer Benoît Delhomme (The Boy In Striped Pyjamas) and Icelandic composer Jóhann Jóhannsson (Prisoners).

Nominated for 5 Academy Awards including best picture, The Theory Of Everything provides both insight and comfort.  There are many ways to make a relationship work.