Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 23 October 2014

The UK miners’ strike in 1984 has been well documented.  The Margaret Thatcher led government announced the closure of numerous coal mines across Britain.  The National Union of Mineworkers responded by initiating a national strike.  It was an issue that divided the country and it wasn’t until almost a year later that the workers finally relented and returned to the mines.

The strike provided the backdrop to 2000’s much acclaimed drama, Billy Elliot (still my all-time favourite film).   Writer Stephen Beresford and Tony Award winning director Matthew Warchus (Matilda: The Musical) have borrowed from the same piece of history to create Pride.  The focus here is not so much on the miners but rather a group of gay and lesbians fighting for their own equality.

Based on actual events, the story is largely centred on Mark Ashton (Schnetzer), a twenty-something year old gay rights activist living in London.  Looking to improve the public’s perception of the homosexual community, Mark starts a campaign known as “Lesbians and Gays Support the Miners.”  He and his friends collect money on the street and then pass the proceeds through the National Union of Mineworkers.

It’s a good deed… but one with a dual purpose.  By targeting the miners, who now find themselves marginalised like many homosexuals, he hopes to build a rapport that can break down barriers.  It won’t be easy though.  There are plenty of folk on both sides of the fence who have doubts.  Some have much stronger moral objections.

Pride is an ensemble piece with most characters leaving an impression.  A subdued Bill Nighy (The Boat That Rocked) and an excitable Imelda Staunton (Vera Drake) play residents of a small Welsh town who embrace their new gay friends.  George MacKay (Sunshine On Leith) features as a closeted youngster who sneaks out of his parents’ house to help the cause.  Andrew Scott (Sherlock) plays a middle-aged gay man looking for the courage to speak to his mother for the first time in almost two decades.

Some have panned the film for its narrow focus.  They believe it glosses over the plight of the miners (who ultimately lost) and the rising impact on AIDS within the gay community.  Others have criticised the film for its lack of historical accuracy.  They claim that it oversimplifies the characters and makes things out to be far too black and white (for example, the real Mark Ashton was far more politically driven that the film suggests).

These detractors are in the minority.  Pride premiered at the Cannes Film Festival (as part of the Directors’ Fortnight program) and performed solidly at the box-office when released in the U.K. last month.  The high grading from the public on the Internet Movie Database (a current score of 8.1 out of 10) suggests that most are seeing this film as it was intended – as a warm-hearted, feel-good comedy that embraces its 1980s setting and highlights a small piece of forgotten history.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 02 October 2014

There are few Hollywood directors who have delivered quality films as consistently as David Fincher over the past two decades.  I’m talking about Seven, The Game, Fight Club, Zodiac, The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button, The Social Network, and The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo (I’ve deliberately left off Panic Room).

Gone Girl marks his 5^th consecutive feature film that isn’t an original story.  Rather, it’s using a popular novel as its source material.  American author Gillian Flynn, a former writer for the Entertainment Weekly magazine, first published her book in 2012.  It soared up the best-seller charts and the film rights were quickly snapped up by Reese Witherspoon (yes, she’s a producer on the side) and 20^th Century Fox.

Like all good thrillers, it’s tricky to work out how much to reveal in a review (for the benefit of those who haven’t read the novel).  If I work solely from what is divulged in the trailers, Gone Girl is the story of Nick Dunne (Affleck) – a struggling bar owner from Missouri who has been accused of murdering his wife, Amy (Pike).  There’s no body and no weapon… but the circumstances surrounding her disappearance are suspicious.

Given that Amy is the daughter of a successful writer, it’s the kind of case that becomes headline news across the United States.  Everyone has an opinion as to whether he’s guilty or innocent.  It’s effectively “trial by media” with fresh information being provided to the thirsty public each day – some of it fact, some of it mere speculation.

It’s this part of the film that I found the most engaging.  The recent murder trails of Gerard Baden-Clay and Oscar Pistorius have highlighted our seemingly insatiable interest in certain crimes.  What is it about these particular cases that generated such public interest?  Why are we so quick to form and opinion as to guilty or innocence based on a splattering of information (sometimes false) in news reports?

Nick is originally perceived by the public as a nice guy.  They believe the story that his wife must have been kidnapped.  However, when Nick is seen smiling for a split-second at a press conference, people start to think otherwise.  We have this perception how people “should” reaction in such a situation and so when reality doesn’t match up, it creates doubt in our minds.

There are many characters in this ensemble and the film provides much insight by looking at the situation through all of their eyes.  Two police detectives (Dickens and Fugit) have identified Nick as the key suspect and are trying to find enough evidence to charge him.  Nick’s sister (Coon) is trying to be as supportive as possible but senses that her brother is hiding something.  Nick’s attorney (Perry) is heavily focused on spinning the media back in his client’s favour.  Amy’s parents are co-ordinating a large search party while trying to deal with their own suspicions.

Unfortunately, all the good work is brought undone by a rubbish ending.  To use a metaphor, it’s like getting a call from a telemarketer who just won’t take no for answer.  You understand what they’re trying to sell.  That’s not the issue.  The problem for them is that you’re not interested in buying.  To come back to Gone Girl, I understand what message this film is trying to sell in its final 20 minutes… but I simply didn’t buy it.  Characters start acting in a nonsensical manner so as to fit the predetermined conclusion.

It’s a long film a two and a half hours and I think there’s a lot to like here… but Gone Girl rubbed me up the wrong way at its pointy end.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 22 October 2014

It’s April 1945 and Sergeant Don Collier (Pitt) is leading a small group of U.S. soldiers as part of the broader effort to win the war.  He tells a fellow soldier that “I started this war killing Germans in Africa, then I killed Germans in France, and now I’m killing Germans in Germany.”  The allies have the upper hand but Collier knows there is much more work to be done before the Germans are defeated.

Collier and his team operate an M4 Sherman tank, which they’ve named “Fury”, and the film follows a series of missions that they’ve been given to complete.  These include the rescue of a U.S. platoon trapped in an open field and the guarding of a crossroad against an advancing German army.  The guys know they’ve been lucky so far.  They’ve seen many tanks destroyed and many fellow soldiers killed.  They put on a tough face but the weight of the war is starting to take its toll on them physically and mentally.

There are some fierce, bloody battles in Fury but at its heart, this is a character-driven drama that centres on the dynamic between two different people.  Collier is the experienced “veteran” who has seen it all.  Norman (Lerman) is the newcomer – a quiet clerical worker who has been asked to join Collier’s crew as an assistant driver to a lack of available soldiers.  He can type 60 words a minute… but he has never set foot in a tank and has never shot a gun.

Collier realises that Norman is a liability.  He and his crew (LaBeouf, Peña, Bernthal) have been together a long time and he’d made a lofty promise that he’d keep them all alive.  He tells Norman straight up that “you’re getting in the way of that.”  There are no other options though.  Collier has to find a way to connect with the fearful Norman and transform him into a battle-ready soldier.  There’s one piece of advice that resonates strongly – “ideals are peaceful, history is violent.”

There are times when the film is too staged.  For example, there’s a scene where the soldiers befriend two German women in a small town.  It’s a moment where there’s too much going on at once – Norman discovering his first love, Collier showing a softer side, and the other soldiers revealing their true nature through the power of alcohol.  It didn’t feel authentic.  The same can be said of the climax to this sequence (which I won’t reveal).

Like other war films, Fury covers the familiar themes of heroism, comradery and brutality.  It’s also tapping into our love of underdog stories.  There are plenty of instances in this movie where these characters could have been killed.  Instead, we see them rely on their own physically and a hell of a lot of luck to get the job done.  It reminded me a little of last year’s Lone Survivor in that regard.

Fury’s most impressive attributes are the great leading performances from Brad Pitt (we all know who he is so I won’t list any credits) and Logan Lerman (The Perks Of Being A Wallflower, Percy Jackson series).  As I’ve alluded to above, they share some great conversations and I enjoyed watching the relationship develop between them.

It’s not as gritty or emotive as the top World War II films (such as Saving Private Ryan and The Thin Red Line) and it’s very much towing a patriotic U.S. line but Fury is still an involving war drama.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 01 October 2014

I’m really not sure we needed another vampire movie.  It’s a genre that’s been well covered over the past decade with films including Vampire Academy, Only Lovers Left Alive, Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter, Dark Shadows, Let Me In, Daybreakers and 30 Days Of Night.  There’s also a bunch of popular franchises including Night Watch, Underworld and Twilight.  We’ve even reached the point where spoofs are being created – check out Vampires Suck and What We Do In The Shadows as examples.

Anyway, first-time writers Matt Sazama and Burk Sharpless have tried to come up with their own fresh take on the genre. Dracula Untold is an origin story which shows us how a 15^th Century Transylvanian prince was transformed into one of the world’s most infamous vampires.  Don’t expect it to be wrapped up too neatly.  Several plots have been left open for possible sequels (provided this film makes a profit).

The film opens by introducing us to popular prince known to most as Vlad the Impaler (Evans).  It’s a nickname well earned.  During war time, impaling his victims on giant spears was his favourite form of execution.  Vlad may be a powerful warrior but he’s no match for a domineering Sultan (Cooper) who controls the kingdom with a 100,000-man army.  The Sultan’s latest demand is that that Vlad hand over 1,000 children, including his own son, so that they can be trained and added to his growing militia.

It’s the last straw for Vlad.  As the saying goes – desperate men do desperate things.  He heads into the mountains and tracks down a vampire named Caligula (Dance) who many believed to be a legend.  Vlad asks to be transformed into a blood sucking creature so that he will have the power to defeat the Sultan’s army and hence, protect his family.  Caligula provides a sinister warning – “what kind of man crawls into his own grave in search of hope?”

Oh, but there exists a fairy tale type loophole.  Vlad will only be transformed into a vampire for 3 days.  That’ll be just enough time to slay the Sultan.  After that, he will return to his life as a mortal human and live happily ever after (or so I assumed).  However, if he drinks the blood of a human inside of those 3 days, he will remain a vampire for all eternity.  The bottom line – don’t drink any blood or you’re screwed.

I realise it’s a fantasy flick but I still had trouble going along with several parts to the story.  If Caligula is so unsatisfied with his life (you’ll see what I mean), why doesn’t he just walk out into the sunlight and kill himself?  As for Vlad, why does he wait for the Sultan’s army to come to him?  Shouldn’t he go straight after them to save time?

There are a few noteworthy elements (I like the idea that Dracula is a bit of a family man) but the film generally plays out like a standard action flick.  For example, Vlad can kill 1,000 men by himself in a matter of minutes… and yet he has to “lower himself” to a choreographed sword fight during the film’s finale.  We’ve seen it before.  We’ll see it again.

The cast do their job.  Luke Evans (Fast & Furious 6) does his best to look as aggrieved and tortured as possible.  Sarah Gordon (Cosmopolis) does what most females did in the 15^th Century – playing second fiddle to their husband.  It’s Charlies Dance (Game Of Thrones) who leaves the biggest impression as the cunning Caligula.  He’s far more interesting than the film’s keynote villain, played by Dominic Cooper (Need For Speed).

First-time feature director Gary Shore is to be applauded for the film’s brisk pace (it clocks in at a tidy 92 minutes) and some impressive visuals (such as the way in which the vampires react when coming into contact with sunlight or silver) but if you’ve grown tired of the vampire genre, it’s hard to see this tale providing much in the way of reinvigoration.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 19 October 2014

Andrew Neyman (Teller) is a talented jazz drummer in his first year at the most prestigious music school in the United States.  In the film’s opening scene, we see him practicing late one night to the point where the drumsticks have left blisters on his hands.  Appearing to have very few friends, Andrew is prepared to forgo an active social life in pursuit of his goal – to be the world’s best drummer.

In that same opening sequence, he is spotted by Terence Fletcher (Simmons) – the school’s chief music conductor.  There are some teachers who like to be friends with their students and take the “softly, softly” approach.  Fletcher is not one of them.  When he storms into a rehearsal room, he always brings a sense of fear.  Everyone falls silent.  Their eyes collectively look to the floor.

There’s a nice side to Fletcher that is fleetingly visible.  For example, we see him talking sweetly to a young child and inspiring her to become a successful pianist.  Such moments are forgotten when you see the second of his two faces.  He tells a female saxophonist that she must have been selected because of her good looks and not her talent.  He teases another student about his weight and then accuses him of playing out of tune (when that’s not actually the case).

The opening half of Whiplash is about trying to understand Fletcher.  When he’s throwing chairs at students from across the room and when he’s reducing them to tears with his sadistic comments, is there a method to his madness?  Is he using fear to motivate the students?  Is he trying to separate the good from the great?  Or… is he just an odious human being?  Does he take pleasure from the humiliation and degradation of those under his control?

The film’s second half flips the focus – it’s about trying to understand Andrew as Fletcher’s emotional abuse and intense practice regime starts to take its toll.  Andrew clearly has a love for drumming but he now has doubts.  Does he actually have what it takes to be a professional?  Have Fletcher’s unorthodox techniques exposed his weaknesses?  Or… does he believe in himself enough to push back?  Should he stand up to Fletcher and put him to the test in return?

Winner of the Audience Award and Grand Jury Prize at the Sundance Film Festival back in January, Whiplash is a powerful film headlined by two passionate performances.  Fletcher is a character whose actions and insults could easily become laughable if overplayed.  Thankfully, that’s not the case thanks to the brilliance of J.K. Simmons (Spider-Man, Juno).  Writer-director Damien Chazelle considered Simmons for the role after recalling his equally strong presence in the 1990s television series, Oz, set in a maximum-security prison.

It feels like Miles Teller has been around for a lot longer than 4 years.  After making his debut in 2010’s Rabbit Hole, Teller has built a name for himself through a series of teen-orientated movies including Project X, The Spectacular Now, That Awkward Moment and Divergent.  You’ll see a different side of Teller here as he deftly illustrates Andrew’s skill with the drums but also his fragile mental state.  He draws on numerous emotions and it’s a performance equal to that of Simmons.

Before the shoot, Teller spent months improving his drumming skills under the tutelage of Nate Lang – a member of a New York based band known as the Howlin’ Souls.  It’s a nice touch that Lang plays Andrew’s drumming rival, Carl, in the film itself.

The screenplay rushes through some events a little too quickly but this is still an impressive achievement for Chazelle who loosely drew on his own experiences when creating the story.  It wants you to dissect these intriguing characters and also reflect on what it takes, rightly or wrongly, to succeed.