Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 22 July 2014

I was chatting to a friend last week about No – the 2012 releasing starring Gael Garcia Bernal.  It told the story of a young advertising guru working in Chile who came up with a creative opposition campaign to defeat President Augusto Pinochet in the 1988 referendum.  It highlighted something that I love about cinema – it can provide insight into a person and a piece of history that would otherwise have known nothing about… if not for the movie.

You therefore imagine my disappointment when I saw this week’s crop of new release movies.  Mrs. Brown’s Boys D’Movie is based on a UK television sitcom that has been running for three seasons.  Hercules is the second film based on the Greek hero to be released this year (one starring Kellan Lutz, the other starring Dwayne Johnson).  Deliver Us From Evil is the umpteenth film about demons and exorcisms.  It’s even from a director, Scott Derrickson, who has made an exorcism film before!  I’m referring to 2005’s The Exorcism Of Emily Rose.

To think that there are so many amazing stories in the world waiting to be told… and yet we seem to fall back on the same stuff again and again.  I guess I should be grateful there wasn’t a new vampire flick out this week.

Before this degenerates into too much of a “rant”, I should focus my attention on the film at hand.  Deliver Us From Evil stars Eric Bana as Ralph Sarchie – a New York police detective who seems to have an uncanny “radar” for picking interesting cases.  It’s never boring working with Sarchie (his partner knows this all too well) but you’re unlikely to get much sleep either.  He works throughout the night and is keen to sink his teeth into any new investigation.

Sarchie’s latest case is a strange one.  A mother turned up at a zoo, threw her 2-year-old child into a lion’s enclosure, and then started talking gibberish.  Maybe she’s speaking Latin.  Maybe she’s just crazy.  Whatever the reason, she’s locked up in a mental institution until things can be figured out.

The arrival of an unorthodox priest (Ramirez) sheds a little more light on the situation.  He tries to explain to Sarchie that there are two kinds of evil in the world – secondary evil which is committed by man and primary evil which is “something else entirely”.  The priest believes that the mother has been possessed by a powerful demon and that this case is anything but solved.

This is a familiar, no frills exorcism film that doesn’t offer much in the way of scares or surprises.  We get the standard early scenes with Sarchie expressing his scepticism and saying that he doesn’t believe in “invisible fairies” – despite the fact that the situation couldn’t look any stranger!  There’s also a seen-it-all-before subplot involving Sarchie’s wife (Munn) who is frustrated that her husband is spending too much time at work and not enough at home with their young daughter.

It may sound hard to believe but this is based on actual events.  Ralph Sarchie is a real person and he penned the 2001 non-fiction book, Beware The Night, which formed the basis for the screenplay.  I’m not discrediting Sarchie’s work as a “demonologist” but when you see some of the stuff in this movie, you’ll be wondering just how closely it mirrors the truth.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 13 July 2014

It’s a familiar blueprint when it comes to romantic dramas – boy gets girl, boy loses girl, boy gets girl.  In its defence, at least Words & Pictures is trying to elevate itself beyond that simple formula.  As the title suggests, it’s providing a rigorous debate about the value of words as opposed to pictures.  Which is more powerful?

The narrative is centred on two teachers in a public high school.  Jack Marcus (Owen) is a high-profile English teacher who has been there so long that he’s now part of the furniture.  Once a published author, he’s lost his motivation in recent years.  He struggles to fill his students with a passion for writing and a passion for great literature.  Jack’s battles with alcoholism (which he refers to as a “hobby”) only contribute to his problems and there are some who believe his teaching days are numbered.

Dina Delsanto (Binoche) is the school’s newest recruit – an accomplished artist who has accepted a role as an art teacher as somewhat of a “fall back” position.  She’d rather be displaying her work in galleries across the globe but she now suffers from the effects of rheumatoid arthritis and it has become extremely difficult for her to paint.  Never trained as a teacher, she is trying to work out how best to guide and inspire her very first class.

Jack and Dina clash in the staff room and it seems to provide them both with a much-needed spark.  What follows is a fun, engaging, term-long project where the students take a side and try to create a convincing argument.  A mere 1,300 words are contained in the Declaration of Independence and yet it was mighty enough to create a country.  On the flip side, a photo of an unknown man standing in front of a tank in Tiananmen Square showed the whole world that many were not happy with China’s political leadership.

As interesting as this discussion topic may seem, Words & Pictures can’t deliver as a movie.  The dialogue is really clunky at times.  When you see both Jack and Dina interacting with their students, you’d think you were watching a group of Harvard professors toss around ideas.  Everyone feels too intelligent and the situation doesn’t ring true.

The same can be said of the interaction between Clive Owen (Closer) and Juliette Binoche (The English Patient).  The pair had always wanted to worth together and you can sense that they’re enjoying their respective roles, but the scenarios crafted by screenwriter Gerald Di Pego (Phenomenon, Message In A Bottle) are too phoney, too manufactured.  This is evident right from the start during a silly game where the two characters try to outsmart each other with five-syllable words.

Directed by 74-year-old Australian Fred Schepisi (Six Degrees Of Separation, Last Orders), Words & Pictures aims high but falls into too many of the clichés that we’ve grown to expect from this genre.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 20 July 2014

What is the purpose of a funeral?  Is it one final act to respect the wishes of the deceased and to allow them to move into the afterlife?  Or is it more for the benefit of those still alive – a way of providing closure and a chance to reflect in the company of friends and family.

These questions get to the heart of Still Life – an immensely warm-hearted drama from writer-director Uberto Pasolini (a producer on The Full Monty).  It’s the story of John May (Marsan), a middle aged man who has worked for the local council for 22 years.  When a resident dies with no immediate next-of-kin, it is John’s responsibility to organise a funeral or cremation.  He also does his very best to track down anyone who may wish to be present.

It’s a movie bursting with poignant moments.  In the opening montage, we see John at a series of funerals.  A coffin rests at the front of the church, a priest reads a simple eulogy, and John stands by his lonesome in a back pew.  He wasn’t able to find any friends or family members to attend.  It’s sad to think that someone has left this world and there isn’t a single person who cares.

Equally moving are the sequences where John enters the home of a recently deceased individual and pieces together their final hours.  He looks at the bed which has been slept in for the last time.  He looks at the dirty dishes which will never be cleaned.  He also flips through old photo albums and scrapbooks – looking at tiny fragments of a life and trying to get a perspective on who the person was and what they achieved.

The reason John cares so much… is contained in his own life story.  He resides in a small, run-down flat and lives alone.  He has the same meal every night – tuna with toast, coffee and an apple.  He works in a dull, grey office with no view.  He always wears a black tie and suit.  In essence, John is the kind of guy you don’t notice, the kind of guy who doesn’t stand out.  He keeps to himself and like so many of the people he investigates, he too has no friends or family.

The crux of the film’s narrative arrives when John is called into his boss’s office and told that he’s being made redundant.  The council is introducing “efficiency savings” and John is an easy target given his thorough work ethic.  They’d prefer to let someone new take the role – someone who doesn’t incur extra costs on funerals when a cremation would suffice, and someone who won’t spend weeks searching for a long lost next-of-kin.  John is then left with one final case – an elderly man by the name of William Stoke.

Backed by an agreeable film score from Academy Award winning composer Rachel Portman (The Cider House Rules) and the idyllic cinematography of Stefano Falivene (Bel Ami), Still Life is a beautiful film.  It’s dripping with nostalgia and contains many sweet, memorable touches – such as a moment when John sits in an old arm-chair and looks across at a curious dog.

46-year-old Eddie Marsan (Happy-Go-Lucky, Sherlock Holmes) appears in every scene and it’s the finest performance of his career thus far.  Relying more on expressions and actions (as opposed to dialogue), you get a clear sense of his character’s tender, sympathetic nature.  You’ll be dearly hoping that he can find happiness in his own life.

A few plot developments feel a touch forced but they’re easy to forgive given the film’s charm and thought-provoking premise.  There aren’t many films that have reduced me to tears but Still Life can now be added to that short list.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 09 July 2014

Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes picks up ten “winters” after the 2011 reboot.  Human society has collapsed.  A man-made virus wiped out half the planet and for the remainder, it’s summed up best by a television interviewee – “those not killed by the virus will be killed by the fighting.”  Governments have been shut down and martial law has been declared in 28 countries.

As for the super-intelligent apes, they’ve fared much better.  They’ve forged their own civilisation in a secluded forest just outside of San Francisco.  They can hunt, ride horses, make weapons and build shelter.  They have even come up with a simple set of laws by which they can live.  First and foremost, apes cannot kill other apes.

While they’d prefer to steer clear, the apes soon find themselves thrust back into the human world.  A small pocket of survivors, who were genetically immune to the virus, have made a new home for themselves amongst the overgrown ruins of San Francisco.

In search of an energy source, the humans are looking to restart an electricity-generating dam which just so happens to be close to the apes’ home.  We get to see things from both perspectives.  The leader of the apes, Caesar (Serkis), wants to trust the humans and allow them to operate the dam… but some of his offsiders believe that they’re up to no good.  The humans also have division within the ranks.  Some want to negotiate… but others want to use their military strength to obliterate the apes before they become too strong.

I wasn’t a huge fan of the original reboot but Dawn Of The Planet Of The Apes reeled me in quickly and held me right through to the action finale.  I was surprised at how political it was (don’t let that be a turn off).  It’s not a simple ape versus human storyline.  On both sides, there’s intense debate about the best course of action and the answers aren’t always that clear.

You’d be hard pressed to find another film so far in 2014 that asks more of the special effects artists.  The visuals were created by Weta Digital (the same company behind The Lord Of The Rings movies) and the apes could not look more real, more realistic.  When you look closely at the wet fur and their bloody scratches, you’ll see the ridiculous attention to detail.  The background images also deserve attention.  The ruined streets and buildings of San Francisco are both eerie and beautiful.

The focus of this film is on the apes (that’s obvious right from the start) but I still a little disappointed with the way the humans disappeared from the story in the final half hour.  It doesn’t make a lot of sense and it’s my only qualm in what is one of the year’s strongest, most thought-provoking action releases.  Director Matt Reeves (Cloverfield) deserves a big wrap.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 16 July 2014

There’s not much happening in the opening half-hour of Sex Tape.  It’s just a long winded explanation of why they decided to make the video in the first place.  Annie (Diaz) and Jay (Segel) were once a blissful couple who had sex at any opportunity in just about every location – the bedroom, the living room, the college grounds, a public library, and so on.

Then, they got married and had two kids.  They’re not filing for divorce any time soon… but you sense they’re a little frustrated by their dwindling sex life.  They just can’t find the time any more.  That is until one particular evening where they find a babysitter, have a few alcoholic beverages, and then retire to the bedroom.  Looking to spice things up a little, Jay gets out his brand new iPad and films the full three hour session.

The film’s second act is far more entertaining.  It’s a chance to actually have a laugh.  The video is accidentally uploaded to a series of iPads that Jay had given to his family and friends.  It gets worse though.  Annie’s new boss (Lowe) is also in possession of a synced iPad and given she’s about to become the spokesperson for a family-friendly toy company, it could very well be career threatening.

It sends both Jay and Annie, helped by two curious friends, on a goose chase across the city to track down all the iPads and delete the video before it’s too late.  Many of the jokes are overdone – highlighted by Jay’s encounter with a dog and later, the family’s introduction to the owner of a porn site – but there were a few surprising moments that left me chuckling out loud.

The film is only 94 minutes long but it still feels heavily padded.  The lengthy introduction and drawn out jokes are proof of that.  Perhaps it’s just a poorly written script.  Perhaps it’s just too hard to make a full length feature out of such a narrow premise.  When you compare it to the best of this year’s big-budget comedies, Bad Neighbours, you realise this isn’t up to scratch.

Things fall away again at the end with a strange conclusion that tries to ask deeper questions such as why people make sex tapes.  It doesn’t fit.  This needed to be a straight out comedy all the way.  There’s no need to take a soft moral high ground.  There’s no need to make me feel sorry for a bunch of characters I couldn’t care less about.

You get the sense the only reason this project got off the ground is because of the two leading actors – Jason Segel and Cameron Diaz.  Their popularity, couple with the catchy title, should be enough to get bums on seats when the film is released simultaneously in Australia and the United States this weekend.  There’s a little nudity to justify the MA rating but it’s not as raunchy as you might expect.