Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 08 June 2014

Good Vibrations tells the real life story of Terri Hooley – a music lover who opened a record store in Belfast in the mid-1970s and helped grow the local punk rock scene.  There’s an early scene where he’s been looked at quizzically by his bank manager who cannot understand why he’d want to open a business in downtown Belfast given the political climate.  This was a time when there was huge conflict between Catholics and Protestants.  People didn’t even feel safe walking down a busy street.

What resonates most with this film is the passion shown by Terri (played in the film by Richard Dormer).  He saw himself as just an ordinary guy doing what he loves… but his enthusiasm for his work and the music industry is something that you don’t see all that often.  It’s inspiring stuff.

At first he just sold records but Terri’s activities expanded when he befriended some young musicians from Northern Ireland who had some great songs.  They just didn’t know how to find an audience.  Terri had zero experience when it came to music production but he helped them record an album and helped get them heard on radio and seen on television.  He didn’t even charge a fee.

There was a cost to all of this though.  Terri put so much time and effort into his work that it put a huge strain on his relationship with his wife, Ruth (Whittaker).  Terri was spending more and more nights away from home.  He was getting himself into more and more debt with the record shop.  There was now a growing likelihood that the bank would take possession of their home.

The film does most things by the book but it’s still an interesting biopic about a person that you probably won’t be familiar with.  It inspired me to do a little more reading about Terri Hooley on leaving the theatre.  I was also curious to know more about Richard Dormer who is fantastic in the leading role.  The Belfast-born actor started out in the theatre where he was not just an actor but also a playwright.  He’s had a few small supporting roles in feature films but this is first chance at something big.  He grabs the opportunity with both hands and you’re likely to remember his performance for some time.

I also like the approach of directors Lisa Barros D’sa and Glenn Leyburn who have included actual footage from the conflict in Northern Ireland in the 1970s.  It isn’t overdone and it helps give the film some context.  When you see the aftermath of an explosion that killed an Irish band who were travelling home to Dublin, you get a true understanding of the risks that Terri and his friends were taking when they were on their own mini-tours across the country.

Good Vibrations first screened over 2 years ago in Northern Ireland and so it’s taken a rather long journey to reach us here in Australia.  Don’t let that perturb you though.  It’s a film worth seeing.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 29 May 2014

Once upon a time (yes, the film does use that line), there were two kingdoms.  One was filled with sad humans who were governed by a controlling king.  The other was filled with an assortment of friendly creatures who lived happily side by side.  They didn’t require a leader… but they were guided by a powerful fairly named Maleficent (Jolie).  She helped protect them from the nasty king who was looking to invade and steal their precious jewels.

Maleficent is strong, formidable.  Her array of magic powers can get her out of any situation.  Everyone has a weakness though and for Maleficent, it’s a human by the name of Stefan (Copley).  They first met as children when he snuck into her lands in search of treasure.  They grew up and became quite close.  Could their friendship finally unite the two kingdoms?

Um, no.  Stefan grew up and betrayed Maleficent.  He slipped her a roofie, stole her wings and returned to his own people as the new king.  The treacherous humans had proved themselves dominant once again.  Suffice to say that Maleficent didn’t take this too well.  Stripped of her ability to fly, she closed her heart and became a very dark individual.  Her fellow creatures no longer looked up at her with a wide smile.  They now lived in fear of her.

Given her magic powers, you’d think she’d just rock up at King Stefan’s castle and kill him, right?  If that were the case, this film would be over inside of 30 minutes.  Instead, Maleficent comes up with a much, much, much more convoluted plan.  She places a curse on the King’s infant child, Aurora, and proclaims that when she turns 16, she will be pricked by the needle of spinning wheel (very specific), fall into a deep sleep, and will only be awoken by “true love’s kiss”.  Oh yeah, and the spell is irreversible.  No correspondence will be entered into.

It’s a story that takes a long time to set up and get going.  It’s not until the film’s second half that we finally get to meet the 15-year-old Aurora (Fanning) and work out how she will escape this predicament.  I don’t want to give much more away because that’s really all there is to the screenplay.  It’s a rather shallow tale where characters go through rushed personality changes.

Some elements made no sense to me.  Given Stefan’s hatred for the other kingdom, why the hell was he letting his daughter be raised by three incompetent fairies in a remote hideaway?  Surely she’d have been safer with the castle walls?  As for Maleficent, why did she stalk Aurora throughout her whole upbringing?  Was it a curiosity thing?  Did she not have better things to do?

I’m drawn to compare Maleficent with last year’s Oz The Great & Powerful.  Both films feature strong production values but they’re lacking when it comes to interesting characters and engaging storylines.  It may be based on the much loved 1959 Disney classic Sleeping Beauty but I don’t believe audiences (and I’m taking about kids and adults), will find this as memorable.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 03 June 2014

“Now that’s an action movie.”  I believe these were the first words I uttered (excluding an expletive) as the credits started to roll after Edge Of Tomorrow.  It’s comfortably one of the best films of 2014 and I can’t wait to sit back, relax and enjoy it all over again… but first, I have a difficult task to complete.  I need to articulate my thoughts.  I need to explain why this film reinvigorated my love for cinema.  Most importantly, I need to convince you to see it (without overhyping).

Let’s start with the film’s ingenious premise.  It’s an analogy that almost everyone will use but it’s appropriate to describe this film as a science-fiction version of Groundhog Day.  Tom Cruise plays Cage – a cowardly soldier who is thrown into the front line as part of a last ditched effort to save the planet from an alien invasion.

He doesn’t stand a chance.  The aliens are smart, fast, and agile (they’re really freaky too).  Cage is killed within a matter of minutes.  So too are his fellow soldiers.  Game over.  The war is lost.  Well, not quite actually.  Cage isn’t greeted by a friendly angel at the Pearly Gates.  Instead, he wakes up in the exact location where he was 24 hours earlier – on a military base and about to be introduced to his no-nonsense Master Sergeant (Paxton).

So how is this possible?  It turns out that Cage miraculously killed one of the rarer alien creatures, known as an Alpha, just before he met his own demise.  It was all luck and no skill.  However, it exposed the single reason why the aliens have been so dominate – Alphas had discovered the ability to travel back in time.  If a battle didn’t go to plan, the aliens simply reset the day and started again.  They could keep doing this until they won.

The catch is that by defeating the Alpha, the power has now switched to Cage.  It’s a really cool concept once you get your head around it.  Cage’s life is now the equivalent of a video game.  If he is killed, he simply gets to start again from the beginning… only this time, he’s a little smarter and has a little more information about his enemy.  Guided by gutsy soldier (Blunt), Cage goes in search of the end prize – the weakness that can defeat the aliens.  There’s no rush though.  He’s got plenty of time and plenty of lives.

There have been plenty of great actions films in recent years (the Batman trilogy, most of the Marvel stuff) but Edge Of Tomorrow still feels like a breath of fresh air.  Instead of following a hero who seemingly cannot be killed, we’re cheering for a hero who keeps getting killed again and again!  It an idea that provides plenty of laughs (the movie has a great sense of humour) and also much food for thought.  You’ll need to put yourself in Cage’s head and think about how best to solve this riddle.

The film moves at a cracking pace thanks to the skills of director Doug Liman (Go, The Bourne Identity) and editor James Herbert (Sherlock Holmes).  The story may sound repetitive but it’s anything but.  There are many different scenarios – some where Cage is experiencing a dilemma for the first time, and others where he is clearly familiar with the surroundings and just wants to have fun pre-empting the aliens’ moves.  There are also unexpected moments of tension.  A scene in a quiet hospital bed proves that you don’t always need guns and explosions to create anxiety.

Quite a few folk were involved with the screenplay but the final credit has gone to Christopher McQuarrie (The Usual Suspects) and the Butterworth brothers (Fair Game).  They have taken the 2004 novel from Japanese science-fiction writer Hiroshi Sakurazaka and created a gripping adventure.  The film doesn’t waste time with long-winded introductions and unnecessary side plots.  It will hold your attention for the full two hours.

If I can offer one final selling point, let me go with Tom Cruise.  If you’re a fan, you’ll like this.  He’s still a likeable action hero with an uncanny knack for picking great roles.  He’s also looking pretty good for a 51-year-old.  If you’re not fan, it’s still perfect for you.  You can watch him get killed every few minutes!  Everyone’s a winner.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 29 May 2014

I’ve generally been a fan of Seth MacFarlane.  Family Guy has become an iconic animated series which is now in its 12^th season (although I admit that the earlier episodes are best).  The film Ted had some terrific one-liners and it’s easy to see why it grossed more than $500m at the international box-office.  He wasn’t the greatest Oscars host in 2013 (it’s always a tough gig) but a few of his jokes/barbs did hit the mark.

As for A Million Ways To Die In The West… it’s disappointing.  You’d think that you’d have plenty of room for good humour when trying to spoof the western genre, but MacFarlane falls back on the same childish material again and again.  Did we need 4 fart jokes in the opening 30 minutes?  Did we need another lengthy “character has chronic diarrhoea” scene?

I’m not against vulgar, politically incorrect comedies.  There’s Something About Mary and American Pie showed that you can use this style of humour effectively.  These films didn’t win the public over with simple fart jokes.  They created original gross-out moments that caught audiences off guard (testicles stuck in a zipper, a penis in pie) while also providing characters, as silly as they may be, who we can connect with.

Herein lies the biggest problem with A Million Ways To Die In The West.  Despite his best efforts, Seth MacFarlane cannot carry this film on his own.  There are lengthy set pieces where he’s trying to mock the western genre (such as the opening shoot out) but it feels more like a stand-up comedy routine.  The story is superfluous.  It doesn’t have the same wit and sophistication as what Mike Meyers was able to achieve with the Austin Powers franchise.

The thin premise sees Albert (MacFarlane) try to win back the heart of his long-time love interest, Louise (Seyfried).  How can I best describe Albert?  He’s like a not-so-funny version of Larry David.  He can’t keep his mouth shut, he overanalyses situations, and he does his best to offend every race and every religion.  It’s not hard to see why Louise dumped him and shacked up with the wealthy owner of the local “moustachery” (Harris).  I’d have done the same.

Helping Albert win back Louise’s affections will be a beautiful woman (Theron) who has arrived in town with her shabby-looking brother.  That is until a villainous, well-armed outlaw (Neeson) enters the picture.  It’s then time to cue the big action finale.

MacFarlane doesn’t ask much of his supporting cast.  They can hardly get a word in.  Sarah Silverman plays a popular prostitute and Giovanni Ribisi plays her boyfriend.  The running gag throughout the film is that she won’t sleep with him, despite the fact it’s what she does for a living.  It got a laugh out of me the first time but when you see the joke continually repeated throughout the film, you realise their characters have been wasted.  So too was my two hours.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 02 June 2014

Grace Of Monaco has been kicked, slapped, and dragged through the mud en route to cinemas across the globe.  It was scheduled to be released last November, just in time for Oscar season, but French director Olivier Dahan (La Vie en Rose) and influential American producer Hervey Weinstein (who owned the U.S. distribution rights) couldn’t agree on a final version of the film.

Dahan went public with his frustrations and described Weinstein’s version of the film as “a pile of shit” in an article for a French newspaper.  It was a risky move.  Dahan knew it might generate some sympathy towards his cause (since all of Hollywood knows about Weinstein and his meddling ways) but at the same time, it would ring alarm bells and generate negative publicity.

In the end, an agreement was reached.  Dahan gave up some of his directorial fee in return for full control over the finished product.  There’s no happy ending here though.  The film was trashed by critics when it opened the Cannes Film Festival last month.  Laughs were heard during its first press screening (it’s not a comedy).  Adding fuel to the fire were the Monaco royal family who refused to attend the premiere stating that the story had been “misappropriated for purely commercial purposes.”

It’s a shame because there’s merit in pulling back the curtain and looking into the life of Grace Kelly.  This was a woman who in 1956 was “on the up and up” in terms of her acting career.  She’d chalked up two consecutive Oscar nominations (winning for The Country Girl) and had partnered with prolific director Alfred Hitchcock to make such hits as Rear Window, Dial M For Murder and To Catch A Thief.  For those needing a modern day comparison, I’d describe her as the Jennifer Lawrence of the 1950s.

Then, at the age of just 26, Kelly gave it all away.  She moved to Monaco, married Prince Rainier III, and raised three children.  Never again did she appear on the big screen.  I’m not knocking her decision… but it’s one that raises questions.  If you loved your career, would you give it all up for someone you’d only just met?  Would you have any regrets?  Couldn’t you try to find a way of juggling both work and family?

Dahan’s film, based on a screenplay by Arash Amel, offers a disclaimer right from the get-go.  In bold red letters, we are told this is “a fictional account inspired by real events”.  Dahan never intended the film to be a historical, real-life drama.  Rather, he wanted to use the Grace Kelly’s broad story to highlight the difficulty in finding a balance between her husband, her kids and her career.  For that reason, he freely acknowledges that some plot developments have been embellished.

It’s a questionable approach.  I can’t help but think Dahan should have used a clean slate and crafted a completely fictitious tale.  Instead, we’ve left with a film that doesn’t really know what it wants to be.  It’s a muddled stew of politics, conspiracies, romance, family values and fairy tales.  Oh, and let’s not forget the bizarre montage of “princess lessons” featuring Derek Jacobi.

Some elements are quite interesting (such as the tension between France and Monaco in 1962) but like so much of the film, it’s all oversimplified.  It leaves a lingering doubt as to how far the truth has been stretched.  It all feels too pro Grace Kelly, too anti everyone else.  Prince Rainier comes across as an incompetent fool.

Life isn’t easy being princess.  Both Grace Of Monaco and last year’s Diana make that point very clear.  Life’s not easy being a director either.  Olivier Dahan now knows that all too well.