Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 07 October 2013

If anything else, Diana highlights the difficulty of creating a biopic centred on someone with whom the public is already very familiar. For starters, you have to offer a new perspective. A simple rehashing of key events isn’t going to cut it. This is where the recent Steve Jobs biopic with Ashton Kutcher suffered. Much of its content could be gathered from a simple internet search. On the flip side, Behind The Candelabra went much further. It opened our eyes to Liberace’s secretive private life and, after being showered with praise, won 11 Primetime Emmy Awards.

It’s also critically important that the film is well researched and based on facts. In the 2004 release, The Prince & Me, a young Danish price (Luke Mably) tried to win the heart of a simple college student from the United States (Julia Stiles). It’s essentially the same premise as Diana but with the genders reversed. A fictional work such as The Prince & Me has a far greater degree of flexibility when it comes to story. You can take it in any direction you like. That same luxury isn’t available with a film like Diana. People want the truth. They don’t want a heavily modified version of events.

To its credit, Diana tries to take us inside a lesser known part of her life. We don’t see the Queen or Prince Charles and there’s only a (unnecessary) fleeting glimpse of William and Harry. The crux of the film focuses on her love affair with a Pakistani heart surgeon by the name of Haznat Khan. The pair met in mid-1995 and remained close until Diana’s death on 31 August 1997 (a date etched it the memory of any Diana fan).

So where did writer Stephen Jeffreys and director Oliver Hirschbiegel (Downfall) garner the details about their relationship? Well, this is where the film’s problems begin. The screenplay is based on Kate Snell’s 2001 novel, Diana: Her Last Love. Khan was a deeply private individual who has never spoken in detail about the time he spent with the late Princess. He told a British newspaper that Snell’s book is based on “hypotheses and gossip”. His thoughts on the film? “There’s no way I am going to go anywhere near it.”

The early scenes show us that Diana (Watts) as an ordinary, kind-hearted woman. We see her cooking in the kitchen, jogging in the park and playing a tune on her piano. She’s gracious to her support staff (giving them the evening off after a long day) and she cares deeply for her two children (while being frustrated at the limited visitation rights being offered by the Palace). It’s not terribly exciting stuff but I was happy to buy into it. I got the message that Diana was a nice gal.

The arrival of Haznat Khan (Andrews) transforms the film into a cheesy soap opera. Diana was attracted by his good looks and the fact “he doesn’t treat me like a Princess.” Khan was attracted for reasons that are never made clear – he’s an unaffectionate guy who keeps his cards close to his chest. Neither wanted to endure the never-ending gaze of the paparazzi and so they kept their relationship a secret. There’s a laughable scene where Diana wears a long brunette wig so that she could hide her identity while they grabbed a drink at a popular jazz club. Really? This happened?

Unfortunately, it gets worse. Diana is portrayed as a deeply insecure individual. After his first encounter with Khan, we see her anxiously sitting on the window sill and waiting for him to call. When the two have a disagreement, we see Diana turning up at his apartment and washing his dishes in an attempt to win back his favour. There’s even a moment where she’d standing on his doorstep in the middle of the night and screaming for forgiveness (oh, and with mascara running down her face). I've seen Nicholas Sparks adaptations that were more credible than this.

When you throw in a few underdeveloped subplots (such as her strange dreams and her equally strange relationship with Dodi Fayed), we’re left with a total package that doesn’t feel right and doesn’t add up to much. I have no issue with a film about Princess Diana… but if someone is going to try it again in the near future, they'll need something with more realism and engagement.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 30 September 2013

Asif Kapadia’s amazing 2011 documentary, Senna, took us inside the world of Formula One and showed us the intense rivalry in the late 1980s and early 1990s between Brazilian Ayrton Senna and Frenchman Alain Prost. These two guys hated each other but funnily enough, this hatred made them better drivers! They were more passionate and more determined in their efforts to secure the World Championship title.

That’s the thing about sport. It thrives on close contests and great rivalries. Take for example the fierce games shared between Hawthorn and Geelong over the past 5 years in the AFL. They’re two of the best clubs in the competition but more importantly, in their past 12 matches, the margin of victory has been less than 2 goals. With such tight contests, it’s not hard to explain why they’ve drawn an average crowd of more 72,000 people.

Rush tries to hook onto our love for sporting rivalries and recounts the true story of two guys who battled neck-and-neck for the 1976 Formula One World Championships – Austrian Niki Lauda (Brühl) and Englishman James Hunt (Hemsworth). These two guys were as different as chalk and cheese. Lauda was a perfectionist who went about each race in a methodical, mechanical manner. Hunt was a risk-taker who was renowned for taking chances and pulling off the impossible.

The film goes beyond the race circuit and takes us inside their personal lives. Hunt was loved by the fans for his good looks and playboy antics but behind the scenes, his team struggled to keep a lid on his womanising, his drug use and his self-absorbed personality. Lauda was a more guarded, private individual. He knew he wasn’t the public’s favourite (he’d been dubbed “the Rat” because of his bucked teeth) and so was happy to hide in the shadows while off the track.

A tricky part of any sporting movie is making it appeal to those unfamiliar with the sport. Filmmakers have a tendency to apply Hollywood’s cosmetic brush and over-simplify the material. The story is “dumbed down" using cheesy dialogue and the commentators speak as if no one has ever watched the sport before. This is part of why I loved Senna so much. With the documentary format, you hear people talk naturally and you see events as they happened. There’s nothing fake about it.

There were a few eye-rolling moments during the early stages of Rush but for the most part, the script from Peter Morgan (The Queen, Frost/Nixon) is good enough. It allows us to get inside of heads of both Hunt and Lauda. We see what drives them. We see what fears them. Most sporting flicks tend to take a side but in creating empathy towards both characters, Morgan can then ask the question of the audience – who do you want to see win? I like this approach.

The film hits its stride during the final half-hour when all the other subplots are pushed away and these guys are left to fight it out on the race track. Academy Award winning director Ron Howard (A Beautiful Mind, Apollo 13) has recreated some exciting race sequences in an array of weather conditions. These have been further enhanced by Hans Zimmer’s (Inception, Gladiator) adrenalin-pumping film score and some carefully constructed camera angles from cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle (Slumdog Millionaire).

Headlined by two believable performances from Australian Chris Hemsworth (Thor) and German Daniel Brühl (Good Bye Lenin!), Rush provides an exciting sporting spectacle but more importantly, it makes a few thought-provoking observations about the value of a great rivalry.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 07 October 2013

It’s hard to fault the pairing of Denzel Washington and Mark Wahlberg. If I’d written an action-based buddy comedy, I’d do everything to make sure my script found its way in front of these two guys. They’re funny, they’re charismatic and they’re cool. Oh, and they’ve also proven themselves as having huge appeal at the box-office.

They’re the strongest part of what is an interesting… but also muddling film from Icelandic director Baltasar Kormákur (Contraband). It’s based on the graphic novels by Steven Grant – a comic book writer who has worked for both Marvel and DC. Grant had carried the idea of 2 Guns for quite some time but it wasn’t until 2006 that the novel was first published by Boom! Studios.

The film begins with Bobby (Washington) and Stigman (Wahlberg) sitting in a traditional American diner in a small town. They’re not talking about news, sport or the weather. They’re talking about pulling off a robbery. The small bank directly across from the diner is rumoured to hold roughly $3 million in cash that has been laundered by an influential Mexican drug dealer. With just an old security guard at the door, it should be pretty straight forward for these two professional thieves. The plan is to be in and out within 5 minutes.

The robbery goes well. In fact, it goes a little too well. The safety deposit boxes contain not just $3 million but rather, $43 million. Despite the huge haul, they still have enough time to pack it all into the back of their Ford Bronco and flee the scene before the cops arrive. No one got hurt. There wasn’t even the need for a car chase.

Obviously, that’s not the end of it (or else it would be a very short film). It turns out Bobby is an undercover Drug Enforcement Agent (DEA) who stole the cash to bring down a major drug cartel. Further, we learn that Stigman is an undercover Naval Intelligence Officer and his superiors want to use the cash to fund the Navy’s secretive operations.

They’re not the only ones fighting over the money. We’ve also got (1) Bobby’s girlfriend (Patton) who works for the DEA, (2) Stigman’s commanding officer (Marsden) who isn’t afraid to act outside of the law, (3) the Mexican drug dealer (Olmos) who is suddenly out of pocket to the tune of $3 million, and (4) a mysterious man (Paxton) who seems to be the owner of the remaining $40 million.

It boils down to a guessing game where you try to work out “who’s playing who?” It’s fun in the sense that instead of having a traditional good versus evil story, this is more of an evil versus evil story. They’re all bad guys… it’s just some are less bad than others. It’s a noticeable point of differentiation from other action films we’ve seen in recent months.

That said, it’s tough to keep up with. There are so many characters and so many permutations that it does get messy. I didn’t know what was going on at times. Thankfully, the amusing dialogue more than compensates. The best scenes involve Washington and Wahlberg arguing and trying to get the better of each other. If you’re a fan of either actor, you’re likely to enjoy this.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 25 September 2013

Having made some great dramas in the past including The Bank and Balibo, Australian director Robert Connolly was looking for something very different for his next project. He found it in the pages of Tim Winton’s award winning novel from 2005, The Turning. The end result? You’re unlikely to find a more original film-going experience this year.

For starters, this isn’t one film. It’s a collection of 17 short stories told one after the other. Each has a different director with Connolly getting a mix of friends and colleagues to contribute. They include established directors such as Warwick Thornton (Samson & Delilah) and Tony Ayres (The Slap) as well as actors-turned-directors such as Mia Wasikowska (Alice In Wonderland) and David Wenham (Gettin’ Square).

The film’s budget was split equally amongst the 17 directors and each was asked to adapt one of the short stories from Winton’s novel. When you put them all together, it’s a lot to get your head around. Each chapter has a different tone, a different style, a different cast. Connolly describes the film as liking setting foot in an art museum – some pieces will jump out and grab you while other pieces won’t interest you at all. If you’re seeing it with friends, there should be plenty to discuss afterwards, whether you like the movie or not.

Another point of differentiation is the film’s length – it clocks in at a whopping 180 minutes. Don’t worry though. You won’t be sitting on your ass the entire time. Connolly has obtained approval from cinemas to have a 20 minute interval at the half way mark. You’ll be able to get up, stretch the legs, go to the bathroom and replenish your drink at the bar. It’s a nice touch. The last time I remember an interval in a movie was Kenneth Branagh’s Hamlet, released back in 1996.

Those who see the film during its first two weeks will also be provided with a complementary program. It’s another homage to the world of theatre and in addition to being a nice keepsake, it provides some food for thought after you’ve left the cinema. You can read up about each director and pick up on some of the details that you might have missed during the first viewing.

I’ve often believed that the less you know going into a film, the better. You simply jump on the director’s shoulders and see where he or she takes you. That said, I think a little background information is required for The Turning (at least in my opinion). For example, it took me a while to realise that some of the characters in these stories are the same – despite being played by different actors. There are clues to help you along the way but they’re not easy to pick up, especially if you’re not looking for them.

This is a tricky film to review in the sense that I feel like I should be grading each of the 17 short stories. Some come with a strong emotional climax and my favourites included Big World (about two guys travelling in a Kombi across Australia), Aquifer (about a man who hears a news story that brings back memories of his childhood) and Commission (about a son who tracks down his estranged father living a solitary existence in the remote outback).

On the flip side, there were some stories that left me bored, unresponsive. They either didn’t ring true (such as the story of a disillusioned AFL footballer who quits the sport in the middle of a big match) or didn’t seem to have much of a point (such as a story involving Cate Blanchett and Richard Roxborough who turn up at the wrong house for a Christmas party).

Despite my admiration for several of the short stories, I didn’t take away a great deal from the film as a whole. There’s a recurring theme about the past and how it’s difficult to escape but given that the stories are so difficult to link (because of the different cast/style), it doesn’t come through strongly.

I don’t want to sound too negative though. While The Turning didn’t fully satisfy my cinematic appetite, at least it’s bold enough to be different. I’m glad to have seen it.

You can read my interview with creator Robert Connolly by clicking here.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 02 October 2013

When it comes to action films, the recent trend has been towards “more”. There are more booms, more fights, more visual effects, more big name actors, more subplots and yes, more money. It’s like a pissing contest with each director trying to distinguish themselves and give us something that we’ve never seen before.

Mexican Alfonso Cuarón is one of the finest filmmakers working today. Along with such great films as Children Of Men and Harry Potter And The Prisoner Of Azkaban, he’s the man responsible for one of my all-time favourite foreign language films – Y Tu Mamá También – released back in 2001 and featuring an ending that I still can’t shake.

It comes as no surprise to see Cuarón straying away from convention and steering the action genre in a very different direction. Gravity shows how to extract maximum tension from a minimalist story. It runs for just 90 minutes and follows two astronauts, played by Sandra Bullock and George Clooney, who become trapped in space after their shuttle is struck by debris. Stuck 600km above the Earth’s surface with no radio contact, they need to somehow find a way home.

You don’t need to worry about aliens. This isn’t science fiction. These two have to battle something just as difficult – space itself. What do you do when you’ve become detached from the shuttle during a spacewalk and are spinning end over end? How do you stop? There’s no gravity, there’s nothing to cling onto. What do you do when your space craft catches fire and all you have is a single extinguisher? There’s no one else to help you.

Let’s cut to the chase – this is a very good film. It will tap into your fears and leave you rather anxious. There’s a terrific scene where a panicking Sandra Bullock is floating past the spacecraft with her arms outstretched. The stakes couldn’t be any higher. If she can’t grab a hold of something, it’s game over. She’ll drift into space and will never be seen again.

A few moments feel a little too constructed (perhaps trying too hard to create tension) but you’d be hard pressed to find anyone who can fault this film’s incredible visuals. There were several moments where I was asking myself the question – how did Cuarón pull this off? It’s a film that relies heavily on special effects but you can’t tell while watching it. With the help of 3D (handled effectively), you’d think you were hovering alongside these characters with Earth serving as a beautiful backdrop. Should I be praising the cinematographer? Or the visual effects crew?

Given the lack of sound (you won’t be hearing any explosions in space), Gravity uses a strong music score from Steven Price (The World’s End) to compensate and help add to the drama. It’s yet another way that the movie distinguishes itself – it’s an action film that’s almost a silent film!

Do see Gravity. Your friends will be talking about it, trust me.