Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 19 August 2012

It’s an important subject matter worthy of big screen documentary.  However, all the initial talk about Bully surrounded its rating as opposed to its content.  Perhaps this was a cunning move on the part of The Weinstein Company, the film’s distributor, to generate publicity.

The reason for the hoo-ha was that Bully was given an R-rating in the United States.  This meant that no one under the age of 17 could see the film unless they were accompanied by a parent or guardian.  So what was the reason provided by the Motion Picture Association of America?  The film was deemed to contain “some language” due to the “f-word” being mentioned on 6 occasions.

Suffice to say there was a public outcry.  We’re talking about a movie that shines the light on the prevalence of bullying in schools and the effect that it can have on kids.  If anyone should see this film, shouldn’t it be the kids themselves?  It was an argument put forward by many and petitions were organised to help overturn the R-rating.

It took a little while but a compromise was reached.  A few of the expletives (but not all) were muted and the rating was downgraded to PG-13.  Here in Australia, we haven’t had to worry about such controversy with the film earning an M-rating.  Whilst our ratings board acknowledges that there are “mature themes and course language”, there is nothing to stop anyone from seeing Bully.

It’s clear that director Lee Hirsch has made this documentary to instigate change.  He wants people to wake up to this issue and do something about it.  There are some who hold the view that bullying is inevitable and that it’s an unavoidable part of growing up.

Is it though?  As an adult, what would happen if I went to work and punched my staff because I didn’t like them?  What if I taunted them about being fat or about being gay?  Would this be considered acceptable behaviour?  Or would it be considered abuse?

Admittedly, kids lack maturity and don’t always understand the consequences of their actions.  Where’s the line though?  What do you say to the parents of 11-year-old Ty Smalley?  Their son committed suicide in 2010 after being continually bullied at school.  The father, Kirk Smalley, is interviewed in the film.  His way of dealing with the grief has been to co-ordinate numerous anti-bullying rallies with the hope that such a tragedy will never happen again.

I’m appreciative of the issue but unfortunately, I do not approve of Lee Hirsch’s approach in this documentary.  We meet a small group of students from across America and talk with both them and their families.  To add further weight, we see covert footage of these children being harassed at school and on the bus.  There’s one particular teacher who comes off looking very bad.  She features prominently throughout the film and her “head in the sand” attitude will leave you gasping with shock.

My problem is that this film needed more perspective.  Why didn’t they interview a group of bullies?  I wanted to gather an understanding of the mindset of the instigators.  Further, why couldn’t we be taken into schools where bullying is not so much of a problem?  It’s eye-opening to look at the “bad” schools but I was also hoping to see the “good” schools and learn about the initiatives that they’ve taken to address the issue.

It’s hard not to be moved by some of the tragic stories in Bully and I sincerely hope that the film does help make a difference but in my eyes, it could have offered so much more.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 07 August 2012

The Sapphires is a crowd pleaser.  That’s the easiest way of describing it.  Someone who clearly came to that same conclusion was Hollywood heavyweight Harvey Weinstein, a man renowned for taking small films and thrusting them into the awards spotlight.  His success stories include Pulp Fiction, The English Patient, Good Will Hunting, Shakespeare In Love, The King’s Speech and The Artist.  Weinstein was quick to buy the rights to this low-budget Australian film after it premiered at the Cannes Film Festival back in May 2012 and will soon be releasing it to international audiences.

While the rest of the world waits… we have the chance to see it first here in Australia.  Based on the stage play, The Sapphires is set in the late 1960s and follows four Aboriginal women who are looking to follow their dreams and become music stars.

As the film begins, you’ll realise that they’re a long, long, long way from that goal.  They’re on stage in a rundown pub and performing to a tiny audience as part of a talent show.  Despite their clear talent, they’ve no hope of winning.  There’s no way the bar’s racist owner (Judith Lucy in a wonderful cameo) is going to give the small prize to a group of Aboriginals.

Their efforts aren’t for nought however.  They’ve done enough to impress a young music manager who is keen to help these women get a start in their industry.  When describing Dave (O’Dowd), the term “professional” does not come to mind.  He’s a scruffy looking guy who lives out of the back of his car and doesn’t mind a drink.  Oh, and he’s got next-to-no experience.

That said, he’s still the right guy.  Dave is upfront and takes no nonsense.  He tells them to ditch their boring “country & western” tunes and opens their eyes to the world of soul music.  They’re quick learners too.  Julie (Mauboy) leads from the front with her beautiful voice but Gail (Mailman), Kay (Sebbens) and Cynthia (Tapsell) also get their chance to shine.

They soon get their big break… but it comes in a rather unexpected form.  The girls say good-bye to their families and their rural lifestyle and are flown to war-torn Vietnam.  They are being employed by the military to perform in front of the troops and boost morale.  It takes a little while to adjust to their surroundings but The Sapphires, as they come to be known, are an instant hit!

The Sapphires is to be admired as both a musical and a comedy.  There are a surprisingly large number of well-timed songs that make the story as entertaining as it is interesting.  They provide a nice break from the drama and help us appreciate why these four Aboriginal women were so popular.

Chris O’Dowd (Bridesmaids, The IT Crowd) is the standout of the cast with his light-hearted portrayal of the group’s manager, Dave.  He’s a great character – authentic, funny, likeable.  Whilst some of the dialogue between the girls feels unnatural, O’Dowd is pitch-perfect at all times.

The film’s overpowering charm will seduce most filmgoers but I was a left little disappointed by a few of the dramatic elements.  There are references to the Stolen Generation that aren’t covered in sufficient detail to generate the desired emotional impact.  I’d say the same about the rushed, unconvincing war scenes that occur late in the film.

Selected to open the Melbourne Film Festival last week, The Sapphires is likely to be one of the year’s most popular Aussie films.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 15 August 2012

Set in the 1990s, Bernie is based on a true story… and it’s very interesting one at that.  Bernie Tiede worked as an assistant funeral director in the small town of Carthage, Texas.  With a population of less than 7,000, you can get the feeling that it’s the kind of place where everyone knows everyone.

Bernie had always been one of the most loved members of the community.  If you wanted to prepare for a funeral, he was the man you went to see.  Every tiny detail was covered and he was renowned for his dedication and impeccable service.  Bernie was also a regular churchgoer and did his best to boost the cultural profile of the area.

That’s not to say people didn’t gossip behind Bernie’s back.  People were quick to speculate as to why a thirty-something guy lived alone and didn’t have a girlfriend.  They also found it strange that he spent so much time in the company of elderly, widowed women.  He’d comfort them after the death of their husbands and visit their homes regularly with gifts of flowers and soaps.

The rumour-mill ran riot when he struck up a friendship with Marjorie Nugent, a wealthy widower in her late 70s.  You’d be lucky to find anyone in Carthage who liked Marjorie.  A character in the film sums her up best when she says “that people in town would have shot her for $5.”  Bernie and Marjorie became very close and were always seen in each other’s company.  They also went on numerous overseas holidays together.

So what was really going on?  Why would a nice guy like Bernie be spending so much time with a cranky old lady who had isolated herself from everyone?  Was he interested in her money?  That’s the first conclusion that many people reached.  Maybe he was just being friendly?  Perhaps there was something romantic between them?

Whilst this is based on actual events and you can find out how it ends through a simple internet search, I’ll keep my mouth shut and not reveal anything more in this review.  I wasn’t familiar with the story myself and was shocked by the developments in the film’s second half.

Inspired by a magazine article, writer-director Richard Linklater (Dazed & Confused, Before Sunrise) has adapted this story for the screen.  He could have told it as a straight forward drama but instead, he’s made it as a dark comedy that somewhat resembles a documentary.  It includes interviews with actual residents of Carthage who share their thoughts on events as they unfold.

Jack Black plays Bernie Tiede and is a good fit for the part.  He’s not the zany, over-the-top Jack Black that you’ll remember from films like School Of Rock and Nacho Libre.  Yes, there are laughs but the role also requires subtlety and mystery.  Black proves that he has the range and seems to thrive working alongside the legendary Shirley MacLaine (Terms Of Endearment, The Apartment).

Whilst it feels a little too one-sided, Bernie is still an intriguing film that has something to say about justice and the importance of how we are perceived.  It’s provided me with several decent conversation starters that I can’t wait to share.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 01 August 2012

Abraham Lincoln was the 16^th President of the United States.  Abraham Lincoln guided his country through the American Civil War.  Abraham Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth while attending a play at Ford’s Theatre.  All of these are well known facts.  They can found through any simple internet search (if you didn’t already learn them at high school).

It’s about time that someone set the record straight though.  36-year-old author Seth Grahame-Smith has done his research and finally exposed the truth.  It turns out that Abe was actually a vampire hunter in his spare time.  His mother was actually killed by one of these blood-thirsty creatures and his motive was always one of revenge.

Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter deserves points for at least attempting to be different.  There seem to be so many vampire flicks churned out every year but this one has an element of creativity by taking historical characters and throwing them into this fantasy world.  Those familiar with American history will smirk at the interesting “spin” put on certain events (such as the Battle of Gettysburg).

For this reason, the film held my attention.  I was always curious to see where they’d take the story next.  On the downside, there isn’t enough humour.  Relative newcomer Benjamin Walker has been cast as Lincoln and is much too serious in the leading role.  If you’re going to use such a farcical storyline, you have to make people laugh!

The film’s biggest weakness is its action.  Russian born director Timur Bekmambetov (Night Watch, Wanted) has relied heavily on visual effects and we’re left with images that feel like they’re from a computer game.  They create no suspense and at times, you can’t even tell what’s going on.  Further, it seems nothing has been shot at a regular speed.  There’s slo-mo, then fast-mo, then slo-mo, then fast-mo, then slo-mo…

The idea has been floated but I’m not sure if Seth Grahame-Smith’s other popular novel will make it to the big screen.  I’m referring to Pride & Prejudice & Zombies.  It’d be great to see Colin Firth reprise his role as Mr Darcy… and then slaughter a small army of brain-dead, flesh-eating zombies.  We can only hope.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 13 August 2012

The late Robert Ludlam wrote three novels that took us into the world of secret agent Jason Bourne – The Bourne Identity, The Bourne Supremacy and The Bourne Ultimatum.  All three were adapted into cinematic form and it’s become one of my favourite movie franchises.  In each instance, we saw exciting, fast-paced action sequences interwoven with a credible, suspenseful plot.  It’s the ideal combination for anyone who loves a good conspiracy thriller.

Given that Ludlam’s books have now been adapted, the decision has been made to move this franchise in a different direction.  Writers Tony and Dan Gilroy were charged with the task of creating a new story that maintains the “essence” of the earlier films whilst given the audience something fresh.  In that regard, I think they’ve done an admirable job.

His name appears in the title (largely for marketing purposes) but you won’t see Jason Bourne in this instalment.  Both Matt Damon and director Paul Greengrass (who made the last two films) have decided to take a break from the series.  Bourne’s absence is explained by the fact his character has gone into hiding.  If anything, it at least keeps the door open for him to return down the track.

For those who remember the earlier films, Bourne was part of Operation Treadstone – a highly secretive CIA initiative where agents’ behaviours were modified with the intention of making them expert assassins.  Ah, but it wasn’t the only such program.  As we learn at the start of The Bourne Legacy, the CIA has another illegal operation hidden away.  Six agents are being provided revolutionary medication that improves their mental prowess and gives then a noticeable advantage in the field.

Unfortunately, the bad press that surrounded Jason Bourne threatens to expose this program and further damage the integrity of the CIA.  A retired U.S. Air Force Colonel, Eric Byer (Norton), has been brought in by the CIA and charged with the responsibility of cleaning up this mess.  His solution is straight-forward – shut down the program and eliminate these six agents before word gets out.

Five are killed.  One is not.  His name is Aaron Cross (Renner).  What follows is the intricate game of cat and mouse that we’ve come to expect from this series – one guy trying to outrun and outsmart those at the top of the CIA.  His only ally appears to be an experienced scientist (Weisz) who has been helping create the program’s performance enhancing drugs.

There’s a sense of familiarity about The Bourne Legacy that’s difficult to shake.  Whilst it’s great to see the series taking a chance and introducing new characters, this film does have a “seen it all before” vibe.  We’ve got the same cover-ups and conspiracies and they’re not advanced any further than they were in the earlier movies.

That’s not to say the film isn’t entertaining.  The finale too long but the chase sequences, shot in several countries, have been skilfully directed by Tony Gilroy (Michael Clayton, Duplicity).  I also enjoyed the scenes within CIA headquarters as we watch the “villains” strategize their plans to capture Cross.  It’ll again leave you wondering if there’s a strong element of truth to this tale.

Jeremy Renner (The Hurt Locker) can’t quite match the charm of Matt Damon in the leading role but it’s hard to fault his passionate, energetic performance.  Academy Award winner Rachel Weisz (The Constant Gardener) gets plenty of screen time herself (she’s not just a token love interest) and the duo share some well thought out conversations.

It’ll be interesting to see where the series goes next.  The idea of bring Damon and Renner together seems perfect.  It’s just a question of whether the money is available and if it can be arranged.

You can read my interview with star Jeremy Renner by clicking here.