Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 13 January 2025

There’s at least one in every awards season.  I’m talking about an Oscar-touted flick which, for whatever reason, I think is overrated.  They’re not particularly bad films but, out of the 200 odd movies I’d see each year, they’re not even close to making my annual top 10.  Recent examples which spring to mind include Elvis, CODA, Promising Young Woman, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, and Bohemian Rhapsody. 

The movie which fills that spot from the current crop is Emilia Pérez, the latest from 72-year-old director Jacques Audiard (A Prophet), which has been hyped since it won the Jury Prize (quasi 3^rd place) at the Cannes Film Festival last May.  It recently won the Golden Globe for best musical/comedy and is likely to be showered with Oscar nominations when soon released.

There aren’t a lot of songs, but the film is classified as a “musical” and is centred on a powerful Mexican gang leader, Manitas (Gascón).  Background details are scant but from what we see in a quick introduction, he’s a much-feared individual with a small army of henchmen who help carry out illegal drug trades and murders.

What happens next is not something I’ve seen in a gangster flick before.  Manitas wants “out” of the crime business, and he also wants to fulfill a long-time ambition of having a sex change operation.  He engages the services of as astute lawyer, Rita (Saldaña), to serve as organiser and confidant.  The plan is to fake his own death, have the required surgery, and begin a completely new life.  Manitas will completely leave his past behind – including his wife Jessi (Gomez) and two young children.

We then skip four years ahead where Manitas, now a woman named Emilia Pérez, is happy with life… with one exception.  She misses her kids!  To fix this issue, she weaves her way back into their world by pretending to be Manitas’s long-lost cousin and moving back in with the family.  It’s like a darker retelling of Mrs. Doubtfire – not even Jessi realises the woman living in her home is the husband she believes is dead.

It’s a convoluted narrative which I struggled to buy into.  Why did Manitas want to live life as a woman and leave the family behind?  Was it that easy to fake a death and disappear without a trace?  What had Emilia been doing for the last few years?  Did no one suspect anything?  Stars Karla Sofía Gascón and Zoe Saldaña deliver credible performances but it’s not enough to overcome the limitations of the screenplay.

My biggest grievance is the redemptive character arc provided to Manitas/Emilia.  The current day individual is a kind-hearted person who starts a charitable business but why?  Does having a sex change operation also transform your personality?  Given Rita knows Emilia’s murderous past, why does she keep working with them?  Jacques Audiard pushes too hard in making the title character a likeable hero.  I wanted to them judged more harshly.  If you murder someone and then show the cops where the body is buried, does that make you a nice guy?

I’ll applaud the film’s cinematography and unorthodox musical approach.  It’s weird… but in an entertaining, attention-grabbing way.  I only wish I felt as positively about the script.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 31 December 2024

You can call it silly clickbait but in 2021, there was a fun online debate about whether Paddington 2, released in late 2017, was the greatest movie ever made.  Over 200 critics on Rotten Tomatoes had posted their reviews with the film achieving a perfect 100% approval rating.  Okay, so maybe it’s not the all-time best (I gave it an A-) but it was still a wonderfully entertaining family flick with the scene-stealing Hugh Grant making for a great villain.

I’m surprised it’s taken 7 years to churn out another instalment but for fans of the kind-hearted, marmalade sandwich-loving bear, the wait is over.  The film opens with Paddington getting a letter from an esteemed nun (Colman) who helps run a home for retired bears in remote Peru.  His beloved Aunt Lucy (Staunton), a resident of the home, hasn’t been doing too well and it’s suggested the now passport-owning Paddington make the trip from London to visit.

Paddington’s English family, the Browns, go along for the ride.  The kids are growing up fast and Mrs Brown (Mortimer) sees an opportunity to have one final family holiday before her two offspring leave the nest and begin their independent lives.  It won’t be as relaxing as she thinks because on, they learn Aunt Lucy has disappeared in the neighbouring Amazon Jungle.  Apparently, she’s gone on a quest to find El Dorado, the lost City of Gold which many believe to be a myth.

Paddington in Peru does enough to appease the masses.  While it’s easy-to-follow, and has more fun, overexaggerated characters, headlined by Olivia Colman (The Favourite) and Antonio Banderas (Pain & Glory), it doesn’t feel as charming as the last two movies.  It’s too much humour and not enough heart.  It’s not particularly original or inventive either – a goofy adventure into the jungle looking for a truckload of gold.  Didn’t we have Dora the Explorer find El Dorado a few years ago in a 2019 release!?!

Make sure you stay for the closing credits as there’s a glimpse of what might be possible in a future escapade.  There’s more to come in the life of Paddington Brown.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 06 January 2025

German director Edward Berger thrust himself into the Hollywood spotlight with All Quiet on the Western Front, a surprise streaming hit from 2022 which won four Academy Awards including best international feature.  He’s followed that with Conclave.  It marks his first English-language film and has been adapted from a 2016 fictional novel from British author Robert Harris.

Given the ritual and secrecy which surrounds papal elections, it feels like the perfect subject for a drama-thriller.  It opens with the death of the reigning pope and his close confidant, Cardinal Lawrence (Fiennes), has been tasked with leading the traditional conclave.  Cardinals will travel from around the globe, be sequestered inside the Vatican City’s Sistine Chapel, and vote until one of the Cardinals has the required two-thirds majority to be elected as the new Pope.

Knowing audiences will have a heightened curiosity about the conclave’s inner workings, the screenplay of Peter Straughan (Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy) is heavy on process.  We see cardinals write their choice on a simple white sheet of paper and place it inside a silver urn.  We observe three appointees count the votes publicly, tie them with string, and burn them in an incinerator.  We watch the men have dinner together while being served by eavesdropping nuns.  For those interested in knowing how the world’s most powerful Catholic is chosen, the film is an eye-opener.

A narrative is required, and it’s largely centred on the power struggle in selecting a new Pope.  You might want to think it’s all nice and ho-hum given they are men of God but there are several contenders and they each have different views about the direction the Church should take.  Some want to continue its progressive evolution (however slow) while some wish to return to a more strict, traditional Catholic doctrine.

It gets a little too “twisty” at times (I’m not sure I bought into the ending and events which take place outside which we never see) but Conclave is an engaging film that holds your attention from start to finish.  Just like a Knives Out-style whodunit, you’ll be speculating throughout about who’s playing who, and which Cardinal will outmanoeuvre the others and don the papal robes.  It also has something to say about “doubt” and the role of religion in society.  Berger maintains a serious tone but isn’t afraid to throw in moments of unexpected levity to make key points (not always flattering for the Church).

The music, cinematography, and production values are superb with Berger and his crew doing a stellar job in convincing us this was shot inside the Vatican City’s walls (it wasn’t).  I love the focus on small details.  Ralph Fiennes (Schinder’s List) is terrific in the lead role and, without going too heavy on dialogue, deftly illustrates the stress of leading the conclave while also creating a sense of mystery about his own ambitions.

Touted as an awards season contender, Conclave has a lot to offer.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 20 December 2024

A sign of a great movie is its ability to generate meaningful conversation and in the case of Anora, that box is firmly ticked.  I saw this with a friend at the Brisbane International Film Festival back in October and then chatted about it for a solid hour over dinner.  There’s much to scrutinize in terms of the characters (they all have good and not-so-good qualities) but also about the style adopted by writer-director Sean Baker (The Florida Project).

Played by soon-to-be-Oscar-nominated Mikey Madison, the title character is a 23-year-old exotic dancer from New York City.  Anora turns on the charm at a popular strip club and gets horny guys to hand over $100 bills in return for lap dances and kind words.  It’s through a fortunate coincidence (she’s the only stripper who can speak the language) that she meets an excitable 21-year-old Russian named Vanya (Eydelshteyn).  He’s got plenty of cash to splash around given he is the son of a well-known Russian business tycoon.

It’s not long before they’re spending every day together.  The immature Vanya is loving the abundant sex (he’s a novice in that department) and having a beautiful “girlfriend” to show off at his extravagant New Year’s Eve party.  The hard-working Anora is dazzled by the Russian’s money (he gives her $15,000 to be “exclusive” with him for a week) and stunning waterfront home.  Do they share a true romantic connection?  Or is it more transactional?  It’s one of many questions for audiences to ponder.

I won’t say much more about the premise because it does move in unexpected directions.  I’ll describe it as a movie of three sections.  The opening act is a fun, sexual romance between two interesting people, the middle act is a surprising screwball comedy, and the final act is a meatier drama with the consequences of certain actions coming to the fore (like waking up with a bad hangover and regretting the night before).  The ending is perfect.

The two stars, Mikey Madison (Scream) and Mark Eydelshteyn (The Land of Sasha), are exceptionally convincing as Anora and Vanya.  The dialogue between them feels so natural as the converse in a mix of English and Russian.  In the same manner as a Coen Brothers movie, the supporting players are all distinctive and memorable.  It’s hard to pick a favourite!  I also loved the way the film humanises “henchmen” and shows they’re more than just dispensable morons. 

Anora arrives with hype having won the prestigious Palme d’Or at the Cannes Film Festival in May.  It’s a prize with a strong form line – the last four winners have been Parasite, Titane, Triangle of Sadness and Anatomy of a Fall (all are must-sees).  This year’s jury, presided over by filmmaker Greta Gerwig, deserve praise for another excellent choice.  One of the year’s best.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 31 December 2024

Vampire movies feel like “a dime a dozen” these days but they had to start somewhere, right?  If we exclude a little-known Austrian film which has now been lost, the first cinematic adaptation of Bram Stoker’s Dracula was released in 1922.  Entitled Nosferatu, it was a silent, black and white flick directed by German F.W. Murnau and starring Max Schreck in the title role.  It’s worth a look-see and so too is the 2000 release, Shadow of Vampire, which provides a fictionalised account of the film’s creation.

American Robert Eggers was roughly 9 years old when he first saw a photo of Max Schreck as Nosferatu.  His mum helped track down the full movie from a nearby video store and he’s been enthralled by the story ever since.  It’s taken a few decades to get to this point, but the 41-year-old has now been given the chance to write and direct his own adaptation.

If you’ve seen Eggers’ previous works, you’ll know he’s a filmmaker who likes gritty, stylish, folk tale-like period pieces.  The Witch was a horror film set in 17^th Century New England, The Lighthouse was an 1890s thriller with just two characters, and The Northman was an action epic about Vikings from the Early Middle Ages.  Nosferatu continues the trend with Eggers taking us back to a dark, grim Germany in the year 1838.

Thomas (Hoult) is a budding, naive real estate agent who has been asked to make the lengthy trek to Transylvania to settle a property transfer.  It’s there he meets Count Orlok (Skarsgård), a mysterious man who lives alone.  It’s clear from the outset he’s no ordinary person – his voice, his conversation topics, his dress sense – and Thomas soon realises Orlok is more than just a weirdo.  As this transpires, Thomas’s wife (Depp) waits patiently at home for her husband’s return but based on own her dreams and visions, she is not immune to Orlok’s influence.

Vampire films/TV shows have become so “commercial” in today’s age that I admire Eggers’ ambition of crafting something with a harsh, old-school vibe.  It’s not trying to sell big laughs, easy scares, and/or gruesome deaths.  It’s more of a psychological drama about the way in which Orlok, who always has the upper hand, manipulates others in pursuit of his own desires.  This approach may alienate some audience members, but I like what this film wants to be.

The production values will get your attention.  From the dimly lit castle through to the slow reveal of Orlok’s face, Eggers does a great job building interest and intrigue.  The plot is a touch thin, however.  I’m not sure there’s enough narrative to drag this out to 132 minutes.  That quibble is not enough to distract from the fact this is an above-average entry within the vampire genre.  Worth a bite.