Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 05 January 2020

With animated features seemingly being released every second week in Australia, it’s becoming harder to stand out and create something that is both entertaining and original. Aardman Animations ticked those boxes in 2015 with The Shaun the Sheep Movie. It featured no dialogue and yet these cute animals and its human owner, were able to convey emotion and tell a story in the same vein as great silent actors from the early 20th century.

The same techniques have been utilised by directors Will Becher and Richard Phelan for this follow-up sequel - A Shaun the Sheep Movie: Farmageddon. Rather than clear, spoken words, you’ll be required to pick up the gist of the story through grunts, bleats, sighs and mutterings. It makes it the perfect movie to take internationally since it can be understood by people of all ages without the need to read subtitles.

While any movie with thinking, active sheep would be considered fantasy, you’d argue this new instalment is a little more whimsical than its predecessor.  A cute blue alien named Lu-La crash lands at Mossy Bottom Farm and it’s the responsibility of the sheep to keep Lu-La hidden whilst also working on a strategy for her to return home.

It’s not quite as good as the original but Farmageddon is easy to like.  Shaun the Sheep, named as a play on the word “shorn”, is cool character who kids will engage with.  The same can be said of the broader ensemble which include the farm’s owner, who walks around in a state of ignorant bliss, and the intuitive sheep dog who is harder to fool.  We’ve come a long way since Shaun was first introduced in Nick Park’s 1995 Oscar winning short film, A Close Shave.

Created using stop-motion animation and plasticine characters, A Shaun the Sheep Movie: Farmageddon is 87 minutes of simple pleasures.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 19 December 2019

I often lament that film titles are boring and unoriginal when compared to those we see in books, songs and theatrical productions.  That’s not the case here.  Are we talking about a portrait of a lady… on fire?  Or is it a portrait… of a lady on fire?  There’s also room for interpretation when it comes to “portrait” and “fire”.  Is it a reference to something physical or do these words carry a different meaning?

The answer to all of these questions is “yes” which highlights the complex, beautiful nature of this feature film from French director Céline Sciamma (Water Lilies, Girlhood).  Its richness was revealed at the Cannes Film Festival back in May, where it won the award for best screenplay, and it’s now being honoured more widely with critics’ awards and appearances on annual “top 10” lists.

Sciamma takes us back to the 18^th century where, in a period of history prior to photography, the only way to capture and preserve one’s image was via the painting of a portrait.  This relevant because Héloïse (Haenel) is a young French woman who, through the intervention of her mother, is engaged to a wealthy suitor she has never met.  He has requested a portrait of his bride-to-be so he can see what she looks like before the big day arrives.

The problem is that Héloïse has no desire to marry and hence, refuses to pose for any painter.  It’s the reason her mother has adopted a sneakier, more cunning approach.  She has employed the services of a young female painter, Marianne (Merlant), but asked this not be revealed.  Marianne’s job is to befriend Héloïse, spend time with her, and use the learnings to secretly paint a portrait without her knowledge.  All of this takes place on a near-deserted island off the western coast of France.

Portrait of a Lady on Fire is one of the year’s best films (and I can confidently say that given it’s being released on Boxing Day).  It’s the kind of movie I like – one that relies on eye movements, facial expressions and gestures as opposed to forced, unnatural dialogue.  Just as Marianne studies her subject matter, so too do we as the audience.  These two characters are continually “sizing each other up” as they seek information whilst also maintaining their guard.  Stars Noémie Merlant and Adèle Haenel are outstanding.

Cinematographer Claire Mathon (Stranger by the Lake) makes use of great camera angles (such as when Marianne sees Héloïse’s face for the first time) and composers Jean-Baptiste de Laubier and Arthur Simonini heighten the mood during key scenes by using a choir-heavy music score.  Some may see it as slow but this is a careful, skilfully assembled drama where it feels every scene and every image has been thought through in immaculate detail.

Portrait of a Lady on Fire earned a Golden Globe nomination for best foreign language film but we won’t be seeing it at the Oscars as each country can only submit one film for consideration.  I’m yet to see France’s official submission, Les Misérables, but if it’s as good as this, I’ll be surprised.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 24 December 2019

Louisa May Alcott was an unheralded 35-year-old when, on the strong urging of her publisher, she reluctantly wrote the first of a two part book series that would become known as Little Women. Not even Alcott would have believed how popular and beloved her novel would become. It’s taken on Shakespearean traits given the frequency with which it has been adapted for stage and screen.

This latest version is the creation of Oscar nominated writer-director Greta Gerwig (Lady Bird). Gerwig had loved the book growing up but on re-reading it as a 30-year-old, she found fresh themes and was instantly inspired to adapt it in her own unique way. She pitched her idea to Sony producer Amy Pascal, penned a script (a few changes were made from Alcott’s novel) and, following the success of Lady Bird, was given approval to serve as the film’s director.

If you’re new to the tale, Little Women is set in the mid-19th century and is the story of four young ladies on the cusp of adulthood.  Their ambitions are as different as their personalities.  Jo pursues independence, Meg wants a husband, Amy yearns for wealth, and Beth seeks contentment.  The wonderful actresses stepping into their famed shoes are Saoirse Ronan (Brooklyn), Emma Watson (Beauty and the Beast), Florence Pugh (Midsommar) and Australia Eliza Scanlen (who got her start in Home and Away).

The performances are flawless and as a combined ensemble, it’s the equal of anything else seen on screen over the past year.  I love the openness and affection shown by these characters towards each other.  They’re constantly touching and laughing and arguing and talking over each other in a way that feels authentic and honest.

Saoirse Ronan brings a beautiful spirit to the role of the tomboy Jo and the interplay between her and Florence Pugh, as the slightly envious sister, comprehensively captures the rocky, up-and-down relationship that often exists between siblings.  Timothée Chalamet (Call Me by Your Name), as a love struck suitor trying to win Jo’s affections, also deserves praise for his charming, adorable nature and his pitch-perfect hair (kudos to the make-up team).

The most obvious point of difference between Gerwig’s adaptation and previous movies is the use of a second timeline.  We follow the women as teenagers whilst concurrently looking at their future lives (roughly 7 years ahead).  It’s a touch confusing at first (it takes about 30 minutes or so to get your head around which timeline is which) but its value is soon evident.  It helps maintain a brisk pace while also immediately illustrating the ripple effects of key decisions.

Largely shot in a recreated house modelled on Louisa May Alcott’s childhood home in Massachusetts, Little Women is an exquisite drama about art, wealth, family, sisterhood and unrequited love.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 02 December 2019

The Addams Family was created by cartoonist Charles Addams in 1938 and since that time, it’s been tailored into television shows, animated series, TV movies, feature films and Broadway musicals.  Perhaps the most well-known adaptations are the 64-episode, black and white TV show from the mid-1960s (starring John Astin and Carolyn Jones) and the two popular movies from the early 1990s (starring Anjelica Huston and Raul Julia).

With few artistic mediums left to utilise, directors Conrad Vernon and Greg Tiernan have gone with an animated feature film.  It makes it a little easier to bring these creepy-looking creatures to life and it also helps in assembling a cast who can do all their work over a couple of days in a recording booth.  Voices you’ll recognise include Oscar Isaac, Charlize Theron, Allison Janney, Bette Midler and, if you’ve got an astute ear when it comes to mumbling, Snoop Dogg.

The opening 10 minutes or so provide the background details of this iconic monster family.  After being attacked by a group of “racist” humans, they fled to an old, deserted mental asylum in New Jersey where they’ve lived for the past 13 years.  “It’s hideous, it’s horrible, it’s home” is the way they describe their well-fortified residence which comes complete with a bottomless pit and a “whine” cellar.

The parents, Gomez and Morticia, aren’t given much to do and so the film’s focus falls on their two children.  Pugsley (Wolfhard) is a bomb-creating prankster who is preparing for a coming-of-age ritual similar to a bar mitzvah.  Wednesday (Moretz) is a guillotine-loving teenager who is tired of being confined to the house and wants to see the real world.

The two kids have a role to play when, for curious reasons, the Addams Family decide to visit a nearby town and naively befriend its human population.  It’s here where they come face-to-face with Margaux Needler (Janney), the conceited host of a popular home-makeover show similar to Grand Designs.  Margaux isn’t one to embrace diversity and so, using an online Facebook-style chat group, she spreads lies about the monsters to ensure they’re not welcome.  It escalates further from there.

The Addams Family is a disappointing feature that lacks a strong, compelling narrative.  It has monsters doing/saying weird things and humans acting like huge jerks but when that’s all you’ve got for 87 minutes, the novelty quickly wears thin.  Subplots involving interesting characters (such as the demon who possesses the house) don’t get much time to breathe given the rushed, haphazard way the film moves from scene-to-scene.  Parts could have been cut (such as the introduction) to make room for more meaningful plot points.

A sequel is planned for 2021.  Hopefully it has more to offer.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 24 December 2019

English director Guy Ritchie has made 11 feature films across 20-plus years and my favourite remains his first – Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels.  It was a fun, violent crime flick that involved gangs, heists and some really dumb people (hunt it down if you’ve never seen it).  Having transitioned into safer, bigger Hollywood blockbusters over the last decade (Sherlock Holmes, King Arthur: Legend of the Sword, Aladdin), Ritchie sees The Gentlemen as a “return to my roots” in going back to the genre that launched his career.

Oscar winner Matthew McConaughey (Dallas Buyers Club) steps into the shoes of Mickey Pearson, an Oxford graduate and wealthy entrepreneur who has created one of the largest, if not THE largest, illegal marijuana distribution businesses in the United Kingdom.  The plants are grown in massive underground laboratories hidden away on remote, private estates.  It’s a wonder than no one has tipped off the cops given the number of staff and socialites involved.  I can only assume they’re handsomely remunerated.

Anyway, Mickey believes it’s time to “get out of the game” and there are two interested parties bidding to take over his empire for the right price.  The frontrunner, played by Jeremy Strong (Succession), is a suave, confident gangster who has a knack for getting what he wants.  His competition is an Asian crime syndicate headlined by Henry Golding (Crazy Rich Asians) as a “Chinese James Bond”.  Others with a key role to play include Colin Farrell (In Bruges) as a boxing coach unwillingly dragged into the mayhem and Charlie Hunnam (Sons of Anarchy) as Mickey’s right-hand man.

On the whole, it’s a complex story that requires a little too much explaining from Hugh Grant who features as a private investigator and also the film’s quasi-narrator.  The opening hour is particularly slow as Grant continually rambles and the action/drama is kept to a minimum.  The script is over-written with characters seemingly in a competition to see how many metaphors and analogies they can squeeze into each scene.  I’m not sure I’ve ever seen so much slang in a single movie and while it results in a few memorable one-liners, the novelty wears out quickly.

The screenplay also struggles in balancing up the numerous subplots.  As the only key female in the film, Michelle Dockery (Downton Abbey) gets very little to do as Mickey’s loyal wife.  The same applies for Eddie Marsan (Happy-Go-Lucky) as a boisterous newspaper editor looking for a big story.  It’s a wonder why his story was included at all given its insignificance to the wider narrative.

I do enjoy a quality crime-gangster movie and while The Gentlemen tries to look cool with its flashy cast and debonair dialogue, it struggles to provide a meaningful entertainment until the final half-hour.  Yes, the finale is amusing but the rest is forgettable.