Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 15 March 2023

In case you missed it, X was an above-average horror-thriller set the 1970s and about a group of young adults who had rented a guest house on a Texas farm to shoot a pornographic movie.  It was made in New Zealand on a low budget and performed admirably at the box-office with over $500,000 here in Australia and over $11 million USD in the horror-loving United States.  If you stayed until the very end of the closing credits, you’d have seen the trailer for Pearl, a prequel which was shot at the same time (a great way to save money).

It’s been a peculiarly long wait for our audiences to see this prequel.  While X was released in the United States and Australia at the same time (the second half of March 2022), Pearl opened in the States back in September 2022, fresh off its premiere at the Venice Film Festival.  It’s taken six months to find a slot here with the film now receiving a limited release in the quieter aftermath of awards season.

It’s a tricky film to describe succinctly.  In the original movie, star Mia Goth played two different characters – a young woman trying to get rich in the porn industry and, thanks to the benefit of make-up, a super creepy octogenarian who wasn’t afraid to murder a person or two.  Pearl is set six decades prior to X with Goth now playing the 20-something-year-old version of the old woman.  Have I lost you yet?  Don’t sweat it.  This background material is interesting but it’s not essential knowledge.  With minimal overlap in terms of narrative, there’s no need to have seen one before the other.

X won me over with its blend of entertaining comedy and violent horror, but Pearl is a very different beast.  For starters, it’s centred on one person as opposed to a wider group.  This makes it more of a character study than a conversation-driven piece.  Further, it makes audiences feel uncomfortable in a dissimilar way.  There’s still splashes of bloody gore but it creates its “horror” through social awkwardness.  From her strained smile, to her unusual voice, to her lack of a “filter”, Pearl is an odd one.  It's hard to work out if you should feel sympathetic (she had a tough upbringing) or scared (she says some messed-up things).

I don’t think the script is as strong this time around.  There’s not a lot going on and the supporting players are flimsy.  Still, it’s a film to be seen because of Mia Goth’s memorable performance.  Director Ti West and cinematographer Eliot Rockett assist Goth with their use of close-ups and long takes.  There’s a particularly jarring scene late in the movie where Pearl confides in her sister-in-law while casually sitting at the kitchen table.

Love it or hate it (I can understand the divisiveness), Pearl is a film you’ll remember.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 05 March 2023

A talking point in this year’s awards season has been the unexpected emergence of 41-year-old English actress Andrea Riseborough.  After being overlooked for a nod at the Golden Globe, Critics’ Choice, BAFTA, and SAG Awards, she pulled off a surprise Oscar nomination for her lead performance in the low-budget independent film, To Leslie.

So shocking was Riseborough’s nomination that the Academy of Arts and Sciences launched an internal investigation to see if something was amiss.  How could a film with no box-office and no publicity earn a nomination?  Yes, big studios pump millions of dollars into award campaigns each year but the Academy has “guidelines” in place to prevent forceful, over-the-top campaigning.  Whether these rules achieve anything is debatable but it’s clear the governing body wants winners and nominees selected on merit as opposed to influence, power and money.

The results of the investigation were announced five weeks ago with the Academy allowing Riseborough to keep her nomination but noting they “did discover social media and outreach campaigning tactics that caused concern.”  It’s probably the right result.  Given how many people were spruiking the performance (even Cate Blanchett did it during her Critics’ Choice Award acceptance speech), rescinding the first-time nod would have caused a shit storm with the potential to overshadow the eventual Oscar winner (likely to be Blanchett or Michelle Yeoh).

Putting all that to the side and looking at the film itself, it does deserve attention because of Riseborough’s terrific leading turn.  She plays the title character of Leslie, a middle-aged mother who won $190,000 in the lottery six years ago but is now homeless and penniless.  She is a walking train wreck who pissed the money away on cigarettes and alcohol and, in the process, destroyed relationships she had with friends and her teenage son.  As the film begins, she’s hit rock bottom… and those rocks are pretty sharp.

The film revolves around her efforts to make a fresh start and get things back on track.  That won’t be easy.  There’s no shortage of semi-reluctant people willing to help but Leslie is her own worst enemy.  Her now 19-year-old son lets her stay briefly at his apartment but, after Leslie steals money from his flatmate to spend on booze, he says “I’m not going to do this again” and immediately kicks her out.  It makes you wonder if some folk are beyond forgiveness and redemption.

The self-destruction gets repetitive in the middle act but I still admired this film as an interesting character study.  Leslie will lie and say anything to cover for her own mistakes and problems.  She’s a tortured, deluded soul and audiences will have varying levels of sympathy when judging her.  With a supporting cast including Allison Janney, Stephen Root, and a very good Marc Maron, To Leslie deserves its current 15 minutes of fame.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 12 March 2023

He’s played a rock and roll legend (Love Actually), an immortal pirate (Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man’s Chest), a World War II German General (Valkyrie), a time travelling father (About Time), and a Minister of Magic (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part I).  In a film career which has spanned four decades, it’s not until now that Bill Nighy has finally earned a first Oscar nomination.  He’s up for best actor in a leading role for his superb lead turn in Living.

Given the Academy tends to honour flashy performances where actors undergo physical transformations and/or imitate real-life people (subtlety is rarely rewarded), it’s nice that Nighy has been recognised for this particular role.  Set in London 1953, he plays one of the most boring people you could ever imagine.  Mr Williams is a humourless, conservative Council bureaucrat who goes about each day with monotonous routine.  A young staff member (Wood) has nicknamed him “Mr Zombie” because he’s trudging through life without any sense of joy or spirit.

Movies about rediscovering one’s self are not new.  As Andy Dufresne said in The Shawshank Redemption, “get busy living, or get busy dying.”  With this particular film, the transformational change arises from a trip to the doctor where Mr Williams is told he has terminal cancer and just a few months left to live.  He’s not the kind of person to scream out or shed tears but, even from his muted response (“quite”), you can tell he’s rattled by the diagnosis.

We follow Mr Williams as he takes time away from work and embraces new activities.  These includes lunch at posh restaurants, evening drinking sessions with newfound friends, and even a dose of pub karaoke.  The film is about a lot more though.  We see Mr Williams contemplate his legacy and what small mark he can leave on the world for when he’s gone.  There’s also the question about whether he should tell friends and family about his illness.  In the same circumstances, who would you choose to confide in?

Directed by South African Oliver Hermanus and faithfully adapted from Ikiru, the 1952 Japanese film directed by Akira Kurosawa, Living is an affecting motion picture.  It would be easy to overplay the role but Bill Nighy is near-perfect as he extracts just the right dose of sympathy from audiences.  There are distinctive scenes (a new staff member being introduced to Mr Williams’ morning transit routine), unusual details (everyone referred to by their surname, the framing of cinematographer Jamie D. Ramsay), and a time-shifting finale which packs a strong emotional punch.

Backed by a beautiful music score from French composer Emilie Levienaise-Farrouch, Living is another strong entry in the current award season.  A film to savour and remember.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 01 March 2023

Whether real or manufactured, rivalries are a big part of sport.  They create interest and generate money.  The highest attended home-and-away AFL game each year takes place on ANZAC Day with traditional adversaries, Essendon and Collingwood, facing off in front of roughly 90,000 people.  I could list oodles of other examples such as Australia v. England in test cricket or Barcelona v. Real Madrid in Spanish football.

For the past 45 years, the Rocky and Creed film franchises have tapped into that crowd-pleasing concept with solid results.  Creed III, which marks the directorial debut of 36-year-old star Michael B. Jordan, is more of the same.  The opening act introduces a new character, the middle act establishes the rivalry, and the final act brings them together in the boxing ring for a bruising finale.  Yes, it’s formulaic but if you’ve got the right actors and a credible storyline, you’ll get audiences to buy in.

Creed III familiarises us with Damian “Dame” Anderson (Majors), a boxer who was full of potential as a teenager but saw his career halted after being sentenced to 18 years in prison for an armed assault.  Having just been released, Dame is keen to make up for lost time and enter the professional ranks in the biggest way possible – with a shot against reigning heavyweight champion Felix Chavez (Jose Benavidez).  To borrow a line from the film – “everybody loves an underdog.”

So where does the now retired, mansion-living, suit-wearing Adonis Creed (Jordan) fit into the picture?  It turns out he and Dame were close childhood friends and, despite having some reservations, he helps organise the unlikely bout as a “favour” to settle a long-standing moral debt.  It’s not the most convincing of set ups.  Adonis goes to extraordinary lengths to help his friend (a title fight on debut) but is then disappointed when he finds early success.  Why?  Other attempts to create tension between the pair in the second act (a punch out of nowhere) also feels rushed.

All of that said, the film comes together nicely with a well-paced, energising climax.  Parts of it borrow from the well-worn textbook – lengthy musical montages where boxers jog in front of landmarks and flip large tyres on the beach.  Other parts try to break away from the mould – an interesting, crowd-free sequence which depicts rounds 3 to 11 of the final bout.  A few of the supporting players (e.g. Adonis’ mum) don’t get much to work with but both Michael B. Jordan and Jonathan Majors are terrific in the lead roles and help elevate the not-always-perfect script.

Sylvester Stallone did not reprise his role for this instalment.  As stated in an interview for The Hollywood Reporter, he wasn’t a fan of the screenplay and its darker tones.  He’s entitled to his views but Michael B. Jordan is now the lifeblood of this franchise and his work, both in front of and behind the camera, will keep fans engaged.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 06 March 2023

The Farrelly brothers, Peter and Bobby, rose to fame in the 1990s with a string of memorable movies which pushed limits in terms of toilet humour and gross-out scenes – Dumb and Dumber, Kingpin, and There’s Something About Mary.  They’ll always be known for their work in the comedic genre but their style, tone, and project selection has evolved over time.  Peter won two Academy Awards for his work on biographical drama Green Book (best picture, best original screenplay) while Bobby recently directed 14 episodes of the well-received television drama Loudermilk.

Champions is Bobby’s latest creation (Peter wasn’t involved this time around) and while there are splashes of the gross-out humour we’ve grown to enjoy (political incorrectness, vomit), this is a more mellow, sentimental film.  It’s based on a 2018 Spanish comedy-drama which itself was based on a true story.  Working with first-time screenwriter Mark Rizzo, the goal is to make us laugh while also feeling better about the world around us.

Woody Harrelson, collaborating with Farrelly for the second-time after Kingpin, stars as Marcus Markovich, an assistant coach for the Iowa Stallions basketball team.  He knows the game as well as anyone but he struggles to build a connection with players because of his “I’m always right” mentality and inability to listen to other opinions.  Things go fully off the rails when he’s sacked for slapping the head coach during a game, and then later arrested for being three times over the blood alcohol limit while driving.

Narrowly avoiding an 18-month prison sentence, Marcus is assigned 90 days of community service coaching a team of 10 youngsters with intellectual disabilities.  There’s an added layer of authenticity given the actors we see on screen have the same disabilities off screen.  Hundreds auditioned from across the United States and Canada and, for the lucky few selected, most are making their acting debuts.  They have distinctive, infectious personalities which will help keep audiences invested in their fate.

The other reason to see this film is for the terrific performance of Kaitlin Olson (It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia).  She plays Marcus’s on-again, off-again love interest and earns laughs because of her brutal, no-nonsense persona.  She instantly sees through Marcus’s bullshit but, despite her intelligence and quick-wit, she does have a vulnerable side which is hard to fully supress.  The scenes Olson and Harrelson share, with an emphasis on their initial introduction, are a major selling point.

Performances aside, it’s a fairly standard, predictable screenplay which doesn’t take many chances.  You can expect to see the team improving as they try to qualify for the championship final in Winnipeg, and you will also observe Marcus as he loses his ignorant, self-centred nature and shows more interest in those around him.  It’s a feel-good movie above all else.  Champions might be low on surprises…  but it’s still an easy film to like.