Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 22 January 2020

From The Thin Blue Line (1988) to In the Name of the Father (1993) to The Central Park Five (2012).  All of these films recount the true story of individuals who, on the basis of flawed evidence, were incarcerated for years (often decades) for crimes they did not commit.  How can you not be affected when thinking about the sense of helplessness they endured and the emotional toll on their families?  It’s even sadder when thinking about others in the same position who died in prison and never saw justice served.

Just Mercy taps into the same theme and, drawing from his own autobiography, tells the story of African American lawyer Bryan Stevenson (played in the film by Michael B. Jordan).  Stevenson graduated from Harvard University in 1985 and within a few years, he’d founded the Equal Justice Initiative (EJI) in Alabama with the help of Federal government funding.  Its goal was to provide legal representation to prisoners on death row and to also help those who had been denied a fair trial.

Stevenson and his dedicated, hard-working staff have helped hundreds of people over the past three decades but the film focuses on one in particular, Walter McMillian (Foxx), who was sentenced to death in 1988 for the murder of an 18-year-old woman.  There was a mountain of evidence that showed McMillian was elsewhere at the time of the murder but despite this, the jury convicted him based on the lone testimony of a criminal (Nelson) who had ulterior motives.

As you can imagine, this is very much a David v Goliath type story.  Stevenson had very few resources at this disposal and was up against the might of the Alabama authorities who did not want to admit they had convicted an innocent man.  This is evident in an early scene where Stevenson meets the new District Attorney (Spall) and is warned that “if you go digging in those wounds, you’re going to make a lot of people unhappy.”

Director Destin Daniel Cretton (Short Term 12), who also co-wrote the screenplay with friend Andrew Lanham, has extracted great performances from his cast.  Michael B. Jordan (Creed) is excellent as the level-headed, unrelenting Stevenson who seldom loses his composure.  Jamie Foxx (Ray) earned a Screen Actors Guild Award nomination for his performance as the exasperated McMillian.  You can jump on YouTube to watch a 60 Minutes story from 1992 that features the key players and you’ll be impressed by how the whole cast, including supporting actors like Tim Blake Nelson and Rafe Spall, mirror the personalities of their real-life counterparts.

The point of a movie like Just Mercy is reflection.  It’s easy to say “oh, that happened 30 years ago” but the Equal Justice Initiative, which now employs over 150 people, is as important as ever in the battle to address racial injustice, flawed judicial systems, and excessive punishment.  An important film.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 14 January 2020

There have been very few (perhaps none at all) who have had more influence in the American media over the past two decades that Roger Ailes.  He was appointed CEO of the newly created “fair and balanced” Fox News in 1996 and, within the space of a few years, had turned it into the country’s highest rated news network reeling in profits of $1.5 billion USD a year.  He launched the careers of right-wing commentators such as Bill O’Reilly and Sean Hannity, attacked other media outlets as having a pro-liberal bias, and wove his programs into the hearts of predominantly old, white and conservative voters.

Over a period of three weeks in July 2016, Ailes’ career came to an abrupt end.  Gretchen Carlson, who had co-hosted the morning Fox & Friends program, launched a lawsuit against Ailes (as opposed to the network) claiming sexual harassment.  James and Lachlan Murdoch, who weren’t the biggest fans of Ailes, instigated an investigation overseen by an independent law firm.  More than 20 other women came forward and his contract was terminated.  A man with seemingly infinite power had been reduced to nothing overnight (although he did get a healthy severance package).

Bombshell delves into the final months of Ailes’ tenure at Fox News.  The opening titles reveal it is “inspired by” actual events which signifies that creative licence has been used in places to create necessary drama.  As an example, Margot Robbie plays an “evangelical millennial” named Kayla Pospisil who is trying to quickly climb the corporate ladder at Fox.  The reality is that Kayla never existed and her character is a composite of numerous young women employed by the network.

Written by Oscar winner Charles Randolph (The Big Short), Bombshell succeeds in illustrating the toxic culture that can exist in the workplace.  Ailes (Lithgow) was disgusting but he was also cunning.  We learn about the elaborate system he had in place to cover his tracks including private elevators, security cameras and loyal assistants.  He could also exercise huge power over these career-driven women by dangling the prospect of promotion and other “front of camera” roles.  Even when the whistle was finally blown by Gretchen Carlson, many victims didn’t want to come forward as they were worried about job security and judgement by others.

The film has been criticised for failing to address the broader issue of Fox News and its role as a right-wing propaganda tool.  If you’re looking to see that movie, prepare to be disappointed.  Yes, the on-air views of these women would be considered “deplorable” by some but they’re still entitled to justice given the sexual harassment they were subjected to.

Both Charlize Theron and Margot Robbie picked up Oscar nominations earlier this week while Nicole Kidman could be considered unlucky to miss out.  The make-up artists have done a stellar job creating their look (Theron and Kidman look uncannily like their real life counterparts) but the actors deserve just as much praise for creating interesting characters.  In identifying the stand-out, it’s hard to go past Theron who deftly captures the inner turmoil of a journalist who “doesn’t want to be the story” whilst balancing up her career, family and morals.

Directed by Emmy Award winner Jay Roach (Recount, Game Change), Bombshell will (hopefully) get people talking.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 21 January 2020

A Beautiful Day in the Neighbourhood will be a slightly tougher sell in Australia compared to the United States as many here will not be familiar with its real life hero, Fred Rogers.  For those who’ve never heard the name, Rogers hosted a popular live-action children’s show that first aired in 1968 and continued through to his retirement in 2001.  In 2002, he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by George W. Bush for “his service to the nation and dedication to the education of children.”  He was just the 5^th television personality in history to achieve the honour.

Tom Hanks has mastered many acting assignments but even he was “terrified” by this role given Fred Rogers had such a public profile.  How do you recreate someone who was so loved and adored without it coming across as gimmicky imitation?  The answer to that question was time and research.  Hanks admitted to watching “about 8 million hours” of Mister Rogers programs and he travelled to Pittsburgh to spend time with Fred’s wife, Joanne (noting that Fred passed away in 2003).  She was even kind enough to let Hanks wear some of her husband’s old ties in the movie.

Kudos to director Marielle Heller (Can You Ever Forgive Me?) in casting Hanks because his stellar performance serves as the film’s emotional core.  His character is described as a “living saint” and “the nicest person I’ve ever met” and while that may sound over-exaggerated, it’s actually a fair description.  Rogers offers several “pearls of wisdom” throughout the film and it’s hard not feel better about life while watching his calm demeanour and listening to his comforting voice.  It’s earned Hanks his first Academy Award nomination in 19 years.

With so many possible angles and so much material to draw from, the two-person writing team made the decision to focus on a very small fragment of Rogers’ life.  It’s centred on a cynical journalist (Rhys) from Esquire magazine who finds his view of the world transformed after reluctantly agreeing to interview the famed entertainer.  It’s loosely based on an encounter between Rogers and award-winning writer Tom Junod that took place in 1998 (although his character has been quasi-fictionalised for the film).

A small problem with this approach is that Rogers, as the more interesting of the duo, is given less screen time than the not-so-intriguing journalist.  I’d also argue that the journalist’s tale is too obvious and predictable.  You always know where it’s heading.  The film offers a fleeting look behind Rogers’ façade (if he ever had one) with references to his kids and his “not so perfect” qualities but, unlike the journalist, the film chooses not to push as deeply into that space.  It’s a curious choice.

Criticisms aside, A Beautiful Day in the Neighbourhood captures the essence of Fred Rogers and is likely to put a smile on the toughest of faces.  He was one of a kind.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 05 January 2020

When first sent the script for Sam Mendes’ new film, cinematographer Roger Deakins admitted to being shocked.  They’d worked together on a number of challenging projects (Skyfall, Revolutionary Road, Jarhead) but 1917 would require an unprecedented level of thought and planning.  The vision was to create a World War I movie, complete with battle sequences, that looks like it’s been shot in a single continuous take with no edits.

Such real-time movies have been created before (the Oscar winning Birdman springs to mind) but this takes that concept to a new level in that it’s shot almost entirely outside, the characters are continually moving, and it involves a large number of elaborate, manmade sets.  On seeing some of the camera angles, such as a smooth-moving close up of a soldier’s feet as they slide through mud, I kept thinking to myself - “how the hell did they shoot that?”

For this reason, the story behind the camera is as interesting as that in front of it.  Each continuous shot (running up to about 9 minutes) had to be meticulously choreographed and rehearsed.  The camera needed to be moved seamlessly from crane to hand to vehicle to keep pace with the fast-moving actors.  The elements were a factor with the crew required to wait for the right level of cloud cover to ensure consistency of lighting from scene-to-scene.  It’s rare I say this but the “making of” videos on YouTube are compulsory viewing (once you’ve seen the film of course).

The narrative suits the technique.  1917 follows two British soldiers asked to go on a perilous mission.  Their job is to hike from an open-air trench in northern France, navigate their way several kilometres through German occupied territory, and deliver news of a pending attack to allied soldiers on the front line.  1,600 lives are in jeopardy if they fail.  The lead performances from George MacKay (Captain Fantastic) and Dean-Charles Chapman (Game of Thrones) are outstanding given they are required to emote for lengthy periods without the director yelling “cut”.

Inspired by stories from his late grandfather, who was a messenger in the British Army during World War I, 1917 is a tense, immersive filmgoing experience.  We’re placed in the shoes of these two characters and we follow every step and every word as part of their journey.  There are fleeting moments where they can relax and make small talk but for the most part, they must deal with the realisation that their lives could end at any moment.  They will need to rely on a combination of smarts and luck.

The script is “stagey” and romanticised in places.  As an example, there’s a scene involving singing soldiers where it’s hard to reconcile the lack of awareness and decision making.  There’s a contradictory sequence moments later where a soldier wastes a few seconds thinking about whether he could take a different path to save a few seconds. 

Qualms aside, this is still a powerful film that makes effective use of visuals, sound and music.  Deakins seems a shoe-in to win the Oscar for best cinematography (he previously won for Blade Runner 2049) but it’d be great to see iconic composer Thomas Newman (The Shawshank Redemption) break his losing streak given he’s been nominated 14 times previously without success.  Fingers crossed.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 16 January 2020

We’re 16 days into the new year and Bad Boys for Life is already the second sequel to be released in Australian cinemas (after A Shaun the Sheep Movie: Farmageddon last week).  You’d have to be living under a rock not to realise that this is the new norm.  Major Hollywood studios have become increasingly reluctant to take risks and they’re relying more and more on existing franchises to put bums on seats and money in executives’ pockets.

That said, even I was a little surprised to see a new Bad Boys flick given the last movie was released back in 2003.  In a recent interview, star Will Smith said he was reluctant to make an additional sequel as he “didn’t want to wreck the franchise” and when he quizzed further by Jimmy Fallon on The Tonight Show, he addressed the elephant in the room by revealing that he “didn’t want to make it just a cash grab.”

This time around, the villain is a Mexican prison escapee (Castillo) who seeks revenge against Mike for killing her son many years ago.  She’s concocted an elaborate plan where her other son (Scipio) travels to the United States and assassinates all those, from judges to forensic scientists, who had a part in her son’s demise.  I had to laugh when I saw she carries photos of her intended victims and then draws an “X” through them as they are eliminated.  Oh, and what’s with the scene where a body falls from the sky, lands on a car, and strangers walking past don’t blink an eyelid?

Corniness aside, the biggest problem with Bad Boys for Life is that is struggles to balance the tone between farcical comedy and emotional drama.  These two characters are trying hard to create something emotional.  Mike (Smith) has to overcome a near fatal injury and clearly has issues regarding intimacy and control.  Marcus (Lawrence) is revaluating his future career following the birth of his grandson.

It’s hard to take these dramatic subplots seriously given the goofy way in which they go about their work.  They take stupid risks, they disobey orders, and they hate relying on others for assistance.  A blind monkey could have identified the lead suspect and yet, despite the array of high-profile assassinations across Miami, neither of these two connect the dots (a dumb plot device to prolong the action).  A small team of personality-free police officers help our heroes but these characters have little to offer except showing up at just the right moments to save Mike from his own foolishness and/or incompetence. 

Maybe Will Smith did sign up to this with the best intentions but having seen the finished product, it sure looks like a “cash grab.”  It’s a tired, formulaic, seen-it-all-before storyline and that leaves us with a movie that will be all but forgotten about in a few weeks.  The door has been left open for further sequels but I’m not convinced this will whet the appetite of audiences.