Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 13 October 2019

Ever seen Peter Weir’s The Truman Show? It’s one of the great films in the history of cinema. Jim Carrey’s character is, unknowingly, surrounded by paid actors in a fake world. He doesn’t have a life of his own and there isn’t an opportunity for the true Truman Burbank to evolve.  He’s being controlled like a science experiment and his sole purpose is to entertain millions of people around the world on TV.

There are parallels with the real-life story of Judy Garland. Born in 1922, Garland was just 2 years of age when she first performed on stage at her father’s movie theatre. By the time she was 18, Garland had appeared in 11 feature films and won a special Academy Award for her iconic performance as Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz (1939).  In the same vein as Truman Burbank, she spent almost her entire life in the public eye and was controlled by studio executives like a puppet.

Based on the stage play by Peter Quilter and adapted by Tom Edge, Judy covers Garland’s teenage years by way of intermittent flashback.  She was prohibited from eating fatty foods and given special tablets to supress weight gain.  She was forced into arranged friendships/relationships to boost her notoriety in the tabloids.  She worked ridiculously long hours for bossy directors.  If she ever complained, studio big-wigs would threaten to fire her and bring in fresh talent.

These scenes are informative but they’re not the crux of Rupert Goold’s film.  Rather, the movie focuses on a period in 1969 when a 46-year-old Garland (played Renée Zellweger) travelled to London to perform a series of stage shows for her adoring fans.  It was a trip of necessity as opposed to desire.  Her celebrity had waned in the United States and, as a result of some bad financial decisions, she was both homeless and penniless.  The London gig was offering £2,500 a week and it was a chance to reignite her sagging career.

Judy is an interesting character study.  There are times when we see Garland at her best.  Despite nerves and apprehension, she gathers her composure for a beautiful rendition of “By Myself” as her first song on the London stage.  Director Rupert Goold captures the emotion of that moment by shooting it with a single camera and no edits.  There’s another nice scene where she spends an evening with two fans who have worshiped her for decades.

On the flip side, there are times when see Garland at her worst.  She has an addiction to alcohol and prescription medication that is clearly affecting her life.  She also comes across as spoilt, self-entitled and unreliable.  She’s rude to her obliging assistant (Buckley) and often disrespectful to audience members who have bought tickets to her shows.  Are her problems self-inflicted?  Or are they the result of a tough upbringing and career?  I’m sure audiences will be divided.   

Judy struggles in connecting the 1960s narrative with the 1930s flashbacks.  Goold is trying to help us “get inside” Garland’s head and explain why she’s become such an anxious, complex person.  These scenes are promoting empathy but I’m not sure they fully explain the version of Garland we know by film’s end.  It feels like we’ve only scratched the surface and her troubles are far deeper.

However, the weaknesses in the script are negated by the stunning performance of Renée Zellweger (Cold Mountain, Chicago).  The casting is perfect and she does a wonderful job capturing Garland’s blend of egotism and insecurity.  It’s also worth noting that Zellweger performed all the songs herself after a full year of training with high-profile vocal coach Eric Vetro.  An Oscar nomination is a certainty and if you believe the current bookmakers’ odds, a victory speech will be required.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 30 September 2019

There are exceptions but the general tendency in Hollywood is to create one-dimensional villains when making an action flick.  You’ll have someone (normally a male) trying to take over the world, or assassinate a popular figure, or steal billions of dollars, or simply blow up the planet.  The plans usually lack logic (or at least start off sensibility and ultimately become illogical).  Equally puzzling are the life goals of the incompetent henchmen who sign up to the villains’ causes.

There are reasons why film writers make such decisions.  In a two hour movie, there often isn’t time to “flesh out” an intriguing bad guy when the prominent focus is on the heroes.  Further, having a simplistic villain makes it easy for the filmmakers to guide audiences’ emotions and avoid controversy.  They bear no resemblance to divisive figures in the real world so you can sit back, eat your popcorn, and view it as mindless entertainment.

The Joker appeared in the first Batman comic book ever published in 1940 and he has since become the most utilised villain in superhero movies.  Jack Nicholson in Batman (1989), Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight (2008) and Jared Leto in Suicide Squad (2016) have all put their own spin on this famed character.

Joker is a very different comic book movie however.  There are no “traditional” heroes and so the entire 122 minute running time is spent developing and analysing a purported villain.  We learn that the Joker, better known as Arthur Fleck (Phoenix), is a struggling loner.  He has no friends, he receives no mail, he’s battling to hold down his job as a performing clown, and he has mental health issues which require seven different types of medication.  In his own words – “I just don’t want to feel so bad anymore.”

On a near-deserted subway train one evening, Arthur watches as three sleazy businessmen taunt and harass a middle-aged woman.  Arthur, still wearing his clown face from work, unwillingly becomes involved and after a violent scuffle, he pulls out a gun and kills all three men.  You could argue he first acted in self-defence but when he puts several bullets in the last victim, it’s clear his motivations include anger and vengeance.  Accustomed to being bullied, he enjoyed having the “last laugh” for once.

It’s not long before Arthur’s actions kick-start an uprising within Gotham.  Authorities want him identified and apprehended but there’s a growing number of people who see Arthur as the “poster boy” for a powerful anti-capitalism movement sweeping across the city.  They’re tired of austerity-loving politicians cutting services to the underprivileged while the wealthiest 1% continue to thrive and prosper.

Joker isn’t perfect.  The second act is sluggish and it pushes its message too forcibly in places.  Still, the positives far outweigh the negatives.  Writer-director Todd Phillips (The Hangover) and co-writer Scott Silver (The Fighter) are taking societal problems that you might see explored in a Ken Loach film and bringing them into the superhero realm.  Arthur is a complex character and while you may not agree with his approach, you’ll understand his troubled mindset and the reasons why some support him.  There are parallels with real-life issues currently playing out in the media.

Given Heath Ledger posthumously won an Academy Award for playing the same character, it was always going to be a tough ask for Joaquin Phoenix (Walk the Line) to produce an equally memorable performance.  He’s gone close though.  Phoenix has created a credible villain with a fragile mental state and a creepy disposition (particularly his laugh).  His portrayal adds to the film’s grim, unsettling tone that you’ll have trouble shaking off as you leave the theatre.

A surprise winner of the prestigious Golden Lion at the Venice Film Festival, Joker is intended to be a “stand alone” feature that isn’t part of the current DC Extended Universe.  That’s a shame because I’d love to see the introduction of arch nemesis Batman to find out where this alternative timeline goes next.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 09 October 2019

Several years ago, a group of struggling female strippers concocted a plan to get rich.  They would seduce wealthy Wall Street businessmen, take them to clubs and spike their drinks.  When the men became borderline unconscious, the women would take their credit cards and rack up charges as high as $50,000 per night.  The proceeds would be split between the women and club management (who were also in on the action).

Hustlers is an interesting true story but we’re lucky to even know about it at all.  The police became involved in 2013 but it wasn’t until journalist Jessica Pressler published an article in December 2015 that the details became widely known.  Many men (some of them married) were fleeced but they didn’t speak with journalists or investigators because they didn’t want to admit they had been victimised by women.  They were content to suffer the financial loss and never speak of it again.

Written and directed by Lorene Scafaria (Nick & Nora’s Infinite Playlist), Hustlers is a film of two halves.  The opening hour looks at the evolution of the stripper scene in New York City.  It begins in 2007 when top-notch strippers were making more money than brain surgeons.  The good times soon came to an end when the Global Financial Crisis hit the hip pockets of stockbrokers and finance guys.  The money dried up which forced some strippers to make the shift into prostitution.

The second half delves into the criminal activities of the women as they drugged and stole from unsuspecting men.  It’s at this point where the film treads a very fine line.  Scafaria doesn’t want to make them out as heroes but nor does she want to portray them as villains.  On one hand, the actions of these women are deplorable and it’s lucky that none of their unsuspecting victims were killed of an accidental overdose.  On the other hand, these women deserve credit for their ingenuity and the way they have “evened the score” against dodgy/sleazy Wall Street types (although not all in the movie deserved it).

It may sound like a complex tale of criminality but when the end credits start to roll, you’ll realise it’s more a story of friendship.  Romana (Lopez) is the cunning, ambitious veteran who uses her power over men to great effect.  Destiny (Wu) is her trusting protégé who is prepared to relinquish her stronger morals to gain financial independence.  The interaction between these two (along with other key characters) highlights the close bond they all shared.

Hustlers is an appealing drama with strong performances, genuine laughs and a winning soundtrack.  There’s lots to think about too.  It’s easy to look down on strippers but the film confirms they’re often more intelligent and shrewd than their male customers.  There’s a great sequence where Romana explains the best way to spot a wealthy target – look beyond the suit and focus on the shoes, watches and wedding rings.

There are parts to the narrative that don’t add much.  Destiny’s up-and-down marriage is over in a flash and the one-on-one scenes with her grandmother lack depth.  Also, were was all the money going???  The film suggests these women are motivated by factors other than pure greed (e.g. helping raise their kids) but it’s hard to believe given the amounts they’re reeling in and the rate at which they burn through it.  I’m curious to see how much empathy they draw from audiences.

On track to make more than $100 million at the US box-office, Hustlers has lots of people talking – both before and after they see it.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 25 September 2019

In April 2014, American author Donna Tartt won the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction for her third novel, The Goldfinch.  The judges described it as “a beautifully written coming-of-age novel with exquisitely drawn characters” and “a book that stimulates the mind and touches the heart.”  Warner Bros. acquired the film rights later that year and director John Crowley (Brooklyn) was given the task of bringing Tartt’s work to the big screen.

It’s hard to review this movie without acknowledging the heavy baggage it has accumulated over the past few weeks.  The positive adjectives used to praise the novel were not replicated in explaining the film.  At its Toronto Film Festival world premiere, leading critics described The Goldfinch as “morose” (Variety), “emotionally muted” (BBC), “uninvolving” (Washington Post) and “textureless” (The New Yorker).

The reception wasn’t any warmer when released widely in U.S. cinemas the following week.  It earned a dismal $2.6 million across its opening weekend (the budget was $40 million) with the President of Domestic Distribution at Warner Bros. conceding “there were many things that didn’t work.”  Star Ansel Elgort also weighed in by acknowledging the negative feedback but asking audiences to give it a chance because he believes “there is a lot of good in the film too.”

Elgort is right (to an extent).  There’s a part of me that was drawn into this interesting world and the alluring cinematography of Roger Deakins (Blade Runner 2049).  The central protagonist is Theodore Decker (Fegley), a shy 13-year-old who loses his mother following a terrorist attack at New York City’s Metropolitan Museum of Art.  The remainder of the film follows Theodore (the older version is played by Elgort) as he interacts with an array of characters including his alcoholic father (Wilson), a struggling antique dealer (Wright), a Ukrainian friend (Wolfhard) and a kind-hearted socialite (Kidman).

The problems with the movie are easy to spot.  It struggles when it comes to character development and relevance.  Theodore wanders from place-to-place but I was never sure what he, or anyone else for that matter, was searching for.  It’s therefore hard to see and understand how these characters have evolved across the lengthy 149 minute running time.  What have they learned by film’s end?  What are audiences supposed to take away?  The fact some subplots are rushed (such as Theodore’s out-of-nowhere engagement) adds to its confusing nature.

The hardest thing to grapple with is the film’s insistence to link everything back to a stolen artwork.  While fleeing The Met in the minutes following the terrorist attack, Theodore takes an extremely valuable painting (it had fallen on the ground) and takes it back to his home.  It’s a bizarre, clumsy storyline that is referenced every 15 minutes or so but lacks logic and purpose.

If there’s one clear realisation from The Goldfinch, it’s that a good book doesn’t always equal a good movie.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 07 October 2019

It’s one of the biggest clichés in the action genre.  Villains and/or their loyal henchmen will shoot 100 bullets or throw 100 punches but they’ll never land a fatal hit against their adversary (despite the odds often being in their favour).  They have well-crafted plans but they’re completely incompetent when it comes to execution.  The hero is always too good.  Gemini Man puts a different spin on that tired formula by creating a hero and a villain who are the same person.  Who would win a battle between yourself and yourself?  Confused?  Allow me to explain.

Henry Brogan (Smith) is a 51-year-old who could be described as the best marksman in the world.  His hand-eye co-ordination is demonstrated in the opening scene as, from more than kilometre away, he shoots a man sitting by the window of a fast-moving train.  He could be winning gold medals at the Olympics but instead, he’s been a long-time employee of the U.S. Government’s Defence Intelligence Agency who use Henry to eliminate terrorist threats.

The time has come for Henry to hang up his rifle.  After 72 confirmed kills, he professes that the job is starting to take its toll and that his “soul is hurt”.  I don’t think Henry was expecting a farewell card and Friday night drinks given the secretive nature of his work.  Still, he couldn’t have foreseen the reaction from Agency director Clay Varris (Owen) who has ordered that he be killed as part of a government cover-up.

The person tasked with the assignment is a clone.  Utilising the same technology that created Dolly the Sheep in 1996, geneticists within the Agency have created a 23-year-old replica of Henry and trained him to be an assassin.  They obviously subscribe to the theory of nature over nurture.  They believe that copying Henry’s precise DNA will create a gifted marksman who is his equal and can be used by the Agency for decades to come.

While several big-name filmmakers embrace the past and still shoot using 35mm film, two-time Oscar-winning director Ang Lee (Brokeback Mountain, Life of Pi) is not afraid to take chances using new equipment.  Almost all movies are shot using 24 frames per second but for Gemini Man, Lee ups that to 120 frames per second.  When you throw in the 3D effects, the 4k resolution, and the work of Brisbane-born cinematographer Dion Beebe (Chicago, Memoirs of a Geisha), you have a movie that is very different from the norm.  It feels like a computer-game style hybrid between live-action and animation.

The other talking point is the way Lee has created two versions of Will Smith (hope he got two pay cheques).  The visual effects teams have drawn on footage of Smith in his earlier works, largely Bad Boys and Six Degrees of Separation, to create the younger character.  It’s not fully convincing but the film wins points for trying to do something different.  It’ll be interesting to see this technology evolve and improve in the near future.

The major weakness with Gemini Man is the storyline.  This could have been a complex, nuanced story about the dangers of “playing God” but it’s ultimately just a standard action narrative that makes less sense the more you think about it.  There are lengthy chases, lots of carnage, and goofy government officials with unchecked powers and no morals.  The nonchalant nature to a few characters (particularly those played by Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Benedict Wong) also detracts from the film’s tension and credibility.

It’s no masterpiece but Gemini Man warrants a look.