Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 18 December 2016

Ever since he was 6 years old, koala Buster Moon (McConaughey) has been enamoured with the stage.  He’s followed through on that dream and now owns a famous old theatre which has been home to several productions.  Unfortunately, his passion hasn’t translated into financial success.  He owes money “all over town” and the bank is top of the list.  His loyal assistant, an iguana named Miss Crawley (Jennings), is helping keep the credits at bay.

Desperate for a hit, Buster comes up with the idea of a singing competition.  It’ll follow in the footsteps of American Idol and The X-Factor but instead of being televised, people will buy tickets and see it live in his theatre.  The prize was supposed to be a mere $1,000 but a typo from Miss Crawley, who accidentally puts $100,000 on the promotional flyer, sends the whole town into a spin.

As we see from a whirlwind segment that introduces the characters, there are plenty looking to get their hands on the prizemoney.  Johnny (Egerton) is a gorilla looking to get away from his criminal father.  Meena (Kelly) is an elephant who struggles when it comes to self-confidence.  Rosita (Witherspoon) is a pig who needs a hobby to help provide space from her 25 children.  Mike (MacFarlane) is a cocky, arrogant mouse following in the footsteps of Frank Sanatra.  Ash (Johansson) is a rock-music loving porcupine in a troubled relationship.

It’s a tricky job trying to balance up the many storylines but writer-director Garth Jennings (The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, Son of Rambow) has done a good job.  Kids shouldn’t have too much trouble keeping up.  My pick of the group was Miss Crawley as the goofy iguana but it’s easy to see why others will have a different favourite as all of these characters are fun and adorable.  The voice cast is strong too.

Given the film’s title, it’s no surprise that it contains an abundance of music.  There are scenes where a different song is seemingly played every 20 seconds.  It’s this element of the movie where Jennings has tried to broaden appeal by using a mix of old and new.  Younger crowds will be humming to the songs of Taylor Swift, Carly Rae Jepsen and Ariana Grande.  Those with a few more years under the belt will recognise the lyrics of Paul McCartney, Elton John, Leonard Cohen and Irving Berlin.

Sing is entertaining but the third and final act is its weakest.  Instead of throwing in a few surprises or a bit more drama, it culminates with a lengthy sing-a-thon and not much else.  It’s a safe ending for what is a safe animated feature.

You can read my interview with writer-director Garth Jennings by clicking here.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 16 November 2016

The Harry Potter franchise wrapped up in 2011 (after 8 successful films) but it seems the thirst for J.K. Rowling’s intricate fantasy world still exists.  Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is reported to be the first in a five-part series that will be produced over the coming decade.  Don’t expect to see your favourite characters.  It’s set roughly 70 years before the earlier films and has a very different look and feel.

While J.K. Rowling penned the novels, the previous movies were adapted for the screen by other writers.  Steve Kloves (Wonder Boys) was responsible for every film with the exception of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix which was handled by Michael Goldenberg (Contact).  For this new franchise, Rowling will be taking on the responsibilities.  It is loosely based on a textbook she wrote to raise money for charity back in 2001.

The narrative begins in New York City in the year 1926.  A British wizard by the name of Newt Scamander (Redmayne) has travelled to America to locate a particular beast.  Magical folk are often scared of these mischievous creatures but Scamander wants to write a book that shows why they need to be protected as opposed to killed.

Many storylines are developed and it’s hard to keep up.  There’s a Magical Congress located in New York who are trying to maintain a National Statue of Secrecy that keeps the magical world hidden from ordinary humans.  There’s a cult-like group trying to infiltrate and expose those with magic powers.  There’s a media mogul trying to get his son elected President of the United States.  Oh, and there’s a factory worker who gets caught up in the mayhem.  He knows the magic isn’t a dream because he “ain’t got the brains to make this up.”

The problem with this film is that it feels more like a knowledge building history lesson rather than an exciting, free-flowing adventure.  The fact it’s the first in a multi-part series is also evident.  It takes a long time to warm up and there’s not a lot in the way of “pay off”.  You get the feeling that we’ll learn more about these characters and their relevance over the next few years.  The most obvious example is the storyline involving with media mogul (Voight) which is so small that it’s almost irrelevant.

The fractured screenplay will leave many scratching their heads.  What exactly is it that these characters are after?  Katherine Waterston plays a witch who has been demoted at work and doesn’t know where she fits.  She originally sees Scamander as a threat but changes her tune too quickly to fully comprehend.

You also get the sense this is intended for a more adult crowd.  This isn’t about young kids trying to find friends at wizardry school.  This is pushing heavier themes such as discrimination, injustice and oppression.  We learn of individuals who have supressed their magical powers and are scared of the truth.  It’s reminiscent of the X-Men series but as mentioned above, it’s another of the subplots that doesn’t get the attention it deserves.

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is very cool from a visual perspective.  I can’t remember the names of any beasts but the special effects artists deserve praise for bringing them to life.  They serve as a nice contrast from the 1920s setting and its old fashioned clothes and activities.  Eddie Redmayne’s nerdy, nervous personality gets a little tiring but he still wins points for a strong performance.

With no novels to guide us this time around, we’ll have to wait until the next instalment in the franchise to see what happens next.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 16 December 2016

At the start of 2014, few cinephiles were familiar with name Damien Chazelle.  The 28-year-old had one directorial credit to his name, Guy and Madeline on a Park Bench, which opened in 5 theatres in the United States and grossed a total of $35,556.  One year later, he was one of the hottest properties in the film world.  Whiplash, his sophomore feature, took in roughly $50 million internationally and won 3 Academy Awards.

Chazelle and fellow Harvard classmate Justin Hurwitz came up with a script for La La Land in 2010 but film studios had padlocked their doors.  The majority of musicals which have thrived at the box-office in recent years were all based on existing, well-known Broadway productions – Chicago, Les Miserables, Into the Woods, Hairspray and Mamma Mia!  The idea of an original, modern-day musical from an unknown filmmaker sounded like a financial train wreck.  I wouldn’t have invested either!

It’s funny how the world works sometimes.  La La Land won the Audience Award at the prestigious Toronto Film Festival back in September and is sure to be nominated for a slew of Oscars next month.  We have the benefit of hindsight but you still have to question the vision of studio heads who all turned down Chazelle’s project.  If not for the success of Whiplash, this script would still be sitting in Chazelle’s bottom drawer.

As for the premises, Mia (Stone) works at a café located on the Warner Bros. studio in Los Angeles.  It’s a job she hopes is temporary.  The huge poster of Grace Kelly on her bedroom wall provides more than enough insight into Mia’s hopes and dreams.  She fell in love with moves as a young child and has wanted to be an actress ever since.  Despite an obvious talent and numerous auditions, she just can’t get her foot in the door.

Sebastian (Gosling) has lofty goals himself but they’re related to a different artistic craft.  A gifted pianist and songwriter, Sebastian wants to buy and run his own jazz club.  His problem is money, or the lack thereof.  He drives in an uninsured car and he’s accepted a small, unfulfilling job in a restaurant just so he can pay his other bills.  He articulately describes his situation by telling his sister (DeWitt) that “I’m letting life hit me until it gets tired.”

Mia and Sebastian meet in serendipitous circumstances and a relationship ensues.  The first two acts are all very light and charming and you could argue that they’re designed for the cheesy romantics among us.  However, the film’s tone shifts in the final half-hour and it’s here where the film makes its impact.  Damien Chazelle has something to say about the choices we make in life and the directions they take us in (without giving too much away).

Lovers of classic musicals are likely to be drawn to the material.  Chazelle admits to being influenced by films such as the Palm D’or winning The Umbrellas of Cherbourg (1964).  La La Land opens with two big, bright dance numbers but what follows is a little more nuanced.  There are moments when dialogue takes a back seat and the beautiful music of composter Justin Hurwitz controls the mood.  In contrast, there are emotional conversations where no soundtrack is required at all.  The simple sound of the needle on a record player as it reaches its climax is all that’s needed.

The film isn’t without its weaknesses.  It’s a relatively simple storyline that goes through several lulls before its powerful epilogue.  Mia and Sebastian share fleeting discussions with supporting characters that are rushed to the point of being superfluous.  Examples include scenes with Rosemarie DeWitt (as Sebastian’s sister) and Finn Wittrock (as Mia’s boyfriend).

La La Land still amazes from a technical perspective.  The use of lighting and music is pin point.  Parts of the film are heavily edited to get the blood pumping (like the opening song) whereas others require no editing at all (such as a single-shot dance number atop a hill overlooking Los Angeles).  The casting of Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling is perhaps the film’s strongest element.  It’s the third time they’ve worked together on screen and the chemistry is evident.

Easy on the eyes and tough on the heart, La La Land is a film I could watch again and again.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 14 November 2016

A lot has been said and written about the recent Federal election here in Australia and the Presidential election in the United States.  Many issues have been discussed and, judging by the number of posts on my Facebook and Twitter feeds, there are a seemingly endless number of viewpoints.  It’s often hard to dig through the detail and form an opinion of your own.  Adding to the complexity are lies that are told, facts that are concealed, and data that is poorly analysed.

I, Daniel Blake takes a complex issue and breaks it down into its simplest form – by putting you in someone else’s shoes and asking you to think about it.  The film begins by introducing us to 59-year-old Daniel Blake (Johns), a widower with no children who lives in a small apartment in Newcastle (the one in England).  He has spent close to 40 years working as a carpenter but recently suffered a heart attack on the job.  Doctors and specialists have provided him with medication and ordered him to rest for several months before returning to work.

The film’s opening scene has Daniel interacting with a contracted “health care professional” at the British welfare office.  They are running through a formal checklist of questions to determine if he is eligible to receive welfare payments from the government.  A few days later, a letter arrives in the mail with a negative response.  They have ignored the doctor’s assessment and declared him fit for work.  He tries to contact the welfare office’s help line but after waiting two hours to speak with someone, that too amounts to nought.

This is a sad tale about a man who needs help but lives in a world where support is not forthcoming.  Daniel is a self-described “dog with a bone” who refuses to accept defeat but he’s stuck in an endless loop of beurocracy and “red tape”.  He can’t appeal until he receives a phone call from the “Decision Maker”.  He can’t get unemployment benefits in the interim until he completes an online form (he doesn’t know how to use a computer) and agree to conditions he cannot meet given his health issues.

While waiting at the welfare office, he befriends Katie (Squires), a single mother in an even worse financial situation.  Her case officer is threatening to withhold her unemployment benefits because she did not arrive on time for her appointment.  There was a valid reason for her lateness but it counts for nothing – the rules are the rules.  Katie is desperate to work but cannot find a job.  She forgoes dinner some nights because she can only afford enough food to feed her two young children.

Some might describe this as the comedy of the year.  There were plenty of laughs at the preview screening I attended.  Let’s be honest though – there shouldn’t be any humour in this situation but it’s hard to react differently given its sheer absurdity.  Daniel and Katie aren’t treated like people.  They are numbers is a system.  When a welfare officer considers going outside the rules and helping Daniel, she is immediately shut down by her superior.  You have to ask yourself the question – is this really what we want as society?

Directed by 80-year-old Ken Loach (The Wind That Shakes the Barley), I, Daniel Blake took home one of cinema’s most coveted prizes – the Palm D’or at the 2016 Cannes Film Festival.  It’s easy to see why the jury, headed by Australian George Miller, was moved by this great piece of cinema.  The leading performances from Dave Johns and Hayley Squires are outstanding.  They’ve created two ordinary, every-day characters that are well-intentioned and are passionately trying to make ends meet.  A lot of people will be able to relate.

Cinema has the power to open our eyes to the world’s issues and offer a path forward if we’re willing to take it.  I, Daniel Blake is a great example and should not be missed.

You can read my chat with star Dave Johns by clicking here.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 05 December 2016

Released in 2004, House of Sand and Fog showed that life often throws up situations where there are no winners.  Jennifer Connolly played a struggling woman from San Francisco who had her house mistakenly repossessed by the government.  Ben Kingsley played an Iranian immigrant who subsequently bought it as a home for his family.  Neither side had done anything wrong but they found themselves in a tragic tug-of-war for the property when the government realised its mistake.  It was one of my favourite movies of that year.

That film and its messages sprang to mind when watching Little Men, the latest from American director Ira Sachs (Love is Strange).  Brian (Kinnear) and Kathy (Ehle) are a long-married couple who are battling to make ends meet.  He’s earning next-to-no income while pursuing an acting career and she’s just getting by as a physiotherapist.  They have a 13-year-old son, Jake (Taplitz) who shows a healthy interest in the arts but has trouble making friends at school.

Their economic situation improves considerably when Brian’s father passes away.  The will prescribes that title to his small Brooklyn apartment be split equally between Brian and his sister.  Brian and his family move into home in the short term to avoid having to pay rent back in Manhattan.  Jake is the most affected by the transition who now must adjust to a new school.

The apartment contains a downstairs tenancy that is occupied by Leonor (Garcia), a single mother with a 13-year-old son of her own, Tony (Barbieri).  She operates a small dress shop and makes a small profit only because of the peppercorn rent granted by Brian’s father.  Jake and Tony quickly become best friends and they spend an endless number of hours playing computer games and talking about girls.

Their friendship will be put to the test when a dispute develops between their parents.  Brian needs to sell the apartment so that he can split the proceeds with his sister (who also needs the money).  However, that involves terminating Leonor’s current tenancy and charging a “market rate” as to ensure the property retains its value.  This would immediately put her out of business and she protests strongly that it’s not what Brian’s late father would have wanted.

Shot on a budget of just $2 million, it is simple, moving stories like these which have struggled to find a place in Australian cinemas over the past few years.  Low budget independent films are now more likely to go straight to DVD/download because they don’t have the marketing budget (nor place in cinemas) to compete against the big blockbusters.  It’s nice to see Little Men bucking the trend and getting a release, albeit a small one.

It’s a well-told tale that comes together nicely in the last half-hour.  None of the performances are overplayed.  The adults are sympathetic towards others but realise that their own needs have to come before others.  The kids find themselves trapped in the middle where their mix of innocence and naivety serves as both a strength and a weakness.  The finale is a good fit for the material and the closing scene (set a little bit into the future) provides an important moment of reflection.