Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 18 April 2016

When asked about my favourite sporting movies, one of the first that comes to mind is Rudy.  The 1993 drama told the true story of Daniel ‘Rudy’ Ruettiger who dreamed of playing college football for the University of Notre Dame.  It would take too long to detail the huge adversity that he had to overcome.  After years of hard work and perseverance, he was finally given a few seconds on the field during the final game of the season in his final year at college.

Part of the reason that the film has stuck with me is that it’s not a movie about a team or a player that reaches the top of their sport.  Rudy was not the best.  He was never going to be the best.  It stop him from trying though.  He had a love for the game that could not be quashed.  If you haven’t seen the film, do your best to track it down.  It also features a powerful and inspiring film score from the late Jerry Goldsmith.

The reason I refer to the tale of Rudy is that is has parallels with Eddie The Eagle.  One of my first Olympic memories is from the 1988 Winter Olympics in Calgary and the publicity generated by Michael “Eddie” Edwards, a 20-something-year-old ski jumper from Cheltenham, England.  The country wasn’t known for their prowess in ski jumping.  In fact, they conducted no trials and Edwards was the first ski jumper to ever represent Great Britain. 

The film culminates with the Games in Calgary but there’s a lot of material to cover in the lead up.  We see in the early scenes that Eddie has a single dream that dominates his life.  Most athletes pick a sport and then strive to compete at an Olympic level.  Eddie took the reverse approach.  He knew he wanted to represent his country at the Olympics… he just had to find a sport first.

There was no shortage of people trying to stop him.  Eddie still lived at home with his parents and his father wanted him to follow in his footsteps and earn a regular living as a plasterer.  The British Olympic Association didn’t want to use taxpayer dollars to fund an athlete with zero chance of winning a medal.  Fellow ski jumpers saw Eddie as a laughing stock and were concerned that he would direct attention away from elite ski jumpers who had spent years training for the event.

All of those groups had a point but it’s clear that director Dexter Fletcher (Sunshine on Leith) wants audiences to fall in love with Eddie and his “never give up” attitude.  The tone of the film is light and it chooses not to shine a harsh spotlight on Eddie and his motivations.

Eddie’s only major supporter in the movie is Bronson Peary (Jackman), a former ski jump champion who threw his career away and is now a washed up alcoholic looking for redemption.  He reluctantly takes Eddie under his wing and becomes his coach.  You may be disappointed to learn that no such character existed.  The writers have tried to craft the ultimate crowd-pleaser but they’ve got a few steps too far.  Some parts feel unbalanced and don’t ring true.

I’m a fan of Taron Edgerton (Kingsman: The Secret Service) and he’s commendable in the lead role.  He’s created a likeable character who looks and sounds very much like the real Eddie Edwards.  You may cringe at some of the cheesy dialogue but you can see Edgerton and Hugh Jackman are giving it their best shot.  Oscar winner Christopher Walken makes a brief cameo but his confusing subplot adds little-to-no value.

It turns out there was no shortage of material that came out of the 1988 Winter Olympics.  It was at the same time when a group of Jamaicans found fame while competing in the bobsled competition.  Their tale was chronicled in 1993’s Cool Runnings when even the ending was changed to help make it more audience friendly!  Two decades have passed by the same adage applies – never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 23 March 2016

There were a few tiffs between the superheros in The Avengers franchise but we haven’t seen anything on this scale before.  The title sums it up quite clearly.  For those that saw 2013’s Man Of Steel, it ended with Superman (Cavill) taking on the villainous General Zod who was intent on obliterating the planet.  People got killed, buildings got destroyed but in the end, Superman emerged the victor.

The opening scenes of this sequel relive those moments through the eyes of Bruce Wayne (Affleck).  He was caught unawares and never got the chance to don his Batman costume and get involved in the battle.  All he did was help save a friend who found his legs trapped under a heavy iron beam.

Superman’s methods weren’t flawless but let’s cut to the chase – he saved the world.  Without him, the human race would be gone, finished and kaput.  For some odd reason though, Batman sees him as a threat.  He’s worried that as Superman has such incredible power, there’s a risk he could turn bad himself one day and destroy us all.

It turns out the feeling is mutual.  Superman sees Batman as being “above the law”.  Instead of letting the justice system do its work, he believes that the masked crime fighter is dishing out his own brand of punishment to those who deserve it.  Why can’t we all just get along, huh?

The conflict between the title characters is really, really hard to buy into and the screenplay drags it out as long as possible.  In the rare moments where they come face-to-face, each misses a simple opportunity to clear the air and set the record straight.  Their respective “advisers” offer little in the way of counsel.  Alfred Pennyworth (Irons) makes the occasional sarcastic comment as he walks around Batman’s lair.  Louis Lane (Adams) is juggling a million other balls in the air.

There is an actual “bad guy” in the film and it’s a name you should have heard before – Lex Luthor.  He’s the most interesting character in the film with Jesse Eisenberg giving a great performance.  His mannerisms and nonsensical mutters are proof that the guy is both a gifted genius and a deranged psychopath.  He’s got heinous plans of his own but they play second fiddle to the Batman v Superman show for the most part.

This is a puzzling mess of a film.  There are plenty of subplots but they don’t fit together very well.  Holly Hunter plays a U.S. Senator who is asking questions about the risks of unfettered power.  Laurence Fishburne plays a newspaper editor who is influencing public debate about superheroes through his publication.  They’re interesting concepts but they play second fiddle to the tiring, relentless action sequences.

There are a couple of nice twists and a few teases as to what awaits in future instalments of this franchise.  That’s not good enough however.  It’s hard to generate tension when watching Batman and Superman fight and squabble for roughly 150 minutes.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 14 April 2016

As a huge fan of The Simpsons, I remember the episode in series 8 where Mr Burns goes broke.  He moves in with Smithers, turns to Lisa for help, starts doing work for the community, and quickly regains his fortune.  Well, that’s almost the exact same premise for the new Melissa McCarthy movie, The Boss.

The film is quick is portray her character, Michelle Darnell, as a business tycoon with no interest in anyone else but herself.  She’s the 47^th most wealthy woman in the United States and she proclaims that she’s so wealthy, that she paid for Destiny’s Child to get back together only so she could split them up again.

Her ego is as big as her bank balance.  On the wall behind her office desk is a giant painting of herself surrounded by magazine covers that also feature her image.  When her loyal assistant (Bell) asks for a raise, she uses a litany of excuses to avoid the subject.  It’s not that she can’t afford it.  It’s just that she’s a jerk.

Lo and behold, all is lost when Michelle is found guilty of insider trading.  She was dobbed in by a man (Dinklage) who was once her lover but is now a business rival.  She spends 4 months in a low-security prison and on being released, finds all her assets either taken or frozen.  She doesn’t even have a home to live in.

No one is willing to lend a helping hand.  It’s no surprise given her cruel nature.  It falls upon her assistant, Claire, to offer a place in her home on an old sofa bed.  In return, she has to help out around the house.  That includes taking Claire’s daughter, Rachel (Anderson), to a Dandelions meeting (it’s a kind of scout thing).

It’s here where the light bulbs switch on and Michelle realises how she can reinvigorate herself.  The Dandelion girls sell cookies but the product is terrible, the margins are poor, and very little funding is raised.  She pulls together her own group of teenage girls and gets them selling delicious brownies using dubious sales techniques.  She takes a cut, the girls take a cut, and the profits can be put to a good use.

Melissa McCarthy has a decent strike rate when it comes to comedy.  She earned an Academy Award nomination for Bridesmaids and followed that up with hilarious performances in films such as The Heat and Spy.

Most would regard this as a failure though.  The writers, including McCarthy, have failed to create conflict or tension that feels credible.  As an example, there’s a scene where Michelle and her crew get involved in a street fight.  It doesn’t make a lot of sense given these girls are well-tempered either side of this sequence. 

Further, the screenplay tries too hard to have us sympathise with Michelle because of her difficult upbringing.  By that I mean she was raised in an orphanage and was rejected by several groups of parents (this is all covered in the first 2 minutes).  It’s tough to swallow given how awful she is throughout much of the film.  I won’t spoil the finale but that itself is too over-the-top ridiculous.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 20 March 2016

Pantelleria is a small volcanic island off the south west coast of Italy.  It has a population of just 7,000 people and is home to a nature reserve and a large lake that was formed from a volcanic crater.  It’s not your typical holiday destination but it’s where rock star Marianne Lane (Swinton) finds herself.  Having recently undergone vocal cord surgery, she needed to find a peaceful place where she could keep a low profile and recuperate.

The opening 5 minutes of the film doesn’t feature a single ounce of dialogue.  You wouldn’t expect it either given that Marianne can’t talk.  She’s driving around and lying on the beach with her current partner, Paul (Schoenaerts).  That all changes with arrival of Harry (Fiennes), Marianne’s ex-boyfriend who turns up unexpectedly with a young woman named Penelope (Johnson) who he claims is his long-lost daughter.

Loosely based on the Swimming Pool, a 1969 French-Italian film, director Luca Guadagnino admits he was interesting in the story because it featured “a quartet of people entangled in their own nostalgic desire for one another.”  That’s not a bad way of describing it.

Harry is certainly the catalyst.  He never shuts up and he’s continually changing the subject matter.  He regrets losing Marianne several years ago and he’s determined to win back her affections.  He cunningly reminds her of their great times together and he’s quick to paint Paul as being a boring, sleepy individual who doesn’t fit her personality.  He’s not subtle in the slightest.

Where will it all head?  Paul realises that Harry is a threat but he’s being careful not to lose his cool and retaliate.  Marianne is starting to have a few doubts but her inability to speak makes it difficult to communicate with both her suitors.  The big mystery in this equation is Penelope.  She comes across at the naive pawn but she too knows how to play a few mind games.

In the same vein as Guadagnino’s breakout film, I Am Love (which made my top 10 list in 2010), A Bigger Splash is rich when it comes to visual imagery.  The character’s eyes start to wander and so too does the zooming camera lens.  There are many tight close-ups of body parts including torsos, feet and teeth.  There’s also an abundance of full frontal nudity which you wouldn’t expect if this was made in America.

There’s a series of short flashbacks which hinder the narrative.  They don’t offer enough in terms of background information and only reiterate what we can already see from the current day storyline (i.e. Harry and Marianne once had a strong connection).  The performances make this worthwhile though.  It’s a curious piece and you’re never quite sure which characters have the upper hand.  It makes the ending even more intriguing.

You can read my chat with director Luca Guadagnino by clicking here.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 14 April 2016

Cinema managers and film commentators are generally astute when it comes to box-office predictions but most were caught off guard by the success of Mrs. Carey’s Concert in 2011.  Focusing on the efforts of a high school musical teacher to organise a concert at the Sydney Opera House, the documentary made more than $1m and screened in Australian cinemas for more than 3 months.  That take was fuelled largely by positive word-of-mouth.

Those behind Wide Open Sky can only hope for an equally impressive result.  They’ve certainly followed in the same footsteps.  As we are told during the opening credits, Michelle Leonard is a music conductor who travels to rural schools across New South Wales and auditions more than 2,000 children for her Moorambilla Voices Choir.  Less than 10% will be chosen to perform at a season-ending concert in Coonamble.

It’s clear that Michelle isn’t doing this for fame and fortune.  The concert itself generates next-to-no revenue.  There’s no competition to win and there’s no lavish tour around Australia.  She simply wants to expose remote and disadvantaged kids to the world of music.  It’s as if the further you travel from capital cities, the harder it is for them to get such exposure.

Michelle’s other major motivation is get kids together and to build friendships.  In the lead up to the concert, a group of passionate volunteers help organise a 3-day training camp.  For many of the children, it’s their first time away from home – something that is both exciting and nerve wracking.  A lot of work goes on behind the scenes to make the experience as memorable as possible.

We hear from Michelle throughout the film but director Lisa Nicol makes the right decision to let the children do most of the talking.  It’s so cute to watch them audition and seeing them discover their talents.  When interviewed on camera, they come across as confident and honest.  Some of their responses are hilarious.  Other responses are quite touching.  As an example, Mack is a 13-year-old boy who talks about his struggles to make friends because he likes singing and dancing more than rugby league.

There’s not quite enough material to stretch this out to a full 90 minutes but Wide Open Sky is still a warm-hearted documentary that highlights the importance of artistic pursuits.  Schools struggle to find the time and funding to give them the attention they deserves.  The skills generated from these activities are also overlooked.  I don’t expect this film to “change the landscape” in Australia but it will hopefully get audiences thinking about the subject matter.