Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 17 May 2015

In George Clooney’s The Monuments Men, released early last year, a group of American soldiers were prepared to risk their lives so as to recover famous works of art that had been stolen by the Nazis during World War II.  It wasn’t the greatest of films… but it said something about the value we place on historical art in today’s society.  Roughly 10 million people flock to the Lourve Museum in Paris each year so as to get a small glimpse into the past.

Woman In Gold taps into similar themes in telling the true story of Maria Altmann (played in the film by Helen Mirren).  Altmann was born in Austria and raised of wealthy Jewish parents but was forced to flee the country after the Germans took control in 1938.  She eventually settled in the United States where she lived with her husband and operated a small clothing business.

In the late 1990s, the Austrian government passed legislation that allowed art works stolen during the Nazi occupation to be returned to their rightful owners.  Altmann, now in her early 80s, saw it as opportunity to reclaim a portrait of her aunt that had been painted by the acclaimed Gustav Klimt and taken by the Nazis from her home in Vienna. Her reasons were twofold.  Firstly, she wanted to use the painting to keep alive the memory of her beloved aunt (who passed away when Altmann was only a child).  Secondly, she wanted justice.

Helping Altmann was a budding lawyer based in Los Angeles named Randol Schoenberg.  Played by Ryan Reynolds, Schoenberg is from the textbook of young movie lawyers.  He’s struggling to find work, he’s in need of cash, and he’s horribly inexperienced.  When asked by Altmann what he knows about art restitution, Schoenberg’s answer is “not a thing.”

He’s only taken the case because he can see huge dollar signs at the finish line.  A quick internet search shows Schoenberg that Klimt’s painting, known as Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I, is housed at the Belvedere Palace in Vienna and is valued in excess of $100 million.  A journalist (Bruhl) describes it to him as “the Mona Lisa of Austria”.

Suffice to say that the Austrian government aren’t going to hand it over without a fight.  It turns out the art restitution legislation was just a “PR exercise” and they’re going use their own high-profile lawyers to thwart Altmann’s efforts and ensure the painting remains in Austrian hands.

Directed by Englishman Simon Curtis (My Week With Marilyn), Woman In Gold is a film of two halves.  The first hour provides context through lengthy flashbacks.  We are introduced to the younger Altmann, view her life in Vienna, and understand why she is so attached to her aunt’s portrait.  The second hour follows her current day legal dramas and involves a trip to the United States Supreme Court.

Like last week’s A Royal Night Out, the film is framed as a crowd pleaser.  Mirren portrays Altmann as both stubborn and demanding… but in a way that audiences will still find funny and endearing (her age helps).  Unfortunately, the screenplay doesn’t ask tough enough questions of her character.  Her “revenge against the Nazis” mantra can only stretch so far.  Was she ever motivated by money?  Why did she not seek other, not-so-valuable paintings that were stolen?  Did she ever consider the importance of the portrait to the current day population of Austria?

On the whole, it’s an interesting premise but many of the subplots are rushed.  Schoenberg is the most troublesome character in this regard.  There’s a moment where he continues legal action despite the wishes of Altmann.  Was he still driven by a lucrative commission at that point?  Or had his trip to Vienna flipped his moral position?  I had no idea.  His unassisted progression through the courts was also tough to believe.

The film’s 1930s narrative resonates much more strongly.  It’s hard not to feel sympathy for the younger Altmann as she makes the difficult decision to flee Austria.  There’s a particularly moving scene where she says good-bye to her parents for the final time.  If only the rest of the movie felt this authentic.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 04 May 2015

As a quick refresh, Pitch Perfect followed a college a cappella group, known as the Barden Bellas, who reinvigorated themselves to win the national championships.  As we learn in the opening sequence of Pitch Perfect 2, that success has been short lived.  Performing on stage in front of President Obama at the Kennedy Centre, the Bellas become international news when Fat Amy’s leotard splits open.  The incident is quickly dubbed “muffgate”.

The national body are worried about fallout from sponsors and so they take firm action.  The Bellas are officially suspended from all future a cappella performances on their around the country tour.  They will be replaced by Das Sound Machine – the cocky, arrogant champions from Germany who look like they belong as villains in a James Bond movie. 

There’s a loophole however.  The competition handbook prescribes that as the reigning United States champions, the Bellas are entitled to perform at the world titles in Copenhagen.  If they become the first American team to win the coveted competition, the ban will be lifted and everyone will live happily ever after.

The first film, released back in 2012, was hugely entertaining.  Writer Kay Cannon introduced us to an eclectic cast who all provided plenty of laughs.  Unfortunately, Cannon has played it far too safe with this follow up.  It’s the same characters delivering the same types of jokes.  Lilly is the quiet one, Chloe is the dumb one, Fat Amy is the offensive one, and Becca is the creative one.  There’s just a single addition to the ensemble – the underutilised Emily played by Oscar nominee Hailee Steinfeld (True Grit).

With a limited, Step Up-like storyline and not much to add in the way of character development, the film uses music to fill the remainder of the two hour running time.  It offers an expansive soundtrack that includes modern day songs associated with Miley Cyrus, Destiny’s Child, Beyoncé and Jessie J.  Many of these are used in an odd subplot that sees the Bellas invited to a “sing off” against teams including the Green Bay Packers at the home of an a cappella devotee (played by comedian David Cross).

Director Jason Moore didn’t return for this sequel (he’s off making a better looking comedy with Amy Poehler and Tina Fey).  That’s given actor Elizabeth Banks (The Hunger Games) the chance to direct her first feature film.  She also gets to reprise her role as an a cappella commentary alongside her sexist male counterpart (played by John Michael Higgins).  He describes the contests as being “for girls too ugly to be cheerleaders”.

Heavy on music and light on story, Pitch Perfect 2 lacks the creativity that made the original so much fun.

You can read my chat with vocal director Deke Sharon by clicking here.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 14 May 2015

I usually take notes when I’m reviewing a film.  I try to jot down details about the characters, information about the plot, and a few memorable quotes.  Thirty minutes into Mad Max: Fury Road, I looked down at my notebook and realised that I hadn’t written a thing.  This wasn’t because the film was terrible.  It was because it’s a film that most of its work through visuals as opposed to spoken words.

The story is set in a futuristic, apocalyptic-type world where the two most important commodities are water and oil.  Both can be found at the Citadel but its residents are deprived access by the town’s ruling dictator, Immortan Joe (Keays-Byrne).  He’s a hideous, repulsive individual who treats women in a shocking fashion.

The original Mad Max, released more than 35 years ago, has become one of Australia’s most well-known films.  Writer-director George Miller could have fallen in to the trap of making a safe, unadventurous remake but instead, he takes a chance and shifts the focus onto its female characters.

The film begins with Imperator Furiosa (Theron) rescuing a group of abused women from Citadel and fleeing in a huge, purpose-built oil truck.  Joined by a nameless man (Hardy), they head across the desert and go in search of the “green” lands that can offer water, protection and freedom.  They are pursued by Immortan Joe and his army of soldiers who won’t go down without a fight.

The general formula with a Hollywood-style action movie is to include 3-4 keynote battle scenes and then use the gaps in between to develop the characters and flesh out the story.  That’s not the case here.  Miller begins with a well-choreographed chase sequence that never really stops.  Except for a handful of very short detours, this is two hours of unrelenting warfare.  In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever seen an action film with less dialogue.

It may sound tiresome but the reality is anything but.  Many action flicks are over-edited to the point where you’re not sure what’s going on and who’s fighting who.  Using a seamless mix of stunts and special effects, Miller has crafted some brilliant scenes that look like they were shot in a single take (using about 50 cameras of course).  It’s intense… but it’s also easy to follow.   

Mad Max: Fury Road was to be shot in Broken Hill back in 2011 but flooding rains ruined the desert-like landscape and so the production had to be shifted to Namibia on the west coast of Africa.  It turned out to be an amazing location that is exploited to its full potential by Queensland-born cinematographer John Seale (Rainman, The English Patient).   Also deserving credit is Dutch composer Junkie XL for his strong but not-over-the-top film score.

Plans are afoot for further sequels but whether they progress will depend on the box-office success of Fury Road.  As one of the more creative action films that we’ve seen in recent years, I’m hoping the word of mouth spreads widely and quickly.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 04 May 2015

The opening scene in Ex Machina is reminiscent of Roald Dahl’s Charlie & The Chocolate Factory.  A young computer programmer named Caleb (Gleeson) works for a huge technology company similar to Google.  He is the sole winner of a lucrative office lottery that will give him the chance to meet the company’s CEO, Nathan Bateman (Isaac).

It’s actually a bigger deal than you may think.  Nathan may be ridiculously wealthy and incredibly powerful… but he is also a recluse.  He is seldom seen in public and his home, which also serves as his research facility, is hidden at the bottom of an expansive mountain range (which he just so happens to own).

As most would be in the same situation, Caleb is both nervous and intrigued when they first meet.  What questions do you ask someone who is a proven genius?  At the same time, he’s curious as to why Nathan lives such a secretive life and what projects he’s been working on.  Caleb’s inquisitive nature is further heightened when Nathan asks him to sign a complex non-disclosure agreement.

 It’s not long before Nathan spills the beans and reveals that he’s created a robot with artificial intelligence.  Over the course of the next week, he asks that Caleb interact with the robot, known as Ava (Vikander), and see if it passes the “Turing test”.  Named after the acclaimed computer scientist Alan Turing (see The Imitation Game), the test is passed if the robot’s actions cannot be distinguished from those of a human.

With the stage set, Ex Machina takes on the elements of an uncomfortable thriller.  Caleb develops an attachment to the robot but the whole situation leaves him hesitant.  Why is Ava trying so hard to win his affections?  Is it because she can think for herself and likes him as a person?  Or has she simply been programmed to match his preferred personality traits?  Who is the one being tested here – Ava or Nathan?

The film marks the directorial debut of Englishman Alex Garland.  He’s no stranger to the industry though having forged a successful career as a writer.  His credits include The Beach (he also wrote the novel), 28 Days Later, Sunshine and Never Let Me Go.  Ex Machina is a challenging project that most budding filmmakers would love to sink their teeth into.  It’s like many low-budget horror films in the sense that you have to hook the audience using a small cast and a single location.

I like the approach, I like the style, and I like the message the film is trying to impart.  It’s more than just a mystery.  Garland does have a something to say.  Unfortunately, the screenplay feels too manufactured in its efforts to reach the aforementioned conclusion.  Things fit together too neatly and characters act in a way that belies their intelligence.  The more you think about it, the less sense it makes.

Swedish born Alicia Vikander delivers the film’s standout performance as the robot Ava.  It’s as if she’s running her own “Turing test” on the audience and trying to make you sympathise with her character.  Having made a name for herself in historical dramas such as A Royal Affair, Anna Karenina and Testament Of Youth, it’s great to see Vikander expanding her resume and dipping her toes into the science fiction genre.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 11 May 2015

After days of speculation, Prime Minister Winston Churchill took to the airwaves on 7 May 1945 and announced the end of World War II in Europe.  He declared that the following day would be a national holiday and would be known as Victory in Europe Day.  Huge crowds took to the streets of London to celebrate and amongst them were the two heirs to the British throne – Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret.

Not a lot is known about the future Queen’s actions on that night.  Her official diary summed it up in just 24 words – “PM announced unconditional surrender.  Sixteen of us went out in the crowd, cheered parents up on the balcony.  Up St J’s, Piccadilly, great fun.”  With little factual information to guide them, writers Kevin Hood (Becoming Jane) and Trevor De Silva have crafted a fictional tale that follows Elizabeth and Margaret as they escape their parents’ tight clutches and have, as the title promises, a royal night out.

This is a light, feel good comedy and it’s obvious from the early scenes that it’s not intended to be a historical drama.  The King and Queen have concerns about letting their daughters leave Buckingham Palace and so the Queen quietly organises for them to be chaperoned by two upstanding British soldiers.  In a sequence resembling a Benny Hill skit, the soldiers meet a group of women, head upstairs for a quick “rendezvous”, and lose contact with the two princesses.

The film isn’t afraid to poke fun at the royal family either.  Margaret (Powley) comes off as the cheeky, promiscuous one who doesn’t mind a few drinks.  There’s one scene where she unknowingly ends up in a brothel!  Elizabeth (Gadon) is more responsible but she has no idea about life outside of the palace.  She doesn’t have money to pay for a bus fare.  She’s doesn’t know how to find the bathrooms in a pub.

Two other subplots receive a fair chunk of screen time.  The first involves the King and Queen – played by the experienced Rupert Everett and Emily Watson.  The King is drafting a speech to the nation and is stressing about how it will be received.  The second involves Jack (Reynor) – a soldier who has gone AWOL and is thinking about fleeing to the United States.  He meets Elizabeth on the aforementioned bus and it’s here where the writers offer a splash of romance.

It’s a crowd pleaser but I didn’t think much of A Royal Night Out.  The comedic moments are too far-fetched and most characters come across as bumbling fools.  The on-again, off-again friendship between Elizabeth and Jack also gets tired quickly.  They fight, they split, they bump into each other, and the process keeps repeating.  They’re not very good at professing their feelings either.  There’s a moment on a boat where the dialogue feels particularly stuffy and scripted.

With the light tone and jazzy music, the more serious elements involving the insecure King and the fussing Queen seem out of place.  There’s an odd scene where Rupert Everett looks out of a palace window and laments that “things are getting out of hand”.  What exactly was he expecting?  Could his people not celebrate after such a brutal war?  Colin Firth gave the character much more depth with his Oscar winning performance in The King’s Speech.

Director Julian Jarrold (Kinky Boots) makes great use of landmarks such as Trafalgar Square to help recreate the era.  Archival footage is also used to nice effect before the opening titles.  Unfortunately, the strong production values are not enough to save what is a muddled, forgettable comedy.