Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 08 February 2015

Biopics are featuring strongly this awards season.  The Imitation Game told the story of cryptanalyst Alan Turing.  The Theory Of Everything centred on famous cosmologist Stephen Hawking and his first wife, Jane.  American Sniper took us inside the world of the Navy SEAL Chris Kyle.

Selma may have only just snuck into the best picture category for the upcoming Academy Awards (it has only one other nomination) but it’s superior to the three abovementioned films.  Its focus is a lot narrower too.  Instead of trying to condense Martin Luther King’s whole life into a single movie, writer Paul Webb and director Ava DuVernay have concentrated their attention on events that took place in Selma, Alabama in early 1965.

Many believed the passing of the Civil Rights Act in 1964 would end segregation but the African American citizens of Selma were continually being thwarted by local government officials in their efforts to become registered voters.  There’s a scene early in the movie where King (played by David Oyelowo) sums up why the matter was so important.  Firstly, it would provide African Americans the power to vote out those officials who continually discriminated against their community.  Secondly, it would give them the right to serve on juries and help prevent black citizens from being falsely convinced by their “all white” peers.

The most fascinating element to this film is its exploration of tactics.  If I wanted to protest an issue today, I’m not going to achieve much by walking down a street and holding a simple placard.  King and his supporters knew that the best way of winning this battle was through the media – both newspapers and television.

Their strategy was to organise a series of peaceful protests featuring a few hundred marchers.  That itself wouldn’t make headline news.  The critical “catch” was that King hoped the police would retaliate with unwarranted violence.  It was a big reason why they’d picked Selma as a town.  The County Sheriff was known to act outside the law and Governor George Wallace (Roth) did little to stop him.

If images were to be broadcast across the nation of white state troopers attacking unarmed black men and women, it would expose the problem and create sympathy for the African American cause.  President Lyndon Johnson (Wilkinson) would be left with no choice but to introduce further legislation guaranteeing African Americans the right to vote.

Not everyone agreed on this approach.  The film makes time to illustrate the division and uncertainty that existed on both sides of the fence.  There were some African Americans who didn’t appreciate King barging into Selma and trying to take charge.  Back in Washington, President Johnson was sensitive towards their plight but as he wanted to focus on other issues, he quietly used the FBI to hinder King’s endeavours.

I’ve read a few “fact check” articles that have tried to discredit elements of the film (the most notable being the interaction between King and President Johnson).  Perhaps the film isn’t 100% accurate but I’d passionately argue it’s a lot more balanced than others in this year’s Oscars race.  It’s also not afraid to show King’s flaws.  Yes, he won the Nobel Peace Prize… but yes, he also cheated on his wife.

Skilfully directed by Ava DuVernay and featuring a wonderful leading performance from David Oyelowo, Selma pulls back the curtain on a riveting piece of U.S. history.  Just as importantly, it highlights the value that can be achieved from a successful, well-organised protest.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 26 January 2015

What do Kim Basinger, Hilary Swank, Catherine Zeta-Jones and Nicole Kidman have in common?  They’ve all prevented Julianne Moore from taking home a coveted 13 ½ inch gold plated statuette.  However, after two decades of great performances, it seems the “movie gods” are finally set to smile on Moore.  Having won a string of lead-up awards, she’s a ridiculously short priced favourite to win the Oscar next month for her lead performance in Still Alice.

The film centres on a 50-year-old woman who is battling the early stages of Alzheimer’s disease.  When we first meet Alice (Moore), we learn that she’s a highly regarded linguistics professor at Columbia University.  Her husband, John (Baldwin), is also a college professor and they have three children who have all moved out of home.

Alice is sharp enough to realise that something isn’t quite right with her memory.  She loses her train of thought while giving an important lecture.  She becomes disorientated while going out for a late afternoon jog.  Several trips to a specialist confirm Alice’s deep-seeded fears.  The indignity she soon feels is summed up in a comment to her husband – “I wish I had cancer.”

This film is about more than just feeling sad and sorrowful.  It’s provides an insightful look at how such a disease can affect the family dynamic.  Alice is told that Alzheimer’s is genetic and that there’s a 50/50 chance that each of her children will go through the same experience.  The moment she shares this news with her kids makes for tough viewing.  If you were in their shoes, would you want to know this?  Would then want to have a genetic test to know for sure?

The disease also puts a strain on John.  He wants to be there and support his wife… but there’s only so much time he can take off work (particularly since he is now the sole breadwinner).  When a lucrative job offer arises in another state, he’s left with a tough decision to make.  How much of his own life and career is he prepared to sacrifice?  When is the right time to get a live-in carer or perhaps even put Alice in a nursing home?

Julianne Moore is wonderfully good as Alice and her performance will bring a tear to many eyes.  As part of her four months of research, she met with not just those suffering from the disease but also researchers, clinicians and therapists who deal with it every day.  She wanted to create a credible character that depicts the effects of Alzheimer’s as accurately as possible.  Moore is helped by a great supporting cast that includes Alec Baldwin, Kristen Stewart, Kate Bosworth and Hunter Parrish.

Based on the novel by Lisa Genova, Still Alice has been brought to the screen by the writing-directing team of Richard Glatzer and Wash Westmoreland.  It’s a neat twist of fate that the film is being released in Australia on the same date as The Theory Of Everything.  Just like Stephen Hawking, Glatzer suffers from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).  He has lost the ability to speak and can no longer use his hands.  The only way he could communicate with the cast and crew was by typing on an iPad using his right toe.  The fact he was able to make such an affecting movie is inspiring.  There’s no other word for it.

It’s a shame the film itself hasn’t received more recognition during the awards season.  I’d argue that it’s a lot more balanced, engaging and moving than the likes of The Imitation Game and American Sniper.  Put it high on your “must see” list.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 04 February 2015

There are a lot of reasons why people gamble.  Some do it because they think they can win and get rich.  Others do it purely for the rush of adrenalin.  Some are trying to escape their problems.  Others do it out of sheer boredom.

In the case of Jim Bennett (Walhberg), the best explanation I can come up with is depression.  He’s a moderately paid English professor who only took the job because he couldn’t cut it as a writer.  He once had a novel published but it made him only $17,000 in royalties.  He lives alone, he has no girlfriend, he hates his mother and he has no interests.  If you catch him smiling, it’d be a very rare event.

Unsatisfied with seemingly every part of his life, Jim has become a gambling addict with a death wish.  He’s borrowed $260,000 from two gangsters and blown it on the blackjack tables in a matter of minutes.  They’ve given him 7 days to repay the loans but Jim doesn’t seem too fussed.  If he finds the cash, so be it.  If not, he’s happy enough to take what’s coming.

He’s an interesting character… but I can’t use that same adjective for the film itself.  There’s really not a lot to it.  We simply watch Jim going about his life and digging himself into a deeper hole with each passing day.  A love interest is introduced (Larson) but she’s never given enough screen time.  If she is the reason that he’s going to turn his life around, it’s hard to buy.

Martin Scorsese and Leonardo DiCaprio were reportedly interested in the project back in 2011 but after settling on something better (The Wolf Of Wall Street), it fell into the hands of director Rupert Wyatt (Rise Of The Planet Of The Apes) and Mark Wahlberg (The Fighter).  I liked the blasé personality that he brings to the character.  I just wish I understood a little more about what was going on inside his head.

After a heavy, slow-paced opening hour, Wyatt tries to brighten things up in the later stages.  Jim concocts an elaborate plan that could put him on the path to redemption.  Like so much of the film though, it doesn’t provide the “pay off” you might expect.   

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 25 January 2015

A college guy arrives at a party, looks across the room, and sees a beautiful young lady.  He finally summons the courage to speak with her but it’s an awkward exchange.  He’s nervous and can barely look at her in the eye.  His confidence slowly builds as the night finishes with the exchange of phone numbers.

It’s a somewhat unexpected opening to The Theory Of Everything – a two-hour drama that encompasses the life of the renowned British physicist and cosmologist Stephen Hawking (Redmayne).  Instead of concentrating on his many scientific achievements, which have already been well documented, the film focuses on his personal life and the relationship with his wife, Jane (Jones).  The story begins at the precise moment they first met – at a Cambridge party in 1963.

They were just an ordinary couple at first.  They spent time together, went on short trips, and chatted about meaningless things.  All of that changed when Hawking was diagnosed with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) at the age of 21.  Doctors estimated he had 2 years left in live and in that time, he’d lose the ability to walk, to speak and to eat.

Recently nominated for his first Academy Award, British actor Eddie Redmayne (Les Misérables) delivers a knockout performance as Stephen Hawking.  You get a strong sense of the suffering, both physical and mental, that his character had to endure.  This is highlighted in a powerful scene where he tries to climb up the staircase at home after a small dinner party.

I’d argue though that the more interesting character is Jane, played beautifully by Felicity Jones (Like Crazy).  The film asks an age-old question – how far would you go for the person you love?  Instead of giving us a fairy-tale style answer, The Theory Of Everything shows just how tough things were for Jane.  She had to give up her own career aspirations and become her husband’s full-time caregiver.

It’s a decision that would take its toll.  Jane opened her soul in a 1999 biography where she said that “it was becoming very difficult – unnatural, even – to feel desire for someone with the body of a Holocaust victim and the undeniable needs of an infant.”  She also had to grapple with Stephen’s rise in fame.  He was winning awards around the globe.  She was still feeding, bathing and dressing him each morning.

Director James Marsh will be more widely known for his work as a documentary filmmaker.  His credits include the brilliant Man On Wire (which won him an Oscar in 2009) and the highly acclaimed Project Nim.  The Theory Of Everything is a well-polished production that showcases the work of two crew members in particular – French cinematographer Benoît Delhomme (The Boy In Striped Pyjamas) and Icelandic composer Jóhann Jóhannsson (Prisoners).

Nominated for 5 Academy Awards including best picture, The Theory Of Everything provides both insight and comfort.  There are many ways to make a relationship work.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 03 February 2015

When it comes to making action films, English director Matthew Vaughn doesn’t like to take things too seriously.  Kick-Ass was about a shy, nerdish kid who took to the streets and tried to become a superhero (complete with a ridiculous green costume).  X-Men: First Class fabricated and put a lighter spin on the events behind the 1962 Cuban missile crisis.

Kingsman: The Secret Service follows in the same vein.  Drawing from a comic book series that was first published in 2012, Vaughn and co-writer Jane Goldman have created a light-hearted spy film that tries to offer something a little different from the heavier James Bond films with which we are all familiar.

It centres on a super-secret crime fighting organisation known as the Kingsman.  I’m not quite sure how the fund their elaborate headquarters but they operate outside the realms of the government (so that they can’t be interfered with).  They travel across the world, collate valuable intelligence information and yep, they kill a few bad guys.

Following the recent death of a Kingsman, the organisation is going through a recruitment phase.  A group of young men and women are being put through a series of high-pressure trials to see if they have the required physical strength and mental toughness to make it through.  The most unlikely of the candidates is Eggsy (Egerton) – a guy fresh out of high school who has had somewhat of a troubled upbringing.

There’s another story that runs concurrently through the film.  An experienced Kingsman, known by the codename of Galahad (Firth), is trying to find who is responsible for the death of a close friend.  It leads him to the home of Valentine (Jackson), an insanely wealthy telecommunications tycoon who has developed a sinister plan to solve the world’s climate change problem.

It’s not a full-on spoof like Austin Powers but Kingsman: The Secret Service is very aware of the clichéd world in which it operates.  It makes reference to other spies such as James Bond and Maxwell Smart.  It also throws in a few plot twists that you won’t find in the well-used “spy movie” textbook.  It’s invigorating to see a movie that takes a few chances.

There’s not a lot of coherence to the storyline.  If you think about it for more than a few seconds, you’ll realise that it makes even less sense than a traditional comic book adaptation.  There’s a method to the madness however.  The film culminates with a final half-hour that is so wonderfully absurd that it will leave many laughing loudly and repeatedly.

Kingsman: The Secret Service is quite violent and it pushes the boundaries of political correctness… but if you’re not upset by either of those attributes, you should find it a lot of fun.