Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 11 March 2014

If nothing else, The Monuments Men offers an interesting titbit of information concerning World War II that many won’t be familiar with. In late 1944, as the war neared its conclusion, President Franklin D. Roosevelt gave the order for roughly 350 soldiers to head into Europe and to recover a plethora of famous art works and statutes that had been stolen by the Nazis for Adolf Hitler’s private museum.

It’s impossible to give all of these men and women credit in a single movie and so this screenplay, written by George Clooney and Grant Heslov, focuses its attention on just 7 soldiers. Frank (Clooney) leads the group and tries to stay abreast of their respective missions. It’s his goal to make sure Michelangelo’s David keeps standing and that da Vinci’s Mona Lisa keeps smiling.

Of his small team, James (Damon) heads to Paris to gather information from an art curator (Blanchett) who worked for the Nazis. Richard (Murray) and Preston (Balaban) go in search of an iconic altarpiece stolen from a Belgian church. Donald (Bonneville) travels to Bruges to protect a famous statue. Walter (Goodman) and Jean Claude (Dujardin) head to the frontline to follow some important leads.

The tone of this film is surprisingly light. I should have expected this given the cast includes the likes of Bill Murray, John Goodman, Jean Dujardin and Bob Balaban. Their adventures allow plenty of room for humour (not all jokes hit the mark) and there’s a sweet film score from composer Alexandre Desplat (Moonrise Kingdom, Philomena).

There are a few moments that offer something a little more dramatic, more thought provoking. These 7 guys encounter fellow soldiers who can’t quite get their head around the mission. Why would they want to risk their lives to save a few pieces of art? What should their families be told if they get caught in the line of fire and don’t make it back home?

While it’s an interesting tale, the screenplay does feel like it has too many characters and too many subplots. Not only are we seeing things from the perspective of the soldiers, we are also taken inside the world of the Nazis to see what’s behind their art-stealing ways. Oh yeah, and there are some Russians with their own motivations.

The film ends on a nice note (with George Clooney’s real-life father playing an older version of his character) but you can’t help but think The Monuments Men should have made more of its great starting material.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 26 February 2014

Twenty years ago, Liam Neeson was nominated for an Academy Award for his portrayal of Oskar Schindler in Steven Spielberg’s masterpiece, Schindler’s List. He followed that with leading roles in films such as Nell, Rob Roy, Michael Collins and Les Misérables.

Few would have predicted his career path thereafter. The Liam Neeson that today’s audiences are familiar with is an action hero. After being “rediscovered” in 2008’s Taken, we’ve seen him in such films as Clash Of The Titans, The A-Team, Unknown, The Grey, Wrath Of The Titans and Battleship. It’s only a matter of time before someone pairs him up with Jason Statham for some super-dooper action thing.

In Non-Stop, Neeson plays Bill Marks – an alcoholic air marshal who has boarded what he believes will be routine flight from New York to London. That is until he gets a text message on his mobile phone. It’s from someone threatening to kill a passenger every 20 minutes unless $150 million is transferred into a nominated bank account. That’s a lot of money. I know I could live comfortably with 10% of that but hey, I’m not a crazy terrorist so who am I to second guess them.

Anyway, I like the set up. The entire film is set on the plane and it makes for a surprisingly suspenseful action thriller. It’s the pilot who says what we’re all thinking – “how do you kill someone on a crowded plane and get away with it?” It’s a good question and it’s one that will soon be answered. Several passengers end up dead and Bill can’t seem to put the pieces together. Things get even messier when the remaining passengers start airing their suspicions. They think it’s Bill who’s behind the murders…

Non-Stop held my attention for longer than I expected. It’s trash… but it’s still intriguing. We’re introduced to a lot of characters inside the first half hour and you’ll be speculating as to who is the culprit and what is their motivation (my early guesses were way off the mark). While it’s now a trademark role for Liam Neeson, he again deserves praise for creating another compelling, likeable protagonist.

There are problems with the finale. As tends to be the case with films of this nature, everything falls conveniently into place for the villain... until the very end when it call comes unstuck because of something quite trivial. That’s certainly the case here. It’s the kind of movie where the more you think about it, the less sense it makes.

While I’ve always believed that the best action-thrillers are those based on a realistic scenario, Non-Stop provides just enough entertainment to sneak through with a passing grade.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 05 March 2014

In the mid-1970s, most 27-year-old Australians would be settled on a career path and thinking about getting married (if not already). That wasn’t the case with Queensland-born Robyn Davidson. She was bored of the city life. She was tired of her generation. It was time to escape, time to go on an adventure, time to “discover” who she really was.

In 1977, she set out on a 2,700km trek from Alice Springs to the west coast of Australia. She was guided by a map, her loyal dog and four feisty camels. That’s it. Davidson didn’t want any company or any conversation. It’s something she wanted to do completely on her own.

It didn’t quite work out that way. While she’d have rather kept the whole thing quiet, Robyn needed money to buy the camels and supplies. She reluctantly approached National Geographic who saw potential in the story. They provided the cash and in return, Davidson agreed to write a feature article when it was all over. Further, a photographer would meet her at several checkpoints along the way to grab a few images.

It’s kind of ironic that what started out as a very private journey… has now become a tale that inspires so many. The article was a hit and Davidson became a media sensation. People wanted to meet her, speak to her. To answer all the questions and put the whole story to rest, she put pen to paper and in 1980, released the novel Tracks. It too became a hit and was read widely in Australian schools.

There’s been talk for decades about adapting the book for the big screen. In the early 1990s, a version was touted with Julia Roberts in the leading role! After numerous false starts, it finally fell in the hands of Oscar winning producer Emile Sherman (The King’s Speech) who enlisted an American director, John Curran (The Painted Veil), to turn the words into pictures.

Chosen to screen at the prestigious Venice and Toronto Film Festivals late last year, Tracks has now completed the festival circuit and is weaving its way into cinemas. Its first stop is here in Australian and it’s a nice touch that it’s been released on the same day as J.C. Chandor’s All Is Lost. Both films are low on dialogue and so you’ll have to watch and observe rather than listen.

I’m reminded of what 12 Years A Slave director Steve McQueen told me a few weeks ago – “What we say isn’t all that crucial. It’s what we do that provides the evidence”. It’s an apt way of describing Tracks. We don’t need a lot of narration from star Mia Wasikowska (Alice In Wonderland) to tell us how she feels and what’s she’s thinking. We can see it for ourselves through her great performance – mixing moments of toughness with moments of vulnerability.

The narrative is a touch sluggish, repetitive at times but there’s still a lot to like about Tracks. The best sequence in the film sees Davidson interact with an Indigenous elder (played by Roly Mintuma) who guides her through sacred lands. They don’t speak the same language but they quickly find a way of communicating.

Some will simply see this film as just “a thing that happened”. The hope is that others will connect with it a little more deeply. You’ll think about the rigidity that exists within today’s conformist world. Could you drop everything, ditch your smart phone and go on a year-long adventure? Would you come back a different person? Would you come back a better person? It’s at least worth the thought.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 25 February 2014

Gloria doesn’t contain a lot of story but it makes up for it with an abundance of character. I’m sure Chilean director Sebastián Lelio deserves his fair share of credit but the reason you’ll remember this film is because of the performance of star Paulina García. She won the best actress prize at the 2013 Berlin Festival and it’s easy to see why.

So let me do my best to describe Gloria. She’s fifty-something years of age and she’s been divorced for a decade. Her two children have moved out of home and she tries to catch up with them semi-regularly. She lives alone but she still likes to be social. In the film’s opening scene, we see her on the dance floor of a nightclub and trying to catch the attention of a particular guy.

The style of the film is somewhat fragmented. We zip between locations and get a glimpse of Gloria is each of those settings. It is then up to you to take in all of these observations and form your own conclusions about her. Is she happy? Is she lonely? Is she vulnerable? Is she just like you and me?

There’s one part of her life that is given more attention – her relationship with an ex-naval officer named Rodolfo (Hernández) who she also meets in a nightclub. The two are keen to spend time together… but there’s a catch. Rodolfo can’t seem to distance himself from his clingy ex-wife and his two unemployed daughters. It leaves Gloria unsure about their future and whether it’s a relationship she wants to fully invest in.

Having done the rounds at the Sydney and Melbourne Film Festivals last year, it’s nice to see Gloria getting a wider release here in Australia. I sense that some might be frustrated with the film’s lack of narrative momentum but it’s still an engaging character study that taps into feelings that are very difficult to put into words.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 01 March 2014

Having spent more than a decade trying to break into the film industry, writer-director J.C. Chandor, hit the mother-load in 2011 with his debut feature, Margin Call. He earned an Academy Award nomination for his script which chronicled 24 hours in the life of a major investment bank on the brink of collapse. The movie made my annual top 10 list and featured some sharp, insightful, compelling dialogue.

For his follow up, Chandor could not have come up with something any more different. Some films have lengthy sequences with just one actor (127 Hours, Cast Away) but All Is Lost goes a step further. This movie stars Robert Redford and that’s it. You won’t see another person on screen throughout the entire movie. From memory, the only other single-actor movie released in recent years was the tense thriller Buried with Ryan Reynolds.

Redford’s character, who is never identified by name, is an experienced sailor who has taken his small yacht out into the middle of the Indian Ocean. He wakes one morning and finds it flooding with water. The boat had struck a rogue shipping container (which had most likely fallen from a cargo ship) and left a decent sized hole in the ship’s hull.

What follows is a battle for survival. Spread over an 8 day period, we watch and observe this man as he uses all his nautical knowledge to repair the ship and overcome the treacherous seas. There are no flashbacks to provide background information. There’s no narration to help us get inside his head. There’s no talking volleyball to create dialogue. It’s just an old guy on a boat.

It’s no surprise that the film’s nature has divided audiences. It was the closing night feature at the Melbourne International Film Festival last August and was received with a mix of applause and laughter. Some saw it as a gripping, realistic tale that doesn’t bow to Hollywood conventions. Others saw it as a joke. They couldn’t believe they’d paid money to see a slow, drawn-out drama with zero dialogue (thankfully they had the after party to drown their sorrows).

I guess it’s time to use the famous Latin phrase – “caveat emptor” or “let the buyer beware”. I realise this movie isn’t going to be for everyone. If it sounds boring on paper, you’re likely to be bored in the cinema. Don’t see it. Don’t follow my recommendation. You’ll just be wasting two hours of your life.

That said, if you’re slightly intrigued by the premise, find the time to see All Is Lost. It’s taking a chance and trying to give us something different. You’ll also be treated to a superb performance from one of Hollywood’s finest actors, Robert Redford (The Sting). It’s an increasing struggle that he must endure, both physically and mentally, as each day passes.

The movie was shot in a variety of locations (some parts in a tank, other parts on the open seas) but you wouldn’t know when looking at the finished product. It comes together well. The beautiful cinematography captures not just the expansive landscape but also the claustrophobic nature of the situation. The sound team seemed to have captured every creak and groan emanating from the boat (it’s as if it has its own voice). The soft music score, which builds in the later stages, adds to the film’s emotional pull.

It’s been a competitive awards season and All Is Lost has turned out to be one of this year’s victims. Despite huge praise from some, the film earned just a single Oscar nomination for best sound editing. The most notable snub was for 77-year-old Robert Redford who missed out on a best actor nomination. It’s a big shame.

You can read my chat with director J.C. Chandor by clicking here.