Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 21 December 2013

Most won’t be familiar with the name in Australia but Martin Sixsmith was a British journalist who worked for the BBC in the 1980s and then later took on senior roles within the Tony Blair government and the UK public service. He resigned in 2002 after a widely publicised disagreement with a government “spin doctor” and took on a new career as an author and documentarian.

In early 2004, Martin was approached at a party by a woman who sought help unravelling a mystery. Her mother, Philomena Lee, had recently revealed a long held secret. In the summer of 1951, Philomena had been swept off her feet by a young man at a county fair. They had a “good time” and nine months later, she gave birth to a son.

It was a situation that brought much shame to Philomena’s conservative parents. They didn’t want anyone to know their 18-year-old daughter had a child outside of wedlock and so she was immediately banished to a Catholic convent. The nuns were not of the forgiving kind. Philomena was used as slave labour in the laundry and when her son had reached the age of 3, she was forced to give him up for adoption.

For close to half a century, Philomena had wondered what had become of her son. She had tried to get information from the convent but records had strangely disappeared. It was clear they weren’t going to be helpful. He took some convincing but Martin offered his skills as an investigative journalist to assist Philomena. What followed as a fascinating series of discoveries that culminated with Martin publishing a book in 2009 entitled “The Lost Child of Philomena Lee”.

Brought to the screen by Academy Award nominated director Stephen Frears (The Queen, High Fidelity), Philomena is one of this year’s best releases. It’s an emotional tale that exposes a dark chapter within the Catholic Church. Controversy was always going to follow. New York Post critic Kyle Smith described it as “90 minutes of organised hate”.

To describe the movie as such is very narrow minded… at least in my opinion. Yes, it’s highlighting some bad things within the Catholic Church but it goes far beyond that and delves into the idea of forgiveness. At what point does an act become unforgiveable? Martin and Philomena have differing points of view with each trying to convince the other during several key scenes.

Not only is the film an interesting real-life drama, it also works as a buddy comedy thanks to the versatile performances of both Steve Coogan and Judi Dench. There’s fun to be had exploring the generational gap and listening to their varied thoughts on the world. There’s tension, there’s frustration, but there are also moments of connection. Coogan co-wrote the script with friend Jeff Pope and it was nice to see them take the best screenplay prize at the Venice Film Festival back in September.

Taking second place in the People’s Choice Award at the Toronto Film Festival (behind the much acclaimed 12 Years A Slave), Philomena offers laughs, tears and a few surprises. It’s a crowd pleaser… and a good one at that.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 04 December 2013

I’m kind of glad this is not based on actual events. Delivery Man is the tale of David Wozniak – a man who has just discovered that he is the father to 533 children. How is this possible? Well, in the early 1990s, David made 691 visits to his local sperm bank. He wasn’t doing it for the good of mankind. David needed cash.

You’d think there’d be some kind of controls in place but it turns out David’s sperm was of great quality and was used to help a record number of women conceive. Ordinarily, David would be none the wiser but a class action lawsuit has been launched by 142 of his children who want to know the identity of their father. They only know him by his code name, Starbuck.

Vince Vaughn, in a typical Vince Vaughn role, overplays his character’s emotions for comedic effect. At the start, he’s freaking out and using his lawyer / best friend (Pratt) to help keep his name concealed. This becomes trickier when the case becomes a worldwide news story. It’s even joked about on late night talk shows.

Somewhat predicably, David mellows and decides to seek out some of the kids - most of who are in the later stages of their teen years. They include a star basketball player, a struggling actor, a chronic drug user and a strange clingy homebody. David doesn’t reveal that he’s their father… but the time he spends with them has him re-evaluating his own relationships and plans for the future.

There are some touching elements to this story highlighted by a moment where David realises one of his children is a disabled young man who has been abandoned and institutionalised. The film is trying a little too hard though with some of its other “warm and fuzzy” moments. I realise this is a far-fetched comedy but his interaction with some of the kids feels too forced, too scripted.

I’d also argue that not enough time is spent exploring his relationship with his long-term girlfriend (who feels very much pushed into the background). The comedy tends to be hit and miss but the best material seems to be shared between David and his best friend, Brett, as they debate the merits of his bizarre plans and ideas.

A remake of a 2011 Canadian film from the same director (entitled Starbuck), Delivery Man can’t quite deliver on its interesting premise.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 18 December 2013

Ron Burgundy (Ferrell) has only one dream in life – “to have salon-quality hair and read the news”. Unfortunately, the second film begins with a step in the wrong direction. He is sacked by the station manager (Harrison Ford) who describes him as “the worst anchorman I have ever seen.” It’s fair description.

Forced to take a gig as the dolphin show host at SeaWorld (he’s not very good at that either),  Ron is given a fresh lease on life when approached to join the new Global News Network (GNN). Keeping in mind that this film is set in the 1970s, the GNN is trying to become the first 24-hour news network in the United States. They’ve personally selected Ron and his team (don’t ask me why) to host the graveyard shift from 2am to 5am.

So who watches news at that hour? Who is even awake? Desperate to prove himself in the ratings, Ron decides to roll the dice and transform his daily 3 hour news segment into something very different. In his own words – “Why do we have to tell people what they need to hear? Why can’t we just tell them what they want to hear?” His biased, crazy, pro-America show becomes an overnight sensation. Ron Burgundy is back.

I say this too often but this is another film with potential that underachieves. When you think about the way that the “news” has evolved over the past few decades, there’s room for a lot of great jokes. One of the best scenes sees Ron create the first televised car chase. While his ex-wife is interviewing Yasser Arafat on another network, Ron is luring audiences with the helicopter-covered chase and his wildly speculative commentary.

Regrettably, not enough time is spent poking fun at way in which we disguise entertainment as serious news. Instead, the film strives for laughs but offering moments that are both random and bizarre. Most of them don’t work. Steve Carell fakes his death and then turns up unknowingly at his own funeral. David Koechner opens a restaurant that serves bats instead of chicken. Kristen Wiig joins the cast as a socially inept receptionist and her nonsensical interaction with Steve Carell gets tired quickly.

It’s been 9 years since the original Anchorman and while it didn’t reel in as much money as some of Will Ferrell’s other low-brow comedies (such as Talladega Nights, Blades Of Glory, Step Brothers), the film has since developed a cult-like following. There were no plans for a sequel. This film only came about because of an increasing demand from the public.

I’m sure many will enjoy Anchorman 2 for what it is. I admit to having a few laughs and yes, I did smile during the finale which involves many, many cameos. It’s a weak story though. More needed to be made of Ron Burgundy’s conflict with the GNN owner (played by Australian Josh Lawson) but again, this is pushed aside for lengthy skits revolving around Ron’s casual racism (oh, and a peculiar subplot involving blindness).

While I wasn’t a huge fan of the 2004 original, I’m confident that it’ll be judged more highly than this disappointing sequel.

You can read my interview with director Adam McKay by clicking here.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 04 December 2013

The year is 1943, the setting is New York City, and the central character is a shy, budding poet by the name of Allen Ginsberg (Radcliffe). A student at Columbia University, there’s a great scene where Ginsberg challenges his lecturer’s rigid devotion to rhythm and meter. While most students were happy to follow textbook methodologies, Ginsberg thought differently. He was inspired by the great 19^th century poet Walt Whitman and was in search of his own unique voice.

Ginsberg was a talented writer. There’s no doubt about that. We get to hear some his beautiful prose during the film. That said, Ginsberg was also shy, naïve, inexperienced. He had few friends and few life experiences. He was in search of someone or something to serve as his inspiration.

That gap was soon filled by a dashing young gentleman by the name of Lucien Carr (DeHaan). A fellow student at Columbia, Carr was extroverted socialite who loved to drink and loved to party. In one of their early encounters, Carr explains his outgoing personality to Ginsberg by saying – “I love first times. I want my entire life to be composed of them. Life is only interesting when life is wide.”

The film’s first half is an intriguing character study. Ginsberg and Carr weren’t linked romantically but they shared a “closeness” that went beyond a straight forward friendship. It helped them discover who they were – both on and off the page. Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter) and star-the-making Dane DeHaan (Chronicle, Lawless) deliver superb performances that tap into their character’s respective insecurities.

Kill Your Darlings shifts direction in its second half and becomes more of a murder mystery following the death of a David Kammerer (Hall), a close friend of Carr. It’s the weaker section of the movie as events are rushed and it’s hard to keep up with the mindset of each character. Further, a few titbits of information are provided during the closing credits which I’d have preferred to see included by adding an extra 10-20 minutes to the running time.

The film marks the directorial debut for 40-year-old John Krokidas. I’m looking forward to his future projects as Kill Your Darlings has a distinctive visual presence thanks to some beautiful cinematography and unorthodox editing. He’s done a terrific job recapturing New York in the 1940s without having to rely on special effects. The soundtrack is also a big help in that regard.

I wasn’t a fan of On The Road – a 2012 release based on the novel by Jack Kerouac which covered a similar characters in the same era. Perhaps it’s the better casting. Perhaps it’s the better screenplay. For whatever reason, Kill Your Darlings is more palatable and more interesting.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 13 December 2013

It was named the best film of the year by the prestigious New York Film Critics Circle. It was included in the American Film Institute’s annual top 10 list. It led the nominations for the Golden Globe Awards with 7 nods including best picture drama. It was nominated for best ensemble at the always important Screen Actors Guild Awards. It currently has 97% approval on Rotten Tomatoes based on the opinion of more than 60 critics. American Hustle must be an amazing film, right?

Well, actually, no. Every award season, there are always one or two contenders that I don’t connect with (for whatever reason). Recent examples include The Tree Of Life, The Kids Are All Right and The Curious Case Of Benjamin Button. I should also name Silver Linings Playbook but don’t want to sound like I’m beating up on director David O. Russell too harshly.

American Hustle begins with a lengthy introduction. We are told that the story is set in 1978 and that “some of this actually happened”. Irving Rosenfeld (Bale) and Sydney Prosser (Adams) are two con artists that have established a successful brokering business in New York City. They promise to help business owners desperate for short term loan funding… in return for a non-negotiable, non-refundable fee paid up front. Do they end up talking to financial institutions and getting the loans? Nope! They simply apologise and tell their clients that they were unsuccessful.

It’s a smooth operation that comes unstuck when they are busted by an overzealous FBI agent named Richie DiMaso (Cooper). He promises not to press charges if they’ll agree to help him snare some “bigger fish”. DiMaso wants to use their con artist skills to entrap high profile politicians and mobsters. He sees it as his best chance of earning a quick promotion within the FBI.

Their key target is Carmine Polito (Renner) – the popular mayor of Camden, New Jersey who is looking for investors to help rejuvenate the casinos of Atlantic City. Rosenfeld and Prosser come up with the idea of creating a fake Arab sheik with money to splash around. If they can get footage of Polito and other officials accepting bribes in return for development approvals, they’ll have fulfilled their obligations to the FBI and they’ll have stayed out of jail. Ah, but it’s not going to be that easy.

The film’s strongest attributes are the performances from the two female leads – Amy Adams (The Fighter) as the seductive con artist who loves speaking in an English accent, and Jennifer Lawrence (Silver Linings Playbook) as a jilted wife who becomes a part of everyone’s plans without actually realising it. My thumbs are also up for the set decorators, costume designers and make-up artists who have had fun recreating the late 1970s. Christian Bale and his not-so-convincing toupee had me smiling during the film’s opening scene.

There are a few other genuine laughs (such as Louis CK’s yarn about his brother) but they’re overshadowed by the messy, overly-convoluted screenplay. Despite the heavy use of narration, I still struggled to keep up with each character’s motivations and mindset. It’s designed as a “who’s playing who” movie but there were parts that it felt more like a “what the hell is going on” movie.

The story is also hard to buy into given the erratic nature of its characters. There are moments where they show great knowledge and insight. There are other moments where they act in a rash, silly, illogical manner. It left me asking the question – how could people so dumb pull this off? Was this a sequel to Pain & Gain? I also have concerns about the overly incompetent FBI.

American Hustle isn’t a bad film… but it’s certainly an overrated one.