Review: Truth - Keeping it Honest

Truth

Starring: Cate Blanchett, Robert Redford, David Lyons, Dennis Quaid, Elizabeth Moss

Written and Directed By:  James Vanderbilt

121 minutes     Rated M

It’s a curious thing truth isn’t it? Often it’s confused with facts, regularly it’s determined to be infallible and rarely is one person’s truth the same as another’s.  Perception versus reality, memory coloring actuality, even moral judgement introduced into a damned good story, all can be present in the quest for truth, the search for what happened, what ‘is’ or ‘was’.  Add to all that a media needing to report news, communicating information, questioning assumptions and, yes, grabbing a headline, and you have a fine of pot of shipping to deal with.

Mary Mepes (Blanchett) and Dan Rather (Redford) were two bastions at CBS News particularly its flagship investigative programme ’60 Minutes’ (a long running 48 minute weekly magazine show). Mary had broken the horror story about Abu Ghraib and was much respected in the news community. Rather had been in the business since dinosaurs walked to earth. They both had runs on the board.

A story comes their way which suggests George W Bush may have stretched the truth about his military record and the National Guard. Compelling documentary evidence and information from ‘reliable’ sources convince them it’s a story worth telling and putting to air in 2004. Bush is in a close race with John Kerry for the presidency (his second term), has his stewardship of the country during the trauma of September 11^th to bolster his patriotism and resolve as points deserving of another term. If he was found to have lied about his past (especially in anything military or public service) it could significantly impact on his chances.

But what is the truth, how solid is the evidence, is politics the driver behind the story (let alone the allegations) and what are the what ifs?

This is a fascinating story well told in a tight and lively script by Vanderbilt  (based on Mary Mepes’ book ‘Truth and Duty: The Press, the President and the Privilege of Power ‘)and deftly directed by him  . Blanchett is practically flawless as Mepes, she seems to be caught in a scene for the first time rather than filmed ‘performing’ a well-rehearsed scene which has gone through many takes. Redford is convincing and strong as Rather (although I suspect the veteran newsman is rather more brittle than Redford portrays). David Lyons and Elizabeth Moss bring real assurance and insight into their roles as Josh and Lucy. Dennis Quaid as Col Roger Charles is good too although his part seems underwritten. Other memorable performances come from Bruce Greenwood and Stacey Keach but really there is barely a weak link in any performance. There are some beautiful cameos from Aussies Noni Hazelhurst (has a lovely monologue which she delivers expertly and movingly), Phillip Quast, Rachel Blake (amazing) and Andrew MacFarlane.

Filmed almost entirely in Sydney at Cate’s request (how’s that for star power?) this is a wonderful piece of movie making and storytelling. It may have a didactic moment here and there but there is so much to ponder on and themes to consider – journalism, politics, truth, accountability, respect, support, fallibility, evidence, who’s dispensable etc etc  - it is worth every viewing minute (but far from a ‘worthy’ exercise).

It is a shame the film tanked in the States and so will be overlooked in the awards season. Blanchett deserves some sort of nod for her performance as does the film itself. CBS even banned any advertising for the film and some media outlets indulged in some pretty tasteless (and arguably dodgy) negative stories about the movie and maybe even published some slanted negative reviews. To deliberately publish a negative review which has no basis in reality for the sole reason of destroying or besmirching a movie is questionable at best and unethical at worst. Somewhat ironic given the subject matter of the film they are trying to bury don’t you think?

This is a film deserving of your attention, you will remember it for a long time and you will be thankful you saw it. Plus you’ll take a moment to be thankful for Rather and Mepes, their courage and their integrity.

4 ½ out of 5

Review: Spectre - Not So Shaken and Hardly Stirred

Director: Sam Mendes

Starring: Daniel Craig, Christoph Waltz, Lea Seydoux, Ralph Fiennes, Andrew Scott

2h 30 mins Rated M

I didn’t like the James Bond films over the years. I think I enjoyed Goldfinger and then it was all pretty much ho hum after that until Daniel Craig ‘emerged’ from the ocean in ‘Casino Royale’. There was a significant slip again with the ghastly ‘Quantum of Solace’ which was more than made up for in ‘Skyfall’. And now we find ourselves on holiday with Jim down Mexico way on the day of the dead for the exciting opening sequence of Bond 24 known as ‘Spectre’.

The title of the film is the name of a global terrorist organisation known (apparently) to Bond fans as the warehouse central for most of the Bond villains. For an organisation so well known to Bond and MIwhatever they seem pretty amazing survivors and even better at hiding out and staging surprises that leave Bond, M et al flat footed.

So we have the usual compliment of baddies being beaten up, stunning set pieces in equally stunning settings and a complement of snazzy gadgets per favor the delightful Q (played delightfully by Ben Whishaw). There’s of course the female reduced to object of desire (played in this one by Monica Belucci and Lea Seydoux) but apart from a bit of dry humping on a mirror the sex is non-existent.

To lift the somewhat dull (and I have to say shockingly clichéd at times) narrative, the new head of a committee that has taken over the running of the MI6, now merged with MI5, Max or ‘C’ (Andrew Scott) keeps telling M (Ralph Fiennes) that the 00 programme is now obsolete - indeed “the digital ghost of the world”, (or another type of Spectre surely).

I enjoyed the hopping around on roofs and in basements, the highly unbelievable spinning in helicopters, a bit of a car chase, a plane pursuit, a boat spurt and even a nice train excursion. They’re well staged and Bondesque, if unlikely and ridiculous but fun.

We don’t get much of the more deep and reflective, emotionally challenged Blond from Daniel and director Sam Mendes this time. It felt a bit like filling in a bit of time until a better idea comes along or maybe even ‘if we never make another Bond this would be a good one to finish on’, I think the ship sailed on that with ‘Skyfall’. Daniel still does well with the role, pouting and staring away but perhaps not quite fitting into the suits as finely as in the past. Maybe a metaphor for the role and actor?

Christoph Waltz plays the villain Bloomfeld with all the depth of the stereotype as written. He vamps a bit too much for my liking and we all know his attempts to finish James of will fail so that cliché falls pretty quickly. I wonder if we’ll ever get a whitebread, anglo villain in a Bond film? Maybe rope Donald Trump in as a megalomaniac businessman wanting to get world dominance? Shouldn’t be too much of a stretch…

So for its collection of faults and clichés this is still an enjoyable couple of hours of cinema, well shot, well-staged, underwritten and perhaps not all that well thought out. I did enjoy it but I might not be as ready to rush off to the next one.

3 out of 5

Review: The Dressmaker - Finely tailored

Director: Jocelyn Moorhouse

Screenplay: Jocelyn Moorhouse

Starring: Kate Winslet, Liam Hemsworth, Hugo Weaving, Judy Davis, Sarah Snook, Gyton Grantley, Darcey Wilson, Barry Otto

118 minutes    Rated: M 

The return of the Prodigal is one of those enduring themes in fiction, books particularly but also in film. Some might consider it a trope (a now very commonly used insult which I have to admit I only became aware of in the last year or so), but I find it compelling when done well. In the vaguely gothic farce ‘The Dressmaker’ the device works more than well.

It’s 1951 - come the night come the prodigal as Tilly Dunnage (the divine Kate Winslet)returns to her childhood hometown Dungatar in country Victoria. Soon we learn her Singer sewing machine is not the only ‘baggage’ she brings with her. She believes she carries a curse from an inconclusive and ambiguous incident as a schoolchild related to her implication in the death of a fellow schoolmate. Far from being welcomed home the townsfolk rather see her as a ‘murderess’ back to stir up divisions and skeletons from the past.  Her bridge to gaining some respectability is her dressmaking/haute couture abilities (she has been working in Paris for years learning the trade)and don’t the locals flock to be frocked up. But there's more things going on in this story than, well in a country town on a summer's Tuesday.

Sentiment doesn’t get much of a go in this ever so slightly exaggerated and cartoonish feature beautifully crafted by Jocelyn Moorhouse (and second unit by none other than PJ Hogan) but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t have heart or charm and even skirts some dark and tough matters. I don’t think the town’s name is some mere whimsy; this is a smelly hell hole where the kooky and snippy characters are trapped by or in their own limited world view. Also surely the allegorical names of characters (Harridiene and Pettyman for two) are deliberately invented.

The cast is almost all without equal as you would expect when you have an Academy Award winner (Winslet) and a company of Australia’s most familiar actors. The only bum note for me was Rebecca Gibney, who I usually admire, who was just not right. Judy Davis was perfect as the stroppy Mad Molly, pure cartoon but Davis still managed to give her nuance and totally engages the audience, man she’s good. Barry Otto, Sarah Snook, Gyton Grantley, Shane Bourne, Julia Blake and Sacha Horler were absolutely bloody sensational. Hugo Weaving was pretty good too but maybe a little too ‘wink, wink ,nudge, nudge’ for my liking. In the beautifully done flashback scenes I particularly enjoyed Darcey Wilson as the young Tilly, wonderful. Liam of the Hemsworth cult made the most of his role (and body) and was a perfect (if somewhat age match disconnect) romantic foil for Tilly. And it was great to see Kate Winslet and Kerry Fox back on screen again after a long break.

This was an entertaining, polished and engaging movie filmed in lovely locations in country Victoria. The flashback scenes (and the opening credits) had a stunning palate and look to them which contrasted beautifully with the golden, dry and colourful scenes of 1951.

From the popular novel by Melbourne’s own Rosalie Ham (who wrote the original ‘treatment’ a few years back), this is a gorgeous entertainment that I encourage everyone to see. Lush, tasteful, a little out of kilter and a lot accomplished because of precise writing, masterly direction and the best that good actors can deliver.

4 out of 5  

Review: The Martian - Take Off For Movie Magic

The Martian

Starring: Matt Damon, Jessica Chastain, Chiwetel Ejofor, Jeff Daniels, Kristen Wiig

Directed by: Ridley Scott

Written by: Drew Goddard

141 Minutes    Rated: M

We dream of the day human lands on the surface of Mars and has an Armstrongian wander around. For yonks we’ve had books and stories in one form or another about ‘life’ on Mars; those who believe in UFOs generally imagine it’s the Martians inside and who come among us. I wonder where the fascination for that planet and the possibilities we assign to came from, maybe it’s to do with the idea of heaven and the heavens, perhaps a refuge for atheists who poo poo the heaven concept but can’t quite throw off some tribal need for humans to connect or seek the ‘other worlds’?

Ridley Scott has brought us another chapter in the mission to Mars story and it’s one of the best. A NASA team led by commander Melissa Lewis (Jessica Chastain)needs to flee Mars before they’re wiped out by a destructive storm. She rallies the crew and they escape through (an extremely convincing and visually magic moment)the building storm of wind, sand and debris onto the launch module and head off. Bit of an oops though, one of the astronauts, Mark Watney (Matt Damon) gets himself rather brutally injured and all signs indicate, well, there are no signs of life. Bye Mark we’ve got places to be…

Of course he’s not dead, just a bit battered and bewildered but patches himself up and sets about life on his own in the base working out how to survive on minimal supplies and little hope of rescue. He talks through his progress via a video diary and some very well paced and constructed snapshot scenes with the requisite amount of drama, nice comedy and a bit of pathos. Beautifully done.

Lest you worry this is a film only about a Martian castaway and the same desperation presented in twenty different ways to fill out the 141 minutes, there is a steady, convincing and assured cutting between Watney and the guys back at NASA (and China – oh yes). Jeff Daniels as NASA director Teddy Sanders (although I did think it was just Will McAvoy finding a new career after The Newsroom)was a steady hand steering through the advice and conflicting thoughts of mission controller Chiwetel Ejiofor and PR whiz Kristen Wiig. The scenes of the administrators and controllers were often as compelling and tense as those up on Mars. This showed Scott’s skills, he is a master when he’s in form.

So I loved this movie, it looked good, it was well written, it was well acted and it was almost faultlessly directed. And importantly for a science fiction movie it was totally believable; I never thought for a moment that this could not have actually been happening right now. There’s an achievement.

I’m no science or aeronautic expert but I ponder on the following:

·         You have the technology to colonise or land and live on Mars BUT not to accurately determine if someone is dead or simply comatose/unconscious?
·         No one thought to include seeds/snap frozen seedlings in case other food was inedible or ran out for some reason?
·         Why couldn’t the ‘mother ship’ be turned around as soon as they found Watney was alive?
·         No back up comms system that would have received his video diary? Really?

Just askin’…

4 ½ out of 5

Review: 13 Minutes - A Great Time

13 Minutes

Starring: Christian Friedel, Katharina Schuttler

Directed by: Oliver Hirschbiegel

Written by: Fred Breinersdorfer, Léonie-Claire Breinersdorfer

114 Minutes      Rated MA 15+ 

I reckon Adolf Hitler was the luckiest despot ever to live. If we believe what we are told he narrowly escaped death in assassination attempts more times than anyone else. Were all the would be assassins unfortunate, unlikely or incompetent or did Adolf just have a whole lot of inexplicable luck? Surely his redoubtable badness ought to have wrought the worst Karma upon him. And yet…

The film 13 Minutes is about Georg Elser a resistance fighter from a small town in the Swabian Alps who builds a bomb which he plants in Munich’s Bürgerbräukeller. The plan is for the bomb to explode as Hitler is speaking on November 8 1939 and tear him apart. If this had happened history could have been changed and maybe Nazism and the war might have been stuffed. But…Hitler left the scene early, 13 minutes early and thus Elser failed.  He is found, arrested and imprisoned. Thus we find ourselves in a suspenseful and fascinating story of an intriguing man who saw what was developing in his homeland and wanted it to stop.

We see Elser in his hometown, in Munich, in prison and eventually in Dachau where his timing is not as fortunate as Hitler’s; in fact it is poignantly awful.

Christian Friedel is brilliant as Elser, calm and slight but also seething anger underneath it all. He sparkles and convinces and delivers a spot on riveting and touching performance. He is more than matched by Katharina Schuttler, Burghart Klaussner and Johann Von Bulow.

In the hands of director Oliver Hirschbiegel (also responsible for the masterpiece ‘Downfall’) this is a stunning and accomplished movie about a moment in history that is fascinating. Here’s the man who tried to kill Hitler and faced his torturers prepared to tell them to their faces that he wanted to prevent the bloodshed of what was to come, to save his fellow citizens and his homeland from them. How extraordinary is that?

I loved this film, found the story incredible and was riveted by the acting.

Make some space in your diary and see this movie.

4 ½ out of 5  

Review: Women He's Undressed Where A Lot Is Revealed

The Women He Undressed

Starring: Darren Gilshenan, Deborah Kennedy, Nathaniel Middleton

Directed by: Gillian Armstrong

Written by: Katherine Thomson 

100 minutes   Rated M

Hollywood can be thankful to our great wide land for stunt men, writers, directors, actors, soundtrack composers, directors of photography and more. They’ve had our best and recognised them through myriad awards, rightly so. Sometimes back home though they have not always been as well known.

You’d think a man from Kiama who had designed costumes in 282 movies for actors such as Bette Davis, Rosalind Russell, Marilyn Monroe, Jane Fonda, Tony Curtis and Natalie Wood, won three Oscars and been the favorite of Jack Warner (and the go to guy for anyone at Warner Brothers) would be a hero in his homeland. Surely there’d be a building or two, a street, a scholarship or a fashion design college named after him. At least his name would be as prominent and recognisable as Nicole Kidman, Errol Flynn, Peter Finch or Heath Ledger surely? Um actually no.

Orry George Kelly was born in December 1897 in the coastal town of Kiama NSW looking up at the

stars on those clear skies every night. Only a couple of decades later he would be dressing stars of a different kind in the Hollywood studio lots of Warners, MGM and Universal.  He was a gay man who didn’t hide that fact at a time when the man he loved had to hide his predilection lest his career be doomed. That man was a struggling Brit looking for a housemate Archibald Leach. Archy and Orry lived together for many years as Leach’s career steadily grew and exploded under the name Cary Grant. Orry’s status grew also as he worked on films which became classics - Casablanca, Some Like it Hot, 42nd Street, The Maltese Falcon, Gypsy, Mame and Oklahoma.

This finely crafted and extremely entertaining (as well as educational) documentary is told through minimal archival footage, comment pieces from Jane Fonda, fellow costumiers Ann Roth (a protégé of Kelly’s) and Catherine Martin, Angela Lansbury and others and dramatic monologues reconstructing Orry’s story performed by  Darren Gilshenan  sitting mostly in a red rowboat (don’t ask)- Deborah Kennedy plays his mother Florence, who gets to offer her input while hanging up the washing on a grassy hill in front of a lighthouse (again don’t ask).

I did find this monologue enactment a bit naff, theatrical and jarring. I think a bit more reliance on archival footage or simple reconstruction dramatically without the cheesy stuff would have been better. I like my documentaries to be ‘real’ and tell the story as is. As always though that is the device the filmmakers chose and it is what it is. There is surprisingly little footage of Orry Kelly himself (although his Oscar acceptances are quite available on YouTube) and frankly I don’t know if it simply does not exist, was too expensive to use or too hard to find.

Let me assure you though there is still a lot in the film and it does work well and I loved it. There is even a bit of a mystery to end the film off with. His memoirs are discussed throughout the movie, the knowledge of his relationships, particularly with Mr Leach are pondered upon especially what the memoirs might have revealed. But most of all, what happened to the memoir manuscript itself? Well stay tuned viewer, the movie has news!

This is a film for all Australian filmgoers, especially lovers of the days of Hollywood as it was. It is a great resource for students of filmmaking and film history. It is ultimately a choice piece of documentary making by a skilled film-maker.

I learnt a lot from ‘Women He’s Undressed’ but most of all I was entertained and delighted by a worthy homage of an Australian we all ought to have known about, celebrated and taken pride in.

Good on you Orry Kelly.

4 out of 5

Orry-Kelly: Dressing Hollywood  an exhibition will be at ACMI, Federation Square Melbourne from August 18th - Jan 17th (admission free)

Review: Mr Holmes - What's It All About Sherlock?

Mr Holmes

Starring: Ian McKellen, Laura Linney, Milo Parker, Frances De la Tout, Hiroyuki Sanada

Written by:  Jeffrey Hatcher (from the novel by Mitch Cullin)

Directed by: Bill Condon

Rated M   105 minutes

I wonder what it is that makes Sherlock Holmes so endearing as a character in film, theatre and TV (even radio in the past)? So many dramas with him as either the central character or part of an ensemble. Why the name ‘Sherlock’ is even part of the vernacular (‘No Sh*t Sherlock’ is one of my sarcastic favorites). I would venture that very few people today who love the character or know the name at least have never read any of the books. I have managed halfway through ‘Hound of the Baskervilles’ but bailed.

The latest incarnation of Holmes is in this Ian McKellen star turn.  We see a 93 yr old Sherlock at the end of his life, getting his last story down in his own words – we learn John Watson has been the author of all previous Sherlock stories.  His memory is a bit skewed so he needs to get the story done soonest. He revisits a case that came late in his career. He is helped with the encouragement and possible hero worship given by the son of his housekeeper in the delightful seaside cottage in Sussex he spends his days in, writing and tending his bees. I guess if I read the books I’d know if that enterprise was something I’d have known (or not).

The plot is actually quite convoluted but terribly intriguing and entertaining. I’m not sure why it’s a story about Holmes rather than Conan-Doyle. This might have given the story a different edge or perspective that could have overcome some of the ‘oh dear’ moments but nevertheless we have this film and not another. I know the Holmes’ estate made an attempt to stop or at least edit the film but I don’t know the full objections or where that all ended up.

I very much admire the Sir of McKellen but I think he was a bit over the top in this and perhaps given too much free rein to roll out some acting ‘tricks’. His highly pronounced speech patterns, the somewhat mannered gestures and the arch pauses or delivery of lines was a bit much frankly. That’s not to say it was unbearable or awful just a tad grating and I did have a few ‘oh come on luvvy’ thoughts. Of course the character of Holmes is a bit OTT but the trick is to make him seem eccentric or skilful but human rather than caricature I think.  We need to be engaged by him not want to move away.

Laura Linney as the housekeeper Mrs Munro is baffling frankly, very good but baffling. I’m not sure if something is missing in the final edit or it’s simply a ‘let’s not spend time on that part of the story’ but she waivers from surly and sulky to sad and angry. We know she’s grieving her husband but she just seems a bit too pissed off with something and on the verge of exploding either in rage or tears and I don’t know why. Is it something Holmes represents, something he’s done or just that she’s a dreary, sad old thing? Let’s not be mistaken, Laura Linney is one of this generation’s great actors but her characterisation in this was a mystery to me and it bothered me – a lot.

On the other hand as the young boy Roger, maybe protégé Milo Parker was sensational. I’m soooo tired of these perfect child actors that crop up continually, it’s a disgrace that they are so convincing and so spot on and so watchable at such a young age. Maybe we’re just wrong to think they would be anything but what they are, maybe that’s the gift of being young, not the surprise. Whichever, I thought he was a-mazing.

The cleverness of the script is testament to the skills of. It is beautifully directed (apart perhaps from the loose grip on the Linney character and the excesses of McKellan)and shot, the locations are wonderful and the period is brought to life and nicely realised.

This is a delightful film, odd to be sure but worth a visit.

3 ½ out of 5

Review: Madame Bovary - Suds and Studs a Real Dud

Madame Bovary

Starring: Mia Wasikowska, Ezra Miller, Rhys ifans, Paul Giamatti, Lloyd Marshall Green

Written by: Felipe Marino (as Rose Barreneche)

Directed by: Sophie Barthes

118 minutes       Rated M

I’m fond of the story of Madame Bovary. Gustave Flaubert’s 1856 novel is a spicy and moral tale of one woman in a world where it’s a little bit more difficult to exist in than for most around her, she’s simply not content to conform or to be told how to live. She is a woman with needs and her attempts to satisfy them transcends the precepts of the time and the expectations of her ‘class’. She’s a woman who likes men and what men and women ‘do’ for each other. If she were a bloke it would have all been fine but she was a woman, a chattel and married to a very dull but decent man. It wasn’t enough, it didn’t nourish the part of her that made up a yearn, the primal in her. That yearning provides a good yarn (see what I did there?). It’s a good book, nicely structured, dense but readable and it gives the reader much food for thought. You will not turn the last page of this once scandalous novel and have nothing to ponder on.

All the more disappointing then when a film version is dull and lifeless, hollow and almost formulaic. A visually stunning work that belies the emptiness elsewhere. It’s as though Constable or Monet did their best works only for them to be hung in a laundry without lights. Perhaps the emotional detachment and childish lead is giving us Madame Bovary at the National Gallery rather than that great story, that huge sweeping novel that has such life and spice and great characters…oh where did it all go?

Australian Mia Wasikowski rather bafflingly uses an American accent as Emily Bovary and portrays her as petulant, pouty, sooky and I would not have been shocked if she’d come out with a ‘whatev-ah’. Maybe she was meant to be a woman of today somehow but that would be simply ridiculous.

Somewhat more compelling is Henry Lloyd Hughes as the dull (or unsatisfying) Doctor Charles Bovary. His bewilderment and emotional incapacity is convincing but necessarily dull. The tempters are played well enough with the boyish Ezra Miller as the smitten law clerk Leon and then the hunky Marquis is played strongly and (go for it girl) appealingly by Logan Marshall Green.  Knocking everyone out of the park is the terrific Rhys Ifans as the con man dry-goods dealer Monsieur Lheureux. Thank heavens for him.

So I’m not sure what the director Sophie Barthes was trying to bring us with this re-telling of the classic. It was pretty, the costumes were a-mazing and it was all very ordinary. It was not a great film and it was not terribly entertaining.

Wait for the DVD and watch it either on fast forward (stopping at the pretty scenery) or in stages. Unless you’ve had trouble sleeping when it could just help you nod off for a missed doze.

Dull and disappointing

2 out of 5

Review: All Noise and No Fizz in Mad Max

MAD MAX: Fury Road

Starring: Tom Hardy, Charlize Theron, Nicholas Hoult

Directed by: George Miller

Screenplay: George Miller, Brendan McCarthy, Nico Lathouris

Rated MA  120mins.

Over 35 years ago Dr George Miller and a band of clever young things made a cult classic road movie along the Geelong Road near Lara called ‘Mad Max’ (aka ‘The Road Warrior’). It was crude and rough, very Australian and very out there. I watched it again recently and well time hasn’t been all that kind to it. It was pretty ordinary really albeit exciting. Ah the curse of time. I loved the third in the series ‘Beyond the Thunderdome’, camp and thrilling insured by the presence of Frank Thring and Tina Turner and the line “it’s dyin’ time”.

George Miller has been trying for a decade or three to get another instalment of the franchise produced. Maybe that length of time lends itself to a pile of Over the Top tosh passing for entertainment in 2015 because frankly that’s what this mush is. Mush Max more than Mad Max. Miller has more money than in 1979, he has more vehicles (mostly, oddly very old trucks) and a helluva lot more noise –dumbly so. Just to make sure the slow learner is looking the other way we even have vehicles with drummers, speakers and axers wielding guitar flame thrower implements. I was a bit amused by the number of war boys scrambling around the rigs and using the exhaust pipes to leverage from, must have been insensitive to burning flesh...And the costumiers have obviously taken a break from dressing heavy metal contestants in Eurovision to dress the cast and extras. Dear lord there must be a medication that helps one sit through this drivel. Or maybe that’s what was used to conceive it.

Okay let’s be clear I DO like some action films. I loooove Superman and Batman, I saw all the Harry Potters and Lord of the Rings/Hobbit movies. I just don’t like noise and meaningless grunting mixed with ‘oh look how clever we are to make these big, a-mazing scenes…what you have no idea what they are?’ I like some plot and some a bit of understandable dialogue. There was no danger of actors forgetting their lines in this, they virtually had none.

I have a huge man crush on both Tom Hardy and Charlize Theron. Tom did his broody, intense and surly best and Charlize struck a blow for the ‘cause’ and was good enough. Maybe get a new agent guys! Meanwhile Nicholas Hoult plays Nux, the misguided martyr tumour-ridden foot soldier suicide-bomber – I kid you not. He is actually terrific and his role has the most meat on it in many ways.

There is no doubt this is a beautifully shot movie, at times it is simply breathtaking but under all that

is…nothing. The land of the War Boys and the post-apocalyptic ground/citadel is spectacular but gee it borders on bad taste to me. It felt all too much like freak show rather than survivor land. Were there really little people and various disabled amongst all the creepiness? Oh dear me, really? I rarely am tempted to walk out of a film but I was so bored by this tedious rubbish I was ready to get out of there after an hour, desperate for something to lift it and introduce some zing.

Then along comes ‘The Wives’, suddenly some script, some meat on the skeleton and even some simple sense. The film has purpose and drama with bite for the remaining third. Maybe if someone dares to make another instalment in this madness we could have it about these interesting clansters.

Well there it is. A mess and a bore. A lot of noise and clunkers. A waste of a couple of looooong hours and admission price. You might end up with your own battle fatigue and burnt out and it just ain’t worth it.

2 out of 5

Review: Jurassic World - A Contradictory Creature

Jurassic World

Starring: Chris Pratt, Bryce Dallas Howard, Jake Johnson, Omar Sy

Director: Colin Trevorrow

Written By: Amanda Silver, Colin Trevorrow, Derek Connolly, Rick Jaffa

Rated M   109 minutes 

I’m old enough to remember seeing the original ‘Jurassic Park’ twenty plus years ago. I’m old enough to remember the wonder of seeing Steven Spielberg’s creatures seem so real most of us wanted to believe they were. Many, like me wished there was a Jurassic Park and how fun it would be to go there.  It was a stunning piece of film making and a fantastical start to computer generated images that would set the way for what we almost take for granted now. Looking back it was probably quite primitive and kids today might be unconvinced but gee it was great stuff back in the day. Looking forward the danger with familiarity is it can be the breeding ground for blandness.

‘Jurassic World’ takes us to the park now establish as John Hammond’s legacy and what a park it is. The creatures roam, there are rides galore and if having the actual creatures isn’t enough you can also get up close with a hologram or two (I don’t know why either). I must say park and the island look gorgeous and inviting. Not so sure about the rather extensive Shopping Mall but I guess it was ideal for the ubiquitous product placement of which there is much; Samsung gets a good run as does Mercedes, Trader Joe’s and Verizon. My teeth were clenched often with this as I sipped my also mentioned Pepsi.

The thing about theme parks though is that you can never have the thrill of visiting the first time again. We humans always need something ‘more’ to go back and this is the problem this little fun park is facing which worries the owner and the marketing manager. The raptors and T-Rexes no longer a draw-well let’s get us some new creatures; oh look they’ve been working on just that, nifty. The very engaging Chris Pratt (a favorite since ‘Parks and Recreation’) plays Owen adding believability and humour to the archetypal hero role. He’s just going to win the day for us and we’ll go along for the ride. But we need the archetypal heroine and sure ‘nuff we have her in Bryce Dallas Howard as Claire . Why she even gets to wear the white outfit with slit skirt and gosh darn it even gets to sprawl out on the ground at one point with left leg exposed through the slit. In cast they weren’t enough we have the baddie played by Vincent D’Onofrio who was only missing an accent to really gives us an archetype and the traditional child dynamic of the cluey, slightly annoying older sibling constantly clashing with the younger, smarter and endearing younger bro. Ah, we can improve CGI but we can’t quite get away from movie archetypes.

There’s drama aplenty and we know there’ll be victims, humans and animals alike but good will win over bad. There’s a lot of noise and ‘oh wow’ moments which I frankly loved.  I was a bit concerned that the current owners of the Jurassic Park complex had obviously learnt nothing from their predecessors and the tragedy that had befallen them, not the least that the creatures will eat people when crossed. Seriously wouldn’t the last thing be to have a park where the humans get up close with the creatures?

In the end though the story was a bit thin and relied on the gee whiz moments to carry it through. The dramatic moments, the jumps and heart starters made the humans even more two dimensional and if you’re looking for an emotional arc don’t hold your breath. As mind blowing as the effects are they are symptomatic of the ordinariness of the amazing these days, not a lot really blows our mind. So the patrons of Jurassic World aren’t satisfied anymore by the wonder of Jurassic creatures walking among them centuries beyond their existence. Similarly the patrons of cinemas today don’t get enough from the masters of creation who have put together this perfectly entertaining but ultimately empty film, an unwieldy beast in itself. That’s a shame but the beast is hungry now and if you build and feed the beast well you just better have the right ingredients, diet and magic. When you think about what the premise of this film is one might almost call that thought a bitter irony or a sad dichotomy.

This film looks like it will end up being the most successful movie EVER and that’s ok. If the role of movie making is primarily to entertain and give value for the dollar then it ticks the boxes. Some of us like a bit more than a tick the box effort.

3 out of 5

Book Review: Fourth of July Creek. Masterful and Readable

Fourth of July Creek

Smith Henderson

Windmill Books 

Last year I had the sublime pleasure to read John Williams’ masterpiece ‘Stoner’ and have been waiting to read another book that so inhabited me again. The stunning debut novel of Smith Henderson ‘Fourth of July Creek’ has done just that. Just as Williams wrote rich characters and sadly beautiful language Henderson also crafts his characters beautifully and uses language perfectly and appropriately, rarely a misstep and often muscular yet spare – a true craftsman. 

Mainly set in rural Montana in the years 1979 – 1981 as Jimmy Carter was trampled by Reagan, the hostages in Iran, Opec’s artificial oil shortages, economic reviews and the thawing out of the cold war, even the Mt St. Helen’s eruption. A perfect breeding ground for suspicion of government and fellow citizens as well as a time for giving up some things and tightening our grip on others. All being nourishment and ingredients for this fine novel. 

The main character is Pete Snow, a social worker who is living in the shadow of a failed marriage and his desperation to be reunited with his daughter Rachel while rescuing kids of dysfunction. Pete’s own brother is a parole breaker and his sister’s death has left questions and scars. The connections to his own life are tenuous at best as he tries to face (or run from) these various challenges, loss, danger, grief, loss of control and uncertainty. A social worker has to have answers, has to be able to anticipate but Pete’s world doesn’t want to go along with the position description it seems. 

Along comes Jeremiah Pearl, destined to be one of the great creations of fiction, and his son Ben. Poor old Jeremiah is a conspiracy theorist with an Old Testament fascination and absolute influence over young Ben. He faces the power of his paranoia somewhat counterfactually by hiding out in the woods and waiting for the arrival of the Feds to pounce on them and presumably take them out. While he’s waiting Pearl distributes ‘broken money’ coins out into the community, holes bored into coins defacing them with symbols reflecting his ‘story’ of doom and endtimes. Quaintly the coins become collectors’ items and curiosity pieces perhaps shining a brighter spotlight on Pearl as a fascination although we might fear it will make him a figurehead for other whackos or malcontents. 

As with much of the story Pearl has us wondering or sensing a seam of violence waiting to erupt and often it does. It’s not always punch ups or shoot outs but there is violence in the way Pete lives and in the way some of his clients face the world. When Pete gets on the grog (as he often does) he ends up with physical bruises to match his psychic ones, his brother encourages violence while on the lam and his parole officer just feeds that, Pete’s daughter faces violence in the way her life plays out. 

Of course what we want to know is how Pearl got to the point he is at, what fed the paranoia, who was he before this and why is Ben here but not the wife and several other kids in the family. Pete is not at all welcome in Pearl’s life but he ends up being tolerated. Thankfully Pete takes up the reader’s curiosity and investigates Pearl’s story through former friends etc. Fantastic stuff. 

The richness of the writing makes the characters come alive, they are believable and interesting. There is so much going on in this book but it is so deftly and handled and so accomplished. We have shifts in tense to accentuate sections and give immediacy when needed and distance to dramatise. Sometimes we have third person perspective and others are second person. Throw into the mix Rachel’s story being told as a series of vignettes in the style of social worker file notes, you start to crave these little bon mots and they are placed perfectly throughout the book even though they cut into the flow, never distracting but rather an extra ingredient in the mix.  The transitions are seamless and not at all disorienting such is the skill of Henderson.  

I do think the opening chapter or two are a bit hesitant and maybe uneven but I wonder if that’s because we are at a point in the main character’s life that is also hesitant and uneven.  That is pretty neat and astonishing but there is a danger that people who bail from books after the first chapter if they are not ‘into’ it might give up and that would be a huge mistake. 

There are so many beautiful scenes in this novel that I can’t single them all out. When we finally get to the horror of Pearl’s story it is devastating. What happens to Pete’s daughter will make you want to sit quietly and weep or hug someone. Pete’s journey either looking for his daughter or tracing Pearl’s story is so rhythmic and real. How one of his other ‘clients’, Cecil, fares in a home or in foster care is startling and oddly satisfying.  The end of the novel gives us much to think about and isn’t a great ‘ta-da’ but a ‘what will happen when I wake up tomorrow’, just like life really – not a plot requirement but a point at which we have the answers and the characters can now be left alone. So, so much to make this a great read. 

All of us carry scars through life and often they are made from unreliable memories which inform us and our way of seeing the world and the people we relate to and with. Maybe this book gives us pause to review that and see how that’s working out for us. 

This is an intense book that is not a difficult read (in fact it’s quite a page tuner), the people are mostly unhappy even somewhat unstable and Henderson has no problem in showing us them. At times it is bleak to be sure but the quest that all these people are on it seems to me is seeking their truth and that is a beautiful piece of compassion isn’t it? We can live wretched lives or have a troubled mind or skewed world view but deep down all any of us wants/needs is truth and to be ‘known’ and understood. That doesn’t mean being agreed with but it does mean being recognised as valid, valuable and equal to the rest of us. I think that’s what Smith Henderson would want for the wondrous people he created. 

This is a novel that will reward any real reader, any true book lover, anyone yearning for the perfect possibilities of fiction. Do read this magnificent book.

Review: 'Woman In Gold' - Flaws in the Works

Woman in Gold

Starring: Helen Mirren, Ryan Reynolds, Katie Holmes, Daniel Bruhl

Director: Simon Curtis

Written By: Alexi Kaye Campbell (with consultation of Randol Shoenberg)

Rated M   109 minutes 

Look I think it needs to be said; the Nazis weren’t very nice people. Oh sure the uniforms were nicely designed and cut, the swastika was a neat little device albeit a corruption of what it originally represented and their architectural style was impressive if a bit severe and stark. But let’s face it they had their failings. Apart from being murderous bastards, anti-Semitic pricks and non-respecters of sovereign borders they were also thieving mongrels. No not very nice at all. Sorry if that offends but I’m putting it out there.

Witness the story of Maria Altman whose aunty Adele was the subject of a painting by Gustav Klimt in his famous ‘Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I and II’. These and three other paintings were family treasures pilfered by the Nazis and then ‘acquired’ post war by the Austrian government, declared  national treasures and proudly displayed at the Belvedere in Vienna ne’er to be removed let alone returned to the family of Adele let alone . It would only be a matter of time sure before the family would seek reparation for or maybe even repatriation to the arguably rightful owner.

‘Woman in Gold’ takes up the story of the legal fight for Maria to be reunited with the painting of her aunt and to regain possession of it. Although the other four works aren’t given much of a run in the film (they were bequeathed to nieces and nephews but also held by the Austrians) the case must have been monumental and this all gives the film a terrific story to tell. We are shown flashbacks from the war years to fill in the backstory and is effective and affecting.

Helen Mirren plays Maria and she is a little cheeky, occasionally brusque but mostly determined. I am a huge fan of hers but I felt in this role she was too sharp, too well rehearsed and too ‘actorly’. I never felt for most of the film that she hadn’t mapped out exactly how she would play a scene, how she would say the lines, which way she’d turn her head or curl her lip, drop a shoulder a bit here,

look away on that word, all too crafted. Towards the end there was a bit more spontaneity and looseness but for the first two acts I was distanced from her because of the ‘acting’. A film that was not too dissimilar 'Philomena' is a good contrast in the performance of Judi Dench, natural, fresh and as though it was happening in front of us as it happens despite much rehearsal and finessing I'm sure.

The film also stars Ryan Reynolds as Randol Schoenberg the young lawyer who takes on the huge and intimidating Maria and the case itself. He is convincing and charmingly sheepish, you feel for him in his frustrations and you silently cheer him on even when his marriage and career look to be in strife because of his dedication to an outcome for Maria and posthumously for Adele. I many have only seen Reynolds in one film before (yes, I know he has done many including an action film or two), I think he did really well in this.

Great supporting roles from Katie Holmes as Reynold's wife, actually she's terrific and Daniel Bruhl as Hubertus Czernin. Daniel is building up a portfolio of British Dames after working with Dench, Smith and now Mirren, surely a musical with Dame Julie Andrews next?  

The film is well directed by Simon Curtis (gee he does lovely films doesn't he?) and Vienna stars as much as the humans, it is shown off very nicely and it's not all the 'pretty photo spot' places that feature but some of the lesser known or less frequently filmed areas. There is a nice short scene near the Holocaust Memorial that made me all gooey.

I liked this film a lot and really found the story fascinating. I had remembered the saga of the Klimts being fought over but only in those terms and not so much about Maria Altman and the Bloch Bauer's. It's a fairly recent story (I think Maria only passed away in this decade) so my dim memory didn't have to surface too hard to remind me. I have to say there is some teeth clenching dialogue though but overall the script serves the film well although opportunities are missed to explore the morality or maybe conundrum of the whole art restitution process. Bearing in mind Adele's own dying wishes that the painting not leave Austria let alone the family this saga was fraught in many ways as it probably has been for all families/beneficiaries. In the end this film may not have been designed to explore all the intricacies/vagaries. There were many gaps and truth stretching in 'Monuments Men' for instance but it was only telling part of a rather incredible story.  I think that's ok isn't it? In the end these are films, a version of a true story but not a documentary. I doubt we have ever seen the 'true' and 'full' story of Henry VIII so...

My reservations over Helen's performance detracted from me having a consummate experience but I do recommend it to you.

And raise a middle finger at those nasty Nazis while you're at it.

3 ½ out of 5

Review: 'Spy' - Intrigue can be hilarious

Spy

Starring: Melissa McCarthy, Rose Byrne, Jude Law, Jason Statham, Miranda Hart

Directed By: Paul Feig

Written By: Paul Feig

117 Minutes     Rated MA

Melissa McCarthy is a very funny woman; great timing and places herself in situations that lend themselves to a hearty laugh. She makes brave and wise choices and brings delight to an audience – ah how refreshing is that when you go to a cinema these days.

This comedic confection is a send up of Bond, Spooks and a bit of Bourne. When Jude Law as super spy Bradley Fine is ‘taken care of’ by nasty Rayna Boyanov(splendidly played by Rose Byrne although she needs to return Gillian Anderson’s annoying Brit accent to her) Melissa as Susan Cooper steps up to avert nuclear destruction and give Byrne what for. She has been in the ear of Law as his guide in tricky situations literally speaking into his earpiece and warning him of where baddies are when Law is trying to take them down. It’s a sexy little deceit and works well as a good stepping off point for the film.

Beautiful shots of Paris and Budapest were particularly thrilling and the staging showed this relatively ‘small’ comedy had a hefty budget.

Melissa carries the film perfectly, Law is splendid as Bradley Fine  (I could see him as the next Bond but maybe that ambiguous sexuality would be too much for the diehards), Byrne works well and Bobby Cannavale (Byrne’s real life partner) puts in a good turn as Baddie number two. Add Jason Statham as the big talking but incompetent agent Rick Ford for some delightful self-deprecation of an action hero.  If that isn’t enough the incredible and incomparable Miranda Hart steps away from TV (‘Miranda’ and ‘Call the Midwife’)to steal her scenes while giving perfect support to Melissa and showing the big screen is ready for her.

Action aplenty with the suitable infusion of slapstick, car chases and comedy business makes this film simply a really good hoot. Oh sure it’s tosh and it lacks sophistication but frankly I don’t give a good god-damn. I cringed at times with some of the corniness for sure but mostly I laughed and laughed. Paul Feig wrote and directed another of my favorite comedies ‘Bridesmaids’ and he has done another hilarious job again.

I notice some reviews question the film’s feminist credentials while others hail it as a benchmark for celebrating the feminine hero. I have to say I did not notice any particular emphasis on whether the main characters/heroes were male or female. To me it was a story of a spy and her antics in dealing with baddies and some of her less able cohorts. I’m not sure how it fares on the Bechdel test; there are two women in it who talk to each other and not about the men as ‘men’ so it ticks boxes but really was that deliberate or just the way it turned out?  Call me stupid but I was simply looking for entertainment and I got what I wanted.

If ‘Mad Max’ is too popular to get into, ‘Woman in Gold’ not your cup of tea or ‘A Royal Night Out’ is your idea of self-flagellation then I unreservedly recommended ‘Spy’ to you.

3 ½  out of 5

Review: Testament of Youth - A Testament to Movies

Testament of Youth

Starring: Alicia Vikander, Kit Harrington, Taron Egerton, Dominic West, Emily Watson

Written by: Juliette Towhidi based on the autobiography of Vera Brittain

Directed by: James Kent

129 minutes    Rated: M

I remember the TV mini-series ‘Testament of Youth’ back in the early 80s. It was of its time and produced to reflect the style of historic drama that BBC and Granada excelled in. It was in the ‘Brideshead Revisited’, ‘Glittering Prizes’ and ‘I Claudius’ stable. Those Brit dramas nourished us here when the closest we came were the ABC dramas such as ‘Seven Little Australians’ and ‘Power Without Glory’, great shows but could have been superb with a few more dollars and a sincere commitment.

I read the first book in the trilogy as a result of enjoying the TV series. So my memories of the story are warm and nostalgic. Forty years on the BBC has had another go at the story under its BBC Films label.

Vera Brittain’s part memoir is about the period in her life when she served as a nurse in the First World War. Enveloping this captivating story are her Oxford years, her love life and her brother’s war story. She is a woman of privilege confronted by a world of tragic equanimity and tragedy, heartache and hardship.

Vera is played (surprisingly) by Swedish actor and dancer Alicia Vikander, who bears an uncanny

likeness to a young(er) Keira Knightly and what a great job she does. We last saw her in ‘Anna Karenina’ and ‘A Royal Affair’ where she shone. This time again her performance is nuanced, eloquent and sharp. She is quite a presence on screen and someone to watch in the future. 

Vera is introduced to one of her brother’s friends Roland Leighton quite nicely acted by Kit Harrington. We ‘Game of Thrones’ fans are pleased to see Jon Snow step out of the Blackwatch garb, shed the beard and gel back the hair. I liked his performance although his grin grated a bit. Not sure why he used the grin because it never ‘appears’ in GOT so can’t be a ‘natural’ expression. The relationship between Roland and Vera is convincing and touching which enables the twists of fate that ensue to be most effective.

Playing a key role is Taron Egerton as V’s brother Edward. As the centrepiece to the three males and Vera’s connection he melds it all expertly and delivers the character beautifully. The subtle reference to his sexuality (apparently much debated after the book’s publication)is handled well and given no more weight than a mild ‘oh I see’.

Other acting commendations go to Dominic West and the ubiquitous Emily Watson as the parental Brittains, Colin Morgan as Victor, Miranda Richardson gorgeous and effecting as Miss Lorimer and the almost always delightful Joanna Scanlon as Aunt Belle (don’t remember her from the original series but thought she added great color to the movie).

There are some beautiful visuals, a wonderful palette and delightful countryside. There are two terrific scenes, one in the camp hospital in France where the camera sweeps out over a field of soldiers on stretchers and another set of shots to convey the passing of time and season rather poignantly showing beautiful scenes but not one person or creature in them.

For a film that places the horror of war at its centre it is remarkable that we see no battles or bullets, well done. A lesson to Hollywood!

I did feel the relationship of the ‘three musketeers’ was not given any exposition, how did the three guys know each other and become so obviously close. The book definitely introduces Edward of course but also how he came to have Edward and especially Victor in his close circle. I don’t know why some simple dialogue wasn’t given to explain this. Surely the book isn’t that well-read now that every audience (or even most) member would know.

My other quibble is with the initial beach scene between Roland and Vera. There is a very odd POV to the scene and it lasts the whole scene. Roland faces to camera with a slight turn to camera right while Vera face almost perfect left profile. It is awkward and odd and I didn’t get it as it is then broken with a long shot where they face each other and Roland isn’t turned away from her in the manner the POV suggests. Thankfully it didn’t turn out to be some ‘clever’ theme for the rest of the film.

Vera was a pioneer in many ways and went on to establish herself as a fine novelist and an important advocate of women’s place in British society and politics. She even produced a strong political figure in her daughter Shirley Williams (Baroness Williams of Crosby), the Labour minister and one of the founders of the Liberal Democrats. Not bad for a girl who was likely destined to be a ‘gal in the country’ or at best an article writer for the local newspaper.  It’s always interesting to ponder on the ‘what ifs’ and for Vera if she hadn’t been awarded an exhibition at Oxford which  got her (after the horrendous exam) into Somerville first studying English and then, after the war, Modern History who knows what might have been.

Apart from my quibbles above the direction of James Kent is really fine and he delivers this well told story with an exceptional cast and gave me more than a couple of teary moments. You know when you consider the cast was heavily laden with TV actors we might be finally at a point where we can throw away the perception that TV actors aren’t ‘quite up to it’ when it comes to other mediums such as film or stage. Frankly I’d buy a ticket to see Messrs West, Harrington, Egerton and Scanlon in whatever they appeared in.

Grab the tissues and find a cinema to let this heartfelt, restrained gem wash over you.

4 out of 5