Review: Just Wild about Wild

Wild

Directed by: Jean-Marc Vallée
Written by: Nick Hornby
Starring: Reese Witherspoon, Laura Dern, Thomas Sadoski
Running Time: 115 minutes

Rated: MA 15+

“What if I was sorry, but if I could go back in time I wouldn't do anything differently than I had done? What if I'd actually wanted to f**k every one of those men? What if heroin taught me something? What if yes was the right answer instead of no? What if what made me do all those things everyone thought I shouldn't have done was what also had got me here? What if I was never redeemed? What if I already was?”  - Cheryl Strayed

I’ve long had a bit of a dream to walk the Camino in Spain and France. I’ve long resisted it because of the now large number of ‘pilgrims’ who do the track in peak season. The answer of course is to do it in the off season but then a lot of the rest stops and accommodations are closed and the weather not so flash. Oh well, there are plenty of other things to be getting on with and in the meantime I can satisfy myself with reading books by other people who undertake these endeavours. One of the best books on long distance walking is Cheryl Strayed’s ‘Wild’ and now it is a film starring Reese Witherspoon.

Cheryl, in the aftermath of the sudden death of her mother and in the midst of her marriage, a fair bit of infidelity and a different sort of excursion into the arms of heroin, decides to hop on the Pacific Crest Trail for a few months and 1100 miles. As you do.

Of course the story is just one gruelling mile after another and then a nice neat bit of self discovery at the end. We are given glimpses into the diagnosis of the mother’s breast cancer and the rapid death, the family dynamics formed from an abusive father and fractious relationships with Cheryl’s brother Leif, the ‘men’, the drugs (fairly low key compared to the book) and of course the characters along the trail, most endearing, plus an occasional suss one. For a two hour film there wasn’t much lagging.

As with most transfers from book to film there are some really nice elements not included and a bit of conflating of characters that can make you wince. If you haven’t read the book of course that matters not a jot. The film is coherent and cohesive, well-structured just as the source material was. A really well written and entertaining book has become a very strong and focussed film. The added advantage of the film is bringing to life some of the spectacular as well as harsh scenery described in the book. It’s hard to convey the privations of the trek in the film as convincingly as the words in the book but it gives us a good ‘taste’ if you like.

Reese Witherspoon in the main role has to carry the whole film as strongly as she carries her enormous backpack nicknamed ‘monster’ by some fellow trekkers. And she does it very well, perhaps because she also acted as a Producer on the movie. If not for her the film would simply crumble, if not for her we would feel no engagement and if not for her we wouldn’t be entertained. Is it a great piece of acting though? I don’t really think so, there’s nothing startling in her performance. The depth and interest to the film is in Cheryl’s story, why she does it and how she does it. The script and the directing is the star of the film and Reese is the mechanism to bring that to us. This is in no way a criticism of her just a reflection on some of the hype around the movie that has centred on her performance. Good on her for getting it to the screen and good on her for doing a great job in the role but I can’t get excited about her other than that.

Gee this is a good film, I wonder if it might have been as enjoyable if I hadn’t loved the book so much but I’ll never know so I’m just going with it being a film worth seeing. It’s a story worth knowing and a few messages worth considering. And you get to take the 800 mile walk without the blisters, the dehydration, the body odour, the wildlife and the extremes in temperature. Ah the magic of movies.

4 out of 5

Review: "What We Did On Our Holiday" - Not Your Average Holiday

Directors and Writers: Andy Hamilton and Guy Jenkin

Cast: David Tennant, Rosamund Pike, Billy Connolly, Ben Miller and Amelia Bullmore

Rated: PG          95 Minutes

Doug and Abi are putting aside (kind of) their disintegrated marriage to travel with their three kids to the Scottish Highlands for Doug’s ailing father Gordy’s 75^th birthday. Firstly they (that is Doug)are driving all the way from (I think) London which spells disaster, Doug and Abi can barely speak to each other without arguing and the kids are onto them, particularly the oldest, Lottie, who even documents things said so she knows what lies are sanctioned and which she mustn’t tell.

This delightful film is from Andy Hamilton and Guy Jenkins the people behind the BBC series 'Outnumbered', a series which I found mildly amusing but often just a bit too much, wise cracking kids, feeble parents ho hum. The conceit of the series was that much of it was improvised, particularly the childrens’ roles. This then has been carried over into the film and I think it is much more convincing and satisfying. Some scripting, a few lines that had to be included but otherwise kids go for it and the grown ups had to work around it with their scripts. I tell ya, these kids are brilliant.

Those said kids are Emilia Jones (Lottie), Bobby Smalldridge (Mickey) and Harriett Turnbull (Jess) and each is equally impressive and each gets their chance to shine on their own as well as part of the ensemble. There are amazing scenes of great assurance and depth that the three carry off impeccably.

Billy Connolly shines as Gordy. The character itself is irascible but it’s very much the scenes with the kids that bring out the best in the character and in Billy. He’s not grandad entertaining the little ones, he’s either one of the kids, albeit a wise one, or he’s relating to some slightly shorter fellow 75 year olds. It’s a lovely characterisation and adds to the poignancy of some scenes. Isn’t he a good actor?

The key roles of the warring parents are played beautifully by David Tennant and the almost ubiquitous Rosamund Pike. I liked her somewhat more in ‘Gone Girl’ but she is fine enough and Tennant is perfect.

Arriving in Scotland we are introduced to Doug’s alpha male, social-climbing brother Doug (Ben Miller) and his depressed,  anxious and somewhat put-upon (or is that put-down) wife Margaret (Amelia Bullmore). I loved the scene where the kids try to find out what ‘exactly’ it is that Uncle Gavin does for a living. A smaller but no less impressive role is that of Gavin’s son Kenneth delightfully played by Lewis Davie and Celia Imrie grabs the scenes she appears in as the baddie Agnes.

Oh goodness I laughed a lot in this film and boy did I have a good cry too. It's funny and very, very black, don't be looking for 'Marigold Hotel' here folks.  It’s a modest and tight film which could have been a sickly, cloying bit of tosh showing off some clever writing. Rather it’s an accomplished and sharp, sincere film that is genuinely charming.  It tells us about the falls a lie will cause us, the love that can arise from the most harsh of circumstances and how answers are always somewhere and often from the most unexpected source. Most of all the message of Gordy's that judging other’s actions is a waste of time.

There are some technical flaws, it’s not all that smooth or slick, it seems a bit incomplete at times and a bit under lit I thought. And yet as I said it is quite tight when it hits its marks and all the acting carries it along riding the few bumps.

Grab a few tissues, be prepared to laugh out loud and enjoy the ride. You might just want to add Scotland to your next European adventure.

3 ½ out of 5

Review: Unbroken. A Great Accomplishment ...ish

Unbroken

Directed by Angelina Jolie. Screenplay by Joel and Ethan Coen, Richard LaGravenese, William Nicholson, based on the book by Laura Hillenbrand.

Cast: Jack O'Connell, Domhnall Gleeson, Miyavi, Garrett Hedlund, Finn Witrock, Jai Courtney, John Magaro, Luke Treadaway, Alex Russell, John D'Leo, Vincenzo Amato, Ross Anderson, Maddalena Ischiale

137 minutes   Rated M

I’m not much fascinated by films about war. That might be my pacifist outlook, hard to relate why a military response is ever necessary, how killing someone else can ever be justified, who makes money from the whole thing, invariably it all ends up being a waste of time and lives when the conflict ends and ‘enemies’ end up living together in peace and usually becoming advocates against war. I underestimated how much war would actually be in ‘Unbroken’, I thought it might be similar to the marvellous ‘The Railway Man’, skimming the surface but no it is ‘action packed’ – i.e. a lot of shootin’ and explosions. 

 “Unbroken,” is a portrait of Louis Zamperini (played splendidly by Jack O’Connell), the Olympic runner-turned-U.S. Air Force bombardier who spent 47 days lost at sea and more than two years as a prisoner of the Japanese military during WWII. The film is very respectful (and respectable) to the story and Jolie realises the extraordinary and dramatic life of an amazing man with great skill, very few risks and enormous heart amidst the harrowing moments. It fails to soar in any way and yet the character driven focus of the film gives its share of highlights.

The film skirts around Louis’ ‘unbroken’ faith in Christ which is baffling. He was born and raised a Catholic and after the war he wrestled with addiction and his marriage nearly ended in divorce. In in 1949 he attended a Los Angeles crusade of Billy Graham. The two would team up together during later crusades.  It could be that too much religion could have been alienating for some of the audience which I would think sad. It is though a pertinent facet of Louis’ amazing life and could have served the story well in how it informed Louis’ tenacity, strength of character and resilience. But as Louis B Mayer once said, “If you want a sermon, go to a church”.

I cringed at the portrayal of the Japanese soldiers in the prison camps. I know their cruelty is legendary but it always seems to be portrayed in the same way and I suspect it’s racist, stereotypical and somewhat inaccurate. Jolie shows us beating after beating, every harangue uttered and a litany of yuck. Thankfully bouts of dysentery and any faecal explosions are played behind the scenes apart from one rather amusing scene where latrines are cleaned and emptied. After reading the wonderful ‘The Narrow Road to the Deep North’ I’d had my fill of anal injury and poo floods.

The role of the Japanese army sergeant Mutsuhiro Watanabe (played by the singer Miyavi), aka 'the bird', is terrifyingly sadistic - obviously in the sexual as well as pathological sense. It is beautifully played by Miyavi with many nuances in his characterisation, long feminine or feline nails, knowing (and longing) glances. There is a connection between him and Louis, are they similar in the end; is one 'free' to live out the other's longed - for life and what is the consequence of that freedom being regained? Also you wonder why the probably affection has to manifest itself in such brutality and on those moments the camera spares us nothing - if it has to see this so will we.

The scenes with Louis' family are really lovely and convinced me I was, in fact, watching a family. Alex Russell as his brother Peter is particularly compelling and Maddalena Ischiale as their mother is a joy.

‘Unbroken’ does go on too much, someone needed to do a finer edit and replace some scenes with a bit more of the humor we hear Louis possessed. One scene in which Louis is punched in the face by every prisoner as punishment for some minor infraction goes on too long and I would have liked to call ‘cut’ on it. Similarly the scenes in the ocean when the three guys were adrift were far too long and a more experienced director would have found ways to condense that without losing the poignancy and drama.

Feature films, even one based on fact, are meant to do one thing above all else – entertain. Some of the criticisms I have seen of the film are about accuracy of Louis’ story (and what has been omitted from Hildebrand’s book). This isn’t a documentary though and a director may take liberties for dramatic effect and to maintain audience interest, even to move the story along to the next pivotal point. In this case, will he survive, how will he survive, even the very simple, what happens to him next?  

I enjoyed this film as much as I will ever enjoy a war film. I felt pride in the way Australian locations were used so well and convincingly to recreate parts of America and the camps in Japan (particularly Cockatoo Island for the last camp).  There have been so many films about the Pacific war that it’s hard to avoid clichés – and this film has its share. Mind you after ‘The Water Diviner’ the benchmark for clichés has risen, did he miss any?

It’s no one else’s fault that I find war movies tedious. I didn’t find this in any way tedious even if it was too lumpy and long in parts, the craft of the scenes and the story itself helped me through that. I am very happy to have been told a compelling, startling and inspirational story of a great, humble, tenacious and wonderful human.

I think you’ll like it…perhaps on DVD.

3 out of 5 

Review: Still Alice - Sometimes Memory Lane is a Dead End

Still Alice

Written and directed by: Richard Glatzer and Wash Westmoreland (from the novel by Lisa Genova who was also involved in the development of the script)
Starring: Julianne Moore, Kirsten Stewart, Alec Baldwin, and Stephen Kunken
Rated:  M
Running time: 99 minutes

Dementia is a problem of the aged and of our age. Most of us know someone directly or of someone who has a form of dementia. In Australia it is the 3rd leading cause of death (the second for women).It is said that Australia will have around one million people with dementia in 2050 if a cure or preventative treatment is not found. That’s frightening. While one side of the medical profession looks to find ways to keep us alive well past 100 another side tries to unravel the mysteries of diseases that could make the lives of many plus 60 year olds a misery. Not sure about you but forty years of age related illness doesn’t hold much attraction. And with Alzheimer’s there is rarely any ‘coming back’, barely a hint of redemption and not much opportunity for ‘handling it well’. It’s a total bastard of a thing.

Sadly more and more ‘younger’ people are also contracting Alzheimer’s and ‘Still Alice’ tells us the story of Alice, a 50 year old Columbia University linguistics professor, her diagnosis of familial early onset Alzheimer’s and its progressive hold on her. Imagine when words, the art of communication is taken from a linguistics professor…

So called affliction dramas can be cloying, overly sentimental often mawkish and over-ripe but 'Still Alice' seems to go in completely the opposite direction. We feel as though a mundane family story is

being played out, it's done cleanly, pristine almost, nothing murky or messy when gradually the underlying tragedy takes hold and something stirs in us. Actually it slowly ensnares us into wondering about the slow loss of memory, the fearful idea of losing the self or at least the self which we have built for ourselves; not recognising our child or repeating words within minutes of having previously said it. This all draws us nicely into the intent of, the trap if you will, of this moving film -to portray the experience of the affliction from Alice's perspective rather than the carers'. And it works

Julianne Moore commands this film with a nuanced and consistent, grounded  performance. Never turning to shrillness or forced emotion the changes in her are demonstrated through body movements, facial expressions and simple acting skills. No meltdown required. Ms Moore is not always so restrained or ‘natural’ in her performances, in fact one of her ‘specialties’ is often the hysterical, conflicted or angry but this time she is without affectation or archness at all. Remarkable and wondrous.

I am not a fan of Kristen Stewart and frankly that has to do with her public persona (sulky, sullen, entitled) rather than her acting. I can well and truly take my prejudice back in a box and say her performance of the wannabe actor daughter is spot on, incisive and truthful, skills some of her generation can only aspire to.

Alec Baldwin has the underwritten and clumsy role of Alice’s alpha male with a heart husband. In the end though the film isn’t about him it’s about Alice and he allows the story and the development of the plot to move along without diversion so he achieved something that the script maybe could have delivered better.

I also want to commend Stephen Kunken in the role of Alice’s neurologist (gerontologist?)Dr Benjamin. He is so right in the role that I felt as though they might have dragged a real neuro-surgeon in to give the role extra authenticity.  Although he was the bearer of bad news mostly I enjoyed his scenes.

There are two ‘moments’ in the film which stand out for me, and trust me I filled my quota of shed tears in this film. The first moment has Alice in the bathroom, looking at herself in the mirror and is slathering her face with cream, piling it on until her face disappears. When those magic words are being taken by that fading brain it feels as though her beautiful face has to be disappeared too or is it to hide the face of an ever present stranger? In the end maybe the face in the mirror has never been us and someone with Alzheimer’s gets that realization before the rest of us do. 

The other moment, and frankly it nearly did me in is when Alice, having made her condition public, reads a speech to a room full of researchers, crossing off each sentence with a yellow highlighter so that she won't read it again. We breathe a little slower as we wait for her to get through it but she fumbles and drops her papers on the floor, the audience in the film and those of us watching it gasp. The end of her speech has her acknowledging the irony and sadness of having made a life around communication and losing the gift of words. Crushing. Cruel.

One review I heard suggested the film was 'unrelentingly depressing', another that the 'intensity was stifling, too too much'. Not my perception I have to say. It is, to be sure, sad at times and the inevitability is upsetting. The intensity is a reflection of the focus of Moore's performance rather than anything negative about the film itself. There are lessons for actors and filmmakers in this film. There is no finality about the ending and I'm  not entirely satisfied with how it finished up, no raging at the dying of the light but also no sad reflection on the horror end days. She is, as the credits role, 'Still Alice'.

Probably the point. I liked this film a lot, particularly the central performance of Julianne Moore.

4 out of 5

Review: Theory of Everything really has it all

The Theory of Everything

Directed by James Marsh; written by Anthony McCarten, based on the book “Traveling to Infinity: My Life with Stephen,” by Jane Hawking.

CAST: Eddie Redmayne (Stephen Hawking), Felicity Jones (Jane Hawking), Charlie Cox (Jonathan Hellyer Jones), and David Thewlis (Dennis Sciama).

Running time: 2 hours 3 minutes. Rated PG

Eddie Redmayne is fast becoming the ‘second’ British film actor of the moment. Benedict Cumberbatch being the ‘first’.  Fitting then that both men have played Stephen Hawking, Benedict in the 2004 TV film ‘Hawking’ and now Eddie in ‘The Theory of Everything’. Whilst there’s always a bit of Benedict in each of his performances it’s hard to see where there is any sameness in Eddie’s appearances in ‘My Week with Marilyn’, ‘Glorious 39’ and ‘Les Miserables’.  Let me be clear though I love Benedict, I lay claim to discovering him after seeing him in the TV series ‘The Last Enemy’ and raving about ‘this amazing guy’ to all who would listen.

Many of us have a copy of ‘A Brief History of Time’ on our bookshelves, barely opened and rarely understood. Often our copy sits next to our similarly neglected ‘Ulysses’ but we always promise ourselves to read them ‘one day’. One of the least read biggest bestsellers of our time it is the gateway to our recognition of the genius of Stephen Hawking and the familiarity with his medically challenging life story.  Barely in his 20s the Cambridge graduate learns he has Motor Neurone Disease (the much publicised ALS of the ice bucket challenge and also known in America as Lou Gehrig’s disease) and given just two years to live. Not biding his time in those two years he finished his doctorate and married Jane Wilde (Felicity Jones)- of course we know he continues to live many years past those two years and had three children to Jane.

The film draws mainly and primarily on Jane Hawking’s memoir, “Traveling to Infinity: My Life With Stephen,” and consequently it is the story of their marriage, Stephen developing his theory and the advance of his illness. It doesn’t seek to explain the theory in anything but a basic form (in fact to this dumbie I actually understood what he was theorizing, amazing)but shows us the man, husband and friend behind the genius and disability.

Cambridge and the period covered in the film are beautifully presented as well as the relationships and the impact of Motor Neurone on all involved. There is some lovely directing from James Marsh teasing out the story and an incredible, convincing performance by Redmayne. He shows the wit of Hawking combined with the razor sharp brain functioning in a slowly dis-functioning body. It is compelling to watch as he plays most of the time hunched over in a wheelchair in that familiar posture, his face muscles in a form of grinning rictus and showing his actorly skills through his eyes and slight movements of his face. Sure prosthetics and short shots aid the effect but it really does come down to the actor in this case, there is no doubt we are seeing Professor Hawking. Felicity Jones is beautiful and moving as Jane and there is more than competent support from Charlie Cox and David Thewlis. The latter actors prove that smaller roles are not necessarily minor roles.

I’m not sure that science students or nerds/geeks will be wholly satisfied by the focus of the film. I’m unconvinced that those who may not know of Hawking but go to see the film because of the hype will be any the wiser. They probably don’t get to understand why he is so famous, has graced so many magazine covers, been the subject of a couple of films and documentaries, been gonged by the Queen or had that (and other) bestseller. There is even some criticism about the science presented in the film – I don’t have the nouse to go into that.

All valid observations but it surely depends on the emphasis of a film, the angle the director chooses to present (or whether the source material provides the content required). For me as a film about an extraordinary human who copped a rotten deal health wise but much loved by a partner and friends and eventually contemporaries, students and readers it worked. It is quite simply a lovely, often funny, sometimes moving, almost always interesting movie. It has been made by an able movie maker and populated with actors who know their craft in a well told story.

Certainly the best of the year so far.

4½ out of 5