Book Review - Please Sir Roger May I Have More?

Last Man Standing – Tales From Tinseltown
Roger Moore
Hardie Grant   262 pages.   RRP $39.95

A couple of years back Roger Moore released a terrific autobiography called 'My Word Is My Bond'. It was with great anticipation that I picked up a copy of his memoir ‘Last Man Standing’. My anticipation was rewarded with delight and joy at the most entertaining content of the book.

Sir Roger is the man who played James Bond as many times as Sean Connery, although over a longer period (seven times), but he also held audiences enthralled in ‘The Saint’ and ‘The Persuaders’ on the tele. He has it down pat when it comes to playing urbane and charming, sophisticated and suave. Some might say he is a bit wooden but I think it’s simply contained and refined.

The joy of the book is the stories that are full of name dropping, a bit of wink wink, the odd naughty revelation and the shameless stolen anecdote. Sir Roger has known the film ‘blokes’ such as Niven, Flynn, O’Toole, Burton and Caine as well as the women from Liz and Lana to Grace and Shelley. There’s even some Swedish royalty complemented with some nods to the British Royals. Almost every story is a beauty and I wanted to climb inside the book and be read to preferably by the characters themselves. This is an insider’s book and you know almost all of them are true. This is David Niven territory although we now know most of his stories were made up, I am more confident Sir Roger might exaggerate or embellish but not fib. He sends himself up a bit and is not averse to pricking the bubble of pretention although I was over him referring to Bond as ‘Jimmy Bond’ after the third or fourth time.

Divided nicely and sensibly into sections such as ‘The fun and feisty – Leading Ladies’, ‘Stage Struck’, ‘Creative Geniuses’ and ‘The Good Guys’ each of which is very nicely edited and kept in the context of the section titles. Plus there are many great photos sprinkled throughout.

Although this book is discreet and tasteful (a couple of language spikes but you know…)I was troubled by the treatment of his unnamed third wife. I can’t remember if she was treated better in his previous book but I was disappointed that she was referred to by her nationality (Italian) or ‘second wife’ etc. His second wife, Dorothy Squires was certainly given a good run in the first book and is warmly remembered in this book but there is obvious bitterness towards number three and I think that’s beneath Sir Roger. I know the divorce was nasty and there was some unpleasantness between Dad and the kids over the split and his former wife’s subsequent book but really adults play better surely.  For the record Sir Roger Moore’s third wife was Luisa Mattioli and they were married from 1969 (having lived together since 1961) until 2000 and had three children.

If you like your showbiz tales, especially of old Hollywood and Pinewood as well as a bit of hot goss then this well written and beautifully paced book is the one for you.

This year he is 88 not out and an ambassador for UNICEF this remarkable man and entertaining writer has given many of us much joy over the years and this book is another gift to us. Thanks Sir Roger and I wouldn’t mind another thanks….

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

Review: You Must Catch 'Foxcatcher'

I’ve always liked Steve Carell even if at times I haven’t been so thrilled by the movies he’s made. Somewhere under the often ridiculous comedy there is something ‘going on’ I find, something behind the eyes, some sadness or pathos at least. Ben Stiller and Robin Williams have the same thing and it is very alluring as well as incredibly skilled. Carell’s ‘serious’ side was shown off in ‘Little Miss Sunshine’ but not to the extent it is in ‘Foxcatcher’. 

Foxcatcher tells us the (by me at least) forgotten story of the Schultz brothers, Mark and Dave, American Olympic gold medallists in wrestling, who accepted patronage of John Du Pont  (heir to the Du Pont family chemical company fortune). Du Pont had an obsession for wrestling a sport he was never good enough to compete in himself. The film explores how he plays out this obsession through the Schultz brothers (particularly Mark), a team of fit young blokes at the Foxcatcher farm camp near Philadelphia in the 90s. The film shows the erratic, eccentric, cold and charmless DuPont mentoring and manipulating his charges and growing more erratic and possibly unravelling mentally as he edges closer to his ideal of an Olympic gold medal. I have to say I found it extraordinary that a wealthy individual (and/or his company) could be the patron (through financial gift)of a nation’s Olympic team – or am I naïve and ignorant?

Carell is creepy and cold and the progression into something ‘mad’ to deliver the denouement (no spoiler here) is totally convincing and shocking. Couple this performance with a fine portrait of Mark Schultz by Channing Tatum and a taut and touching portrayal of Dave by Mark Ruffalo and you have a great ensemble piece in a difficult story beautifully directed by Bennett Miller.  I’d also commend Vanessa Redgrave in the tiny but integral role of Mother DuPont and Guy Boyd as Du Pont’s adviser/lawyer. One quibble on the way Mark Schultz was written though. He is offered to us as a bit sullen and thick, perhaps a bit sub-par intellectually and yet we know he was a college graduate and has continued to do well in the world. I hope this wasn’t an easy target choice to gain empathy or manipulate the audience to take ‘sides’, love the simpleton, hate the monster. That would be a terrible condescension.

The film seems to me to tiptoe around two gay themes, wrestling/surrounding oneself with fit young guys in skimpy outfits rubbing up against each other and the relationship between Du Pont and Mark. Schultz has recently gone a bit ferral about what he sees as the film’s suggestion he and DuPont might have done the deed. I didn’t see that although I think there is an undercurrent in one scene where I thought ‘hello, what’s happening there’. In some ways though the film goes more machosexual than homosexual, he appears to valorize macho power through his own being, through how he sees those in his circle and how he views his nation being ‘great and powerful’. He certainly objectifies those around him so you wonder in what way he values them or simply seeks to possess them or control them certainly there’s an element of domination which gets a bit yucky really. And as for wrestling, surely no one denies the homo-eroticism in wrestling do they?

And I certainly did have a knowing smirk when a huge army tank he buys is delivered and he gets very shitty to discover the gun he asked for didn’t come with the tank. Hmmm?  

In the end I’m not sure it matters but is the shying away from any explicit gay scenes because factually it’s uncertain (or nonsense) or a bit of primness in case certain parts of the cinema industry (Oscars) and the potential audience (sports loving religious) might find ‘difficult’.

Whatever, this is a fine film ,well made and splendidly acted. It’s a horror film without the gore and splatter, even sans a piercing soundtrack.

4 out of 5

Review: 'Birdman' - Fantasy Takes Flight

There are a group of films released each year which are said to be populated with ‘Oscar Moments’. These are the scenes where the actors work their socks off emoting and reaching deep inside themselves to unleash bathos, pathos and find kudos. They’re the moments when you might sigh, let out a little breath; perhaps an awww, even shed a tear.

I used to ‘know’ a great moment in a film when I got involuntary goose bumps. I don’t get them so much these days, is that because I’m inured or because I can all too often see the ‘stitches’ these days, films so finely manufactured that there are no surprises and there are more Oscar Moments than genuine examples of nuanced performance. The two aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive but I’m becoming more and more cynical about exploitation and manipulation. Blockbusters are on the rise and thrive on exploitation so maybe the response by other genre makers is to employ the same devices, After all many blockbuster directors ‘cross over’ to narrative films.

Birdman stars Michael Keaton as Riggan Thomson, a former superstar thanks to the hit Birdman series of films. A couple of decades later and we find him struggling financially, has been abandoned by Hollywood and according to his daughter is relevance deprived. We find him making his Broadway debut in an adaptation of a Raymond Carver novel, self financed and taking on the director role. His male co-star has to leave the play just before previews and is replaced by Edward Norton just to add another dynamic in a film about dynamics and dynamism. It’s also a film of Oscar Moments and a fair bit of verbosity.

The performances are all solid apart from, surprisingly, Naomi Watts who grates in nearly every scene.

I have to confess I didn’t understand everything that was going on and I’d hoped the ending of the film was about three scenes before the ‘real’ ending came (however the penultimate scene was terrific).

The film is technically accomplished. It appears the film is shot in one continuous take – it’s not – something for the film fans to argue over. This works well in the confines of the St James Theatre and in one scene out on Times Square. It’s a conceit but a nice one for cinephiles.

It’s incredibly wordy, an actor’s film if you like, but good words, interesting words and yes sometimes baffling words. The support cast of Norton, Watts, Emma Stone and Lindsay Duncan set us up for the theme of love and acceptance and their aspirations around those. Stone probably does it best but I thought the almost cameo appearance of Duncan was possibly the most germane on the theme, a small scene, few words but oh what those words ‘said’. All those fine words tend to fizz out towards the end and there are too many loose threads left lying around while we are shunted into Riggan’s finale.

This is a film of very good moments. There is a lot to ponder on and chew over. Michael Keaton is riveting and proves he is an actor of note, a film actor for our times. If he does win an Oscar though I wonder whether it will be because of his acting overall or because of those Oscar Moments.

3½ out of 5

Postscript:  You know hundreds of films are released in America each year and yet less than a dozen of those films feature in the Oscars. Similarly hundreds, maybe thousands of actors appear in films through the year and yet maybe 25-30 are deemed worthy of an Oscar nomination. Nominations are about marketing and campaigns (read about Jennifer Aniston and her campaign to get a nomination this year) and trends. We tend to rush to see a film that is nominated rather than equally worthy films that might be on. I get it, I’m no different. I think we just need to know the reality and contain our reverence for some of these awards sometimes. Is it not perfectly possible to have every film released in the running for awards and just have them voted on? The ones that get the most votes win the ‘most popular’ award and perhaps have a panel similar to the Cannes judging jury who award ‘best performance’ awards. Just sayin’

Review: Paper Planes - an Aussie High Flyer

Here’s the formula. There’s the single parent, maybe loser dad who doesn’t quite get what being a parent entails so of course is ‘absent’ at least emotionally. Maybe it’s mum with a bag full of ‘issues’ and/or addictions not working or working in the kind of job the middle class label as ‘dead end’.

Our child hero copes as best they can with the burden of parenting the parent while being voiceless in their community be that school, sports club, friendship circle etc. BUT they have a gift, momentarily undiscovered but which soon is revealed so the story arc can move along. They might be nerdy with a penchant for chess or a whiz at spelling who enters a spelling bee, great at basketball or ice skating can be a good angle but the point is they are ‘good’.

Of course there is a villain or bully, often a grown up but even better if it’s another kid. He has to be a brat and someone we just want to hiss at (ah that’s what pantomimes were about). No matter we know they will get theirs when the time comes, when redemption hits.

There will be stages as the story develops and our hero wins a heat, a qualifier to progress to the nxt stage and maybe just maybe they’ll get to the final and then, wellll we know what’s gonna happen at the end don’t we?

Hang on mum and dad need redemption too. We have the discovery, the revelation of what troubles them and we might even have the hero speak the magic words that turn them around BUT redemption will be theirs. The final has to be fought but dad’s housebound with his phobia or his despair and can’t leave the house or the poky little flat they share; mum is off with the useless druggie boyfriend or stuck with an extra shift at work (can’t give it up because the mean boss will sack her and then where will we all be), oh dear sad times but hope is all around (maybe even on the stirring soundtrack). 

We get to the big moment, the little hero against the big bad world, the demons and the heartache, the myth made real. Poor little fella or lass has to take it all on their skinny shoulders and we know they’ll come through but look who’s that up in the bleachers or coming in the door of the arena (nicely lit and framed, and that music…pass the tissue), yay, be still my swelling heart.

‘Paper Planes’ is 100% formula and ticks every manipulative and exploitative box there is. And I loved every minute of it. Ed Oxenbould as Dylan the paper plane ‘pilot’ extraordinaire had to carry the film and did it extremely well. Sam Worthington as his dad was good although the script probably limited him more than needed. Pete Rowsthorn, Terry Norris and Deb Mailman gave great support in their roles, Norris particularly (although occasionally cloyingly clichéd) and the standout co-star was Julian Dennison as Dylan’s mate. Very natural and smooth, he had some real laugh out loud moments.

Beautifully shot on a number of Australian and Japanese locations paper Planes has a lovely confident look about it easily equal to the best of Hollywood and European films of this sort.

Beautifully directed by the great Robert Connolly this film should do well here and in the overseas markets given the right support.

Go see this feel good Aussie high flyer. 3 ½ out of 5

http://www.paperplanesmovie.com.au