Bombshell (2019) film review

Year: 2019
Running Time: 109 minutes
Director: Jay Roach
Writer: Charles Randolph
Cast: Charlize Theron, Nicole Kidman, Margot Robbie, John Lithgow, Kate McKinnon, Connie Britton, Allison Janney, Malcolm McDowell, Josh Lawson, Ben Lawson, Liv Hewson

Bombshell opens in cinemas around the country on January 16, 2019 thanks to Studiocanal.

Jay Roach's Bombshell is the award season movie that is far from flawless, but the emotional punch it delivers and extraordinary performances by the leading ladies are enough to make one overlook it's sins. It is a film that feels as though it has been sugar-coated visually, but at the same time balances itself out with hard-hitting topics that will trigger many. The scandal at Fox News involving Roger Ailes is shocking by nature and the film could easily have relied just on the story for impact, but Bombshell ventures to be more than a film based on a shocking story and manages to get it right more often than not.

In what is a very left wing film about the infamous right wing television network, Bombshell is a film that will stir up confusing emotions in many people. Earlier last year the Showtime mini-series, The Loudest Voice chronicled the life of the larger than life founder of Fox News, Roger Ailes. The show earned incredible critical acclaim with Russell Crowe winning the Golden Globe for playing Ailes and indeed looked at the sexual harassment claims made against him, which were led by Fox and Friends co-host, Gretchen Carlson (portrayed here by Naomi Watts). Unlike the television series, Bombshell is a film about sexual harassment in the workplace with a focus on the women affected.

For those of us who are already angry at Fox News on close to a daily basis, Bombshell will do a great deal to encourage that anger. The film goes as far as to say that even people who work for the network are only there because no one else would hire them after they work for Fox. The Fox News painted here is an evil workplace that strives on scandal, both on air and off. The women are all instructed to wear as short skirts as possible when on air and are expected to laugh along while their male co-hosts make jokes (often sexist) at their expense. As we see at the beginning of the film, this also includes the then Republican Presidential candidate, Donald Trump, accusing then Fox darling, Megyn Kelly (incredibly portrayed by Charlize Theron) of "anger-menstruating". She is instructed not to retaliate, as it would not benefit the network's relationship with the Republican party. The overall negative view we get here of Fox News is extremely one-sided, but is also shrouded in truth.

The 2016 scandal involving Ailes was one of the first reported high-profile cases of ongoing sexual harassment in an entertainment based workplace. It is nothing short of horrific the rippling effect that these incidents had on the culture of the workplace and the individuals themselves. Bombshell brings to the forefront many of the toxic features of an environment where these events are taking place. It is shocking to see how these events are not only turned a blind eye to, but that they are also accepted as part of the culture and even quietly supported by other women who want to please their male superiors.

One of the questions that is often asked when people come forward with their stories of sexual harassment in the workplace is why they did not report it when it happened, and Bombshell certainly does not shy away from the answer to this question. Gretchen Carlson (played by Nicole Kidman) begins her journey to expose Ailes (John Lithgow) by herself, with the hope that others will come forward with their claims to support hers. Inside Fox, there are sharp whispers of women coming forward and the women in question are pounced upon with quiet threats of trouble if they do not support their boss. There is much to be scared of including loss of promotions, ostracization and even loss of their position in the company. The road to peace from sexual harassment is not a straight or smooth one by any means, as is demonstrated here. The emotional impact on the victims is also a very hard watch in this film. Margot Robbie plays Kayla Popisil (a young women who has grown up in a family who watch Fox News religiously), who is the subject to Ailes unwanted advances when she expresses her desire to progress further with Fox. Her portrayal of a victim of sexual harassment is harrowing and powerful, and shows how such an event can change a person and their view of the world.

Bombshell is first and foremost a film about sexual harassment in the workplace and second of all a film about the Fox network. Viewers of Fox will also be angered by the film, but not in the same way as those who are not fans of the network. Again, Bombshell does not paint the Fox environment or personalities in a good light, but one cannot deny that the characters are expertly cast and played. Charlize Theron completely disappears into her character of Megyn Kelly, and credit must be given to the hair and make-up department for making her look so incredibly similar to Kelly. However, it is not just the visuals that make Theron into Kelly. She completely personifies her in voice and mannerisms, as well as turning in a perfect amount of emotion and strength. Nicole Kidman also is terrific as Gretchen Carlson, a personality she already physically resembles and does not rest on this as the driving nature of her performance.

The downfall of Bombshell is that it tends to hover in between a Saturday Night Live episode and The Big Short. Roach employs several of the film-making techniques that Adam McKay used in his 2015 film, but with nowhere near as much ease and success. The editing of the film is irritatingly choppy throughout and several scenes could have been done without. It is a film which is rich in pop culture, which given the opportunity here means it can be a bit of fun and is given a bit of a glamorous exterior, meaning lots of beautiful women in beautiful clothes. These features almost fly under the raider, which is a good thing as there should be nothing fun about a film about sexual harassment.

The unfortunate truth about Bombshell is that considering it is a film about the victims of sexual harassment in the work place, it would have benefited from having a female director. Roach does a very good job with the film, but as this is a film about women, there was the opportunity to have had someone at the helm who could bring even more sympathy and perhaps even experience to the film. Nevertheless, Bombshell does captures the seriousness of the issue of sexual harassment in the workplace and through it's incredible performances, stirs emotions within you that make it hard to forget.

7/10

Rules Don't Apply (2016) film review

Year: 2016
Running Time: 127 minutes
Director/Writer: Warren Beatty
Cast: Warren Beatty, Lily Collins, Alden Ehrenreich, Matthew Broderick, Annette Bening, Candice Bergen, Martin Sheen, Haley Bennett, Taissa Farmiga, Ed Harris, Alec Baldwin, Steve Coogan, Oliver Platt

Rules Don't Apply is now showing in selected Australian cinemas and is distributed by 20th Century Fox.

In his long awaited directorial return, Warren Beatty commits the ultimate filmmaking sin with Rules Don't Apply...he makes known his obsessive hero worship for his leading man who he is, not surprisingly, also portraying.

According to the 2010 biography "Star: How Warren Beatty Seduced America" by Peter Biskind, Beatty has long been an admirer of Howard Hughes and his legacy, as he claimed that he saw much of himself in Hughes. The prospect of a film based on Hughes' life has long been a dream project for the Oscar winning director and with Hollywood's ongoing obsession with the eccentric billionaire, the film was always been on the cards for Beatty. Rules Don't Apply is a different take on the Howard Hughes story and much more of a narrative than a biopic, as his story intercepts with that of one of his contract girls, Marla Mabrey (Lily Collins) and driver, Frank Forbes (Alden Ehrenreich).

The film opens with a direct quote from Howard Hughes himself:-

"Never check an interesting fact"

This is also ollowed by the disclaimer that names and dates have been changed (eg. the dates of Hughes' marriage to Jean Peters and the case of Hughes' against though who claimed to have written an authorized biography). In other words, Rules Don't Apply is fan fiction on a grand scale. What is terrible is that it is blatantly obvious how huge an admirer Beatty is of Hughes. Even without knowing Beatty's background and having prior knowledge that he compares himself in a favourite light to Hughes, his love affair with the man he is playing and directing is so crystal clear that it is actually painful.

In all honesty this is not a delusional thought on his behalf, as there are several similarities between Hughes and Beatty. Hollywood has long had a fascination with Howard Hughes as a result of his eccentric ways, incredible achievements in aviation, obsessive approach to filmmaking and his long list of romantic liaisons with notable Hollywood starlets. These last two points could also be used word-for-word to describe Hollywood's fascination with Warren Beatty. After arriving in Tinsel Town at the tail end of the 1950's (the same time Rules Don't Apply is set) with a bucket load of both talent and good looks, Beatty had a well known reputation that rivalled Don Juan before he eventually settled down with his wife, actress Annette Bening (who also appears in the film as Marla's mother, Lucy). Yet, Beatty has always been a very highly respected filmmaker and actor, who is a complete perfectionist when it comes to his films (hence why Rules Don't Apply was so long in the making).

Despite the fact that there are obvious similarities between the two Hollywood legends, Rules Don't Apply slips past being a passion project and into the realm of a vanity project. Beatty is so thrilled with playing his hero whom he identifies with that the whole film has an annoyingly egotistical glow to it. Not only does it feel self absorbed, but the production itself is in complete shambles. The editing is incredibly choppy leading to irritation and confusion, the mix of archival footage shot on film and newly shot digital footage in the same scene is distracting and the screenplay is nonsensical.

The film is nostalgic as far as the archival footage and costume design goes, but doesn't quite grasp the charm of the 1950's in Southern California nor does it feel atmospheric the way a film like this should be. Beatty makes his own reminiscence for this era known by superimposing photos of his younger self in young Howard Hughes photos and alongside starlets such as Bette Davis and Jean Harlow (another sign of the Hughes story overlapping his own).

To say that this film had potential is an understatement. Everyone was expecting an incredible comeback by Beatty as this is the first feature film he has written and directed since 1998 and it is understood he has been working on this film for even longer. You can see what he is doing, he is putting a different creative spin on the Howard Hughes story. Yet despite the film being primarily about the enigmatic and intriguing Hughes, one finds themselves wanting to watch a film that is more about the young Marla and Frank than him. A film about these two and the dominance that old Hollywood held over their young aspiring stars every action would have been far more interesting and allowed for a more emotional experience. Lily Collins and Alden Ehrenreich are definitely the true stars of the film and often come across a great deal more charismatic and interesting than Beatty's Hughes.

Rules Don't Apply is a grand disappointment. It is completely understandable why Warren Beatty would want to make a film about someone he so greatly admires, but in this case his passion has got the better of him and this is a film made for himself more than anyone else.

3.5/10

Loving (2016) film review

Year: 2016
Running Time: 123 minutes
Director/ Writer: Jeff Nichols
Cast: Ruth Negga, Joel Edgerton, Will Dalton, Sharon Blackwood, Marton Csokas, Bill Camp, Nick Kroll, Jon Bass

Loving will open in Australian cinemas on March 16 and is distributed by Entertainment One.

In another winning turn from writer/director Jeff Nichols, Loving is raw, subtle and endearingly human with absolutely sublime performances by Ruth Negga and Joel Edgerton.

The marriage of Mildred (Ruth Negga) and Richard Loving (Joel Edgerton) is legendary for it's role in the legalisation of interracial marriage in Virginia and 15 other states in 1967. In 1958, Mildred (who was of colour) and Richard (who was Caucasian) were married outside their home state of Virginia as interracial marriage was not recognised there. The two were arrested weeks later for anti-miscegenation and Mildred was thrown into jail when she was five months pregnant. Upon being released, the court rules that they must leave the state and not be in Virginia at the same time together again. The two continued to fight to have their marriage recognised in their home state and took their case to the Supreme Court.

While Loving is certainly being marketed as a romantic story of love overcoming all boundaries, it is a tremendous relief that it is not atypical of a Hollywood romance film, as the memory of Mildred and Richard Loving does not deserve that treatment. They deserve more than the candy-coating of their story to suit the wider audience. There will be many cinema goers who will disagree with me because adorable and all-encompassing romance is expected in mainstream cinema when the film is about marriage. It would have been far too tempting for the story of the Lovings to be told in such a way as a result.

However, with a writer/director at the helm like Jeff Nichols, this film was never going to be told like this. Nichols (who's past films have included Mud and Midnight Special) is known for his natural and raw method of storytelling and he was the perfect filmmaker to do the Lovings' story justice. The rural Virginian setting of Loving is extremely atmospheric and exquisite thanks to the film's glorious cinematography, but it also perfectly captures the socio-political climate of the southern state in the 1950's which is so very important to the story.

The best thing about Loving is that it does not try to push any of the issues or exaggerate any aspect of the film. The issue of race is not brought up in the film straight away as a way of showing that the Lovings never saw their race as being an issue in their relationship. They knew there wouldn't be a way to marry in Virginia because of the interracial marriage laws, so they travelled to Washington, DC. However, this is the only mention of race being an issue before they are taken into custody in their hometown. Race is a glaringly obvious theme of Loving, but its importance does not need to be emphasised as the issue and story are powerful enough without any help.

The Lovings were obviously quite reserved people who kept to themselves and even though their case was taken to the Supreme Court, they did not choose to appear in person. Despite the stigma that was attached to it, their marriage was not one that was out of the ordinary and this is perfectly depicted in Ruth Negga and Joel Edgerton's performances. The two give extremely subtle, but effective performances as the everyday couple who do extraordinary things to make sure they can provide a normal life for their family. Both Negga and Edgerton give beautiful performances and their chemistry is not overly physical, but never lacks power and strength.

Loving is an extraordinary and powerful story about ordinary people wanting their marriage recognised. It is a story that is most effective when approached with subtlety and as naturally as possible. Thankfully, Jeff Nichols has taken the story of Mildred and Richard Loving and done them absolute justice with this beautiful film.

8/10

Hidden Figures (2016) film review

Year: 2016
Running Time: 127 minutes
Director: Theodore Melfi
Writers: Margot Lee Shetterly (based on the book written by), Allison Shroeder and Theodore Melfi (screenplay)
Cast: Taraji P. Henson, Octavia Spencer, Janelle Monae, Kevin Costner, Jim Parsons, Kirsten Dunst, Mahershala Ali

Hidden Figures is now showing in the United States and will be released in Australia on February 16. Distributed by 20th Century Fox.

Like the incredible women in the film, Hidden Figures is smart, entertaining and inspirational. It's a wonderfully sharp film that provides a nostalgic and informative snapshot of history while never neglecting it's responsibility to pay the greatest tribute to it's remarkable heroines.

Set in 1961, Hidden Figures is the widely unknown story of how three extraordinary women overcame the unavoidable obstacles of race and gender to assist NASA in their quest to put men in space and ultimately on the moon. Katherine Johnson (Taraji P. Henson), Dorothy Vaughan (Octavia Spencer) and Mary Jackson (Janelle Monae), all of who were close friends, made their mark on history in each of their fields at NASA at a time when racial segregation was still in place in the state of Virginia and women still struggled to be taken seriously in the workplace.

Hidden Figures is truly a marvellous piece of filmmaking by director and co-writer, Theodore Melfi. At 127 minutes, it is by no means a short film. However, it is still incredible how much it does and says in this amount of time without seeming heavy or overloaded.

Hidden Figures never once loses focus of it's primary goal, which is to tell the story of Katherine Johnson, Dorothy Vaughan and Mary Jackson. Yet at the same time, the film also provides an intriguing and nostalgic historical imprint of early 1960's in the United States, a time when a great deal of interesting things were taking place. Tensions were high between the United States and Russia and were heightened when Russian, Yuri Gagarin became the first man in space. Being beaten by the Russians in such a time did not sit well with the country and especially not with NASA.

Of course, one of the glaringly obvious themes of Hidden Figures is racism and prejudice. In 1961, the state of Virginia was three years away from having segregation abolished under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Even in the film, there is a sense that a change is in the air, but racial tension was very much alive and well. The film works as a reminder that despite growing rights for the coloured in the early 1960's, racism was inbuilt in society so much that it was not often even recognised by whites for what it was. It was just an accepted way of thinking, as was demonstrated by various characters in the film including Kirsten Dunst's Vivian Mitchell. In a memorable exchange between her and Octavia Spencer's Dorothy Vaughan, the following dialogue sums up this notion completely:-

"Despite what you think, I have nothing against y'all"

"I know you probably believe that"

This may look and sound like an insult, but it is not that as it is nothing but the truth. Hidden Figures contains numerous memorable and important pieces of dialogue such as this, but they can also feel as though they were included for people to comment on their importance. This may not sit well with some cinemagoers, but Melfi and Allison Schroeder have achieved their purpose as here we are indeed referring to them.

Yet as much as Hidden Figures is a beautifully made historical picture, it does not forget it's primary responsibility is to highlight the ways Katherine Johnson, Dorothy Vaughan and Mary Jackson overcame seemingly impossible obstacles to achieve incredible things. The screenplay allows for the character development and in depth study of all three of the main characters so that one feels as though they are satisfied with how well they know each of the women. Not only that, but each character has their own unique personality and they have been brilliantly cast in order to make the most of their glorious character traits.

Right from the first scene which the three women appear in together on the deserted road when their car breaks down, you feel as if you are already getting a sense of who Katherine, Dorothy and Mary are and they are all a sheer joy to watch in this scene. Taraji P. Henson is wonderful as Katherine in that she is restrained, but powerful. More importantly, she is relatable and completely likable. Octavia Spencer also gives a strong performance as Dorothy, who is also rather maternal not just around her children, but also over her workers. Janelle Monae is a particular standout as Mary. From that first car scene, one can tell she is the sassy, street smart one of the trio, but not in a way that is unnatural by any means or arrogant. She is great fun to watch and brings a certain sense of "cool" to the film, but in a mature and serious manner so not to take anything away from her achievements.

Hidden Figures is enjoyable and entertaining, but not overwhelming. The brilliance of this is that it does not detract from the enlightening, intelligent and inspiring story of these three incredible women.

9/10

Jackie (2016) film review

Year: 2016
Running Time: 99 minutes
Director: Pablo Larrain
Writer: Noah Oppenheim
Cast: Natalie Portman, Peter Sarsgaard, Greta Gerwig, Billy Crudup, John Hurt, Richard E. Grant, Caspar Phillipson

Jackie is now showing in the United States and is distributed by Fox Searchlight. To be released in Australia on January 12 and distributed by Entertainment One.

Pablo Larrain's Jackie paints a sublime portrait of the extraordinary First Lady in the most complex and darkest of days following her husband's death. While Natalie Portman's wonderful performance of Jacqueline Kennedy is it's focal point, the film is an incredibly beautiful piece of work that is subtly powerful and brilliantly written by Noah Oppenheim.

November 22 1963 was the day that shocked the world. While the nation mourned the death of their leader, President John F. Kennedy, his widow, Jacqueline Kennedy (Natalie Portman) was faced not only with making sense of the sudden death of her husband, but also the closing of the Kennedy's reign of power in the White House. The days that followed that terrible event were filled with confusion and grief for the former First lady, but also a great deal of strength and remarkable power.

While the film is a thing of beauty as a whole, Natalie Portman is the core strength, heart and soul of Jackie. With her first appearance on screen as Jacqueline Kennedy as she greets the journalist at her front door, it is obvious that this is so much more than a straight forward biopic performance. While Portman does completely disappears into her character by perfecting her speech, mannerisms and walk, it is what she brings emotionally and psychologically rather than just physically that makes this her such a revelation. In Jackie, Portman has the uncanny ability to pack so much power into such a restrained performance and she is truly breathtaking.

The former First Lady has been crafted into a character for the screen with complete sincerity and respect. She is presented as a woman who experiences a great deal of sadness and confusion in her grief in the most extraordinary of situations, which the majority of us can only imagine. While Jacqueline Kennedy has always been seen as an enigmatic historical figure, Jackie allows us to see her in the most human of ways despite her social position of power. She is not subject to overt hero-worship, but it is impossible not to respect her and grow even more fond of her, which is a credit to both Portman and the filmmakers.

Jackie is beautifully constructed around it's main character. It is incredibly interesting to look at the way her story is told, as the screenplay is not written in the conventional fashion of the chronological order of events. Rather than this being confusing in any way, it makes the film feel well-rounded and Jackie's story complete. Flashbacks (particularly of the White House Tour) are used both to compare the lady she was to the lady she became and also to build suspense and intrigue in her story. The film plays back history from her point of view, which is a completely different story to the one we all know about what occurred on that fateful day.

And production-wise Jackie is completely and utterly exquisite. From beginning to end, the film feels as though it was truly shot in 1963. It's nostalgia is perfected by the incredible production design by Jean Rabasse, beautiful costume design by Madeline Fontaine and art direction by Halina Gebarowicz. Director of Photography Stephane Fontaine's cinematography is also incredibly special with the way he has the ability to turn so many scenes into a piece of art using the lighting and a range of long, short and travelling shots. Finally the harrowing musical score by Mica Levi does everything a score should do as it heightens suspense and builds on emotion to add even more power to the film.

Jackie is what you want every biopic to be like. Although Natalie Portman's performance is one of the most powerful and memorable of the past twelve months, the film does not rely purely on her to create magic and it is beautiful in every way.

9.5/10

Sydney Film Festival: Elvis & Nixon (2016)

Year: 2016

Running Time: 86 minutes

Director: Liza Johnson

Writers: Joey Sagal, Halana Sagal and Cary Elwes

Cast: Michael Shannon, Kevin Spacey, Alex Pettyfer, Johnny Knoxville, Colin Hanks, Evan Peters

Elvis & Nixon screened at the 2016 Sydney Film Festival on Thursday June 9. For more information on the Sydney Film Festival, please see their official website.

Elvis & Nixon is a highly fabricated recount of the meeting between one of the world's biggest pop stars and the President of the United States which is a whole lot of fun and embraces it's permission to be over-exaggerated and incredibly goofy.

In December 1970, a meeting took place in the Oval office between then and not yet disgraced president, Richard Nixon (as portrayed by impression extraordinaire Kevin Spacey) and Elvis Presley (Michael Shannon). The photograph of the two that was taken on this occasion is the most requested in the National Archives. However, the transcript for what actually took place during that meeting does not exist so writers Joey Sagal, Halana Sagal and Cary Elwes have taken the liberty of inventing the comical turn of events leading up to and including the dramatically less than ordinary meeting between the two.

Elvis & Nixon has been granted an incredible privilege which barely any other biopics receive as due to the blurry nature of the event, they are given free range with their screenplay. There are several of truths in the story as approved by Elvis' close friend, Jerry Schilling (played by Alex Pettyfer in the film), but much of the film is exaggerated for comedy value. Elvis did indeed want to obtain a badge as a Federal Agent at Large and hand-delivered a letter to the White House where he was able to meet with the President later that day, but these events are built on and enhanced comically for pure entertainment value. Elvis did not attempt to take firearms into the White House and he most definitely would not have got away with it, nor would he have shown his karate moves to or take part in a hand-slap game with the President.

Everything about Elvis & Nixon is exaggerated. This exaggeration is the main source of humour, especially when it comes to the characters. Both Elvis Presley and Richard Nixon have well known and recognisable personality traits that everyone knows so these are exaggerated for comedic value, but not in a disrespectful fashion. This is particularly true of Elvis who is constantly walking around in his stage attire looking more like an Elvis impersonator rather than the man himself and always met with girls falling over themselves squealing. It is not only the characters that are exaggerated in the film, but also the production and costume design and hair and make-up. If this film was a drama or run of the mill biopic, this would be considered irritating and rather goofy, but considering Elvis & Nixon is a comedy it is all forgiven and accepted with open arms.

Despite the over-exaggeration of his character, Michael Shannon gives a solid performance as Elvis Presley. While respectable, it isn't particularly heart-warming nor does it make one feel like they want to revisit any of his music or concerts in a hurry. It feels as though one tender moment where he talks to himself about his twin brother who died at birth has been just thrown in for good measure, but it occurs too late in the film to make any sort of emotional impact for the character.

On the other hand, Kevin Spacey does a fine job as Richard Nixon. Spacey has an infamous knack for impressions as well as being a superb actor so it is with these two qualities that he brings Nixon back to life in a way that is both natural and humorous at the same time. Colin Hanks as presidential aide, Egil 'Bid' Krogh and Evan Peters as Dwight Chapin are also subtly amusing and solid.

Elvis & Nixon avoids the expectations placed on movies that are based on real life events by adopting a comedic persona rather than one which is serious and dramatic and what results is a film which is fun, enjoyable and comfortable in it's exaggeration.

7/10

The Man Who Knew Infiniy (2015) film review

Year: 2015
Running Time: 108 minutes
Director: Matthew Brown
Writers: Robert Kanigel (biography), Matthew Brown (screenplay)
Cast: Dev Patel, Jeremy Irons, Stephen Fry, Toby Jones, Devika Bhise, Jeremy Northam, Richard Cunnigham

The Man Who Knew Infinity is now showing in Australia and is distributed by Icon.

Despite the story of mathematics genius, Srinivasa Ramanujan Iyengar being interesting in itself, it isn't enough to make The Man Who Knew Infinity any more than a run of the mill biopic which struggles to create any sense of emotion or chemistry between any of the talented, but under-utilised cast.

The Man Who Knew Infinity does not do Ramanujan the justice he and his legacy deserves. His life story and especially the recounting of his time at Cambridge University call for heartfelt emotion and even the opportunity for suspense, which is a quality not common in biopics. Portrayed here by Dev Patel, Ramanujan came from humble beginnings growing up in poverty in Madras, India. A self-taught mathematical genius, he was summoned to Cambridge University to continue working on his and publish his theories with the guidance of professor, G.H. Hardy (Jeremy Irons). With the help of Hardy, he becomes a pioneer against all the odds and exceeds everyone's expectations.

In all honesty, Ramanujan's story was begging to be told on film, but it would seem that director and writer, Matthew Brown relied a little too much on the story to carry the whole film. With the exception of some technical jargon which can become a little too advanced for those who are not so mathematically inclined, the film feels like a typical and straight forward biopic that takes you from point A to B. It really is a terrible shame because with the story of such a genius and one that struggled so much with the cultural differences between India and England during World War I, there is the opportunity for the audience to really feel something rather than to just learn about the man who was Ramanujan.

The script addresses several times the racial issues that Ramanujan was subject to during his time at the very white Cambridge University. Here was one of the greatest opportunities for the audience to really feel apathy for the lead character, but even this falls wildly short with racial slurs and disrespect (such as Ramanujan being stricken with a text book by one of his lecturers) feeling more comical and like school ground bickering rather than hurtful and damaging. At times it feels as though Brown was trying to make The Man Who Knew Infinity along the same lines as The Imitation Game with genius representing quirkiness thus having some comical moments. These moments do at times prompt a few giggles, but non which are particularly memorable.

The fault of the film being more than somewhat dry and lifeless is not in the hands of the cast, but in the way in which their parts are written and directed. The cast of The Man Who Knew Infinity is an extremely talented one and their talent has all but gone to waste with this screenplay. Dev Patel is fine as Ramanujan and does have some wonderful moments. Knowing what the mathematician was like, one would swiftly believe that Patel would be perfect for the role. He is actually perfect for the role, but the way in which the role is written doesn't give Patel anywhere near as much to work with as it should and thus does not show exactly what he is capable of. There are so many scenes in the film which call for welcomed depth and emotion, but they are not taken advantage of.

As a result of this lack of emotion written into the screenplay and directed on screen, the chemistry between the majority of the characters is truly lacking. Brown has expressed that he felt as though The Man Who Knew Infinity was a love story between Ramanujan and Hardy, but one does not sense any love. The ending of the film reinforces the idea that you should have felt the love and friendship from these two, but there is no sense of real warmth in their scenes together from the beginning to the end. Newcomer, Devika Bhise is very good as Ramanujan's wife, Janaki, but again the chemistry between her and Patel is not of the overpowering romantic love the film wants us to believe it is.

The Man Who Knew Infinity does tend to fall into a trap that so many biopics of well-known cultural figures do and that is it has a air of self-importance in it's film making. This can be an extremely irritating characteristic to have when one knows that the subject matter is important, but the execution of the story is so dull and dry that any sense of awe or bewilderment is lost. The lovely musical score and cinematography by Larry Smith try to give the audience a greater sense of attachment and tension, but it comes across as the film makers trying a little too hard. It is also hard to take seriously hearing Ramanujan and his relatives speaking English to each other in India, when they would quite obviously be speaking Indian.

For those who have always found mathematics a tiresome subject, The Man Who Knew Infinity will do little to influence these people otherwise. While the film does ensure us of the importance of Ramanujan's discoveries and that he is a cultural figure who should be celebrated, the film is in itself rather unmemorable and of no great importance.

4.5/10

Trumbo (2015) film review

Year: 2015
Running Time: 124 minutes
Director: Jay Roach
Writers: Bruce Cook (book), John McNamara (screenplay)
Cast: Bryan Cranston, Diane Lane, Helen Mirren, Michael Stuhlberg, Louise C.K., Elle Fanning, Dave Maldonado, John Goodman, David James Elliot, Alan Tudyk, Roger Bart, Dean O'Gorman, Christian Berkel

Trumbo will be released in Australia on February 18 and distributed by eOne.

Trumbo is a stunning and riveting portrait of old Hollywood which brings to light the extreme injustice inflicted upon important and talented members of the filmmaking community out of fear of their conflicting political beliefs.

Eccentric screenwriter Dalton Trumbo (portrayed by Bryan Cranston) was a favourite among Hollywood studios in the 1940's with such credits to his name as Kitty Foyle and Thirty Seconds Over Tokyo. He was also well known for his vocal political beliefs which coincided with that of the Communist party and being a member of the Hollywood 10, a group of directors and screenwriters who were blacklisted after refusing to answer questions and name names in Congress. After being tried, convicted and sent to prison, the blacklist prevented Trumbo and fellow Hollywood 10 members from obtaining work in American cinema. As a result, Trumbo had to find a way to write and make money for his family without the Academy, Screenwriters Guild and the infamous gossip columnist, Hedda Hopper (Helen Mirren) finding out.

Jay Roach's first turn at directing dramatic film is an intriguing piece of cinema that only becomes more so as the film progresses. It's sense of intrigue drives this fascinating story which is an imprint of Hollywood history that captures the political climate of the time in both the Southern Californian movie town and the United States as a whole. With the onset of the Cold War, the United States held an increased sense of paranoia. Hence the concern with those who were Communist sympathizers, especially in the film industry where filmmakers have a greater ability to influence by way of their large scale of reach. Hollywood during this time was generally daunted by anything that was considered different in terms of filmmaking and the film industry people, so those who were Communists were part of a minority and ostracised.

Trumbo is a fine piece of old Hollywood nostalgia as it captures the time period and it's players splendidly and will be a treat to anyone who is interested in the American film industry's earlier years. The costume design by Daniel Orlandi for both men and women is truly splendid and captures the fashion of the late 1940's and then the early 1950's wonderfully. The landscapes and location shots of North Hollywood and Highland Park are extreme contrasts to the way they are now, as they are far more tranquil and peaceful in the film as the Trumbo family's neighbourhoods than in this century.

One of the main features of Trumbo that fans of the golden era will appreciate is that it shows the power that Hedda Hopper really had in Hollywood. Hopper was absolutely ruthless in her approach to obtaining information and getting exactly the outcome she wanted in any situation. She had the power to make or break people's careers and many of the stars chose to share exclusives with Hopper for her column to be on her good side. In Trumbo, Helen Mirren portrays her perfectly as Hopper was known for being able to switch from trying to obtain information by being charming to being manipulative and scheming. The film shows how her accessibility to some of the biggest names in Hollywood including Louis B. Mayer and John Wayne made her so powerful and how in this case she not only used the information for her column, but also to mould Hollywood into the way she wanted it.

Bryan Cranston is superb in the title role as Dalton Trumbo as his transformation into the screenwriter with all his eccentricities is a wonderful example of brilliant character acting. Towards the beginning of the film, it almost feels as though John MacNamara's screenplay has created a glorified version of Trumbo with his frequent long, meaningful speeches. However, when Louis C.K.'s character of Arlen Hird questions Trumbo as to why he has to "say everything like it is chiselled into a rock", this is the end of these long passages by Trumbo and one realises that this was really the way Trumbo spoke until he was tried and convicted. Cranston's Trumbo develops throughout the film and it is evident how his character changed and evolved as a result of the tumultuous events.

Trumbo has a number of old Hollywood figures featured in the film that many will recognise. There is a great use of archival footage of actual events and old films in which footage shot for this film of actors portraying certain characters is inserted in. While some of the actors playing characters who are based on real life figures may not exactly physically resemble them, it is incredible how each of them have mastered the mannerisms and voices of their real life counterparts. Michael Stuhlberg is an absolute standout as Edward G. Robinson. He gives a fantastic emotional portrayal as the actor who commits a rather despicable act in the eyes of his friends, but one forgives him when his heartfelt explanation is heard. David James Elliot's portrayal of John Wayne makes him perhaps not as likable as he was perceived, while Dean O'Gorman's Kirk Douglas does quite the opposite. O'Gorman embodies the Spartacus actor perfectly and is incredibly likable leading those who weren't alive in the 1950's to understand Douglas' appeal.

While Trumbo is not a proud look back at this time period in Hollywood, it is an accurate and fascinating biopic with a strong screenplay and wonderful performances which make it incredibly entertaining and enjoyable in it's nostalgia.

8.5/10

Steve Jobs (2015) film review

 

Year: 2015

Running Time: 122 minutes

Director: Danny Boyle

Writer: Walter Isaacson (book), Aaron Sorkin (screenplay)

Cast: Michael Fassbender, Kate Winslet, Seth Rogan, Jeff Daniels, Michael Stuhlberg, Katherine Waterston, Sarah Snook, Makenzie Moss, Ripley Sobo, Perla Haney-Jardine

 

Steve Jobs was released in Australian cinemas on February 4 and is distributed by Universal Pictures.

 

Danny Boyle's Steve Jobs breathes new life into the much told life story of the technological pioneer with his eclectic direction of Aaron Sorkin's crisp and creative screenplay setting this film apart from those that have come before it.

 

There has been much written about the man who is considered by many to have been the genius behind our current age of technology with such achievements to his name as co-founder and CEO of Apple and the development of innovative products including the iMac, iPod and iPhone. With over a dozen films to date which feature Jobs  (including features and documentaries), this 2015 feature film brings with it a point of difference with it's mode of storytelling that makes it anything but a straight-forward biopic.

 

Steve Jobs is a film sliced into three by what are seen as three of the most important and pivotal nights of Jobs' career. These nights are the launch of the Apple Macintosh (1984), the NeXT computer (1988) and the iMac computer (1998). During each of these moments in time, Jobs (as portrayed by Michael Fassbender) is faced with not only the pressures of ensuring that his presentations achieve the desired outcome for his products, but the pressures imposed on him by the people who have had a great impact on both his professional and personal life.

 

The mode of storytelling adapted in Steve Jobs is indeed intriguing and this is what sets it apart from other films which aim to document the life of Jobs. Unlike others, this film only focuses on a 14 year period of his life with references to his earlier life to explain his character. As one has come to expect from an Aaron Sorkin screenplay, Steve Jobs is extremely dialogue driven and incredibly witty. From the opening moments of the film, the delivery of the stunning dialogue by Michael Fassbender as Jobs, Kate Winslet as Joanna Hoffman and Michael Stuhlberg as Andy Hertzfeld is enthralling and thoroughly entertaining.

 

 

 

However, the fact that this film is so dialogue driven and not so much action driven may not be enjoyable to some as it will not feel as though much happens and that there is no real suspense or ongoing tension. This is also a result of the film being divided into three segments, as it is not traditional storytelling and therefore there is not one singular climactic moment of conflict and resolution.

 

Another example of how Danny Boyle's film is not like its predecessors is that it is not a reliable point of reference for the life of Steve Jobs, but it does not seek to be so. Steve Jobs is a film representing the life of Steve Jobs rather than documenting it. In other words, the events and discussions which take place are only based on reality. For example, Jobs and Steve Wozniak were indeed at odds with each other, but they did not have a public confrontation the way it was depicted in the film. In fact, there isn't a great deal in Steve Jobs that occurs the way it did in reality and the majority of scenarios are fictitious. Not only this, but there are many important aspects of Jobs' life omitted from the film. In the name of cinematic art, one can understand why Sorkin chose to pen this story of Steve Jobs the way he did. It is an interesting and entertaining portrait of a complicated and intriguing human being told in a creative way and using exquisite cinematography to enhance it. However, it should not be used as a point of reference for Jobs' life and Jobs aficionados will be unimpressed.

 

The depiction of Steve Jobs in Boyle's film has come under fire from those who knew him as they believe it is not a favourable representation of the man. However, Michael Fassbender's performance is wonderful. His Steve Jobs is a strong character who is able to control and command every scene in the film. His character is one who is not always likable and not overly glorified, which is always a challenge in biopics and a welcomed change.

 

Fassbender is supported by a cast who all give fine performances. Kate Winslet plays Jobs' right hand woman, Joanne Hoffman who stands by him throughout his trials and tribulations and she is his voice of reason. Winslet gives an exceptionally strong performance and the chemistry between her and Fassbender is wonderful. Michael Stuhlberg and Jeff Daniels both give solid performances and Katherine Waterston is very good as the mother of Jobs' child.

 

Steve Jobs defies the rules of the biopic by way of it's unique and commendable method of storytelling. There is great appreciation to be felt for the stunning dialogue written by Aaron Sorkin and the wonderful deliverance of it by the cast.

 

7.5/10

 

 



Straight Outta Compton (2015) film review

Year: 2015
Running Time: 147 minutes
Director: F. Gary Gray
Writers: S, Leigh Savidge, Alan Wenkus (story), Andrea Berloff (story and screenplay) and Jonathan Herman (screenplay)
Cast: O'Shea Jackson Jr., Corey Hawkins, Jason Mitchell, Neil Brown Jr., Aldis Hodge, Paul Giamatt, R. Marcos Taylor

Straight Outta Compton is now showing in cinemas everywhere and is distributed in Australia by Universal Pictures.

The highly anticipated Straight Outta Compton is an extremely detailed look at the story and legacy behind U.S. rap band, N.W.A. who were active in the late 1980's and early 1990's. It is a piece of cinema which will be moving for those who were admirers of the band and it's music and while not quite as moving for those who aren't familiar with N.W.A, still incredibly informative, entertaining and enjoyable.

Formed on the mean streets of L.A.'s Compton in the 80's when racial tensions were running high, N.W.A. consisted of neighbourhood boys Eazy-E (Jason Mitchell), Ice Cube (O'Shea Jackson Jr.), Dr Dre (Corey Hawkins), MC Ren (Aldis Hodge) and DJ Yella (Neil Brown Jr.). Although criticised for it's violent content and explicit language, the band's music represented their reality and the inequality they felt growing up. Becoming wildly popular across the country, the band was never short of drama wherever they went with their wild lifestyle and music often inciting violence at their concerts, but behind the scenes was just as tense and unpredictable.

Straight Outta Compton is an ambitious, but ultimately successful film. The story of N.W.A . and individual band members is not a simple one to tell and is many faceted. The film is not just a straightforward history of the band which is the pitfall of many biopics, but it also tells the cultural significance of N.W.A. and their music. For those who are not familiar with the gangster rap genre which the band revolutionized, Straight Outta Compton makes one come to an understanding about the music and realise that the explicit content is not for the sake of shock, but an response fuelled by anger to the events they played witness to and involuntarily had been a part of. The film also demonstrates how and why the band's music was and still is important to so many people and came to be a soundtrack to historic events such as the Los Angeles Riots in 1992. Even for those who were not a fan of the band or their genre, with Straight Outta Compton comes a new found respect for their music and message.

There is so much content to fit in this story about N.W.A and it is an absolute credit to the screenwriters Andrea Berloff and Jonathan Herman that they were able to include as much as they could to give what is an almost complete story of the band including their cultural impact. However, as is the case with films that do have so much to say, a great deal of emotion and power is lost in certain areas. This is not a general observation as the film is indeed powerful in particular scenes, but some events are skimmed over rather quickly (such as the band's arrest in Detroit and Dr Dre's police chase) and the ensuing consequences not greatly explained. This was always going to be problematic as in order to tell a complete N.W.A story with so much included some things were going to have to be left behind. As is the case with a biopic who's subject or subject is still alive, there are also several truths eliminated from the band's history in order to protect the reputations of the remaining members. This could again be put down to trying to fit so much into the film, or the inevitable outcome of outcome of having Dr Dre, Ice Cube and Eazy-E's widow, Tomica Woods-Wright in producing roles which obviously comes with a certain degree of power.

Telling the story of the band and the five band members (with the greatest focus on Eazy-E, Ice Cube and Dr, Dre) takes place over an eight year period from 1987-1995. The film channels this era very well and is rather nostalgic. The recreation of South Los Angeles in the late 1980's brings an atmosphere of peril and tension to the film in it's opening stages and the contrast between where the band comes from and where they arrive at are at opposite ends of the spectrum, yet the are both felt with a feeling of dread. It is particularly worth seeing Straight Outta Compton on the big screen for the optimal music experience. Not surprisingly one of the main features of the film is the music of N.W.A and the band members as solo artists. The most entertaining musical scenes are absolutely the recreation of their live shows, which are rather enjoyable regardless if one is a fan of rap or not.

Straight Outta Compton boasts some wonderful acting performances, particularly those of the film's three main stars. Jason Mitchell portrays Eazy-E with an incredible presence and wonderful strength, which is evident in his very first scene and does not falter throughout the film. Corey Hawkins is very good as Dr Dre and perhaps gives the most emotional performance. Much of the film's media attention has been drawn towards O'Shea Jackson Jr. who is playing his real life father, O'Shea Jackson AKA Ice Cube. One does wonder whether his performance is a drawn out imitation of his father, but regardless he is extremely powerful in his delivery of dialogue and has a great deal of on screen presence. Paul Giamatti also does well as the band's manager, Jerry Heller and special mention must be given to Marcc Rose, who although is only on screen or a very short amount of time as Tupac Shakur makes an incredible impact for his uncanny likeness to the late singer.

Straight Outta Compton is one of the more successful music biopics to have been released in recent years. For an outsider learning about the band and it's history for the first time, it may not pack the emotional punch felt by those who are N.W.A. fans due to the overwhelming amount of content included. Yet, it is still a great accomplishment to have such a detailed screenplay and extremely entertaining to play witness to.

7.5/10

The Theory of Everything (2014) film review

Year: 2014
Running Time: 123 minutes
Director: James Marsh
Writers: Jane Hawking (book "Travelling to Infinity: My Life with Stephen"), Anthony McCarten (screenplay)
Cast: Eddie Redmayne, Felicity Jones, David Thewlis, Harry Lloyd, Christian McKay

The Theory of Everything is now showing in cinemas everywhere and is distributed in Australia by Universal Pictures.

The Theory of Everything is a fine, nostalgic piece of cinema which artistically incorporates in the most stylish and intriguing of ways the most important aspects of the life of it's subject, Stephen Hawking. Yet it is Eddie Redmayne's outstanding performance that remains at the forefront of all that is commendable about the film. Based on the memoir "Travelling to Infinity: My Life with Stephen" by Jane Hawking, the film pays tribute to Hawking's (Redmayne) extraordinary achievements in the fields of physics and cosmology while also focusing largely on his marriage to Jane Wilde (Felicity Jones). When Stephen was diagnosed with a rare motor neurone disease and told he had only two years left to live, he and Jane embarked on a type of domestic life which neither had foreseen.

James Marsh's film is a rare form of biopic that reaches a point of equilibrium in it's storytelling, as it balances the story of Stephen Hawking's trials and achievements with that of he and Jane perfectly. Although the screenplay plays out a little slow on screen, it is gripping and moving as it is cleverly crafted and well written.

The film's biopic status can take away from the acknowledgement of an underlying theme which will resonate with many audience members and that is of a marriage progressing into a patient-carer relationship. Despite Stephen's public persona, the Hawking's marriage will no doubt be relatable for those who have experienced the hardships of a relationship like theirs and will prove an extremely emotional experience for them and also for those willing to open their minds as to what it would be like. One can only imagine how difficult it must be to be part of a relationship where one is not physically able to care for themselves and relies on the other to do so for them, and how emotionally, physically and psychologically draining it must be for the latter. This is perfectly represented in the film as one is prompted to understand this dynamic and feels great sympathy for both Stephen and Jane.

Visually, the film continues to pay tribute symbolically to Hawking through it's editing and cinematography. In many of the scenes, there is a visual emphasis on his feet and hands to emphasise his early motor skills and the progression into his ailment. There's also the focus on and close up shots of wheels at the beginning of the film (including the first scene in which Hawking is riding his bicycle) as they became a major part of his life, as well as the wondrous firework scene which can be interpreted to symbolise Hawking's academic theories. The film as a whole is rather nostalgic with wonderful costume and production design perfectly suited to the time period. The musical score by Johann Johannsson is also incredibly beautiful and moving which adds further emotion to Stephen and Jane's relationship.

There are some extraordinary performances in the world of film where it only takes a few minutes to know that this is a performance one will remember for a very long time and Eddie Redmayne's performance is one of those. From the very beginning of The Theory of Everything, Redmayne encompasses everything that Hawking is and has a great deal of character and character development. In what is a role that is extremely physical, he demonstrates tremendous skill by showing intense emotion while his facial expressions and other physical movements are restrained. Even with these restrictions, the chemistry he has throughout the film and the way it develops with Felicity Jones is superb. Jones is also wonderful and plays an extremely strong female character in her role as the wife who adopts a carer's role, but also tries to keep something of herself from before. She gives an extremely well rounded, inspiring and moving performance.

While it can be slightly slow in it's execution, The Theory of Everything is a film which is incredibly strong on reflection. It's main performances are without a doubt two of the strongest of the past year and is a beautiful tribute to an extraordinary human being.

8/10

Burton and Taylor (2013)

Year: 2013
Running Time: 83 minutes
Director: Richard Laxton
Writers: Noel Coward ( excerpts from "Private Lives), Alexander Walker (additional research from book "Elizabeth"), William Ivory
Cast: Dominic West, Helen Bonham Carter

Burton and Taylor premiered on Australian television on BBC First on 3rd August 2014 and is now available in Australia from BBC /Roadshow DVD.

The Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton romance was and still is legendary for the way in which the relationship was driven by both intense passion and furiosity. Richard Laxton's made for television biopic, Burton and Taylor covers just one small period in the saga between the two stars and as a result doesn't give a complete portrait of the infamous relationship in the usual fashion. However, it does give a wonderful imprint of the undeniable chemistry between the two that was evident during and after their two marriages due to wonderful performances by both Dominic West and Helena Bonham Carter. The film is only a small snippet of a relationship that was still showing sparks after two decades, but still has quite an entertaining screenplay to keep it enjoyable and enthralling.

The year is 1983 and Richard Burton (Dominic West) and Elizabeth Taylor (Helena Bonham Carter) have been divorced for over six years when they both sign on to do the Noel Coward play, "Private Lives" on Broadway. While the two have both moved on and been married and divorced once more to other people, there is no denying that there is still a strong connection between the two which provides both comfort and inner turmoil. The run of "Private Lives" becomes tumultuous behind the scenes and although Burton and Taylor try to hold it together on stage for the public, their private life is once again open for everyone to see.

When making a film about real life events surrounding popular figures such as Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton, there is an incredible amount of pressure put on the film makers. As is demonstrated in the film, Taylor had and still has an incredibly large fan base who are exceptionally defensive of their beloved starlet. The challenge for filmmaker, Richard Laxton was always going to be how not to offend this fan base in any way and not ostracise the audience who are not watching the film for the love of Taylor. Burton and Taylor does only focus on one part of their lives, which is after their two marriages and divorces to each other. This in itself is not a cause for anyone to get upset by, but what some will find problematic is that they don't give much of a run down of the history between the two of them besides letting everyone know that they are working together again after being married twice.  There is almost an assumption there that people already know who Taylor and Burton are and the basics of their history. It is a dangerous assumption to make as while this generation would know the two actors by name, they wouldn't necessarily know their history.

However, the way in which the characters of Taylor and Burton interact and the chemistry between the two says more about their history as a couple than words could. The screenplay allows for the characters to tell the story of why they fell in love and why it didn't work in such an unique and admirable way. It is such an art to be able to tell a story about the past and present at the same time without telling it in the obvious fashion. Burton and Taylor may be about two superstars of their day, but it is also a study of a relationship between two people which at it's core would be the same whether they were famous or not. The way we see Burton and Taylor interact with each other tells us how and why the two fell in love with each other, which is that the two had an obvious understanding of each other and as well as being wildly attracted to each other, they also adored each other as friends. One of the things that also worked for the Burton/ Taylor marriage was that they both (particularly Taylor) strived on drama, but this was also their undoing. While it is obvious that they enjoyed the spontaneous bickering and violent outbursts, this was also their undoing. This aspect of their relationship took too much of an emotional toll on the two of them and the marriage(s) could not survive. Taylor's substance abuse and Burton's alcoholism also played a large part in this. All this is determined just from the actions of the characters and not from what the viewer is told, which is a wonderful method of both storytelling and character development.

While many fans will notice there are a number of inaccuracies and some situations are enhanced for the sake of the film, the screenplay is really quite wonderful. The period in which the film is set is covered very well and the script rather witty and often hilarious, particularly the banter between the couple and Taylor's scatter-brained dialogue. Burton and Taylor is also quite nostalgic. As it is set in the early 1980's, the musical score and production and costume design all work well to flesh out the time period and give the film a playful feeling rather than it feeling like a rewatch of Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

Dominic West and Helena Bonham Carter are both perfectly cast as Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor. The first scene of Burton and Taylor where the two are participating in a press conference for "Private Lives" is not a great representation of this perfect casting, but about 15 minutes into the film you are completely convinced that you are actually watching Burton and Taylor. West completely personifies Burton with his mannerism and his stance gives him the presence Burton once commanded. His final scene in the film is so beautiful and a wonderful piece of acting. Carter is a brilliant Elizabeth Taylor. Once again, she is the perfect personification of the Taylor of the 1980's physically and in the way she spoke with her British/American accent. While many would like to see more of the infamous Burton/ Taylor fights, their confrontations are really quite entertaining and powerful. The on screen chemistry between West and Carter is fantastic. They have no problems in convincing that they are two people who have known each other for decades and are unable to stop caring for each other.

Burton and Taylor is not just a film about Richard Burton and Elizabeth Taylor, it is a film about a couple who could not be without each other in their lives despite knowing they could never live with each other. A wonderful biopic which tells as much about the past as it does the present.

8/10

Saving Mr Banks (2013)

Year: 2013
Running Time: 125 minutes
Director: John Lee Hancock
Writers: Kelly Marcel and Sue Smith
Cast: Emma Thompson, Tom Hanks, Colin Farrell, Ruth Wilson, Paul Giamatti, Jason Schwatrzman, B.J. Novak, Bradley Whitford, Annie Rose Buckley, Rachel Griffiths

Saving Mr Banks now showing in cinemas everywhere and is distributed by Walt Disney Studios.

Saving Mr Banks is complete and utter joy. This joy doesn't just stem from the fact that it is a beautiful film, but also from the revelation that this film isn't just for Disney fanatics. It is a film for all to enjoy and appreciate.

In Saving Mr Banks Disney has made their best live action film in years. While many were worried that this would be a Disney film about Disney which means that it could have well turned into primarily a major marketing tool for the empire. Even though there are plenty of Mickey Mouse references in the film, there is a great deal more emotion than one could have ever expected thanks to an impressive screenplay and some truly wonderful performances, especially by Emma Thompson. In the film, P.L. Travers accuses Walt Disney of wanting to give Mary Poppins the Disney treatment and making her twinkle, yet Saving Mr Banks relies very little on sugar coating when creating a truly wonderful film.

The year is 1961 and author, P. L. Travers (Emma Thompson) has finally given in to the demands of Walt Disney (Tom Hanks) and agreed to travel to Los Angeles to discuss the possibility of making her beloved "Mary Poppins" into a film. Travers has major reservations about Disney's movie making style and is not at all convinced that Disney will do her creation justice. While exploring the possibilities, Travers finds herself revisiting her childhood and remembering what "Mary Poppins" is really all about and it is not until Walt Disney realises what Mary Poppins really means to her that the film can really be made.

Saving Mr Banks is truly magical, but not in the traditional Disney fashion.  It is a film which has some absolutely incredible and memorable moments, some of which will have you laughing and others which will have you crying. While Saving Mr Banks is most well known for being the film about the making of Mary Poppins, it is just as much, or of not more a film about the early life of P.L. Travers. The screenplay, written by Kelly Marcel and Sue Smith does a marvellous job of combining the two and being able to give a comprehensive examination of both.

Even though it does take a good half an hour to really kick into gear, the film is both interesting and entertaining. There are some wonderfully uplifting and sweet scenes such as the beginnings of "Let's Go Fly A Kite" and the Disneyland scene, but also some very sad moments in the flashback scenes. The final scene in the Chinese Theatre is one that stays with you long after the film has finished. The flashback scenes of Travers as a little girl nicknamed Ginty by her dreamer father (Colin Farrell) are impressive not only in emotion, but also in visuals. The Australian countryside is accurately recreated and enables the viewer to feel and smell everything you would if you were actually there.

As the film is set in the early 60's, the world of Saving Mr Banks is very nostalgic. Such locations as the Los Angeles LAX airport, the Beverly Hills Hotel and Disneyland were given adjustments to take them back to the intended time period. The musical score employed is also very suitable to the time period, as is the costume design. The overall feeling of the film reflects a film which would have been made in the 1960's, but at the same time have a sophistication to it that reminds us that this is a modern piece of work. And even though we aren't getting Disney as a whole shoved down our throats, there is still enough Disney references in this film to keep the crazed happy.

Emma Thompson is absolutely exquisite as P.L. Travers. She gives an incredibly powerful performance and shows both the hard and soft sides of her character. We are able to see in her the process of walls being knocked down as a result of exploring the world of Mary Poppins all over again and letting go of grudges and the pains of the past. Her final scene at the premiere is a spectacular piece of acting and has a huge impact on anybody watching it.

Tom Hanks, although not a mirror image of Walt Disney in appearance (besides the infamous pencil moustache), is wonderful as Walt Disney. He captures the essence of what the man was like and how much people adored him. It is in the Disneyland scene when the gates to the park open up and Hanks is standing there waving, that it hits you how much you really believe he is Disney as this moment is enough to give you goose bumps.

Colin Farrell also gives one of the best performances of his career as Travers Goff. Although he is playing an alcoholic who is down on his luck, he is incredibly likable and we can easily see why his daughter idolises him so much. Ruth Wilson is also very good as Margaret Goff, the fragile and heartbroken mother and wife. Paul Giamatti plays P.L. Travers driver, Ralph and he is a real treat. Every scene he is in is so much fun because of him and often very sentimental.

Saving Mr Banks is a film for everyone, not just the Disney fanatic. It is an absolute treat to encounter such a film where you are encouraged to feel a number of emotions and not feel as though you are exhausted as a result. Instead, you feel pure joy at seeing such a cinematic treat.

9/10

Kill Your Darlings (2013)

Year: 2013
Running Time: 104 minutes
Director: John Krokidas
Writers: John Krokidas and Austin Bunn
Cast: Daniel Radcliffe, Dane DeHaan, Michael C. Hall, Ben Foster, Jack Huston, Elizabeth Olsen, David Cross, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Kyra Sedgewick

Kill Your Darlings will open in Australian cinemas on the 5th December and is distributed by Sony Pictures.

Kill Your Darlings is very much an acquired taste film. It will seem a little too bizarre and confronting for some, but for those who are fans of the Beat Generation and those associated with it will be in for a thrill.

Kill Your Darlings is without a doubt very nostalgic and atmospheric of the 1940's and the world of the young Allen Ginsberg, Lucien Carr, Jack Kerouac and William Burroughs, all of who are brought to life wonderfully by their respective actors. As a film about these men, the film is a complete success. However, it is not a continuously engrossing film, not incredibly suspenseful or thrilling, and takes an incredibly long time to get to the main focal point of the film.

When seventeen year old Allen Ginsberg (Daniel Radcliffe) is accepted to Columbia University, he steps out of the shadow of his well known poet father, Louis (David Cross) and starts to make a name for himself. He quickly becomes best friends with the charismatic Lucien Carr (Dane DeHaan), who enters Allen into a world he never knew existed and introduces him to William Burroughs (Ben Foster) and Jack Kerouac (Jack Huston). The four share their ideas on deconstructing social norms and start their own war against society's accepted standards. Yet it is the presence of Lucien's "guardian angel", David Kammerer (Michael C. Hall) that threatens to destroy it all and brings the young men to one fateful night that will change all of them forever.

As a biopic, Kill Your Darlings is incredibly well done. It documents the beginnings of the Beat Generation exceptionally well and uses the narrative to reveal how Allen Ginsberg came to be the man he was. You really feel as though you step into the world of Kill Your Darlings rather than remain a spectator on the outside for an hour and a half. Each scene is so atmospheric and makes you feel, hear, smell and touch everything which you are seeing on the screen. In particular, the scenes inside the bars throughout the film are incredible. You can smell the smoky air that is tinged with the smell of alcohol and the glamour of the 1940's makes it seem far more attractive than what a local bar may be in the present. It is a rare thing in today's movie culture of larger screens and 3D, to feel so involved in a film which is just straightforward and not being enhanced by these cinematic tricks.

The screenplay itself is verbally exquisite, as one would hope that a film featuring some of the most well known writers of the twentieth century would be. Some of the dialogue, especially that of Lucien, is just so interesting and pleasing to listen to. However, after the thrill of the first five minutes of the film, Kill Your Darlings suddenly plateaus and just coasts along for awhile at the same tone and emotional level. The beginning scenes with Allen and Lucien in the prison and Lucien in the lake holding David in his arms, along with the powerful title sequence, make for a fantastic start to the film which promises so much. Yet this is it as far as suspense goes for the majority of the film. It does quicken up it's pace a bit more at the very end, but for the most part is very slow and boarding on tedious.

John Krokidas' direction certainly brings out the best in his actors. There is no lack of character in any of the main players in this film. They are all wonderfully and intriguing constructed and have so much more to them than meets the eye. Daniel Radcliffe gives his first really "grown up" performance as Allen Ginsberg in this film by taking his acting to a completely new territory. He embodies Ginsberg perfectly and has some terrific emotional moments. Dane DeHaan has so much charisma as Lucien Carr. You do not want to take your eyes away from him from the beginning to the end of the film as he is so captivating. Although not the most likable character at times, he is absolutely the most interesting.

Ben Foster's William Burroughs is brilliant. Foster is almost unrecognisable from his past roles when he first appears onscreen. His performance is incredibly quirky, but again so intriguing. The tone of his voice used through the film is almost hypnotic, with a touch of hilarity. Elizabeth Olsen doesn't have as much screen time as you would like to see her have considering her portrayal of Edie Parker, Jack Kerouac's girlfriend is so powerful. She is a strong woman, but also has a tender side, both of which would have been a treat to see more of. Jennifer Jason Leigh also does well as Ginsberg's mother, Naomi.

Kill Your Darlings does fall into the trap of retelling the story of these men fact for fact, which means that it forgets that the audience needs to actually feel something to be kept entertained. The film isn't for everyone, but those who enjoy these particular writers or finding out a bit more about the origins of twentieth century literature will enjoy Kill Your Darlings.

6.5/10



You may have also seen Daniel Radcliffe in.....
Harry Potter and The Deathly Hallows: Part 1 and Part 2 as Harry Potter
The Woman In Black as Arthur Kipps

You may have also seen Dane DeHaan in.....
Metallica: Through The Never as Trip