Movie Review – Gifted

Witness a seven-year-old embarrass your intellect as she solves complex math problems and makes an idiot out of everyone she meets in this year’s dumbest smart movie.

⭐ ⭐ ⭐
Corey Hogan

Desperate for the niece he’s raised as a de facto guardian to have a normal childhood, Frank Adler (Chris Evans) enrols seven-year-old Mary (Mckenna Grace) in a public elementary school after years of home schooling. On her first day, she impresses her teacher Miss Stevenson (Jenny Slate) with her incredible mathematical talent, prompting the principal to suggest Frank take her to a private school. Frank refuses, which attracts the attention of his cold and calculating mother Evelyn (Lindsay Duncan). Believing Mary is in need of a strict education regime, she takes her son to court in a custody battle for who should become the young girl’s guardian.

After fumbling around in blockbuster territory with his not-so-Amazing Spider-Man duology, Marc Webb has wisely scaled down and stepped back into the indie comedy-drama field that made him prolific. Well, sort of. Gifted is not without its merits, but that wit, originality and intuition that made (500) Days of Summer stick in the mind seems to have been lost while Webb was busy web-slinging. Gifted is simple, straightforward, and nowhere near as remarkable as the young girl at its centre.

To be fair, there is plenty to commend about Gifted. Mckenna Grace already has a longer filmography than some seasoned actors ever will. She brims with natural charisma and is easily the film’s standout, effortlessly making us laugh and feel for her. Frank is another everyman for Chris Evans, and hardly a stretch of his talent, but it’s refreshing to see him in a role more vulnerable than Captain America for a change, and his chemistry with both Grace and Jenny Slate saves what could have been a bland and banal father-figure.

There is an interesting trick or two towards the end of the film and the courtroom drama, though brief, remains the most engaging segment. But everything else leading up to this is borrows to heavily from every cliché in melodramatic tearjerker in history.

Good intentions drown in a suffocating dose of sickly sweet schmaltz – scenes where Mary sits atop Frank’s shoulders, trading lines about family values that could be straight out of a Hallmark gift card are gag-worthy. It’s not enough for Mary to be clever; she’s able to solve renowned equations that have puzzled the world’s greatest mathematicians for years. All of this might have a little integrity were it to have some basis in reality or even on a particularly inspired book to give it some believability, but as an original, it’s pretty ridiculous.

The fine performances, occasional clever moments and tearjerker bits (manipulative though they are) keep this watchable enough. But, like learning algebra, don’t expect it to have a profound impact on your life.

Gifted is available in Australian cinemas from August 31

Image courtesy of Roadshow Films 

Movie Review – Denial

The Holocaust: fact or fiction? Even if you’re pretty sure you know the answer, Denial is still a gripping look at the two scholars who actually took to the courts to settle that question.

⭐ ⭐ ⭐ ½
Corey Hogan

Deborah Lipstadt (Rachel Weisz), an American historian and professor of Holocaust studies, is interrupted in the middle of a speech by David Irving (Timothy Spall), a famed British Nazi Germany academic whom Lipstadt has labelled a Holocaust denier in her new book. After she refuses to debate Irving publicly on the topic, he sues her for libel. With a crack team of renowned lawyers behind her (including Tom Wilkinson and Andrew Scott), she enters a widely publicised case with the potential to cause massive historical ramifications and sway the consensus on whether or not the Holocaust actually happened.

Though most of the audience it attracts no doubt already knows the outcome of the incredible court case, writer David Hare (The Reader) and director Mick Jackson (The Bodyguard) still manage to wring a great deal of suspense and intrigue out of the famous Irving v Lipstadt and Penguin Books lawsuit in Denial. In fact, the core court scenes are interesting and engaging enough to be ranked among some of cinema’s greatest courtroom dramas. The rest of the film certainly works hard to live up to matching these scenes in engrossment, but doesn’t always reach the same high.

Though a level of emotional connection is certainly necessary to the screen, especially when covering such a sensitive subject, emotion ends up being a peculiar Achilles ’ heel for Denial. Oddly, the cold, informative court proceedings are far more interesting than the scenes in which characters are given the chance to express how they feel about the situation, since more often than not their strong emotions turn them blind to rational, logical thinking.

This particular problem is embodied by Lipstadt herself; Rachel Weisz is great in the role, lathering on a thick Boston accent, but her character often frustrates, ironically due to how strongly she feels about her Jewish ancestry. She’s unable to form arguments when put on the spot by Irving, brushing it off as “not needing to defend truth”. She frequently goes against the advice of her lawyers, attempting to call on Holocaust survivors as witnesses despite their warnings, and can barely contain her pride or anger throughout proceedings as everyone else around her manages to keep a straight face. There’s also her assertion that Irving is attacking her because “she’s a woman”, which, while potentially valid, feels a little too shoehorned in to appease today’s audiences.

Her team of lawyers are the real heroes here, particularly Wilkinson’s Richard Rampton, who conjures up some genius rebuttals to Irving’s admittedly convincing arguments. Timothy Spall shines as the scowling historian, especially in court where he’s allowed to present his evidence against the Holocaust without bias. Elsewhere the film is a little too quick to condemn him as treacherous and villainous; perhaps rightfully so, but it’s tempting to think that this could have been even more provocative and compelling if both sides were given equal contention.

Despite its emotional flaws, Denial is incredibly absorbing to watch. A trip to Auschwitz part way through creates a sombre atmosphere and helps to ground the situation in a sobering reality, reminding us of just what these two intellectuals are squabbling over. The handling of the hearings alone is enough to make Denial a welcome entry to the courtroom drama genre.

Denial is available in Australian cinemas from April 13

Image courtesy of EntertainmentOne Films 

Hollywood Retro Film Festival – 12 Angry Men

Sidney Lumet’s debut feature remains a benchmark in minimalist, dialogue-driven filmmaking, as Henry Fonda reminds us why we value human life.

Zachary Cruz-Tan

Twelve grown men are confined to a claustrophobic chamber. It’s the hottest day of the year. They’re grumpy and impatient. The boy is surely guilty. His life hangs on every word that spurts from their mouths; on every thought that fills their heads. By the time they leave the room they will have either saved his life or sent him to the electric chair.

This is the story with which 12 Angry Men breathes, but not with which it beats. Yes, it’s a courtroom drama, but like To Kill A Mockingbird (1962), the drama in the courtroom takes a back seat. In 12 Angry Men the courtroom is glimpsed in the opening scene, and never seen again. What we have here is a debate on the fundamentals of justice. Never mind who did what and to whom. As the jury delve deeper and deeper into the facts of the case, they open up their own trial, ostensibly about the boy, additionally about themselves.

This is one of the all-time masterpieces, directed with prodigious confidence by first-timer Sidney Lumet. Lumet – who would later go on to direct Network (1976), Before The Devil Knows You’re Dead (2007), and Al Pacino in Serpico (1973) and Dog Day Afternoon (1975) – was 33 years old, yet had the clarity of vision, and assuredness of style to position us directly in front of his subjects, so that we’re unable to turn away from the weight of their predicament.

Much has been documented about Lumet’s and cinematographer Boris Kaufman’s clever use of camera lenses. If you thought lenses only served the frame and the depth of an image, you might want to see 12 Angry Men again. The method of the camera deserves a documentary on its own, with Lumet choosing short focal lengths at the beginning and gradually switching to longer ones as the intensity of his characters grow. This gives the impression that the room itself is closing in around them. Only when a decision in the plot is finally reached does Lumet return to a wide shot, easing the tension, restoring normality. For a director who had previously spent no time in the company of film, these were bold choices that became lessons on how to effectively use camera lenses to influence an audience’s reaction to character and situation.

Henry Fonda, always able to keep his emotions bubbling beneath the surface, is the right choice as Davis, Juror #8. Fonda is always calm and sturdy, and one of the keys to his performance is the way he handles his supporting cast, which evolves from a mob into a well-balanced committee. By the end of the movie, each man has had his share of the screen, dialogue, and story; no one is shoved to the back seat.

12 Angry Men originally began as a television play, written by Reginald Rose, and one can easily see the merits that attracted Rose and Fonda to produce its adaptation. It is minimal in the way it uses space and time; the movie mostly runs in real time in one primary location – just three of its ninety-six minutes are set outside the jury room.

Movies like this still survive today – Roman Polanski’s Carnage (2011) and Steven Knight’s Locke (2014) readily spring to mind – but they are not so taut in their delivery, not so powerful in their message. 12 Angry Men rests on a different pedestal altogether, because it is clearly about something important, and is utterly gripping in the way it talks about it.

12 Angry Men screens at Windsor Cinema 3 Dec & 10 Dec

Images courtesy of Orion-Nova Productions & 20th Century Fox

Movie Review – The Judge

The concept of a troubled father and son relationship becoming further complicated as the latter represents the other in court has a lot of potential, but I fear the choice to tell this simple story on a grand scale budget is the film’s undoing.

⭐ ⭐ ⭐
Review by Cherie Wheeler

In David Dobkin’s “The Judge”, Robert Downey Jr sheds his Iron Man suit to take on the role of Hank Palmer; a successful lawyer who returns to his hometown in Indiana following the death of his mother. At first he intends to leave straight after the funeral, but his time back home quickly turns into an extended visit when his father (Robert Duvall), a respected local judge, is accused of murder. Old family grievances rise to the surface, and relationships are tested, as Hank takes on his father’s case, and strives to obtain a “not guilty” verdict despite the mountain of damaging evidence against him.

This is a typical Hollywood film that a lot of people will thoroughly enjoy due to the fact that it is very entertaining, the story is incredibly easy to follow, and as it is based on family relationships, most will be able to relate to its subject matter. Add Robert Downey Jr’s face into the mix, and sprinkle in some comedic scenes, and the producers must have thought they had a gold mine on their hands.

On the other hand, more sophisticated viewers will cringe at its woefully predictable storyline, and its heavy tendency toward the melodramatic, which could easily rival an average episode of The Bold And The Beautiful. Every single element of The Judge is awfully clichéd, and highly contrived, from the writing, to the performances, and even the cinematography. The epic fade to white, the slow motion footsteps, and the theatrical score that overpowers all of the natural sound in the climactic court scene is more than a little excessive. It seems Dobkin has this irrational need to drench every aspect of the film in Hollywood glamour.

My biggest problem with this film, however, would have to be the overbearing score as it is predominantly responsible for creating the melodrama throughout the intense courtroom scenes. Each track is just like all the others we have heard before in every dramatic American film that has ever existed, with an obvious selection of instruments in a mediocre arrangement. What stuns me is that Thomas Newman, the composer behind films such as The Shawshank Redemption, American Beauty, The Help and Skyfall, is responsible for this below average score, which leads me to wonder exactly how much of an influence the director had over the music.

Similarly, director of photography Janusz Kaminski has an impressive list of credits to his name, including almost every film made by Stephen Spielberg in the last twenty odd years. He has previously worked on War Horse, Lincoln and Schindler’s List, but these are all epic films that demand sweeping cinematography, and expensive shots, whereas this style of shooting throughout The Judge is far too extreme.

Kaminski has certainly demonstrated that he is capable of more delicate and contained cinematography, such as in the beautiful French film The Diving Bell & The Butterfly, for which he won the Vulcan Prize at Cannes Film Festival. I feel a more stripped back and raw style of shooting would have been far more effective in The Judge. Every scene was perfectly lit as though it had been shot in a controlled studio, which only added to the superficiality of the whole film. The endless crane and helicopter shots used to encapsulate the locations came across as pretentious and flashy, as if trying to remind the audience of the big budget the film had to work with, and I felt these shots were entirely unjustified.

Robert Downey Jr was very convincing in the lead role, and he managed to deliver even the more poorly written dialogue with finesse. He was able to simultaneously portray both the unpleasantness and wittiness of the lawyer in the character, as well as his vulnerability as an underappreciated son. My only issue with Robert Downey Jr is his lack of suitability to the role. You can dress him in a cap and a t shirt, and attempt to pass him off as a boy from Indiana who cannot escape his past, but no matter what you do to Robert Downey Jr’s appearance, he still looks like a movie star.

Robert Duvall is adequate as the stubborn, old judge, and he exhibits glimpses of greatness during his scene on the witness stand. I found it distracting to have so many well known faces in the supporting cast including Vera Farmiga, Vincent D’Onofrio, Leighton Meester, Billy Bob Thornton and Dax Shepard, and with the exception of perhaps Shepard, all of them are extremely bland on screen. Most disappointing of all is Farmiga, whose character is really just a superfluous subplot that fills in a bit of time. Jeremy Strong is definitely the stand out among the minor characters in his nuanced performance as Hank’s younger brother with a mild mental disability. It’s always a challenge to convey a character with any form of disability, and Strong does so without becoming irritating or over the top at any point.

Overall, I think the downfall of The Judge is the lack of experience among the key creatives who seem to have been swallowed up by the excitement of having so much money to play with in this film. This is the first drama David Dobkin has ever attempted, with his only major credits being banal comedies Wedding Crashers and The Change-Up, and the writers have been involved in very few projects previously. Although I could not handle the melodrama in this film, I still found parts of it to be enjoyable, and I believe that it will be a well liked film among many viewers, which is why I am giving it 3 stars.

Images courtesy of Warner Bros