Reviews

Outside of a couple of small roles in Hollywood blockbusters X-Men: Days of Future Past and Jurassic World, I'd only ever seen Omar Sy in Intouchables, which was excellent, and in which he was excellent. He is also excellent in Chocolat (not to be confused with the 2000 film Chocolat, which is unrelated. Entirely.).

Based on a true story (quite loosely, according to my very limited amount of research), Chocolat tells the story of a black man (Chocolat) who serves as a circus' "cannibal" before agreeing to partner with a famous, though struggling, clown named Foottit, in doing so becoming the first black clown to head an act in France. Their partnership quickly garners the attention and adoration of the country, and they're recruited into Paris' Nouveau Cirque, where their fame only continues to grow.

The performances by Sy and his counterpart James Thiérrée (playing George Foottit) are captivating as the two men show us a relationship where both parties care deeply for each other even as they resent their mutual reliance. While we do get a taste for Foottit's own struggles outside of the circus, the majority of the film focuses on Chocolat's adjustment to the big city and the people who live in it. While he is ecstatic about how much money he is making and loves the spotlight, he lets fame go to his head, develops a gambling problem (when he's not wasting all of his money on trivial purchases), and endures the racism that comes from all directions, even from his most devoted fans. Eventually he decides on a bold change of career.

Where the film let me down was in its disjointedness; the film leaps ahead many times, as biopics are wont to do. However, each time we leap ahead, the film leaves behind an element of the story, never to be seen again. We are left to assume, I suppose, that the problems still present at the culmination of one time-period have been settled by the time the next begins. This is a film without any sense of resolution, which, while adding to its tragic nature, also left me feeling unsatisfied as the credits began to roll. What happened to all of the other characters we met along the way? Why make such a big deal out of them if they mattered so little to the story?

Outside of the performances, which, again, were stellar, I also very much enjoyed the music, editing and cinematography. The film was put together very well in all technical aspects, even utilising some archive footage right at the end which was very touching.

I'm not sure that it's a film I'd recommend to the everyday movie- goer, due to its confusing storyline-abandonments and its general deviation from historical fact, but it is one that I'd recommend to fans of Omar Sy (and James Thiérrée, who, by the way, is the grandson of Charlie Chaplin, and this adds another element of entertainment to his physical antics). Chocolat is a poignant tragedy about the rise and fall of an incredibly gifted individual and the partner with whom he shared fame.

alexfalzon.com - for more reviews.

Well, it's finally here. I think it's safe to say that this is one of the more anticipated superhero releases of the last decade, which makes it all the more unfortunate that it had to play within the boundaries of the DC Extended Universe, of which it is the fourth entry. It should be stated up-front that while Wonder Woman is not quite good enough to affect the overall quality of the franchise in any meaningful way, it is certainly better than any of the three films preceding it. The DCEU is on a steady climb upwards; let's hope they don't plateau any time soon.

Our framing device sees the Amazing Amazon, in modern-day Paris, receive a photograph from Batman, along with a note asking to one day hear her story. This story begins with her childhood on the Amazonian island Themyscira (there actually is a cute little Paradise Island reference in there, too), her development into a warrior princess and her eventual meeting with the pilot Steve Trevor, who crash-lands into the ocean nearby. After hearing about the Great War, Diana determines that Ares must be behind it and resolves to return to the world of mankind with Trevor in order to vanquish the God of War.

The fish-out-of-water elements work greatly, not only in terms of the larger cities and groups of people but also in more intimate settings between Diana and Trevor. The clash of cultures is as thought- provoking as it is hilarious, and these scenes were a great way to let the audience catch a breath between action sequences without getting bored.

Because boring, this film is not. At times it can be frustrating, illogical, incoherent and just plain sloppy, but it's never boring. An example of the sloppiness can be found when Trevor refers to the War as "The War to End All Wars", before Diana and her mother exit the room and Diana says "You heard him, mother! He called it 'A War Without End!'". That's just lazy.

The CGI isn't great, and this is especially noticeable in a few scenes where someone falls or leaps from a great height. There's one particularly glaring example where a character is shot in slow- motion, and it's not at all convincing. The music was good, though I was a little disappointed that Wonder Woman's main theme from Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice was used so sparingly. I actually thought that was a big highlight of that movie's score, and was hoping to hear it play over the more badass moments (like when Wonder Woman fights a bunch of bad guys with her lasso; that was excellent!)

Where it all fell apart more for me was towards the end. Wonder Woman is sure that Ares is behind the Great War, while Trevor insists that mankind just sucks. Let it suffice to say that the filmmakers attempt to have it both ways, and the result makes little sense. There is also a stupidly pointless death that completely took me out of the film.

And so, while it's not a bad movie, the DCEU is still yet to give us a good one. Wonder Woman is probably on par with Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, the rival MCU's latest film, so at this stage it appears that Fox's Logan is, for now, still the best superhero film of the year. If the DCEU follows its current trend, though, November's Justice League should be an enjoyable watch.

Oh, and Wonder Woman is also apparently telekinetic, now, stopping metal with her mind. Considering she already has her bracelets and shockwaves to accomplish the same feat, this felt out of place.

http://alexfalzon.com/wonder-woman/ - for more reviews.

John Wick was not the kind of film that needed a sequel. He's a retired hit-man, his wife dies, she leaves him a dog, the dog gets killed, he wants revenge. Cool. Simple. Easy.

John Wick: Chapter Two begins what feels like maybe a week after the end of the first movie. John is called back into service by a "marker" from an old acquaintance, which compels him to do one final job under penalty of death. Reluctantly, he returns to the business once more.

Something that is pretty interesting is the world that gets explored a little more than it did in the first. We learn more about this mysterious organisation which accepts and distributes assassination contracts to its members. The markers didn't appear in the first film, and neither did specialist shopkeepers who appear to exist only to equip and cater to these professionals. It also seems to be an almost-socialist operation, as they exchange gold coins for services, regardless of what that service may be. A single coin can get you two drinks or a suite at a hotel. In the first film it buys a man a hotel room and a body-cleanup. It appears that everyone scratches each other's back, and a token is given in exchange for a service. The coins themselves seem to be worth "one favour", rather than carrying any intrinsic value.

Keanu Reeves does a great job playing Wick, who is a man of few words. He appears to do many of his own stunts and fight- choreography, too, and that was great. Riccardo Scamarcio is believable and enjoyable as Santino D'Antonio (the old friend that calls in Wick's favour), though of course doesn't quite fill the shoes of the last film's Michael Nyqvist (who could?).

As action films go, it's also very good. It's more of the same, but in the best possible way, and you have a great time watching the filmmakers come up with lots of exciting new ways to shoot bad guys at close range. There are a couple of regrettable moments where the bad guys decide to attack Wick one at a time, while the others watch and twiddle their thumbs before taking their turn, which felt a little artificial, but for the most part it really is incredible how unrelenting the violence is. It goes on for so long while remaining exciting. After five or six minutes of nonstop action without a break, you still just do not get bored, which I find incredible.

Part of this obviously lies in the editing, which is fantastic. At one point Wick is attacked by three assassins in a row, but we watch all three attacks at the same time, cutting between them. It's very well done. What did annoy me (and the first film did this, too) are the film's obnoxious subtitles. Often, one word in a sentence will be a different colour for no good reason. It's pretentious and distracting, and it takes away from the scene.

It's a fun film. It's not quite as good as the first, but it was still a pleasure to watch. I would think they'll do at least one more film to bring it to a trilogy, and while I look forward to that, I can't see it improving in quality. The first John Wick didn't need a sequel, and this movie needs one even less.

… But I do wish we would've seen a wrap-up or pay-off to Cassian's storyline.

http://alexfalzon.com/ - for other reviews

Guardians of the Galaxy came out of nowhere, at least for me. I'd heard the name thrown around a few times in conversation with hardcore comic- book fans but didn't really know anything about them before the film was released. I really liked it. I thought it was a great departure from the standard MCU formula (as much of a departure as can be had while still being part of the universe, anyway) and a genuinely exciting film with fresh characters and a fun tone.

With this sequel, it feels as if the filmmakers recognised that audiences were pleasantly surprised by the first and so decided to see what else they could get away with. Something new had to be done, something that built upon the characters established by the first. Sadly, the charm of the original was lost somewhere along the way.

We begin with the Guardians seemingly earning their way by working as mercenaries. Returning are Star-Lord (Chris Pratt being Chris Pratt, which is entirely fine by me), Gamora (Zoe Saldana is underutilised), Drax (Dave Bautista is hilarious, if a little one-note), Rocket (Bradley Cooper does his best with some very poor dialogue) and Groot (Fun, but would many people have even noticed if they got someone other than Vin Diesel to voice child-Groot?). After a member of this team crosses a client, they're chased across the stars before being rescued by a powerful entity who reveals himself to be Star-Lord's father (played by Kurt Russell, who channels Pratt and does a great job in doing so). We also get a scene of young Russell, which was probably the best implementation of digital deaging that I've seen in film, and yet I still couldn't help finding it a little weird. Until I can't tell at all that it's computer-generated, I don't think I like it. The ultimate unnecessity (Is that a word? Should be) of said scene didn't help matters.

On the topic of necessity, it really is quite frustrating when filmmakers explain a joke to the audience after telling it. It's insulting and redundant. You can understand it when Star-Lord makes a reference to Earth pop-culture and then needs to explain it to his alien friends, and you can understand where Drax, who does not understand the concept of metaphor, is concerned. Do we really need all of the other jokes to be explained to us as well, though? Ironically, the film doesn't bother explaining things that actually have importance to the plot, especially in its third act where multiple revelations are had.

Other complaints? Lazy exposition, especially early on. Jokes taken way too far. Multiple instances of toilet-humour, and not cleverly done, either. Some weird line deliveries with emphasis in all the wrong places. Annoying illogic (how come space-suits can be taken off without issue, but later on a character can't get theirs off? How come one character witnesses another pinned and uses that moment to shoot at them until they fall a few metres and are pinned again, and the character this time goes to save them? What changed in the last five seconds? The situation is identical). Also some truly cringe-worthy cheesiness towards the end of the film, some of which was supposed to be sad and some funny. It wasn't at all earned. The "sad" stuff, specifically, was crammed so tightly into the end of the film that it barely had time to register before being capitalised upon. The worst offender, though, was a scene in which certain characters travel faster-than-light for longer than they are supposed to, resulting in what I assume was supposed to be amusing screams, facial-distortions and eye-bulges… for a while. Very Looney Tunes. And then we cut back to it, multiple times. It's really silly, and not in a good way.

There are some fantastic elements and moments. The dynamic between Drax and new character Mantis is hilarious. Most of the dialogue, sans- toilet-humour, is great. The opening titles are excellent, and got my hopes up for the rest of the film (whoops). Performances are solid, music is fun, and there were some awesome shots in there. There was even a subtle 47-reference. When it comes down to it, Guardians 2 isn't a bad movie. It just isn't a good one.

Five post-credits scenes (not exaggerating) is probably a little much, too.

http://alexfalzon.com/guardians-of-the-galaxy-vol-2/ - for spoilers (and more reviews)

I've never seen Teresa Palmer in a film before, which is especially weird because she's Australian. I'm sorry that I haven't, because she was utterly fantastic in Berlin Syndrome.

The story is fairly simple; an Australian tourist is swept off her feet by a charming local in Berlin, staying with him for a couple of days before realising that she isn't allowed to leave.

Palmer's performance as Clare is so excellent that counterpart Max Riemelt can barely keep up, but keep up he does. His character, Andi, can be dashing, friendly and witty, or he can be sinister, cold and (perhaps most frightening) entirely unreadable. While director Cate Shortland surely deserves an enormous share of the credit, a scene I found simply remarkable is one where Andi suffers a loss and we as an audience are still able to feel sympathy alongside Clare for this monster of a human being.

Presumably borrowing the title from Stockholm Syndrome, the lines in the relationship of Andi and Clare do begin to blur throughout the film. Where Clare feels resigned to her fate, she attempts to make the most of her situation. It's a heartbreaking journey into the human mind and what it will do to survive – or keep from going insane. In certain scenarios it's impossible to tell if Clare is so deluded as to be sincerely happy or not, though these scenarios are of course interspersed with descents back into crippling despair.

What's interesting is that we don't simply follow Clare for the duration of the film, but just as often see how Andi is spending his day. It's an interesting division of screen time that frequently has the audience seeing a scene from Andi's point of view as he arrives home; we wonder along with him what Clare has been up to while he's been gone. It's a strangely fun viewing experience watching him examine the apartment for anything amiss or askew.

The cinematography is great, the score fantastic. One thing I loved about the film was its ability to convey so much wordlessly. The two main characters are regularly away from each other, and these scenes are therefore obviously less reliant on dialogue. Despite this, we are able to see and almost breathe the raw, exposed emotion of the duo.

The flaws in this film lay with a couple of weird editing choices (at some point we seem to be misled as to whether a character is painting their own toenails or someone else is painting the toenails of a cadaver, for some reason, and elsewhere a flight of stairs and multiple apartments could absolutely have been less disorienting). Clare also has access to a kitchen, but never uses a knife in an escape attempt. Because of the exciting moment where she finds a screwdriver in an early scene, one would assume that the kitchen is knifeless… but we're never shown an empty drawer or anything to indicate a lack of knives. It just felt a little off.

The ending was disappointing; it manages to be both predictable and nonsensical, which isn't a great combination. I didn't let that ruin the film for me, though; Berlin Syndrome is a wonderful character-study and a psychological tornado of violence and suspense.

Sidenote: Do people in Berlin just hate calling the police, or something?

http://alexfalzon.com/berlin-syndrome/ - for spoilers (and more reviews)

The new Power Rangers film features very little morphin' and is not exactly mighty.

I should mention that the "original" (virtually all of the action sequences were actually stock footage from the Japanese Super Sentai) Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers was my favourite show between the ages of two and five. Believe it or not, though, I actually haven't watched this children's show in many years, so I can't really speak as to the film's loyalty to the source material.

What I can say is that liberties have been taken with the characters' backstories, but the main personal attributes seem to be intact, and I had no problem with the changes. Trini (the yellow ranger) is gay, now, and Billy is "on the spectrum", but these changes merely gave depth to characters who really only existed as obvious stereotypes in the original series, and I liked that.

I have to say that I did find it quite amusing that they make a big deal out of announcing every single character's full name in the final scene, but omit Trini's surname. Billy's mother calls out all of the other rangers' full names, and ends with "and Trini!" I can only assume that it's because in the show, her last name was Kwan, and the new actress, Becky G, is of Mexican descent. Just call her Kwan or give her a different name, good lord. Even funnier, in the end- credits every single actor playing a ranger's parent is credited with their character's name, except Trini's parents, who are credited as "Trini's Dad" and "Trini's Mom".

The film stars the aforementioned Becky G, as well as her four team-mates played by Dacre Montgomery, Naomi Scott, RJ Cyler, and Ludi Lin. I assumed all five were American (only two are), so flawless were their accents. They all deliver solid performances, with Montgomery and Cyler the only ones required by the screenplay to do any real acting. Bryan Cranston and Elizabeth Banks join the cast as the team's mentor and antagonist, respectively. Both are great, obviously, though seem to think themselves in an entirely different film than the main five. The tone of these two characters, both in dialogue and delivery, clashes crazily against the other five. It was probably intentional, but it was weird. There are certain extreme moments of melodrama sandwiched between scenes of cheesiness that just feel out-of-place, too.

So in the movie the five teenagers with attitude (sadly, or perhaps thankfully, they are not referred to as such in the film) come across a mysterious rock and a strange cave, waking up the next morning with superpowers. They reunite and try to work out what's going on while familiarising themselves with their new abilities. If this sounds familiar, that's because it's basically the plot of Chronicle. Funnily enough, the writer of that film, Max Landis, was actually at one point attached to this movie, but is no longer credited. Weird.

Five writers (count them), however, are credited. As often happens with films with a large number of writers, the script feels somewhat off. We begin with a coincidence that feels more lazy than anything; at the exact moment the five obtain their new powers, the antagonist's "dead" body is accidentally caught in a fishing net. For an even worse coincidence within a coincidence, the captain of that boat happens to be the father of one of the rangers. Of course.

It's director Dean Israelite's second film, and I don't think his direction left much to be desired. His first film was Project Almanac, and I preferred Power Rangers over that one, The score is solid, the soundtrack pretty hit-and-miss. The editing is a little disappointing at times; we only see the rangers morph once, and it's not a very comprehensive look that we get. Also, Jason appears to pull a sword from nowhere and then we get a scene of him returning it to the space-ship later. Not sure what happened there. The action's decent, but we only get to it in the final twenty minutes of the film, and I mean that literally. There's no end-of-act-1 skirmish; the bad guys simply attack at the end of the movie.

One other thing I find mildly irritating was the rangers' helmets retracting around their faces whenever they spoke. I guess the intentional might've been to make them feel more like relatable people and less like faceless drones, but it just came across as a lazy way to give the actors more face-time – which is silly, because, as I said, they only morph the one time. We've seen their faces plenty.

The red ranger drives a red Ford Ranger, that was kind of cute. Certainly more subtle than when that same ranger hurls a Camaro at a bad guy and yells "sorry, Bumblebee!". Man, that moment was a funny little jab at the Transformers franchise; why'd you have to go and ruin it by playing Captain Obvious? The first song over the credits is the same as in the original film from 1995, so that was a nice reference, but I think I would've preferred the opening theme to the television show. That theme only plays once in the whole film, and is horribly misused. It only plays for a few seconds, and only the main chorus. Where's the build up!? You need to work up to it, you don't just blare it out for a second and then end it before we even realise it's playing…

http://alexfalzon.com/power-rangers/ - for more reviews.

Well, Personal Shopper is certainly a weird movie.

The film is the second collaboration between Kristen Stewart and director Olivier Assayas, and I should mention that I haven't actually seen the first. In fact, as I realised earlier and with surprise, I actually haven't ever seen Stewart in any film – unless you count her very brief appearance at the end of the mostly-forgotten 2008 action flick Jumper. As my knowledge of her beyond that only really extended to her performances in five Twilight films and a gritty, live-action adaptation of Snow White (again, none of which I've watched), I wasn't really expecting much from her.

She is excellent in this film. She manages to be both mysterious and relatable, both sexy and unlikeable, both stoic and vulnerable, and all the while channelling a cynical personality that belies a deep, hidden, desperate hope. It's an extremely complex performance, and she pulls it off tremendously. The rest of the cast is also strong, but Stewart rightly holds the spotlight.

The story is... well, it's uneventful, for the most part, especially at the beginning. In fact, and unfortunately, the first twenty-five minutes is so incredibly boring that I nearly fell asleep in my seat. Granted, it was an exceptionally comfortable seat, but I'd just finished my second double-shot latte. The beginning of the film consists of Stewart walking around her dead brother's old house during the day, and then again at night. The lack of music was soothing, the creaks of the old wood lulling.

I was startled out of my almost-sleep by a sudden tonal shift in the film. Now we were in a horror movie, complete with frightening visuals and multiple jump-scares. This carried on for around another fifteen minutes, after which the film became a psychological thriller, where it remained for the remainder of the movie (after a brief venture into erotic-thriller territory). I have to say, though, it kind of works, and I had no problem with the tone bouncing all over the place; however, this does not fix the incomprehensibly dull first twenty-five minutes.

The rest of the film tells the story of a (you guessed it!) personal shopper who is lingering in Paris, where her brother died, on the off- chance that he might try to contact her from beyond the grave. She already knows some people, and meets some new players as the story progresses, the most notable of whom is an unknown person who forms a relationship with her via text. As she attempts to deduce her new pen- pal's identity, she goes about her day-to-day life, all the while hoping for a sign from her late twin.

The technical elements are solid, if a little unambitious, and the movie sounds great across the board. The cinematography and general direction are wonderful. The plot is where I started to get really confused, particularly in the final act, and I really don't know what happened at the end. I have my theory, but I just can't reconcile it against the facts and events presented earlier. Is the ending a plot- hole? Is it intentionally nonsensical? Did it simply go over my head? It could be any of these things, but satisfying it most certainly was not.

Man, the tone in this film is all over the place… and I mean that in the best way possible. It never stops feeling strange, but it also never feels wrong, either. We'll be enjoying a light-hearted scene set to the tune of a '70s rock song. Suddenly, gruesomely, fatally, we have a terrifying encounter with an enormous monster. Then we're back with another '70s hit over a montage as our protagonists journey to their next obstacle. It's bizarre, and it works.

If you're expecting to see that same Kong story with which you are familiar, alter those expectations radically. Kong never leaves Skull Island, never kidnaps a blonde, and is around five times larger than you've ever seen him before (unless you saw Japan's 1962 film King Kong vs. Godzilla). Unlike the original film, Skull Island is set in 1973, immediately after Nixon pulls out of Vietnam, and, oh, boy, do the filmmakers have fun with this. As well as the aforementioned soundtrack, the score, cinematography, even the film's posters all channel the era, with nods to Apocalypse Now sometimes taking up entire scenes.

This isn't to take away too much from the creativity of the film. The excellent cinematography is the work of Larry Fong, who's done a bunch of Zack Snyder films, and the CGI is phenomenal, with a couple of very small exceptions with regard to the small(er) animals that drifted just a little too far into the uncanny.

Our characters (a helicopter squadron and a group of scientists, neatly separated by colour, as well as a tracker, a photographer, and three members of the mysterious organisation "Monarch", which you may remember from 2014's Godzilla…) head to the strange island after picking it up for the first time via satellite (what if something good's there and the Russians get it!?). After Kong, they also meet the other denizens of the island – enormous buffaloes and spiders, new, fictional monstrosities, and good old human natives. At this point the objectives of the characters divide; some want to flee the island, some want to hide and wait for rescue, others still enter Ahab territory and are resolved to take down the big gorilla himself.

The screenplay has obviously gone over a couple of drastic revisions. Characters say things like "this happened in '72", which is a little weird, because the film is set in '73. Why not just say "last year"? I can only guess that the year in which the film is set changed during pre/production.

Tom Hiddleston and John Goodman are solid. Brie Larson and Samuel L. Jackson somehow manage to deliver excellent performances in a very silly (but fun!) movie. John C. Reilly is great, blending that great sense of humour and timing with just the right dosage of sobering heartbreak that comes with being stranded on an island for thirty years; he crashed during World War II.

Many cute references are sprinkled throughout the film, and done so in a charmingly subtle way; "Hold onto your butts" says Jackson's character. I breathed a sigh of relief when they elected not to actually play Ride of the Valkyries during an already extremely Apocalypse-Nowy sequence. It's actually a pretty clever movie, and I was very pleasantly surprised.

It's very irritating that here, in Australia, we get this kind of film so long after everybody else. There's a trade-off in the fact that we generally get big-budget blockbusters anywhere between twenty-four and seventy-two hours before the States, but it's still frustrating that Loving was released in November, and here we are, in March, only just getting it now. I suppose it was worth the wait.

Loving tells the true story of Mildred and Richard Loving, an interracial couple living in 1958 Virginia. Forbidden by law to marry, the pair elope to Washington before returning home to raise a family. Local law enforcement promptly arrests the newlyweds, and they're exiled from the state for twenty-five years. We stay with the Lovings from this point through to the historical Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia in 1967.

The film begins with Mildred revealing her pregnancy. This was an interesting decision which really put the weight of the film on Joel Edgerton and Ruth Negga. We don't see them meet, we don't see them fall in love, and so we have to be convinced of their feelings for each other after they've already married. They're both phenomenal performers (Negga certainly earned her Best Actress nomination, and, if possible, I was even more impressed with Edgerton), so this absolutely happens… eventually. For the first portion of the film it's a little hard to feel the characters' love for each other. Both performances are so realistic and subdued that, as an audience member who was shamefully ignorant of the events upon which the film was based, I honestly didn't know if one of them was going to cut and run. We have to take them at their word that they love each other. Again, as soon as the film found its feet, this changed dramatically and you find yourself connecting with the characters more than you expected.

The supporting performances are also great. Their family and friends, the pair of lawyers (Nick Kroll and Jon Bass) who represent them, the legal system who hamper the protagonists. Edgerton was featured in writer/director Jeff Nichols' previous film, Midnight Special, and his fellow cast member Michael Shannon returns for one touching scene with the Lovings.

It's also very well-made technically. I don't remember any of the score, but I remember that I liked it. Like the performances, it was subdued, adding to the film without being too loud or obtrusive. The cinematography was wonderful, as was the lighting and general production design. This is a simple story of two characters. It didn't need to be made so well, and yet it's so much better for it.

This kind of biographical film is one that I appreciate. I'm grateful to have watched it, because until I did, I didn't know anything about the events contained within. Too often, biopics feature an event that's only just happened, giving it a cash- grabby kind of feel. It's been fifty years since Loving v. Virginia, and fifty-nine since Mildred and Richard were married. Perhaps it's because of the decades since it happened, perhaps it's because I live on the other side of the world, or perhaps I simply need to care more about important events in recent history, but I'd never heard of the case nor it's plaintiffs. It's important that this kind of case is remembered, especially now, when very similar fights are still being fought.

One thing that was a little jarring was Marton Csokas' sudden disappearance from the film after seemingly serving as its primary antagonist for much of it. I suppose that's what happened in reality, but I feel like we should've been some kind of closure on that front. I should also mention that the drop in technical quality when the film employs archive footage/audio is both noticeable and annoying. You're hiring actors to play every other part, why do we need to hear the original tapes?

http://alexfalzon.com/loving/