Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 24 April 2012

I admit to being to having doubts before seeing The Avengers.  I liked the idea of bringing all these superheroes together but how was writer-director Joss Whedon (Serenity) going to pull this off with so many leading characters?  Would they all get enough screen time?  Would there be any room for a plot?  Would the action sequences take precedence over character development?

I guess you could say I went through some kind of metamorphosis at the Brisbane premiere last Friday night.  My scepticism was gone within half-an-hour and had been replaced with a serious dose of enthusiasm.  As the closing credits started to roll, I couldn’t wait to collect my mobile phone from security and spread the word – The Avengers is f%#$ing awesome!

Those new to these characters should check out the earlier Marvel films before seeing The Avengers.  I still think you’ll be entertained but you may struggle with the backstory.  For example, the film doesn’t go into the torrid past between Thor and his malicious brother, Loki.  Nor does it detail Captain America and his whereabouts for the past 70 years.

Those that recall last year’s Captain America: The First Avenger will remember a glowing blue cube known as the “Tesseract” that everyone wanted to get their hands on.  The Avengers begins in the underground headquarters of the Strategic Homeland Intervention, Enforecement and Logistics Division (SHIELD) with director Nick Fury (Jackson) trying to unlock the Tesseract’s secrets.  He believes it has the capability to create a limitless source of energy for the planet.

That in itself throws up a few interesting discussion points.  SHIELD appears to be a well-intentioned organisation but can those in charge handle the responsibility of such a powerful object?  How will they ensure that it is used for good instead of evil?  The line between these two extremes is often very blurry, a fact confirmed by a series of unexpected plot developments.

These questions soon become secondary to something far more important.  For those that remember, last year’s Thor concluded with the hateful Loki (Hiddleston) becoming trapped on Earth following a fight with his brother.  Loki is unable to return home but he his intent to on quenching his thirst for power.  He steals the Tesseract and through a series of well-articulated monologues, reveals his plans on harnessing its force and giving the humans what they truly desire – to be controlled.

Our four familiar superheroes, collectively known as The Avengers, will have to team up for the first time to stop Loki before it’s too late.  Can they work together though?  Iron Man (Downey Jr) is accustomed to being centre stage and doesn’t like sharing the spotlight.  Bruce Banner (Ruffalo) is now trying to live a normal life and would rather not reinvigorate his Hulk persona.  Captain America (Evans) is still trying to come to grips with the 21^st Century and isn’t sure of his place.  Thor (Hemsworth) faces a conflict in that he would rather try to talk sense into his brother than fight him once again.

The Avengers is an unrelenting ride that will hold your attention all the way through.  I still don’t know how they squeezed so much material into the two and a half hour running time.  Put simply, it’s one of the best superhero movies ever and excels in terms of three key genres – action, comedy and suspense.  The friction between the four leads also adds a nice dash of drama.

Robert Downey Jr is at his comedic best as Iron Man (as expected) but I was surprised by the number of genuine laugh-out-loud moments provided by the remainder of the cast.  It’s Chris Hemsworth who gets the best line in the film – a reference to his relationship with his brother.  I generally gravitate more towards darker superhero flicks (such as Batman Begins) but the light-hearted style adopted by writers Joss Whedon and Zak Penn suits this situation and these characters.

The story culminates with an exciting action finale that has been skilfully directed by Whedon.  Loki is a great villain (part of me kind of liked him) and he puts everyone to the test.  Oh, make sure you hang around for the end credits.  In true Marvel style, there’s a quick peek at what’s in store for the next instalment. Bring. It. On.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 11 April 2012

There’s a scene midway through Battleship where star Taylor Kitsch is looking at a dead alien that has been brought aboard his ship.  Another alien suddenly blasts through the cabin wall, picks up his compatriot and disappears into the distance.  Taylor turns and says “I’ve got a bad feeling about this.”

Several people in the audience started laughing.  Then others started laughing at those who were laughing.  The question I’m now asking myself – was this the intention of director Peter Berg?  Were we supposed to be entertained by the horrendously cheesy dialogue?  If so, couldn’t they have dusted off Arnold Schwarzenegger for the leading role and let us know from the outset that it’s a comedy?

For those interested, the wafer-thin premise revolves around Alex Hopper (Kitsch), an immature 26-year-old with a life that is going nowhere.  After he is arrested for drunkenly breaking into a convenience store, his older brother forces him to join the U.S. Navy.  You’d think the discipline would have done him some good but nope, that’s not the case.  He’s still a selfish individual who cares only for himself.

A few years pass and Alex somehow rises to the rank of lieutenant but it seems his time is finally up.  While out at sea on a routine exercise, he stupidly ends up in a bathroom brawl with a fellow officer.  Vice Admiral Shane (Neeson) has had enough and informs Alex that he’ll be sacked from the navy when they return to shore.  Oh and wait for this – Alex just so happens to be dating the Vice Admiral’s daughter (Decker) and was about to ask for her hand in marriage before things went pear shaped.

You can forget about the back story once the aliens arrive.  The script is thrown out the window and we’re treated to a mindless, trashy action-fest.  It’s like watching a video game.  Why are the aliens there?  What are they trying to communicate back home?  Why do they blow stuff up but choose not to kill certain humans?  Why do they have a weakness (which I won’t spoil) that makes no sense considering where they came from?  No answers are provided.

Through a series of convenient plot devices, the irresponsible Alex finds himself captaining the only naval ship that has a chance of defeating the aliens.  The world rests on his shoulders and you should have a fair idea about how it’ll pan out.

It’s been exploited time-and-time again but there’s still life in the “alien invasion” genre.  We’ve seen this in the past decade with great films such as Cloverfield, Super 8, Monsters, War Of The Worlds, District 9 and Signs.  They’re the pick of the bunch because of their intriguing stories and the fact they offer something a little different.

That’s not the case with Battleship.  There's nothing original in the script from brothers Jon and Erich Hoeber (Red) and they've failed to create any interesting characters despite a running time of more than two hours.  Further, many subplots are underdeveloped.  We are treated to obligatory scenes involving politicians / officials sitting around a table but for what purpose?  I’d say the same about the romance between Alex and the Vice Admiral’s daughter.

I consider this to be one of year’s worst but there are two positives worth mentioning.  In her acting debut, Rihanna’s strong, feisty performance as a weapons specialist shows her potential as an actor.  Equally impressive is Hamish Linklater (The New Adventures Of Old Christine) who provides the film with its only (intended) laughs as an insecure scientist.  These two characters are far more exciting that the dreary, monotone Taylor Kitsch (John Carter) and the surprisingly absent Liam Neeson (The Grey).

Battleship is being released in most of the major markets this weekend – here in Australia as well as in the United Kingdom, France, Germany and Japan.  Notice anything missing from that list?  Despite being a big Hollywood blockbuster with a $200m budget, the film isn’t being released in the United States and Canada for another 5 weeks.  If anyone can tell me why, I’m all ears.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 18 April 2012

I thought of it as being like a Hallmark telemovie.  A fellow critic described it as the movie equivalent of a Mills & Boon novel.  Both metaphors should give you a fairly good idea as to what to expect with The Lucky One, the latest adaptation of a Nicholas Sparks novel.

Sparks wouldn’t be short of a dollar.  He keeps churning out popular books and Hollywood keeps knocking on his front door and asking to buy the cinematic rights.  Since 1999, seven of his novels have reached the big screen – Message In A Bottle, A Walk To Remember, The Notebook, Nights In Rodanthe, Dear John, The Last Song and now The Lucky One.

It brings back memories of our infatuation with crime writer John Grisham in the 1990s.  You always knew what to expect from Grisham (a twisting thriller with a hero who overcomes many obstacles to succeed in the end) but it didn’t stop us from buying his books and seeing his films.  People liked his style.

As for Nicholas Sparks, he seems intent on crowning himself “king” of the romantic drama genre.  His movie adaptations have always involved two likeable characters who seem perfect for each other but tragedy does its best to keep them apart.  I wouldn’t describe myself as a huge fan of Sparks but I admit that the healthy box-office of his previous films proves that a substantial audience does exist.

This leads me to the obvious conclusion that some will like The Lucky One.  Unfortunately, I do not belong in this category.  I found the film to be one of the silliest romantic dramas that I’ve seen for a while.  This is through no fault of stars Zac Efron (High School Musical) and newcomer Taylor Schilling.  Both have talent and you can see they’re trying their best to look like a couple who belong together.

The problem is that this story is so contrived, so unrealistic.  It begins with scenes of U.S. Marine Logan Thibault (Efron) fighting in Iraq.  He narrowly escapes a bomb blast and in the process, he finds a picture of a beautiful woman that appears to have been lost by another soldier.  He keeps it as a good luck charm and it keeps him safe for the remainder of his tour of duty.

He returns to his home in United States as a broken man.  He’s having trouble slipping back into reality and cannot forget the atrocities he witnessed in Iraq.  Looking to cleanse his mind, Logan goes in search of the mysterious woman in the photo and it leads him to a small town in North Carolina.  He is finally able to put a name to the face – Beth Clayton (Schilling).

Logan isn’t up front about his past.  If he was, there wouldn’t be movie, would there?  He doesn’t say anything about the photo and instead, accepts a job working for Beth as a dog walker.  It’s a convenient way for Logan to get close and find out about her background before going in too deep.

It doesn’t take long for the sparks to fly and so the time has come to flick the switch and throw in a few complications.  Aside from Logan’s “hidden past”, Beth also has problems.  Her obsessive ex-husband (Ferguson) doesn’t like seeing Beth with a new guy and is determined to intervene.  I should also mention that (1) he’s a police officer, (2) he’s the son of the popular mayor, and (3) he’s an over-the-top schmuck.  All of these factors will make life very difficult for Beth and Logan.

There were a few moments midway through the film where I was almost drawn into the story… but any chance of leaving the cinema with positive thoughts was destroyed by the ridiculous, somewhat distasteful ending.  It’s rushed and doesn’t fit with everything in the lead up.

I’ve long been a supporter of director Scott Hicks (Shine, Snow Falling On Cedars) but this is his weakest film to date.  More time needed to be spent exploring these characters as opposed to showing us picturesque landscapes to the backdrop of songs preaching about love and sunshine.  No thanks.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 04 April 2012

The Prime Minister’s Press Secretary, Patricia Maxwell (Thomas) is woken in the middle of the night with bad news coming out of Afghanistan.  There’s been a bombing at mosque and the negative press will only add further fuel to the debate that the UK should pull their troops out of the war.  She storms into the office the next morning and demands that her staff find a good news story from the Middle East to help push public sentiment in the other direction.

She stumbles across a very bizarre story.  A wealthy sheik (Waked) in Yemen is trying to introduce salmon fishing into his country.  He has hired a consultant with the curious name of Harriet Chetwode-Talbot (Blunt) to research its viability.  It leads Ms Chetwode-Talbot to the office of British fisheries expert Fred Jones (McGregor) but she doesn’t get the answer she was hoping for.  Mr Jones laughs at the absurdity of the idea and quickly shows her the door.

That’s not the end of it however.  The Prime Minister’s Office is keen for this to happen and still seeks the positive publicity (for reasons not made clear).  Money is no barrier for the sheik and Ms Chetwode-Talbot and Mr Jones are forced to team up and find a way forward.  Oh, and I should mention that a romantic connection develops between them.  Oh, and she also has a boyfriend who is in the army but he’s missing in action in the Middle East.

I know a few people who are fans of this film and they seemed to take it as a light hearted romantic comedy.  I saw things from different perspective.  In fact, I don’t know what the film wanted to be.  If it intended to be a rom-com, why did we need the moronic subplot involving Kristin Scott Thomas and the Prime Minister’s Office?  I’ve seen Bond villains that were more realistic and I hated her character from the opening scene.

There’s another poorly developed subplot involving that involves the sheik arguing with locals about his crazy proposal and preaching about the importance of faith.  It typifies the predictable, force-fed nature of the whole story.  It’s all black and white with no grey in between.

As for the romance… call me cold hearted but I didn’t buy into it either.  I had no issues with the charming Emily Blunt (The Devil Wears Prada) but I found Ewan McGregor’s character too nerdish and boring.  Could it have been improved with a different actor in the role?  I’m not entirely convinced but am leaning towards yes.

I can’t fault the pedigree of the filmmakers with Lasse Hallstrom (The Cider House Rules) sitting in the director’s chair and Simon Beaufoy (Slumdog Millionaire) responsible for the screenplay.  For whatever reason, they haven’t been up to the challenge of bringing Paul Torday’s novel to the big screen.  It’s silly, it’s corny and it’s not for me.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 15 April 2012

The French Film Festival recently wrapped its tour of Australia and now, as has become a tradition, a select few of the films will be released more widely across the country.  The beautiful Goodbye, First Love is already in cinemas and it has now been joined by Romantics Anonymous – ideal of those looking for a silly, light-hearted perspective on love.

Jean-René (Poelvoorde) is the hapless owner of a boutique chocolate-making business.  He believes in the delicious chocolate being produced in his small factory but it seems his customers do not.  They’re tired of the traditional offerings and sales are drying up.

The answer to his prayers is Angélique Delange, a young chocolatier (Carré) who turns up at the factory in response to a job offer.  She initially comes on board as a salesperson and tries to persuade retailers to stock the products from this ailing brand.  It turns out that she will be far more valuable than anyone realises.  Her creativity in the kitchen and her intimate knowledge of chocolate will create a new product line that may yet save the business.

It’s not going to be that easy however.  These two characters have fallen in love but have absolutely no idea how to express their feelings for each other.  Everyone around them can see what’s going on but Jean-René and Angélique refuse to open up.  He’s seeing a psychiatrist for advice and she’s attending a self-help group entitled Romantics Anonymous.  Put simply – they’re hopeless!

It’s a fairly simple story and the film clocks in at just 80 minutes.  The whole over-the-top nature of the scenario was fun for a while but it wears thin during the later stages.  It’s hard to sit there and watch them continually act like clueless morons.  Their ridiculous first date in a restaurant left me wondering if I was watching the dumbed down French equivalent of Curb Your Enthusiasm.

Whilst I hoped there would be a little more substance, I still found myself caught up in the charm of this farce.  Benoît Poelvoorde and Isabelle Carré deserve praise for their leading performances.  Their characters are completely neurotic and part of me wanted to get up and slap them across the face… but they’re hard not to like given their innocence and insecurities.

We all know what it’s like to fall in love – I just hope that we never have to make it this difficult for ourselves!