Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 25 February 2020

Writer-director Leigh Whannell wastes no time in ratcheting up the tension.  In the opening sequence of The Invisible Man, we follow Cecilia (Moss) as she initiates a plan to leave her abusive husband, Adrian (Jackson-Cohen).  She wakes up in the middle of the night, tip-toes around the huge house, turns off all the alarms and security cameras, and heads to the nearest road where her sister (Dyer) is waiting in a getaway car.  It’s a powerful introduction.

Over the next few weeks, Cecilia takes refuge in the house of a good friend (Hodge) and we learn why she is so frightened.  Adrian may be a wealthy renowned scientist but away from the public eye, he’s an cruel control-freak who tells her what to wear, what to look like and what to eat.  She’s finally escaped his clutches but she lives in perpetual fear that he will find where she’s hiding and come after her.

Then… out of nowhere… she is informed by Adrian’s lawyer brother (Dorman) that he has committed suicide.  As you’d expect, her reaction is a mix of shock, confusion and relief.  She’ll never have to worry about Adrian again but she’s puzzled by his out-of-character, self-inflicted demise and why he’s left her $5 million (with a few curious conditions attached) in a recently drafted will.

As the film’s title tells us (I guess it’s a semi-spoiler), not everything is what it seems in this scenario.  It appears Adrian is still alive and, given his speciality is in the field of optics, has created the ability to become invisible.  He uses his power to further terrorise Cecilia.  He’s subtle at first (ripping off her bed sheet in the middle of the night while she’s sleeping) but his deeds soon become more obvious and sinister (sending nasty emails from her computer to fracture the relationship she has with her sister).

Cecilia realises what’s going on.  The problem is she can’t convince others.  How can you provide proof of something that can’t be seen?  Elisabeth Moss (The Handmaid’s Tale) is outstandingly credible in the lead role and I’m reminded of the equally impressive performance from Claire Foy in Steven Soderbergh’s Unsane.  It’s a “one person versus the world” set-up where Cecilia, with no one else to help, must formulate a plan to outsmart her cunning adversary while keeping a grip on her fragile emotional state.  It’s not easy.

As part of the creative team behind the Saw and Insidious franchises, 42-year-old Australian Leigh Whannell knows a thing or two about making a great horror-thriller.  His goal was to modernise H.G. Wells’ famous 1897 sci-fi novel and create a film that was “unpleasant and suffocating” to watch (in a good way).  He’s achieved just that.  There are a few minor plots holes but, for the most part, The Invisible Man provides unrelenting tension from start to finish.

Those behind the camera deserves as much credit as those in front of it.  Cinematographer Stefan Duscio (Jungle) utilises creative shots (such as when the camera pans to an invisible character) to keep audiences on their toes.  Sound mixer Will Files (War for the Planet of the Apes) adds to the suspense through an effective use of sound, or lack thereof.  The visual effects and stunt teams create believable battles as Elisabeth Moss faces off against an unseen opponent.

Offering a few twists and surprises, The Invisible Man is a memorable thriller.

You can read by interview with writer-director Leigh Whannell by clicking here.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 17 February 2020

The Professor and the Madman can’t have been the easiest sell to potential financiers.  “Ah… um… have you got a spare $25 million so we can make a film about a guy who wrote a dictionary?”  Yes, it’s based on a book and yes, it stars Academy Award winners Mel Gibson and Sean Penn but it’s hard to look at that storyline and think this movie was going to light it up at the box-office.

It needed some luck… and it didn’t get it.  Having tried to get the project off the ground for years, Mel Gibson enlisted good friend Farhad Safinia as director and the film was shot in late 2016.  What followed were creative disagreements and a huge stoush between the two production companies over who had “final cut”.  Lawyers and judges became involved and Gibson’s company came off second best.  Safinia refused to have his name attached (the credits list the fictitious P.B. Shemran as director) and Mel Gibson did zero publicity.

In the film’s defence, it does ask a curious question – who wrote the Oxford English Dictionary?  Many people were involved but Safinia’s film focuses on two in particular.  The first was James Murray (Gibson), a Scottish teacher who had a detailed knowledge of many languages.  The second was William Chester Minor (Penn), a surgeon with a lifelong love for great literature.  Their work began in the 1880s and Murray confidently tells his children – “there’s not a word you can think of that won’t be in this very big book.”

Unfortunately, The Professor and the Madman struggles to make a compelling narrative from this true story.  There are a lot of subplots involving angry publishers, unexpected love interests, and knowledgeable assistants but when blended all together, you get a puzzling movie that doesn’t really have much to say.  I feel like I could have read Wikipedia articles for 10 minutes and learned more about these characters than I did from the entirety of the film’s two-hour running time.

Mel Gibson and Sean Penn, sporting thick beards and equally thick Scottish accents, are doing the best with the material but ultimately, the finished product doesn’t make an impact.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 25 February 2020

Miss Fisher and the Crypt of Tears is based on a television show which is based on a book series.  The novels, published over the last three decades, were the creation of Melbourne-born author Kerry Greenwood and the series, spanning 34 episodes, first aired on the ABC between 2012 and 2015.  I haven’t engaged with the franchise through either mediums but I do know of its huge appeal.  The viewing audience in Australia averaged more than 1 million per episode and the show has since screened in more than 170 territories across the globe.

A big screen adaptation make sense but it needed a little push from its passionate fans.  A Kickstarter crowdfunding campaign raised $733,000 in 2017 and it prompted the likes of Screen Australia and Film Victoria to contribute towards the overall budget of $8 million.  The shoot took place in Melbourne and Morocco in late 2018 and now, after a lengthy wait, it finally gets its chance in Australian cinemas (in a quieter time of the year when it’s not competing against Hollywood superhero flicks).

Essie Davis (The Babadook) reprises her role as the popular Phryne Fisher.  She’s best described as part socialite, part detective.  She travels around the world, wines and dines with wealthy aristocrats, solves curious mysteries, and has “more lives than an alley cat”.  This time around, her adventures begin in Jerusalem (the year is 1929) where she’s been asked to investigate the disappearance of young woman who was in trouble with the local authorities.

What begins as a “missing person” case evolves into something much deeper.  There’s everything from murders and cover-ups to gemstones, curses and solar eclipses.  Oh, and there’s a splash of romance too.  It’s similar to the successful Robert Langdon film series (e.g. The Da Vinci Code, Angels & Demons) except it’s lighter and more comedic.

I realise I’m new to these characters and the film is pitched at existing fans but, in giving an honest appraisal, I’m struggling to see the fuss.  There’s a lot of small talk where key players are trying too hard to be witty.  The arguments, such as those between Fisher and her suitor (Page), feel fake and overcooked.  Again, perhaps I’m missing the point but it’s almost spoof-like in nature given the way Fisher goes about her work with apparent ease.  There’s an early scene where she “returns from the dead” but no meaningful explanation is provided and her friends shrug it all off in a matter of minutes.

The costume designers have had fun dressing Essie Davis in an assortment of outfits (I lost count of all the wardrobe changes) and there are some beautiful locations… but strong production values are not enough to overcome the dull dialogue and ham-fisted premise.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 11 February 2020

Jane Austen’s works have been continuously in print since 1832 and there’s been no shortage of filmmakers and theatre directors looking to put their own spin on her famous characters.  I’m old enough to remember seeing the last adaptation of Emma on the big screen – released in 1996 with young star Gwyneth Paltrow in one of her first leading roles.  It was an amusing, light-hearted romp that won composer Rachel Portman the Academy Award for best original score (the first female to do so).

This 2020 reworking pulls from the opening paragraph of Austen’s novel in introducing its leading lady – “Emma Woodhouse, handsome, clever, and rich, with a comfortable home and happy disposition, seemed to unite some of the best blessings of existence; and had lived nearly twenty-one years in the world with very little to distress or vex her.”  It’s a pertinent description.  Having been born into a world of wealth and privilege, she has little else to do all day than socialise and play “matchmaker” with her circle of acquaintances.

Emma may look like the ideal companion but her expensive dresses and suave disposition mask a more sinister under layer.  She gossips about people behind their backs, she offers dubious romantic advice, and she acts like she’s better than everyone else (hubris personified).  It’s a tricky role for star Anya Taylor-Joy (Split) but she has successfully created a protagonist who is both interesting and unlikeable.

The film follows several subplots that involve her naively loyal friend (Goth), her hypochondriac father (Nighy), an off-putting vicar (O’Connor) and an elusive suitor (Turner).  The only person who can see through Emma’s façade is her older brother-in-law, Mr. Knightley (Flynn), who relishes a good quarrel and isn’t afraid to point out her flaws.

First-time director Autumn de Wilde has created a beautiful, intoxicating world.  The men are impeccably dressed with their high collars and long coats.  The women wear colourful gowns and elaborate hats.  As if inspired by the techniques of director Wes Anderson (The Grand Budapest Hotel), cinematographer Christopher Blauvelt (The Bling Ring, Mid90s) uses striking symmetry to frame many shots inside the gorgeous mansions.  The bubbly music score adds to the film’s lure.

The richness of the setting doesn’t fully stretch to the characters themselves.  Aside from Taylor-Joy, there’s a shallowness and a simplicity to many of the key players which lessens the film’s emotional impact and makes it harder to buy into the romantic connections.  Bill Nighy keeps rehashing the same joke while the likes of Mia Goth and Callum Turner feel one-dimensional.  The notable exception is Miranda Hart who shows nuance as a kind-hearted, not-so-wealthy woman doing her best to fit in.

Emma. (yes, the official title is ‘Emma’ followed by a full-stop) doesn’t fully capitalise on the potential of the novel but there’s enough fun and wit to charm audiences.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 18 February 2020

It’s always interesting to look at the way social and cultural norms have evolved over time.  Cigarette smoking peaked in the 1950s before waning in subsequent decades as its dangerous effects became broadly known.  Women were required to wear full-body swimsuits in the late 19^th Century but now have the freedom to wear skimpy, colourful bikinis.  Television has been around since the late 1920s and yet the first kiss between two gay men on a primetime show in the United States didn’t occur until the year 2000.

The same applies to the way in which books, plays and musicals have been adapted for the big screen.  The Call of the Wild, first published in 1903, was a novel written by American author Jack London.  It followed Buck, a muscular St. Bernard-Scotch Collie mix, who was transferred from owner-to-owner and went on a series of adventures across the country.  It was set around the same time as London’s follow-up, White Fang (many will remember the 1991 adaptation starring Ethan Hawke).

Drawing from the source material, screenwriter Michael Green (Logan) focuses on two key subplots.  The first half of the film is centred on Buck becoming a sled dog after he is stolen from a California home and shipped off to the “edge of nowhere” in Alaska.  He gets his first taste of the “wild” and his instinctive leadership qualities kick in.  The second half revolves around his friendship with an old, forlorn gold prospector (Harrison Ford) who helps keep Buck from harm’s way.

Those who have read the novel will know it contains its fair share of violence, confrontation and sadness.  There are savage deaths (both human and animal), brutal fights and intense abuse.  There’s also a climactic battle involving a primitive Native American tribe who murder several men.  To tie back to my opening point, the studio has made the curious decision to “water down” the content for fear of scaring children (that’s my guess anyway).  It may have been okay for younger folk to read above 100 years ago but adults, rightly or wrongly, seem to be more wary and protective in today’s age.

I’m not asking for Tarantino-style gore but this movie, directed by Chris Sanders (How to Train Your Dragon), feels like a missed opportunity.  It’s an unadventurous adventure.  Instead of a gritty, emotional family drama, we’ve got something that feels too hollow and simplistic.  All the characters are black and white (they’re either really nice or really evil) and the fatalities are kept to a minimum.

Another questionable choice is the use of computer-generated animals as opposed to real ones.  Audiences are suckers for cute dogs (I am too) but it’s a little off-putting when the canine hero is clearly a special effect.  It doesn’t feel real when watching Buck walk, jump and eat.  It’s a shame because the other visual tricks (such as the beautiful backdrops) are convincing.

Given the recent acquisition of 20^th Century Fox by The Walt Disney Company, The Call of the Wild marks the first movie to be released under the new 20^th Century Studios banner (the “Fox” has been dropped to avoid confusion with the powerful media corporation).  It’s a fun piece of knowledge that might feature as a Trivial Pursuit question one day but unfortunately, it’s likely to be the film’s most memorable quality.