Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 13 July 2013

I don’t watch a lot of television but one show I’ve fallen in love with over the past decade is Curb Your Enthusiasm. It stars Larry David... as Larry David. We follow his crazy adventures as he tries to find something to do with his life after the success of the Seinfeld television series (that he co-created).

During the show, he interacts with a bunch of Hollywood stars playing themselves. There’s Richard Lewis, Ted Danson, Martin Scorsese, Ben Stiller, Meg Ryan, Ricky Gervais and Michael J. Fox – just a small sample of the many cameos.

A big part of the show’s charm comes from the way in which in blends reality and fiction. How much of what we’re watching is a reflection of reality? Are the actors using their real life personas? Are the inner workings of Hollywood really this crazy?

We’ve seen actors playing themselves in movies before and if you’re looking for a great example, you won’t do better than John Malkovich in the brilliant 1999 comedy Being John Malkovich. This Is The End is taking the concept one step further. For the first time that I can recall, we’ve got a movie where EVERYONE is playing themselves.

It centres on an epic housewarming party being thrown by James Franco (127 Hours, Spider-Man). On the invite list is his great friend Seth Rogen (who he starred with in Pineapple Express) along with the likes of Jonah Hill (Moneyball), Michael Cera (Superbad), Jay Baruchel (She’s Out Of My League), Danny McBride (Your Highness), Craig Robinson (Hot Tub Time Machine), Emma Watson (Harry Potter) and even Rihanna.

There’s binge drinking, pot smoking and a splash of fornication. In other words, it’s a standard Hollywood get-together… well… at least until the apocalypse arrives. Giant sinkholes open up in the ground, the neighbouring hills catch on fire and complete pandemonium breaks out. Only a handful of party guests survive the carnage and until can they figure out what the hell is going on, they board up the windows and take refuge in James Franco’s luxurious house.

The story’s not that important though. This Is The End is just a bunch of celebrities taking the piss out of themselves for two hours. If you’re familiar with their previous films, you’ll be laughing often and laughing loudly. I don’t want to give too many of the jokes away (as they are so random) but to give you a small taste of what’s on offer, there a humorous moment when James and Seth put together a fake trailer for Pineapple Express 2 to help pass the time.

Adding to the film’s hilarity are the varying levels of “friendship” shared between the characters. James Franco idolises Seth Rogen to the point that he has a giant painting of Seth’s name on his wall. On the flip side, it’s clear that Jay Baruchel isn’t a fan of Jonah Hill’s over-the-top niceness. As for Danny McBride, no one likes him at all!

The inspiration for This Is The End came from a 2007 short film created by Evan Goldberg (a writer behind Pineapple Express and Superbad) and friend Jason Stone. I don’t know if this will kick start a fad of similar movies but considering it recovered its $32m budget in less than a week at the U.S. box-office, it will get a mention in boardroom meetings at the big studios.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 03 July 2013

The Lone Ranger story began as a radio serial in 1933 and then took off as a television show in 1949. I don’t think I’ve ever seen an episode (it was a few decades before I was born) but I am very familiar with The Lone Ranger’s famous catchcry – he’d jump on his white horse and shout “Hi yo, Silver! Away!”

We do get to hear that line in director Gore Verbinski’s $250m blockbuster but it’s not until the very end (and it’s done so in a humorous fashion). The reason is that this is an origin story, in a similar vein to last week’s Man Of Steel. It shows us how the Lone Ranger came into existence, why he wears a mask and how he became friends with Tonto.

The central character is a man named John Reid (Hammer). Now a fully qualified lawyer, he has returned to his small home town to ensure that justice is upheld at all times. He does not want the Texas Rangers, led by his older brother Dan (Badge Dale), dishing out their own violent brand of “justice”. Rather, he wants to see all those arrested tried in a formal court with appropriate representation.

John’s lofty ideals come into question when his brother his brutally murdered by the notorious Butch Cavendish (Fichtner) and his thieving gang. I need to emphasise the term “brutally”. It’s one thing to be shot several times. It’s another to have a knife shoved into your chest and to have your heart ripped out.

There’s now only one thing that matters in the life of John Reid – locating Cavendish and making sure he pays for his crime. He’s not alone though. A Native American named Tonto (Depp) also seeks revenge against Cavendish for slaughtering his family many years ago. They’re as different as chalk and cheese but John and Tonto form an uneasy partnership and go in search of the man they hate.

The Lone Ranger is a film that doesn’t know what it wants to be. There are elements that make you think it’s a light, fun comedy. This is evidenced by some of the childish banter between John and Tonto. Armie Hammer plays it straight and Johnny Depp does what he usually does – providing quick one-liners and sarcastic facial expressions (just as he does in any Tim Burton film). There are a few genuine but you can’t help but think that there needed to be more.

On the flip side, there are parts of this film that make you think it’s a violent, blood-thirsty drama. I’ve already touched on Dan’s death but there’s another sequence late in the film where the body count is extremely high. I’m not saying that the film should be all sweet and rosy. My problem is that the horror of this scene is “glossed over” as if it’s just a run-of-the-mill event.

As for the broader plot... it lacks coherence. This is most evident through the bizarre 1933 San Francisco storyline where an older Tonto retells the tale to a small boy. Considering the film is two and a half hours long, was it needed? What was it supposed to add? Characters such as Dan’s widow (Wilson), a feisty brothel manager (Bonham Carter) and a ruthless railroad tycoon (Wilkinson) also needed more relevance and more screen time.

I’m usually blasé when it comes to big action sequences but I did enjoy the film’s finale. It’s so farcical, so ridiculously over-the-top… that I had fun with it. A shame this tone was pursued in the two hours that preceded it.

You can read my interview with star Armie Hammer by clicking here.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 09 July 2013

In a blockbuster season dominated by superheroes and sequels, it’s nice to be able to sink our teeth into something new.  Further, I’d strongly argue that Pacific Rim is one of the more memorable, distinctive action releases in recent years.

The concept alone is cool – robots versus monsters!  Don’t worry though.  This isn’t a B-grade horror spoof in the same vein as Mega Shark v. Giant Octopus).  Pacific Rim is far more advanced with a great deal of thought going into the design of the creatures and the choreography of the fight sequences.

After a brief introduction and a late opening title scene, we find the crux of the story is set in the year 2020.  A giant cavity as opened up on a sea floor in the Pacific Ocean and from it, a never ending series of dinosaur-like creatures have emerged.  They are known as Kaiju (a Japanese word for “strange beast”) and their intent is clear – to kill humans and cause wide-scale destruction.

Through a conglomeration of the world’s wealthiest governments, a military program has been enacted to combat this powerful enemy.  They aren’t using missiles or nuclear weapons.  Rather, they’ve created a group of enormous robots referred to as Jaegers (a German word for “hunter”).  Two humans stand inside the robots head and together, they can control all of its body movements.

It sounds like a page out of Transformers but through my eyes, the “awesome” factor is considerably higher.  The robots and monsters share some epic battles highlighted by a fight through the neon lit streets of Hong Kong (about two-thirds of the way through the movie).  It’s hard not to be energised by the stunning visuals and the stuck-in-your-head film score from Ramin Djawadi (Iron Man, Game Of Thrones).

It’s evident that Mexican-born director Guillermo del Toro (Pan’s Labyrinth) wants the robots to take “centre stage” in Pacific Rim.  He could have gone with a few Hollywood stars and maximised their screen time but instead, he’s gone with some lesser names – most of whom are better known for their television work.

Charlie Hunnam (Sons Of Anarchy) plays a robot pilot still coming to grips with the death of his brother five years ago.  Idris Elba (The Wire) is a commanding officer doing everything in his power to save the human race.  Charlie Day (It’s Always Sunny In Philadelphia) comes in for comic relief as a crazy scientist with a death wish.  There’s also Academy Award nominee Rinko Kikuchi (Babel) and an amusing cameo from long-time del Toro collaborator Ron Perlman (Hellboy) – make sure you stick around through the closing credits to see all of his performance.

The dialogue is tacky, the characters are clichéd and the accents are laughably over-the-top.  When you also think about the messy screenplay (a lot is unexplained), you wouldn’t be alone in asking – how is this film any good?  I’d answer by saying that Pacific Rim is very self-aware of its cheesy nature.  Instead of trying to be a dark, serious piece, it’s tapping into the fun, old-school action films from yesteryear.  If you go in expecting to have a good time… you will.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 01 July 2013

When discussing documentaries with friends, I find there are two schools of thought. One group believes that a good documentary should be even handed. It should cover all angles of the subject matter and then let the audience draw their own conclusions. Suffice to say they’re not a fan of the Michael Moore style of documentary filmmaking that is heavy on narration and where his message is “forced down your throat”.

My other group of friends has no problems with this. They ask the question – why would a filmmaker spend years of their life putting together a documentary unless they had something to say? Aren’t they trying to open people’s eyes and change their perspective? If you’re looking to explore other sides of an argument, that aren’t covered in the film, you’re free to do your own additional reading and research. The same applies to any news story or editorial.

I sit somewhere in between these two schools of thought. Perhaps it’s how I’ve evolved. Perhaps I’m just trying to appease all of my friends. I am more than happy to see a filmmaker put forward their point of view… provide that we at least get to hear from those pushing the other side of the argument.

A great example which comes to mind is the Academy Award winning Inside Job. Director Charles Ferguson had no qualms identifying those he believed responsible for the 2008 global financial crisis. He made a very strong case too. However, whilst we often laughed at their expense, we did get to see interviews with government officials, educators, lobbyists and financial advisers who disagreed with his conclusions.

We Steal Secrets: The Story Of Wikileaks is an intriguing documentary in that you’re never quite sure where it’s heading, despite the fact this story has featured prominently in the media over the past two years. Is it taking a side? Or is trying to be fair and balanced?

The early scenes, which kick off with an appropriate Midnight Oil song, highlight an increasing level of secrecy within the United States. In the aftermath of the 2001 terrorist attacks, we are told that the number of classified documents increased from 8 million to 76 million. A record number of phone calls and emails were being intercepted. Not even Congress knew how much was being spent annually on surveillance. That too was a secret!

Does this make Julian Assange a saviour for pulling back the curtain and making these confidential documents public? Not necessarily according to the film’s Oscar winning director, Alex Gibney (Enron: The Smartest Guys In The Room, Taxi To The Dark Side).

With access to a surprising large amount of behind-the-scenes video footage, Gibney portrays Assange as a man full of contradictions who “liked crushing bastards”. There are times when you will agree with Assange’s actions. There are times when you will not. The ultimate paradox comes from the fact that in exposing the truth, Assange had to tell lies. It comes back to an age old question – does the end justify the means?

The film is about more than just Julian Assange though. An equal amount of time is spent examining Bradley Manning, a U.S. Army soldier who leaked a plethora of diplomatic cables and war logs to Wikileaks. The film may sit on the fence when it comes to judging Assange but it’s clearly sympathetic towards Manning. The United States Government turned him into their “scapegoat” and his subsequent persecution highlights the perilous nature of being a whistle blower. Manning makes for a great character study but I’m a little puzzled as to why so much time is spent exploring his difficult personal life. Should it have any impact on the decisions he made?

A large amount of chatter could be overheard in the foyer following last week’s preview. To me, this is a positive. Alex Gibney has shone his spotlight into a few dark corners and shown us something worthy of discussion.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 07 July 2013

Sarah Ashburn (Bullock) is a by-the-book FBI agent based in New York who always gets results. She’s organised, dresses professionally and lives in a crystal clean apartment. Shannon Mullins (McCarthy) is a rough-as-guts police detective working in Boston who has thrown the book out the window. She disregards protocol, has a foul mouth and never treats anyone, including her superiors, with respect.

These two don’t know each other… but they’re about to. Ashburn has been sent to Boston to find out who is the kingpin behind a major drug dealing operation. The case has extra importance (surprise surprise) because Ashburn has been assured by her boss (Bichir) that if she can arrest those responsible, she’ll receive a major promotion.

Mullins doesn’t react too well to Ashburn’s arrival. She’s been arresting local drug dealers for years and she’s not too pleased with the FBI storming in and stealing her thunder. After a few tense interchanges, they realise that they’ll need to work as a team. Ashburn needs Mullins’ local knowledge of the area. Mullins needs Ashburn’s access to high-level FBI intelligence.

If I described the plot and nothing else, you’d probably think of this as a standard, unoriginal buddy comedy. It’s been done again and again in Hollywood. You take two people with vastly different personalities and you put them together in some silly, clichéd scenarios. Lo and behold, they magically become best friends.

That wouldn’t do the film justice. The key to any buddy comedy is the chemistry between the two leads and there’s so much to love about the pairing of Sandra Bullock and Melissa McCarthy. Bullock is great as the arrogant FBI agent but it’s McCarthy who steals the show with her offensive, politically incorrect insults. If I didn’t know better, I’d say her entire performance was improvised given the natural way in which she delivers her dialogue.

The Heat is director Paul Feig’s first film since the very successful Bridesmaids and marks the feature film writing debut for Katie Dippold (a writer on the Parks & Recreation television series). Regardless of what you make of the movie, they’re to be applauded for the fact that this is the only major studio release over the U.S. summer that has two females in the leading role. We don’t see it often enough. They also deserve credit for a comical supporting cast that includes cameos from Kaitlin Olson (It’s Always Sunny In Philadelphia) and Tony Hale (Arrested Development).

As we all know though, comedy is divisive. There have been critics on Rotten Tomatoes who have described this as “uneven”, “childish”, “uninspired” and “boring”. On the flip side, there have been an equal number of critics using adjectives that are far more positive. To address one criticism, who cares if we’ve seen Bullock and McCarthy in similar roles before? All that matters is that in this movie, they made me laugh.