Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 02 July 2018

When it comes to fictional monsters, Frankenstein will be known to almost everyone.  The story has endured and the character continues to be used in films and television shows.  A lesser known fact (at least based on people I’ve spoken to) is that Frankenstein was the creation of British author Mary Shelley.  It’s incredible to think she was just 20 years of age when her book was published for the first time in 1818.  That would be impressive in today’s age let alone the chauvinistic, male-dominated world in which she was raised.

Fascinated by Mary Shelley’s story and keen to see it brought into the spotlight, Brisbane-based writer Emma Jensen obtained government funding and spent several months formulating a screenplay.  The reins were then handed over to Saudi Arabian director Haifaa al-Mansour (Wadjda) who cast Elle Fanning (Maleficent) in the lead role and got the cameras rolling.  The production highlights the multi-cultural nature of today’s society – an Australian writer, a Middle Eastern director and an American actress working together to tell the tale of an acclaimed British author.

As we learn during the opening scenes, Mary’s love for literature didn’t arise by chance.  Her mother, Mary Wollstonecraft, was a published writer and passionate women’s rights advocate.  Her father, William Godwin (Dillane), was a social philosopher and political journalist who pushed strongly for individual freedoms.  Borrowing from a recognised Godwin quote, there’s a nice moment where Mary is told by her dad that “to love reading is to have everything within your reach”.

She may have been shaped by her parents and her favourite authors but Mary was quick to find her own voice as sought independence.  At the age of 16, she fell in love with Percy Bysshe Shelley (Booth), a young poet she first met while studying in Scotland.  Their relationship caused much scandal given Percy was a married man but the strong-willed Mary trusted her heart and wouldn’t be swayed by naysayers.  It reached the point where she was kicked out of the family home by her father and forced to move in with Percy and her younger sister, Claire (Powley).

It was during her early years with Percy that the idea of Frankenstein took shape.  The world had seen nothing like it before and, as articulated in the book’s introduction, she was keen to create something that would “curdle the blood and quicken the beatings of the heart.”  Aside from those already mentioned, two other individuals had a small part to play in Mary’s life before putting pen to paper – renowned poet Lord Byron (Sturridge) and budding writer John William Polidori (Hardy).

The pace is a little sluggish in places but the interaction between key characters is the film’s strongest element.  With Mary and Percy, we can see that they were both good for each other and bad for each other.  In the case of Mary and Claire, we see the bond between two sisters strained as they grow up and the world changes around them.  Elle Fanning embodies the role of Mary and deserves big wraps in helping illustrate these complex relationships.  Tom Sturridge also deserves a mention for his humorous, unexpected cameo as Lord Byron.

The creation of Frankenstein and the links between the book and Mary’s life aren’t explored in as much detail.  Perhaps this had to be sacrificed to keep the film to a two-hour running time.  Still, there is a worthy punchline with the film having something to say about the connection between misery and art.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 22 June 2018

In November 1990, American author Michael Crichton published a fictional novel about a theme park with genetically engineered dinosaurs.  Few would have envisioned the reach it would have around the world.  We’ve now had 5 movies, several videos games, and a theme park ride at Universal Studios in Hollywood (which belts out John Williams’ iconic film score through the speakers as you arrive).

It’s been a good run but the question must be asked – has the Jurassic World film franchise reached its peak?  There are some worthwhile action sequences here but for the most part, this is a tired looking movie with a lacklustre plot.  Picking things up several years after Jurassic World (2015), it opens by presenting a moral dilemma.  The last remaining dinosaurs on the planet now live without human contact on a small island off the coast of Costa Rica.  Sadly, a volcano is set to erupt which will obliterate the island and kill the last of these giant creatures.

So what’s the plan?  One school of thought is to have nature take its course and let the dinosaurs die out.  They’ve been problematic since first regenerated and perhaps this is nature’s way of restoring balance.  On the flip side, there’s a some who want to save the dinosaurs and believe that future generations should have the chance to see and study these incredible creatures.  The government takes the first view while a group of dinosaur-rights activists, led by Claire Dearing (Howard), take the second view.  They accept finance from a wealthy scientist (Cromwell) to help rescue the dinosaurs and transport them to a safe sanctuary before it’s too late.

There are several problematic elements to the story and topping the list are two “bad guys” played by Rafe Spall and Toby Jones.  They’ve crafted an illogical plan to steal the dinosaurs and sell them on the black market for an insanely high price.  They’ll pulled together a group of influential heavyweights, motivated solely by power and money, for a fast-paced auction at a secluded mansion.  It’s a laughable scene with no nuance to the characters whatsoever.  The ideas of these one-note villains are so dumb and clichéd they belong in a Scooby Doo cartoon.

It’s not all bad news though.  Director J.A. Bayona (The Impossible, A Monster Calls) has created a number of cool escape sequences.  The pick of the bunch comes early in the film when the original island is about to explode and our beloved heroes are trying to evade a fast-flowing river of lava in addition to the dinosaurs and hunters.  Another notable scene features Bryce Dallas Howard and Chris Pratt as they try to extract blood from a sedated creature in a confined space.

The film sticks with the tone of its predecessors and shies away from violence.  Whilst some folk won’t make it to the end alive, we’re not shown any of the deaths in graphic detail.  The visual effects teams have done a stellar job and when you hear the sound of dinosaurs creeping across wooden floorboards, complete with their sharp nails, you’ll have an appreciation of the work performed by the sound engineers.

We will see more from this franchise as a 6^th film is scheduled to be released in 2021.  That fact will be obvious when you see the cliff hanger finale in Fallen Kingdom which, like most of what precedes it, doesn’t make a lot of sense.  Am I supposed to be cheering for these heroes?  Or hoping they die like everyone else?

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 26 June 2018

How much faith do you have in the government, the military, and the intelligence divisions that they oversee?  Do you think they should rely on firm, well established processes that protect human rights and require the law to be obeyed at all times?  Or should we rely on the judgement of the people and allow them to act outside of the law if they believe it can produce a better outcome?

If that question was asked of the fictional Secretary of Defence James Riley (Modine) in Sicario: Day of the Soldado, he would selection answer #2.  A terrorist attack has occurred in Kansas City with a group of suicide bombers targeting a grocery store and killing 15 people.  The public are desperate for more information.  They want to know the identity of the killers, their motives, and what the U.S. Government is doing to ensure justice is served.  With traditional forms of detective work coming up empty, Riley proclaims that “dirty is what we need”.

Suspecting that a Mexican cartel may have helped the terrorists enter the country, the U.S. Government decides to ruffle feathers with a secret, illegal operation.  They call upon the services of Matt Graver (Brolin) and ask him to kick start a war between cartels in Mexico to help flush out key targets and put a dent in their resources.  Assisted by old friend Alejandro Gillick (del Toro), Graver gets the job done by kidnapping the 16-year-old daughter of a cartel leader (Moner) and laying a trail that points to a rival cartel.  The drones, the helicopters and the weaponry are all funded “under the counter” by a mysterious government branch.

It’s not as strong as its 2015 predecessor but Sicario: Day of the Soldado still features some great pieces that will leave you on the edge of your seat.  These characters have an array of technology at their disposal and it’s both enthralling and scary to see their plans executed with such precision.  The best example is the kidnapping sequence where almost nothing is left to chance. 

Most action-thrillers are often a battle of good versus evil but this film bucks that trend and could be described as evil versus evil.  It’s hard to work out who to cheer for.  While these characters show fleeing glimpses of a softer side, their motives are largely selfish with wealth, power and revenge at the forefront of their minds.  The film also touches on two divisive subjects in the United States right now – drug control and immigration.

Benecio del Toro and Josh Brolin have reprised their roles from the original with both delivering gritty performances.  Oscar nominated screenwriter Taylor Sheridan (Hell or High Water) made the decision not to bring back Emily Blunt because “her arc was complete”.  It’s a shame as she was the most interesting character from the first movie – a woman forced to question her morals when realising those around her share different ideals.  Such an individual is lacking in Sicario: Day of the Soldado but it’s one of the few weaknesses of a strong production.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 19 June 2018

In compiling a list of Australia’s best comedic films, one movie that deserves inclusion is Kenny.  The creation of two brothers, Shane and Clayton Jacobson, the film told the tale of a loveable guy who rented portable toilets for use at concerts, carnivals and sporting events.  The film spent 13 weeks inside the top 10 at the Australian box-office and grossed just under $8 million – more than any other Aussie film in 2006 with the exception of the animated blockbuster Happy Feet.

That helped open a few doors for the largely unknown Jacobson brothers.  Shane continued to act and landed roles in productions such as Charlie & Boots, Oddball and Jack Irish.  Clayton picked up the occasional acting gig while churning out a few short films.  He was also involved in the short-lived spin-off television series, Kenny’s World.

Despite the success of Kenny and a myriad of ideas, the Jacobson brothers struggled to get a follow up feature film off the ground.  That was until they came up with an original way of obtaining finance.  Rather than make a movie and try to sell it to cinema owners/managers, they were able to convince the cinemas to come on at the start as “investors”.

As an example, if a cinema could stump up $20,000 in funding, they would have special advertising and a red-carpet premiere with both brothers attending.  They would also share in any profit if the film became a smash hit.  Aside from generating the necessary cash, the other big advantage of this financing model is that it guaranteed cinema screens – a tough ask for the average low-budget Aussie film when trying to compete against Hollywood blockbusters.

So is the film worth seeing?  The answer is a mild “yes”.  It’s the fictional tale of two brothers (played by Shane and Clayton) with a lot on their mind.  Their mother has terminal cancer and, rather that worry about how to make her final months as great as possible, their #1 priority is her will.  Custody of the family home will transfer to their step-father and the brothers are worried that he’ll screw them over and give them nothing when it’s ultimately sold.  Rather than sit down and talk it through, they come up with an unorthodox solution – to kill the step-dad.

Brother’s Nest is broken up into two distinct parts.  The first half is all about planning.  The brothers talk through a number of scenarios and role play the impending murder.  They’ve even come up with a murder “to do list” to make sure everything is in place and nothing goes wrong.  The second half is about the execution.  Things don’t go as expected and the film takes a few unexpected twists.

This is a dark, warped comedy.  You’ll have a few laughs with these not-so-bright characters during the early scenes as they argue about almost everything.  One is meticulously prepared while the other doesn’t seem to care.  Given the worst thing they’ve ever done in life is a dodgy tax return, it makes you wonder if they’ve got the guts to follow through.

It’s at this point where the tone shifts dramatically and, somewhat reminiscent of a dark Coen Brothers flick, will catch some audiences off guard.  The arrival of two new characters, played by Kim Gyngell and Lynette Curran, give the film a much needed spark.  You’ll forget about the slightly drawn-out opening and be drawn into the intense conclusion.  The fact that it feels so plausible adds to the uncomfortable vibe (in a positive way).

It won’t be as iconic as Kenny but Brother’s Nest still makes a strong mark.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 25 June 2018

Making a lost-at-sea movie is not an easy assignment.  You’ve got a single, limited location and a small number of characters.  Director J.C. Chandor took the genre to its most extreme in 2013 with All is Lost.  It featured just one person (Robert Redford) and almost no dialogue.  There’s more than one way to skin a cat as illustrated by other filmmakers who have successfully used plot devices to help keep audiences engaged.  Cast Away had Tom Hanks talking to a volleyball while Life of Pi brought in animals and a spiritual theme.

Based on a true story that took place in 1983, Adrift sets its scene very quickly.  Tami (Woodley) is a 23-year-old woman who wakes up in the cabin of a small yacht.  Her head is bleeding, there’s water in cabin, and there’s no sign of her boyfriend.  It’s clear she’s in the middle of the ocean and with the boat badly damaged and the radio beyond repair, her odds of survival don’t look great.

Guided by the screenplay, director Baltasar Kormákur (Everest) uses a familiar method to help tell this story – flashbacks.  We slip back 5 months and learn that Tami is an adventure-seeker who had travelled from her home in the United States to Tahiti in search of fun times.  She picked up a small job working in a harbour and it’s there she met Richard (Claflin) – a slightly older man with a love of the sea who had built his own boat from scratch.

The film is split fairly evenly between the two timeframes.  On the stricken yacht, we follow Tami as she battles the elements and tries to guide the boat to land.  Most viewers will be asking themselves the same questions.  Where will she find food and water?  How does she know what direction to head?  What happened to her boyfriend?  These questions are answered for the most part but it’s not offering us anything we haven’t seen in similar survival flicks.

The other half of the movie is structured as a love story while also filling in plot gaps.  There are a few cheesy rom-com lines such a moment where Richard opens up about his feelings and tells Tami that he’s never met anyone like her before.  She reciprocates with something similar.  Of more interest is the early part of their voyage and the huge storm that engulfs the yacht and causes all the damage.

It’s hard to be too critical given this is based on actual people and events but there’s a contrived nature to certain plot points which makes the story difficult to fully invest in.  An example is a sequence where a starving Tami has the chance to kill a fish but has hesitations because she’s a vegetarian.  Really?  We’re not talking about cannibalism here.  Would someone at death’s door turn down the chance of food because of their moral beliefs?  Tami ultimately makes the right decision but it’s still a strange part of the movie that’s trying to create unnecessary drama.

Kudos to Shailene Woodley (The Descendants) for a strong leading performance.  The best scenes are those on the boat and credit goes to the make-up artists who have done a stellar job demonstrating the effects of the sun, wind and rain on her tortured body.  The lovey-dovey scenes with Woodley and Sam Claflin (The Hunger Games) weren’t as convincing and felt targeted at overly romantic, idealistic teenagers.

Adrift has tempted me to do more reading about the real-life people involved (so that’s a good thing) but as a standalone movie, it’s not as gripping as you might expect.