Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 27 June 2017

History is littered with fascinating individuals.  Some are widely known.  Some are hardly known at all.  Rafael Padilla fits into that second category.  Played in this film by Omar Sy (The Intouchables), Padilla made a name for himself working as a circus performer in the late 19^th century.  As the film opens, we see he’s part of a small troupe travelling through northern France.  His act isn’t particularly challenging.  He plays a cannibal who jumps around the stage and frightens the audience.  They appear to be just as scared by the fact he is black – such are their racist tendencies.

Padilla catches an unlikely break when he is approached by a struggling clown looking to spice up his act.  George Foottit (Thierrée) is on the verge of being fired and in a rare moment of inspiration, he decides to team up with Padilla to become one of the first black-white comedy duos.  They gel instantly with both acting like a complete fool on stage.  In fitting with the audience’s wishes, it is Padilla who ends up being the butt of most of jokes and he is given the stage name “Chocolat” to fit with his dark skin.

It’s not long before Foottit and Padilla are whisked away to Paris and are playing in front of large, sold-out crowds every night.  It’s an incredible rise to stardom for Padilla who was born into poverty, raised in Cuba, and sold to a Spanish slave trader when just a boy.  He now had more money than he could ever dream of.  While most black people were struggling to put food on the table, he was driving around in a flash new car.

There was a dark side however.  The fact remained that he was always considered “secondary” to the more high profile Foottit.  That was evident in their pay packets.  Further, audiences were still just as racist.  It felt like they were laughing “at” him as much as they were laughing “with” him.  Padilla also had a few self-inflicted wounds.  He developed an addiction to drinking and gambling which threatened to derail his career and relationships.

Monsieur Chocolat is an interesting tale that offers much to digest.  Padilla broke through barriers and “changed the nature of comedy” in the early 20^th Century.  There’s a nice clip during the closing credits that shows rare footage of the real Padilla as he and Foottit perform a small part of their act.  It’s amazing to think that it’s survived more than a century.  We also get a glimpse of life as a performing artist in the early 1900s and see that it was just as tense and just as competitive as it is today.

Omar Sy and James Thierrée deliver fine performances that highlight the strengths and flaws of their respective characters.  Your opinions of them will most likely oscillate throughout the two hour running time.  James Thierrée took home the César Award earlier this year for best supporting actor with Omar Sy also nominated in the best actor category.  Their recognition was deserved.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 14 June 2017

A lot has been said and written about the popularity of Wonder Woman over the past two weeks.  It has reeled in roughly $435 million at the international box-office thus far and ticket sales are still strong.  It illustrates that films with female directors and a strong female cast can be successful critically and financially.

The next movie trying to break ceilings in Hollywood is Rough Night.  In the United States, the “R” rating has a slightly different meaning than here in Australia.  It signifies that a person under the age of 17 cannot buy a ticket unless accompanied by a parent or adult guardian.  Examples of great R-rated comedies include There’s Something About Mary, Superbad, Wedding Crashers and Bridesmaids.

The point of difference for Rough Night is that it’s an R-rated comedy directed by a woman.  It’s just the second time since 2000 that a release from a major Hollywood studio fits that description.  The other was Nancy Meyer’s It’s Complicated (released in 2009) which wasn’t particularly edgy or raunchy.  It was only slapped with an R-rating because of a scene where a character smokes pot.

Suffice to say Rough Night pushes the boundaries a lot further.  As the directorial debut of 34-year-old Luca Aniello, it follows 5 women who head to Miami for a bachelorette party.  Jess (Johansson) is the lucky lady being married and she’s joined by a group of friends she’s known since college – Alice (Bell), Frankie (Glazer) and Blair (Kravitz).  Also along for the ride is Pippa (McKinnon), an Aussie who is unknown to Jess’s other friends but has flown across the globe to attend this important event.

Whilst my thumbs are mostly up, I’ll freely admit that the premise here in stupid.  The women accidentally kill a stripper at their beachside holiday home after he falls off a chair and strikes his head on a marble mantelpiece.  What follows is a calamitous adventure where they try to conceal the death and dispose of the body.  In case you’re wondering why they don’t go to the police, a litany of reasons are offered including the fact they’ve been snorting cocaine all evening, Frankie has already been convinced of previous crimes and Jess is campaigning to become a state senator.

As this all goes on, we get a glimpse of what’s happening with Jess’s other half, Peter (Downs).  He was happily enjoying his own low-key buck’s party but is now worried about Jess getting cold feet after a miscommunication.  Edged on by his own friends, he’s driving across the country to get to Miami and win her affections back.  This side of the film is nowhere near as amusing.

Why this comedy works is because of the casting and the characters.  They’re at their best during the opening scenes as they reconnect after a lengthy period apart.  They’ve all got problems in their regular lives but they’re happy to put those aside and have a crazy, fun time.  Kate McKinnon steals the show with an impressive Australian accent and a warped sense of humour.  All of these leading ladies deserve praise though.  The one-liners are shared around and their comedic timing is pin-point during some of the film’s eyebrow-raising scenes.

The script runs out of puff in the final 20 minutes with a finale that is rushed, clichéd and predictable.  I was hoping they’d push for something with more of an “edge”.  Still, there’s plenty to enjoy in the lead up and a few laughs will be had.  Oh, and make sure you stay for all of the closing credits.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 21 June 2017

I’m often hesitant when taking a friend to the movies.  They know I’m a critic and so there’s an expectation that I’ll be taking them to something good.  All of my fears were realised at the media preview of Transformers: The Last Knight.  As the closing credits started to roll after the outrageously long 149 minute running time, I turned to my good friend and simply said “I’m sorry.”  He knew exactly what I was apologising for.

Michael Bay has made some great action films.  Bad Boys and The Rock immediately to spring to mind.  Some of the films in this series haven’t been too bad either.  I’m a fan of the original Transformers and also the second sequel, Transformers: Dark of the Moon.  I say this so as not to sound too mean spirited.  I don’t have a grudge against Bay or these giant talking robots.  My qualms are limited to this film and just how bad it is.

It’s as if Bay and his three-man writing team suffer from extremely short attention spans.  There are an inordinate number of characters and they’re continually traversing across the globe.  You know that part of a movie where a new location is used and the director puts the place name in the bottom left corner of the screen to provide context?  They may as well have left it up permanently here given it changes so often.

To sum up the story – some stuff happens, some more stuff happens, and then it all comes to action packed close.  To provide a little more confusing detail… a group of not-so-nice Transformers are intent on sucking the nutrients out of the Earth’s surface and using it to regenerate their own planet.  To stop them, a human to get their hands on a magical spear thing which was once controlled by King Arthur’s Merlin (yes, that’s right) and has been kept hidden for centuries.

I couldn’t keep up with all the subplots.  Mark Wahlberg returns as Cade Yeager – a father who is a fan of the “friendly” Transformers and is keeping them hidden from those who want to kill them.  He’s being pursued by a military team headed by Josh Duhamel who aren’t well organised.  Over in England, Laura Haddock plays an Oxford professor who is caught up in the mayhem.

Let’s not forget Oscar-winner Anthony Hopkins who plays a kooky historian from a secret society that passes down knowledge about the Transformers.  He’s somewhat helped by John Turturro in what must be the most pointless performance of his career.  There are storylines involving the Transformers too but those are even less interesting.

Transformers: The Last Knight is a long, punishing struggle that offers very little in the way of entertainment.  I’d given up by the final hour.  I didn’t care what happened to these characters or how the narrative resolved itself.  I just wanted it to end so I could return to a world where everything isn’t in slow motion and where the image in front of me doesn’t change every quarter of a second.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 06 June 2017

I’ve been keeping a running tab of all the cinema releases in 2017 that have been set around World War II.  It’s only June but on the list so far are Alone in Berlin, Land of Mine, Their Finest, The Innocents and The Zookeeper’s Wife.  It highlights our fascination with that particular war above all others.

The next film to be added to the list is Churchill – a British production from Australian director Jonathan Teplitzky (Gettin’ Square, The Railway Man).  You won’t see any battle scenes here.  Rather, the film is told from the perspective of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill (Cox) as he prepares for the Allies invasion of Normandy, France in June 1944.  It’s more commonly referred to as D-Day.

As the film begins, plans are well underway for Operation Overlord (the code name for the Normandy attack).  All the finer details had been agreed.  Both the British and American generals were ready to send thousands of troops into battle.  It’s worth noting that representing the American side was General Dwight D. Eisenhower (Slattery) – the man who would become the U.S. President less than a decade later.

It seemed only one thing was going to stop the operation – Winston Churchill.  With less than 3 days to go, he expressed his disapproval for the plans and was worried about the huge loss of life that the allies would suffer.  His views were not respected and this infuriated Churchill.  He wasn’t happy with the Americans coming in and telling him what to do.

The film spends much of its running time delving into Churchill’s psyche and explaining why he acted the way he did.  He was almost 70-years-old at the time and had been suffering from illness and depression.  The length of the war had taken its toll.  The body count was growing and public morale within his country was weakening.  His loyal wife (Richardson) worked tirelessly to boost her husband’s spirit while also acting as a valuable confidant.

The screenplay also suggests that Churchill’s opposition to the D-Day plans was heavily influenced by his experiences during World War I – where he served as First Lord of the Admiralty.  He resigned from his post that 1915 after being held responsible for the disastrous Gallipoli Campaign.  The fact that the Normandy attack involved similar amphibious landings made Churchill uneasy.

Teplitzky’s film offers a different insight into Churchill.  Screenwriter Alex von Tunzelmann is a British historian who had previously written articles for The Guardian on the historical accuracy of films such Bridge of Spies, Suffragette, The Danish Girl and Selma.  She now finds herself under the spotlight with other historians, academics and politicians describing this film as a character assassination.  Andrew Roberts, a journalist who has written extensively about Churchill, said “The only problem with the movie … is that it gets absolutely everything wrong.”

I can’t pass myself off as a Churchill expert and so it’s up to audiences to go into the film with an open mind and form their own views.  What I can say is that the movie isn’t as engaging as it could be.  Given its very narrow focus, there are scenes that feel repetitive as we continually watch Churchill argue with others and look deep within himself.  Perhaps the scope needed to be broader to hold my attention all the way through.

Actor Brian Cox (The Bourne Identity, Adaptation) has played several historical figures across his lengthy career including Joseph Stalin and J. Edgar Hoover.  He adds to his resume which his energising performance here in the lead role.  It’s a part that will rank highly on his resume.  It’s a shame the film as a whole isn’t as strong.

You can read my chat with star Brian Cox by clicking here.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 20 June 2017

By way of recap, the original Cars (released in 2006) was centred on a race car named Lightning McQueen (Wilson) as he tried to become the first rookie to win the lucrative Piston Cup Championship.  There were clear themes in the film related to friendship and the price of fame.  McQueen’s success made him somewhat arrogant but after a serious of valuable lessons, he was a more “down to earth” car by film’s end.

The 2011 sequel wasn’t as energising.  Writer-director John Lasseter tried to take the franchise in a different direction with an elaborate tale that saw McQueen and his friends travel to a locations around the world as part of a new World Grand Prix.  It was borrowing from the pages of James Bond in that it was framed as a spy thriller with thefts and kidnappings.  It wasn’t well received and remains one of the most poorly reviewed films to come from Pixar Animation Studios.

It’s nice to see the series returning to its roots with Cars 3.  It marks the directorial debut of Brian Fee who has spent more than decade working for Pixar as a storyboard artist.  The broad narrative also completes the character arc for Lightning McQueen.  In the first film, he was the naïve rookie trying to make a name for himself.  Now, he’s the wily veteran trying to get his name on the trophy one last time before retirement.

There’s a message here about how things change over time.  McQueen is a great racer but he’s struggling to complete against a new range of faster cars that are led by Jackson Storm (Hammer), a take-no-nonsense rival who is intent on winning every race.  A knowledgeable statistician gives Storm a 96% chance of winning the opening race of the season – such is his power and skill.

This is something that we see in all sports.  Veterans, who have put their entire live into their sport, find themselves being edged out of the game by a new generation.  It’s sad but it’s also inevitable.  This doesn’t sit too well with McQueen who is in need of another reality check.  He teams up with new coach Cruz Ramirez (Alonzo) to help give him the energy to match Jackson Storm but things don’t quite work out as he expected.

The story is a little sluggish in places.  The focus is a too much on McQueen and it’s a shame more isn’t made of the many supporting players.  That said, it comes together beautifully in the closing half-hour with a finale that will satisfy audiences while also offering a few surprising twists.  Hopefully the themes sink through.

From a technical perspective, Brain Fee and his huge team have done an outstanding job when it comes to the animation.  The race track scenes are thrilling to watch as see the cars weaving between each other while travelling at 200 mph.  There’s also a great attention to detail with close-ups of wheels spinning and sparks flying.  Kids may not appreciate these finer details but they should be engrossed by what they see on screen.

I get the sense this may be the last in the Cars franchise and if so, I’ve enjoyed the ride.