Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 20 July 2016

Peace is often taken for granted.  As this film opens, we see a tired Captain Kirk (Pine) lamenting about his job.  He and his crew are almost three years into a lengthy mission where they are scouting the far reaches of the universe and building alliances with other planets.  With no battles to be won, he’s bored and confused about what he is trying to accomplish.

Yeah… look…. Kirk has no right to complain.  He’s saved the universe repeatedly and he’s the much praised leader of a famed spacecraft.  We don’t get to see his pay slip but I’m guessing there are a few zeros at the end of his tax return.  Despite all of this, he’s thinking about stepping down as Captain and handing the reins to his wise first officer, Commander Spock (Quinto).

We don’t quite reach that point though.  Kirk and his crew travel to an uncharted nebula as part of a routine mission to help rescue the friendly crew of an alien ship.  They are then attacked by thousands of tiny spacecraft in the film’s best action sequence.  The USS Enterprise is destroyed, several members of the crew are killed, and the remainder use escape pods to flee to a rocky, desolate planet.

It’s at this point where characters are separated and numerous subplots are formed.  An injured Spock is nursed back to help by Doctor McCoy (Urban).  Scotty (Pegg) teams up with an alien woman named Jaylah (Boutella) to concoct an escape plan.  Sulu (Cho) and Uhura (Saldana) are taken captive by their attackers and held in a guarded room.  Kirk and Chekov (Yelchin) try to set off a distress signal and go in search of the others.

You always know how these types of movies are going to end.  The heroes will defeat the villains and will happily ever after (or at least until the next sequel is put into production).  Still, I was impressed by the bleak scenario crafted by writers Simon Pegg and Doug Jung.  Seeing the USS Enterprise being torn to shreds, I couldn’t help but wonder “how the hell are they going to get out this one?”  Their backs could not be more firmly pressed to the wall.

Perhaps that’s part of the reason why the film’s second half feels weak.  The crew spout a bunch of scientific words and come up with solutions that feel too easy.  There’s not much in the way of character progression either.  Buried under kilograms of make-up, Idris Elba tries to offer something new as the keynote bad guy.  He makes a few thought-provoking comments about the “need for war” but he doesn’t have much else to offer.

Star Trek Beyond isn’t a bad film… but it’s not a particularly interesting one either.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 12 July 2016

Few would doubt the writing talents of John le Carré.  The British author has penned more than 20 novels.  Several have been successfully adapted for the big screen including A Most Wanted Man (2014), Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011), The Constant Gardener (2005), and The Spy Who Came in from the Cold (1965).

There’s a feeling of authenticity that laces all of the abovementioned films.  It never feels like you’re watching an over-the-top action thriller.  You get the sense that these events could actually have taken place.  That shouldn’t come as a surprise given Carré’s background.  He started writing back in the early 1960s when employed by the British intelligence agency MI6.  Many suspect his novels are based on truth but the reserved Carré keeps his cards close to his chest.

Our Kind of Traitor begins in Morocco with a British couple trying to get their rocky marriage back on track with a well-overdue holiday.  Perry (McGregor) is a jaded poetry lecturer who recently admitted to sleeping with a university student.  Gail (Harris) is a well-paid lawyer who cannot find a balance between her work and private lives.

Dining alone while his wife takes care of an important business call, Perry is approached by an extroverted Russian named Dima (Skarsgård) who invites him along to a party.  What follows is an evening that involves expensive booze, beautiful women, illegal drugs, and a few horses.  Perry doesn’t seem to have any regrets but he’s still puzzled as to Dima’s background and the entourage of security guards that follow him around.

The next day, Dima reveals his true identity.  He’s the top money launderer for the Russian mafia and he’ll soon be transferring a string of bribes to enable a Cypress-based bank to operate in London.  Included on the bank transfer list is a high-profile British politician (Northam).

Dima doesn’t want to betray his Russian comrades but he has no choice.  He knows he’ll be of no value to the mafia once the transfer takes place and it’s likely that he will be executed in the same manner as a close friend.  With no one else he can trust, he gives Perry a USB stick containing details of the money laundering and asks him to pass it onto MI6.  Dima’s hope is that he can then negotiate safe passage to the UK for both he and his family before it’s too late.

Our Kind of Traitor puts all of its key characters to the test.  Perry and Gail have to size up the situation and work out if it’s worth risking their lives to save that of a complete stranger.  Dima needs to formulate a plan that will allow him to communicate with Perry without attracting the attention of the Russian mafia.  A top MI6 agent in London (Lewis) must convince his own bosses that the evidence against the British politician is credible and should be acted upon despite a possible fallout with their Russian counterparts.  There’s a lot at stake and there are a lot of moving parts.

It’s taken longer than expected for this project to come to fruition.  Stars Ralph Fiennes and Mads Mikkelsen were originally attached alongside Australian director Justin Kurzel (Snowtown) but all three withdrew due to conflicting schedules.  British director Susanna White (Nanny McPhee and the Big Bang) eventually took to the helm.

While I wouldn’t have loved to have seen what Kurzel could have done with this material, White and writer Hossein Amini (The Wings of the Dove, Drive) have still crafted an interesting thriller.  There’s plenty to hold your attention, the characters act surprisingly sensibly, and there’s a worthy ending that fits neatly with the lead up.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 18 July 2016

It’s remarkable how Jane Austen’s works have endured for close to 200 years.  The love for her novels has spawned numerous films and television miniseries that have only further enhanced her place in history.  Some adaptations have stuck strictly to the source material such as Ang Lee’s Oscar-nominated Sense & Sensibility (1995) and Joe Wright’s Pride & Prejudice (2004).  Other adaptations have been looser.  Clueless, Bridget Jones’s Diary, and Pride & Prejudice & Zombies are three very different movies that have all been inspired by Austen’s famed characters.

Jane Austen died at the age of 41 and only had the chance to complete 6 novels (two of these were published posthumously).  More than 50 years after her death, her nephew released a biography that featured other writings from Austen that had never been made public.

It included a short epistolary novel entitled ‘Lady Susan’ that consisted of 41 letters written back and forth between respective characters.  Austen had used the “letter writing approach” as a starting point for other books (e.g. Sense & Sensibility) but historians are unsure why she didn’t go that extra step in this case.  Was she unhappy with what she had written?  Or did she simply not have time?

Writer-director Whit Stillman (The Last Days of Disco) has long been a fan of Austen’s work.  His sister introduced him to Pride & Prejudice while studying at college and his first feature film, Manhattan (1990), was loosely based on Mansfield Park.  He seems like the right choice to give us this “fresh” Jane Austen tale.  Stillman spent more than a decade extracting a workable narrative from book’s letters and it’s the very first time that Lady Susan has been brought to the big screen.

Going by the title of Love & Friendship, this does mark a significant departure from the Jane Austen many will be familiar with.  Her novels often revolve around young, kind-hearted women trying to win the affections of wealthy, older men.  That’s not the case here.

Lady Susan Vernon (Beckinsale) is a scheming, middle-aged widow who has a habit of always getting her own way.  She sleeps with married men, she’s treats her friends like servants, and she rarely listens to the opinions of others.  Her current focus is on seducing the young Reginald De Courcy (Samuel).  He’s a handsome gentleman but she’s more interested in his bank account.

This is a delightful, entertaining comedy filled with wonderful dialogue.  Some characters are manipulating, some characters are being manipulated, and some characters are powerlessly watching the manipulation unfold.  She may sound like a hideous individual but Lady Susan continually charms with great one-liners.  After spending time with her brother’s children, she proudly gloats “I know some of their names already” as if it’s some kind of achievement.

The film features a big ensemble with multiple storylines.  To bring audiences up to speed, Stillman opens with a slick introduction that is both unorthodox and appropriate.  The cast is terrific with Tom Bennett shining as Sir James Martin, a dopey suitor pursuing Lady Susan’s daughter.  His original role was much smaller but Stillman wisely added more scenes with Bennett when he realised his comedic potential.  Kate Beckinsale also deserves praise for delivering her dry, witty lines with great timing and precision.

I think Jane Austen would have enjoyed this.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 06 July 2016

The story of Tarzan has been brought to the screen numerous times.  In its defence, it’s nice to see writers Adam Cozad (Jack Ryan: Shadow Recruit) and Craig Brewer (Hustle & Flow) not go with another bland origin tale.  It takes a little adjustment though.  It’s like watching the second series of TV show without having seen the first.  The story of how Tarzan was raised in the jungle and how he first met his American love-interest, Jane, is all told by way of very brief flashbacks.

The lack of a long-winded introduction creates more room for a fuller action adventure.  We first meet John Clayton (aka Tarzan) in London where he and Jane are now living a quiet, ordinary life.  That changes when is approached by an American messenger, George Washington Williams (Jackson), who suspects there is unrest in Congo.  Williams believes that the Belgian Government, who control part of the country, are illegally enslaving natives to help build a railroad and other infrastructure.

Clayton agrees to help and he heads to central Africa alongside his wife and the gun-toting Williams.  It turns out there is truth to the rumours.  A ruthless Belgian captain named Léon Rom has been instructed by his government to strip Congo of its valuable diamond deposits and use them to pay their government’s significant debts.  A tribal leader, Chief Mbonga (Hounsou), is willing to assist but on one condition – Rom captures Tarzan.  Mbonga wants revenge after Tarzan killed his only son many years ago.

What follows is a ho-hum action piece that struggles to get out of first gear.  Inglorious Bastards showed that Christoph Waltz can be a great bad guy… when given great dialogue to work with.  That’s not the case here.  He plays a cartoonish villain who has little to offer in terms of threats and intimidation.  When he captures Jane and tries to offer her up as bait, his simply describes his plan as “He’s Tarzan. You’re Jane. He’ll come for you.”

As Jane, Margot Robbie doesn’t have much to do.  Instead of moving with the times and creating a female character with depth and significance, the writers have stuck with the source material and portrayed her as the simple “damsel in distress.”  Alexander Skarsgård will excite some in the audience with his numerous shirtless scenes but it’s Samuel L. Jackson who earns “most valuable player honours” as Tarzan’s comedic offsider.

In a season cluttered with big-budget blockbusters, The Legend of Tarzan doesn’t stand out and is unlikely to leave an impression.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 13 July 2016

I use social media significantly less than I did 5 years ago.  I’ve been some terrific people and engaged in many constructive conversations but there’s an increasing nastiness that is difficult to avoid.  The ridiculous “controversy” surrounding this remake of Ghostbusters is proof in point.

Since it was released in early March, the film’s trailer has attracted more than 930,000 dislikes on YouTube (as opposed to just 265,000 likes).  That’s a record level of hatred for a movie trailer on YouTube and it now has a spot in the top 10 “most disliked” videos list alongside songs from Justin Bieber and Miley Cyrus.

The similar level of negativity can be found on the Internet Movie Database.  The film is yet to be released anywhere in the world and yet has already been rated by more than 8,000 registered users.  Of these, 55% have given it a score of 1 out of 10 – the lowest possible.  The average score from a male is 3.5 whereas the average score from a woman is 6.9.

I’m not the biggest fan of sequels and reboots but a film should always be judged on its own merits.  The disgust for this 2016 remake has been largely fuelled by a group of misogynist men who are outraged that Sony would choose to remake Ghostbusters with a cast of four women as opposed to four men.  I’d like to hope they’re a very small minority who can be ignored but when you look at the aforementioned figures, perhaps the group is larger than many believe.

Writer-director Paul Feig (Bridesmaids, The Heat) has done his best to make sure he gets the last laugh.  Early reviews have been positive and there are even a few jokes in the film targeted at online trolls which were added late in the process.  The adage that “any publicity is good publicity” might also prove true.  The unnecessary debate about the cast’s sex has pushed through into mainstream media and that may have a positive effect on the box-office.

The four lead characters this time around are Abby (McCarthy), Erin (Wiig), Jillian (McKinnon) and Patty (Jones).  They come from different backgrounds and have teamed up to form the Ghostbusters.  They operate from a rundown office atop a Chinese restaurant and their mission to rid New York City of a growing number of paranormal beings who are terrorising citizens.

Those closest to them are a hindrance, not a help.  Erin is sacked by her boss (Dance) at Colombia University for discrediting the organisation.  Mayor Bradley (Garcia) and his ruthless assistant (Strong) are squashing all ghost rumours so as not to scare the public.  Kevin (Hemsworth) is employed as the Ghostbusters’ receptionist but he is a self-absorbed dimwit who has zero skills to offer.

Feig’s film pays homage to the original with a similar narrative, a few well-timed cameos, and a revamp of the famous musical theme.  It’s got more to offer though.  He and co-writer Katie Dippold (The Heat, Parks & Recreation) have created a fun group of characters who work well off each other.  The biggest surprise is that the lesser known Kate McKinnon and Leslie Jones outshine both Kristen Wiig and Melissa McCarthy (who are still good but a touch repetitive).

The film’s weak spot is its storyline.  There’s a subplot involving the bullied janitor (Casey) at rustic hotel but it’s clumsy and doesn’t offer much.  The same could be said of the ghosts themselves who aren’t particularly entertaining (except for the fat one who drives around the Ghostbusters mobile).  Still, most non-misogynists should enjoy the ride and if the finale is anything to go by (stay to the very end of the closing credits), there’ll be more to come in the near future.