Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 18 November 2015

If you haven’t seen the earlier films in this franchise, take your money and buy a ticket to something else.  There’s no “previously on the Hunger Games” introduction to help get you up to speed.  You’ll be struggling to understand each character’s history and motivations.

For everyone else, there’s not much I can say that would prevent you from seeing this final instalment.  The first two films were great.  They offered plenty of action and explored an intriguing concept.  The third flick meandered along but set the stage for what would hopefully be a big conclusion.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 2 isn’t offering much in terms of new storylines.  Katniss Everdeen (Lawrence) is still a reluctant hero in a war being raged between the slaves in the poor districts and the domineering bureaucrats in the wealthy capital.  Many of her family and friends have been killed and she has but one thought in mind – putting an arrow through the heart of the evil President Snow (Sutherland).

As much as she’d like to, Katniss can’t do this alone.  The Capital is heavily fortified with Snow using his expansive army as protection.  She turns to a few familiar faces to help get the job done.  They include her two love interests, Peeta (Hutcherson) and Gale (Hemsworth), as well as a group of well-trained soldiers with valuable intelligence.

There’s some interesting stuff here.  What happens if you kill a villainous dictator?  Does the world instantly become a better place?  Or do you just create more turmoil as its citizens fight for power and leadership?  It’s reminiscent of the toppling of Iraq’s leader, Saddam Hussein, in 2003.  The film also debates the rules of war.  Is it worth sacrificing civilian casualties in pursuit of a greater good?  Should you be allowed to “fight dirty” if there is no other alternative?

These questions are asked but the screenplay is unwilling to provide meaningful answers.  Characters go from good guys to bad guys without ever really getting to the heart of their transformation.  Were they misguided fools or was there something more sinister at play?  I’m not sure.  The film has also suffered from the death of actor Philip Seymour Hoffman.  His character is missing during several key moments and script re-writes have done little to compensate.

The action sequences are also a letdown.  There are several interesting set-ups (such as a moment involving mutated humans in an underground tunnel) but these scenes have been edited in a haphazard manner.  It’s hard to see who’s fighting who and it lessens the suspense.  The biggest surprise is the unusual climax.  Without given too much away, the film skips an important chunk and then wastes time with a drawn out, melodramatic finale.  Did we really need that final minute for example?

I remember struggling with Suzanne Collins' final book.  It didn’t have the same sense of urgency and excitement.  My thoughts on this movie are essentially the same.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 09 November 2015

If someone told me that the life of a teenager was being covered in a feature length documentary, I’d immediately think they were a musician with a horde of adoring fans.  That was the case with Justin Bieber’s Never Say Never in 2011 and One Direction: This Is Us in 2013.

For his latest documentary, Oscar winning filmmaker Davis Guggenheim (An Inconvenient Truth, Waiting For Superman) is taking us inside the world of a very different 18-year-old.  Malala Yousafzai was born in Pakistan, survived an assassination attempt by the Taliban, and became the youngest ever recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.  She currently lives in England with her parents and two siblings.

With limited footage to utilise, Guggenheim tells key chunks of Malala’s story by using simple animation.  Her father was a school teacher in Northern Pakistan and unlike many other girls from the area, Malala was given access to a good education.  When the leaders of the Pakistani Taliban decreed that women should not have a right to education, Malala found the courage to speak out.  She wrote an anonymous blog for the BBC World Service and she was interviewed by news outlets across the globe.

Her notoriety grew and the Taliban identified her as a threat.  In October 2012, Malala and two friends were shot on a bus while heading home after a school exam.  The bullet went through her head but she miraculously survived after receiving medical treatment in Pakistan, Germany and England.  The film opens with a moving interview where Malala describes her feelings when she first woke from a week-long coma.

Guggenheim’s film appears to have two purposes.  Firstly, it is raising awareness about the power of the Taliban and their efforts to supress women’s rights.  More than 400 schools in Pakistan were bombed for teaching young girls.  The photos and videos used the movie help illustrate this alarming statistic.

Secondly, the film is trying to show that Malala is just like so many other young women.  We see her fighting with her older brother, struggling to pass her high school exams, and fawning over photos of cricketers such as Shane Watson and Shahid Afridi.   She also has a head-scratching yet inspiring ability to forgive all those who have harmed her.  To borrow a familiar phrase, she’s an old head on young shoulders.

That’s not to say she lives an ordinary life.  Malala is now a recognisable activist and published author who has had the chance to meet world leaders including The Queen and President Obama.  She continues to use her influence to push for female equality when it comes to education.  Not everyone is a fan and the film includes a few vox pop interviews from Pakistanis who are resistant to her views.

I’d have preferred a little more attention be given to her causes rather than Malala herself but Guggenheim’s film highlights that education is an invaluable tool that all deserve access to.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 16 November 2015

A friend asked me last week about I remember all the movies I’ve seen during my 20 years as a critic.  It was an easy answer – I can’t remember them all.  When I look back at old release lists, some titles leave me scratching my head.  Other titles sound familiar but don’t ask me any details about the cast or plot.  Given I see more than 200 films a year, there just isn’t enough room in my head for all to make a lasting impression.

The reason I tell that story is because one movie that has stuck with me is El secreto de sus ojos, an Argentinian film released in Australia back in May 2010.  It came with much hype having won the Academy Award for best foreign language film (in an upset) and broken box-office records within Argentina.  I’ve never forgotten the ending.  Director Juan José Campanella crafted an intricate, superbly told story that whacks you will a sledgehammer as the credits start to roll.

As we know, not everyone is a fan of subtitles and so director Billy Ray (the screenwriter behind The Hunger Games and Captain Phillips) has taken a well-worn path and created an American remake.  A few small changes have been made but it’s largely faithful to the source material.

The narrative centres on Ray (Ejiofor), a man tortured by a crime that occurred 13 years ago.  At the time, he was working as an FBI agent for a counter terrorism unit based in Los Angeles.  Ray and his close colleague, Jess (Roberts), attended a crime scene one night and their lives were forever changed.  The dead body of Jess’s own daughter had been found in a dumpster outside a mosque they had been closely monitoring. 

Just like the original, Secret In Their Eyes has two timelines running concurrently.  The first is in the current day.  Ray believes he’s finally tracked down the killer and is trying to convince the District Attorney (Kidman) to reopen the case and go after him.  The second is at the time the murder took place.  We see how the crime was first investigated and why the perpetrator slipped through the fingers of the police.

It’s nice to see the story told again but this remake can’t match the power of the original.  Billy Ray struggles when it comes to the big finale.  It’s over dramatized and over explained.  The same applies to the romantic tension between the respective characters of Chiwetel Ejiofor and Nicole Kidman.  The film delves into this subplot numerous times but the stiff dialogue makes it hard to feel the connection.  The one exception is a scene in a bar (it’s late in the film) where they finally open up.

This is still an engaging thriller.  It’s not relying on set action pieces (ala a Liam Neeson action-thriller) to entertain.  It’s delving into the power of grief and the reason we do things – rightly or wrongly.  It’s also a story of ethics and how authorities give some crimes more importance than others.  I’m looking forward to seeing what audiences make of it.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 03 November 2015

The early scenes of the poorly titled Man Up suggest this is going to be another silly, convoluted, cliché ridden romantic comedy.  When we first meet 34-year-old Nancy (Bell), she’s sitting in a hotel room and ordering burgers via room service.  There’s a party going on downstairs where a good friend has promised to set Nancy up on a blind date.  She’s not interested though.  She sick of dodgy dates and set ups.  She’s happy to keep getting sympathy from friends and family by playing the “forever alone” card.

While on a train to London for her parent’s 40^th wedding anniversary, Nancy is befriended by Jessica (Lovibond), a chatty, bubbly, 24-year-old triathlete.  She’s been set up on a blind date by mutual friends and she’s agreed to meet the lucky guy, Jack (Pegg), at Waterloo Station.  They’ve arranged to hold a copy of a bestselling self-help book in their hand to help them identify each other.

It only takes a few minutes for everything to go awry.  Feeling sorry for Nancy and her gloomy, negative attitude, Jessica gives her the self-help book upon leaving the train.  She’s not worried about missing her date though.  She’s going to buy a new copy from the book store at the station.  Unfortunately, it’s not in time before Jack spots Nancy holding the book.  He think that she’s Jessica and stunned by the whole chain of events, Nancy decides to go along with it.  They head into the city for some ten pin bowling, a few drinks, and a lot of awkward first-date conversation.

As bizarre as it sounds, it’s at this point where the film starts to click.  The film doesn’t drag the “will she confess” question out until the later stages.  She admits early on that she’s not Jessica.  Jack doesn’t take the news too well but once he gets over his initial surprise, things settle down and the two decide to have some fun.  There’s a great scene where Jack runs into his ex-wife (Williams) and her new partner in a bar.

Directed by Ben Palmer (The Inbetweeners Movie), Man Up is a film that skilfully balances its genres.  Part of the film is a goofy comedy.  This is evidenced by the scenes with Rory Kinnear.  He plays one of Nancy’s high school “friends” who has never overcome his obsessive crush for her.  Another part of the film is a feel-good drama.  You’ll grow to like Nancy and you’ll see her slowly open up to Jack through the power of intelligent, insightful conversation.

The supporting cast pull their weight.  As Nancy’s father, Ken Scott delivers a sweet, heartfelt speech when talking about his wife at their 40^th anniversary celebrations.  I like the nice touch of having separate couches in their home for white wine and red wine drinkers.  Sharon Horgan also impresses as Nancy’s level-headed sister who offers encouragement and helps push her in the right direction.

Clocking in at a neat and tidy 88 minutes, Man Up offers more than you might expect.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 09 November 2015

Some films can stand alone but to fully comprehend the premise of Spectre, it will help if you’ve seen the three previous James Bond flicks starring Daniel Craig – Casino Royale, Quantum Of Solace and Skyfall.  There are numerous references to past events, past villains and past loves.  It has the feel of a concluding finale but we all know that Bond will be refreshed and rebooted until the series becomes unprofitable.

As if inspired by Alejandro G. Iñárritu’s Oscar winning Birdman, director Sam Mendes (American Beauty) begins with a lengthy continuous shot through the main square in Mexico City.  Thousands have taken to the streets to celebrate the Day of the Dead.  Bond has told MI6 that he’s on holidays but the trip has a dual purpose.  He’s been tipped off about a known terrorist who is planning an imminent attack.  Suffice to say he gets his man after an elaborate, suspenseful chase.

The dust settles (while we sit through the traditional opening credits) and Bond learns that despite saving countless lives, there will be ramifications.  His actions in Mexico were unauthorised and the new head of the Joint Intelligence Service (Bautista), following the merger of MI5 and MI6, is using it as justification to phase out the ‘00’ program.  They’d rather gather evidence through more modern techniques such as drones, internet monitoring, and cross-country collaboration.  The days of the secret agent are done.

Grounded by M (Fiennes) and instructed not to leave London, Bond could have obeyed and watched Seinfeld re-runs on his couch.  Okay, so it’s not his style.  While Bond has killed his fair share of villains and henchmen, there appears to be a secretive terrorist organisation that links many of them together.  The search for its leader (Waltz) takes him to Rome, Morocco and the Austrian Alps.  Keeping away from the watchful eyes of MI6, he is assisted by a young psychologist (Seydoux) who has her own reasons for getting involved.

After going down a darker, creative path in Skyfall, the writers have gone with a more conventional screenplay for Spectre.  People are left for dead and then mysteriously re-appear later in the movie.  Bad guys waste time explaining their heinous plans before giving the good guys a chance to escape.  Hackers crack sophisticated computer systems in a matter of minutes.  There’s even a bomb complete with a countdown clock.  It’s too familiar.

Christoph Waltz (Django Unchained) also fails to impress as the film’s keynote villain.  Keeping him in the shadows (literally) during the first two-thirds creates an aura of mystery but when all is revealed during the climax, his motives feel contrived and his clumsy operations don’t make much sense.

Despite its limitations, Spectre is still to be admired for Mendes’ skilful direction and the striking visuals of Dutch cinematographer Hoyte van Hoytema (Her, Interstellar).  There’s a beautiful scene where Bond kills two hitmen at the home of a key witness (Bellucci).  The camera remains fixed on Belucci’s frightened face while the shooting takes place in the out-of-focus background.  It provides a different perspective on a common action sequence.

The affable cast also give the film a boost.  There’s a great conversation aboard a train between Léa Seydoux (Blue Is The Warmest Colour) and Daniel Craig where she asks about his longevity and his post-retirement plans.  Ralph Fiennes slips comfortably in into the seat of M and while the film is light on laughs, he earns the best of the one-liners while talking to his counterpart, C.  Ben Wishaw gets to step out from his behind his desk and participate in the mayhem.

Struggling to sell its important messages about corruption within the intelligence world, Spectre is a chaotic Bond film that doesn’t quite come together.