Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 28 October 2015

He picked up a few varying roles early in his career (Saving Private Ryan, The Iron Giant, Boiler Room) but for the most part, Vin Diesel’s career has been built around The Fast & The Furious franchise.  Over the last 6 years, he’s only made one live action film that wasn’t part of the Furious series – Riddick in 2013 (and that itself was a sequel).

Diesel is finally stepping into new territory with The Last Witch Hunter but it’s unlikely to rank highly on his resume.  He plays Kaulder (Diesel) – a man who killed one of the world’s most sinister witches.  That was 800 years ago and the reason he’s still alive is that the witch, before meeting her demise, placed a spell on Kaulder giving him eternal life.  Some may see it as a blessing but he sees it as a curse.  He’s tired, rundown and longing to move onto the afterlife.

That’s not to say he’s still not of value to society.  A truce has been in place for centuries that has allowed humans and witches to live side by side.  When a witch gets out of line, Kaulder is brought in as the enforcer to set things straight.  Given that he cannot be killed, it’s a pretty easy gig.  You could shoot him repeatedly in the chest (someone gives it a go) and he’ll still live to kill you.

As we don’t need to worry about the health of our hero, the film tries to become a mystery thriller.  An old priest (Caine) is found dead and Kaulder suspects it wasn’t of natural causes.  His early investigation suggests that witches are involved but he’s not sure about their motivations.  All he has to go by is the strange clue – “remember your death.”  This leads him to Chloe (Leslie), a friendlier witch with the power to open up repressed memories.

The Last Witch Hunter offers little in terms of story and culminates with a tiring, poorly edited action finale.  Vin Diesel goes about his business with the same forlorn expressions and the same monotone voice.  At least the Fast & Furious franchise allows him to explore his comedic side.  This is all too bland, too serious.  The characters needed a significant injection of charisma.

It’s possible to make a great witchcraft movie.  Drag Me To Hell (released in 2009) is a perfect example.  Unfortunately, director Breck Eisner (Sahara) has failed to create something with the same level of depth and suspense.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 20 October 2015

Steven Spielberg’s last film, Lincoln, was an historical drama about a man trying to change the law.  It followed Abraham Lincoln’s efforts to abolish slavery by pushing the 13^th Amendment to the United States Constitution through Congress.  Lincoln faced huge opposition but he stuck by his guns and is now regarded as of the greatest U.S. Presidents.

Bridge Of Spies isn’t about someone trying to change the law… but rather someone attempting to uphold them.  Based on actual events, the film begins in 1957 with lawyer James Donovan (Hanks) asked to represent a man, Rudolf Abel (Rylance), accused of being a Soviet spy.  Donovan acknowledges upfront that he has no experiences in such matters.  His area of expertise is insurance law and so he tells Abel that “this will be a first for both of us.”

It’s obvious why Donovan was given the job.  This is a case that no one wanted him to win.  Relations were tense between the United States and the Soviet Union with each fearful of their growing nuclear programs.  Rudolf Abel’s arrest was front page news in New York City and the CIA needed to see him convicted.  It would help assure the public that the United States had the better intelligence and the upper hand.

So was Abel guilty?  Spielberg’s film skirts around that question.  It opens with an absorbing, dialogue-free sequence as we watch Abel go about his business just prior to his arrest.  It’s clear that he was involved in “something” but we’re never really sure how much he knows, how many people are involved, and who he’s working for.  We don’t get to see the evidence compiled by the CIA.  We don’t get to see Donovan ask the question directly of his client.

The film’s reluctance to delve into Abel’s actions is a weakness.  If we knew that his activities as a spy led to the deaths of American citizens (and I’m not saying they did), would we feel as sympathetic towards he and Donovan?  Bridge of Spies is structured so that it creates a “Donovan versus the world” type scenario.  He’s the good guy lawyer who wants to do things by the book.  Everyone else is the enemy.  His wife, his family, his co-workers, the CIA, the legal fraternity, the Government, and the public all take turns in questioning his loyalty to the American cause.  It’s overdone.

Thankfully, the film changes tact at the half way mark and becomes more complex, more interesting.  While trying to take photos over Russian airspace, an American plane is shot down and its pilot captured.  A prisoner swap seems like a simple solution but that comes with political ramifications.  Neither side wants to admit they’ve been spying on the other.  As someone without links to the U.S. Government, Donovan is flown to the volatile East Germany and asked to negotiate a very important trade.

Tom Hanks is at his very best here.  During the early scenes, he portrays James Donovan as a smart, level-leaded individual.  He’s a man of principles.  As the film progresses, we see a more cunning side to his personality.  He’s not afraid to act dumb and take calculated risks in pursuit of his objectives.  For example, he uses his head cold to great effect.  Mark Rylance, more known for his stage work, is equally imposing as the quiet Rudolf Abel.  He keeps his cards very close to his chest.

Touted as one of this year’s awards season contenders, Bridge Of Spies holds the audience’s hand a little too much but it’s still a gripping true story with relevance today.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 27 October 2015

Last week, I saw The Lobster – a movie set in a dystopian future where those people not in a relationship have 45 days to find a partner or else they will be turned into the animal of their choosing.  It was one of this year’s strangest films (but still worth seeing).  The premise for The Dressmaker isn’t as unusual… but it’s not conventional either.  Many believe this term is used too often but I’m going to describe it as “quirky.”

Set in the 1950s, the film opens with the impeccably dressed Tilly Dunnage (Winslet) stepping foot in the tiny outback town of Dungatar.  Her first words set the tone for the film – “I’m back you bastards.”  A successful dressmaker now living in Paris, Tilly hasn’t returned to her birth town to catch up with old friends.  It’s clear she has a hatred for the place.  Rather, there are questions about her upbringing that she needs answered.

The first person she turns to in Dungatar is her mother, Molly (Davis).  It’s the first time they’ve seen each other since Tilly was sent away as a 10-year-old.  Molly is suffering from dementia but it doesn’t stop Tilly from getting a few things off her chest.  She thinks that she’s cursed.  She thinks that she’s a murderer.  They’re odd statements from someone who comes across as both intelligent and articulate.  Why is she like this?

The rest of the townsfolk are equally eclectic.  There’s a police officer who lives a double life, a hunchback pharmacist who beats women, a paranoid germaphobe who won’t let people into her house, a husband who drugs and rapes his wife, and an abusive schoolteacher with a long held vendetta.  The only “normal” person appears to be Teddy (Hemsworth), the star of the local football team.  He’s keen on Tilly but she refutes his initial advances because of her “curse”.

Don’t let the trailers and adverts fool you.  The Dressmaker is a viciously dark comedy that will catch many by surprise.  Some moments are light and silly whilst other moments are tragic and confronting.  It’s a major reason why writer-director Jocelyn Moorhouse (How To Make An American Quilt) was attracted to Rosalie Ham’s novel.  It’s an emotional rollercoaster where you won’t know what’s around each corner.

With so many characters, it’s a struggle to give enough attention to their respective backstories.  The romance between Tilly and Teddy also feels undercooked.  It’s hard to believe they fall in love with each other so abruptly.  Thankfully, the film finishes on a high with a cracking final scene and a memorable punchline from Kate Winslet.  As someone who doesn’t mind a splash of vengeance, it left me with a wide smile.

Kate Winslet is terrific but it’s Judy Davis who makes the more lasting impression as her cantankerous mother.  She’s both horrible and endearing – a delightful combination.  A win at the upcoming AACTA Awards for best supporting actress feels inevitable.  Two of my favourite Aussie actors, Hugo Weaving and rising star Sarah Snook, also have fun with their respective roles.

Not everything in The Dressmaker works but it takes chances and offers a style comedy that is both dark and unexpected.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 12 October 2015

As reported through the media last week, 2015 has been a stellar year for Australian made films at the local box-office.  They reeled in $64.1m which, adjusted for inflation, is the highest total since 2001 (a year that had Moulin Rouge and Lantana).  Mad Max: Fury Road has been the biggest contributor with The Water Diviner, Last Cab To Darwin, Oddball and Blinky Bill also performing well.  That Sugar Film set its own record and is now our highest grossing Aussie documentary.

Despite those impressive numbers, one could also argue that the “glass is half empty.”  The $64.1m total represents less than 7% of total box-office receipts in Australia.  It’s become increasingly difficult to compete with the huge blockbusters coming out of the United States.  It boils down to marketing.  When you’re a small Aussie film with a tiny production budget, how can you compete when Marvel spends $200 million in marketing alone to promote their latest superhero movie?

One Aussie trying to make a difference is Devendra Gupta, a wealthy IT entrepreneur based in Sydney.  In 2013, he helped establish the Australian India Film Fund (AIFF) which aims to generate funding for “India-centric Australian films for a global audience.”  The idea makes perfect sense.  India has a huge film culture and produces more movies than any other country.  Widening the target audience will increase the film’s chances of being profitable.  More money equals more movies.

UnIndian is the AIFF’s first feature film and you don’t need to sift through the closing credits to find the names of the major investors.  The product placement is not subtle.  Will (Lee) teaches English language classes at the University of New South Wales.  Meera (Chatterjee) is single mum with a well-paying job at Cochlear.  A song used during the film includes the lyrics “come and fall in love with Sydney.”  Kudos to the New South Wales Government for getting that included.

It’s as cheesy as it sounds but UnIndian is still an entertaining romantic comedy.  Will and Meera come from different backgrounds but fate seems determined to bring them together.  How else can you explain them randomly bumping into each other 4 times during the film’s opening 20 minutes?  It’s not long before Will is able to convince Meera to take the plunge and go on a date.

Unfortunately, those around them are intent on making life as difficult as possible.  Meera’s parents are trying to push her into an arranged marriage with a wealthy Indian doctor (Brown).  Her young daughter (Sathi) is secretly trying to get in touch with her estranged father (Grover).  Will’s boss is threating to cut off funding to his successful English language program.  Things are getting messy.

The screenplay is formulaic (it even includes a racing to the airport scene) but the likeable cast more than compensate.  The film marks the acting debut of Australia cricket star Brett Lee who looks surprisingly relaxed.  The conversations shared between he and co-star Tannishtha Chartterjee are not over-scripted.  Supriya Pathak Kapur earns plenty of laughs as Meera’s stressing, overbearing mother and Arka Das also impresses as Will’s close friend.

Offering an insight into Indian culture here in Australia, UnIndian is simple and easy to enjoy.

You can read by chat with star Brett Lee by clicking here.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 21 October 2015

Adam Jones (Cooper) is a bizarre character.  Over a 10 year span, he rose to become “the Rolling Stones of chefs” for a famous Parisian restaurant.  He was cocky, he was arrogant, but he was also the best.  Then, he threw it all way.  He developed addictions to sex, drugs and alcohol.  He also owed a huge sum of money to drug dealers.

Adam could have faced his problems in a traditional manner.  He could have sought professional help from a treatment facility.  He could have apologised to those he’d hurt.  He could have worked off the debts he owed.  Instead, Adam decided on a more neurotic form of “penance”.  He fled Paris, moved to New Orleans, and spent a few years shucking oysters in a rundown restaurant.  He kept a journal where he actually counted the number of oysters.  As the film begins, the total ticks over to 1 million.  It seems like an odd way to clear his head.

Now free of his addictions, Adam returns to Europe to catch up with some faces from the past.  Suffice to say they’re surprised to see him.  They all thought he was dead.  You’d of thought he could have least told a few people he was going to New Orleans so as not to cause so much stress and worry.  It’s yet another reason why Adam is such a hard character to like.  He really was a shmuck.

Ah, but is he still a shmuck?  I’d argue the answer is yes.  Before his life fell apart, Adam was the head chef at a 2 Michelin star restaurant.  He now wants to go one step further and earn the most coveted of acknowledgments – a third Michelin star.  He convinces his old partner (Bruhl) to take him back in and he pulls together a group of young chefs from London.

I can’t say I’m a huge fan of his leadership style.  He comes across as deranged lunatic who continually abuses and degrades his staff.  Perhaps he wants to make them better at what they do (kind of like J.K. Simmons in Whiplash) but you can’t help but feel he’s just using them to achieve his own selfish dreams.

Burnt is a film that doesn’t work.  It’s intended to be a tale of redemption but Adam doesn’t have a lot of redeeming qualities.  The film is also vague about his backstory.  What happened during his breakdown in Paris?  It’s an event that’s mentioned numerous times but few details are revealed.

The supporting cast are woefully underutilised.  Uma Thurman (Pulp Fiction) is credited on the film’s poster but appears in only one scene as an influential food critic.  Is that all she was contracted for?  Or were scenes left on the cutting room floor because parts of the film weren’t working?  Sam Keeley plays a budding chef but his character goes nowhere.  Emma Thompson plays a therapist who makes little impact.  Omar Sy plays a fellow chef but we know little about his past altercations with Adam (which becomes important in the later stages).

Directed by John Wells (August: Osage County) and written by Steven Knight (Dirty Pretty Things), one can’t help but think this finished product is what they envisioned.