Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 07 June 2016

You only have to look at a release schedule to know that big movie studios are increasing their reliance on major franchises to make a profit.  Rather than fund 10 movies that cost $10 million each, they’d rather put all their eggs in one basket and go for a $100 million flick if there’s a strong chance it could spawn several sequels.

That was always the strategy behind the 2014 reboot of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and thankfully, it has paid off for the executives at Paramount Pictures.  It grossed close to $500 million (USD) at the worldwide box-office and a follow up film was immediately given the green light.  There’s a new director this time around (Dave Green) but most won’t know the difference.  It has the same look and feel as its predecessor.

The villainous Shredder was captured at the end of the last film.  It therefore makes sense that this follow up begins with his daring escape from prison.  He’s not the only bad guy this time around though.  An alien is looking to build a transportation portal between his world and Earth.  He goes by the name of Krang and his end goal is world domination (pretty standard really).

There are a few more layers to the story.  Those familiar with the comics and cartoon series from the 1980s will know of Bebop and Rocksteady.  They’re two not-so-bright henchmen who are working closely with Shredder to get their hands on some special ooze for the benefit of Dr Baxter Stockman (Perry).

As for the turtles themselves, they’re not exactly a harmonious bunch.  Leonardo, Raphael, Michelangelo and Donatello are divided when it comes to many issues.  What approach should they take when trying to stop Shredder?  Should they finally come “out of the shadows” and reveal themselves to the public?  Could they use the mysterious purple ooze for their own use?

This is a film targeted at a younger crowd.  That statement will surprise no one.  It’s heavy on visual effects and the battle scenes are light and cartoonish.  The screenplay isn’t too bad.  It’s hard to feel tension in a movie this silly but the numerous subplots should hold the attention of the target audience.  The in-fighting amongst the Turtles also adds an interesting layer that’s reminiscent of the recent Avengers movies.

Adults may prefer a few more jokes (or perhaps something a touch darker) but kids will be the ones driving up the box-office over the coming weeks.  I’ll be surprised if we don’t see another Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles flick within in the next two years.  They’ll never win an Oscar but they serve an entertaining purpose.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 30 May 2016

It opened the Italian Film Festival here in Australia last September now God Willing is reaching for a slightly wider audience with a limited across the country.  It’s a fun, over-the-top comedy that clocks in at a tight 87 minutes and provides more than enough laughs along the way.

The central character is a gifted surgeon by the name of Tommaso (Giallini).  Modest he is not.  He maintains exceptionally high standards at work and is quick to criticise any staff member who doesn’t share his views.  He’s not subtle either.  There’s a scene where he successfully completes a difficult heart operation and then passes on the good news to the man’s family in the waiting room.  They proclaim it to be a “miracle” but Tommaso is quick to refute.  God had nothing to do with this.  His skill and dexterity with the scalpel is the reason the man survived.

He’s not a likeable character (obviously) and so the audience will enjoy the film’s major plot development.  Tomasso’s twenty-something-year-old son, Andrea (Oetiker) tells his family that he wants to meet and discuss something very important.  Their hunch is that Andrea will announce that he’s gay but the truth is a lot more surprising.  Andrea has decided to quit medical school and become a Catholic priest.

A staunch atheist, Tommaso is horrified by the announcement but chooses not to admit this to Andrea.  Instead, he goes on reconnaissance to get to the bottom of his son’s unexpected decision.  Tommaso takes on a fake identity and introduces himself to Andrea’s mentor, the young Father Pietro (Gassmann).  He’s looking for any evidence that shows the priest’s intentions are not so honourable.

Writer-director Edoardo Maria Falcone offers a few twists along the way.  I’d argue that they’re fairly predictable but they don’t detract from the amusement of each scene as events unfold.  Marco Giallini is great in the lead role as the self-centred, arrogant father who finally faces a situation that he cannot control.  His character’s persona is slightly exaggerated to fit with the film’s comedic tone.

A backstory involving Tommaso’s disgruntled wife (Morante) is pushed too far into the background.  She’s unhappy with her husband’s lack of affection and starts looking at better ways to spend her time.  Her adventures feel like unnecessary “filler” and don’t contribute to the main narrative.  The same can be said of Tommaso’s daughter (Spada) who is given even less to worth with.

Flaws aside, God Willing is still an entertaining romp that culminates on a reflective moment.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 07 June 2016

You generally know what to expect when it comes to a horror film.  You’re likely to see demons, ghosts or some other kind of spirit.  Doors will creak open unexpectedly and objects will fly across the room.  The director adds to the suspense by using music and sound, or a lack thereof, at just the right moment.  Some folk in the audience will shriek while others with laugh.

As predictable as the genre can be, it’s possible to create an effective horror film in today’s age.  The Babadook (2014) won AACTA Awards for best picture, director and screenplay.  It Follows (2014) has a 97% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes and developed a cult-like following.  Other examples that spring to mind are Annabelle, Mama and Sinister.  They’re all a lot more intriguing than the tired Paranormal Activity franchise.

Serving as a sequel to the 2013 original, The Conjuring 2 can now be included in the aforementioned list.  It’s another “feather in the cap” of 39-year-old Australian James Wan who keeps demonstrating his skill behind the camera.  He has left a mark in the horror world with Saw, Insidious and The Conjuring and is now expanding into the action genre with Furious 7 and Aquaman (scheduled to be released in 2018).

The Conjuring 2 begins in 1970s New York by reintroducing us to Ed and Lorraine Warren (played by Patrick Wilson and Vera Farmiga).  The Catholic Church calls them in when frightened parishioners believe they are being terrorised by a paranormal being.  Their first task with any new case is to make sure it is credible.  The Church wants to ensure it is not associated with a proven hoax.

Ed and Lorraine are sent to London to investigate the haunting of a house that has been generating media attention in the British press.  It’s one of cinema’s most overused songs but it still feels appropriate when Wan utilises “London Calling” by The Clash to introduce the London narrative.  A poor family from a run-down home are desperate for help.  They are hearing unexplained noises in the middle of the night and the children are communicating with someone not from this world.

Without giving too much away, The Conjuring 2 is taking a well-worn genre and attempting to fresh it up.  It doesn’t waste time with lengthy character introductions.  There are frights on offer within the opening 10 minutes.  It also doesn’t waste time on tiring “I don’t believe you” subplots.  The mother (O’Connor) is initially sceptical of her children’s tales but it doesn’t take very long before she realises the truth.

The film’s most impressive quality is its use of sound, music and visuals.  Wan clearly knows how to keep the audience on their toes.  There are some terrific sequences where the camera hovers like a ghost above the characters.  There are other great moments (such as one involving a painting) where shadows and lighting are used to perfect effect.  You’re never quite sure whether your attention should be focused on the foreground or the background.

See this at night and see this with a large audience.  The experience will be as cool as the film itself.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 25 May 2016

When going to the movies, there are few things better than a great comedy that catches you off guard.  Kiss Kiss Bang Bang (released in 2005) is a perfect example.  It marked the directorial debut of Shane Black who had already made a name for himself as an action film writer (Lethal Weapon, The Last Boy Scout).  It was smart, it was dark, and it wasn’t afraid to mock well-worn themes from previous crime flicks.  The movie also helped reinvigorate the career of Robert Downey Jr who was struggling to find good roles (this was prior to being cast as Iron Man).

It wasn’t a huge box-office hit but the film was praised by most critics and developed a cult- like following.  It’s therefore surprising that Black only made one film in the decade that followed – Iron Man 3 in 2008.  That was never Black’s intention.  He first wrote the script for The Nice Guys back in 2001 and was hoping to get it off the ground long before now.  He even toyed with the idea of making it into a television show but that avenue was also unsuccessful.

In 2014, the script finally found its way into the hands of Ryan Gosling who was looking for something different and was keen to sign up.  Everything else then fell into place.  Russell Crowe said “yes” because he was keen to work with Gosling and the investors said “yes” because the production now had star power.

The film is similar to Kiss Kiss Bang Bang mould in that in pays homage to the crime genre while also taunting it at the same time.  It’s set in the late 1970s and follows two guys making an unusual living.  Healy (Crowe) is an enforcer.  He acknowledges that he’s not in the White Pages and that you should give him a call if someone’s fooling around with your 13-year-old daughter.  He’ll dish out any punishment for the right price.

March (Gosling) is a struggling private detective who is trying to look after a daughter (Rice) of his own.  He’d rather be working on juicier cases but he often finds himself being employed by jilted lovers looking for evidence on their cheating spouses.  Given his lack of ethics and his continual battles with alcoholism, he’s not exactly the first choice when looking for someone in his profession.

These two didn’t know each other beforehand but they reluctantly team up when engaged on the same job.  They’ve been handsomely paid to locate a missing woman.  It may sound like a simple case but when several persons of interest are found dead, it develops into a case far beyond their expertise.  These guys don’t have the skills of a James Bond or Jason Bourne.  They stumble their way through each scenario and are only progressing as a result of extreme good fortune.

Given the film’s lighter tone, their hapless nature adds to their likeability.  They share some great conversations and spend much of the film arguing about their approach to the case.  There are also a few unexpected surprises and “red herrings” that again, we’re not accustomed to seeing in these types of movies.  An example is a scene where they try to decipher a message left on a pink piece of paper (you’ll know what I mean once you’ve seen the film).

They may sound like an unorthodox pairing given that we’re accustomed to seeing them in dramatic roles but the pairing of Crowe and Gosling works well.  Crowe plays the rational, sensible guy while Gosling pulls his weight as the crazier, goofier guy.  Shane Black also gives the film a fun 1970s feel with its sets, costumes, music and opening credits sequence. 

Not everyone will go for the quirkier sense of humour but The Nice Guys is right up my alley.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 01 June 2016

Lee Gates (Clooney) is the host of a popular finance television show that is broadcast across the United States.  He interviews CEOs of major listed companies and gives financial advice to those looking to make some money.  It’s hard to imagine how anyone could take Lee seriously given that he dresses up in costumes, uses silly sound effects, and spruiks “stock tips of the millennium”.  He’s about as trustworthy as the presenter of a late-night infomercial.

Kyle Buwell (O’Connell) is a young man who isn’t savvy when it comes to financial matters.  He inherited $60,000 from his late mother and proceeded to invest it entirely in IBIS Clear Capital after seeing Lee rave about the stock on his show.  The share price subsequently plummeted and the odd reason given by the company’s Chief Communications Officer (Balfe) was a “computer glitch” in an investment algorithm.  The bottom line – all of Kyle’s life savings had been lost in a single day.

Despite his obvious stupidity (who invests everything in a single stock?), the film is quick to paint Kyle as an innocent victim.  He knows there’s massive corruption on Wall Street and that there’s more to the demise of IBIS than is being revealed to the press.  To make his point, he storms onto the set of Lee’s live TV show and takes him hostage using a gun and an explosive device.  He’s not prepared to stand down until answers are provided.

The cameras keep rolling and we see people glued to television sets across the country.  The show’s gritty producer, Patty (Roberts), is working furiously behind the scenes to keep Lee calm and to find answers to Kyle’s questions about IBIS.  The police are also working on a plan to get inside the studio and shoot Kyle before the situation escalates further out of control.

Money Monster is very hard to take seriously.  It reminds me of fairy tales like Cinderella that give young girls hope that if they stay nice in the face of adversity, they’ll meet a handsome prince and live happily ever after.  Life isn’t that simple.

The recent global financial crisis, which I blame on simple human greed and a lack of government regulation, will have economic ramifications for decades to come.  Has the banking industry taken any responsibility?  Nope.  Has anyone gone to prison?  Nope.  I’m reminded of a line in the great documentary Inside Job where economist Nouriel Robini is asked why a thorough investigation into the financial services industry never took place.  His answer – “because then you’d find the culprits.”

Money Monster is correctly identifying that there’s a bunch of dodgy behaviour on Wall Street.  The film is well intentioned in that regard.  The problem is that it greatly simplifies the issue.  It wants audiences to think that the bad guys will ultimately admit their sins and the world will be better for it.  Sadly, this isn’t the case.  It lacks the depressing realism that made films like The Big Short and Margin Call so startling.

Even if you can overlook the financial elements, the way events unfold is also difficult to swallow.  Kyle breaks into the television studio with ridiculous ease.  The police make mistakes that would rival the Keystone Cops.  Perhaps the hardest element to buy into is Lee’s own naivety.  He’s been part of the industry for years.  Why is he so surprised to learn that IBIS has been untruthful?

Director Jodie Foster has done her best to create tension.  For example, there’s a great moment when Lee has to decide whether to pick up a gun that Kyle has inadvertently left on the desk.  Unfortunately, there’s only so much Foster could have done with a script as silly as this.