Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 16 September 2015

I’ve got some good friends who regularly post inspirational quotes on social media.  They say stuff like “it never gets easier, you just get stronger” and “dream it, believe it, achieve it.”  Movies often promote the same messages.  We watch people go from loser to winner, from rags to riches, and from villain to hero.  It’s seldom the other way round.  We much prefer feel-good tales that leave us feeling positive about life.

There’s nothing wrong with that mantra… but it’s not always a reflection of reality.  That is best illustrated in Everest which chronicles the true story of a group of climbers who tried to reach the peak of the world’s highest mountain in May 1996.

Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay became the first men to conquer Mount Everest in 1953. In the decades that followed, only well-experienced climbers tried to match their achievement.  That changed in the early 1990s when climbing became a more commercial enterprise.  An increasing number of tour companies were accepting large sums of money to help ordinary folk reach Everest’s summit.

There’s an important moment early in the film where these climbers are asked about their motivations.  Their answers are not unexpected.  Why would someone buy a 5,000 piece jigsaw puzzle instead of one with 500 pieces?   Why do we attempt the hard Sudoku problem instead of the easy one?  It comes back to what makes us human.  Many of us love a challenge and the thrill that it provides once achieved.  Oh, and I guess climbing Everest is a great story that you can tell the grandkids about one day.

Crafted by screenwriters William Nicholson (Gladiator) and Simon Beaufoy (Slumdog Millionaire), this film is centred around Rob Hall (Clarke) – the head of a New Zealand based company that has been leading successful Everest tours for the last few years.  The group he’s helping this year include a journalist, a mailman and a wealthy doctor.

The first half of the movie is relatively smooth sailing.  We watch them go through their training regime and appreciate the difficulty of the task.  Even with a lengthy period of acclimatisation, most will still require oxygen tanks when trekking at high altitudes.  Perhaps the biggest determinant of success is the weather.  You’re no chance without calm conditions.

I don’t want to give too much away but suffice to say that not all of these characters are going to make it to the end of the movie.  This isn’t one of the aforementioned feel-good tales.  It doesn’t make a difference how confident or how experienced you are… there are times when nature is always going to prove too strong for man.  It’s a fact that we often ignore or forget.

It’ll be up to audiences to judge their exploits.  Were they just unlucky in their pursuit of adventure?  Or were they foolish in biting off more than they could chew?  There’s plenty to think about here and it’s more than just a run-of-the-mill action film.  That said, the action is still very good.  Icelandic director Baltasar Kormakur (Contraband) used high altitude locations in Nepal and Italy to re-create the Everest experience.  The intense sound of the ferocious winds adds an equally important layer in helping put the audience in the shoes of these hikers.

It was never going to be easy given the large cast but the character development is underdone.  It’s hard to sympathise with a doomed hiker when we know so little about them.  Some of them only get a few lines of dialogue.  Keira Knightley and Robin Wright are added to show the thoughts of “worried wives” back home but again, these scenes are short and clunky.

Above all else, Everest shows that you can dream and believe… but you’re not always going to achieve.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 07 September 2015

Walt Disney Animation Studios had been kicking around the idea of a video game movie for 20 years but they were struggling to craft a screenplay that best fit the material.  They eventually put their faith in writer-director Rich Moore (who started his career working on The Simpsons) and they came up with Wreck-It-Ralph in 2012.  Well received by both the public and critics, the film made $471m at the worldwide box-office and earned an Oscar nomination for best animated feature (losing to Brave).

Columbia Pictures have tried to create the live-action equivalent with Pixels.  It begins with a flashback to 1982 when a group of talented teenagers were competing in the world championship of arcade games.  The game list included Pac-Man, Galaga, Centipede, Space Invaders, Frogger and Donkey Kong.  NASA included video footage of the event in a time capsule that was sent into outer space in search of alien life.

Moving forward to the current day, we learn that the aliens found the capsule.  Unfortunately, they took the footage as a declaration of war.  They have recreated real-life versions of these famed video game characters and are using them to attack Earth as part of a series of contests.  If the human race does not emerge as the victors, the planet will be annihilated.

The incompetent U.S. military does not have the necessary expertise in this area and so it’s fallen upon those same arcade game gurus from thirty years ago to save the day.  They include Sam (Sandler) – a tech installer who recently went through a divorce, Ludlow (Gad) – a paranoid conspiracy-theorist who still lives at home with his mother, and Eddie (Dinklage) – an arrogant fraudster currently serving time in prison.  They’ve got the approval to help from old friend William Cooper (James) who, despite his unpopularity, has somehow risen to become the President of United States.

Wreck-It-Ralph was rich in detail and came with a big heart.  It had strong messages about standing up for one’s self and not always judging a book by its cover.  There were also plenty of laughs for both kids and adults.

Pixels doesn’t offer as much.  The emphasis is on explosions, spectacle and goofy characters which makes me think it’s aimed at a younger crowd.  Director Chris Columbus has a proven track record as a family filmmaker (Home Alone, Mrs Doubfire, the first two Harry Potter flicks) but this script lets him down.

Why is there only one young cast member (14-year-old Matt Lintz) and why is he shoved so deeply into the background?  Why not get him involved in the action and give kids someone to relate to?  The adult cast are carrying too much of the load here.  I grew tired of Kevin James as the bumbling President and Adam Sandler as the reluctant hero.  There’s a military leader played by Brian Cox who doesn’t seem to know what he wants.

Coming up short in terms of both humour and story, Pixels runs out of lives well before the closing credits.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 15 September 2015

Most Australians would be familiar with the fictional character Blinky Bill.  Of those, I’d suggest only a small few know of his origins.  Three books following the adventures of this talking koala were written and illustrated by Australian author Dorothy Wall in the 1930s.  They were based on stories that she’d created and told to her own child.

Wall’s books were popular but the royalties didn’t provide her with sufficient income.  She tried to sell the rights to American film studios and English china makers without success.  Running out of options, she travelled to New Zealand (where she was originally born) and accepted a well-paying job as an illustrator for two newspapers.  That was the end of Blinky Bill.  She never wrote another book prior to her death in 1942 at the age of 48.

It’s always interesting to look back with the benefit of hindsight and see what stories survive the test of time.  Shakespeare’s works are still performed regularly today while other playwrights from the 16^th and 17^th Centuries have faded into oblivion.  Wall’s Blinky Bill books continue to endure.  They’ve never been out of print in Australia and have been adapted into multiple television series.  There was also an animated feature released in 1992 which grossed almost $2 million at the local box-office.

This rebooted Blinky Bill movie was produced by Flying Bark Productions, a small company based in Sydney who specialise in children’s animation.  They didn’t have a $100 million budget so don’t go along expecting the revolutionary visuals that you’d associate with companies such as Pixar (Inside Out) and Dreamworks (How To Train Your Dragon).  This is simple stuff.

The story could be described the same way.  It begins by introducing us to Blinky Bill and his fellow animal friends.  They’re a fun bunch who love to create mischief.  This raises the ire of a power-hungry goanna named Cranklepot who wishes to put a stop to their antics.  Such an opportunity is about to present itself.  Blinky’s father goes missing and Cranklepot seizes control of the town.  His first villainous act is to evict Blinky and his mother from their tree home and move in himself.

This forces the inexperienced Blinky to go on a long adventure in search of his missing dad.  This takes him across the Australian outback where he comes across an assortment of curious characters including a chatty lizard, a sinister cat, and a fellow koala looking to create a new life for herself in a zoo.

This is a film targeted squarely at young kids and the screenplay reflects that fact.  The characters are cute and the narrative is easy to understand.  It’s the sort of thing children might watch after school or on a Saturday morning.  That comparison feels appropriate as Channel 7 recently commissioned a 26 episode follow-on television series that will go to air in 2016.

The only hook for adults is the well-known Aussie cast.  The movie utilises the voices of Ryan Kwanten, Toni Collette, Richard Roxburgh, Deborah Mailman and Barry Humphries.  They’re all very good but the two standouts are David Wenham (as Jacko the lizard) and Barry Otto (as Cranklepot the goanna).

We generally rely on international product when finding family-orientated movies to fill cinemas over school holiday periods.  Coupled with Oddball which is also released today, it’s nice to see two Australian films helping put bums on seats.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 02 September 2015

As of last week, Straight Outta Compton had grossed $135 million in the United States and had become the highest grossing music biopic of all time.  It has surpassed the likes of Walk The Line, Ray, Coal Miner’s Daughter, La Bamba, Amadeus and Jersey Boys.  It’s an impressive statistic that shows the movie has broad appeal and is not just for fans of the hip hop group N.W.A.

The film could be described and categorised a number of ways.  For starters, it’s a likeable rags-to-riches tale.  In 1986, a group of rappers from southern California visualised stardom.  It’s a dream that so many musicians have had but few have achieved.  There’s a scene where one of the rappers, Dr Dre (Hawkins), is berated by his mother for skipping work and school in pursuit of his fanciful goals.  I’d have said the same thing if in her position.  These guys had no back-up plan.

We’re now watching a movie about their lives and so it’s obvious that they found success.  They formed the group N.W.A. (with stands for Niggaz Wit Attitudes), helped create a record label, and released their first album in 1988.  The lyrics were considered too violent and profane and so they received no radio or television coverage.  Even MTV refused to play their music videos.  The controversy only helped boost their notoriety.  They became an underground sensation through word-of-mouth and it wasn’t long before they’d sold 3 million copies of their debut album.

This movie is about much more than their achievements.  It provides important insight into the discrimination they endured both before and after they found fame.  The lyrics for one of their most widely discussed songs, “Fuck tha Police”, highlighted the racial profiling and police brutality that was being experienced by the African American community but rarely discussed in the media.  The film also makes reference to the police beating of taxi driver Rodney King in 1991 and the subsequent riots in Los Angeles.  Has much changed over the last 25 years?  It’s something to think about.

An equally interesting layer to Straight Outta Compton is that it draws attention to the power struggle that existed within the group.  Given the cash being generated, there were disputes about contracts, royalties and entitlements.  An uneasy partnership had been formed between group leader Easy-E (Mitchell) and music manager Jerry Heller (Giamatti).  This didn’t sit well with Ice Cube (Jackson Jr) who decided to pursue a solo career.

The film hasn’t been immune from criticism despite the healthy box-office.  Given it was produced by Dr Dre and Ice Cube, some believe the film paints them in a better light than they deserve.  It overlooks the fact that Dr Dre physically abused several women during the early 1990s (which has since apologised for).  It also fails to explore N.W.A.’s misogynist lyrics that refer to women as “bitches” and “hoes”.  It seems counterproductive to be using their music to help raise awareness about discrimination against black Americans… while demeaning women in the process.

I won’t begrudge anyone for disliking Straight Outta Compton for the aforementioned reasons.  That said, I believe the film’s strengths far outweigh its negatives.  N.W.A. aren’t portrayed as saints (Easy-E starts out as a drug dealer) and while yes, some details were left out, this was always going to be tricky given the abundance of characters and long time frame.  It all clocks in at just under two and a half hours which is best that director F. Gary Gray (Friday, The Italian Job) could do.

The young cast are superb with O’Shea Jackson Jr, the real life son of Ice Cube, being the obvious standout given his uncanny resemblance to his father at the same age.  The screenwriting team are also to be commended for the way in which the film blends comedy, drama and tragedy… with a bit of contract law thrown in for good measure.

To someone unfamiliar with the American rap scene, Straight Outta Compton will provide an absorbing look at a group of flawed, yet wonderfully talented artists.

You can read my chat with star O'Shea Jackson Jr by clicking here.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 09 September 2015

20^th Century Fox were pretty quick to push the sequel button following the success of last year’s The Maze Runner.  After reeling in $345 million at the worldwide box-office (on a budget of just $34 million), this follow up was in production within weeks of the original’s release.  A third and final film (thankfully not split into two movies) will be in theatres in February 2017.

I was a huge fan of The Maze Runner and found a spot for it in my top 10 films list of 2014.  By way of recap, it centred on a teenager named Thomas (O’Brien) who woke up in the centre of a maze with no recollection of how he got there.  Director Wes Ball aptly described the film as “Lord of the Flies meets Lost.”  Thomas and his newfound friends managed to defeat the maze… but not before they almost defeated each other.  A bitter power struggle developed between two factions and several characters didn’t make it to the end.

It was a film that offered much intrigue.  Where did the kids come from?  Who built the maze?  Why couldn’t they remember their past?  Despite being entirely contained within one location, The Maze Runner held my attention all the way through.  By comparison, The Scorch Trials isn’t as exciting.  It’s a more generic action film that tries to add more characters and more locations… but feels a lot less suspenseful.

It opens with the rescued teenagers waking up in a well-fortified military facility.  They are told that they need to be kept there for their own protection because the “world is hanging on by a thread.”  A virus has turned millions of humans into zombie-like creatures and a group of scientists are working around the clock to find a cure.

His friends are relieved to find sanctuary but Thomas feels that something isn’t right.  Those suspicions are confirmed when he breaks into a locked laboratory and discovers medical experiments being performed on other kids.  It turns out they’re being “harvested” for a cure to the virus and it’s only a matter of time before he’ll meet a similar fate.  The group behind it all is known as WCKD which stands for World in Catastrophe: Killzone Experiment Department.

Thomas orchestrates an escape from the facility but the world outside isn’t much safer.  Not only are they being pursued by WCKD’s militia, they also have to outsmart zombies and other folk who can’t be trusted.  All of this takes place in deserts, mountains, tunnels, and dilapidated high rises.  There’s even a sudden lightning storm (which doesn’t make much sense).  In essence, this is a two-hour chase movie.  These teenagers are on the run with no substantive plan as to where they’re going and how they’re going to get there.

Adapted from the novel by James Dashner, The Scorch Trials is trying to pack a lot into its running time but it still feels like a bridge between two better movies.  It’s not until the final scenes where the momentum and excitement starts to build.  It’s set itself up for a juicy final instalment but much of the content in this film is forgettable.  The running scenes are repetitive and the story development is light.

Director Wes Ball does his best to give the film his own look.  A few of the action sequences are over-edited and it’s hard to keep up with what’s going on.  Still, I enjoyed the intricate locations (such as a deserted shopping mall) and Ball’s use of light.  The kids are often running in the dark and in some cases, it’s only their fast-moving torches that provide us with a glimpse of their surroundings.

We’ll do it all again in 18 months time.