Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 27 May 2015

In June last year, I received a letter in the mail advising that my home street in the Brisbane CBD would be closed so that Warner Bros. could shoot scenes for a new earthquake movie starring Dwayne Johnson.  It was a cool event… but it also highlighted the wonders of visual effects.  A movie set in Los Angeles and San Francisco (which you’ll see very clearly in the film) was shot on the opposite side of the world.

Alas, I didn’t get to meet Dwayne.  There’s probably not much I could have asked given this is a generic action blockbuster.  He stars as Ray – a Los Angeles based fire fighter who is practically a superhero.  In the film’s opening scene, we see him flying a helicopter and rescuing a woman who is trapped in her car which hangs precariously on a cliff face.  It’s all captured on video too by a journalist profiling Ray for a news story.

Unfortunately, his family life isn’t quite as successful.  His wife, Emma (Gugino), has just issued him with divorce papers because she’s decided to tie the knot with a billionaire real estate developer (Gruffudd).  Caught in the middle is their teenage daughter, Blake (Daddario).  I’m not quite sure what Ray did wrong to warrant the divorce… but it can’t have been too bad because he’s a nice guy and he seems to have taken it all in his stride.

With that limited character development out of the way, it’s time to cue the earthquakes.  A sizeable quake strikes Nevada and obliterates the Hoover Dam.  It’s just the start however of a series of quakes along the San Andreas Fault that will leave historians (well, those who survive anyway) searching through the record books.  The level of destruction rivals that of a Roland Emmerich film (2012, The Day After Tomorrow, Independence Day).

Director Brad Peyton (Cats & Dogs: The Revenge Of Kitty Galore) throws in a few scenes that show Ray rescuing complete strangers.  We need to be reminded that he’s a nice guy, remember?  That’s not the focus though.  Ray steals/borrows a fire department helicopter and goes on a journey to rescue his daughter and soon-to-be ex-wife who have both become trapped by fallen buildings.

I can’t imagine Ray winning the lottery anytime soon.  That’s because he’s used all of his luck making it to the end of this movie.  The situations he extracts himself from are so cartoonish and far-fetched that they’re impossible to take seriously.  There’s zero tension here.  You’ll just spend two hours admiring the work of the sound technicians and visual effects artists.

Such a farcical premise could have worked with a few laughs but it’s another area where the film is lacking.  Peyton and the three-man writing team have strangely gone with a melodramatic approach.  We watch an old couple hold each other for the last time before they’re swept away by a tidal wave.  We see an American flag unfurled by the wind as a symbol of strength and patriotism.  Sorry, this just didn’t work for me.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 14 May 2015

I usually take notes when I’m reviewing a film.  I try to jot down details about the characters, information about the plot, and a few memorable quotes.  Thirty minutes into Mad Max: Fury Road, I looked down at my notebook and realised that I hadn’t written a thing.  This wasn’t because the film was terrible.  It was because it’s a film that most of its work through visuals as opposed to spoken words.

The story is set in a futuristic, apocalyptic-type world where the two most important commodities are water and oil.  Both can be found at the Citadel but its residents are deprived access by the town’s ruling dictator, Immortan Joe (Keays-Byrne).  He’s a hideous, repulsive individual who treats women in a shocking fashion.

The original Mad Max, released more than 35 years ago, has become one of Australia’s most well-known films.  Writer-director George Miller could have fallen in to the trap of making a safe, unadventurous remake but instead, he takes a chance and shifts the focus onto its female characters.

The film begins with Imperator Furiosa (Theron) rescuing a group of abused women from Citadel and fleeing in a huge, purpose-built oil truck.  Joined by a nameless man (Hardy), they head across the desert and go in search of the “green” lands that can offer water, protection and freedom.  They are pursued by Immortan Joe and his army of soldiers who won’t go down without a fight.

The general formula with a Hollywood-style action movie is to include 3-4 keynote battle scenes and then use the gaps in between to develop the characters and flesh out the story.  That’s not the case here.  Miller begins with a well-choreographed chase sequence that never really stops.  Except for a handful of very short detours, this is two hours of unrelenting warfare.  In fact, I don’t think I’ve ever seen an action film with less dialogue.

It may sound tiresome but the reality is anything but.  Many action flicks are over-edited to the point where you’re not sure what’s going on and who’s fighting who.  Using a seamless mix of stunts and special effects, Miller has crafted some brilliant scenes that look like they were shot in a single take (using about 50 cameras of course).  It’s intense… but it’s also easy to follow.   

Mad Max: Fury Road was to be shot in Broken Hill back in 2011 but flooding rains ruined the desert-like landscape and so the production had to be shifted to Namibia on the west coast of Africa.  It turned out to be an amazing location that is exploited to its full potential by Queensland-born cinematographer John Seale (Rainman, The English Patient).   Also deserving credit is Dutch composer Junkie XL for his strong but not-over-the-top film score.

Plans are afoot for further sequels but whether they progress will depend on the box-office success of Fury Road.  As one of the more creative action films that we’ve seen in recent years, I’m hoping the word of mouth spreads widely and quickly.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 20 May 2015

This latest comedy from director Paul Feig (Bridesmaids, The Heat) starts out like a James Bond spoof.  We are introduced to Bradley Fine (Law) – a cool, suave, well-dressed CIA operative who has infiltrated a lavish party and is looking for the bad guy to apprehend.  The film even comes with a Bond-like opening title sequence.

Fine isn’t the focus though.  While he’s out shooting villains and seducing women, there’s someone behind the scenes who is a huge part of his success.  Her name is Susan Cooper (McCarthy) and she sits at a small desk at CIA headquarters.  She does his research, she tells him where the bad guys are located, and she even picks up his dry cleaning.

Cooper has a huge crush on Fine and is content to live in his shadow… but it’s not quite the career she envisioned.  She’s always wanted to get out in the field and become a “full on” spy herself.  Thankfully, opportunity is about to come knocking.  When a mole reveals the identity of all current agents, CIA chief Elaine Crocker (Janney) is forced to go with a compete unknown for the latest assignment.

Cooper’s job should be a simple one.  She is to head to Paris and monitor the activities of Rayna Boyanov (Byrne), a villainous Bulgarian who is rumoured to be selling nuclear weapons to terrorist organisations.  Cooper is ordered to keep her distance and observe Boyanov from afar but that’s not how the situation will play out.  She wants to prove to everyone that she’s a top class spy and so she takes matters into own hands… with hilarious consequences.

Paul Feig already has two terrific female-centric comedies to his name – Bridesmaids and The Heat.  Spy is similarly impressive but he deserves twice as much credit this time around since he serves as both director and writer.  It’s a screenplay choc-filled with insults.  It’s as if every character is doing their best to degrade others.  Cooper even does it to herself.  Asked to wear a disguise, she describes her look as being “like someone’s homophobic aunt”.

It’s the terrific characters that elevate this above your average comedy.  Jason Statham (Fast & Furious 7) plays Rick Ford – an arrogant, self-centred CIA agent who keeps popping up at every location and trying to steal Cooper’s thunder.  Australian Rose Byrne (Bad Neighbours) is a refreshingly unorthodox villain and earns plenty of laughs from her fashion commentary and her pompous attitude.  Melissa McCarthy again proves that she can be one of the funniest actors in the business when given a well-written script (i.e. something that isn’t Tammy or Identify Thief).

Feig isn’t afraid to throw in a few “what the f***” moments either.  For example, there’s a bizarre yet amusing moment where the CIA offices are overrun with bats.  He’s also crafted a sufficiently interesting screenplay.  Yes, it’s a far-fetched comedy but you’ll still be invested in the characters and curious to see how they fare in the film’s finale (which itself includes a “what the f***” cameo).

Some pay be perturbed by its crudeness but Spy is the best mainstream comedy we’ve seen so far in 2015.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 11 May 2015

After days of speculation, Prime Minister Winston Churchill took to the airwaves on 7 May 1945 and announced the end of World War II in Europe.  He declared that the following day would be a national holiday and would be known as Victory in Europe Day.  Huge crowds took to the streets of London to celebrate and amongst them were the two heirs to the British throne – Princesses Elizabeth and Margaret.

Not a lot is known about the future Queen’s actions on that night.  Her official diary summed it up in just 24 words – “PM announced unconditional surrender.  Sixteen of us went out in the crowd, cheered parents up on the balcony.  Up St J’s, Piccadilly, great fun.”  With little factual information to guide them, writers Kevin Hood (Becoming Jane) and Trevor De Silva have crafted a fictional tale that follows Elizabeth and Margaret as they escape their parents’ tight clutches and have, as the title promises, a royal night out.

This is a light, feel good comedy and it’s obvious from the early scenes that it’s not intended to be a historical drama.  The King and Queen have concerns about letting their daughters leave Buckingham Palace and so the Queen quietly organises for them to be chaperoned by two upstanding British soldiers.  In a sequence resembling a Benny Hill skit, the soldiers meet a group of women, head upstairs for a quick “rendezvous”, and lose contact with the two princesses.

The film isn’t afraid to poke fun at the royal family either.  Margaret (Powley) comes off as the cheeky, promiscuous one who doesn’t mind a few drinks.  There’s one scene where she unknowingly ends up in a brothel!  Elizabeth (Gadon) is more responsible but she has no idea about life outside of the palace.  She doesn’t have money to pay for a bus fare.  She’s doesn’t know how to find the bathrooms in a pub.

Two other subplots receive a fair chunk of screen time.  The first involves the King and Queen – played by the experienced Rupert Everett and Emily Watson.  The King is drafting a speech to the nation and is stressing about how it will be received.  The second involves Jack (Reynor) – a soldier who has gone AWOL and is thinking about fleeing to the United States.  He meets Elizabeth on the aforementioned bus and it’s here where the writers offer a splash of romance.

It’s a crowd pleaser but I didn’t think much of A Royal Night Out.  The comedic moments are too far-fetched and most characters come across as bumbling fools.  The on-again, off-again friendship between Elizabeth and Jack also gets tired quickly.  They fight, they split, they bump into each other, and the process keeps repeating.  They’re not very good at professing their feelings either.  There’s a moment on a boat where the dialogue feels particularly stuffy and scripted.

With the light tone and jazzy music, the more serious elements involving the insecure King and the fussing Queen seem out of place.  There’s an odd scene where Rupert Everett looks out of a palace window and laments that “things are getting out of hand”.  What exactly was he expecting?  Could his people not celebrate after such a brutal war?  Colin Firth gave the character much more depth with his Oscar winning performance in The King’s Speech.

Director Julian Jarrold (Kinky Boots) makes great use of landmarks such as Trafalgar Square to help recreate the era.  Archival footage is also used to nice effect before the opening titles.  Unfortunately, the strong production values are not enough to save what is a muddled, forgettable comedy.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 17 May 2015

In George Clooney’s The Monuments Men, released early last year, a group of American soldiers were prepared to risk their lives so as to recover famous works of art that had been stolen by the Nazis during World War II.  It wasn’t the greatest of films… but it said something about the value we place on historical art in today’s society.  Roughly 10 million people flock to the Lourve Museum in Paris each year so as to get a small glimpse into the past.

Woman In Gold taps into similar themes in telling the true story of Maria Altmann (played in the film by Helen Mirren).  Altmann was born in Austria and raised of wealthy Jewish parents but was forced to flee the country after the Germans took control in 1938.  She eventually settled in the United States where she lived with her husband and operated a small clothing business.

In the late 1990s, the Austrian government passed legislation that allowed art works stolen during the Nazi occupation to be returned to their rightful owners.  Altmann, now in her early 80s, saw it as opportunity to reclaim a portrait of her aunt that had been painted by the acclaimed Gustav Klimt and taken by the Nazis from her home in Vienna. Her reasons were twofold.  Firstly, she wanted to use the painting to keep alive the memory of her beloved aunt (who passed away when Altmann was only a child).  Secondly, she wanted justice.

Helping Altmann was a budding lawyer based in Los Angeles named Randol Schoenberg.  Played by Ryan Reynolds, Schoenberg is from the textbook of young movie lawyers.  He’s struggling to find work, he’s in need of cash, and he’s horribly inexperienced.  When asked by Altmann what he knows about art restitution, Schoenberg’s answer is “not a thing.”

He’s only taken the case because he can see huge dollar signs at the finish line.  A quick internet search shows Schoenberg that Klimt’s painting, known as Portrait of Adele Bloch-Bauer I, is housed at the Belvedere Palace in Vienna and is valued in excess of $100 million.  A journalist (Bruhl) describes it to him as “the Mona Lisa of Austria”.

Suffice to say that the Austrian government aren’t going to hand it over without a fight.  It turns out the art restitution legislation was just a “PR exercise” and they’re going use their own high-profile lawyers to thwart Altmann’s efforts and ensure the painting remains in Austrian hands.

Directed by Englishman Simon Curtis (My Week With Marilyn), Woman In Gold is a film of two halves.  The first hour provides context through lengthy flashbacks.  We are introduced to the younger Altmann, view her life in Vienna, and understand why she is so attached to her aunt’s portrait.  The second hour follows her current day legal dramas and involves a trip to the United States Supreme Court.

Like last week’s A Royal Night Out, the film is framed as a crowd pleaser.  Mirren portrays Altmann as both stubborn and demanding… but in a way that audiences will still find funny and endearing (her age helps).  Unfortunately, the screenplay doesn’t ask tough enough questions of her character.  Her “revenge against the Nazis” mantra can only stretch so far.  Was she ever motivated by money?  Why did she not seek other, not-so-valuable paintings that were stolen?  Did she ever consider the importance of the portrait to the current day population of Austria?

On the whole, it’s an interesting premise but many of the subplots are rushed.  Schoenberg is the most troublesome character in this regard.  There’s a moment where he continues legal action despite the wishes of Altmann.  Was he still driven by a lucrative commission at that point?  Or had his trip to Vienna flipped his moral position?  I had no idea.  His unassisted progression through the courts was also tough to believe.

The film’s 1930s narrative resonates much more strongly.  It’s hard not to feel sympathy for the younger Altmann as she makes the difficult decision to flee Austria.  There’s a particularly moving scene where she says good-bye to her parents for the final time.  If only the rest of the movie felt this authentic.