Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 15 September 2014

A teenager (O’Brien) wakes up and finds he is ascending in a dirty, poorly lit elevator.  He has no memory of his past.  He can’t remember his name.  He doesn’t know how he got there.  The elevator reaches its destination and comes to an abrupt halt.  The door opens and he finds himself in an expansive, grassy field surrounded by high walls.  He is welcomed by a group of fellow youngsters who do their best to explain the situation.

They are all prisoners in the centre of a ridiculously elaborate maze.  Each morning, the door to the maze opens and the fastest runners check every route for a way out.  There are moving walls, hundreds of narrow passageways, and a few large, open chambers.  You don’t want to be in the maze at night through.  It’s at this time when a group of mysterious creatures, known as “grievers”, go in search of human prey.

I like movies that don’t muck around with long-winded introductions.  The Maze Runner establishes its intriguing premise within a matter of minutes and it held my attention for its full two hour running time (impressive since I’m easily distracted).  The film’s key hook is clearly the aura of mystery that it creates.  Where did the kids come from?  Who built the maze?  Why are they there?

Just as interesting is the dynamic that has developed between the characters.  They’ve been thrown into this isolated environment and have been forced to create their own self-sustaining society without adult supervision.  They live by three key rules – pull your weight, don’t harm anyone, and never enter the maze unless you’ve been chosen.

While they all realise the importance of working together to find a way out, there’s still tension between certain individuals.  Not everyone agrees on the approach and some recent decisions by the self-appointed leaders have proved divisive.  Will they be defeated by the maze… or will they be defeated by each other?

I was lamenting last week at a lack of originality when it came to recent teen-oriented adventures – The Hunger Games, Divergent and The Giver all felt like they were covering familiar ground (dystopian future, controlling governments, assigned jobs).  Okay, so I admit there are a few similarities here.  However, there are enough points of difference to give this a fun, fresh, original kind of vibe.

When director Wes Ball was meeting in the early stages with studio executives, he pitched the film as “Lord of the Flies meets Lost.”  It’s an apt way of describing the absorbing storyline.  It’s not easy condensing a book for the big screen but the screenwriting team have done a great job with James Dashner’s 2007 novel.  Whether you’re talking about the characters or the labyrinth itself, this is tale rich in detail.

Reportedly shot on a budget of just $30m, this is a film that received great value for money from its set decorating teams and visual effects artists (it’s hard to work out what’s real and so I don’t know who deserves the more credit).  To put that budget into perspective, the recent Transformers: Age of Extinction cost roughly seven times as much.  Also worth a mention is composer John Paesano. His powerful music score also adds to the film’s sense of adventure.

Ball sat through thousands of auditions before settling on what is a terrific group of young actors.  Dylan O’Brien (Teen Wolf, The Internship) brings the right mix of strength and vulnerability to his leading role.  He’ll be a name to follow in the near future.  You’re also likely recognise Will Poulter (The Chronicles Of Narnia, We’re The Millers) and Thomas Brodie-Sangster (Game Of Thrones, Nanny McPhee) who are both very good.

On a lighter note, I was amused to read that Blake Cooper (who plays Chuck) landed his supporting role after bugging Wes Ball on Twitter for an audition.  Guess it proves there are many ways to make it in Hollywood.  Cooper took a chance and was rewarded.  Hopefully people take a chance on The Maze Runner and feel the same way.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 01 September 2014

Michael Apted’s 7 Up series is one of great achievements in world of cinema.  For those unfamiliar, Apted made a documentary back in 1964 where he picked 14 British kids and asked them a bunch of questions.  He has met with them every 7 years since and the most recent instalment in his documentary series, 56 Up, was released back in 2012.

It’s a fascinating “big brother” type experiment.  We look back and see a bunch of excitable 7-year-olds talk about their interests and their big plans for the future.  Over time though, their priorities changed.  Some found success.  Some found much failure.  The series is a wonderful depiction of life and a look at how our perception of the world can change so quickly.

Writer-director Richard Linklater is an equally impressive director who has already taken this same concept and applied it in a fictional setting.  In 1995, he released Before Sunrise – a dialogue-driven drama that starred Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy as two people who meet in Vienna and spend the day together.  Nine years later he followed with Before Sunset and nine years after that, he finished the trilogy with Before Midnight.  Like the 7 Up series, we see these characters evolve.  Their discussions today are far different from those two decades ago… and many will be able to relate.

With Boyhood, Linklater has taken this concept one step further and provided us with one of the year’s most memorable films.  It’s a 2 hour, 45 minute epic that chronicles the process of “growing up”.  When we first meet Mason (Coltrane), he’s a 6-year-old who seems solely interested in playing video games.  Over the next 12 years, we see him attend school, make new friends, drink his first beer, try smoking, land a part-time job, discover his first love, and consider going to college.

What’s so special about the film is not just the story… but also the way it has been created.  This isn’t a movie that was shot over a period of 6 weeks with a bunch of different actors.  Linklater found a cast back in 2002 and he brought them together for a few days each year to shoot the necessary scenes.  So the 6-year-old Mason we see in the film’s opening scenes is played by the same guy we see as the 17-year-old Mason when the credits start to roll.  The risks were high (what if an actor wanted to pull out?) and the patience shown by Linklater to bring this project to the screen is to be admired.

I was particularly struck by the seamless way in which we jump between timeframes.  Instead of putting an obvious “one year later…” warning on the screen every 10 minutes or so, Linklater provides subtler ways for us to recognise the shift in time.  There are changes in Mason’s hairstyle, the use of different songs and video game consoles, and certain landmark events that are discussed (such as the release of the sixth Harry Potter book and the Obama election win).

While the focus of the film is Mason and his journey of self-discovery, much attention is also given to the up and down relationships he shares with his mother (Arquette), father (Hawke) and sister (played by Linklater’s own daughter).  The interaction and dialogue feels so natural.  I became so interested, so invested in these characters that I kind of wished they were real.  I wanted to know more.  I wanted to be able to follow them after the final scene.

The performances are all superb.  No matter who he cast as the 6-year-old Mason, Linklater was always going to be taking a gamble as he had to keep that actor right through until he was a mature 17-year-old.  Ellar Coltrane turned out to be a terrific choice and I loved the way in which his character develops into a softly-spoken introvert (most teenagers in movies these days are loud, busy, insightful).

The awards season is still a few months away but there’s talk that Boyhood has a great shot at landing Oscar nominations for best picture and best director.  It’s not hard to see why.  This is a beautiful motion picture that will release the valve on your own childhood memories.

You can read by chat with star Ellar Coltrane by clicking here.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 09 September 2014

Let’s talk about films based on a novel, set in some kind of dystopian future, featuring super-controlling governments, where memories of the past have been erased, where your job is assigned and not chosen, that are told from the perspective of rebellious teenagers.  Sounds like a niche genre, right?  Well, it turns out that three films this year meet that definition – Divergent (released back in April), The Giver (released this week) and The Hunger Games: Mockingjay (to be released in November).

Each film should be judged on its own merits… but it’s made more difficult in this case of The Giver given the uncanny similarities it shares with the abovementioned films.  It doesn’t have the “freshness” that you might expect given its key themes were covered already in Divergent and the earlier Hunger Games films.

It’s a case of bad timing in respect of The Giver.  Lois Lowry’s novel was first published over two decades but, despite the efforts of producer Jeff Bridges, it’s taken a long time to make it to the big screen.  After a mediocre box-office opening in the United States last month, you can’t help but wonder if it would have been a lot more successful if it had of beaten its competition to the starting line.

The setting here reminded me a lot of the 1998 film, Pleasantville (although the use of black and white during the opening scenes probably contributed to that fact).  We’re talking about a perfect world.  Everyone is polite, friendly and civil to each other.  There are no wars and no fights.  There isn’t even a petty disagreement.  Everyone seems to like everyone!

The reason for this is simple – medication!  Each citizen takes a daily injection, as directed by the government, which helps “control” the choices they make.  The catch is that they don’t realise they’re being controlled.  When grilled later about the rationale for this world later the film, one of the elders (Streep) sums it up best – “when people have the freedom to choose… they choose wrong.”

At its heart, this is a classic underdog tale.  A teenager named Jonas (Thwaites) has learned of his government’s controlling ways and it’s up to him to pull back the curtain and expose their secrets.  He will be guided by a powerful, yet lonely old man known as The Giver (Bridges).  Jonas will be fed the information and it’s up to him to work out what needs to be done with it.

Directed by Australian Phillip Noyce (Newsfront, Salt, The Quiet American), The Giver deserves plenty of part marks for its intriguing concepts.  I like the idea of teen-orientated film that asks us to step back and think about how much of our life is controlled… and then whether that is a good or bad thing.  There’s more to this than just mindless action. 

It also has something to say about the concept of “sameness”.  This is a world where there are no differences in race and religion.  Children are genetically engineered to be as similar-looking as possible.  Families sit around the dinner table and ask each other about their day by saying “your turn for feelings”.  Diversity is the result of so much tension in the real world… but if we were all the same, would there be other negative effects?

While I didn’t mind the set-up, The Giver stumbles to the finish line by offering us a rushed, predictable finale.  This isn’t a memorable, game-changing film.  We’ve seen it before, we’ll see it again.  It’s more likely to be known as the film that launched the career of young Aussie Brenton Thwaites.  It’s his first leading role in a major Hollywood film and to work alongside Oscar winners Jeff Bridges and Meryl Streep is a huge feather for his cap.

You can read by chat with star Brenton Thwaites by clicking here.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 22 August 2014

Allow me to put forward a theoretical situation for you to consider.  You’ve achieved a major milestone at work and to celebrate, you go with your colleagues to a nearby pub for a few drinks.  It turns out to be a very long night and you end up chatting, drinking and partying until about 4am the following morning.

You’re not “hammered” but you’re almost certain that you’re over the 0.05% blood alcohol limit.  Still, you decide to risk it and drive home anyway.  It’s only a short trip and there be almost no cars on the road.

On the way, you pass a young teenager riding his bike and delivering newspapers.  You slow down and veer to the right to make sure that you give him enough room but you misjudge the distance.  The kid clips your left side view mirror and he falls from his bike.  You pull the car over to make sure that the teenager is alright… but it turns out that he’s not.  He’s not wearing his helmet and is now unconscious after hitting hit his head on the road surface.

It’s a quiet street.  There are no witnesses, no other cars, no CCTV cameras.  Let me now ask the question – what would you do in this situation?  Would you flee the scene and hope you don’t get caught?  Would you call an ambulance but then say that you just found the kid and had nothing to do with it?  Or would you confess to it all – telling the authorities that you were over the limit and were responsible for the accident?

If I had you on public radio, you’d probably say that you’d do what is “right” and confess.  The reality is that while we can speculate, we never know how we’re going to react in a particular situation until we experience it firsthand.  There are a substantial number of “hit and run” accidents in Australia.  The point I’m trying to make is that not all of these perpetrators are villainous monsters.  Some are just ordinary people who have made a snap decision, albeit a bad one, in a very stressful situation.

This concept gets to the heart of Felony – the new film from writer Joel Edgerton (The Square, The Rover) and director Matthew Saville (Noise, Please Like Me).  It centres on a celebrated police detective (Edgerton) who has caused an identical accident.  He does his best to help the unconscious kid by calling an ambulance and waiting for it to arrive… but doesn’t confess.  He tells the investigating detectives (played by Tom Wilkinson and Jai Courtney) that he just came across the scene and that he saw another car speeding off into the distance.

Edgerton has described this film as a “crowd participation movie”.  It’s like when you leave a child’s birthday party and are given a bag of lollies to take home.  He wants the experience and the discussion to continue after you’ve left the theatre.  It’s a big reason why two-time Academy Award nominated actor Tom Wilkinson was attracted to his own role.  This is a thought-provoking thriller that asks interesting questions.

How can we determine the difference between an unavoidable accident and a preventable act of negligence?  Even if we knew all the facts of a particular situation, is there a clear line that separates the two?  How easy is it to forgive someone for a tragic mistake?  Is it any easier if it’s a good person who has done the bad deed?  If we cover up a crime, why do we feel guilty?  Is it because we know we’ve done the wrong thing… or is more because we’re worried about being caught?

It’s a fantastic set up and while there is some great drama throughout, Felony stumbles in its later stages.  The finale has too many twists and too many convenient coincidences.  It’s hard to take seriously.  Thankfully, its messages aren’t lost and its questions still linger in my mind.

You can read my interview with writer-actor Joel Edgerton by clicking here.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 03 September 2014

Vampires often get a dud rap.  Fictional films usually make them out to be nasty, evil, blood sucking creatures.  Dracula Untold, a new film to be released in a few weeks, looks like more of the same.  There are some exceptions though.  The recent Twilight franchise showed that not all vampires are villainous.  Some are sweet and friendly… and good in bed apparently.

What We Do In The Shadows has been funded by the New Zealand Documentary Board and follows a small crew as they get up close with a group of eccentric vampires who share a home in suburban Wellington.  In case you’re wondering about the well-being of the film crew, they’ve all been given assurances by the vampires that they won’t be eaten.  Just to be safe, they’re also wearing crucifixes.

This is an intriguing documentary that will be of interest to anyone curious about the vampire world.  It confirms a lot of the basic things we already know about them – they can’t go near sunlight, they can’t go into a building without being invited in, and they can’t see themselves when they look into a mirror. 

Where this documentary shines is that it creates empathy for its subjects.  It’s not their fault that they were bitten centuries ago.  They’re just trying to make the best of the situation.  How would you feel if you weren’t able to see a sunset and then post it on Instagram?  The best these vampires are able to do is watch videos of the sun on YouTube.

The film also highlights that while vampires aren’t technically alive, they still display “human” like qualities.  They argue about who’s going to do the dishes (they’ve been piling up in this house for 5 years) and they get cranky when their alarm clock goes off at 6 o’clock (that’s PM, not AM).  It’s not all grim though.  They still find time to go clubbing and find a nice girl to take home (well, for different reasons).

Filmmakers Jemaine Clement and Taika Waititi have focused their attention on the day-to-day misadventures of vampires and I like the approach.  Vladislav, Viago and Deacon are not afraid to open up and speak on camera.  They’re smart guys with a decent sense of humour.  It’s just a shame we don’t hear more from 8000-year-old Petyr who spends much of the film cooped up in the basement inside his stone coffin.

It all culminates with some exclusive footage from The Unholy Masquerade – an annual event where vampires, zombies, werewolves, and other members of the “undead” come together for a huge party.  While they’ve secured a great venue this year (the spacious function room at the Mt Victoria Bowls Club), the night doesn’t quite go to plan.  I won’t spoil it through.  It’ll be new to anyone who didn’t read about it in the news.

We don’t see a lot of documentaries make it into Australian cinemas and so hopefully What We Do In The Shadows will perform strongly at the box-office and put the bite back into one of my favourite genres.