Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 20 September 2014

It remains one of my favourite scenes from a movie.  In The People Vs. Larry Flynt, released back in 1996, Flynt (played by Woody Harrelson) stands on the stage at a political rally and asks people to re-evaluate their morals.  He notes that “murder is illegal, but if you take a picture of someone committing the act of murder, that puts you on the cover of Newsweek and you might even win a Pulitzer Prize.”  On the flip side, “sex is legal” and yet “if you take a picture of two people in the act of sex, or even just take a picture of a woman’s naked body, they’ll put you in jail.”

Flynt was talking about the porn world in the mid-1970s but the same arguments could be used when discussing the film industry today.  Violence underpins so many movies.  Of the top 10 films at the Australian box-office in 2013, 7 contained “violence” according to the Australian Government Classification Board.  There’s action violence (Iron Man 3), fantasy violence (The Hobbit), animated violence (Despicable Me 2), science fiction violence (Man Of Steel), and good old general violence (The Hunger Games).

In contrast, you’d have to go number 14 on the box-office list before you found a film with nudity (The Hangover III) and you’ll need to look all the way down to number 57 (Safe Haven) until you come across a movie with a single sex scene.  Why the imbalance?  Most people have sex (or at least want to be having sex).  It’s legal, there’s nothing wrong with it… and yet, big movie studios steer away from it when putting up the cash for their latest ventures.

It’s part of the reason why 33-year-old Australian Josh Lawson wrote his script for The Little Death.  He acknowledges that sex has been treated as a “taboo” subject for far too long and it’s time to start asking questions as to why.  His film reminded me a little of Love Actually in the sense that it contains a group of unrelated short stories that follow a series of couples as they try to push their relationships in a positive, forward-moving direction.

The catch is that they’re all looking to explore a particular fetish.  Maeve confesses that she wants to be forced into rough sex by a stranger (although the fantasy will be played out by her boyfriend).  Phil’s relationship lacks passion but he is aroused while watching his wife sleep.  Dan and Evie have turned to roll play (dressing up as doctors, police officers) try to spark their sex life.  Rowena hasn’t had an orgasm in years but suddenly finds herself stimulated when her husband starts to cry.  Sam is a deaf man who finds pleasure using a phone sex hotline… but only because there’s a young sign-reader helping him out.

In formulating the screenplay, Lawson has blended both comedy and drama.  It works in some places.  It doesn’t work in others.  The film’s highlight is at the very end – a lengthy, laugh-out-loud sequence where the deaf man forces an unsuspecting call centre operator to use some awkward sign-language gestures.  It’s pure comedy.

The film’s darker moments aren’t quite as effective.  There’s a scene where a man (played by Lawson) asks a friend if he’s ever raped someone so as to try to get some background information for his wife’s fantasy.  I fully support edgy comedy but the way the characters interact here is a little too flippant.  They stop acting like “real people” and the humour doesn’t feel natural.

I’d also argue that some jokes are too obvious.  For example, there’s a moment where the woman turned on by crying brings home Sophie’s Choice from the DVD store for her husband.  The audience was laughing well before the punchline was delivered.

I enjoy movies that take chances and in its defence, The Little Death is doing just that.  It’s an unorthodox subject matter that blends tones and doesn’t provide a neat, clean, happy-go-lucky ending.  There’s stuff to think about here as you leave the cinema.  I just wished the execution was better.

You can read by chat with writer-director Josh Lawson 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: 17 September 2014

It’s been more than 9 years since the original Sin City so to provide a quick refresher… the film was based on a comic book series from Frank Miller, told three short stories that were interwoven, was shot in black and white with a small splash of colour, featured a huge Hollywood cast, and was shot almost entirely using special effects.

What I’ve just said also describes this sequel, Sin City: A Dame To Kill For.  The first story is that of a happy-go-lucky poker player (Gordon Levitt) trying to make a fool out of a high profile government senator (Boothe).  The second is that of a conniving woman (Green) who has convinced a former lover (Brolin) to murder her current husband.  The third is that of a stripper (Alba) and her quasi-bodyguard (Rourke) looking to avenge the death of an old flame (Willis).

Some may describe it as corny but the film is heavy on narration and the characters speak like they’re reading from a comic book.  For example, there’s a great line when Josh Brolin tells Eva Green that “I was born at night… but I wasn’t born last night.”  There are also plenty of descriptive metaphors such as a moment when a character reaches for his gun and notes that it “barks and bites” in his hands.

The film has earned an MA rating here in Australia for its “strong violence”, “sex scenes” and “sexualised violence” (the later much be some kind of combination of the other two).  It’s a fair rating.  Pulling out someone’s eyeballs and crushing someone’s head with your bare hands isn’t exactly for everyone.  There’s a style to it through.  Directors Frank Miller and Robert Rodriguez aren’t trying to make something with blood and gore.

I was hugely impressed by the original film given it was something that we hadn’t seen on the big screen before.  This time around, I wasn’t as enamoured.  The narration feels overdone and the stories aren’t as captivating.  Of the cast, Powers Boothe was my favourite with his portrayal of a corrupt, villainous senator.  You really want to see him get what he deserves.  The remaining cast members don’t make as strong an impact as you might expect.

The film was a huge box-office flop when it debuted in the United States a few weeks ago.  It earned just $6.3m on its opening weekend and will struggle to recoup its $65m budget.  A variety of reasons have been sited (including the delay between the two films) but the bottom line is that doesn’t seem to have offered what the paying public are looking for.

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. 

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.