Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 17 June 2014

22 Jump Street has two things in mind.  Firstly, it wants to poke fun at the sequel genre.  In the film’s opening scene, we are reintroduced to police detectives Schmidt (Hill) and Jenko (Tatum).  They’ve earned a promotion and are now trying to bust a heavyweight criminal (Stormare).  Things are a lot more serious and it would appear that the film’s writers want to let these characters evolve and move in a different direction.

Wrong.  When their assignment goes pear shaped, they are informed by their boss (Ice Cube) that they’re clearly not ready for extra responsibility.  They need to go back to what they’re familiar with.  He’s going to put them on a new case that will require them to go undercover, pretend they’re college students, and figure out who is behind a major drug dealing operation.  In other words, it’s the exact same premise of the original film (except for the fact that they’re in college as opposed to a school).

It’s the first of many references to the predictable nature of sequels and their reluctance to take chances.  The concept is continued all the way through to the closing credits where we’re given a glimpse of future instalments may look like if they stick with the same formula and milk it for all it’s worth.

The film’s second major theme is its mocking of the homoerotic nature of so many buddy comedies.  It’s filled with double-entendres.  Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum are supposed to be professional police officers but you’d think they were long-time lovers when you hear the way they speak.  Things get even stranger when Tatum befriends one of the high-profile players on the college football team.  It leaves Hill’s character rather jealous.

22 Jump Street opened strongly at the U.S. box-office last week and is getting the thumbs up from most critics.  It’s easy to see why.  This is a film that is creative enough… to mock its own lack of creativity.  It’s designed for filmgoers (myself included) who groan about the increasing number of sequels, reboots and remakes.

That said, I’m not fully convinced on the execution of this idea.  Some jokes hit the mark while others fall flat.  There’s also a problem with repetition.  The homoerotic banter between Hill and Tatum is funny the first time but it gets tired in the later stages.  You kind of hope that it might lead to a surprising punch line (e.g. they are actually gay) but that sadly doesn’t eventuate.

Despite its flaws and drawn out running time (almost two hours), 22 Jump Street is an easy-to-enjoy comedy.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 03 June 2014

“Now that’s an action movie.”  I believe these were the first words I uttered (excluding an expletive) as the credits started to roll after Edge Of Tomorrow.  It’s comfortably one of the best films of 2014 and I can’t wait to sit back, relax and enjoy it all over again… but first, I have a difficult task to complete.  I need to articulate my thoughts.  I need to explain why this film reinvigorated my love for cinema.  Most importantly, I need to convince you to see it (without overhyping).

Let’s start with the film’s ingenious premise.  It’s an analogy that almost everyone will use but it’s appropriate to describe this film as a science-fiction version of Groundhog Day.  Tom Cruise plays Cage – a cowardly soldier who is thrown into the front line as part of a last ditched effort to save the planet from an alien invasion.

He doesn’t stand a chance.  The aliens are smart, fast, and agile (they’re really freaky too).  Cage is killed within a matter of minutes.  So too are his fellow soldiers.  Game over.  The war is lost.  Well, not quite actually.  Cage isn’t greeted by a friendly angel at the Pearly Gates.  Instead, he wakes up in the exact location where he was 24 hours earlier – on a military base and about to be introduced to his no-nonsense Master Sergeant (Paxton).

So how is this possible?  It turns out that Cage miraculously killed one of the rarer alien creatures, known as an Alpha, just before he met his own demise.  It was all luck and no skill.  However, it exposed the single reason why the aliens have been so dominate – Alphas had discovered the ability to travel back in time.  If a battle didn’t go to plan, the aliens simply reset the day and started again.  They could keep doing this until they won.

The catch is that by defeating the Alpha, the power has now switched to Cage.  It’s a really cool concept once you get your head around it.  Cage’s life is now the equivalent of a video game.  If he is killed, he simply gets to start again from the beginning… only this time, he’s a little smarter and has a little more information about his enemy.  Guided by gutsy soldier (Blunt), Cage goes in search of the end prize – the weakness that can defeat the aliens.  There’s no rush though.  He’s got plenty of time and plenty of lives.

There have been plenty of great actions films in recent years (the Batman trilogy, most of the Marvel stuff) but Edge Of Tomorrow still feels like a breath of fresh air.  Instead of following a hero who seemingly cannot be killed, we’re cheering for a hero who keeps getting killed again and again!  It an idea that provides plenty of laughs (the movie has a great sense of humour) and also much food for thought.  You’ll need to put yourself in Cage’s head and think about how best to solve this riddle.

The film moves at a cracking pace thanks to the skills of director Doug Liman (Go, The Bourne Identity) and editor James Herbert (Sherlock Holmes).  The story may sound repetitive but it’s anything but.  There are many different scenarios – some where Cage is experiencing a dilemma for the first time, and others where he is clearly familiar with the surroundings and just wants to have fun pre-empting the aliens’ moves.  There are also unexpected moments of tension.  A scene in a quiet hospital bed proves that you don’t always need guns and explosions to create anxiety.

Quite a few folk were involved with the screenplay but the final credit has gone to Christopher McQuarrie (The Usual Suspects) and the Butterworth brothers (Fair Game).  They have taken the 2004 novel from Japanese science-fiction writer Hiroshi Sakurazaka and created a gripping adventure.  The film doesn’t waste time with long-winded introductions and unnecessary side plots.  It will hold your attention for the full two hours.

If I can offer one final selling point, let me go with Tom Cruise.  If you’re a fan, you’ll like this.  He’s still a likeable action hero with an uncanny knack for picking great roles.  He’s also looking pretty good for a 51-year-old.  If you’re not fan, it’s still perfect for you.  You can watch him get killed every few minutes!  Everyone’s a winner.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 10 June 2014

The Rover is set in the not-to-distant future where Australia has become a very different place.  Society has collapsed.  Law and order is non-existent.  The roads are in a state of disrepair.  The local currency has no value.  It’s a struggle to find food, water, and fuel.

So why has Australia developed into a third world country?  You can ponder and come up with your own answers because writer-director David Michôd (Animal Kingdom) won’t be providing them.  That’s ok though.  Michôd’s focus is on providing an intriguing character study and in that regard, this is a movie that delivers in a huge way.

You’ve probably heard the saying “beware the man who has nothing to lose”.  It’s a perfect description for Eric (Pearce) – a loner who is drifting through the Australian outback.  He has no job, no family, and no reason for living.  His sole possession is a dusty, rundown car that he uses to move from town to town.

That is until his car is stolen by three men after a botched robbery.  The odds of hunting them down are pretty slim (particularly since there are no police) but Eric catches a break when he stumbles across Rey (Pattinson) – a young man suffering from a bullet wound to the chest.  He’s the younger brother of one of the thieves and was left for dead following the robbery.

Eric organises for the wound to be stitched up but it’s obviously not a gesture of goodwill.  He needs to keep Rey alive so he can obtain information about the location of his brother and hence, the car.  What follows is an uneasy road trip.  The pair head south and encounter an assortment of equally desperate people doing whatever is necessary to survive.

This is an intense film.  Music is kept to a minimum.  Conversation is kept to a minimum.  Guy Pearce is fantastic as Eric – a quiet, forlorn individual who never seems to say anything unless he’s asking an important question.  Also impressive is Robert Pattison who continues to distance himself from the Twilight franchise with interesting roles.

The heart of this movie is the uncomfortable bond that develops between them.  No matter how hard we try shut ourselves off from the world, there will always be cathartic value in opening up and interacting with others.  You won’t see these two sitting on a couch and sharing their childhood adventures over a glass of red wine (thank goodness).  Rather, you see the connection slowly build with each passing scene.  As they get to know each other, so too do we as the audience.

Shot amongst the Flinders Rangers in a remote part of the South Australian outback, Michôd has created a grim, depressing setting.  The actors look like they haven’t had a shower in weeks and everything feels like it’s covered in a thick layer of dust.  Some may be rattled by a few moments of brutality but the violence is not gratuitous unless absolutely necessary.

Animal Kingdom was a life changing experience for Michôd.  It was a critical success internationally, it won the Australian Film Institute Award for best picture, and it earned star Jacki Weaver a well-deserved Oscar nomination.  The Rover is another strong addition to his resume and I look forward to following the career of this gifted 41-year-old with great interest.

You can read my chat with star Guy Pearce by clicking here.

You can read my chat with director David Michod by clicking here.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 02 June 2014

Grace Of Monaco has been kicked, slapped, and dragged through the mud en route to cinemas across the globe.  It was scheduled to be released last November, just in time for Oscar season, but French director Olivier Dahan (La Vie en Rose) and influential American producer Hervey Weinstein (who owned the U.S. distribution rights) couldn’t agree on a final version of the film.

Dahan went public with his frustrations and described Weinstein’s version of the film as “a pile of shit” in an article for a French newspaper.  It was a risky move.  Dahan knew it might generate some sympathy towards his cause (since all of Hollywood knows about Weinstein and his meddling ways) but at the same time, it would ring alarm bells and generate negative publicity.

In the end, an agreement was reached.  Dahan gave up some of his directorial fee in return for full control over the finished product.  There’s no happy ending here though.  The film was trashed by critics when it opened the Cannes Film Festival last month.  Laughs were heard during its first press screening (it’s not a comedy).  Adding fuel to the fire were the Monaco royal family who refused to attend the premiere stating that the story had been “misappropriated for purely commercial purposes.”

It’s a shame because there’s merit in pulling back the curtain and looking into the life of Grace Kelly.  This was a woman who in 1956 was “on the up and up” in terms of her acting career.  She’d chalked up two consecutive Oscar nominations (winning for The Country Girl) and had partnered with prolific director Alfred Hitchcock to make such hits as Rear Window, Dial M For Murder and To Catch A Thief.  For those needing a modern day comparison, I’d describe her as the Jennifer Lawrence of the 1950s.

Then, at the age of just 26, Kelly gave it all away.  She moved to Monaco, married Prince Rainier III, and raised three children.  Never again did she appear on the big screen.  I’m not knocking her decision… but it’s one that raises questions.  If you loved your career, would you give it all up for someone you’d only just met?  Would you have any regrets?  Couldn’t you try to find a way of juggling both work and family?

Dahan’s film, based on a screenplay by Arash Amel, offers a disclaimer right from the get-go.  In bold red letters, we are told this is “a fictional account inspired by real events”.  Dahan never intended the film to be a historical, real-life drama.  Rather, he wanted to use the Grace Kelly’s broad story to highlight the difficulty in finding a balance between her husband, her kids and her career.  For that reason, he freely acknowledges that some plot developments have been embellished.

It’s a questionable approach.  I can’t help but think Dahan should have used a clean slate and crafted a completely fictitious tale.  Instead, we’ve left with a film that doesn’t really know what it wants to be.  It’s a muddled stew of politics, conspiracies, romance, family values and fairy tales.  Oh, and let’s not forget the bizarre montage of “princess lessons” featuring Derek Jacobi.

Some elements are quite interesting (such as the tension between France and Monaco in 1962) but like so much of the film, it’s all oversimplified.  It leaves a lingering doubt as to how far the truth has been stretched.  It all feels too pro Grace Kelly, too anti everyone else.  Prince Rainier comes across as an incompetent fool.

Life isn’t easy being princess.  Both Grace Of Monaco and last year’s Diana make that point very clear.  Life’s not easy being a director either.  Olivier Dahan now knows that all too well.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 08 June 2014

Good Vibrations tells the real life story of Terri Hooley – a music lover who opened a record store in Belfast in the mid-1970s and helped grow the local punk rock scene.  There’s an early scene where he’s been looked at quizzically by his bank manager who cannot understand why he’d want to open a business in downtown Belfast given the political climate.  This was a time when there was huge conflict between Catholics and Protestants.  People didn’t even feel safe walking down a busy street.

What resonates most with this film is the passion shown by Terri (played in the film by Richard Dormer).  He saw himself as just an ordinary guy doing what he loves… but his enthusiasm for his work and the music industry is something that you don’t see all that often.  It’s inspiring stuff.

At first he just sold records but Terri’s activities expanded when he befriended some young musicians from Northern Ireland who had some great songs.  They just didn’t know how to find an audience.  Terri had zero experience when it came to music production but he helped them record an album and helped get them heard on radio and seen on television.  He didn’t even charge a fee.

There was a cost to all of this though.  Terri put so much time and effort into his work that it put a huge strain on his relationship with his wife, Ruth (Whittaker).  Terri was spending more and more nights away from home.  He was getting himself into more and more debt with the record shop.  There was now a growing likelihood that the bank would take possession of their home.

The film does most things by the book but it’s still an interesting biopic about a person that you probably won’t be familiar with.  It inspired me to do a little more reading about Terri Hooley on leaving the theatre.  I was also curious to know more about Richard Dormer who is fantastic in the leading role.  The Belfast-born actor started out in the theatre where he was not just an actor but also a playwright.  He’s had a few small supporting roles in feature films but this is first chance at something big.  He grabs the opportunity with both hands and you’re likely to remember his performance for some time.

I also like the approach of directors Lisa Barros D’sa and Glenn Leyburn who have included actual footage from the conflict in Northern Ireland in the 1970s.  It isn’t overdone and it helps give the film some context.  When you see the aftermath of an explosion that killed an Irish band who were travelling home to Dublin, you get a true understanding of the risks that Terri and his friends were taking when they were on their own mini-tours across the country.

Good Vibrations first screened over 2 years ago in Northern Ireland and so it’s taken a rather long journey to reach us here in Australia.  Don’t let that perturb you though.  It’s a film worth seeing.