Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 18 February 2020

It’s always interesting to look at the way social and cultural norms have evolved over time.  Cigarette smoking peaked in the 1950s before waning in subsequent decades as its dangerous effects became broadly known.  Women were required to wear full-body swimsuits in the late 19^th Century but now have the freedom to wear skimpy, colourful bikinis.  Television has been around since the late 1920s and yet the first kiss between two gay men on a primetime show in the United States didn’t occur until the year 2000.

The same applies to the way in which books, plays and musicals have been adapted for the big screen.  The Call of the Wild, first published in 1903, was a novel written by American author Jack London.  It followed Buck, a muscular St. Bernard-Scotch Collie mix, who was transferred from owner-to-owner and went on a series of adventures across the country.  It was set around the same time as London’s follow-up, White Fang (many will remember the 1991 adaptation starring Ethan Hawke).

Drawing from the source material, screenwriter Michael Green (Logan) focuses on two key subplots.  The first half of the film is centred on Buck becoming a sled dog after he is stolen from a California home and shipped off to the “edge of nowhere” in Alaska.  He gets his first taste of the “wild” and his instinctive leadership qualities kick in.  The second half revolves around his friendship with an old, forlorn gold prospector (Harrison Ford) who helps keep Buck from harm’s way.

Those who have read the novel will know it contains its fair share of violence, confrontation and sadness.  There are savage deaths (both human and animal), brutal fights and intense abuse.  There’s also a climactic battle involving a primitive Native American tribe who murder several men.  To tie back to my opening point, the studio has made the curious decision to “water down” the content for fear of scaring children (that’s my guess anyway).  It may have been okay for younger folk to read above 100 years ago but adults, rightly or wrongly, seem to be more wary and protective in today’s age.

I’m not asking for Tarantino-style gore but this movie, directed by Chris Sanders (How to Train Your Dragon), feels like a missed opportunity.  It’s an unadventurous adventure.  Instead of a gritty, emotional family drama, we’ve got something that feels too hollow and simplistic.  All the characters are black and white (they’re either really nice or really evil) and the fatalities are kept to a minimum.

Another questionable choice is the use of computer-generated animals as opposed to real ones.  Audiences are suckers for cute dogs (I am too) but it’s a little off-putting when the canine hero is clearly a special effect.  It doesn’t feel real when watching Buck walk, jump and eat.  It’s a shame because the other visual tricks (such as the beautiful backdrops) are convincing.

Given the recent acquisition of 20^th Century Fox by The Walt Disney Company, The Call of the Wild marks the first movie to be released under the new 20^th Century Studios banner (the “Fox” has been dropped to avoid confusion with the powerful media corporation).  It’s a fun piece of knowledge that might feature as a Trivial Pursuit question one day but unfortunately, it’s likely to be the film’s most memorable quality.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 10 February 2020

When Clint Eastwood won the Academy Award for directing Million Dollar Baby in 2005, he jokingly thanked his 96-year-old mother, who attended the ceremony, for her “genes”.  As he should.  Eastwood is now 89 years of age himself and yet, he’s still had the energy to make 8 films over the past decade including Jersey Boys, American Sniper, Sully and The Mule.  If I’m as active when I’m an octogenarian, I’ll be a happy man!

I’m describing Eastwood’s latest film as the anti-Spotlight.  That Oscar winning film, one of my favourites of the past decade, showed how top-notch investigative journalists were able to expose the truth when many powerful people wanted to cover it up.  Richard Jewell is the opposite.  It highlights the ramifications when media outlets publish “exclusives” based on misinformation and the salacious way in which the public lap it up.  I’m reminded of the great saying – “never let the truth get in the way of a good story.”

On 27 July 1996, a pipe bomb exploded in a public park in the middle of the 1996 Summer Olympics in Atlanta.  Two people were killed and more than 100 were injured.  Richard Jewell, a security guard employed as part of the Olympics festivities, found the bomb hidden in a green backpack under a bench and helped evacuate people from the area prior to its detonation.  He was lauded as a hero and his actions undoubtedly saved lives.  In the days that followed, he appeared on CNN, he was interviewed by Katie Couric for the Today Show, and he was even offered book deal.

And then… everything changed.  Tipped off by a phone call by a disgruntled former employer, the FBI focused their attention on Jewell as the lead suspect.  He fit the profile of the “lone bomber” in the sense that he was former police officer looking to prove his naysayers wrong by becoming a national hero.  A writer for the Atlanta Journal revealed the FBI’s suspicions in a front-page article and NBC news anchor Tom Brokaw told viewers that authorities had “probably enough to prosecute him.”  Jewell’s name was now mud and he couldn’t leave his home without being swamped by photographers and journalists.

Jewell was an innocent man.  That’s been subsequently proven by the authorities and is clearly illustrated by Eastwood in the film (we see someone else place the bomb during the opening act).  A lot is made about “fake news” in today’s age but Richard Jewell highlights that it’s not a new concept.  There’s nothing wrong with the FBI looking into Jewell as part of their broad, thorough investigations but it’s hard to justify their actions in leaking information to thirsty media types and overlooking key facts that vindicated Jewell (even worse is way they try to dupe a confession from him).

This is an interesting true story made further credible by the moving performances.  Paul Walter Hauser, who some will remember as the hapless bodyguard in I, Tonya, is excellent in the title role.  There are times when he comes across as the dumbest man on Earth (he’s not always helping his own cause) but other moments where you sense a more discerning mindset.  He’s an intriguing character.  Kathy Bates (Misery) earned an Oscar nomination for her role at Richard’s concerned mother and the terrific Sam Rockwell (Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri) adds a splash of comedy as a laidback lawyer.

There’s an oft heard saying that “you don’t get a second chance to make a good first impression.”  Richard Jewell is proof that such simplistic maxims don’t always take into account life’s complexities.  There were many who bought into the media’s sensationalism and saw Jewell as guilty based on his appearance and his mannerisms and his backstory.  Eastwood’s film reminds us to think deeper before passing judgement on others.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 17 February 2020

The Professor and the Madman can’t have been the easiest sell to potential financiers.  “Ah… um… have you got a spare $25 million so we can make a film about a guy who wrote a dictionary?”  Yes, it’s based on a book and yes, it stars Academy Award winners Mel Gibson and Sean Penn but it’s hard to look at that storyline and think this movie was going to light it up at the box-office.

It needed some luck… and it didn’t get it.  Having tried to get the project off the ground for years, Mel Gibson enlisted good friend Farhad Safinia as director and the film was shot in late 2016.  What followed were creative disagreements and a huge stoush between the two production companies over who had “final cut”.  Lawyers and judges became involved and Gibson’s company came off second best.  Safinia refused to have his name attached (the credits list the fictitious P.B. Shemran as director) and Mel Gibson did zero publicity.

In the film’s defence, it does ask a curious question – who wrote the Oxford English Dictionary?  Many people were involved but Safinia’s film focuses on two in particular.  The first was James Murray (Gibson), a Scottish teacher who had a detailed knowledge of many languages.  The second was William Chester Minor (Penn), a surgeon with a lifelong love for great literature.  Their work began in the 1880s and Murray confidently tells his children – “there’s not a word you can think of that won’t be in this very big book.”

Unfortunately, The Professor and the Madman struggles to make a compelling narrative from this true story.  There are a lot of subplots involving angry publishers, unexpected love interests, and knowledgeable assistants but when blended all together, you get a puzzling movie that doesn’t really have much to say.  I feel like I could have read Wikipedia articles for 10 minutes and learned more about these characters than I did from the entirety of the film’s two-hour running time.

Mel Gibson and Sean Penn, sporting thick beards and equally thick Scottish accents, are doing the best with the material but ultimately, the finished product doesn’t make an impact.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 06 February 2020

It was pitched as DC Films’ chance to outflank the ridiculously successful Marvel franchise (led by The Avengers).  Suicide Squad brought together a bunch of unpredictable villains and tried to create something darker and edgier.  It wasn’t a bad idea on paper but unfortunately, the end product was garbage.  The film scored just 27% approval from critics and 59% approval from the public on Rotten Tomatoes.  It still managed to turn a profit (reeling in $747 million at the global box-office) thanks to its pre-release hype, big-name cast and huge marketing campaign.

Warner Bros. Pictures hasn’t pulled the rip cord (just yet anyway) and they intend to keep the franchise alive.  A Suicide Squad sequel, slated for release in mid-2021, is in production although Will Smith (as Deadshot) and Jared Leto (as The Joker) won’t be returning.  To keep audiences engaged in the interim, a stand lone featured centred around Margot Robbie’s Harley Quinn is the latest comic movie to find its way into cinemas.

British screenwriter Christina Hodson (Bumblee) is quick to explain the absence of one key individual in Birds of Prey.  We learn in the opening scenes that despite their close attachment in Suicide Squad, Harley and The Joker have “broken up”.  She’s a little heartbroken but she’s open to the idea of a fresh start and new opportunities.

Unfortunately, she won’t get the chance to relax and think about her career arc.  There’s a VERY long list of people who are looking to get revenge against Harley given she no longer has the immunity that comes with being The Joker’s offsider.  It’s reminiscent of the John Wick movies in that seemingly everyone in Gotham wants to kill her and she must fight off every assailant with an array of weaponry.

That in itself isn’t enough to sustain a two-hour movie and so there’s a secondary storyline involving a teenage girl who has (a little too easily if you ask me) come into the possession of a valuable diamond with a secret inside.  A ruthless gangster (McGregor), who has an odd fetish for peeling off people’s faces, seeks the precious stone and has placed a large bounty on the girl’s head.

Birds of Prey provides another opportunity for Margot Robbie to showcase her talents and, for the most part, audiences will enjoy seeing the bipolar Harley Quinn create mayhem and carnage.  She’s got a one-liner for every situation (“nothing gets a guy’s attention like violence”), she looks like a walking rainbow, and she’s exceedingly unpredictable.  Given the abundance with which comic book movies are being churned out, Robbie deserves praise in creating a memorable character that differs from the norm.

The problem is the movie relies a little too heavily on Robbie when it doesn’t need to.  Mary Elizabeth Winstead (Gemini Man), Jurnee Smollett-Bell (Friday Night Lights) and Rosie Perez (Fearless) play characters who are just as interesting as Harley Quinn but instead of bringing them together sooner or delving deeper into their respective troubles, the film plays it safe by sticking with the lead and her semi-repetitious crises.

I’m still scratching my head about Ewan McGregor’s performance.  He’s trying to create a camp, quirky villain but it’s hard to imagine how he’s become so powerful given his poorly conceived plans.  There are moments when he’s as ruthless as Hannibal Lecter (such as a scene with a kidnapped family) as there are moments when he’s as clumsy as Doctor Evil (such as a scene where he lets Quinn escape).  It’s as if director Cathy Yan can’t quite decide on whether to go with a light or dark tone.

It’s better than Suicide Squad and it comes together nicely in the final 20 minutes but Birds of Prey doesn’t always make the most of its opportunities.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 11 February 2020

Jane Austen’s works have been continuously in print since 1832 and there’s been no shortage of filmmakers and theatre directors looking to put their own spin on her famous characters.  I’m old enough to remember seeing the last adaptation of Emma on the big screen – released in 1996 with young star Gwyneth Paltrow in one of her first leading roles.  It was an amusing, light-hearted romp that won composer Rachel Portman the Academy Award for best original score (the first female to do so).

This 2020 reworking pulls from the opening paragraph of Austen’s novel in introducing its leading lady – “Emma Woodhouse, handsome, clever, and rich, with a comfortable home and happy disposition, seemed to unite some of the best blessings of existence; and had lived nearly twenty-one years in the world with very little to distress or vex her.”  It’s a pertinent description.  Having been born into a world of wealth and privilege, she has little else to do all day than socialise and play “matchmaker” with her circle of acquaintances.

Emma may look like the ideal companion but her expensive dresses and suave disposition mask a more sinister under layer.  She gossips about people behind their backs, she offers dubious romantic advice, and she acts like she’s better than everyone else (hubris personified).  It’s a tricky role for star Anya Taylor-Joy (Split) but she has successfully created a protagonist who is both interesting and unlikeable.

The film follows several subplots that involve her naively loyal friend (Goth), her hypochondriac father (Nighy), an off-putting vicar (O’Connor) and an elusive suitor (Turner).  The only person who can see through Emma’s façade is her older brother-in-law, Mr. Knightley (Flynn), who relishes a good quarrel and isn’t afraid to point out her flaws.

First-time director Autumn de Wilde has created a beautiful, intoxicating world.  The men are impeccably dressed with their high collars and long coats.  The women wear colourful gowns and elaborate hats.  As if inspired by the techniques of director Wes Anderson (The Grand Budapest Hotel), cinematographer Christopher Blauvelt (The Bling Ring, Mid90s) uses striking symmetry to frame many shots inside the gorgeous mansions.  The bubbly music score adds to the film’s lure.

The richness of the setting doesn’t fully stretch to the characters themselves.  Aside from Taylor-Joy, there’s a shallowness and a simplicity to many of the key players which lessens the film’s emotional impact and makes it harder to buy into the romantic connections.  Bill Nighy keeps rehashing the same joke while the likes of Mia Goth and Callum Turner feel one-dimensional.  The notable exception is Miranda Hart who shows nuance as a kind-hearted, not-so-wealthy woman doing her best to fit in.

Emma. (yes, the official title is ‘Emma’ followed by a full-stop) doesn’t fully capitalise on the potential of the novel but there’s enough fun and wit to charm audiences.