Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 24 October 2019

There are many reasons to hate one’s in-laws but Ready or Not is going for something rather extreme.  The film opens with Grace (Weaving) about to marry the man of her dreams.  Alex (O’Brien) is smart, kind and good looking.  It also helps that his family is “richer than God” with the wedding festivities set to take place at their expansive country mansion.

The ceremony goes to plan but a few hours later, Grace finds herself at the centre of an odd tradition.  Every time someone new becomes part of the Le Domas family, they all congregate in a special room at midnight and play a game together.  Grace has the honour of drawing a playing card from an old box and flipping it over, the choice of game is revealed – hide and seek.

How do you make a movie out of such a simple, childish game?  Writers Guy Busick and R. Christopher Murphy have done so by raising the stakes and the consequences.  There’s some weird supernatural stuff going on inside the house (it’s hard to explain) but it boils down to this – Grace has to stay hidden and avoid capture until sunrise.  If she wins, she gets to keep her life.  If she loses, she will be brutally killed.

It’s never easy creating something fresh within the well-worn horror genre but Ready or Not deserves praise for its cool concept.  You’ve got a traumatised young woman being chased by some deranged family members in a giant house that has secret rooms and passageways.  When you throw in ancient weapons, clueless servants and a myriad of security cameras, there are lot of directions in which the story could go.

The execution is a touch clumsy.  The film is at its best when it’s creating tense sequences (such as a scene in a butler’s kitchen) where you’re not sure how the protagonists will extricate themselves.  These moments are a little clichéd but they’ll still have an impact on audiences.  The film is at its weakest when it tries to transition from horror to comedy.  There are a few well-earned laughs but for the most part, the gags feel unnecessary and they detract from the menacing tone.

27-year-old Australian actress Samara Weaving (Picnic at Hanging Rock) will win fans with her emotion-charged performance as Grace.  She’s created an authentic lead character who makes the odd mistake and who reacts/overreacts to situations in a way that we can relate to.  The make-up artists deserve praise for their key part in creating the cuts, bruises and injuries that mount up with each passing hour.

More could have been made of the villainous Le Domas family (the likes of Andie MacDowell are wasted) and the decisions of some characters lack logic but on the whole, Ready or Not offers more pros than cons.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 13 October 2019

Ever seen Peter Weir’s The Truman Show? It’s one of the great films in the history of cinema. Jim Carrey’s character is, unknowingly, surrounded by paid actors in a fake world. He doesn’t have a life of his own and there isn’t an opportunity for the true Truman Burbank to evolve.  He’s being controlled like a science experiment and his sole purpose is to entertain millions of people around the world on TV.

There are parallels with the real-life story of Judy Garland. Born in 1922, Garland was just 2 years of age when she first performed on stage at her father’s movie theatre. By the time she was 18, Garland had appeared in 11 feature films and won a special Academy Award for her iconic performance as Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz (1939).  In the same vein as Truman Burbank, she spent almost her entire life in the public eye and was controlled by studio executives like a puppet.

Based on the stage play by Peter Quilter and adapted by Tom Edge, Judy covers Garland’s teenage years by way of intermittent flashback.  She was prohibited from eating fatty foods and given special tablets to supress weight gain.  She was forced into arranged friendships/relationships to boost her notoriety in the tabloids.  She worked ridiculously long hours for bossy directors.  If she ever complained, studio big-wigs would threaten to fire her and bring in fresh talent.

These scenes are informative but they’re not the crux of Rupert Goold’s film.  Rather, the movie focuses on a period in 1969 when a 46-year-old Garland (played Renée Zellweger) travelled to London to perform a series of stage shows for her adoring fans.  It was a trip of necessity as opposed to desire.  Her celebrity had waned in the United States and, as a result of some bad financial decisions, she was both homeless and penniless.  The London gig was offering £2,500 a week and it was a chance to reignite her sagging career.

Judy is an interesting character study.  There are times when we see Garland at her best.  Despite nerves and apprehension, she gathers her composure for a beautiful rendition of “By Myself” as her first song on the London stage.  Director Rupert Goold captures the emotion of that moment by shooting it with a single camera and no edits.  There’s another nice scene where she spends an evening with two fans who have worshiped her for decades.

On the flip side, there are times when see Garland at her worst.  She has an addiction to alcohol and prescription medication that is clearly affecting her life.  She also comes across as spoilt, self-entitled and unreliable.  She’s rude to her obliging assistant (Buckley) and often disrespectful to audience members who have bought tickets to her shows.  Are her problems self-inflicted?  Or are they the result of a tough upbringing and career?  I’m sure audiences will be divided.   

Judy struggles in connecting the 1960s narrative with the 1930s flashbacks.  Goold is trying to help us “get inside” Garland’s head and explain why she’s become such an anxious, complex person.  These scenes are promoting empathy but I’m not sure they fully explain the version of Garland we know by film’s end.  It feels like we’ve only scratched the surface and her troubles are far deeper.

However, the weaknesses in the script are negated by the stunning performance of Renée Zellweger (Cold Mountain, Chicago).  The casting is perfect and she does a wonderful job capturing Garland’s blend of egotism and insecurity.  It’s also worth noting that Zellweger performed all the songs herself after a full year of training with high-profile vocal coach Eric Vetro.  An Oscar nomination is a certainty and if you believe the current bookmakers’ odds, a victory speech will be required.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 21 October 2019

After the Wedding joins the likes of Cold Pursuit, The Kindergarten Teacher and Gloria Bell as foreign language movies to have been recently adapted into English to appease those who dislike subtitles.  In this instance, the original was a Danish drama directed by Susanne Bier which earned an Academy Award nomination for best foreign language film in 2007 (losing to The Lives of Others).

The setting and character names have been changed but for the most part, this is a close remake.  Isabel (Williams) is a middle aged American woman who has spent the last chunk of her life running an orphanage for abandoned children in India.  Isabel and the other volunteers are passionate about their work but they lack the financial resources to provide a better life for the kids who reside there.

Their prayers appear to be answered when contacted by Theresa Young (Moore), an extremely wealthy businesswoman who controls the biggest media placement company in the United States.  Theresa is keen to donate $2 million towards the orphanage but before doing so, she’s asked Isabel to travel to New York so they can meet face-to-face and discuss plans.

It’s at this point where things get a little strange.  The pair meet on a Friday morning but instead of Theresa signing the deal and writing out a cheque, she asks for extra time to fully consider the proposal.  Realising that Isabel has been inconvenienced and cannot immediately return to India, Theresa provides an invitation to her daughter’s wedding which is scheduled to take place the next day.  It’s an odd request and Isabel is somewhat troubled by the fact she’s attending a wedding where she doesn’t know a single guest (including anyone in the bridal party).  Theresa even offers to buy her a dress!

There are a few twists in this tale and so it’s unfair for me to reveal the surprises for those unfamiliar with the Danish original.  What I can say is that there are plot developments that come across as artificial and manufactured.  Highlighted by a meeting between Isabel and Theresa’s daughter (Quinn), it feels like all these characters are tiptoeing around certain subject matters for the purpose of prolonging the narrative.  Why are they so afraid of asking obvious questions?

It’s hard to point the finger of blame at Julianne Moore (Still Alice), Michelle Williams (Brokeback Mountain) and Billy Crudup (Almost Famous).  They’re doing their best with the limited material and it’s nice to see such a quality group of actors sharing the screen together.  I only wish that the emotion displayed by their respective characters was the equal of that experienced by the audience.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 09 October 2019

Several years ago, a group of struggling female strippers concocted a plan to get rich.  They would seduce wealthy Wall Street businessmen, take them to clubs and spike their drinks.  When the men became borderline unconscious, the women would take their credit cards and rack up charges as high as $50,000 per night.  The proceeds would be split between the women and club management (who were also in on the action).

Hustlers is an interesting true story but we’re lucky to even know about it at all.  The police became involved in 2013 but it wasn’t until journalist Jessica Pressler published an article in December 2015 that the details became widely known.  Many men (some of them married) were fleeced but they didn’t speak with journalists or investigators because they didn’t want to admit they had been victimised by women.  They were content to suffer the financial loss and never speak of it again.

Written and directed by Lorene Scafaria (Nick & Nora’s Infinite Playlist), Hustlers is a film of two halves.  The opening hour looks at the evolution of the stripper scene in New York City.  It begins in 2007 when top-notch strippers were making more money than brain surgeons.  The good times soon came to an end when the Global Financial Crisis hit the hip pockets of stockbrokers and finance guys.  The money dried up which forced some strippers to make the shift into prostitution.

The second half delves into the criminal activities of the women as they drugged and stole from unsuspecting men.  It’s at this point where the film treads a very fine line.  Scafaria doesn’t want to make them out as heroes but nor does she want to portray them as villains.  On one hand, the actions of these women are deplorable and it’s lucky that none of their unsuspecting victims were killed of an accidental overdose.  On the other hand, these women deserve credit for their ingenuity and the way they have “evened the score” against dodgy/sleazy Wall Street types (although not all in the movie deserved it).

It may sound like a complex tale of criminality but when the end credits start to roll, you’ll realise it’s more a story of friendship.  Romana (Lopez) is the cunning, ambitious veteran who uses her power over men to great effect.  Destiny (Wu) is her trusting protégé who is prepared to relinquish her stronger morals to gain financial independence.  The interaction between these two (along with other key characters) highlights the close bond they all shared.

Hustlers is an appealing drama with strong performances, genuine laughs and a winning soundtrack.  There’s lots to think about too.  It’s easy to look down on strippers but the film confirms they’re often more intelligent and shrewd than their male customers.  There’s a great sequence where Romana explains the best way to spot a wealthy target – look beyond the suit and focus on the shoes, watches and wedding rings.

There are parts to the narrative that don’t add much.  Destiny’s up-and-down marriage is over in a flash and the one-on-one scenes with her grandmother lack depth.  Also, were was all the money going???  The film suggests these women are motivated by factors other than pure greed (e.g. helping raise their kids) but it’s hard to believe given the amounts they’re reeling in and the rate at which they burn through it.  I’m curious to see how much empathy they draw from audiences.

On track to make more than $100 million at the US box-office, Hustlers has lots of people talking – both before and after they see it.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 15 October 2019

As tends to be the case with fairy tales, Maleficent (2014) culminated with its heroic characters living happily ever after (or so we thought).  Princess Aurora (Fanning) was rid of a nasty curse and crowned as the new Queen.  Prince Philip fell in love and was able to win the affections of his dream woman.  Maleficent (Jolie) was reunited with her precious wings and embraced the light as opposed to the dark.

With it all culminating so harmoniously, what could the writers do to create drama for this sequel?  The answer – fake news!  As we’re told by the narrator during the opening few minutes, Maleficent has somehow become the villain again.  She earned redemption five years ago but because of misinformation and rumour mongering, humans are again scared of her presence and question her motives.  It’s a weak plot device.

If you think that’s suspect, wait until you meet the real baddie.  Queen Ingrith (Pfeiffer) is intent on destroying every creature across the kingdoms that isn’t human.  The problem is that she’s all bluster and no depth.  She’s a one-dimensional character who acts like a crazed super villain purely because she’s a racist.  Why couldn’t they create a more intriguing backstory?  It’s also surprising that no one picks up on her bizarre plans given how obvious they are to the audience.

In terms of the returning cast, all have reprised their roles with the exception of Australian Brenton Thwaites who was busy shooting his web television series, Titans.  British actor Harris Dickinson (Beach Rats) steps into the shoes of Prince Philip as his replacement.  Angelina Jolie remains the “pick of the bunch” as Maleficent but that’s largely because she’s the only character required to make tough choices and hence, the most interesting.

Director Robert Stromberg didn’t return this time around and so the reins were handed to Norwegian director Joachim Rønning (Kon-Tiki).  His visual effects team have created some colourful locations and cute creatures but the big action finale in underwhelming.  It’s just a lot of chaotic fighting from a confusing mix of camera angles.  The lengthy epilogue was also unnecessary.

We’ve seen some strong family films this year such as Toy Story 4, Missing Link, Dora and the Lost City of Gold and Fighting with My Family.  These movies have offered a mix of laughs, emotion and creative storylines.  Maleficent: Mistress of Evil is likely to have its fans given their admiration for the original but when compared to the aforementioned films, it’s sorely lacking.