Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 30 September 2019

There are exceptions but the general tendency in Hollywood is to create one-dimensional villains when making an action flick.  You’ll have someone (normally a male) trying to take over the world, or assassinate a popular figure, or steal billions of dollars, or simply blow up the planet.  The plans usually lack logic (or at least start off sensibility and ultimately become illogical).  Equally puzzling are the life goals of the incompetent henchmen who sign up to the villains’ causes.

There are reasons why film writers make such decisions.  In a two hour movie, there often isn’t time to “flesh out” an intriguing bad guy when the prominent focus is on the heroes.  Further, having a simplistic villain makes it easy for the filmmakers to guide audiences’ emotions and avoid controversy.  They bear no resemblance to divisive figures in the real world so you can sit back, eat your popcorn, and view it as mindless entertainment.

The Joker appeared in the first Batman comic book ever published in 1940 and he has since become the most utilised villain in superhero movies.  Jack Nicholson in Batman (1989), Heath Ledger in The Dark Knight (2008) and Jared Leto in Suicide Squad (2016) have all put their own spin on this famed character.

Joker is a very different comic book movie however.  There are no “traditional” heroes and so the entire 122 minute running time is spent developing and analysing a purported villain.  We learn that the Joker, better known as Arthur Fleck (Phoenix), is a struggling loner.  He has no friends, he receives no mail, he’s battling to hold down his job as a performing clown, and he has mental health issues which require seven different types of medication.  In his own words – “I just don’t want to feel so bad anymore.”

On a near-deserted subway train one evening, Arthur watches as three sleazy businessmen taunt and harass a middle-aged woman.  Arthur, still wearing his clown face from work, unwillingly becomes involved and after a violent scuffle, he pulls out a gun and kills all three men.  You could argue he first acted in self-defence but when he puts several bullets in the last victim, it’s clear his motivations include anger and vengeance.  Accustomed to being bullied, he enjoyed having the “last laugh” for once.

It’s not long before Arthur’s actions kick-start an uprising within Gotham.  Authorities want him identified and apprehended but there’s a growing number of people who see Arthur as the “poster boy” for a powerful anti-capitalism movement sweeping across the city.  They’re tired of austerity-loving politicians cutting services to the underprivileged while the wealthiest 1% continue to thrive and prosper.

Joker isn’t perfect.  The second act is sluggish and it pushes its message too forcibly in places.  Still, the positives far outweigh the negatives.  Writer-director Todd Phillips (The Hangover) and co-writer Scott Silver (The Fighter) are taking societal problems that you might see explored in a Ken Loach film and bringing them into the superhero realm.  Arthur is a complex character and while you may not agree with his approach, you’ll understand his troubled mindset and the reasons why some support him.  There are parallels with real-life issues currently playing out in the media.

Given Heath Ledger posthumously won an Academy Award for playing the same character, it was always going to be a tough ask for Joaquin Phoenix (Walk the Line) to produce an equally memorable performance.  He’s gone close though.  Phoenix has created a credible villain with a fragile mental state and a creepy disposition (particularly his laugh).  His portrayal adds to the film’s grim, unsettling tone that you’ll have trouble shaking off as you leave the theatre.

A surprise winner of the prestigious Golden Lion at the Venice Film Festival, Joker is intended to be a “stand alone” feature that isn’t part of the current DC Extended Universe.  That’s a shame because I’d love to see the introduction of arch nemesis Batman to find out where this alternative timeline goes next.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 16 September 2019

If you’ve had young children at some point over the past two decades, you’re likely to be familiar with Dora the Explorer.  She’s the central figure in an animated TV show, produced by Nickelodeon, which premiered in 2000 and featured 178 episodes.  The 7-year-old solves puzzles, overcomes obstacles, and interacts with a monkey and a talking backpack (no, she’s not on drugs).

Taking Dora’s simplistic story and turning it into a live-action movie would have been a tricky assignment but the creators have taken a few chances and been rewarded for their efforts.  We’ve seen this before from director James Bobin (Flight of the Concords) and co-writer Nicholas Stoller who successfully reinvigorated an old franchise with The Muppets (2011) and Muppets Most Wanted (2014).

The gutsiest decision has been to go with an older version of the much-loved character.  There’s a quick-fire introduction to the younger Dora but for the most part, the one we see in the movie is a 16-year-old played by Isabela Moner (Sicario: Day of the Soldado).  She was born and raised in the Peruvian jungle with her two wise parents (played Michael Peña and Eva Longoria) providing a broad education.

The writing team have fun with the character in the opening act.  Dora’s parents are going on a lengthy exploration to find a hidden Inca city and rather than take their daughter with them, they’ve arranged for her to spend time with her cousin in Los Angeles.  Instead of living in the wild with a talking backpack (just thought I’d mention it again), Dora will have to interact with people, develop social skills, and adjust to life in a formal school.  She’s a “fish out of water” and her talkative, outgoing nature sets the stage for several humorous scenes.

The remainder of the film sees Dora and her newfound school friends return to Peru to locate her parents who have gone missing.  They’re pursued by a team of hapless villains who are hoping they’ll be led to the lost City of Gold where they’ll find fame and immense fortune.  It’s reminiscent of adventure franchises like Indiana Jones and National Treasure as our heroes decipher clues in pursuit of the end goal.

Dora and the Lost City of Gold has had added publicity here in Australia given it was a Hollywood production shot largely in South East Queensland in late 2018.  The locations used include Tamborine Mountain, The Old Museum, Brisbane Airport and the Palm Beach Currumbin State High School.  The film will also lift the profile of young Australian actors Madeleine Madden and Nicholas Coombe who have been cast as Dora’s friends.

The film never takes itself too seriously which is part of the reason it will entertain younger audiences.  Isabela Moner also deserves praise for her lead performance.  The Dora we’ve seen in the TV show is fairly one-dimensional but Moner adds a great deal more to the character.  In finding the right balance of intelligence, goofiness and energy, she’s created someone who is both funny and credible.  The role could easily have been overplayed (but thankfully it’s not).

Whether this becomes part of a longer running series will depend on box-office.  I’m not sure if a sequel would boast the same level of creativity but if they can keep this cast and crew intact, I’m happy for them to give it a go.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 25 September 2019

In April 2014, American author Donna Tartt won the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction for her third novel, The Goldfinch.  The judges described it as “a beautifully written coming-of-age novel with exquisitely drawn characters” and “a book that stimulates the mind and touches the heart.”  Warner Bros. acquired the film rights later that year and director John Crowley (Brooklyn) was given the task of bringing Tartt’s work to the big screen.

It’s hard to review this movie without acknowledging the heavy baggage it has accumulated over the past few weeks.  The positive adjectives used to praise the novel were not replicated in explaining the film.  At its Toronto Film Festival world premiere, leading critics described The Goldfinch as “morose” (Variety), “emotionally muted” (BBC), “uninvolving” (Washington Post) and “textureless” (The New Yorker).

The reception wasn’t any warmer when released widely in U.S. cinemas the following week.  It earned a dismal $2.6 million across its opening weekend (the budget was $40 million) with the President of Domestic Distribution at Warner Bros. conceding “there were many things that didn’t work.”  Star Ansel Elgort also weighed in by acknowledging the negative feedback but asking audiences to give it a chance because he believes “there is a lot of good in the film too.”

Elgort is right (to an extent).  There’s a part of me that was drawn into this interesting world and the alluring cinematography of Roger Deakins (Blade Runner 2049).  The central protagonist is Theodore Decker (Fegley), a shy 13-year-old who loses his mother following a terrorist attack at New York City’s Metropolitan Museum of Art.  The remainder of the film follows Theodore (the older version is played by Elgort) as he interacts with an array of characters including his alcoholic father (Wilson), a struggling antique dealer (Wright), a Ukrainian friend (Wolfhard) and a kind-hearted socialite (Kidman).

The problems with the movie are easy to spot.  It struggles when it comes to character development and relevance.  Theodore wanders from place-to-place but I was never sure what he, or anyone else for that matter, was searching for.  It’s therefore hard to see and understand how these characters have evolved across the lengthy 149 minute running time.  What have they learned by film’s end?  What are audiences supposed to take away?  The fact some subplots are rushed (such as Theodore’s out-of-nowhere engagement) adds to its confusing nature.

The hardest thing to grapple with is the film’s insistence to link everything back to a stolen artwork.  While fleeing The Met in the minutes following the terrorist attack, Theodore takes an extremely valuable painting (it had fallen on the ground) and takes it back to his home.  It’s a bizarre, clumsy storyline that is referenced every 15 minutes or so but lacks logic and purpose.

If there’s one clear realisation from The Goldfinch, it’s that a good book doesn’t always equal a good movie.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 13 September 2019

It’s a premise we’ve seen before.  A group of “nerdy” school kids try to ditch their naivety and find love and/or popularity amongst their fellow classmates.  Great examples that come to mind include She’s All That, Mean Girls, 10 Things I Hate About You, Easy A, American Pie, Superbad and Booksmart.  These films provide humour while also emphasising the worthy message of “to thine own self be true”.

Good Boys puts a slightly different spin on the genre by focusing on three boys who are younger than the norm.  Max (Tremblay), Lucas (Williams) and Thor (Noon) are 12-year-old kids on cusp of adolescence and who have a lot of thoughts running through their head.  As Max succinct says at the start of a new school year – “we’re in the 6^th grade and I want to start doing 6^th grade things.”  

What Max is largely talking about is girls.  He has his eyes on the shy Brixlee (Davis) but he’s completely inept when it comes to romance and seduction (as you might expect).  When invited to a “kissing party” thrown by a popular classmate, Max sees it as an opportunity to finally interact with Brixlee and, if all goes to plan, land his first kiss.

What follows is a series of misadventures as these three kids, who go by the name of the “Beanbag Boys”, prepare for party.  They start out by using the internet to learn how to kiss a girl but by film’s end, it’s morphed into a very different journey involving drugs, alcohol, sex toys, weapons, cops and a funny/creepy guy played by Stephen Merchant.  Suffice to say Max, Lucas and Thor now have a changed view of the world and their friendship.

The storyline doesn’t flow as smoothly as it should.  There are times when it feels like a bunch of unrelated skits.  One example is an odd sequence where they harness the courage to run across an 8-lane freeway with peak hour traffic.  Some might get a laugh out of it (not me) but it doesn’t seem to have much of a connection to the broader story nor does it add anything in terms of character development.

Qualms aside, Good Boys is still a winner in terms of laughs and entertainment.  Writers Gene Stupnitsky and Lee Eisenberg (largely known for their writing work on the US version of The Office) have created three cute, foul-mouthed characters that will win audiences over.  It’s hard not to be amused as they misinterpret words (e.g. nymphomaniac) and try to act older than they are.  Lucas wins bonus points because of his compulsion to tell the truth at the worst possible time.

Finishing on a strong note with a hilarious musical number, Good Boys is good stuff.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 24 September 2019

As part of my research for Ride Like a Girl, I re-watched footage of the 2015 Melbourne Cup where jockey Michelle Payne became the first female to win the race in its 155 year history (wish I had of backed her given the long odds).  It reminds me that the greatest joys in life often come from doing something that no one thinks you can!  I knew exactly how the race would end but my eyes were still moist listening to Michelle speak about the magnitude of the moment in a post-race interview (less than 2 minutes after she crossed the finish line). 

It’s the type of uplifting, feel-good story that lends itself well to cinema and the timing of the event was perfect.  Less than 5 weeks after Payne’s win, Screen Australia announced a “Gender Matters” funding program to help address the lack of female producers, writers and directors within Australia’s film industry.  A few months later, Ride Like a Girl was announced as one of the funding recipients and it would boast a female director, co-writer, editor, production designer and costume designer.

If there’s one reason to see this film, it’s to enjoy a classic underdog tale.  As we learn throughout the movie, Michelle (Palmer) was the youngest of 10 children.  It’s not hard to imagine the fights and sibling rivalries that would have evolved all living under one roof.  He mother passed away when she was just 6 months old and so it was her horse trainer father, Paddy (Neill), who raised Michelle and helped infuse her love for the sport.

Marking the directorial debut of Australian actor Rachel Griffiths, Ride Like a Girl is a dramatic re-enactment.  Part of me wishes they’d have gone with a documentary given the cheesy, contrived nature of certain scenes.  You’ve got misogynistic guys continually saying “girls never ride in the Melbourne Cup” and you’ve got the strong-willed Michelle refusing to take “no” for an answer.

I’m not saying that Michelle’s didn’t overcome obstacles and discrimination along the way but these sequences do feel staged.  The better content in the film is the dissection of Michelle’s up-and-down relationship with her tough father.  There’s more nuance in their conversations with Teresa Palmer (Hacksaw Ridge) and Sam Neill (Hunt for the Wilderpeople) deliver convincing performances.

Cinematographer Martin McGrath (Muriel’s Wedding) deserves recognition for his well-selected camera angles during the race sequences.  He gets the smaller stuff right too.  I loved the shot where Michelle returns to the female’s jockey room after winning the Cup and has a quiet moment to herself while the world outside celebrates.

I’m not sure this will be the film which “stops a nation” but if you’re interested in Michelle Payne and her achievements, there’s enough to take away.