Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 15 August 2019

So far in 2019, a total of 19 films have earned more than $100 million USD at the box-office in the United States.  That in itself is not surprising.  The interesting/depressing fact is that of those 19, just two are not part on an existing series and are not a sequel, reboot, remake or spin-off.  The movies in question are Jordan Peele’s Us and Quentin Tarantino’s Once Upon a Time in Hollywood.  By way of comparison, 17 of the 21 films that crossed the $100 million USD threshold in 1999 were original.

This tale of box-office takings highlights the changing nature of cinema across the globe.  Theatres are where you go to see big budget action films like Avengers: Endgame and heavily marketed family flicks like The Lion King.  If you’re looking for romance, comedy or drama and it’s outside of Oscar season, you’re more likely to find it in the comfort of your own home on a streaming service.  That could be good or bad news (depending on how you like to consume your movies) but the point to emphasise is that it’s not just a quick, passing trend.  It’s the new reality.

Once Upon a Time in Hollywood will succeed because of the man behind the camera, Quentin Tarantino.  He’s one of the most well-known directors in the industry and this marks his 9^th feature film (provided we count the two-part Kill Bill as a single creation).  Social media has recently been awash with critics and cinephiles weighing in on Tarantino’s work and ranking his movies in order of preference.  Few directors command such a presence and for the record, my favourite is 1998’s Jackie Brown (with Pulp Fiction a close second).

Set in Los Angeles 1969, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood boasts a very large ensemble (keep your eyes peeled for cameos) but largely revolves around three characters.  Rick Dalton (DiCaprio) is a successful actor who fears he’s become a “has been”.  Having built a reputation playing bad guys in movies and television shows, he worries that he’s been typecast and that it’s too late to shift gears.

When it comes to Rick’s career, no one has more at stake than his best friend, Cliff Booth (Pitt).  Cliff was originally employed as Rick’s stunt double but as the roles have dried up, Cliff has become more of a chaperone, house-sitter and personal assistant.  His stress-free, chilled nature also makes him the perfect source of emotional support when required.

While those two characters are fictional, the third depicts a real-life person.  Sharon Tate (Robbie) is a 26-year-old actress starting to make a name for herself within in industry.  She recently married filmmaker Roman Polanski and her connection to Rick and Cliff is that she’s their next-door neighbour in a luxury home bordering Beverly Hills.

There’s likely to be varying opinions about Once Upon a Time in Hollywood but in my eyes, it’s tiring and it lacks a compelling narrative.  Quentin Tarantino has spared no expense in recreating the splendour of 1960s Los Angeles but there are lengthy sequences where the film is more interested in the setting than the characters.  I grew tired of the film references, the radio advertisements and the TV show extracts. 

The balance between the respective storylines also feels askew.  We spend an inordinate amount of time delving into Rick’s self-doubting nature and search for affirmation (whether he be talking to Cliff, a producer, or a young girl).  On the flip side, we hardly get to know Sharon Tate except for the fact she likes to slip into a public movie theatre and see herself on screen.

There are both positives and negatives in terms of the finale (without giving anything away) and while I can respect Tarantino’s efforts to create something different and thought-provoking, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is an unexpected disappointment.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 01 August 2019

It’s been more than 18 years since The Fast and The Furious was released in cinemas and it’s likely that this super successful franchise will be running for at least another 18 years.  The eight movies in the series to date have grossed a combined $5.1 billion USD at the worldwide box-office.  The characters are getting older but the screenwriters keep coming up with new plots that revolve around two key themes – cars and crime.

Hobbs & Shaw marks a slight divergence in that it’s not a direct sequel.  The full cast will return for Fast & Furious 9 in May 2020 but to satisfy audiences in the interim, this spin-off has been created which focuses on two specific players – Luke Hobbs (Johnson) and Deckard Shaw (Statham).  If you’re familiar with the franchise, you’ll know that these two have a different approach to life and don’t see eye-to-eye.  One is an American federal agent who gets up of a morning and hits the gym.  The other is a former British Special Forces officer who gets up of a morning and has a beer.

You can see where this heading.  Hobbs and Shaw want nothing to do with each other but after exchanging a series of savage insults, they’re forced to team up for a “save the world” kind of assignment.  Some dodgy folk have engineered a deadly virus that can liquify human organs and will eradicate all humans on earth.  The only people that will survive are those with special implants that describe themselves as the “future of mankind”.

A running theme throughout the previous movies is that of “family”.  The storylines were often far-fetched (a car chase on an airport runway springs to mind) but the characters were likeable and you could appreciate why they’d put their lives on the line.  The problem Hobbs & Shaw is that it’s all become cartoonish.  There’s almost no tension as our two “heroes” seem more interested in delivering comedic one-liners than helping friends in perilous situations.

Straying a long way from the franchise’s initial roots, writers Chris Morgan and Drew Pearce push the film into the science-fiction genre with the creation of Brixton Lore (Elba), the keynote villain.  He was once an MI6 field agent but has now been transformed into a genetically modified, Terminator-style cyborg.  He’s looking to get his hands on the virus for a bit of “genocide, schmenocide” but that’s unlikely to occur given the number of times he lets Hobbs and Shaw slip through his fingers.  Lore’s incompetence is designed to prolong the narrative (and I’m ok with that) but it’s too silly and obvious.  I had to laugh when he goofily smashes his helmet in frustration after a lengthy motorcycle chase.

Despite its many limitations, Hobbs & Shaw is still essential viewing for fans of the series as it sets up several plotlines that will likely be covered in next year’s Fast & Furious 9.  Hopefully it has more to offer

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 08 August 2019

Katherine Newbury (Thompson) has been a pioneer in the world of late night television.  In a ruthless, ratings-driven industry dominated by male hosts, Newbury has smashed the glass ceiling and has now been on air for more than 28 years.  She’s a smart, old-school woman who detests social media and looks for intelligent, insightful guests to appear on her show.

Unfortunately, this year will be Katherine’s last.  That’s not her decision but rather that of network president Caroline Morton (Ryan) who has pulled the plug after a steady decline in the show’s popularity over the past decade.  Change is inevitable and Morton is looking to find a new host to help pitch the show to a fresh, young crowd.

It’s hard to feel too much sympathy for Newbury as she’s often her own worst enemy.  The character is reminiscent of the unforgettable Miranda Priestly (brilliantly played by Meryl Streep) in The Devil Wears Prada.  Yes, she’s successful but she treats her hard-working employees with distain.  There’s a scene where she meets with her writing team and gives them each a number because she isn’t interested in learning their names.

A catalyst is required to create change and it arrives in the form an inexperienced writer named Molly Patel (Kaling).  Molly quickly realises she’s not respected by others involved with the show.  She’s a “diversity hire” who has only been employed because the entire writing team is white and male.  It’s yet another reason to dislike the self-absorbed, out-of-touch Katherine.

Molly could easily quit (no one would blame her) but she’s intent on proving her worth and silencing the many naysayers.  She slowly wins over her fellow writers, her ideas become part of the show, and she becomes quasi-friends with an increasingly fragile Katherine.  That said, will it be enough to lift the ratings and save their jobs?

It’s too much of a Cinderella-story in places but for the most part, this is still an entertaining, feel-good comedy-drama.  In writing the screenplay, Mindy Kaling wasn’t afraid to draw on her own experiences in the industry.  She was embarrassed at the time but now freely admits that she too was a “diversity hire” when he was given her first writing gig on The Office (the US version) in 2005.  She was the only woman and only person of colour on the writing team (plus NBC didn’t have to pay anything extra because she was already an actor on the show).

The actions of Katherine Newbury will polarise audiences.  Is she a kind, warm-hearted individual who puts up a tough exterior to protect herself in a challenging workplace?  Or is she a cold, self-absorbed, mean-spirited person who abuses her power and refuses to listen to alternate views?  There were a few personality shifts I struggled with but Oscar-winning actress Emma Thompson still wins points for creating such a thought-provoking character.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 29 July 2019

In search of an idea to make his next movie, writer-director Emilio Estevez was inspired by a 2007 article in The Los Angeles Times penned by Chip Ward, the Assistant Director of the Salt Lake City Public Library.  Ward spoke of how libraries had become “de facto daytime shelters” for many of the city’s homeless.  Shelters kicked them out early in the morning and with nowhere to go during daylight hours, particularly during times of bad weather, they sought refuge in public libraries where they could sit, read and make conversation.

Estevez’s film features fictional characters and has changed the setting to Cincinnati but the early scenes illustrate both the plight and ingenuity of the homeless.  It’s the middle of winter, it’s freezing (temperatures are sub zero) and there are dozens of people queuing up outside the public library.  When the doors finally open, the homeless folk make their way to the bathrooms where they can shave, brush their teeth and freshen up.  Everyone knows everyone (including the staff) since the same events play out day after day.

The crux of the narrative in The Public centres on a particularly cold evening when a group of roughly 30 homeless people refuse to leave at closing time.  They’re not trying to be difficult or trying to make a political statement.  It’s simply a matter of necessity.  All the nearby shelters are full and so if forced to sleep outside, they run the risk of hypothermia or serious illness.

We watch events unfold from several perspectives.  The library’s head (Wright) calls in the security guards when the homeless refuse to leave.  An empathetic librarian (Estevez) helps the homeless by barricading the front doors.  A crisis negotiator for the local police department (Baldwin) tries to defuse the situation.  A self-centred district attorney running for mayor (Slater) sees this as opportunity to generate publicity.  A news reporter (Union) puts her own spin on events in pursuit of TV ratings.

Estevez has taken a risk in including so many subplots but to his credit, he’s found a way to weave it all together and create a tense, compelling narrative.  A few characters lack depth (such as Christian Slater’s one-eyed mayor) but for the most part, these are interesting people.  You’ll be curious to see how events unfold but more broadly, it gets you thinking about the world in general, the value of libraries, and the increasing number of displaced people in society.  The sequences where the homeless talk amongst themselves are particularly meaningful.

Leaving you with something to think about as you leave the cinema, The Public is both entertaining and informative.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 05 August 2019

We often fawn over those with excessive wealth but if you’ve seen movies such as Citizen Kane, The Great Gatsby, Magnolia or All The Money in The World (I could have listed another 50), you’ll know that financial success doesn’t always equate to happiness.  Rich folk may have slightly different problems from the Average Joe but they’re not immune to illness, depression or anxiety (throw in a splash of paraonia).

Australian actor Bryan Brown observed this first hand when he caught up with a group of long-time friends while on holidays in the UK.  That provided the spark for Palm Beach, a drama about three couples who get together at an idyllic home in northern Sydney for a short holiday.  Brown got the ball rolling as producer, Joanna Murray-Smith penned the script, and Rachel Ward (Beautiful Kate) took the reigns as director.

The older you are, the greater the chance you’ll relate to this story.  Frank, Charlotte, Leo, Bridget, Billy and Eva have known each other for decades but they’re not quite as close as they once were.  That’s not because of anything bad or sinister.  It’s just a fact of life.  Priorities change and the responsibilities of adulthood, whether they be work or family related, take precedence.  It’s taken a significant milestone (Frank’s 60^th birthday) for them to travel from across the globe and catch up together for the first time in many years. 

There’s great food, great wine and great conversation.  They share details about their current lives while reflecting back on fond, vivid memories from when they were younger.  However, it’s not all hugs and happy faces.  It doesn’t take long for tensions to rise and a few deep seeded issues to bubble to the surface.  These characters know how to push each other’s buttons and they’re not afraid to do so.

Palm Beach delves into the way we perceive life as we get older.  Some see the glass as half full and can focus on their pleasures and successes.  Some see the glass as half empty and dwell on their failures and regrets.  These characters sit at varying points along that spectrum and it makes for a quality observational drama.

A subplot involving one of the children (you’ll know what it is) feels a little manufactured but for the most part, the story and its emotions ring true.  From the delivery of the dialogue to the subtle reactions in key scenes, the experienced cast do an outstanding job of making these characters interesting and authentic.  It’s hard to single out any performance but it’s worth noting this is the first role for Richard E. Grant since his Oscar nominated performance in last year’s Can You Ever Forgive Me?  He’s terrific once again.

Using the film as an opportunity to bring more women into the Australian industry, Rachel Ward set a gender equity goal and ensured that at least 50% of the crew was female.  It’s just another reason to like this strong Australian drama.