Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 23 May 2019

In 1992, Walt Disney Pictures produced and released a crop of films that included The Mighty Ducks, The Muppet Christmas Carol, Newsies and Honey, I Blew up the Kid.  They also had the highest grossing film of the year at the worldwide box-office.  Aladdin, an animated feature based on a Middle Eastern folk tale, won two Oscars (best song and best original score) and became a much loved, much watched movie amongst younger audiences.

Major Hollywood studios have always been an interesting beast.  On one hand, you’ve got people wanting to tell rich, fresh, compelling stories and on the other hand, you’ve got people motivated by profit.  I realise they’re not mutually exclusive (you won’t last long making great movies that lose money) but the scales are currently tipped in favour of a corporatized, profit-driven approach.

That’s evident when looking at Disney’s 2019 feature film line-up and it highlights that shift over the past two decades.  There are two animated features which are both sequels, Toy Story 4 and Frozen II, and there’s a sequel to 2014’s Maleficent.  The remaining four movies are all live-action remakes of animated features, Dumbo, The Lion King, Lady and the Tramp, and Aladdin.  I’m not saying these films will be terrible but is shows the increasing conservatism within the studio system.  They’re following the mantra “stick with what works”.

That’s also part of the reason why very little has been changed in terms of storyline for this 2019 Aladdin remake, directed by Englishman Guy Ritchie (Sherlock Holmes).  It’s 38 minutes longer than its animated predecessor but the structure is the same.  Aladdin (Massoud) is a petty thief who falls in love with The Sultan’s beautiful daughter, Princess Jasmine (Scott), but they can never marry because she is royalty and he is a lowly street rat.  He’s told that he was born worthless and he will die worthless.

That changes when finds an ancient oil lamp in the secretive, well-guarded Cave of Wonders.  He rubs the lamp, is introduced to the humorous blue Genie (Smith), and is granted three wishes which he can use to change his life.  He’s not the only person looking to get his hands on the lamp however.  The loathsome sorcerer Jafar (Kenzari) is looking to become the most powerful person in the kingdom and he knows how valuable three wishes would be.

All the songs from the 1992 version appear again here including “Friend Like Me” and “A Whole New World”.  There’s one new addition entitled “Speechless” which was written by the team of Benj Pasek and Justin Paul who are best known for their work on Dear Evan Hansen (the theatrical show), La La Land and The Greatest Showman.   The film is described as a musical but the reality is that most dialogue is spoken as opposed to sung.

Whilst I wasn’t sure about the need for the movie, it’s still a cool story to revisit.  It’s light, humorous and appealing.  There’s not a huge amount for adults but a new generation of youngsters will get the chance to have fun with these songs and characters.  Egyptian-born newcomer Mena Massoud is a great choice as Aladdin and 50-year-old Will Smith has fun as The Genie.  I can remember mock awards being given two decades ago to Wilson the Volleyball in Cast Away for best inanimate object.  There’s a scene-stealing magic carpet in Aladdin that deserves a similar level of praise.

There’s a superficiality about the characters that’s hard to shake (I’m not really sure Aladdin deserves to be the hero in this tale) but if you’ve got children and you’re looking for two hours of easy-going entertainment, Aladdin isn’t a bad choice.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 14 May 2019

Whatever your political persuasion, most would agree that rising wealth inequality isn’t good for society.  At some point, the scales require a rebalance.  I’m not talking about this weekend’s Federal election here in Australia but rather, I’m referring to a period in time exactly 200 years ago in the United Kingdom.  Acclaimed writer-director Mike Leigh (Secrets and Lies) is disappointed that this interesting piece of British history isn’t taught in schools and so he’s taken it upon himself to create aware through his latest film, Peterloo.

It may be hard to believe but in Great Britain in the year 1819, just 2% of the total population (largely people of wealth) were eligible to vote for members of parliament in the House of Commons.  Further, electoral boundaries were a mess with some larger counties receiving less representation than significantly smaller ones.

It’s a system that had been in place for decades but the catalyst for change was an economic depression.  Following the end of Britain’s war with France between 1803 and 1815 (part of the Napoleonic Wars), the British economy struggled.  Soldiers returning from war were unable to find work, the labouring class was battling to support their families, and wages were going backwards.  On top of this, overzealous judges were trying to supress dissent by handing down harsh penalties to those who broke the law.  In one scene, a poor man is sentenced to death for stealing a coat so as to keep warm.

You don’t need to be a knowledgeable historian to guess where this story heads next.  As the saying goes – “beware the person who has nothing to lose”.  The public were growing increasingly unhappy with the government and the fact that it was made up of wealthy, out-of-touch parliamentarians who were doing nothing to address the dire economic conditions facing working class people.  Faced with few options, a huge protest march was scheduled for St Peter’s Field in Manchester, England on 16 August 1819.  Over 60,000 people would attend.

Mike Leigh has tried to depict the era and cover key events from a range of perspectives.  There’s a young soldier battling post-traumatic stress disorder as he tries to find work following the Battle of Waterloo.  There’s a series of arrogant judges looking to squash a possible public uprising by using spies to do their dirty work.  There’s a radical public speaker looking to change views while also fuelled by self-interest.  There’s a group of journalists doing their best of sort the facts from the spin.

Peterloo deserves credit for trying to tackle complex issues but it struggles to create something that is interesting and engaging.  The characters aren’t particularly remarkable nor are the lengthy conversations they share (there’s a lot of talking).  There’s a meaningful, emotional climax but it’s a long wait to get to that point.  Audiences could probably learn more about this important part of history online (there’s some good articles) than from sitting in a movie theatre for an unnecessarily long 154 minutes.

Despite its limitations and often dreary nature, the film’s messages still have value.  When it comes to society and the role of government, the question must be asked – how much has actually changed for the better over the past 200 years?   

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 20 May 2019

After graduating from the National Institute of Dramatic Art in 1999, Australian Damon Gameau has forged a steady career as an actor with roles in films such as Thunderstruck and Balibo and in TV series such as Love My Way, Raw and Underbelly.  In 2014, he took a slightly different tact by writing and directing his first feature length documentary.  That Sugar Film was an eye-opening movie that showed the effects of a high-sugar diet on your weight, waist line and heart rate.  It made more than $1.7 million at the box-office and became the 4^th highest grossing Australian documentary ever.

For his sophomore effort, Gameau is tapping into a different subject matter that he hopes will be equally engaging to audiences – climate change and sustainability.  So much has already been said and written about these topics over the past few decades that it’s worth asking the question – what could this film possibly add to the ongoing worldwide debate?

Rather than follow in the footsteps of Davis Guggenheim’s alarm-ringing doco An Inconvenient Truth (the one with Al Gore), Gameau has crafted something that is more personal and positive.  Ever seen one of those movies set in the not-to-distant future where the writers trying to predict what the world might look like?  Gameau is trying to do the same but the important hook is that this isn’t pure science fiction.  He wants to use technology that’s readily available today to envisage where society could be in 21 years’ time if it makes the right decisions.  He describes it as “fact based dreaming”.

He explores topics such as energy, food and transportation.  Even if you’re a climate change denier, many of the ideas Gameau puts forward can be extremely beneficial in terms of pure economic value.  If you’re someone who owns a car, think about how many hours in a day the car is not used.  It’s arguably a very lazy asset.  What if we lived in a world where driverless cars could be shared around?  We’d have fewer cars, people would save money, and the large amounts of space dedicated for car parking could be put to better use.

In the same vein as a Michael Moore documentary, Gameau becomes part of the story he wants to tell.  We see him travelling across the globe and interviewing a variety of subjects (including young children aged between 6 and 11).  It’s interesting stuff.  Not as convincing are his effort to inject humour and style through the use of special effects and dream-like sequences from the year 2040.  It’s corny, doesn’t add much and detracts from the key messages.

I’d like to look back on this movie in the year 2040 with the benefit of hindsight.  If a lot of the inventions and suggestions covered by Gameau during the film become the norm, I’d like to hope we’re on the right track for keeping the planet liveable and sustainable.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 10 May 2019

The thought of dying alone can be really, really scary.  It’s a reality that Martha (Keaton) must now face.  She never married, she never had children and now the 70-something-year-old is battling terminal cancer.  There’ll be no one left behind to “pick up the pieces” once she’s gone and so it’s a task that Martha has taken on herself.

She’s sold her New York City apartment (where she’s lived for 46 years), discarded most of her clothes and possessions, and moved into a retirement community in Sun Springs where she can lie on the couch in her pyjamas and watch Days of Our Lives.  When asked by a fellow retiree why she made the big life change, Martha is honest – “I’m just here to die”.

Poms could have been a heavy, tear-jerky drama but writers Zara Hayes and Shane Atkinson have gone with a softer spin.  There’s lots to do at the retirement community (swimming, golfing, bowling) but it’s a condition (and a convenient plot device) that every resident must join a club.  Martha isn’t particularly keen on joining any existing clubs and so after discovering her high school cheerleading uniform as part of the apartment clean-up, she decides to start her own.

Providing most of the encouragement is Martha’s next-door neighbour and newfound best friend, Sheryl (Weaver).  They’re an odd couple who gel beautifully.  When Martha gets bogged down with self-pity, Sheryl is quick to lighten the moment with tales of her misadventures.  She’s a horny, tell-it-like-it-is woman who attends funerals of complete strangers for the free food, and describes her talents as being “poker and poking”.

Together, they assemble an eclectic group of fellow retirees who have a background in everything from yoga to aerobics.  The training sessions begin and the goal is to compete in front of a big crowd in front of the annual Senior Showcase.  It starts out as a bit of fun but it’s not long before the competitive nature within these women starts to come through.  They’re keen to overcome their assortment of medical conditions (knee replacements, dizziness, sore shoulders) and serve it up to the many naysayers who say there’s no place in society for 80-year-old cheerleaders.

The script could have been sharper.  The Martha we’re introduced to is such a sad soul and so it’s a little odd that she develops such a quick, overly serious passion for her cheerleading club project.  There’s also a strange sequence where the cheerleading group perform a “practice run” in front of teenagers and parents at a high school.  The heavily negative reaction from the crowd and younger cheerleaders didn’t feel authentic.

Despite its shortcomings, there are elements to Poms that make it an easy-to-watch, crowd pleasing comedy.  There's strong comedic chemistry between its largely female cast and there’s some well-delivered banter between two great actresses, Diane Keaton and Jacki Weaver.  You’ll also take pleasure in seeing the cynics (led by Celia Weston as an interfering busybody) get what they deserve.

Poms clocks in at a workable 91 minutes and features a well-chosen mix of iconic songs including favourites from Shirley Ellis, Tammy Wynette and Diana Ross.  With its release coinciding with Mother’s Day here in Australia and the United States, it’s likely to find a few fans.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 15 May 2019

Over the last decade, there have been few franchises to match the fun and creativity of John Wick.  The series began in 2014 with a low-ish budget action movie from unknown stuntman-turned-director Chad Stahelski that grossed a tidy $89m at the worldwide box-office.  With that same film garnering even more fans from its DVD and streaming releases, the 2017 sequel pulled in a more substantial box-office haul of $172 million.  The thumbs were up from both critics and the public.

It’ll help if you’ve seen the earlier movies because John Wick: Chapter 3 – Parabellum begins precisely where the last film ended.  John Wick (Reeves) killed a renowned crime lord but unfortunately, he’d done so on the grounds of The Continental Hotel in New York City.  That’s a clear breach of the rules laid down by The High Table, who govern the work of assassins, and so they’ve declared Wick “ex-communicado” and placed a $14 million bounty on his head.

It seems that every hitman alive then comes after Wick.  He can barely walk down an alleyway without encountering someone who wants to kill him.  The result is an array of great action scenes where they’re attacking each other with guns, fists, knifes, axes, cars and… wait for it… horses.  He doesn’t have much support but there are handful of characters, including those played by Halle Berry, Anjelica Huston and Ian McShane, who reluctantly offer help as settlement for past favours.

There’s a great addition to this instalment – a ruthless, emotionless woman who is simply known as The Adjudicator.  It’s her job to enforce The High Table’s rules and she does so in a by-the-book manner.  There’s no room for negotiation with The Adjudicator.  With an uncanny ability to know everything that’s going on in the world, she’s uses her henchman to dispense quick, brutal punishments for those she has deemed guilty.  Asia Kate Dillon (Orange Is the New Black) is chillingly good in the role.

In keeping with the style of the previous two flicks, director Chad Stahelski makes the film “stand out” with colourful production design and a strong editing.  It’s easy for action directors to fall into the trap of making cuts every half-second to give the impression of chaos (and also masking the stunt doubles).  That’s not the case here.  The same camera stays on the characters for several seconds at a time and it helps audiences appreciate the craft of the fight sequences whilst also understanding what is going on.

There’s a slight staleness to the script.  It’s a cool, intricate world (from the call centre to the use of special coins) but it’s starting to feel more familiar and less creative with each new movie in the franchise.  Still, there’s a lot of enjoyment to take from John Wick as he goes about his business.  I’m not sure of his final body count here but that number would be close to the total number of words he says during the 131 minute running time.