Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 11 June 2012

I first heard about The Cabin In The Woods back in March.  It was generating serious buzz but many people were throwing out the warning message – make sure someone doesn’t spoil it before you see it.  Immediately, I was intrigued.  It brought back memories of films from the 1990s like The Crying Game, The Usual Suspects and The Sixth Sense.  Who doesn’t enjoy a good twist?

Of course, it was a lot easier to avoid spoilers back in the 1990s.  You certainly didn’t have to worry about social media.  It’d take you 15 minutes just to download a pixelated version of the trailer through your painfully slow dial-up internet connection.

That’s not the case now though.  Every time I’d seen a mention of The Cabin In The Woods in my Twitter feed, I’d quickly go to my “glazed eyes” look.  There was no chance that I’d be clicking on links to any reviews, articles or trailers.  Perhaps they were “spoiler free” but I didn’t care.  When a film relies heavily on surprises, you don’t want it being ruined.

Things started to get really messy in mid April.  The film was released widely in the United States and opened with a respectable $14.7m at the box-office.  Many here in Australia were putting the obvious question to Roadshow Films – why are you waiting until July to release the movie in this country?  With spoilers now all over the web, why not show it now and capitalise on the U.S. publicity?  It’d had reached the point where an online petition had been created to put pressure on the distributor.

What happened next was completely unexpected.   Instead of bringing the release date forward, Roadshow announced that they weren’t releasing it at all!  It would be going straight to DVD.  What the hell was going on?  A film that (1) had been profitable in the United States, (2) had overwhelmingly positive reviews from critics, (3) had been co-written by Joss Whedon (The Avengers), and (4) had an Aussie in a leading role (Chris Hemsworth) was going to bypass Australian cinemas.  Filmgoers were getting angry.  Those that had seen The Lucky One and The Five-Year Engagement were even angrier!

We all know there’s a happy ending to this tale.  The fact that I’m sitting here and writing this review is proof of that.  Roadshow buckled.  In early May, they put out a press release stating the film would receive a small release in Sydney and Melbourne in June.  It still wasn’t good enough.  After more pressure, cinemas in Brisbane, Adelaide and Perth announced that they too would be screening the movie.

We often hear about the dark side of social media but here’s a great instance where the “power of the people” have produced a positive outcome.  This movie deserves to be seen in a darkened theatre with a decent-sized audience.  That was my experience when I caught it at the Gold Coast Film Festival.  If you’re up for a horror-thriller that doesn’t always follow a predictable formula, make sure you don’t miss it.

I personally wouldn’t consider it a game-changer but The Cabin In The Woods kept me on my toes and has many interesting elements.  Perhaps it's been a little over-hyped.  It’s good but not great.  The movie marks the directorial debut of Drew Goddard (writer of Cloverfield and the TV series Lost) and was filmed way back in 2009.  Financial difficulties within MGM saw it sit on the shelf for close to two years and it was ultimately sold to Lionsgate in mid 2011 for the cheap price of $12m.  A great buy.

Lionsgate wasn’t the only big winner.  He didn’t know it at the time but it turned out to be a life-changing role for Australian Chris Hemsworth.  Writer Joss Whedon, impressed with his performance, recommended him to Kenneth Branagh for the lead role in Thor.  The rest is history.

I’ve written 650 words and am yet to mention the plot.  That’s no accident.  I think I’ve made it clear that the less you know about this film, the better.  A group of five college students go on holidays to a remote cabin in the woods.  Some stuff happens.  Then some other stuff happens.  What more do you want?  The end.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 30 May 2012

We begin with two clowns in a get-away car trying to evade the cops on a long stretch of highway.  I use the term “clowns” both physically and metaphorically.  Yes, they are indeed dressed as clowns.  It was their costume as part of a daring robbery that helped net them a few large bags filled with cash.

The fact that they’re about to be caught is the other reason why the word “clown” feels appropriate.  In a final act of desperation, they try to drive their car through a thin wall that separates the United States and Mexico.  There’s no creative twist here.  This isn’t The Fast & The Furious where they’ll smash through and zoom off into the sunset.  Rather, the car flips and lands as a crumpled mess, a few metres into Mexican territory.

One of the robbers is dead.  The other wishes he was.  It’s at this part of the review where I’d go through the simple formality of telling you his name… but we never actually find out.  He uses a variety of alias such as Richard Johnson and Reginald T. Barnes.  We all know he’s Mel Gibson though so let’s just call him that to keep things simple.

Anyway, the corrupt Mexican police officers take the stolen money (which adds up to just over $2m) and throw Mel in a filthy local prison.  This isn’t your ordinary, every day prison.  You’re not locked up in a cell and fed three square meals a day.  It’s like a mini-city surrounded by high walls and barbed-wire fences.  You have to find a place to sleep and a way to make a living.  If you don’t… or if you get on the wrong side of the wealthy gangs… you’re unlike to last more than a few days.

Mel Gibson’s had a long and successful career but I’m not too sure about this film choice.  He’s trying to play some kind of mix between a humorous action hero and a soft-hearted family fan.  He kills an array of “bad guys” inside the prison whilst also befriending a widowed mother (Sisniega) and her 10-year-old son (Hernandez).

There’s not a lot more to the plot but that’s a moot point given this is a mindless action film.  Never at any time does it purport to be anything else.  There are shoot outs, explosions and an occasional laugh.  I must confess that the last scene in the film did leave me smiling.

My major grievance is that Gibson doesn’t fit this character and he’s looking tired at the age of 56.  The lead role didn’t necessarily require someone younger but it needed an actor with more flair and charisma.  I’d much rather watch 66-year-old Danny Trejo in Robert Rodriguez’s 2010 action classic Machete.  Do rent that film if you haven’t already seen it!

An actor other Gibson was always unlikely though given he co-wrote the screenplay and funded the film himself.  He pumped $20m into the production and in an interesting move, chose not to release in the movie in U.S. cinemas.  Instead, the film was released through a video-on-demand service that the public could access from the comfort of their lounge rooms at a cost of just $10.99.  Will we see more of this in the near future?  That’s a topic more worthy of discussion than Get The Gringo.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 05 June 2012

Prometheus wasn’t what I expected.  I'm confident that many others will leave the cinema with similar feelings.  This isn’t meant as a negative comment though.  I’ve always believed that the best way to see a film is to avoid trailers and know next-to-nothing about it beforehand.  It will often heighten your curiosity and reduce the risk of over-hyping.

The problem in this instance is that the film has been heavily promoted as a prequel to 1979’s Alien, also directed by Ridley Scott.  The two films inhabit the same futuristic world but the genre of this film is noticeably different.

Alien was all about thrills.  The crew of a spaceship found themselves under attack from a freaky looking creature.  I first saw it as a teenager and it scared me silly.  The film’s tagline neatly summed up the sense of hopelessness that came with the scenario – “in space, no one can hear you scream”.

Prometheus is set roughly 30 years before Alien and seems to be offering something more spiritual, more reflective.  Explorers on Earth have uncovered a series of ancient carvings that suggest that the human race was not created by God or through natural selection.  Rather, we were created by an alien race from a planet similar to our own.

Funded by a very wealthy businessman, a small team of explorers are travelling on the space ship Prometheus and are going in search of a faraway planet.  A few are there for the money (it’s a highly paid job) but most are driven by pure curiosity.  They want to know if their theory is true and if so, who created life on Earth and for what purpose?

I feel like I should say too much more because Prometheus is a film that relies heavily on suspense.  It’s the not the “jump out of your seat” kind of suspense.  It’s more one of mystery and intrigue as to try to work out where the story is heading next.

It’s a bold project from Ridley Scott (Gladiator, Black Hawk Down).  I saw this film with a friend (who loved it) and it provided much post-film discussion.  This fact alone elevates it above a run-of-the-mill science fiction flick that relies heavily on battle sequences and special effects.  Instead of offering nothing but action, action and more action, Prometheus tries to put forward a thought-provoking theory about our evolution.

The key word in my previous sentence is “tries”.  It’s a gutsy effort but the screenplay from Jon Spaihts and Damon Lindelof isn’t strong enough.  I was struggling with the characters from the very beginning.  To put it simply – they’re a bunch of over-emotive half-wits and I don’t know how they were selected for the mission.  They make such dumb mistakes and whilst I realise these mistakes help create the film’s drama (yeah, I know, it’s only a movie), I wanted something smarter.  The final half-hour is particularly silly.

As an example, if you’ve got an object rolling towards you, why do you keep running in a straight line?  Why don’t you simply move to the side and out of its path???  Don’t even get me started on the love making or the do-it-yourself surgery.

Michael Fassbender (Shame) delivers the film’s best performance as a strange, life-like robot that is trying to keep the crew focused on the task at hand.  He may speak with the same monotone voice but he finds a way to make his character rather unsettling.  I was less impressed with the other two big names.  Charlize Theron (Young Adult) spends too much time in the background and Noomi Rapace (The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo) irritated me with her simplicity.  It’s probably unfair to make this reference (since they are very different films) but I much preferred Sigourney Weaver in Alien – she’s a much stronger, more charismatic female heroine.   

The door is open to a sequel with many questions left unanswered as the credits start to roll.  I’m curious to know where this series will head next.  It has my attention but there’s room for improvement.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 28 May 2012

You can forget the classic literary works of William Shakespare, Charles Dickens and Jane Austen.  They’ve been “done to death” on the big screen.  The time has come for us to take self-help books and bring them to life through the magic of cinema.  Hopefully someone picks up the rights to Internet For Dummies but in the meantime, we’ll have to make do with What To Expect When You’re Expecting.

The film is “based” on the widely read pregnancy guide from Heidi Murkoff, first published back in 1984.  The book has no narrative.  Rather, it contains a series of questions and answers on what a woman can expect while going through each month of the pregnancy.  Don’t ask me how but screenwriters Shauna Cross and Heather Hach have crafted a series of fictional characters from the book’s pages for the purposes of the movie.

Jules (Diaz) is the host of a reality television show who is trying to maintain her work life throughout the pregnancy.  Wendy (Banks) is the owner of a baby store and has a mood swing every hour.  Rosie’s (Kendrick) pregnancy was an accident and she’s not sure what to do about it.  Skyler (Deckler) is happy-go-lucky despite the fact she’s having twins.  Holly (Lopez) is the only woman who isn’t pregnant but that’s because she’s on the verge of adopting a baby from a third world country.

There’s one reason you should see this film and that’s Ms Elizabeth Banks.  She’s as over-the-top as everyone else in this ensemble but she has a fun, endearing personality that won me over.  There’s a great scene late in the film where she tries to explain the “wonders” of pregnancy to a sizeable audience at a baby convention.

As for everyone else, I wasn’t impressed.  It’s like watching a dumber version of Sex & The City (and yes, I am a fan of the TV show, not the movies).  These women have nothing that interesting to offer and their husbands are just as dull.  The most ridiculous characters are a group of men (led by Chris Rock) who walk their babies in the park and are forever complaining.  The highlight of their day is when their bump into their hunky, well-travelled friend and salivate over his bachelor lifestyle.  It’s so silly.

Worst of all, the writers have tried to weave in a few moments of unexpected drama into what is largely a comedy.  It doesn’t work and these particular scenes are far too rushed.  They needed to be developed in much more detail (to give the audience a chance to feel some kind of emotion) or scrapped all together.

We all know that I’m not the target audience for such a film so take my opinion for what it’s worth.  What To Expect When You’re Expecting is pretty much what I expected.  In other words, it’s not good.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 03 June 2012

Anyone who tries to craft an intelligent romantic comedy deserves points in my book.  It’s a genre I’ve grown to loathe but that’s because so many films can be classified as cheesy, predictable and unrealistic.

Just over a decade ago, actor-writer Jennifer Westfeldt adapted her own play and brought it to the big screen.  Kissing Jessica Stein was one of favourite movies of 2002 and focused on a woman who could never find the right guy because of her incredibly high standards.  In the end, she tries something completely different… and starts dating another woman.  It reminded me of a witty Woody Allen flick and was filled with sharp dialogue and unconventional moments.

When the program was released for last year’s Toronto Film Festival, one of the first films that I added to my “must see” list was Friends With Kids.  It marked the return of Westfeldt as a writer but also saw her take on a new challenge by sitting in the director’s chair for the first time.

The broad premise is nothing new.  Last year, we saw two comedies explore the idea of best friends have a relationship based purely on sex – Friends With Benefits and No Strings Attached.  Friends With Kids takes it a step further however.

Julie (Westfeldt) is in her mid-30s and, unable to find the perfect guy, is worried that the opportunity to have kids is slipping away.  It takes some debating but she ultimately comes to an understanding with her long-time friend, Jason (Scott).  They agree to have a child together whilst not actually engaging in a relationship.  It’ll take the pressure of Julie and she won’t have to worry about diving in too quickly with the wrong guy, for the sole reason that she wants a baby.

Ground rules are laid down with both Julie and Jason free to date whoever they want.  The parental responsibilities will be shared and in Jason’s words – he’ll “be 100% committed to this, half the time”.  It’s an interesting plan but as you can imagine, it won’t be simplest of social experiments.  Two couples who they regularly hang out with (played by Wiig, Hamm, Rudolph and O’Dowd) have serious doubts about the idea but prefer to gossip amongst themselves instead of publicly airing their concerns.

Following the traditional storytelling arc, a few spanners are thrown into the mix during the second act.  Julie and Jason both start dating.  She’s going out with Kurt (Burns), a divorced construction worker with kids of his own.  He’s going out with Mary Jane (Fox), a career-driven dancer who has no desire to have children.  Things are about to very complicated.

You’ll always have a sense where the story is going but there’s a lot to like about Friends With Kids.  The whole concept of “children first, relationship second” should provide some entertaining post-film discussion with your own friends.  Westfeldt explores both the positives and negatives of this argument through her sharply written screenplay.

The strong cast is also a testament to the material.  It’s no surprise to see Mad Men’s Jon Hamm (since he and Westfeldt have been dating for many years) but the list also includes three actors backing up from Bridesmaids - Kristen Wiig, Maya Rudolph and Chris O’Dowd.  It’s just a shame some of these supporting players don’t get more screen time.  Getting the best of the laughs is the underrated Adam Scott who as Jason, is never afraid to share what’s on his mind.

Last week in Australia, we were “treated” to What To Expect When You’re Expecting – a silly, shallow rom-com that looked at the trials and tribulations of pregnant women.  Offering more insight and digging much deeper into its characters, Friends With Kids is clearly a better film.  Do see it.

Megan Fox with husband Brian Green on the red carpet at the world premiere of Friends With Kids.

Jennifer Westfeldt on the red carpet at the world premiere of Friends With Kids.

Jon Hamm on the red carpet at the world premiere of Friends With Kids.

On the red carpet at the world premiere of Friends With Kids at the 2011 Toronto Film Festival.