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.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 02 May 2019

William Shakespeare wrote some brilliant plays (unless you believe the 2011 Roland Emmerich film Anonymous) and whilst his words have stood the test of time, the same can’t be said for details regarding his personal life.  The first known biography of Shakespeare was written in 1709 (almost a century after his death) and it was less of a memoir and more of a critical assessment of his writings.  Further, many details in that biography were subsequently proven to be false.

There’s a sense of irony with the title All is True.  Whilst it’s referring to the original title of Shakespeare’s final play, Henry VIII, those expecting a true-to-life account of the playwright’s later years will be disappointed.  Writer Ben Elton (Blackadder) has crafted a screenplay that pulls from the scant details known about Shakespeare and creates a soapie-style drama where he interacts with an assortment of characters.

If there’s one clear takeaway, it’s that William Shakespeare was a boring, self-absorbed kind of guy.  The fifty-something-year-old version we see in the movie, played by Kenneth Branagh, has retired as a writer.  He laments that he’s spent so much time in his fictional worlds that he’s lost sight of what should be most important – his family.  He’s now spending more time with his wife (Dench) and two daughters, one of whom is unhappily married and the other who is looking to be married.

The problem is that while Shakespeare is physically present, his mind is elsewhere.  It’s a subplot that’s hard to buy into but Shakespeare is only now grieving the death of his son, Hamnet, who passed away two decades ago at the age of 11.  He had always wanted a male heir and he felt that Hamnet could have pursued a similarly prosperous career as a playwright.  Shakespeare is building a backyard garden in his honour and he still carries some of the poems Hamnet wrote just prior to being struck down with the plague.

All is True offers some likeable performances.  Kenneth Branagh, sporting a fake nose and beard, clearly relishes the chance to put his spin on one of history’s greatest writers.  That said, it’s Judi Dench who steals the show with her performance as Shakespeare’s wife, Anne Hathaway.  She’s the more interesting character as we follow the give-and-take dynamic between the pair.  She’s quick to say what’s on her mind… but she also knows not to push things too far given her “place” in a male dominated world.

Becoming bogged down in not-so-interesting diversions (such as Shakespeare’s garden and his obsession to have a male grandchild), All is True is further weakened by unexpected twists about Shakespeare’s son (a feeble attempt to create melodrama) and a rushed, lacklustre finale that takes the many subplots and wraps them up in a manner than feels far too neat.  Some will enjoy this imagining of Shakespeare’s world but I struggled to see the value.

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: 26 April 2019

For many who enter politics in the United States, there’s a long term dream that they’ll one day get to sit behind the Oval Office’s Resolute desk and provide direction in their capacity as President.  In the case of Charlotte Field (Theron), that may be happening sooner than expected.  She’s already the youngest Secretary of State in history and with President Chambers (Odenkirk) looking to step down after one term to pursue a film career, he’s ready to endorse Charlotte as his successor.

Charlotte has a hard-working team that are providing her with poll numbers (they’re goofily high) but there are a few areas that she needs to work on.  The public have concerns about her awkward wave and her non-existent sense of humour.  You might think that people would select a candidate based on policy but given everything we’ve seen around the world over the past few years, a discussion about a politician’s comedic tone is not that outrageous.

It’s at this point where she teams up with an unlikely assistant.  Fred Flarsky (Rogen) is a journalist who recently quit his job for a local newspaper after it was bought out by a wealthy, influential media tycoon (Serkis).  He’s a man of integrity and didn’t want to see his investigative work squashed by partisan, right-wing management.  Much to the displeasure of Charlotte’s team (who aren’t a fan), she brings Fred on as a speech writer to help inject her addresses with a splash of colour and humour.

They’re an unlikely duo but there is a backstory.  These two grew up together in the same neighbourhood with a 16-year-old Charlotte, seeking election at the time for the position of school president, babysitting a 13-year-old Fred.  It’s been decades since they’ve spoken but after bumping into each other at low-key Boyz II Men performance, their friendship was rekindled and the job offer made.

Watching Long Shot brought back memories of a favourite romantic comedy from the 1990s – Rob Reiner’s The American President.  It was the tale of a popular President (Michael Douglas) driving major policy initiatives around gun control and climate change whilst also falling in love in an intelligent lobbyist (Annette Bening).  His opponent (Richard Dreyfuss) then uses the President’s love life as a tool to attack his clean, family-friendly image.

Long Shot is pushing a similar message but it does so in a less convincing manner.  Charlotte is talking up a worldwide environmental initiative (“Bees, Trees and Seas”) but this element, which is the most interesting in the film, is over-simplified to make room for duller subplots (such as the media mogul).  Rather than say something on the complex, high-negotiation world of politics, you’re left thinking that Charlotte is a quasi-saint given the simplicity at which she schmoozes world leaders.  It doesn’t feel authentic.

Rather than delve too deeply into the political angle, Long Shot becomes a safer romantic comedy by focusing on the sexual relationship that develops between Charlotte and Fred.  It too struggles to make an impact given the contrived nature of some scenes (e.g. an action piece in The Philippines) and the fact their life values are significantly different.  Again, I didn’t buy into it.

Directed by Jonathan Levine (50/50), Long Shot has a few good laughs but they’re not quite enough to make up for its broader shortcomings.

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.