Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 21 March 2018

In a world where studios are playing it increasingly safe with sequels, reboots and well-established franchises, the 2013 release of Pacific Rim was a big gamble.  It cost roughly $200 million USD, it was a completely original screenplay, and it didn’t have any A-list Hollywood actors amongst its cast.  It didn’t perform particularly well the United States but it recovered its costs thanks to big business in China and other international markets.  Critics were impressed by the creativity and style brought to the movie by writer-director Guillermo del Toro (Pan’s Labyrinth).

The sequel went through several stages of on-again, off-again but in 2016, a script was finalised and a new director brought in.  With del Toro working on other projects, including his Oscar winning The Shape of Water, the reigns were handed over to Steven S. DeKnight, a writer-director best known for works on the smaller screen including Angel, Smallville and Spartacus.  Pacific Rim: Uprising marks his first feature film.

Given that I see more than 200 movies every year and am starting to show signs of old age, it’s helpful to see this film begin with a quick recap of the earlier movie.  Some huge alien monsters, known as the Kaiju, attacked the planet after travelling through a portal at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean.  Unable to be defeated using traditional weapons, countries around the world responded by building giant robots, known as Jaegers, to fight back.  Lives were lost and buildings were destroyed but in the end, the humans triumphed (as you’d expect).

Pacific Rim: Uprising picks up the narrative about 10 years later.  Major cities around the world are still being rebuilt.  Those from poorer backgrounds are forced to take refuge in heavily damaged neighbourhoods because there’s no alternative.  It’s here where we meet two new characters.  Amara (Spaeny) is a young woman who is collecting scrap parts from decommissioned plants to build a Jaeger of her own.  Jake (Boyega) is the son of a high ranking general but instead of following his father’s footsteps, he’s turned to a rebellious life of crime.

Both are arrested and both end up in a Jaeger pilot academy situated in China.  It’s at this point where they meet Nate (Eastwood), a respected, diligent pilot with an impressive pedigree.  With the three leading characters introduced, it’s time to get to the crux of the movie.  The nasty Kaiju return via unusual means, take control of drone-piloted Jaegers, and try to use them against the human population.  There are more deaths, more destruction and more battles to be won.

My thumbs were up following the first movie but my reaction is more subdued this time around.  It’s chaos without tension.  Buildings are blown up and thousands of people run around as the big robot fights take place.  The work of the sound and visual effects teams is to be admired but with so many unnecessary subplots and very little in the way of strong character development, I cared less about how things would transpire. 

The film could have been improved with more comedy and whilst the likeable Charlie Day reprises his role as a kooky scientist, his efforts at winning laughs fall flat.  No one else picks up the slack.  The end result is a movie that’s heavy on loud, in-you-face action and light on everything else.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 08 March 2018

When talking about movies adapted from real life stories, I’m often cautious about how much to reveal about the plot.  We all know that the Titanic sunk in 1912, the Nazis were defeated during World War II in 1945 and two planes struck the World Trade Centre in New York in 2001.  Films have been made about these events and given the audience knows how things will pan out, the writer’s focus is more character development and filling in the gaps on smaller, lesser known details.

I’m in a slight pickle when it comes to The Mercy because this true story, which took place in 1968 and 1969, is very interesting.  However, to fully explain why it’s interesting would require me to spoil the ending.  That’s not my intention.  Those old enough might remember the coverage on TV and in newspapers.  Some might be familiar with documentaries and films which have previously analysed the subject.  Others, such as myself, may be introduced to Donald Crowhurst for the first time.

The stage is set fairly quickly.  As of the start of 1968, no person in human history had completed a single-handed, non-stop circumnavigation of the world by boat.  The British Sunday Times newspaper hoped to inspire budding yachtsman by instigating a competition.  Entrants could leave any time between 1 June and 31 October 1968 with the first person to complete the task winning a trophy and the fastest competitor earning at cash prize of £5,000 (a hefty sum for the time).  A total of nine sailors gave it a crack.

One of those was Donald Crowhurst (Firth), a recreational sailor who sold navigation equipment.  Despite never having attempted a journey of such length, he made the curious decision to enter the race.  He mortgaged his house and his business and constructed a boat which he believed could get the job done.  He left behind a wife and two children and set out from the town of Teignmouth, Devon on the last day possible – 31 October 1968.

It’s at this point where you may believe the film is a David and Goliath story where a complete unknown overcomes big odds to emerge the victory.  This is not that kind of story.  Things don’t go so well during the early stages.  Given the rush to complete the boat on time, there are construction issues which quickly become apparent.  Donald’s navigation skills also leave a lot to be desired.  It’s here where he makes an unexpected decision – to cheat.

I’ll leave it at that in terms of narrative.  There are shades of the Robert Redford film All is Lost in that we’re following a single man at sea with nothing but water around him.  As that runs the risk of being a bit boring, writer Scott Burns (The Bourne Ultimatum, Contagion) gives equal weighting to scenes back in the U.K. where we follow Crowhurst’s wife (Weisz) and publicist (Thewlis) along with friends, business partners, and a thirsty media.

There’s an element of repetition in some scenes that shows the struggle to take this material and stretch it into a full length feature.  As an example, we are continually provided with glimpses of journalists who have been asked to write longer and longer articles about Crowhurst and his family.  Aside from Crowhurst himself, the most interesting character is his wife but she isn’t given a lot to do except provide moral support before he leaves and look concerned after he departs.

Where The Mercy succeeds is in the exploration of Crowhurst and his warped mindset.  You’re not quite sure why he’s signed up for such a risky yachting race but we learn more about him and his rationale as the film progresses.  He’s dug himself into a hole but in trying to find a way out, he’s only made the hole deeper.  You can see the nervous, apprehensive look on Colin Firth’s face as he says good bye to his family and sets sail.

Directed by Academy Award winner James Marsh (Man on Wire, The Theory of Everything), this another quality “truth is stranger than fiction” tale.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 15 March 2018

In the most recent Australian census, 30% of the population identified themselves as having no religion.  This compares with a figure of just 13% from thirty years ago.  The major reason for this change has been a decline in those who consider themselves to be Christian.  A number of reasons could be cited when analysing the figures but one thing is clear – Australians are less religious than they’ve ever been.

For those unfamiliar with the story of Mary Magdalene, she is referred to in the New Testament as a person who travelled with Jesus, saw some of his miracles, and witnessed his crucifixion.  Over the past two millennia, Mary had developed the reputation of being a sinning prostitute.  However, such claims have not always been supported and a key goal of this film is to “set the record straight”.  My use of inverted commas is to show that when it comes to events that took place 2,000 years ago, can anyone be certain of anything?

Some may argue that a film like Mary Magdalene is a gamble.  With Christians representing only half of Australia’s population, it’s likely the film will have next-to-no appeal for the remaining half of the population.  Still, Mel Gibson proved in 2004 that religious movies can be successful.  Despite having subtitles throughout, The Passion of Christ grossed $612m USD at the international box-office (on a budget of just $30 million).  It was pushed strongly amongst the evangelical community in the United States.

I don’t believe Mary Magdalene will emulate those figures but with its release date in this country tying into Easter celebrations, I’m sure it will have its loyal supporters.  Australian director Garth Davis (Lion), has done his best to recreate the era by shooting in remote locations of southern Italy.  He’s also lured two Academy Award nominees to headline the cast – Rooney Mara (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo) in the title role and a bearded Joaquin Phoenix (Gladiator) slipping into the sandals of Jesus.

From what we see during the opening half hour, one could argue that Mary’s story mirrors that of many in today’s age.  She’s a single woman who is under immense pressure from her family to get married and have children.  It’s at this point where things get little more spiritual.  She meets Jesus, has a quick-fire baptism, says good-bye to her furious family, and agrees to follow him across the lands.

It’s hard to explain Mary’s actions.  She is guided by a higher power that is difficult to put into words.  This is part of the reason why there’s not a lot of dialogue from Mary nor narration to help understand her psyche.  She develops a close bond with Jesus and, given most of his other followers are male, she does appear to have some role in shaping his views.  This is evident during a scene where Jesus visits a group of poor women and is asked who they should obey above all else – God or their husbands?

I’ll freely admit that I’m not a religious person and perhaps this influences my opinion… but I didn’t find Mary Magdalene to be an interesting character.  She’s a softly spoken bystander who wanders around contributing nothing more than her faith.  The supporting characters have more to offer as they are more conflicted with their views on Jesus and the role he will play in toppling the oppressive Roman leadership.  Unfortunately, these subplots play second fiddle to the main narrative.

I have no qualms with the production values and the two leading performances from Mara and Phoenix.  You get a sense of the non-romantic connection that develops between the two.  Unfortunately, I couldn’t be sold on the broader story.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 06 March 2018

During my 25 years as a critic, I’ve been lucky to see so many great fictional tales that fit into the genres of comedy, drama, action, horror, romance, thriller and/or sci-fi.  All of that said, one genre that seldom needs to delve into worlds of fiction is war.  That’s because there are countless stories of real life heroes that need to be heard and appreciated.  In the past 5 years alone, we’ve been treated to Dunkirk, Hacksaw Ridge, Land of Mine, Unbroken, American Sniper, Lone Survivor and 13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi.

12 Strong continues in the same vein.  Based on the non-fiction book penned by Doug Stanton, the film takes to Afghanistan in the weeks following the terrorist attack that took place in the United States on September 11, 2001.  We follow a group of young soldiers who have teamed up with Afghan allies and are trying to reclaim critical cities and towns that have been claimed by the Taliban.

The U.S. side is led by Mitch Nelson (Hemsworth) – a confident but inexperienced Captain with limited experience in the field.  I’ll be blunt.  Part of me things he’s a courageous hero and another part thinks he’s a lucky fool.  He continually puts himself in harm’s way to complete the complex mission and protect his fellow soldiers.  Notable actors forming part of the ensemble include Michael Shannon, Michael Peña and Trevante Rhodes.

The most interesting part of the film is its exploration of the tactics adopted by the American military in Afghanistan.  They were outnumbered by the Taliban and had very limited knowledge of the terrain.  It may sound like a hopeless task but they had two key advantages over their enemies.  Firstly, they forged an alliance with General Dostum (Negahban), a respected leader in Afghanistan who had put together his own army to fight the Taliban.  Secondly, they had a number of American fighter planes at their disposal that could help bomb key targets once properly identified.

I don’t want to sound too disrespectful given this is actual events but screenwriters Ted Tally (The Silence of the Lambs) and Peter Craig (The Town) have diminished the material by using unnecessary clichés and plot devices.  There’s an early scene before Mitch heads to Afghanistan where he makes the firm promise to his wife that he’ll come home alive.  The film doubles down on that theme several times including a clunky scene where he refuses to write a letter to his family, despite other soldiers doing the same, before going into battle.  It’s borderline cringe-worthy.

The direction of Danish-born Nicolai Fuglsig is also rough around the edges.  He’s used a lot of different camera angles in crafting the key action sequences but editor Lisa Lassek has struggled to weave them into something suspenseful.  Shots from high above are mixed with shots from down low but it’s often hard to work out what’s going on and who’s attacking who.  Oh, and did we really need the footage of the stressed Taliban leader gazing across the battlefield and trying to look as villainous as possible?  It looks awfully fake.

12 Strong is a story worth telling but I’d have preferred that it ditched the clichés and replaced it with better dialogue.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 15 March 2018

I have this mental image in my head of studio executives in Hollywood spinning a giant wheel to decide which old franchise should be dusted off and rebooted.  It seems that every big action series gets a second chance when the stars align and funds are available.  This time around, the winner is Tomb Raider.  Those old enough will remember the previous movies from 2001 and 2003 that were headlined by Angelina Jolie.  Whilst they were not revered by critics, they did just enough at the box-office to warrant their existence and satisfy fans of the video games.

Directed by Norwegian filmmaker Roar Uthaug (The Wave), this latest movie ticks off the character introductions during the opening act.  Lara Croft (Vikander) is a young woman who should be incredibly wealthy.  Her wealthy dad (West) was lost at sea 7 years ago and Lara was entitled to a substantial inheritance but she refused to sign the necessary paperwork to take control of her father’s assets believing that he would return one day.  The unusual life path Lara chose instead is a mix of boxing, cycling, and food delivery.

That changes when she discovers an underground bunker which contains information about her dad and his extensive research.  He was no ordinary individual.  At the time of his disappearance, he believed he had located the tomb of an ancient queen with supernatural powers.  A not-so-nice organisation, known as Trinity, have long been trying to get their hands on the tomb for villainous reasons which is why it needs to be located the protected by those with friendlier motives.

All of this background information takes Lara to Yamatai, a small island off the coast of Japan which is hidden on most modern day maps.  She learns she’s not alone with seconds of setting foot on the sandy shoreline.  A group of slaves and Trinity henchman, led by a bossy archaeologist (Goggins), are using every means possible to find the tomb’s location.  To use a cliché – she needs to stop them before it’s too late.

Academy Award winner Alicia Vikander (Ex Machina, The Danish Girl) is the best thing in this.  She provides the leading character with the right balance of strength and vulnerability.  Lara is not a superhero who feels no pain and can do no wrong.  She’s “put through the ringer” during most action scenes with the bruises, scars and scratches adding up.  Her ability to dodge bullets whilst running in the opposite direction is a stretch but hey, this is an action movie so I won’t argue too much.

I only wish the other cast members had as much charisma.  As the dodgy archaeologist working for Trinity, Walton Goggins (Django Unchained) is an uninspiring bad guy.  He complains about not having seen his family for many years and, as we don’t get to see who’s pulling his strings, has no obvious motives aside from that.  He’s not too smart either.  It’s apparent that key details have been omitted to set up plots for possible sequels but I only hope they have more interesting villains.

There’s a great sequence where Lara needs to extricate herself from a rusty plane perched precariously above a massive waterfall.  Aside from that, none of the action pieces were particularly memorable.  The writing team have tried to go with an Indiana Jones type finale (complete with tricks and booby traps) but it’s not as exciting as it sounds.  It’s rushed in places with even Lara making odd decisions to prolong the narrative (such as entering the tomb itself).

Taking a very serious tone throughout (don’t expect many laughs), Tomb Raider may be in need of another reboot.