Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 16 April 2014

In the film’s opening action sequence, Spider-Man (Garfield) saves the citizens of New York from a crazy, near-incoherent European criminal (Giamatti) who has hijacked a truck filled with deadly plutonium. Spider-Man cracks a few jokes, endangers a few lives, but then manages to bring the situation under control. The many onlookers (who didn’t seem too phased by the barrage of bullets) then celebrate another Spidey success story.

You couldn’t ask for a more lifeless, clichéd opening. There was a time when you could probably get away with goofy stuff like this. Not anymore. Superhero movies have evolved. The public (well, me in any case) want to see something fresh and surprising. Watching a computer generated Spider-Man fly across the screen in slow-mo, then fast-mo, then slow-mo… it just doesn’t generate a lot of excitement (especially when you do it again and again).

In this new Spider-Man instalment, which clocks in at almost two and a half hours (unnecessarily long), we see Peter Parker try to piece together his family tree, maintain his rocky relationship with girlfriend Gwen Stacy (Stone), and defeat a new series of villains – none of whom have very well-thought out plans.

Almost every subplot is underdeveloped. The film hints at a growing public concern about Spider-Man and whether he’s a great hero or a meddling vigilante. For example, a newspaper describes him as a “Spider Menace”. This doesn’t go anywhere though.

Emma Stone, who had plenty to do in the 2012 reboot, feels like a token love interest this time around. She’s thinking about furthering her career by accepting a scholarship at the University of Oxford in the UK… but of course, that would mean leaving her one true love. What’s a girl to do? At least they still have a little together so as to go on midnight strolls and chat about Korean meatballs.

The film’s most interesting character is Harry Osborn – played by one of my favourite young actors, Dane DeHaan. He’s taken control of Oscorp, a leading research company, following the death of his father (you can find out more about this in the first film). He embarrassingly professes “that people are pissed off because we tried to turn everyone into a giant lizard”. It’s one of the film’s best lines. But again, we never really get to know his character in sufficient detail. He has some kind of illness, some kind of chip on his shoulder… but that’s the best explanation I can offer.

Equally puzzling is the film’s keynote villain – Electro (Foxx). He was once a disliked employee at Oscorp (talking to himself in public probably didn’t help him win many friends). Now, he’s been transformed into some kind of electricity generating hologram after falling into a giant tank of eels. Suffice to say he’s pissed off… and for some silly reason, he wants to take out his frustrations on Spider-Man.

It culminates with a big action finale that is just a mess of sound and visual effects (with more slow-mo, fast-mo, slow-mo stuff). It’s too easy for the computer-generated Spider-Man. It’s like a video game. You never really feel any suspense. This is in contrast to last fortnight’s Captain America flick which showed how to use mix live action with not-so-obvious visual effects.

So where does this series head next? Will there be a third film? Don’t expect any teasers during the closing credits. There’s just an out-of-place preview for X-Men: Days Of Future Past which is released next month. It’s another odd choice in what is an underwhelming film going experience.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 01 April 2014

Sequels are tough. Very rarely do they live up to the original. It’s a fact that director James Bobin and Oscar winning songwriter Bret McKenzie are clearly familiar with. The opening musical number sees the Muppets mock their movie from the outset. They proclaim that “we’re doing a sequel… the studio wants more… while they wait for Tom Hanks to make Toy Story 4.”

Realising that they need a “half-decent plot”, the Muppets have come up with the idea of a European adventure. They’re going to take their show on the road and try to dazzle audiences in Berlin, Madrid, Dublin and London under the guidance of their new manager, Dominic Badguy (Gervais), who is quick to clarify the pronunciation of his French surname – it’s “bad-gee” and not “bad-guy”.

We all know he’s bad though. Dominic has partnered with the world’s most wanted criminal, an “evilen froggen” named Constantine, in an elaborate plan to steal valuable artefacts from Europe’s renowned museums. Constantine secretly takes Kermit’s place within the Muppets (as they look almost identical) and ships the real Kermit off to a freezing Siberian gulag (affectionately known as “Russia’s state-funded hotel”).

With everything now in place, the “greatest burglary of all time” can begin. Dominic and Constantine have ensured that all the Muppets performances are booked in theatres adjacent to their targeted museums. That way, they can steal with ease (only light tunnelling will be needed) and they pin the whole crime on the Muppets themselves.

Perhaps I should steal more lyrics from the “We’re Doing A Sequel” song as part of my critique. Muppets Most Wanted is easy to follow but it feels slightly below the 2011 reboot. The story lacks “meat”, the musical numbers aren’t as catchy, and it’s missing the charm of Amy Adams and Jason Segel. I’d also argue that they’ve gone overboard on the number of cameos. A few get a laugh (Usher a highlight) but others feel like they’ve used to plug gaps in an incomplete screenplay.

I still had fun though. I’m a fan of the Muppets and always will be. Tina Fey is a nice inclusion as a crafty Russian guard who has seen every prison escape movie. I couldn’t help but smile as she interacted with Kermit and his fellow gulag inmates. There’s also some great banter between Ricky Gervais and Constantine (loved his villainous accent) as they try to outsmart each other. They provide the film’s most memorable song – “I’m Number One”.

Laced with family-friendly messages, Muppets Most Wanted isn’t the pinnacle for these beloved characters… but it should keep children entertained for two hours over the Easter school holidays. Good, not great.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 08 April 2014

If you’re a lover of celebrity gossip, there are plenty of ways to get your fix in today’s society. You can buy a trashy magazine to find out who’s put on weight. You can turn to a devoted celebrity website to who’s had a wardrobe malfunction. You can buy a mainstream newspaper and see which Hollywood couple has broken up. You can scan through Twitter and see if there’s any truth in a movie star’s trip to rehab.

Our adoration for celebrities isn’t a new trend. The Invisible Woman takes us back to the later part of the 19^th century and shows that gossip was as juicy and as powerful as it is today. While they couldn’t buy a copy of People magazine or check the latest posts on TMZ, they used an outlet that could be just as effective – word-of-mouth.

The subject matter here is Charles Dickens. Most will know him as the acclaimed author of such works as Great Expectations, Oliver Twist, David Copperfield and A Christmas Carol. What you may not know is that Dickens had a “scandalous” personal life. At the age of 45, he separated from his wife (with whom he’d had ten children) and began a relationship with an 18-year-old by the name of Ellen Ternan.

Based on the novel by Claire Tomalin, The Invisible Woman scrutinises this relationship from the two perspectives. Without any further knowledge, you might be a little cynical given the age difference. You may think that she’s after his money or that he’s after a short-term mistress. That’s not the case though. If there’s one fact that comes through clearly in this film, it’s that Dickens and Ternan loved each other a great deal.

The problem is that their relationship had to be kept a secret. If the public became aware, it would ruin Dickens’ reputation and potentially destroy his career. This was an era where divorce and adultery were severely frowned upon. The fact that Dickens’ was so famous only added to his difficulties. If he were to be seen in public with Ternan continually by his side, word would soon spread.

The second directorial effort of Ralph Fiennes (after 2011’s Coriolanus), The Invisible Woman is a satisfying romantic drama that explores a very complex relationship. To borrow a familiar phrase – their head says one thing, their heart says another. The lively Dickens (played by Fiennes) wanted the girl but also wanted to maintain his fame. The subdued Ternan (played by Felicity Jones) wanted the guy but also wanted to maintain her purity. Is there any chance at a happy ending here?

The film skips over a few details in the later stages but that doesn’t diminish what is an interesting tale.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 30 March 2014

If you think living in North Korea would be tough, wait until you see what the residents in Lego World have to deal with. They are ruled by the controlling Lord Business (not democratically elected), they are segregated based on the appearance, and they have to continually follow a set of rigid instructions.

The biggest problem is that the residents don’t know any better. The film opens with a catchy musical number that sees pretty much every character declare that “everything is awesome” and that “everything is cool when you’re part of a team”. They all believe they live in utopia and so they’re happy to work and sing and dance all day long.

Well, not everyone believes that. There’s a small rebel faction that are looking to overthrow Lord Business before he unleashes the Kragle – a dangerous weapon with the power to freeze anything in its path. Knowing they don’t have the numbers to win a battle, this group have put their faith in a higher power. In accordance with an ancient prophecy, they believe a “chosen one” will discover a mysterious object that can stop the Kragle and defeat Lord Business.

Cue the hero. Emmet is an ordinary construction worker with no family, no hobbies, and no interests. In fact, he couldn’t be any more “ordinary”. No one thinks he’s the right person (including Emmet himself) but fate has dealt him an interesting hand. He clumsy fell down a hole on a construction site and at the bottom was the all-important “Piece of Resistance”. Now he just needs to figure out what to do with it.

There’s a lot to like about The Lego Movie. Let’s start with the animation. Directors Phil Lord and Christopher Miller (Cloudy With A Chance Of Meatballs), assisted by animation director Chris McKay (Robot Chicken), have created a computer-generated film that has a stop-motion type look. It’s a perfect fit for these characters. They’ve been brought to life but still move in a rigid, robotic-manner. It’s like a high-class version of the short films that Lego fans create and post on YouTube.

The story also deserves a huge wrap. When it comes to using Lego, you can (1) follow the instructions and build exactly what appears on the front of the box, or (2) start with a whole bunch of pieces, get creative, and build something original. The film takes this concept and uses it as a metaphor for life. Sometimes it’s important to think outside the square and do something completely different.

The characters aren’t quite as loveable / endearing as the Toy Story series (the pinnacle in this genre) but they’ll provide plenty of laughs for kids and adults alike. As an example, Liam Neeson voices a police officer who can play both a smiling “good cop” and a frowning “bad cop”. All you have to do is turn his head around. The film also uses characters from other series which include Batman, Harry Potter, The Simpsons, The Lord Of The Rings and Star Wars. Even Abraham Lincoln makes an appearance!

I was sceptical about the concept of a Lego film but those doubts have been well and truly put to rest. This is one of the most creative animated features in recent years. I never imagined that so much could be made from the concept. Made for just $60 million (that’s low compared to Dreamworks and Pixar), it’s already pulled in more than $240 million in the United States alone. A sequel, scheduled for release in 2017, has already been given the rubber stamp. Hopefully, it’s just as good.

You can read by chat with animation director Chris McKay by clicking here.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 02 April 2014

Even if you had no prior knowledge of this film and its content, you should recognise it as a Wes Anderson film within the opening few minutes. This isn’t because you’ll see his name in the opening credits (let’s pretend you’re looking away at that precise moment). It’s because of his familiar cast, his quirky storylines, and his distinctive style. All three of those boxes are ticked in The Grand Budapest Hotel.

Let’s start with the cast. Ralph Fiennes heads the list as the proud, sweet-smelling concierge at a mountain-top hotel. Newcomer Tony Revolori plays his protégé – a young lobby boy who is keen to learn from his experienced master.

The remaining actors only get a few minutes of screen time, if that. It’s hard to think of many other directors who could convince the likes of Bill Murray, Owen Wilson, Willem Dafoe, Adrien Brody, Jeff Goldblum, Edward Norton and Tilda Swinton (all who have worked with Anderson before) to take on such tiny roles. Even George Clooney makes a “blink and you’ll miss it” cameo! These folk are not doing it for the money (Anderson’s pockets aren’t that deep). They’re just relishing the chance to work with one of today’s “coolest” filmmakers.

As for the premise, I’m calling it a screwball crime caper with a layer of sentimentality. The concierge Gustave H. (that’s Fiennes) has taken possession of a near-priceless painting known as “Boy With Apple”. It was granted to him via the will of a wealthy 84-year-old, Madame D. (Swinton), who had been a regular guest at the Grand Budapest Hotel for two decades.

Madame D’s extended family isn’t happy – they wanted the painting for themselves. The authorities aren’t happy either – they believe Madame D’s death was no accident and have identified Gustave as the lead suspect. What follows is a humorous game of cat and mouse with Gustave, almost always wearing his purple concierge uniform, trying to evade those with guns and/or strong fists.

The main story takes place in 1932 but the film is bookended by two overlapping stories that take place in 1968 and 1985. I didn’t pick up on it at first (was too engaged by the story) but these three timelines are all shot with different aspect ratios. The bulk of the film uses the 1.33 ratio which was used on almost every movie up until the 1950s and on all television sets up until the creation of “widescreen” TVs. It’s seldom used today though. Most directors like to use every square inch of the big screen.

As for why Anderson has employed a 1.33 ratio… he’s always wanted to pay homage to the early years of cinema (of which he is a fan). It’s similar to what director Alexander Payne did with he recently released Nebraska, shot in black and white. There’s a little more to it than that though. The style acts as a metaphor for the story itself. Just as the Grand Budapest Hotel was slowly forgotten by its clientele (which we see in the touching 1968 story), so too was this type of filmmaking.

Injected with other Wes Anderson trademarks (e.g. symmetrical framing, lots of colour, shots of actors looking straight at the camera, crash zooms), The Grand Budapest Hotel is another feather in the cap of this wonderful director. It’s quaint, charming and poignant. It’s also a splash darker than previous Anderson collaborations. I can’t wait to see it again.