Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 02 March 2020

A family is holidaying at a luxurious European ski resort.  They’re eating lunch at a restaurant with a raised outdoor deck.  A controlled avalanche is set off from a nearby mountain.  The fast-moving wave of snow comes hurdling towards the restaurant.  The husband runs from the table and leaves his wife and two children behind.  The avalanches pulls up just short.  The husband returns and pretends nothing has happened.  The rest of the family realise the matriarch’s first reaction in a life-threatening situation was to abandon them.

If you want to see this movie… check out the 2014 Swedish release Force Majeure.  Directed by Ruben Östlund (The Square), it is a beautifully shot, brilliantly told dark comedy about a family which briefly disintegrates following the aforementioned events.  Don’t just take my word for it.  The film won the Jury Prize in the Un Certain Regard section of the Cannes Film Festival and earned a best picture nomination at the European Film Awards (losing to Ida).

I realise why you take great foreign language movies and remake them for English speaking audiences but I’m not sure there’s a single element of Downhill that is the equal of the original film.  It’s a boring, hollow, simplistic movie that lacks the nuance and darkness that made Force Majeure so great.  There’s no point watching it if you’re familiar with its predecessor (even if you’re not, I’d probably advise not to go).

Will Ferrell (Anchorman) and Julia Louis-Dreyfus (Veep) have great comedic talent but have been miscast in their respective roles.  Ferrell appears to rehashing the goofy, meek father figure role that he played in Daddy’s Home.  Louis-Dreyfus is asked to screw up her face and make an awkward expression every time the camera looks her way.  You never truly feel the tension and pent-up emotions they should be experiencing.

Academy Award winning writers Nat Faxon and Jim Rash (The Descendants), along with co-writer Jesse Armstrong (In the Loop), have “dumbed down” the source material and in doing so, the film’s themes and impact have been lost.  The best example is the inclusion of Australian actress Miranda Otto (The Lord of the Rings) as a sex-crazed concierge with an over-the-top European accent.  It’s silly stuff that belongs in a Saturday Night Live sketch as opposed to a biting comedy about troubled family dynamics.  The same applies during a scene where the family confront the resort’s safety team.

Something got lost in translation because Downhill is a vastly inferior remake.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 25 February 2020

Miss Fisher and the Crypt of Tears is based on a television show which is based on a book series.  The novels, published over the last three decades, were the creation of Melbourne-born author Kerry Greenwood and the series, spanning 34 episodes, first aired on the ABC between 2012 and 2015.  I haven’t engaged with the franchise through either mediums but I do know of its huge appeal.  The viewing audience in Australia averaged more than 1 million per episode and the show has since screened in more than 170 territories across the globe.

A big screen adaptation make sense but it needed a little push from its passionate fans.  A Kickstarter crowdfunding campaign raised $733,000 in 2017 and it prompted the likes of Screen Australia and Film Victoria to contribute towards the overall budget of $8 million.  The shoot took place in Melbourne and Morocco in late 2018 and now, after a lengthy wait, it finally gets its chance in Australian cinemas (in a quieter time of the year when it’s not competing against Hollywood superhero flicks).

Essie Davis (The Babadook) reprises her role as the popular Phryne Fisher.  She’s best described as part socialite, part detective.  She travels around the world, wines and dines with wealthy aristocrats, solves curious mysteries, and has “more lives than an alley cat”.  This time around, her adventures begin in Jerusalem (the year is 1929) where she’s been asked to investigate the disappearance of young woman who was in trouble with the local authorities.

What begins as a “missing person” case evolves into something much deeper.  There’s everything from murders and cover-ups to gemstones, curses and solar eclipses.  Oh, and there’s a splash of romance too.  It’s similar to the successful Robert Langdon film series (e.g. The Da Vinci Code, Angels & Demons) except it’s lighter and more comedic.

I realise I’m new to these characters and the film is pitched at existing fans but, in giving an honest appraisal, I’m struggling to see the fuss.  There’s a lot of small talk where key players are trying too hard to be witty.  The arguments, such as those between Fisher and her suitor (Page), feel fake and overcooked.  Again, perhaps I’m missing the point but it’s almost spoof-like in nature given the way Fisher goes about her work with apparent ease.  There’s an early scene where she “returns from the dead” but no meaningful explanation is provided and her friends shrug it all off in a matter of minutes.

The costume designers have had fun dressing Essie Davis in an assortment of outfits (I lost count of all the wardrobe changes) and there are some beautiful locations… but strong production values are not enough to overcome the dull dialogue and ham-fisted premise.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 02 March 2020

A drama about an inexperienced lawyer and a group of sick people who take legal action against a powerful American company for contaminating the local water supply and concealing their involvement.  Sound familiar?  If you’ve seen John Travolta in A Civil Action (1998) or Julia Roberts’ Oscar winning performance in Erin Brockovich (2000) then you’ll be familiar with this very niche genre.  The latest addition is Dark Waters from acclaimed director Todd Haynes (Carol, Far From Heaven).

I’d be curious to know whether any executives at Dupont, a hugely profitable chemicals company based in Delaware, saw those two movies and pondered the morality of their own operations.  If so, they’ll never admit in publicly.  For decades, the company was knowingly using toxic chemicals that were linked to diseases including testicular and kidney cancer.  Employees at their West Virginia plant were affected and so too were nearby townsfolk when the chemicals contaminated rivers, dams and drinking water.

Dark Waters begins in 1998 and is told from the perspective of lawyer Robert Bilott (Ruffalo), a newly minted partner working for a decent sized firm in Ohio.  He is approached Wilbur Tennant (Camp), a farmer friend of his grandmother, and asked to investigate the role of Dupont in the death of roughly 200 cattle on his hilly farm.  Bilott is reluctant at first (he specialises in defending big companies instead of prosecuting them) but given the family connection, he agrees to look into issue and offer a little help.

There are so many interesting subjects worth exploring in a movie such as this.  There’s the exhausting mental toll it takes on a lawyer and their family when fighting the same case for two decades.  There’s the role of law firms and the limits to which they can provide pro bono work in the public interest without jeopardising their profitability.  There’s the responsibility of environmental protection agencies who operate on small budgets and are often behind the curve.  And… there’s the multi-national corporations themselves who provide valuable jobs in poorer, regional communities and use this to create a beloved, untouchable image (effectively “brainwashing” the residents).

A weakness of Dark Waters is its inability to successfully juggle its many characters and the aforementioned themes.  Perhaps it’s trying to say too much?  Anne Hathaway plays Bilott’s loyal wife but it feels like a “throw away” role with little to offer (excluding one key moment towards the end).  Tim Robbins’ plays a law firm partner but he’s a confusing character given his opinion of Bilott’s work is forever changing (and we never understand why).  Bill Pullman seems to have been included purely for comic relief as a goofy, not-so-prepared trial lawyer.

Still, this is an important film.  It reminds about the dangers of environmental self-regulation and how we, as a broader society, must not be afraid to continuously question and interrogate when things look suspicious.  Without unsung heroes like Robert Bilott, the world will be a sadder, more dangerous place.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 18 February 2020

It’s always interesting to look at the way social and cultural norms have evolved over time.  Cigarette smoking peaked in the 1950s before waning in subsequent decades as its dangerous effects became broadly known.  Women were required to wear full-body swimsuits in the late 19^th Century but now have the freedom to wear skimpy, colourful bikinis.  Television has been around since the late 1920s and yet the first kiss between two gay men on a primetime show in the United States didn’t occur until the year 2000.

The same applies to the way in which books, plays and musicals have been adapted for the big screen.  The Call of the Wild, first published in 1903, was a novel written by American author Jack London.  It followed Buck, a muscular St. Bernard-Scotch Collie mix, who was transferred from owner-to-owner and went on a series of adventures across the country.  It was set around the same time as London’s follow-up, White Fang (many will remember the 1991 adaptation starring Ethan Hawke).

Drawing from the source material, screenwriter Michael Green (Logan) focuses on two key subplots.  The first half of the film is centred on Buck becoming a sled dog after he is stolen from a California home and shipped off to the “edge of nowhere” in Alaska.  He gets his first taste of the “wild” and his instinctive leadership qualities kick in.  The second half revolves around his friendship with an old, forlorn gold prospector (Harrison Ford) who helps keep Buck from harm’s way.

Those who have read the novel will know it contains its fair share of violence, confrontation and sadness.  There are savage deaths (both human and animal), brutal fights and intense abuse.  There’s also a climactic battle involving a primitive Native American tribe who murder several men.  To tie back to my opening point, the studio has made the curious decision to “water down” the content for fear of scaring children (that’s my guess anyway).  It may have been okay for younger folk to read above 100 years ago but adults, rightly or wrongly, seem to be more wary and protective in today’s age.

I’m not asking for Tarantino-style gore but this movie, directed by Chris Sanders (How to Train Your Dragon), feels like a missed opportunity.  It’s an unadventurous adventure.  Instead of a gritty, emotional family drama, we’ve got something that feels too hollow and simplistic.  All the characters are black and white (they’re either really nice or really evil) and the fatalities are kept to a minimum.

Another questionable choice is the use of computer-generated animals as opposed to real ones.  Audiences are suckers for cute dogs (I am too) but it’s a little off-putting when the canine hero is clearly a special effect.  It doesn’t feel real when watching Buck walk, jump and eat.  It’s a shame because the other visual tricks (such as the beautiful backdrops) are convincing.

Given the recent acquisition of 20^th Century Fox by The Walt Disney Company, The Call of the Wild marks the first movie to be released under the new 20^th Century Studios banner (the “Fox” has been dropped to avoid confusion with the powerful media corporation).  It’s a fun piece of knowledge that might feature as a Trivial Pursuit question one day but unfortunately, it’s likely to be the film’s most memorable quality.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 25 February 2020

Writer-director Leigh Whannell wastes no time in ratcheting up the tension.  In the opening sequence of The Invisible Man, we follow Cecilia (Moss) as she initiates a plan to leave her abusive husband, Adrian (Jackson-Cohen).  She wakes up in the middle of the night, tip-toes around the huge house, turns off all the alarms and security cameras, and heads to the nearest road where her sister (Dyer) is waiting in a getaway car.  It’s a powerful introduction.

Over the next few weeks, Cecilia takes refuge in the house of a good friend (Hodge) and we learn why she is so frightened.  Adrian may be a wealthy renowned scientist but away from the public eye, he’s an cruel control-freak who tells her what to wear, what to look like and what to eat.  She’s finally escaped his clutches but she lives in perpetual fear that he will find where she’s hiding and come after her.

Then… out of nowhere… she is informed by Adrian’s lawyer brother (Dorman) that he has committed suicide.  As you’d expect, her reaction is a mix of shock, confusion and relief.  She’ll never have to worry about Adrian again but she’s puzzled by his out-of-character, self-inflicted demise and why he’s left her $5 million (with a few curious conditions attached) in a recently drafted will.

As the film’s title tells us (I guess it’s a semi-spoiler), not everything is what it seems in this scenario.  It appears Adrian is still alive and, given his speciality is in the field of optics, has created the ability to become invisible.  He uses his power to further terrorise Cecilia.  He’s subtle at first (ripping off her bed sheet in the middle of the night while she’s sleeping) but his deeds soon become more obvious and sinister (sending nasty emails from her computer to fracture the relationship she has with her sister).

Cecilia realises what’s going on.  The problem is she can’t convince others.  How can you provide proof of something that can’t be seen?  Elisabeth Moss (The Handmaid’s Tale) is outstandingly credible in the lead role and I’m reminded of the equally impressive performance from Claire Foy in Steven Soderbergh’s Unsane.  It’s a “one person versus the world” set-up where Cecilia, with no one else to help, must formulate a plan to outsmart her cunning adversary while keeping a grip on her fragile emotional state.  It’s not easy.

As part of the creative team behind the Saw and Insidious franchises, 42-year-old Australian Leigh Whannell knows a thing or two about making a great horror-thriller.  His goal was to modernise H.G. Wells’ famous 1897 sci-fi novel and create a film that was “unpleasant and suffocating” to watch (in a good way).  He’s achieved just that.  There are a few minor plots holes but, for the most part, The Invisible Man provides unrelenting tension from start to finish.

Those behind the camera deserves as much credit as those in front of it.  Cinematographer Stefan Duscio (Jungle) utilises creative shots (such as when the camera pans to an invisible character) to keep audiences on their toes.  Sound mixer Will Files (War for the Planet of the Apes) adds to the suspense through an effective use of sound, or lack thereof.  The visual effects and stunt teams create believable battles as Elisabeth Moss faces off against an unseen opponent.

Offering a few twists and surprises, The Invisible Man is a memorable thriller.

You can read by interview with writer-director Leigh Whannell by clicking here.