Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 31 May 2019

What if you discovered that your sweet elderly grandmother, born and raised in England, was a Russian spy during World War II?  It may sound like something from a fictional John le Carré novel but the story of Melita Norwood is both real and fascinating.

In the late 1930s, a twenty-something-year-old Norwood worked as secretary to the department head of a major research foundation and was able to leak valuable information about Britain’s atomic weapons to the Soviet Union.  Her illegal actions remained a secret until she was finally exposed in The Times of London newspaper in 1999.  It was at that point when an 87-year-old, white-haired Norwood stood outside her home and released a statement to the media explaining her actions.  Her friends, her neighbours and yes, her own daughter, were stunned by the revelation.

It’s worth nothing that Red Joan is only loosely based on the story of Melita Norwood.  Many details have been changed including the name of the lead character.  She’s known in the movie as Joan Stanley with the 1930s version played by Sophie Cookson (Kingsman: The Secret Service) and the 1990s version played by Oscar winner Judi Dench (Shakespeare in Love).  I’m not sure what’s behind the major revisions (the original story is already a good one) but another key change is the introduction of a lawyer son who aides his mother when interrogated by British police.

The oppression against women in the workplace over the last century has been well documented but the irony is that such discrimination helped Joan succeed with her work as a mole.  There’s a humorous scene where she’s convinced by a fellow female spy to continue on with her great work – “No one will suspect us.  We’re women.”  That was certainly the case.  The British military were paranoid about their “super bomb” research being leaked to the enemy and whilst they performed thorough audits and background checks, they foolishly turned a blind eye to the secretaries who were responsible for filing valuable documents.

Brought to the screen by Tony Award winning director Trevor Nunn (Cats, Les Misérables), Red Joan lacks pace and energy.  It’s a largely ho-hum drama that gets bogged down in detail with Joan’s college years at Cambridge and her on-again-off-again relationship with a German Jew (Hughes) who helped indoctrinate her within communist circles.  An additional romantic storyline involving her boss (Campbell Moore) adds little in terms of substance and character development.

Despite the film’s limitations, there are some layers which achieve their purpose.  She’s not exactly Ethan Hunt but it’s interesting to see the techniques used by Joan to smuggle photos and research material outside of the well-guarded office.  The most surprising, thought-provoking layer sees the older Joan explain and justify her criminal actions to her middle aged son.  She’s a woman of strong conviction who shows little sign of remorse.

It’s an intriguing true story but Red Joan isn’t the slick, gripping thriller you might expect.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 23 May 2019

In 1992, Walt Disney Pictures produced and released a crop of films that included The Mighty Ducks, The Muppet Christmas Carol, Newsies and Honey, I Blew up the Kid.  They also had the highest grossing film of the year at the worldwide box-office.  Aladdin, an animated feature based on a Middle Eastern folk tale, won two Oscars (best song and best original score) and became a much loved, much watched movie amongst younger audiences.

Major Hollywood studios have always been an interesting beast.  On one hand, you’ve got people wanting to tell rich, fresh, compelling stories and on the other hand, you’ve got people motivated by profit.  I realise they’re not mutually exclusive (you won’t last long making great movies that lose money) but the scales are currently tipped in favour of a corporatized, profit-driven approach.

That’s evident when looking at Disney’s 2019 feature film line-up and it highlights that shift over the past two decades.  There are two animated features which are both sequels, Toy Story 4 and Frozen II, and there’s a sequel to 2014’s Maleficent.  The remaining four movies are all live-action remakes of animated features, Dumbo, The Lion King, Lady and the Tramp, and Aladdin.  I’m not saying these films will be terrible but is shows the increasing conservatism within the studio system.  They’re following the mantra “stick with what works”.

That’s also part of the reason why very little has been changed in terms of storyline for this 2019 Aladdin remake, directed by Englishman Guy Ritchie (Sherlock Holmes).  It’s 38 minutes longer than its animated predecessor but the structure is the same.  Aladdin (Massoud) is a petty thief who falls in love with The Sultan’s beautiful daughter, Princess Jasmine (Scott), but they can never marry because she is royalty and he is a lowly street rat.  He’s told that he was born worthless and he will die worthless.

That changes when finds an ancient oil lamp in the secretive, well-guarded Cave of Wonders.  He rubs the lamp, is introduced to the humorous blue Genie (Smith), and is granted three wishes which he can use to change his life.  He’s not the only person looking to get his hands on the lamp however.  The loathsome sorcerer Jafar (Kenzari) is looking to become the most powerful person in the kingdom and he knows how valuable three wishes would be.

All the songs from the 1992 version appear again here including “Friend Like Me” and “A Whole New World”.  There’s one new addition entitled “Speechless” which was written by the team of Benj Pasek and Justin Paul who are best known for their work on Dear Evan Hansen (the theatrical show), La La Land and The Greatest Showman.   The film is described as a musical but the reality is that most dialogue is spoken as opposed to sung.

Whilst I wasn’t sure about the need for the movie, it’s still a cool story to revisit.  It’s light, humorous and appealing.  There’s not a huge amount for adults but a new generation of youngsters will get the chance to have fun with these songs and characters.  Egyptian-born newcomer Mena Massoud is a great choice as Aladdin and 50-year-old Will Smith has fun as The Genie.  I can remember mock awards being given two decades ago to Wilson the Volleyball in Cast Away for best inanimate object.  There’s a scene-stealing magic carpet in Aladdin that deserves a similar level of praise.

There’s a superficiality about the characters that’s hard to shake (I’m not really sure Aladdin deserves to be the hero in this tale) but if you’ve got children and you’re looking for two hours of easy-going entertainment, Aladdin isn’t a bad choice.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 29 May 2019

Since franchises and “universes” are the rage in Hollywood, this is Legendary Entertainment’s attempt to get in on the action.  Godzilla II: King of the Monsters marks the third film in the series following on from two reboots, Godzilla (2014) and Kong: Skull Island (2017).  If you’re wondering where it goes next, prepare yourself for Godzilla vs. Kong which is slated for release in March 2020.

As for this film… it picks things up about 5 years after the original.  The world now knows that monsters are real and the political fall-out has been huge.  That’s particularly evident within a government-run organisation known as Monarch.  It was originally established to locate and destroy monsters to ensure mankind remains the dominant species.  There’s now a differing view held by some within Monarch that the monsters (or most of them) are friendly and to kill them would disrupt the world’s natural order.

It turns out there are roughly 17 monsters on the planet, including Godzilla, and a team of scientists have been studying their genetic composition.  It may sound ridiculously dangerous but the monsters are in a hibernating state.  A catalyst is required to create drama and it comes in the form of an eco-terrorist (Dance) with confusing motives.  On one hand, he wants to make money by trading monster DNA but that seems counterproductive considering he wants to kill most living things on the planet.

In the same vein as the 2014 film, I’d argue that the human characters in this movie have the charisma of a wet sponge.  They’re a dull, boring group of people who between them, magically have the answer for every problem.  It’s part of the reason why there’s so little tension in the movie.  These characters should have died countless times but help and/or good fortune always arrives at the last possible moment.  The only actor worthy of a mention is Bradley Whitford (The West Wing) who adds a splash of comedy to break up the tedium.

It’s the monsters who should have provided all the excitement but writer-director Michael Dougherty struggles to creating something meaningful amongst the chaos.  We can see a myriad of monsters duking it out (the three-headed dragon looked cool) but it’s largely the same stuff from scene-to-scene.  I wish I’d kept count of how many buildings were destroyed.  I’m sure there were humans in them but it’s best not to think about that.

Godzilla II: King of the Monsters can be pitched at those looking for two hours of simple, mindless entertainment but it’s offering little when it comes to originality and memorability.  

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 20 May 2019

After graduating from the National Institute of Dramatic Art in 1999, Australian Damon Gameau has forged a steady career as an actor with roles in films such as Thunderstruck and Balibo and in TV series such as Love My Way, Raw and Underbelly.  In 2014, he took a slightly different tact by writing and directing his first feature length documentary.  That Sugar Film was an eye-opening movie that showed the effects of a high-sugar diet on your weight, waist line and heart rate.  It made more than $1.7 million at the box-office and became the 4^th highest grossing Australian documentary ever.

For his sophomore effort, Gameau is tapping into a different subject matter that he hopes will be equally engaging to audiences – climate change and sustainability.  So much has already been said and written about these topics over the past few decades that it’s worth asking the question – what could this film possibly add to the ongoing worldwide debate?

Rather than follow in the footsteps of Davis Guggenheim’s alarm-ringing doco An Inconvenient Truth (the one with Al Gore), Gameau has crafted something that is more personal and positive.  Ever seen one of those movies set in the not-to-distant future where the writers trying to predict what the world might look like?  Gameau is trying to do the same but the important hook is that this isn’t pure science fiction.  He wants to use technology that’s readily available today to envisage where society could be in 21 years’ time if it makes the right decisions.  He describes it as “fact based dreaming”.

He explores topics such as energy, food and transportation.  Even if you’re a climate change denier, many of the ideas Gameau puts forward can be extremely beneficial in terms of pure economic value.  If you’re someone who owns a car, think about how many hours in a day the car is not used.  It’s arguably a very lazy asset.  What if we lived in a world where driverless cars could be shared around?  We’d have fewer cars, people would save money, and the large amounts of space dedicated for car parking could be put to better use.

In the same vein as a Michael Moore documentary, Gameau becomes part of the story he wants to tell.  We see him travelling across the globe and interviewing a variety of subjects (including young children aged between 6 and 11).  It’s interesting stuff.  Not as convincing are his effort to inject humour and style through the use of special effects and dream-like sequences from the year 2040.  It’s corny, doesn’t add much and detracts from the key messages.

I’d like to look back on this movie in the year 2040 with the benefit of hindsight.  If a lot of the inventions and suggestions covered by Gameau during the film become the norm, I’d like to hope we’re on the right track for keeping the planet liveable and sustainable.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 27 May 2019

If you’ve seen one music biopic, you’ve seen them all.  That’s not entirely true but it was the first thought that crossed my mind after seeing Rocketman, a musical drama chronicling the career of singer-songwriter Elton John.  It’s covering an assortment of issues that we see again and again within this genre – troublesome parents, drug/alcohol addictions, interfering managers, money-hungry music studios and bad relationships.

My ho-hum attitude towards the movie isn’t intended to be disrespectful towards Elton John and his legion of supporters.  He’s one of the greatest musicians of all time.  He’s sold more than 300 million records and he’s delivered over 4,000 live performances spread across 80 different countries.  He’s won 5 competitive Grammy Awards, he took home an Oscar in 1995 for “Can You Feel the Love Tonight” in The Lion King, and he composed the music for one of my all-time favourite stage shows, the Tony Award winning Billy Elliot the Musical.

How do you take the life of such a complex, accomplished individual and encapsulate it in two hours?  The answer is with great difficulty.  Screenwriter Lee Hall (Billy Elliot, Pride and Prejudice) has struggled with the breadth of material.  There’s one sequence where Elton John meets a woman who he marries and then divorces.  This could have been a film in itself but this chapter, spread across 5 years, is reduced to 2-3 minutes within Rocketman.  If you’d taken a quick toilet break, you might have missed it completely!

It’s not the only part of Fletcher’s movie that feels undercooked.  The film delves into Elton John’s relationship with John Reid (Madden), a young Scottish music manager who was also depicted in last year’s Bohemian Rhapsody (where he was played by Aidan Gillen).  We see them fall in love but the physical connection sours quickly and Reid is suddenly transformed into a simple, heartless villain who no one is prepared to confront.

Based on the ridiculous financial success of the critic-proof Bohemian Rhapsody, it’s likely that any qualms and reservations will be taken with a grain of salt.  It’s hard to see this film winning any awards (although I said that about Rhapsody too) but it’s going to have enormous appeal with Elton John fans (my mum included).  They’ll enjoy this glimpse into his troubled upbringing and his creative process.  A total of 22 different songs are included ranging from favourites such as “Tiny Dancer” and “Don’t Go Breaking My Heart” through the brand new “(I’m Gonna) Love Me Again” which was written specifically for the movie.

There’s a lot to like about the lead performance of 29-year-old Taron Egerton (Kingsman: The Secret Service) who deftly illustrates Elton John’s deep-seeded insecurities.  As an added bonus, he uses his own voice during the musical numbers.  The best scenes in the movie are those shared with good friend Bernie Taupin (Bell) who serves as both a trustworthy lyricist and the voice of reason.  There’s a depth and authenticity to their conversations which is lacking with other characters (such as Elton’s parents).

Director Dexter Fletcher (Sunshine on Leith, Eddie the Eagle) wins points for some well-choreographed musical numbers that give Rocketman the feel of an expensive Broadway show.  It’s fun and it’s flashy but it’s too hard to shake the shallowness and simplicity of the screenplay.