Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 31 August 2016

Mel Gibson has put together a resume that any Australian actor would be proud of.  He rose to fame in the early 1980s with Gallipoli and the Mad Max trilogy.  He was snared by Hollywood and starred in a string of hits including What Women Want, Ransom, and the Lethal Weapon franchise.  He then transitioned into directing – winning an Oscar for Braveheart and setting box-office records for The Passion of the Christ.

It’s no secret that Gibson’s career has taken a few steps back over the past decade.  He had always intended to take a break from acting and spend more time behind the camera.  However, the overriding reason was a severe drop in popularity after some not-so-great personal moments.  This included a series of racist comments after being arrested for drunk driving in 2006 and the leaking of a tape that showed him going on a violent tirade against his then wife in 2010.

When you look at the figures, it’s hard to believe how inconspicuous Gibson has been.  Blood Father is only his 6^th acting credit in the last 12 years.  It’s not exactly a big film either.  This is a low-budget affair that received a tiny release in the United States before going straight to video-on-demand.

His character has had a similarly chequered past.  Link (Gibson) is an ex-con who spent 9 years in prison and is now trying to forge a new life.  He lives in a rundown trailer in the middle of nowhere.  He makes a meagre living as a tattoo artist.  He reluctantly attends Alcoholics Anonymous meetings and is battling to stay sober.

His quiet, lonely existence is upended when he received an unexpected phone call from his teenage daughter, Lydia (Moriarty).  The two have spoken in several years but she’s in desperate need of help and has nowhere else to turn.  Her ex-boyfriend (Luna) was part of a huge drug syndicate and given how much information she knows, a professional hitman has been directed to kill her.

It evolves into an action thriller reminiscent of the Taken franchise.  In true Liam Neeson style, Link will do whatever it takes to protect his daughter.  He doesn’t care how many laws he breaks, how many crimes he commits, and how many more years he’ll spend behind bars.  This is his one chance do something right for Lydia after years of neglect.

It’s a fairly standard premise but Gibson makes it work by creating sympathy for his forlorn character.  Link has hit rock bottom and you can’t help but support his efforts to find redemption.  French director Jean-François Richet (Assault on Precinct 13) adds value by crafting a number of suspenseful action sequences where Link and Lydia try to outrun and outsmart their many pursuers.

This is a slightly unorthodox release for Father’s Day but for fans of Mel Gibson, it should provide a timely reminder that he still commands a powerful, likeable screen presence.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 17 August 2016

I heard someone describe this as the lighter version of The Wolf of Wall Street and it’s an apt reference.  It’s a film that highlights the dark side of capitalism.  Efraim Diveroli (Hill) and David Packouz (Teller) are two twenty-something-year-old entrepreneurs who have started a small business and are selling arms to the United States to be used by the military.  They both admit that they’re anti-war but the overriding factor if that they’re both “pro money”.

A few details have been changed to make it fit the traditional movie narrative (e.g. their trip to Iraq never happened) but this based on actual events.  When we first meet our two protagonists, the year is 2005 and they’re catching up for the first time in years at the funeral of a friend.  David admits that life isn’t going as planned.  He dropped out of college, got fired from his first 6 jobs, had a falling out with his parents, and is now a 22-year-old masseuse getting paid $75 an hour.

Efraim has been a little more successful.  He started out by buying weapons at police auctions and then on-selling them to the public.  It’s a lot of work though and he’s decided to transform his business by focusing on the world’s biggest “gun nut”.  That single customer he is referring to is the United States Government.  Efraim acts as the middle man.  He bids for small weapons contracts through the government’s tendering system and if successful, he tracks down the suppliers who can supply the arms that are required.

For a while, things are great.  These guys stick to small, simple deals and it’s not long before they’re driving around in Porches and living in luxurious, high-rise apartments.  That’s not enough though and I can’t help but think of a line from Mr. Burns in The Simpsons – “I’d trade it all for a little more.”  Efraim and David win a $300 million contract to provide bullets to the Afghan military and now appear to be out of their depth.  To get the job done, they’ll need to commit fraud and deal with dodgy individuals.

Directed by Todd Phillips (The Hangover) is largely framed as a comedy.  There’s a scene for example where the two guys are trying to negotiate the release of weapons from a customs warehouse in Jordan and end up using an 11-year-old as part of the negotiation process.  While I don’t mind the comedic approach, it does feel like these characters aren’t being judged harshly enough.  The finale is also messy in that certain actions aren’t well explained.  For example, why wasn’t Efraim paying the box maker in Albania?

This is still an interesting “truth is stranger than fiction” tale though.  It’s hard not to be surprised by the simplicity with which these guys were able to exploit the government’s procurement system and disregard international laws.  It’s not explored enough but Phillips and his co-writers also touch on the theme that wars create their own “economy”.  There are plenty of conflicted individuals who profit from the human tragedy.

Miles Teller (Whiplash) and Jonah Hill (Moneyball) are both strong in the leading roles.  They’re a big part of the reason why this film will entertain many who take the time to see it.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 29 August 2016

Kids spend too much time on their phone.  Kids are subject to peer pressure.  Kids do dumb things.  None of these statements are ground breaking.  Drawing from Jeanne Ryan’s 2012 young adult novel, screenwriter Jessica Sharzer (American Horror Story) has crafted a teen-orientated thriller that highlights these very themes.

Our hero is a character we’ve seen before.  Vee (Roberts) is about to finish up at high school and is unsure about whether she should leave her fragile mother (Lewis) and attend college.  She’s got a major crush on the star on the football team but is too shy to talk to him.  She doesn’t realise that her closest male friend (Heizer) is madly in love with her.  Oh, and her best friend is a bossy cheerleader (Meade) who is forever stealing the attention.

Trying to break free from her own timid personality, Vee signs up to an online phone application called Nerve.  Those who choose to “play” are given dares which they must complete to win money.  Those who choose to “watch” pay a small daily fee and watch live footage of the dares on their phones, tablets and computer screens.

An interesting aspect of the dares is that they draw from all knowledge available about each person on the internet.  After scrolling through Vee’s social media accounts, an algorithm selects a dare that will rattle her comfort zone.  She’s given 2 minutes to walk into a crowded café, find a stranger, and plant her lips on him for 15 seconds.  The prize is a generous $100.

The lucky guy receiving the kiss is Ian (Franco), a fellow Nerve competitor.  They’re asked by the game to team up and complete a series of increasingly difficult dares.  It’s at this point where the film jumps off the deep end and loses all sense of reality.  How are people watching these dares unfold?  Fellow Nerve users conveniently pass by with their own phone cameras but how good can the footage be from a moving taxi?  What about all the parts when they’re not being filmed?  The Truman Show this is not.  I’d also like to know who’s paying $20 a day to watch this dodgy, fragmented footage.

The film’s most puzzling element is the character of Vee who changes her nature every 10 minutes or so.  She starts out as a smart, shy woman and within 24 hours has become a complete fool.  She has no qualms when the game asks her to walk along a fire ladder hanging precariously between two buildings (it’s suicidal stuff) and yet she’s passionately upset when the game induces a petty stoush with her best friend (which is easily forgivable).

As the film enters its third and final act, you realise that it’s not possible for it to be wrapped up in a logical fashion.  There’s a group of muddled subplots involving Vee’s worrying mother, a group of underground computer hackers, and a bunch of masked strangers who threw away their moral compass.  The cops would have no hope in piecing this all together.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 16 August 2016

It feels like we get a new shark thriller every couple of years.  Jaws set the benchmark back in 1975 and recent films that have tried to match its intensity include Deep Blue Sea, Open Water, The Reef, Shark Night, and Bait.  You could also throw a bunch of Sharknado-type spoofs (e.g. Mega Shark Versus Giant Octopus) but they’d be found in the comedy section of the few remaining video stores.

The Shallows is a minimalist effort from Spanish director Jaume Collet-Serra (Non-Stop) in the sense that it’s shot entirely in a single location and is focused on just the one actor.  Aside from the shark and Blake Lively, the only other member of the cast who gets a decent amount of screen time is a bird who is listed in the credits as Steven Seagull (a humorous reference to the well-known American actor).

Writer Anthony Jaswinski has crafted a simple backstory to help audiences cheer on the hero.  Nancy Adams (Lively) is a young surfer from Texas who has travelled to a secret beach in Mexico.  She’s not there solely for the big waves.  Her mother recently died of cancer and Nancy wants to honour her memory.  She carries a photo of her mother who stood on that same beach 25 years earlier.

In case you’re wondering, you don’t need to travel to Mexico to lay your eyes on this beautiful location.  The exterior shots were filmed on Lord Howe Island which is located 600km east of Port Macquarie, New South Wales.  One might think it’d be great for tourism but the population of the island is limited given it’s a UNESCO World Heritage Site.  The remaining scenes were shot in a tank at the Village Roadshow Studios here on the Gold Coast.

Let’s cut to the chase though.  This is a shark movie.  Nancy spends the whole day surfing and is ready to catch that “one final wave” before heading back to her hotel.  Lo and behold, she is attacked by a giant shark that leaves a deep cut in her left-hand thigh.

She seeks refuge on a tiny rock in the middle of the bay but is now stranded.  The shark is circling and there’s no way to swim to shore.  There’s no one in the area that can hear her screams for help.  Her injured leg is in desperate need to medical attention.  Oh, and the tide will eventually rise to a point where her rocky safe haven will be engulfed.  The bottom line is that she has big problems.

The script itself doesn’t have much to offer.  There’s a silly, unnecessary subplot at the start where Nancy is called by her father who is unhappy that she’s dropped out of medical school.  Some of the “battles” that Nancy has with the shark are borderline comedic.  A particular scene involving glowing jellyfish springs to mind.

The film has its moments though.  It offers intrigue as you wonder Nancy is going to extricate herself from this situation.  Collet-Serra makes good use of music and camera angles as the shark makes it move.  He also throws in a few red herrings to keep audiences on their toes.  Two fellow surfers make a brief appearance and their demise is one of the film’s highlights.

Jaws this is not.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 22 August 2016

The 1959 Ben-Hur was an epic all senses of the word.  It clocked in at 3 hours & 32 minutes making it one of cinema’s longest mainstream movies.  It had a budget of roughly $15m making it the most expensive film of the era.  It topped the box-office that year and is still one of the highest grossing films in history (adjusted for inflation).  It also won 11 Academy Awards – a record that has never been eclipsed.

Given its extraordinary success, the question will be asked – why did we need to make another one?  Why mess with perfection?  Could we not find some fresh stories worth telling on the big screen for the first time?  If we took that stance though, you’d have to also shine the spotlight on the likes of Hamlet, Pride & Prejudice and Les Misérables.  Someone would also have to explain why we needed three different Spidermen franchises inside of two decades.

If you listen to Russian director Timur Bekmambetov (Night Watch), the reason for this 2016 film is that he wanted to put a different spin on the Judah Ben-Hur tale.  Writers Keith Clarke (The Way Back) and John Ridley (12 Years a Slave) revisited Lew Wallace’s 1880 novel and have created a tale that focuses on forgiveness as opposed to revenge.  Action fans need not stress.  There’s still a chariot racing sequence that serves as a highlight.

The story itself begins in the year 25 A.D. and is centred on a wealthy Jewish prince named Judah Ben-Hur (Huston) who helps rule the independent city of Jerusalem.  Before he passed away, Judah’s father was trying to stop the growing tension between the Jews and the Romans.  He did this by adopting a Roman son, Messala (Kebbell), who he welcomed wholeheartedly into his family.  As if borrowing from the pages of Shakespeare’s Romeo & Juliet, he wanted two “houses” to put aside their political differences and live together in unison.

Unfortunately, things did not work out as planned.  Despite being given all that he could ask for in life, Messala never felt like he had “earned” the family name.  Messala left his brother, headed to Rome, and became a high-ranking soldier.  When he finally returns to Jerusalem several years later, it is clear that he is now loyal to Pontius Pilate (Asbæk), a fear-inducing individual looking to expand the Roman Empire and take control of Jerusalem.

Those plans involve the removal of Judah Ben-Hur who is framed for a crime he didn’t commit and is enslaved for 5 years as an oarsman aboard a large Roman ship.  Finally managing to escape, he crosses paths with a wealthy sheik (Freeman) who offers a helping hand and some advice.  He suggests that rather than retaliate not with weapons… but with something intangible.  If Judah could win the public chariot race competition against his previously undefeated brother, it would put a serious dent in the Roman’s pride.

There are some interesting themes being explored in this reimagined Ben-Hur.  It’s looking at the blurry line between revenge and justice.  It also has something to say about the value of competitive sport and the way it which people can be influenced.  Morgan Freeman’s character sums it up best when he says “give them a show and the people will adore you.”  It left me reflecting on the recent Olympic Games in Brazil.

Despite its best intentions, it’s hard to imagine this film leaving a huge impact on audiences.  Gladiator made a lasting impression because of its strong, charismatic hero (Russell Crowe) and its “can’t wait to see him die” villain (Joaquin Phoenix).  Ben-Hur isn’t even close to matching that level of passion and intensity.  Pontius Pilate is hardly seen and the role of Jesus Christ in the film (played by Rodrigo Santoro) is a puzzling distraction.

The early box-office figures from the United States have been disappointing and one gets the sense that most are not currently in the mood for a grand Roman epic.

You can read by chat with star Jack Huston by clicking here.