Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 25 November 2015

Most would be familiar with the novel Moby Dick, written by American author Herman Melville in 1851.  It’s the tale of a man who seeks revenge against a giant white whale that destroyed his ship.  The book was not a commercial success during his lifetime.  It wasn’t until the early 20^th Century that literary critics started appreciating its style and themes.

In the Heart of the Sea is not a cinematic adaptation of Moby Dick.  That’s been done numerous times before.  Instead, director Ron Howard has taken a different angle and is showing us how the book came to be written.  Melville’s work wasn’t a complete work of fiction.  It was inspired by a true story that took place several decades earlier.

The film begins in the year 1850 with Melville (Whishaw) travelling to a small island off the coast of Massachusetts.  He has arranged a meeting with Thomas Nickerson (Gleeson), the only living survivor from a large ship that had sank 30 years earlier.  Many believed the ship had simply run aground but Melville had heard rumours that the subsequent inquiry was “less than truthful.”  He was hoping that Nickerson would reveal what actually took place.

It’s at this point where the narrative slips back to the year 1820 and introduces us to the crew of the Essex, a whaling ship about to embark on a lengthy voyage.  Its two leaders are from different backgrounds and they don’t see eye-to-eye.  Captain George Pollard (Walker) is relatively inexperienced and only appears to have landed the job because of his father’s wealth and connections.  First Mate Owen Chase (Hemsworth) comes from a poor upbringing but has worked hard for many years and is now highly regarded by his fellow crew.

If you’ve seen the film’s trailers and advertisements, you may think this is an action film about a ship that gets attacked by a giant whale.  That does occur but it only makes up a small part of the movie.  It’s ultimately a story about survival.  After the main ship sinks, the seamen find themselves stuck in tiny whale boats in a part of the ocean “as far from men as we could possibly go.”  With little food and water, their only hope is to rely on the winds to guide them towards land.

Ron Howard is a director who likes to work out of his comfort zone.  His expansive resume includes films from almost every genre – Splash, Cocoon, Parenthood, Far & Away, Apollo 13, How the Grinch Stole Christmas, A Beautiful Mind, The Da Vinci Code and Rush.  In the Heart of the Sea presented its own challenges given it was shot mostly on water.  Some scenes were shot in a studio tank whilst more expansive ocean scenes were shot off the Canary Islands.

There’s an odd pacing to the film that’s difficult to shrug off.  For example, there’s a moment where the boats are attacked for a second time by the giant white whale but it’s all over in a flash with minimal tension.  At first, I thought it was a dream sequence given the quick cut away to the next segment.

The action sequences on the ship also feel like they’ve been overthought.  Cinematographer Anthony Dod Mantle (Slumdog Millionaire) has attached cameras to objects such as the mast and whale to create a bunch of GoPro style shots.  They look out of place though when you mix them together with the hand held stuff.  The fast-paced editing adds to the confusing nature of some scenes.  It’s tough to work out what the actors are doing and why they’re doing it.

Based on the nonfiction book from author Nathaniel Philbrick which won a National Book Award in 2000, In the Heart of the Sea wants to be a gripping adventure but it just couldn’t pull me in.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 16 November 2015

A friend asked me last week about I remember all the movies I’ve seen during my 20 years as a critic.  It was an easy answer – I can’t remember them all.  When I look back at old release lists, some titles leave me scratching my head.  Other titles sound familiar but don’t ask me any details about the cast or plot.  Given I see more than 200 films a year, there just isn’t enough room in my head for all to make a lasting impression.

The reason I tell that story is because one movie that has stuck with me is El secreto de sus ojos, an Argentinian film released in Australia back in May 2010.  It came with much hype having won the Academy Award for best foreign language film (in an upset) and broken box-office records within Argentina.  I’ve never forgotten the ending.  Director Juan José Campanella crafted an intricate, superbly told story that whacks you will a sledgehammer as the credits start to roll.

As we know, not everyone is a fan of subtitles and so director Billy Ray (the screenwriter behind The Hunger Games and Captain Phillips) has taken a well-worn path and created an American remake.  A few small changes have been made but it’s largely faithful to the source material.

The narrative centres on Ray (Ejiofor), a man tortured by a crime that occurred 13 years ago.  At the time, he was working as an FBI agent for a counter terrorism unit based in Los Angeles.  Ray and his close colleague, Jess (Roberts), attended a crime scene one night and their lives were forever changed.  The dead body of Jess’s own daughter had been found in a dumpster outside a mosque they had been closely monitoring. 

Just like the original, Secret In Their Eyes has two timelines running concurrently.  The first is in the current day.  Ray believes he’s finally tracked down the killer and is trying to convince the District Attorney (Kidman) to reopen the case and go after him.  The second is at the time the murder took place.  We see how the crime was first investigated and why the perpetrator slipped through the fingers of the police.

It’s nice to see the story told again but this remake can’t match the power of the original.  Billy Ray struggles when it comes to the big finale.  It’s over dramatized and over explained.  The same applies to the romantic tension between the respective characters of Chiwetel Ejiofor and Nicole Kidman.  The film delves into this subplot numerous times but the stiff dialogue makes it hard to feel the connection.  The one exception is a scene in a bar (it’s late in the film) where they finally open up.

This is still an engaging thriller.  It’s not relying on set action pieces (ala a Liam Neeson action-thriller) to entertain.  It’s delving into the power of grief and the reason we do things – rightly or wrongly.  It’s also a story of ethics and how authorities give some crimes more importance than others.  I’m looking forward to seeing what audiences make of it.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 20 November 2015

People still look back at the 2008 global financial crisis and ask the question – how the hell did it happen?  The world’s major economies are still feeling the effects today.  Banks were providing home loans to customers who were clearly going to struggle to meet the repayment terms.  These loans were then packaged, given top marks by ratings agencies, and sold to investors.

What’s amazing is that this went on for so long.  Greed is a powerful motivator.  Bank executives were getting huge bonuses.  Stock traders were earning big commissions.  Ratings agencies and regulators were applauded as the markets continued to climb.  Those that spoke out against these questionable practices were ridiculed and given little media attention.  A toxic culture had been created and almost everyone was “drinking the Kool-Aid.”

This analogy applies equally to professional cycling.  For many years, Lance Armstrong was the poster child of the Tour de France.  His story was a marketer’s dream.  He overcame testicular cancer in the late 1990s and then became one of the greatest cyclers of all time with 7 consecutive Tour victories.  There were some who questioned his prowess but most believed Armstrong to be an honest, reputable athlete.

History has since proven otherwise.  A report released in 2012 by the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency stated that Armstrong’s team “ran the most sophisticated, professionalized and successful doping program that sport has ever seen.”  It brought huge shame to the sport and Armstrong was stripped of his titles.  Just like the global financial crisis, the public were asking the question – how the hell did it happen?

Director Stephen Frears (The Queen, Philomenia) offers his thoughts in The Program.  Frears admits he’s not a cycling fan and he never intended this to be a sporting film.  It’s a drama about a crime being perpetrated in front of everyone’s eyes for more than a decade.  Many knew that Armstrong was cheating but no one wanted to blow the whistle.  It seems everyone had a vested interest.  The sport was growing and huge sponsorship revenue was being generated.  Armstrong was an American “hero” who even had his own charity for cancer survivors.

The film is told from two perspectives.  The first, and most prominent, is that of Armstrong (Foster) himself.  We see his competitive psyche and learn how he duped the drug testing organisations for so long.  It was frighteningly simple.  Actor Ben Foster has admitted that he took performance enhancing drugs, through a supervised program, in preparation for the role.  He wanted to understand the effects it had on him both physically and mentally to help with his portrayal of Armstrong.

The second perspective is that of an Irish sports journalist, David Walsh (O’Dowd), who also provided the source material for the screenplay.  Walsh had suspicions about Armstrong after his first Tour de France win in 1999 and spent years digging for information.  He didn’t “look the other way” like his counterparts.  There’s a great line in the film when Walsh proclaims that he “has no interest going up a mountain to watch chemists compete.”  When he first went public with his allegations in 2004, Walsh was ostracised by many within the sport.

Given the difficulty in trying to recreate the expansive Tour de France, Frears has used actual footage during several scenes.  You’ll hear the commentators praise Armstrong’s victories and think about how much has changed with the benefit of hindsight.  The more interesting stuff involves Walsh.  This is a guy who knew the truth but couldn’t convince others.  There’s an absorbing subplot where Walsh befriends the head of an insurance firm (Hoffman) who had his own complicated concerns about Armstrong’s accomplishments.

While many of us would hope that the events depicted in The Program are an isolated incident in the sporting world, the recent FIFA scandal highlighted that money and power often lead to corruption.  Don’t ignore it.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 09 November 2015

Some films can stand alone but to fully comprehend the premise of Spectre, it will help if you’ve seen the three previous James Bond flicks starring Daniel Craig – Casino Royale, Quantum Of Solace and Skyfall.  There are numerous references to past events, past villains and past loves.  It has the feel of a concluding finale but we all know that Bond will be refreshed and rebooted until the series becomes unprofitable.

As if inspired by Alejandro G. Iñárritu’s Oscar winning Birdman, director Sam Mendes (American Beauty) begins with a lengthy continuous shot through the main square in Mexico City.  Thousands have taken to the streets to celebrate the Day of the Dead.  Bond has told MI6 that he’s on holidays but the trip has a dual purpose.  He’s been tipped off about a known terrorist who is planning an imminent attack.  Suffice to say he gets his man after an elaborate, suspenseful chase.

The dust settles (while we sit through the traditional opening credits) and Bond learns that despite saving countless lives, there will be ramifications.  His actions in Mexico were unauthorised and the new head of the Joint Intelligence Service (Bautista), following the merger of MI5 and MI6, is using it as justification to phase out the ‘00’ program.  They’d rather gather evidence through more modern techniques such as drones, internet monitoring, and cross-country collaboration.  The days of the secret agent are done.

Grounded by M (Fiennes) and instructed not to leave London, Bond could have obeyed and watched Seinfeld re-runs on his couch.  Okay, so it’s not his style.  While Bond has killed his fair share of villains and henchmen, there appears to be a secretive terrorist organisation that links many of them together.  The search for its leader (Waltz) takes him to Rome, Morocco and the Austrian Alps.  Keeping away from the watchful eyes of MI6, he is assisted by a young psychologist (Seydoux) who has her own reasons for getting involved.

After going down a darker, creative path in Skyfall, the writers have gone with a more conventional screenplay for Spectre.  People are left for dead and then mysteriously re-appear later in the movie.  Bad guys waste time explaining their heinous plans before giving the good guys a chance to escape.  Hackers crack sophisticated computer systems in a matter of minutes.  There’s even a bomb complete with a countdown clock.  It’s too familiar.

Christoph Waltz (Django Unchained) also fails to impress as the film’s keynote villain.  Keeping him in the shadows (literally) during the first two-thirds creates an aura of mystery but when all is revealed during the climax, his motives feel contrived and his clumsy operations don’t make much sense.

Despite its limitations, Spectre is still to be admired for Mendes’ skilful direction and the striking visuals of Dutch cinematographer Hoyte van Hoytema (Her, Interstellar).  There’s a beautiful scene where Bond kills two hitmen at the home of a key witness (Bellucci).  The camera remains fixed on Belucci’s frightened face while the shooting takes place in the out-of-focus background.  It provides a different perspective on a common action sequence.

The affable cast also give the film a boost.  There’s a great conversation aboard a train between Léa Seydoux (Blue Is The Warmest Colour) and Daniel Craig where she asks about his longevity and his post-retirement plans.  Ralph Fiennes slips comfortably in into the seat of M and while the film is light on laughs, he earns the best of the one-liners while talking to his counterpart, C.  Ben Wishaw gets to step out from his behind his desk and participate in the mayhem.

Struggling to sell its important messages about corruption within the intelligence world, Spectre is a chaotic Bond film that doesn’t quite come together.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 18 November 2015

If you haven’t seen the earlier films in this franchise, take your money and buy a ticket to something else.  There’s no “previously on the Hunger Games” introduction to help get you up to speed.  You’ll be struggling to understand each character’s history and motivations.

For everyone else, there’s not much I can say that would prevent you from seeing this final instalment.  The first two films were great.  They offered plenty of action and explored an intriguing concept.  The third flick meandered along but set the stage for what would hopefully be a big conclusion.

The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 2 isn’t offering much in terms of new storylines.  Katniss Everdeen (Lawrence) is still a reluctant hero in a war being raged between the slaves in the poor districts and the domineering bureaucrats in the wealthy capital.  Many of her family and friends have been killed and she has but one thought in mind – putting an arrow through the heart of the evil President Snow (Sutherland).

As much as she’d like to, Katniss can’t do this alone.  The Capital is heavily fortified with Snow using his expansive army as protection.  She turns to a few familiar faces to help get the job done.  They include her two love interests, Peeta (Hutcherson) and Gale (Hemsworth), as well as a group of well-trained soldiers with valuable intelligence.

There’s some interesting stuff here.  What happens if you kill a villainous dictator?  Does the world instantly become a better place?  Or do you just create more turmoil as its citizens fight for power and leadership?  It’s reminiscent of the toppling of Iraq’s leader, Saddam Hussein, in 2003.  The film also debates the rules of war.  Is it worth sacrificing civilian casualties in pursuit of a greater good?  Should you be allowed to “fight dirty” if there is no other alternative?

These questions are asked but the screenplay is unwilling to provide meaningful answers.  Characters go from good guys to bad guys without ever really getting to the heart of their transformation.  Were they misguided fools or was there something more sinister at play?  I’m not sure.  The film has also suffered from the death of actor Philip Seymour Hoffman.  His character is missing during several key moments and script re-writes have done little to compensate.

The action sequences are also a letdown.  There are several interesting set-ups (such as a moment involving mutated humans in an underground tunnel) but these scenes have been edited in a haphazard manner.  It’s hard to see who’s fighting who and it lessens the suspense.  The biggest surprise is the unusual climax.  Without given too much away, the film skips an important chunk and then wastes time with a drawn out, melodramatic finale.  Did we really need that final minute for example?

I remember struggling with Suzanne Collins' final book.  It didn’t have the same sense of urgency and excitement.  My thoughts on this movie are essentially the same.