Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 21 September 2015

15-year-old Becca (DeJonge) and 13-year-old Tyler (Oxenbould) will be spending a week with their grandparents while their mother (Hahn) and her new partner take a well-overdue holiday.  It may sound like a common scenario but this is anything but.  Becca and Tyler have never met their “Nana” and “Pop Pop” before.  Their mother had a falling out with them 15 years ago for reasons she has kept quiet.  The grandparents have finally reached out in search of a fresh start and their mother has extended the olive branch.

They catch a train from suburban Philadelphia to rural Pennsylvania and are greeted by their grandparents (played by Deanna Dunagan and Peter McRobbie) at the station.  It’s a slightly awkward exchange but you’d expect that given the circumstances.  Nana is quick to criticise Tyler for wearing his parents too low – an obvious way of highlighting the generational gap between them.

Everything we see in the film is from the perspective of the two teenagers.  Becca is a budding filmmaker and so she is capturing the whole weekend on her hand held video cameras.  Tyler is helping out.  She wants to turn it into a documentary that explores her grandparents past and the reasons why they’ve never seen their grandchildren until now.

From their first night in the house, Becca and Tyler sense something is amiss.  They are told that they need to be in bed by 9:30pm and that they shouldn’t venture out from their bedroom until the following morning.  After hearing strange noises, curiosity gets the better of them.  They open their bedroom door and see their naked grandmother wandering through the house and furiously scratching the walls.  It’s quite creepy.

The film marks a return to form for writer-director M. Night Shyamalan who rose to fame in 1999 with The Sixth Sense and followed that up with the equally impressive Unbreakable and Signs.  His recent efforts haven’t been well received.  The Last Airbender (2010) and After Earth (2013) were big studio movies with $100m budgets but both were savaged by critics and struggled at the box-office.

There are the few parts to The Visit that don’t quite gel.  For example, it’s hard to go along with the Paranormal Activity-like “handheld footage” approach, particularly in the later stages.  These kids are supposed to be scared.  Why are they still making their documentary and getting conveniently great camera angles?  Without giving away details, I’d also argue that the more you think about the finale, the less sense it makes.

I enjoyed the lead up through.  Shyamalan scoured the globe for the perfect young actors and found both of his two leads here in Australia – 17-year-old Olivia DeJonge from Perth and 14-year-old Ed Oxebould (Alexander & The Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Day) from Sydney.  The film has the appearance of a scary thriller but it’s surprisingly comedic.  Oxenbould gets the best of lines including a recurring joke where he uses the names of female singers in place of swear words.

The ending will divide audiences but The Visit offers enough intrigue to warrant a trip to the cinemas.

You can read my chat with writer-director M. Night Shyamalan by clicking here.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 15 September 2015

Most Australians would be familiar with the fictional character Blinky Bill.  Of those, I’d suggest only a small few know of his origins.  Three books following the adventures of this talking koala were written and illustrated by Australian author Dorothy Wall in the 1930s.  They were based on stories that she’d created and told to her own child.

Wall’s books were popular but the royalties didn’t provide her with sufficient income.  She tried to sell the rights to American film studios and English china makers without success.  Running out of options, she travelled to New Zealand (where she was originally born) and accepted a well-paying job as an illustrator for two newspapers.  That was the end of Blinky Bill.  She never wrote another book prior to her death in 1942 at the age of 48.

It’s always interesting to look back with the benefit of hindsight and see what stories survive the test of time.  Shakespeare’s works are still performed regularly today while other playwrights from the 16^th and 17^th Centuries have faded into oblivion.  Wall’s Blinky Bill books continue to endure.  They’ve never been out of print in Australia and have been adapted into multiple television series.  There was also an animated feature released in 1992 which grossed almost $2 million at the local box-office.

This rebooted Blinky Bill movie was produced by Flying Bark Productions, a small company based in Sydney who specialise in children’s animation.  They didn’t have a $100 million budget so don’t go along expecting the revolutionary visuals that you’d associate with companies such as Pixar (Inside Out) and Dreamworks (How To Train Your Dragon).  This is simple stuff.

The story could be described the same way.  It begins by introducing us to Blinky Bill and his fellow animal friends.  They’re a fun bunch who love to create mischief.  This raises the ire of a power-hungry goanna named Cranklepot who wishes to put a stop to their antics.  Such an opportunity is about to present itself.  Blinky’s father goes missing and Cranklepot seizes control of the town.  His first villainous act is to evict Blinky and his mother from their tree home and move in himself.

This forces the inexperienced Blinky to go on a long adventure in search of his missing dad.  This takes him across the Australian outback where he comes across an assortment of curious characters including a chatty lizard, a sinister cat, and a fellow koala looking to create a new life for herself in a zoo.

This is a film targeted squarely at young kids and the screenplay reflects that fact.  The characters are cute and the narrative is easy to understand.  It’s the sort of thing children might watch after school or on a Saturday morning.  That comparison feels appropriate as Channel 7 recently commissioned a 26 episode follow-on television series that will go to air in 2016.

The only hook for adults is the well-known Aussie cast.  The movie utilises the voices of Ryan Kwanten, Toni Collette, Richard Roxburgh, Deborah Mailman and Barry Humphries.  They’re all very good but the two standouts are David Wenham (as Jacko the lizard) and Barry Otto (as Cranklepot the goanna).

We generally rely on international product when finding family-orientated movies to fill cinemas over school holiday periods.  Coupled with Oddball which is also released today, it’s nice to see two Australian films helping put bums on seats.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 18 September 2015

J.M. Barrie’s much loved work, Peter Pan, has been adapted in multiple forms on multiple occasions.  An animated feature was produced by Walt Disney in 1953.  A live-action sequel was directed by Steven Spielberg in 1991 (Hook).  A Tony Award winning musical was first performed on Broadway in 1954.  A 65 episode animated television series first aired in 1990 (Peter Pan and the Pirates).  Even video games have been released for Nintendo, Sega and PlayStation consoles.

The latest filmmakers to etch their names on the Peter Pan honour roll are English director Joe Wright (Pride & Prejudice, Atonement) and American screenwriter Jason Fuchs (Ice Age: Continental Drift).  They’ve tried to put a fresh spin on Barrie’s material by creating a prequel.  We’re told by the narrator during the opening scene that “this isn’t the story you’ve heard before.”

When we first meet Peter (Miller), he’s a mischievous 12-year-old living in a British orphanage.  It’s where he was left by his mother when just a baby.  His life is now controlled by a group of Catholic nuns who would be better suited as villains in a James Bond movie.  They’re rude, strict and horribly unpleasant.

Late one night, Peter and his fellow orphans are whisked away by a large flying pirate ship.  They are transported to Neverland and are introduced to Blackbeard (Jackman) – “the pirate that all pirates fear.”  Neverland isn’t the nicest of places.  As the ruling dictator, Blackbeard has effectively enslaved the children and put them to work in the pixie dust mines.  He offers “no mercy, no pity, and no second chances.”

Unfortunately for Blackbeard, his days are numbered.  A well-known prophecy tells of an uprising that will be spearheaded by “a boy who could fly”.  That’s where Peter comes into the frame.  He’s unsure about his newfound flying abilities and doesn’t really see himself as a hero… but Peter will be guided by an assortment of new friends including James Hook (Hedlund) and Tiger Lily (Mara).

There’s no question that Pan is trying to offer something a little bit different.  Joe Wright’s over-the-top use of colour in Neverland gives the film an impressive visual style that should charm adolescent audiences.  He’s taken it to a level where even the gunpowder looks like it’s been crafted from a rainbow.  It’s an appropriate contrast from the dark, grim orphanage back home.  Wright’s use of music will also surprise.  If you think that a Nirvana song has no place in a Peter Pan movie then think again.

Performance wise, the big winner of the film is 12-year-old Levi Miller who charms in the title role.  After scouring the globe for the actor with the ideal blend of talent and innocence, Wright found Miller right here in Brisbane, Australia.  We’ll be seeing a lot more of him on screen (including in the Red Dog sequel due for release next year).

Hugh Jackman, after years of playing heroes, has fun slipping into the shoes (and wig) of a bad guy.  He’s created an unsettling, contradictory character who is forever changing personalities.  This is best evidenced in a scene where he meets Peter for the first time.  Garrett Hedlund (Tron: Legacy) and Rooney Mara (The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo) add to the film’s star power but have drawn the short straw in terms of rousing dialogue.

Pan is clearly targeted at a younger crowd.  Kids can picture themselves as Peter Pan and lose themselves in this cool fantasy world.  They may find some of the action sequences too convoluted (such as the climax with the flying pirate ships) but the rest is relatively easy to follow.  As for full-price paying adults, well, they can please themselves.

You can read my chat with star Hugh Jackman by clicking here.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 09 September 2015

20^th Century Fox were pretty quick to push the sequel button following the success of last year’s The Maze Runner.  After reeling in $345 million at the worldwide box-office (on a budget of just $34 million), this follow up was in production within weeks of the original’s release.  A third and final film (thankfully not split into two movies) will be in theatres in February 2017.

I was a huge fan of The Maze Runner and found a spot for it in my top 10 films list of 2014.  By way of recap, it centred on a teenager named Thomas (O’Brien) who woke up in the centre of a maze with no recollection of how he got there.  Director Wes Ball aptly described the film as “Lord of the Flies meets Lost.”  Thomas and his newfound friends managed to defeat the maze… but not before they almost defeated each other.  A bitter power struggle developed between two factions and several characters didn’t make it to the end.

It was a film that offered much intrigue.  Where did the kids come from?  Who built the maze?  Why couldn’t they remember their past?  Despite being entirely contained within one location, The Maze Runner held my attention all the way through.  By comparison, The Scorch Trials isn’t as exciting.  It’s a more generic action film that tries to add more characters and more locations… but feels a lot less suspenseful.

It opens with the rescued teenagers waking up in a well-fortified military facility.  They are told that they need to be kept there for their own protection because the “world is hanging on by a thread.”  A virus has turned millions of humans into zombie-like creatures and a group of scientists are working around the clock to find a cure.

His friends are relieved to find sanctuary but Thomas feels that something isn’t right.  Those suspicions are confirmed when he breaks into a locked laboratory and discovers medical experiments being performed on other kids.  It turns out they’re being “harvested” for a cure to the virus and it’s only a matter of time before he’ll meet a similar fate.  The group behind it all is known as WCKD which stands for World in Catastrophe: Killzone Experiment Department.

Thomas orchestrates an escape from the facility but the world outside isn’t much safer.  Not only are they being pursued by WCKD’s militia, they also have to outsmart zombies and other folk who can’t be trusted.  All of this takes place in deserts, mountains, tunnels, and dilapidated high rises.  There’s even a sudden lightning storm (which doesn’t make much sense).  In essence, this is a two-hour chase movie.  These teenagers are on the run with no substantive plan as to where they’re going and how they’re going to get there.

Adapted from the novel by James Dashner, The Scorch Trials is trying to pack a lot into its running time but it still feels like a bridge between two better movies.  It’s not until the final scenes where the momentum and excitement starts to build.  It’s set itself up for a juicy final instalment but much of the content in this film is forgettable.  The running scenes are repetitive and the story development is light.

Director Wes Ball does his best to give the film his own look.  A few of the action sequences are over-edited and it’s hard to keep up with what’s going on.  Still, I enjoyed the intricate locations (such as a deserted shopping mall) and Ball’s use of light.  The kids are often running in the dark and in some cases, it’s only their fast-moving torches that provide us with a glimpse of their surroundings.

We’ll do it all again in 18 months time.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 16 September 2015

I’ve got some good friends who regularly post inspirational quotes on social media.  They say stuff like “it never gets easier, you just get stronger” and “dream it, believe it, achieve it.”  Movies often promote the same messages.  We watch people go from loser to winner, from rags to riches, and from villain to hero.  It’s seldom the other way round.  We much prefer feel-good tales that leave us feeling positive about life.

There’s nothing wrong with that mantra… but it’s not always a reflection of reality.  That is best illustrated in Everest which chronicles the true story of a group of climbers who tried to reach the peak of the world’s highest mountain in May 1996.

Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay became the first men to conquer Mount Everest in 1953. In the decades that followed, only well-experienced climbers tried to match their achievement.  That changed in the early 1990s when climbing became a more commercial enterprise.  An increasing number of tour companies were accepting large sums of money to help ordinary folk reach Everest’s summit.

There’s an important moment early in the film where these climbers are asked about their motivations.  Their answers are not unexpected.  Why would someone buy a 5,000 piece jigsaw puzzle instead of one with 500 pieces?   Why do we attempt the hard Sudoku problem instead of the easy one?  It comes back to what makes us human.  Many of us love a challenge and the thrill that it provides once achieved.  Oh, and I guess climbing Everest is a great story that you can tell the grandkids about one day.

Crafted by screenwriters William Nicholson (Gladiator) and Simon Beaufoy (Slumdog Millionaire), this film is centred around Rob Hall (Clarke) – the head of a New Zealand based company that has been leading successful Everest tours for the last few years.  The group he’s helping this year include a journalist, a mailman and a wealthy doctor.

The first half of the movie is relatively smooth sailing.  We watch them go through their training regime and appreciate the difficulty of the task.  Even with a lengthy period of acclimatisation, most will still require oxygen tanks when trekking at high altitudes.  Perhaps the biggest determinant of success is the weather.  You’re no chance without calm conditions.

I don’t want to give too much away but suffice to say that not all of these characters are going to make it to the end of the movie.  This isn’t one of the aforementioned feel-good tales.  It doesn’t make a difference how confident or how experienced you are… there are times when nature is always going to prove too strong for man.  It’s a fact that we often ignore or forget.

It’ll be up to audiences to judge their exploits.  Were they just unlucky in their pursuit of adventure?  Or were they foolish in biting off more than they could chew?  There’s plenty to think about here and it’s more than just a run-of-the-mill action film.  That said, the action is still very good.  Icelandic director Baltasar Kormakur (Contraband) used high altitude locations in Nepal and Italy to re-create the Everest experience.  The intense sound of the ferocious winds adds an equally important layer in helping put the audience in the shoes of these hikers.

It was never going to be easy given the large cast but the character development is underdone.  It’s hard to sympathise with a doomed hiker when we know so little about them.  Some of them only get a few lines of dialogue.  Keira Knightley and Robin Wright are added to show the thoughts of “worried wives” back home but again, these scenes are short and clunky.

Above all else, Everest shows that you can dream and believe… but you’re not always going to achieve.