Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 24 June 2014

There are times in life when it is critically important to follow a strict formula.  If I need someone to build my dream home, the construction workers need to be millimetre-perfect with their measurements.  If I need someone to produce a drug for my nasty flu, I need the chemist to be precise with the mix of ingredients.  If I need to borrow money for my start-up enterprise, I need the bank manager to calculate the correct amount of interest for the repayment schedule.

It’s not often I use the terms “millimetre-perfect”, “precise” and “correct” when describing the work of a filmmaker.  This is because the world of cinema is a hugely creative medium.  Every director needs to put a finished product up on the big screen… but how they get there is completely up them (or perhaps a meddling producer).

The concern I have with Transformers: Age Of Extinction is that it’s all so tiringly unoriginal.  Aside from the stellar efforts from the visual effects team (who must have received the majority of the film’s $165m budget), it feels like an amalgamation of action clichés.  It’s so extreme, so over-the-top that it makes The Fast & The Furious franchise look like an episode of the Golden Girls.

To set the scene, Age Of Extinction is a mini-reboot in the sense that it’s dumped the original cast (Shia LaBeouf, Josh Duhamel, Tyrese Gibson) and gone with a clean slate.  The story is set five years after Dark Of The Moon (released back in 2011) and shows the world to be a very different place.  A top-secret, heavily funded government department, that doesn’t even report to the U.S. President, has taken it upon themselves to rid the world of the friendly Transformers – known as the “autobots”.

Why would they do this?  It turns out the department’s head, played a laughably “sinister” Kelsey Grammer, has grandiose plans.  He wants to use the Transformers technology to create an army of robots that will forever defend the United States from its growing list of adversaries.  It’s not just a power trip though.  He’s also got shares in the company (run by Stanley Tucci) so stands to make tens of millions of dollars.  I guess he forgot to note that in his “conflicts of interest” register.

The only person (seemingly) who can save the day is Cade Yeager (Wahlberg) – a penniless technician who can’t catch a break.  He’s six months behind on his mortgage payments and the bank is about to foreclose.  His 17-year-old daughter (Peltz), who somehow has enough money for beauty products, has missed out on a college scholarship and now sees her future in doubt.  Oh, and there’s the issue of her 20-year-old, racing car driver boyfriend (Reynor).  Cade has been crafted as an over-over-overbearing father and so screenwriter Ehren Kruger uses it to insert a tiring number of jokes where he and the boyfriend antagonise each other.

The film clocks in at an unnecessarily long running time of 165 minutes.  It’s surprising how little story there is given the length.  It doesn’t have the complexity or nuance of a top-notch superhero flick.  There’s no blurry line between good and evil.  Transformers: Age Of Extinction provides action with zero tension.  That’s it.  You’ll see exploding cars, exploding boats, exploding buildings – complete with actors running in slow-motion away and some really cheesy dialogue.

If they’d have taken the 22 Jump Street approach and designed this more as a spoof, I’d have been much more agreeable.  Instead, director Michael Bay has created an overly serious piece that wins points for its sheer spectacle… but not much else.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 10 June 2014

The Rover is set in the not-to-distant future where Australia has become a very different place.  Society has collapsed.  Law and order is non-existent.  The roads are in a state of disrepair.  The local currency has no value.  It’s a struggle to find food, water, and fuel.

So why has Australia developed into a third world country?  You can ponder and come up with your own answers because writer-director David Michôd (Animal Kingdom) won’t be providing them.  That’s ok though.  Michôd’s focus is on providing an intriguing character study and in that regard, this is a movie that delivers in a huge way.

You’ve probably heard the saying “beware the man who has nothing to lose”.  It’s a perfect description for Eric (Pearce) – a loner who is drifting through the Australian outback.  He has no job, no family, and no reason for living.  His sole possession is a dusty, rundown car that he uses to move from town to town.

That is until his car is stolen by three men after a botched robbery.  The odds of hunting them down are pretty slim (particularly since there are no police) but Eric catches a break when he stumbles across Rey (Pattinson) – a young man suffering from a bullet wound to the chest.  He’s the younger brother of one of the thieves and was left for dead following the robbery.

Eric organises for the wound to be stitched up but it’s obviously not a gesture of goodwill.  He needs to keep Rey alive so he can obtain information about the location of his brother and hence, the car.  What follows is an uneasy road trip.  The pair head south and encounter an assortment of equally desperate people doing whatever is necessary to survive.

This is an intense film.  Music is kept to a minimum.  Conversation is kept to a minimum.  Guy Pearce is fantastic as Eric – a quiet, forlorn individual who never seems to say anything unless he’s asking an important question.  Also impressive is Robert Pattison who continues to distance himself from the Twilight franchise with interesting roles.

The heart of this movie is the uncomfortable bond that develops between them.  No matter how hard we try shut ourselves off from the world, there will always be cathartic value in opening up and interacting with others.  You won’t see these two sitting on a couch and sharing their childhood adventures over a glass of red wine (thank goodness).  Rather, you see the connection slowly build with each passing scene.  As they get to know each other, so too do we as the audience.

Shot amongst the Flinders Rangers in a remote part of the South Australian outback, Michôd has created a grim, depressing setting.  The actors look like they haven’t had a shower in weeks and everything feels like it’s covered in a thick layer of dust.  Some may be rattled by a few moments of brutality but the violence is not gratuitous unless absolutely necessary.

Animal Kingdom was a life changing experience for Michôd.  It was a critical success internationally, it won the Australian Film Institute Award for best picture, and it earned star Jacki Weaver a well-deserved Oscar nomination.  The Rover is another strong addition to his resume and I look forward to following the career of this gifted 41-year-old with great interest.

You can read my chat with star Guy Pearce by clicking here.

You can read my chat with director David Michod by clicking here.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 18 June 2014

A question I’m often asked – what’s an example of a film that was just as good, if not better, than the novel on which it was based?  I could come up with a few examples but one that’s permanently stuck in my mind is The Talented Mr Ripley.  Directed by the late Anthony Minghella and released back in 1999, it was a brilliant thriller about a sinister individual (Matt Damon) who stole the life of someone else.    

I make reference to this fact as The Two Faces Of January is based on a novel from the same author, Patricia Highsmith, and has been brought to the screen by an Oscar nominated writer, Hossein Amini (The Wings Of The Dove, Drive).  It doesn’t delve into its characters quite as deeply as in Ripley, but it’s still an intriguing mystery that feels a lot more realistic that what we’re used to from Hollywood.

The story is set in Greece 1962 and begins by introducing us to Rydal (Isaac) – a young American who makes a meagre living as a tour guide.  An economics graduate from Yale University, Rydal could easily slip on a suit and make more money back home… but he’s not interested.  He’s escaped from his overbearing father and he’s content with the new, independent life that he’s crafted for himself.

At a small café in Athens, he befriends two Americans, Chester (Mortensen) and Colette (Dunst), looking for a guided tour.  He learns that they too are trying to hide from their past.  Chester is a World War II veteran who once ran a successful brokerage firm.  He and his wife were forced to flee the country after he lost the money of several influential clients.

A single event will forever change their lives.  Chester is confronted in his hotel room by an armed goon seeking money on behalf of his begrudged clients.  They fight and the goon accidentally hits his head on the bathroom tiles.  He is killed instantly.  It’s a clear case of self-defence but Chester realises that counts for nought.  He can’t afford for the authorities to become involved as it will expose his own dodgy past.  Dragged into the mess is Rydal who unwillingly finds himself hiding the body.

What follows is a seductive tale that will leave you wondering about everyone’s motivations.  Is Chester a genuine guy going through a rough patch… or is he a cunning, devious character who thinks only of himself?  Is Rydal helping because he’s sympathetic towards their plight… or is a shallow man looking to make some cash and sleep with a beautiful woman?  What about Colette?  Is she loyal to her husband… or is she thinking about getting out while she still can?

The answers to these questions aren’t exactly clear cut which is part of the charm of The Two Faces Of January.  We’ve all got a bit of good in us.  We’ve all got a bit of bad in us.  That comes through loud and clear when you get to know these characters.  Viggo Mortensen, Oscar Isaac and Kirsten Dunst have all been well cast.  You’re also likely to be wooed by the location.  Shot in both Athens and Crete, it’ll edge you a few steps closer to dusting off the passport and heading that way (if you haven’t already).

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 08 June 2014

Good Vibrations tells the real life story of Terri Hooley – a music lover who opened a record store in Belfast in the mid-1970s and helped grow the local punk rock scene.  There’s an early scene where he’s been looked at quizzically by his bank manager who cannot understand why he’d want to open a business in downtown Belfast given the political climate.  This was a time when there was huge conflict between Catholics and Protestants.  People didn’t even feel safe walking down a busy street.

What resonates most with this film is the passion shown by Terri (played in the film by Richard Dormer).  He saw himself as just an ordinary guy doing what he loves… but his enthusiasm for his work and the music industry is something that you don’t see all that often.  It’s inspiring stuff.

At first he just sold records but Terri’s activities expanded when he befriended some young musicians from Northern Ireland who had some great songs.  They just didn’t know how to find an audience.  Terri had zero experience when it came to music production but he helped them record an album and helped get them heard on radio and seen on television.  He didn’t even charge a fee.

There was a cost to all of this though.  Terri put so much time and effort into his work that it put a huge strain on his relationship with his wife, Ruth (Whittaker).  Terri was spending more and more nights away from home.  He was getting himself into more and more debt with the record shop.  There was now a growing likelihood that the bank would take possession of their home.

The film does most things by the book but it’s still an interesting biopic about a person that you probably won’t be familiar with.  It inspired me to do a little more reading about Terri Hooley on leaving the theatre.  I was also curious to know more about Richard Dormer who is fantastic in the leading role.  The Belfast-born actor started out in the theatre where he was not just an actor but also a playwright.  He’s had a few small supporting roles in feature films but this is first chance at something big.  He grabs the opportunity with both hands and you’re likely to remember his performance for some time.

I also like the approach of directors Lisa Barros D’sa and Glenn Leyburn who have included actual footage from the conflict in Northern Ireland in the 1970s.  It isn’t overdone and it helps give the film some context.  When you see the aftermath of an explosion that killed an Irish band who were travelling home to Dublin, you get a true understanding of the risks that Terri and his friends were taking when they were on their own mini-tours across the country.

Good Vibrations first screened over 2 years ago in Northern Ireland and so it’s taken a rather long journey to reach us here in Australia.  Don’t let that perturb you though.  It’s a film worth seeing.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 17 June 2014

22 Jump Street has two things in mind.  Firstly, it wants to poke fun at the sequel genre.  In the film’s opening scene, we are reintroduced to police detectives Schmidt (Hill) and Jenko (Tatum).  They’ve earned a promotion and are now trying to bust a heavyweight criminal (Stormare).  Things are a lot more serious and it would appear that the film’s writers want to let these characters evolve and move in a different direction.

Wrong.  When their assignment goes pear shaped, they are informed by their boss (Ice Cube) that they’re clearly not ready for extra responsibility.  They need to go back to what they’re familiar with.  He’s going to put them on a new case that will require them to go undercover, pretend they’re college students, and figure out who is behind a major drug dealing operation.  In other words, it’s the exact same premise of the original film (except for the fact that they’re in college as opposed to a school).

It’s the first of many references to the predictable nature of sequels and their reluctance to take chances.  The concept is continued all the way through to the closing credits where we’re given a glimpse of future instalments may look like if they stick with the same formula and milk it for all it’s worth.

The film’s second major theme is its mocking of the homoerotic nature of so many buddy comedies.  It’s filled with double-entendres.  Jonah Hill and Channing Tatum are supposed to be professional police officers but you’d think they were long-time lovers when you hear the way they speak.  Things get even stranger when Tatum befriends one of the high-profile players on the college football team.  It leaves Hill’s character rather jealous.

22 Jump Street opened strongly at the U.S. box-office last week and is getting the thumbs up from most critics.  It’s easy to see why.  This is a film that is creative enough… to mock its own lack of creativity.  It’s designed for filmgoers (myself included) who groan about the increasing number of sequels, reboots and remakes.

That said, I’m not fully convinced on the execution of this idea.  Some jokes hit the mark while others fall flat.  There’s also a problem with repetition.  The homoerotic banter between Hill and Tatum is funny the first time but it gets tired in the later stages.  You kind of hope that it might lead to a surprising punch line (e.g. they are actually gay) but that sadly doesn’t eventuate.

Despite its flaws and drawn out running time (almost two hours), 22 Jump Street is an easy-to-enjoy comedy.