Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 18 August 2013

Kick-Ass 2 pushes the boundaries further than we’ve ever seen before. I’m not referring to the film’s violence but rather, to the character’s names. We’re already familiar with Kick-Ass (no issue there) but it could be hard making reference to Night Bitch and The Motherfucker when critiquing the film on ABC Radio. Oh, and there’s also the name given to the collective of bad guys – the Toxic Mega Cunts.

The original Kick-Ass, released in Australia back in April 2010, was a fun film. Many would agree. It had a strong, intricate plot and took the superhero genre in a slightly different direction. Instead of focusing on heroes with super powers or million-dollar gadgets, we followed ordinary folk who just wanted to put on a costume and make the world a better place.

Kick-Ass 2 tries to replicate that same amusing formula by introducing a bunch of new characters. The good guys are once again guided by teenagers Kick-Ass (Taylor-Johnson) and Hit-Girl (Grace Moretz) but they’ve been joined by other wanna-be heroes who want to clean up the streets. The most notable is an ex-mafia enforcer known as Captain Stars & Stripes (Carrey).

Most bad guys have some kind of fiendish plan to steal money, seize power or destroy the world. Not this lot. After his father was killed at the end of the first film, Chris D’Amico (Mintz-Plasse), now known as The Motherfucker, simply wants revenge. With the help of his father’s inheritance, he’s been able to assemble a muscle-heavy team of villains to get the job done.

Jim Carrey gave Kick-Ass 2 some good / bad publicity (take your pick) when he announced that, despite starring in the film, he wouldn’t be doing any promotional interviews. He felt he could no longer condone heavy violence in movies following the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in October 2012 (where 20 children and 6 adults were killed by a single assailant). I guess we won’t be seeing Carrey in a Quentin Tarantino film any time soon.

Those at the Australian Classification Board (ACB) didn’t seem to have as big an issue as Jim Carrey. The film has been rated MA and so is accessible to anyone who has made it to their 15^th birthday. They only warn it contains “strong violence, coarse language and sexual references”.

The “strong violence” tag has already been attached to a dozen releases in 2013 (including Django Unchained, The Place Beyond The Pines, Pain & Gain) and I’d agree with the ACB in that, while the film does have its fair share of violence, it’s no worse than what we’ve seen many times already this year.

That said, the way the violence is used feels a little askew. The “good guys” have a mantra that they try to use as little force as possible when apprehending the “bad guys”. Captain Stars & Stripes likes to threaten people with his gun but DON’T WORRY EVERYONE – it’s not loaded so it’s ok. I was also unsure as to why Hit-Girl picked a fight with a petty thief and then proceeded to cut his arm off. Was it really necessary? Did her guardian (Chestnut), who is actually a police officer, not have a problem with this?

Writer-director Jeff Wadlow (Never Back Down) has missed a great opportunity to illustrate the very thin line that often separates heroes and villains. It seems a perfect fit for the film’s premise and the way that ordinary people, under the guise of a mask, take justice into their own hands. Are Kick-Ass and Hit-Girl doing the right thing?

Instead, Kick-Ass 2 is very black and white. The good guys get a “free pass” for their indiscretions and the bad guys are portrayed as sick monsters. This vibe comes through strongest during the film’s convoluted action finale. I’d also question a rape joke (you’ll know what I’m talking about) that is in extremely poor taste.

Unsure what it wants to say, Kick-Ass 2 is a forgettable action flick with just an occasional splattering of humour.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 07 August 2013

Daniel Lugo (Wahlberg) works as a “senior fitness coordinator” at a successful gymnasium in Miami. He has a great body, he can bench press a gazillion kilos, and he is well liked by his customers. Daniel dreams of bigger things though. At a cheesy self-help seminar, he is singled out in the audience and told that he should become a “do-er” as opposed to a “don’t-er”.

Daniel’s problem is that, to quote directly from the film, he is a “dumb stupid f***”. Instead of starting his own business or looking for better job opportunities, Daniel’s idea of becoming successful is to steal from others. He befriends a multi-millionaire (Shalhoub) at the gymnasium and comes up with an idiotic plan to kidnap the guy and then steal his car, his house and his cash.

It’s not something he can pull off alone so he’s brought in two friends to assist. Paul Doyle (Johnson) is a devout Catholic who was recently released from prison and is battling a cocaine addiction. Adrian Doorbal (Mackie) is a gym-junkie who has become addicted to steroids and now can’t function in the bedroom.

Watching these three guys in action, I couldn’t help but compare them to Jim Carey and Jeff Daniels in the 1994 comedy Dumb & Dumber. That’s the sort of incompetence I’m talking about. These guys make mistake after mistake after mistake.

Based on actual events (although rather loosely from what I’ve read), Pain & Gain had the potential to be a great “truth is stranger than fiction” tale. Unfortunately, it’s been turned into a dull, uneven movie by director Michael Bay (Bad Boys, Transformers).

There are times when the film wants to be a silly, screwball comedy. Rebel Wilson, in a typical Rebel Wilson role, comes in for comic relief as the girlfriend of the steroid abuser. She jokes about his small testicles and organises special medical treatment to help with his erectile dysfunction.

There are times when the film wants to be a gruesome crime drama. The kidnapped guy is bound, bashed, tortured and electrocuted for weeks. There’s even a scene where they drive a car over his head. It gets even worse in the later stages but I won’t reveal too much more.

It’s this inconsistency that makes Pain & Gain hard to take seriously. Am I supposed to be laughing at these three morons and the crazy plan they tried to pull off? Is that they why the cast the likeable Mark Wahlberg, Dwayne Johnson and Anthony Mackie? Or should this film leave me concerned about society, our constant pursuit of wealth, and, oh yes, the general incompetence of the police force (who are portrayed very badly)?

The film’s only interesting character, a level-headed private investigator played by Ed Harris, arrives too late and isn’t given enough screen time. It’s too bad. With major gaps in the story (such as why the multi-millionaire didn’t access his offshore money) and an over-reliance on narration to explain its characters’ mindsets, Pain & Gain is a forgettable disappointment.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 11 August 2013

In Australia, some have concerns about the growing number of refugees and asylum seekers. In the United States, some have concerns about whether basic medical coverage should be provided by the government. Across the globe, some have concerns about economic inequality and the widening gap between the rich and the poor.

Don’t expect these issues to be addressed in our lifetime… at least according to writer-director Neill Blomkamp (District 9). Elysium is set in the year 2154 and paints a bleak, depressing view of our future. The planet has become overpopulated and riddled with disease. With its run-down buildings and make-shift shanty towns, Los Angeles now resembles a Third World city.

Not everyone is doing it tough, however. A giant satellite, known as Elysium, has been orbiting the planet for several decades. Put simply – it is paradise. Complete with clean air and an artificial atmosphere, Elysium’s citizens have everything they could ever need – luxurious mansions, spacious parklands, unlimited food and revolutionary medical care. It is home to the thousands of families… who can afford it.

The film’s central character is Max (Damon) – a broke ex-con on a desperate quest to survive. After being exposed to radiation in his not-so-safe workplace, Max is given less than a week to live. As the saying goes – “beware of the man who has nothing to lose”. Knowing his only chance is to access the life-saving medical machines on Elysium, Max will do whatever he can, rightly or wrongly, to secure a shuttle ticket.

Avoiding a simple “Max versus the world” type storyline, Blomkamp offers more of a challenge with several subplots running concurrently. All of the characters are looking to shake up the current “system” and make a better life for themselves but they have different ideas, different motivations.

On one hand, there’s Elysium’s power-hungry Secretary of Defence (Foster) who is unhappy with the community’s loose border protection policies. With the help of a financially-driven businessman (Fichtner) and a violence-driven sleeper agent (Copley), she wants to cure Elysium’s “political sickness” and overthrow the government.

On the other hand, there is an Earth-based group of revolutionaries looking to shift the class warfare scales. They’re somewhat self-interested (money, money, money) but they want to infiltrate Elysium and make sure it’s technology is accessible by all as opposed to the privileged few.

Blomkamp’s approach reminded me of films such as Blood Diamond and Green Zone. He’s trying to make a statement about certain political / social issues but to make it more palatable, it’s been packaged as part of a Hollywood-style action film.

Elysium is too action-heavy in its second half and the ending is a little too simplistic. With so many subplots and so many issues to explore, it was always going to be difficult to resolve them sufficiently inside of two hours. Some messages get lost.

Still, the film is to be commended for its thought provoking premise – something we haven’t seen in many films over the U.S. summer. It also provides us with an interesting, metaphoric look into the future. The technology is hard to wrap your head around, evidenced by Matt Damon’s robotic limbs and the concept of a human “data heist”, but you will be wondering how much of this could become reality.

Elysium is not as creative or engaging as Neil Blomkamp’s feature debut, District 9, but this follow up solidifies his reputation as a visionary filmmaker who is prepared to take chances and think outside of the box. Not bad for a 33-year-old.

You can watch my chat with star Matt Damon right here...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20OfO2ohIvc

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 07 August 2013

Most would be familiar with the phrase that “you shouldn’t judge a book by its cover.” I guess the cinematic equivalent is that “you shouldn’t judge a movie by its trailer.”

When I first saw advertisements for Now You See Me a few months ago, it tweaked my curiosity. A group of four magicians are standing on a stage in Las Vegas in front of a sold-out audience. For their final trick of the night, they pull a man from the crowd, teleport him into a bank vault and then have him steal millions of dollars – all of which is handed out to those in the crowd. How did they pull it off?

It’s an amazing trick… but I’m not talking about the bank vault thing. Rather, I’m referring to the trick played on those who pay money to see Now You See Me. The opening credits roll, the stage is set and then SHAZAM… all sense of logic magically disappears. The plot has more holes than a donut shop and the more you think, the more frustrated you will become.

It’s a shame because I love a good heist flick. We see someone come up with a creative plan to steal a small fortune. Recent examples which come to mind include the Ocean’s Eleven series, The Italian Job, The Thomas Crown Affair and Lock, Stock & Two Smoking Barrels. It wasn’t the greatest of films but even 2011’s Tower Heist had its moments.

The reason the aforementioned films are so entertaining is because despite their light-hearted nature, they still come with a strong enough dose of believability. This is where Now You See Me suffers. It has a great cast, led by the likes of Jesse Eisenberg, Mark Ruffalo and Woody Harrelson, but their plan relies on far too many coincidences and far too many events beyond their control. They’re not as smart as the screenwriters would have us think.

The film keeps one major detail from the audience – the identity of the person who taught these four magicians and helped them pull off the robbery. We don’t know who it is. Nor do the four magicians (which is kind of strange given that they’re trusting this person enough to commit criminal offenses). All is revealed in the final minutes and you can expect a few audible groans from those seated in the near vicinity. I don’t want to sound like I’m flogging a dead horse but IT MAKES NO SENSE!

Having spent 6 weeks inside the top 10 at the box-office in the United States, for a total take of $115m, Now You See Me has been one of the sleeper hits of the year so far. I have no idea why.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 08 August 2013

In Alexander Payne’s Sideways, released back in 2005, Virginia Madsen asks Paul Giamatti why he hasn’t yet opened his bottle of a 1961 Cheval Blanc. He responds by saying that he’s waiting for a special occasion with the right person. I’ve never forgotten her retort – “the day you open a ’61 Cheval Blanc… that’s the special occasion”.

Red Obsession is an Australian-made documentary that begins by illustrating our fixation with a great bottle of wine. Those professing their love on camera include British broadcaster Michael Parkinson and American film director Francis Ford Coppola.

When it comes to red wine, there’s one part of the world that has been respected for more than 2,000 years – the Bordeaux region in western France. When you hear the vineyard managers use phrases like “bringing love to the wine”, you get a strong sense of their passion and devotion. You might also think they’re a little crazy.

With the background established, Red Obsession reveals its true focus. This isn’t a film about wine. Rather, it’s a film about economics. We learn that over the past 30 years, wine has been transformed from a drink… into an investment. Prices have skyrocketed and some savvy investors have made more money through wine trading than their counterparts on the stock market. Some bottles of wine are now considered too valuable to drink!

This is textbook example of what all budding economics students are taught in their first year – supply and demand. Supply will always be limited. Even with a season of ideal rainfall and perfect temperatures, there’s only so much wine that can be produced.

As for demand, it’s rapidly increasing. China’s economy has grown at obscene rates in recent years and so too has their interest in luxury goods. They are now the world’s biggest importer of wine from the Bordeaux region. There’s a humorous scene where a group of Chinese wine critics are running to get a seat after the doors are opened at an important wine tasting exhibition. It’s like watching teenage girls at a One Direction concert.

Like any good documentary, Red Obsession provides much food for thought. Will demand continue to increase in China and if so, how will it be met? Are fast-rising prices good for the industry in the long-term? Do we want to reach a point where the top Bordeaux wines can only be afforded by multi-millionaires? What about the effect of the growing counterfeit market?

The film also makes some interesting points about the role of wine critics, the significance of brand name recognition, the 2008 global financial crisis, and the cultural revolution that has enveloped China. Australian directors David Roach and Warwick Ross are to be commended on the wide breath of material they have covered in the tight 75 minute running time.

With the added star power of Russell Crowe, who serves as the film’s narrator, Red Obsession premiered at the prestigious Berlin Film Festival back in February. Two months later, it screened at the Tribeca Film Festival in New York where host Robert De Niro named it as one of his favourite films. Who'd have thought a film combining red wine with economics could be so informative and entertaining? Red Obsession is one of the year’s best documentaries.

You can read my interview with director Warwick Ross by clicking here.