Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 07 July 2013

Sarah Ashburn (Bullock) is a by-the-book FBI agent based in New York who always gets results. She’s organised, dresses professionally and lives in a crystal clean apartment. Shannon Mullins (McCarthy) is a rough-as-guts police detective working in Boston who has thrown the book out the window. She disregards protocol, has a foul mouth and never treats anyone, including her superiors, with respect.

These two don’t know each other… but they’re about to. Ashburn has been sent to Boston to find out who is the kingpin behind a major drug dealing operation. The case has extra importance (surprise surprise) because Ashburn has been assured by her boss (Bichir) that if she can arrest those responsible, she’ll receive a major promotion.

Mullins doesn’t react too well to Ashburn’s arrival. She’s been arresting local drug dealers for years and she’s not too pleased with the FBI storming in and stealing her thunder. After a few tense interchanges, they realise that they’ll need to work as a team. Ashburn needs Mullins’ local knowledge of the area. Mullins needs Ashburn’s access to high-level FBI intelligence.

If I described the plot and nothing else, you’d probably think of this as a standard, unoriginal buddy comedy. It’s been done again and again in Hollywood. You take two people with vastly different personalities and you put them together in some silly, clichéd scenarios. Lo and behold, they magically become best friends.

That wouldn’t do the film justice. The key to any buddy comedy is the chemistry between the two leads and there’s so much to love about the pairing of Sandra Bullock and Melissa McCarthy. Bullock is great as the arrogant FBI agent but it’s McCarthy who steals the show with her offensive, politically incorrect insults. If I didn’t know better, I’d say her entire performance was improvised given the natural way in which she delivers her dialogue.

The Heat is director Paul Feig’s first film since the very successful Bridesmaids and marks the feature film writing debut for Katie Dippold (a writer on the Parks & Recreation television series). Regardless of what you make of the movie, they’re to be applauded for the fact that this is the only major studio release over the U.S. summer that has two females in the leading role. We don’t see it often enough. They also deserve credit for a comical supporting cast that includes cameos from Kaitlin Olson (It’s Always Sunny In Philadelphia) and Tony Hale (Arrested Development).

As we all know though, comedy is divisive. There have been critics on Rotten Tomatoes who have described this as “uneven”, “childish”, “uninspired” and “boring”. On the flip side, there have been an equal number of critics using adjectives that are far more positive. To address one criticism, who cares if we’ve seen Bullock and McCarthy in similar roles before? All that matters is that in this movie, they made me laugh.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 25 June 2013

Seven years ago, Warner Bros. tried to bring this popular franchise back to life with Superman Returns. Everything seemed to be in place. Superhero movies were increasing in popularity. Director Bryan Singer had already proven himself with the X-Men series. Brandon Routh was a fresh-faced actor ready for stardom.

For whatever reason, it didn’t work. The film pulled in only $391m at the international box-office and while that may sound like a lot, it was just enough to cover the production and marketing costs. The studio had lost faith and a sequel, scheduled for release in 2009, was canned.

As the saying goes – if at first you don’t succeed, try again. Warner Bros. has coughed up another $225m and is having a second crack at revamping the franchise. This time around, they’ve gone with director Zack Snyder (Watchmen, 300) and brought in another newbie who is ready to make a name of himself, Henry Cavill (Immortals).

You can forget about the earlier Superman flicks because we’re going right back to beginning with Man Of Steel. The first scene of the film is set on the distant planet of Krypton where we witness the birth of our soon-to-be hero. The planet is about to implode (long story) so his parents throw him into an escape pod and send him off to the far distant planet of Earth. It’s the only way they can ensure the survival of not only their son, but their race as a whole.

The film’s first hour is its most interesting with two stories being told concurrently. The current day narrative sees Earth under attack from a rather passionate villain, General Zod (Shannon). Zod fled Krypton before it exploded and spent 33 years trying to locate Kal-El aka Clark Kent aka Superman. Having finally made it to Earth, he has plans to annihilate the human population and make it home to a new race of Kryptonians.

As we watch the drama unfold, we learn more about Superman and his past by way of flashback. We see him arrive on the planet and be raised by two loving parents. We see him get bullied at high school and watch him struggle to keep a hold on his super powers. We see his father warn him about humans and why he should keep his identity hidden. It seems we’re not quite ready to learn that we aren’t alone in the universe.

While I like the way the past storyline overlaps with that of the current day, there are still some puzzling gaps. There’s a scene where a young Clark Kent saves a school bus which has plunged into a river. He was clearly seen by the students on the bus so why weren't questions asked?. How else did the bus get out of the deep water? Don’t even get me started on a strange development where an alien space ship is found beneath the arctic ice. You’d think the authorities would show a little more concern when it suddenly flies away under Clark’s control.

I tried to like this film. I really did. For example, I was drawn to the heartfelt moments between Clark and his adopted father, Jonathan, where they discuss each other’s troubles. It’s a subtle, touching performance from Kevin Costner – one of his best in recent years. Unfortunately, these scenes are easily forgotten when you see the silly, comical way in which Jonathan meets his fate. It makes no sense.

Man Of Steel suffers most in its final hour where in degenerates into a seen-it-all-before, CGI-laden action fest. Time could have been spent developing the fun relationship between Clark Kent and snoopy journalist Lois Lane (Adams) but instead, we get punches, explosions and buildings falling over. Michael Shannon trots out cheesy lines like “either you die or I do”. Oh, and let’s not forget that Superman is always in the right place at the right time to save the day. He’s the king of convenience.

A sequel is planned but as we learned with Superman Returns in 2006, nothing is guaranteed in Hollywood. I think there’s hope for this rebooted franchise but would like to see something more engaging next time around.

You can read my interview with director Zack Snyder by clicking here.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 03 July 2013

The Lone Ranger story began as a radio serial in 1933 and then took off as a television show in 1949. I don’t think I’ve ever seen an episode (it was a few decades before I was born) but I am very familiar with The Lone Ranger’s famous catchcry – he’d jump on his white horse and shout “Hi yo, Silver! Away!”

We do get to hear that line in director Gore Verbinski’s $250m blockbuster but it’s not until the very end (and it’s done so in a humorous fashion). The reason is that this is an origin story, in a similar vein to last week’s Man Of Steel. It shows us how the Lone Ranger came into existence, why he wears a mask and how he became friends with Tonto.

The central character is a man named John Reid (Hammer). Now a fully qualified lawyer, he has returned to his small home town to ensure that justice is upheld at all times. He does not want the Texas Rangers, led by his older brother Dan (Badge Dale), dishing out their own violent brand of “justice”. Rather, he wants to see all those arrested tried in a formal court with appropriate representation.

John’s lofty ideals come into question when his brother his brutally murdered by the notorious Butch Cavendish (Fichtner) and his thieving gang. I need to emphasise the term “brutally”. It’s one thing to be shot several times. It’s another to have a knife shoved into your chest and to have your heart ripped out.

There’s now only one thing that matters in the life of John Reid – locating Cavendish and making sure he pays for his crime. He’s not alone though. A Native American named Tonto (Depp) also seeks revenge against Cavendish for slaughtering his family many years ago. They’re as different as chalk and cheese but John and Tonto form an uneasy partnership and go in search of the man they hate.

The Lone Ranger is a film that doesn’t know what it wants to be. There are elements that make you think it’s a light, fun comedy. This is evidenced by some of the childish banter between John and Tonto. Armie Hammer plays it straight and Johnny Depp does what he usually does – providing quick one-liners and sarcastic facial expressions (just as he does in any Tim Burton film). There are a few genuine but you can’t help but think that there needed to be more.

On the flip side, there are parts of this film that make you think it’s a violent, blood-thirsty drama. I’ve already touched on Dan’s death but there’s another sequence late in the film where the body count is extremely high. I’m not saying that the film should be all sweet and rosy. My problem is that the horror of this scene is “glossed over” as if it’s just a run-of-the-mill event.

As for the broader plot... it lacks coherence. This is most evident through the bizarre 1933 San Francisco storyline where an older Tonto retells the tale to a small boy. Considering the film is two and a half hours long, was it needed? What was it supposed to add? Characters such as Dan’s widow (Wilson), a feisty brothel manager (Bonham Carter) and a ruthless railroad tycoon (Wilkinson) also needed more relevance and more screen time.

I’m usually blasé when it comes to big action sequences but I did enjoy the film’s finale. It’s so farcical, so ridiculously over-the-top… that I had fun with it. A shame this tone was pursued in the two hours that preceded it.

You can read my interview with star Armie Hammer by clicking here.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 23 June 2013

Germain (Luchini) is at home marking the assignments of his high school literature class. The students had a simple task – write about what happened to them over the weekend. Unfortunately, their submissions are terrible. He reads a sample of them to his wife, Jeanne (Scott Thomas), and it’s clear that these students simply do not care about the subject.

There’s an exception though. A 16-year-old named Claude (Umhauer) submitted a lengthy hand-written piece. He reveals that he is infatuated with the home from a fellow student, Rapha (Ughetto). He’ll often sit on a bench in the adjoining park and fantasise about what goes on inside. It’s rather creepy.

Over the weekend, Claude took his obsession one step further. He befriended Rapha and offered to help with his maths homework. It may seem a kind, gracious act but Claude isn’t after a new friend. He just wants to be invited inside the house so he can snoop around and get a sense of what their life is like. While Rapha is completing a maths problem in his bedroom, he can peak into cupboards and eavesdrop on conversations shared between Rapha’s mother (Seigner) and father (Menochet).

Claude’s story ends with the words “to be continued” and it leaves Germain somewhat shocked. Claude deserves a good mark as it’s an open, well-written piece that comes with a splash of mystery and intrigue. It will grab the attention of any reader. However, it also reveals that Claude a cunning, sinister individual.

Germain considers alerting the school’s headmaster but in the end, he decides to encourage Claude to keep writing. Is this because he thinks Claude is a gifted student who could one day be a great author? Or is it because he’s now drawn into the story and wants to know more about the secret lives of Rapha and his family?

There are a few moments within In The House that push the boundaries of believability but this is still an interesting, creative, puzzling film that is best described as a black comedy. It’s a dark subject matter but writer-director François Ozon (Swimming Pool, 8 Women) adds a few light touches to keep the audience on edge. These characters are messed up and yet there I was, sitting in the back row of the cinema, with a smile on my face.

Many elements of this tale will keep you thinking and guessing. How much of Claude’s story is real? How much has been embellished so as to make it more appealing? Also, what’s the deal with Germain? Should he spending so much time helping Claude outside of regular school hours? Who really has the upper hand in their student-teacher relationship?

In The House took out the FIPRESCI Prize at the 2012 Toronto Film Festival and picked up 6 César Award nominations including best picture (losing to Amour). I’m not alone with my admiration for the film and as one of the year’s best foreign language releases, you should be checking it out.

Details

Written by Matthew Toomey

Created: 01 July 2013

When discussing documentaries with friends, I find there are two schools of thought. One group believes that a good documentary should be even handed. It should cover all angles of the subject matter and then let the audience draw their own conclusions. Suffice to say they’re not a fan of the Michael Moore style of documentary filmmaking that is heavy on narration and where his message is “forced down your throat”.

My other group of friends has no problems with this. They ask the question – why would a filmmaker spend years of their life putting together a documentary unless they had something to say? Aren’t they trying to open people’s eyes and change their perspective? If you’re looking to explore other sides of an argument, that aren’t covered in the film, you’re free to do your own additional reading and research. The same applies to any news story or editorial.

I sit somewhere in between these two schools of thought. Perhaps it’s how I’ve evolved. Perhaps I’m just trying to appease all of my friends. I am more than happy to see a filmmaker put forward their point of view… provide that we at least get to hear from those pushing the other side of the argument.

A great example which comes to mind is the Academy Award winning Inside Job. Director Charles Ferguson had no qualms identifying those he believed responsible for the 2008 global financial crisis. He made a very strong case too. However, whilst we often laughed at their expense, we did get to see interviews with government officials, educators, lobbyists and financial advisers who disagreed with his conclusions.

We Steal Secrets: The Story Of Wikileaks is an intriguing documentary in that you’re never quite sure where it’s heading, despite the fact this story has featured prominently in the media over the past two years. Is it taking a side? Or is trying to be fair and balanced?

The early scenes, which kick off with an appropriate Midnight Oil song, highlight an increasing level of secrecy within the United States. In the aftermath of the 2001 terrorist attacks, we are told that the number of classified documents increased from 8 million to 76 million. A record number of phone calls and emails were being intercepted. Not even Congress knew how much was being spent annually on surveillance. That too was a secret!

Does this make Julian Assange a saviour for pulling back the curtain and making these confidential documents public? Not necessarily according to the film’s Oscar winning director, Alex Gibney (Enron: The Smartest Guys In The Room, Taxi To The Dark Side).

With access to a surprising large amount of behind-the-scenes video footage, Gibney portrays Assange as a man full of contradictions who “liked crushing bastards”. There are times when you will agree with Assange’s actions. There are times when you will not. The ultimate paradox comes from the fact that in exposing the truth, Assange had to tell lies. It comes back to an age old question – does the end justify the means?

The film is about more than just Julian Assange though. An equal amount of time is spent examining Bradley Manning, a U.S. Army soldier who leaked a plethora of diplomatic cables and war logs to Wikileaks. The film may sit on the fence when it comes to judging Assange but it’s clearly sympathetic towards Manning. The United States Government turned him into their “scapegoat” and his subsequent persecution highlights the perilous nature of being a whistle blower. Manning makes for a great character study but I’m a little puzzled as to why so much time is spent exploring his difficult personal life. Should it have any impact on the decisions he made?

A large amount of chatter could be overheard in the foyer following last week’s preview. To me, this is a positive. Alex Gibney has shone his spotlight into a few dark corners and shown us something worthy of discussion.