Film Review: Cinderella

‪ 

Cinderella. Rated G (very mild themes). 105 minutes. Directed by Kenneth Branagh. Screenplay by Chris Weitz.

Verdict: An unforgettable telling of a magical story.

What a relief that the unmitigated disaster a contemporary re-telling of the much-loved Cinderella fairytale might have been never eventuates. Instead, in the hands of the accomplished Kenneth Branagh (Thor, Hamlet), the story’s values shine through in scene after scene of expertly acted and brilliantly designed cinematic beauty, superbly photographed by Cinematographer Haris Zambarloukos (Thor).

The modernised, pop references that might have appeared are all rejected in favour of lavish, traditional production values from Production Designer Dante Ferretti and Costume Designer Sandy Powell (who worked together on Shutter Island and The Aviator). The scale and beauty of their creativity is never less than astonishing. Every time the magnificent Cate Blanchett’s evil stepmother appears, it is in another stunning costume that risk becoming the only aspects of the film you’ll remember.

While Walt Disney’s Cinderella (1950) is the most memorable cinematic telling of the story to date, Branagh’s version capitalises on state-of-the-art visual effects, of which the sequences involving Helena Bonham Carter’s Fairy Godmother and Lily James’s perfect Cinderella preparing to go to the Ball are the magical highlights. As the clock strikes midnight, the chaos of Cinderella’s flight home from the palace in a disintegrating pumpkin carriage is brilliantly realised.

But the heart of the story is the potentially ill-fated romance between a cruelly mistreated young commoner and her Prince Charming, Kit (Richard Madden). The onscreen chemistry James and Madden share is heart-felt, and restores our faith in the power of genuine romance. Where Cinderella also bucks the ‘fake it till you make it’ trend of young, cinematic heroines, is the way that even though Cinderella presents at the Ball as gorgeous princess in a stupendous gown, it is actually the courageous, loyal and determined young woman with whom Kit falls in love.

This review was commissioned by the West Australian Newspaper Group.

Film Review: Insurgent

‪ 

Insurgent. Rated M (science fiction themes and violence). 119 minutes. Directed by Robert Schwentke. Screenplay by Brian Duffield and Mark Bomback. Based on the novel by Veronica Roth.

Verdict: A series of spectacular sequences almost save this long, bloated sequel.

For the plethora of films that focus on young adults fighting to survive in a post-apocalyptic world, the challenge is to create enough points of difference to ensure we remain interested. Like The Hunger Games: Mockingjay – Part 1 (2014), Insurgent’s padded-out story could have been told in half the time, which is a major disappointment because when Insurgent is good, it is very good.

Picking up where Divergent (2014) left us, Tris (Shailene Woodley), Four (Theo James), Peter (Miles Teller) and Caleb (Ansel Elgort) are on the run from Eric (Jai Courtney) and his gang of mercenaries. Jeanine (Kate Winslet) wants Tris captured and brought to the Erudite faction, where Jeanine is desperate to identify the contents of a mysterious box that she believes will provide her with more power over the population. Only a Divergent can solve the riddle of how the box is opened, and Jeanine is convinced that Tris will be her best chance of success.

Woodley has settled into the role of the reluctant heroine beautifully, and Schwentke is absolutely right to ensure that she is the star attraction as often as possible.

But where Insurgent really works is in the spectacular sequences involving the simulations that Tris is subjected to in order to solve the riddle of the box. Plugged in to an octopus-like cluster of cables, she is plunged into virtual worlds where she must endure life-threatening challenges. While the visual effects and Joseph Trapanese’s score are superb to experience in these sequences, they also serve to reveal just how many moments of genuine intrigue and engagement are completely absent from the rest of the film.

This review was commissioned by the West Australian Newspaper Group.

Film Review: Chappie

‪

Chappie. Rated MA15+ (strong violence and coarse language). 120 minutes. Directed by Neill Blomkamp. Written by Neill Blomkamp and Terri Tatchell.

Verdict: Much, much more of the same from Blomkamp and Co.

When Blomkamp burst onto the scene with District 9 (2009), science fiction fans rightfully celebrated the arrival of a new hero. The Oscar-nominated, box office smash hit (powered by the themes of corporate corruption, racism, segregation and militaristic over-policing) from a director on debut was practically unheard of.

With Elysium (2013), Blomkamp revisited similar themes, working his disdain for class differences into a frenzy by having the wealthy, privileged population circling Earth in a gigantic, disease-free space station, liberated from the poverty of lesser mortals who remained on a toxic Earth.

The problem with Chappie, is that the director and his partner, co-writer Tatchell, appear to have run out of original ideas. What saves it from being as much of a fiasco as it constantly threatens to be, is the naïve title character’s heart-warming journey.

Chappie (Sharlto Copley) is a robot policeman destined for the junk yard. His ‘maker’, Deon (Dev Patel), has developed a code that will see the robots thinking for themselves and assuming other human qualities. When Deon successfully implants the code into Chappie, the robot begins a journey to an exclusively kind-hearted maturity before being trained by a group of mercenaries to help pull off a dangerous heist.

The always-reliable Patel is great as the neurotic Deon, while Hugh Jackman (with an awe-inspiring mullet), storms through the film as the inventor of a giant, human-controlled robot that is designed to destroy everything and everyone in its path. The presence of Sigourney Weaver only reminds us that she is reportedly to star as Ellen Ripley in Blomkamp’s heavily signposted Alien 5.

We can only hope that their next film together doesn’t end up resembling Alien vs WALL•E.

This review was commissioned by the West Australian Newspaper Group.

Film Review: Focus

‪ 

Focus. Rated MA15+ (strong violence, sex scenes and coarse language). 105 minutes. Written and directed by Glenn Ficarra and John Requa.

Verdict: Australian-born Margot Robbie stars in a glamorous and entertaining tale of high-stakes deception.

If there is one thing for certain we can take away from the experience of this film, it is that Queensland-born actress Margot Robbie’s Hollywood star is now officially in hyperdrive. Robbie, whose performance as Jordan Belfort’s (Leonardo Di Caprio) wife Naomi Lapaglia was the best thing about The Wolf of Wall Street (2013), delivers another sensational performance – only this time, as the film’s undisputed star.

When con artist Nicky Spurgeon (Will Smith), who specialises in high volumes of small crimes such as pickpocketing, meets Jess Barrett (Margot Robbie), the pair form an unlikely alliance. She is a relatively inexperienced apprentice con artist, but as the couple become increasingly enamoured with one another, the scale of their cons increases to dazzling, and equally more dangerous, heights.

The key to a successful heist movie is to ensure that we are constantly kept guessing as to who is doing what to who and why. The best examples (of which Jules Dassin’s 1974 masterpiece Rififi is a classic), end up being anxiety-enducing and neurotic affairs, powered by incredible plot twists and turns.

While Focus is far from a perfect example, it certainly offers more than its fair share of entertainment value, helped not only by Robbie’s star-making turn, but also Smith’s charismatic central performance as Nicky. Smith has always been a supremely confident performer on screen, and the sly and slippery Nicky suits him perfectly.

Ficarra and Requa (Crazy, Stupid, Love, I Love You Phillip Morris) keep the action simmering at a mostly agreeable pace, while Mexican-born cinematographer Xavier Grobet captures all of the escapades with a fine eye for every super enhanced, slick and glittering detail.

This review was commissioned by the West Australian Newspaper Group.

Film Review: The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel

‪ 
The Second Best Exotic Marigold Hotel. Rated PG (mild coarse language and sexual references). 122 minutes. Directed by John Madden. Screenplay by Ol Parker.‬

Verdict: The magic of the Best Exotic Marigold Hotel refuses to fade.

When The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel became an unexpected smash hit of 2012, it was only a matter of time before a sequel would find its way onto the screen. The first film’s perfect mixture of wonderful performances from Britain’s finest actors (including Judi Dench, Maggie Smith, Bill Nighy and Tom Wilkinson) and its intoxicating Indian locations, ensured that audiences flocked to it.

It’s perfect blend of humour, romance, adventure, drama and quiet worldly contemplation found its way into the hearts of its audiences – and Australian audiences, in particular, loved it.

With his Best Exotic Marigold Hotel now at capacity, Sonny (Dev Patel) and Muriel (Maggie Smith) travel to America to try and secure finance to enable them to purchase another hotel to continue to build on their dream of owning a chain of Best Exotic Marigold Hotels. If the investors’ inspector approves of the new location, the funds will be provided. When a wealthy American, Guy (Richard Gere), arrives, Sonny believes him to be the inspector, and does everything he can to make sure that he will have no choice but to approve his plans for expansion.

There is no faulting the performances from the outstanding cast, most of who are reprising their roles. Patel is wonderfully entertaining as the desperately ambitious Sonny, and Maggie Smith is simply divine as Muriel. On the back of her popularity in Downtown Abbey, Smith has been enjoying a luxury of big screen opportunities recently, and she never disappoints. The camera adores her, and she
receives excellent support from the superb Dench and Nighy, both of whom play the delicate theme of finding genuine love, late in life, to absolute perfection.

This review was commissioned by the West Australian Newspaper Group.

Film Review: Jupiter Ascending

‪
Jupiter Ascending. Rated M (violence and science fiction themes). 127 minutes. Written and directed by Andy and Lana Wachowski.‬

Verdict: Cinderella meets Star Trek.

Unbeknownst to Earth-bound cleaning lady Jupiter Jones (Mila Kunis), she is the queen of an alien race who must be eliminated so that the powerful dynasty, led by the ruthless Balem (Eddie Redmayne), can take control of their home planet’s valuable resources. Fighting to ensure that Jupiter is restored to her rightful place as leader of the Free World is Caine Wise (Channing Tatum), a pointy-eared warrior with a wicked set of skates, who will do whatever it takes to keep Jupiter alive.

Witnessing Jupiter Ascending is like watching someone desperately trying to rescue a burnt roast dinner, with exactly the same level of impending doom and embarrassment. At its best though, it is a sumptuous visual feast that appears unable to be contained within the screen across which it blazes. But for the sheer audacity of creating a film that is so beautiful, baffling, boring and shambolic – often all at precisely the same time – you’ve simply got to hand it to The Wachowskis (The Matrix trilogy, Speed Racer, Cloud Atlas).

Jupiter Ascending is delivered to the screen with such unabashed confidence, style and budget that it almost seems rude to suggest that it hasn’t worked. The many expensive, big action set pieces are so dark and ill-defined that it is often impossible to work out what’s going on.

Tatum, who spends much of his time looking extremely uncomfortable, skates endlessly around the galaxy with his shirt off rescuing the hapless Jupiter, while Redmayne makes the bizarre choice to either whisper or scream his dialogue. Kunis, on the other hand, floats through the story looking as though she hasn’t the faintest idea what’s going on. Which is perfect really, because most of the time neither do we.

This review was commissioned by the West Australian Newspaper Group.

Film Review: Kingsman: The Secret Service

‪ 
Kingsman: The Secret Service. Rated MA 15+ (strong violence and coarse language). 129 minutes. Directed by Matthew Vaughn. Screenplay by Jane Goldman and Matthew Vaughn. Based on the comic book by Mark Millar and Dave Gibbons.‬

Verdict: An abundance of violence undermines a potentially great film.

It’s either an incredibly brave or equally naïve creative team who would dare to take on the celebrated spy movie genre, which has been enjoying something of a renaissance with Daniel Craig’s spectacularly produced outings as James Bond in films such as Casino Royale, Quantum of Solace and 2012’s superb Skyfall.

Trust Vaughn (Kick-Ass, X-Men: First Class) to throw caution to the wind and deliver a timely variation on the grand themes associated with espionage, which also packs a mighty punch in relation to the perils of our reliance on our precious mobile phone technology.

When special agent Harry Hart’s (Colin Firth) colleague is murdered during a mission, he visits the man’s widow Michelle (Samantha Womack) and young son to offer his unconditional and life-long support. When the boy, Gary ‘Eggsy’ Unwin (Taron Egerton), grows up to become a troubled teenager desperately trying to help his mother break out of an abusive relationship, Hart returns and offers Eggsy the opportunity to end the relentlessly abusive cycle and make something of his life.

Firth and Egerton are fantastic as the stylish Hart and his protégé, and Kingsman only works as well as it does because of their committed, engaging and enthusiastic performances. Samuel L. Jackson is wickedly entertaining as the lisping villain Richmond Valentine, who plans to solve the problem of climate change by eliminating most of the world’s population via their SIM cards.

The only problem is that if Vaughn wasn’t as convinced that we need as much ultra-violence on screen to make a lasting impression, he would be a film-maker whose films would reward close, and a good deal more devoted, attention.

This review was commissioned by the West Australian Newspaper Group.