KINGSMAN 2: THE GOLDEN CIRCLE (2017)

Let's get this out of the way first and foremost. Channing Tatum has no large part in this film. So women that are looking at seeing this film for him(or men if that is your kind of thing), look forward to maybe 5 minutes of screentime. I say this because many Channing Tatum movies tend to be rather lacking in plot and just involve seeing the actor in as many skintight or completely shirtless scenes as possible, so if that is what you are looking for, you will definitely be disappointed.

Kingsman is one of the films that I like as it invigorated the stalling spy genre, in my eyes. It offered something fresh from the recycled content that we would continually get from Mission Impossible or the James Bond franchises. In the opening scenes, we are party to a high-speed street race/fight scene, which had me immediately concerned. The scene rung alarm bells, with the over-the-top CGI and fast-paced camera changes, feeling very Mission Impossible. The extreme pace at which the scene ran, was difficult to properly follow and was an incredibly bold and colourful affront to the eyes. 

Luckily the alarm bells that I heard were rapidly silenced. With nearly all information that you learned from the first film, rendered moot, we are put into a reboot of sorts; a reimagining, much like Top Gear UK vs US, The Office UK vs US editions. We get an americanised version of the Kingsman. The Statesman. 

As far as plots go, The Golden Circle felt almost too short. Much of the storyline revolves solely around the protagonists, with very little time spent building up the villain, which I felt was unfortunate. Samuel L Jackson did a brilliant job in the first instalment of the franchise, and I felt Julianne Moore didn't get the chance to really shine. 

Kingsman 2 provides much of what we have come to expect: quotable speeches, unique fun gadgets, teenage-level humour, with a generous dash of action. The action was certainly amped up in this sequel but felt rushed, rather than the slow languishing gore that we were treated to in the original. As with most sequels, it didn't live up to the hype, but it's very rare that a sequel will. It still provided a heap of entertainment and several laugh-out-loud moments.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7827

THE GIRL WITH ALL THE GIFTS (2016)

The premise of the movie is refreshing. It takes the usual zombie movie idea (or "hungries" as they call them), and flips it upside down, providing an "infected" character that is the protagonist, rather than the antagonist. Too often are the infected portrayed as an evil being that must be cleansed from the earth through fire and headshots. Here we have a more realistic entity; a fungal infection that spreads very fast and forms a symbiotic relationship with its host.

The film is very well structured, and has a wide range of characters that you would expect to come across, the willing and unwilling subjects, those that were brought up in a system that knows no different, the uninfected that see the potential in the infected for a cure, the potential as a living breathing organism with a life, and those that hate the infected completely. You get to experience all of the emotions and personalities, you can align yourself with whichever characters you want and can see how each personality trait plays out in terms of survival rates.

The idea of symbiotic relationships, two organisms prospering together, is a common theme throughout the film, where you find many opposite personalities relying on the other for survival, and having to place trust on otherwise unwanted sources of aid. Being able to trust something that you know has the ability to kill you and your entire team, having to choose to remove the one thing that protects you (for instance a mask that stops hungries from biting), to save your team long term.

I had never heard of this film before, and frankly wasn't expecting anything too spectacular. But I had a very high level of engagement with the film. You feel each moment of suspense, you feel the dread every time a wrong step is taken, you feel hope when something goes right, and you feel unease at the unknown elements. Potentially this film may take out the top spot in terms of zombie films plot-wise, especially with regards to the character development of the "hungries" with realistic and believable characteristics. 

Casting-wise, I am not familiar with most of them. A factor that I enjoy in films such as these because it forces the cast to be convincing in their portrayal of their characters. Often, big names can rely on their status as established actors to get them through a film without people being too critical as the audience are blinded by the stars previous successes. The lesser known cast will often put across a more convincing performance.

The film is beautifully shot, with a yellow-green hue, which gives a rustic, and organic feel to the film. The military uniforms, vehicles, the natural environments, the hungries, the spores, they all have a similar colour scheme to them, and it adds to the sickness of the film; someone that is unwell is usually described as "green in the face". Every aspect is well thought out. Including the ending, which was entirely unexpected, but remains hopeful, and again realistic and grounded.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7828

THE DARK TOWER (2017)

The Dark Tower is based on the 8-book series written by Stephen King. A book series that spans 4000+ pages, condensed and adapted for a film that lasts only 95 minutes. That is the first of many issues with this film; it doesn't take the time to properly develop any characters. You are thrown into the thick of things, as the antagonists and protagonists rush to provide exposition as they continually accelerate towards each other. 

In general, I love Idris Elba's work to date. He has a gruff but lovable charm that woos the audience every time. But even that doesn't save him here. We have a deeply flawed character that has given up and ends up fighting for redemption, despite not wanting it. Matthew McConaughey is his usually confident, suave self and fits well with the character of Walter, this powerful sorcerer bent on destruction. These are the only two characters that really matter in the film. There is no room for anyone else. All other backstories and plot arcs are rendered insignificant, and the film struggles because of it.

Ignoring how much better the film could have been if it had taken more from the books and taken its time to develop its characters, even then it was lacking. Looking at it as a pure Sci-Fi/Fantasy/Action film, it still lacked direction. A storyline full of convenient plot devices means there is poor storytelling going on. It's difficult to tell whether having so many writers involved had an effect, but it certainly feels as if the film was a compromise between different ideas; no real direction, and no strength in characters. 

Visually, it was an interesting film. Watching two people from different worlds struggling to come to terms with the other's world. It was an action-packed "odd couple" show. An entertaining film, but nothing that engages the mind, or makes you want more. It is definitely a pity. The environments were intriguing, and Idris Elba's portrayal of Roland Deschain the Gunslinger was imposing and grandiose, but not enough to save the film.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7822

THE MAN WHO INVENTED CHRISTMAS (2017)

The entire premise of the film seems laughable; a period film based on an author's process of writing 'A Christmas Carol'. But what we end up with is an emotionally engaging drama. No matter how short an amount of screentime the actors get, every character feels genuine and authentic. Perhaps it is helped by the fact that I am less familiar with any of the cast (with the exception of Jonathan Pryce, who I recognise from the HBO TV series Game of Thrones), but I love watching a film, where I legitimately feel like I am watching the characters, and not actors pretending.

I have always had a sense of curiosity around creative people, wondering how they are able to come up with such elaborate stories and histories of fictional characters, so to watch "Charles Dickens" spend so much time and effort determining the name of a character that so perfectly fitted this unknown character that he wanted to portray was eye-opening. The idea of being haunted, bullied, and stalked by these characters throughout the creation of the story was a brilliant piece of work both plot-wise and aesthetically.

The story comes across as a bit of a slow burner, as you acclimate to the period of the film, and readjust yourself to a different way of living; simpler times, with stricter rules, but still has a charm to it. The characters are often aloof and argumentative, but the emotive and mood changing aspect of an artist's personality is a well-documented trait. So while you may disagree with their choices, you can still understand why they did it. 

There was a particularly heart-wrenching scene between Charles Dicken's and his father, where words were said, and the full gravity of the potential effects of those words are clear to see. We understand the justification, but we still feel for both characters. The realisation that many of his fictional characters are based on his own personality traits; both negative and positive. Emotionally, the film was exquisite. It really forces you to think unselfishly, to be generous towards others, and it did so in a creative and fun way that had surprisingly few scenes of Dicken's writing.

This is not just a retelling of 'A Christmas Carol', this is a behind the scenes look at its creation. A look at the parts of Dicken's family history that have created such character-defining traits in the well'known author, and provides an idea of the physically and mentally draining effect that the creative process had on everybody involved. 

I was unsure what to expect from this film, but I walk away from it with a firm appreciation. Highly recommended.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7813

ATOMIC BLONDE (2017)

As far as spy films go, until recently it's safe to say that the genre had gone stale; offering either rehashes and reboots of the always classy and perfect James Bond, or the always running away from explosions style of Mission Impossible's Ethan Hunt. The films stopped providing anything new and became stale, until such films as Spy Movie and the Kingsman franchise breathed a breath of fresh air, injecting humour into the genre. Atomic Blonde continues that trend of redefining the spy genre, with a more realistic take on being a spy.

Atomic Blonde strips away the glamorous cars, seductive models, private planes, expensive cocktails, tailored suits, sci-fi technology, and choreographed dancing (I mean fight scenes, where the protagonist receives minimal to no injuries). You get a realistic idea of what the life of a spy may be like; not knowing who to trust, the realisation that your mission must go on even if compromised, as your government will easily burn a liable asset, the knowledge that everybody you contact is either using you or at risk from people that want to use you. It's a brilliant piece of work that has you trying to determine each characters loyalties, but never providing enough downtime to be able to properly consider the facts; another more realistic aspect of time-sensitive matters. 

Visually, the environments are dark and gritty, and the characters are quite rightly standoffish and aloof. Attention to detail is evident, and the physical toll of constant combat can be seen on the face of the protagonist as the film progresses. 

Casting-wise, I've always enjoyed Charlize Theron. While she acted very well, aesthetically, she wasn't altogether convincing; she looked out of place right from the start, and that is something that doesn't seem to fit with "MI6's most lethal assassin" as it's hard to be an effective assassin when you stick out like a sore thumb. On the other hand, James McAvoy's portrayal of the MI6 Berlin station chief, who is heavily entrenched in the intelligence game, is superb. he almost blends into the surroundings in his own home and pulls off the "proper" spy look.

Atomic Blonde does come with its fair share of faults; mainly the constant laboured action throughout the film, but in the end, it is a very enjoyable film with a strong female protagonist that kicks ass. A refreshingly gritty; an almost modern European adaptation of Quentin Tarantino's Kill Bill.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7811

JUSTICE LEAGUE (2017)

Justice League follows on with the typical pacing that we have become accustomed to with DC after Batman vs Superman; where they cram multiple movies worth of content into a single film, trying to sum up new characters in a quick 5-10 minute side story. Realistically, I would have loved to have had a Cyborg and Aquaman origin movie take place before Justice League, simply so that we get a better idea of the personality of each character beforehand, and so that we aren't wasting time in the culmination of the Justice League faffing about introducing new main characters, their backstories, and even introducing the movie equivalent of NPC's (read: here's a scene added purely to create a cool but unnecessary moment later in the film).

With so many big names, you expect a lot of character development and great acting, and the latter was certainly present. But when you include so many main characters in one film they don't actually end up getting a lot of screentime. And this leads to a disconnected feeling between the characters. In regards, to an authentic feeling of putting together a team for the first time, it's pretty much on point. But from an effectiveness standpoint (i.e. the ability to save everyone from a world-ending power) they certainly lack any proper cohesion.

Individually, the casting was brilliant. It wasn't until I was sitting in the theatre looking at a large picture of the Justice League, that I noticed how much more ethnically diverse they all looked, from their original comic book sources. The great thing is that I almost didn't notice; better casting, that is not only inclusive but better representative of the world we live in. Batman and Wonder Woman have the best onscreen chemistry by far, which is certainly helped by their history in the DCEU so far. 

I was apprehensive about how well Ezra Miller's Flash would work on the screen. The trailers made him out to be a wise-cracking awkward individual and having seen several years of a successful TV Flash, I was unsure of how well he would fit. Fears were ultimately unfounded, with the Flash (and to an equal extent, Alfred the Butler) becoming a light-hearted and positive influence (and some brilliant comedic flair) to contrast the broody Batman and Cyborg characters. Still not a huge fan of his costume, but really it isn't a big issue at all.

But I really don't know what they were thinking with the villain, Steppenwolf. DC faced some backlash from the use of CGI in the villain Doomsday from Batman vs Superman, and yet they have upped the ante and increased the quantity of CGI in the film. All bad guys are faceless creatures, that provide nothing more than unrealistic cannon fodder. One minute there are literally thousands on the screen, then there is only a handful; the inconsistencies in strength and number of enemies really messes with your ability to truly understand the level of threat posed to the world or our heroes. Steppenwolf himself seems to be a rather lacklustre and uninteresting enemy (He seems incredibly weak compared to Doomsday who managed to kill Superman. Whereas Steppenwolf can't even lay a hand on him. Not to mention the fact that he doesn't even attempt to attack the Justice League beforehand, he only weakly defends against their attacks.

The tone of the film overall fits between Batman vs Superman and Wonder Woman in both quality and tone; lacking a strong, coherent storyline, but still able to convey positivity and some good vibes in amongst the doom and gloom. There is also some nice colouring choices (obviously helped by the large level of CGI in the film, where each character has their own colour profiles in their environment; Batman having dark and desaturated tones, compared to the bright, clear, natural brown and beige colours, or Steppenwolf's high contrasting darks, with bright, iridescent purples and orange.

This has fallen into the trap of trying to overreach. Trying to catch up to Marvel's Cinematic Universe, where they can throw multiple characters together, into any situation and reap huge profits. But they need to spend time introducing the characters first. Nevertheless, the film was enjoyable and got more than a few grins out of my usual pessimistic self. It's certainly a step in the right direction, and I certainly hope the Justice League members all get their own standalone films out of this (even Alfred. I'd love to see where he got all that sarcasm and snark from).

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7805

BLADE OF THE IMMORTAL (2017)

Many of the younger generations are well aware of Matt Groening's animated TV series Futurama. Most of which would also remember the 'Parasites Lost', the episode where Fry eats a decaying egg salad sandwich from a vending machine at a truck stop, and ends up with microscopic worms that heal his body against injuries and illness, eventually improving his physique and giving him superior strength. Blade of the Immortal is effectively that storyline, reimagined in a style similar to Quentin Tarantino's Kill Bill movie series, starring a copy of Marvel's Wolverine.

While reasonably entertaining to watch, there are several aspects of the film that let down the film; the skills of the main character Manji, the quantity and quality of the enemies, and the climax of the film. 

Manji is a "highly skilled samurai", and we see great examples of this in the opening scene. Unfortunately, from that point on, he shows few further examples of his great skills. He certainly does create a large body count, but it wouldn't necessarily be thought of as skillful especially considering every major villain that he encounters manages to beat him, dealing a death blow, and Manji is only ever saved by the fact that he is immortal. 

The villains were also an unfortunate addition to the film. While initially we were treated with new, original ideas on villains, who had interesting aesthetics and different fighting styles, the original lineup introduced at the start of the film appeared to have been a misdirection. There was no real set number of bad guys that needed to be defeated. Instead, the protagonists end up on the receiving end of an endless barrage of forgettable, expendable enemies. The first two or three battles had you on the edge of your seat, but soon you become aware of the extent of Manji's immortality, and the level of threat drops considerably. 

The climax I won't go into as it will spoil the ending, but needless to say, things don't go as planned, and while it created an ending that wasn't necessarily predictable, you lost a large chunk of the minimal character development that occurred during the film. 

The film itself has desaturated colours, that provide a more authentic eastern feel, juxtaposing the usual high saturation of Hollywood films. While not necessarily to the extent of a Tarantino film, there is no aversion to the use of blood and gore in this film, and it creates something that will likely appeal to the young adult demographic. An action-packed film, but not something that would really hold interest over multiple viewings.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7791

BERLIN SYNDROME (2017)

Berlin Syndrome is one of those films that is intriguing, but also difficult to fully appreciate as a male. The prospect of being locked in a room after what was meant to be a one night stand seems like something I would personally put up a lot of fight about. I'd probably either find a way out or be snuffed out quickly due to being problematic. But I am a physically imposing male, with a lot of weight behind me. It is difficult to truly comprehend a situation where I could be completely physically dominated by someone else. 

This is what creates tension and suspense in the film; being in a position where you cannot overpower your captor, and being in a position where you weren't a spontaneous choice. You were planned. You were not the first. A situation where you are controlled to such an extent that the only time you can get new information is when your captor is present, and the only way to get your restrictions removed is to go along with his plans. 

As far as casting goes, it seems as if they chose one of the most European looking Australian actresses that they could find. Teresa Palmer is a naturally stunning woman, but with the de-saturation of colours throughout the film, she ends up looking more German than her co-star Max Riemelt who is German by birth. The film really struggled to get me to empathise with any of the characters. We never got to spend enough time with Teresa's character, Clare, before she gets into trouble, and thus there is no emotional investment in the character. Max Riemelt does well in his portrayal of Andi, a rather disturbed young man, who despite seeming to struggle at interpreting his own language, plays a compelling performance.

The layout of the film was a little bit odd. It felt more like a film about Andi, than a film about Clare, who I thought was the main protagonist. The film would have been much more emotionally investing if it had stuck with Clare throughout the film, rather than jumping between the two characters. While the way it has been done certainly helped to explain Andi's tics and accentuate his social oddities, at did little to highlight Clare's situation. I would have been much more convinced if I only knew as much as she did.

Berlin Syndrome is like watching a failing marriage; watching one partner purposefully antagonise the other in order to get a reaction. It feels awkward to watch, it feels weird, but it doesn't feel dangerous until the climax of the film. The climax did get my interest. There was finally something exciting going on, but it was too little too late. Not a film I would watch again.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7767

THE FLORIDA PROJECT (2017)

The Florida Project is a film for critics and film students. It exists to bring to light the lives of those of lower socioeconomic status and provides a litany of scenes to critique and discuss. For the regular movie crowd that has become accustomed to Hollywood "beautiful people and fast-paced action" films, this will fall short due to the lack of progress and direction of the film. Wikipedia is able to describe the plot in only one sentence; "Set during the summer, Moonee, a precocious 6-year-old girl, lives with her mother Halley in a community of extended-stay motel guests in Kissimmee, Florida." If that doesn't intrigue you, then this isn't the film for you, and you need not read any further.

The film provides a look at the disparity between the image that Disneyland portrays within its boundaries compared to the surrounding areas. Areas once full of potential accommodation lots to cater to incoming tourists, that have since fallen into disrepair, been abandoned, and reduced to low-income housing for those that struggle are one missed payment away from being homeless. Areas where arson, vandalism, drug use, alcoholism, and assault, are par for the course. But this is the area where the leading lady (our six-year-old Brooklyn Kimberly Prince, aka Moonee) thrives. She holds the innocence of a child, with the wisdom of a teenager. While she may not be able to comprehend the full context of every little play, she is a girl that has lived around a revolving door of people, and in turn has learned to recognise their quirks, and how to manipulate people to get her way. Whether it's trying to get free meals from a family friend, free ice cream by begging from strangers, or using peoples kindness to help her reach her own goals.

These are skills that she has picked up from Halley, her young, single mother, who embodies the respectfulness of a cream pie to the face. Disenfranchised about the world, she has long ago given up, in every manner but one (providing for her daughter), and we watch as doors close around her one by one and she spirals into a nosedive that she cannot escape. Portrayed by Bria Vinaite, Halley is a character that creates conflicting opinions.' she is both an absent mother, and a loving mother. We watch as she steals and scams tourists, undercuts larger companies, lies and manipulates people, and if she doesn't get her way we watch as she explodes in anger, with violence, coarse words, and spiteful actions. But we also watch her take every step that she can to keep a roof over her child's head, provides a level of habit and routine, and when she gets a windfall, all the spoils go to her daughter.

The film almost comes across as a documentary, as we watch Moonee corral her friends towards any adventures at any cost. They make do with the bare minimum of provisions and still enjoy every single day, whether it be spitting on a car from a balcony, or going on a rural safari to see some cows. Even if a friend gets grounded, Moonee fills that gap with another child from the neighbouring motel that she only just met. She's a child of opportunity and she takes every available one, no matter the consequence. 

Willem Dafoe is the anchor in this movie, affording the positive male influence that is missing from many of these children's lives. Portraying Bobby, the owner of the Magic Castle Motel that Halley and Moonee live in, Dafoe has a role that is sparse and injected into little bits throughout the film. But he is still connected to every piece and takes personal responsibility for many things that are above the call of duty because he has that spark of humanity in him. He is definitely the most endearing adult character in the film, and you can see the struggle that he goes through every day ensuring his tenants pay up, but being as accommodating as possible because he knows they have no alternatives.

The film is shot beautifully, with the colours giving a youthful nostalgic feel, while the use of shadows brings back the reality and drudgery. The film feels real; there is no real resolution, people don't talk about their problems, everything is a form of conflict, people act irrationally out of spite and anger, instead of a journey with a direction it's repeating habits day in day out, and it's all there on the screen. It serves as a great reminder that the world is not always what you see. There is darkness amongst the light, and light amongst the darkness. The Florida Project attempts to bring this to the forefront. But what am I meant to do with this information?

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7771

THE MUMMY (2017)

This is the remake that was never asked for. A film to start the Dark Universe for the monster films, and while I can see why they chose the Mummy film (it was a brilliant franchise), this remake has gone ahead and destroyed its chances at being taken seriously. The Marvel Cinematic Universe started with Iron Man, a standalone film that only brought in connections to other IPs in the end credit scene. The first DC Extended Universe film that wasn't critically panned was Wonder Woman; another standalone film that only referenced the connected universe at the end of the film. The success of these films is that they allow the characters to star in their own films with their own plots. The film is meant to carry its own weight, and not just be a vessel to introduce as many characters as possible into a "universe". Therefore, the introduction of Dr Henry Jekyll and the Prodigium organisation at the absolute beginning was the films first misstep.

Tom Cruise playing an arrogant, narcissistic character, is as good casting as having Robert Downey Jr play an arrogant, alcoholic, millionaire playboy. They are essentially playing themselves. Unfortunately, an arrogant narcissistic character is not what the film needed. Ultimately, the film is called The Mummy, and the mummy, Ahmanet, should, therefore, be the primary focal character. Even in the original superior Brendan Fraser franchise, despite Fraser being the main character, the film still equally followed the path of the Mummy, Imhotep. In this remake, Tom Cruise takes the forefront of every scene, and Ahmanet is cast aside, having even less importance than the character of Set, who despite never actually being a visible character on screen, still manages to reduce Ahmanet's intimidation levels to that of an angry child.

Jake Johnson portrays Corporal Chris Vail, arguably the most interesting character in the film. He is the only character that isn't over the top in personality, and the only person who is realistic in his opinions; such as bombs are bad, we should run away from guns, Tom Cruise's character Sergeant Nick Morton makes bad judgement calls, etc. He is the character that we can empathise with the most because in his boots we would know better than to enter those situations too. 

I really wanted to like the film. The idea of an attractive female mummy was intriguing, and I was looking forward to seeing a powerful woman being portrayed. Instead, we got an angry child, that is running around trying to do the bidding of the male god, and pining after the body of Tom Cruise for some reason, and was easily captured. Hardly a viable threat, and a wasted opportunity.

The film felt like a Mission Impossible movie. It was all running and action scenes while the other half was needless exposition in a convoluted plot with so many holes in it. I am disappointed in how lacklustre the film was, and how unlikable nearly every single character was. 

Brendan Fraser, your Mummy films will always be number 1.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7724

THE PROMISE (2016)

As a rock music lover who has been a fan of the Armenian-American heavy metal group System of a Down, and following the lead singer Serj Tankian on social media, means I've often seen articles and comments made by him regarding Turkey and the Armenian Genocide; namely the lack of any acknowledgement from officials that it even happened. So I heard about this movie through him, as he composed a song for the end-credits alongside the late Chris Cornell, and it piques my interest. 

The film itself has a stellar cast line-up with Oscar Isaac (Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Ex Machina, X-Men: Apocalypse), Batman (I mean, Christian Bale), and the gorgeous Charlotte Le Bon. Charlotte was an interesting choice as while I was watching it, my flatmate walked in and the first thing he said was "nice french accent". I found it interesting because it is explained that the character had spent several years in Paris, and had returned to rediscover her Armenian heritage; I did not think anything of this until my flatmate pointed out the authenticity of the accent. A quick Google told me that Charlotte is actually French-Canadian in ancestry, so it led me to a question. Was the history of her character changed to get around her accent? An interesting thought.

The film started off rather generically; one of the issues with having big names in your film is that it becomes more difficult for your audience to truly see them as their characters, and then the audience may start to over-analyse every action. The film follows Oscar Issac's character Michael (pronounced Meekhell) as he works to progress from working in an apothecary to becoming a qualified doctor. The quick introduction of the woman that he "will learn to love", and the lively, beautiful woman who was married to Bale's character, leaves very little room for subtlety. The film wants a love triangle and takes no time throwing one together. It takes a while to truly warm up to the characters because of the speed at which we are introduced to them (admittedly they aren't really the important plot points in the film).

In this way, the pacing of the film seems a bit inconsistent. We are thrust into the film with very little backstory, and with the film focusing on the three protagonists, we see very little from the other side of the conflict. Reasonings and justifications from the opposition are hinted at, but it is very much the matter of noticing words that characters use, to assume their intentions. A lot of the film relies on your emotional investment in the main characters, to give you a feeling of a nation working against them, rather than giving you a single antagonist character that you can focus the negative emotions towards. It's a film that successfully instils the feeling of shifting goalposts; which while likely an accurate representation of the events, is sometimes frustrating to watch.

There is a lot of potential with the film, but it would have worked better if it was more firmly rooted in historical accuracy. I'm not by any means saying that the genocide didn't happen, but using fictional characters locked in a love triangle that coincidentally puts them at the centre of every clash that occurs, makes it much harder to take the film too seriously. What is accurate? Who is based on a real person? Who is fictional? I don't have the answers to these questions with a few exceptions. Something along the lines of the Band of Brothers miniseries would have been a better route to follow, but with far fewer survivors, perhaps that wasn't a viable option. 

Slow to get into, but ultimately it managed to keep my interest. Was it satisfying to watch? Not at all. Was it meant to be satisfying? Well, no. This isn't a Hollywood film with a usual happy ending and the conflict resolved. There is only the Promise.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7717

BAYWATCH (2017)

I only watched this film for one reason; Alexandra Daddario. Despite her having a smile that makes her look a bit unhinged, her eyes are magnificent. You get lost in them. So mesmerizing. So I was shocked to see how one of the running jokes of the film revolved around how Zac Efron's character keeps staring at her breasts. In real life, Alexandra Daddario is one of the few people that would never have that problem because her eyes are that luxurious. And that really outlines one of the big problems with the film. It feels like the casting was done completely separate from the scripting; that is to say that the cast was chosen because of their popularity and attractiveness, with no regard for how well they fitted in with the jokes and personalities in the script. 

The film really struggled with what it wanted to be; it wanted to be cheesy like the original tv series, but it also wanted to be edgy, and action-packed. But each of these aspects reduces the effectiveness of the others. They attempt to be edgy by inserting as many penis jokes in as possible, and it negates the action. The action scenes negate the cheesiness. It ends up battling with itself, which is a losing battle. But was I entertained? I watched the whole movie through in one go without having to pause. So it did manage to keep me reasonably engaged. Did I hate the film? No, I didn't love it, but it wasn't atrocious by any means. Did it have everything I expected? I expected hot women barely clothed, slow-mo running along the beach and some cameos from the original cast. Tick, tick, tick.

The cinematography was great. Crisp, clean environments with a wide variety of camera angles. It was fun to watch, even if the plot was more like Fast and Furious meets Transporter meets Mall Cop; it certainly isn't a plot that requires you to think. But the story was far more complicated than it needed to be. All it needed was the first half of the film. Saving people on the beach, and a competition to pick new lifeguards. It would have been a wholesome film, with some reasonable snarky comments from Dwayne Johnson. None of this unnecessary buddy cop drama. Keep it simple.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7725

DENIAL (2016)

This release could not have been better timed, with the recent events unfolding in the United States; a.k.a the rise of neo-nazis into the public eye. The world needs a reminder of what occurs when people divide and rank the human species. A commonly paraphrased quote says "Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it", and with this generation being the last to be able to come face-to-face with a Holocaust survivor, maintaining the validity of the events is integral.

Denial is a slow-moving film. It is both frustrating and an eye-opener. The prospect that someone denies the Holocaust happened is laughable, but the reality of having to come up with incontrovertible proof of the matter is an entirely different matter. It causes you to question what you know. The reality is that as humans we are very easy to manipulate; we believe "reputable" sources. However, what counts as a reputable source is not so clearly defined anymore, and with the internet, misinformation is everywhere. 

The film slowly builds towards the court case which is undoubtedly the most exciting part of the film, as we are looking to see our own knowledge tested; to be able to hear what evidence people have to deny what we believe, and to hear the evidence that proves them to be incorrect. Despite the rather morbid topic, the film is self-affirming and in that regard, it almost comes across as a feel-good film, where the protagonist must overcome several obstacles that provide the antagonist with an advantage.

With many of the court scenes repeated verbatim as they were in the actual court case, Denial provides a valid and accurate representation of the process, and was definitely a necessary move in a movie about misinformation. The casting was generally top notch; Rachel Weisz was my only concern, as her fame does make it harder to see her as her character. She is still the gorgeous actress I remember from the Mummy franchise, just here she is given a frumpy hairstyle and a Boston accent; it was the only part that didn't feel authentic. That being said, despite differences in appearance the real Deborah Lipstadt clearly had no qualms with her casting.

The film is fueled by emotion and gives a great presentation of the battle between emotion, beliefs, and objectivism. I would have loved longer, more in-depth coverage of the court scenes, but with the run-time that the film has, again the balance was amicable.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7703

ALIEN: COVENANT (2017)

A lot of the successful franchises all began with a simple concept; Terminator had a cyborg trying to assassinate someone, Predator had an 'invisible' creature 'hunting' people, and Alien involved trying to escape a deadly alien that wanted to use the humans as a host for its parasitic babies. The downfall of the ongoing sequels is arguably the addition of backstory (apart from Terminator 2: Judgement Day, which kicked ass). When a film starts placing too much emphasis on explaining the history and lore of the franchise over several films, you find the genre that the film fits in start to shift away from the original film.

In the case of Alien, the original film started off as a horror, which then became more along the line of action movies in the follow-up sequels. When the prequel Prometheus came around, it nearly came across as a drama with a superficial plot thrown in to generate action scenes to keep the interest of the audience (and it largely failed at that). The general lore is interesting, but the portrayal of it in the films leads a lot to be desired. With how poorly Prometheus was received, I was curious to see how Alien: Covenant would compare; with the inclusion of the word Alien, one would hope it signals a move towards the style of the original film.

Covenant is a movie of two intersecting parts; you have the plots relating to the lore and backstory, and then the human vs alien element. While the film starts on an exciting note, it falls into the trap of following convenient plot devices to lead the characters towards where the director needs them to be. Whether it is the husband-wife relationships in the crew that caused the poor judgement, or just poor writing, it's impossible to tell, but every character makes the worst decisions you could think of. 

The appeal of Alien movies has always been in the tension and suspense of being in a dark place, where the enemy knows its way around better than you, and the humans getting picked off one by one, by an unseen enemy. Covenant loses that aspect entirely by trying to shoehorn in the evolution of the Alien species, because suddenly every little thing must be pointed out and made obvious. There is no shock and surprise left. Despite some very realistic CGI these days, Aliens will always seem rather unrealistic, so to suddenly have them out in the light (as can be seen in the trailer, and cover of the DVD) they lose their mystique, and a lot of their threat (it's easier to kill an enemy you can see), as well as just looking ridiculous.

The film does do well at attempting to bridge the gap between Prometheus and Alien but is still well below expectations. When half of the film is backstory and exposition, you have to wonder whether the main arc of the film should have been centred around that portion of the lore, rather than trying to explain it inside of a different storyline. 

The film tries to fit action, horror, and drama all into the same film while explaining things in a way that a five-year-old child would understand. Ultimately, it becomes far too predictable. Michael Fassbender is both a delight and a hindrance depending on which character you look at (Walter vs. David), but you know what is going to happen. You are aware of every bad decision, you already can guess the consequences, and it isn't long into the film before you can outright guess the outcome. 

The environments are stunning (much of it was filmed in New Zealand (no need for CGI there), but the pacing of the film, and the avoidable nature of every threat, makes the film difficult to properly enjoy. Good for a date night if you want to give your partner some jump scares, or interested Alien evolution. As an action/horror/sci-fi it's a definite improvement on Prometheus, but still can't hold a candle to the original two Alien films.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7702

RINGS (2017)

The Ring was a very simple idea. Be unfortunate enough to watch a cursed video, then you receive a call telling you that you'll die in seven days. This will come to fruition unless you make a copy of the video and fool another unfortunate person into watching the video and pushing your death sentence on to them. So, a pretty simple concept. Watch the video and die, or copy it and someone else dies. A simple idea, how could you go wrong?

Well, Rings tries too hard to reinvent the wheel. In an attempt to modernize the film, the hardcopy VHS has been changed to a digital video. While it is meant to accelerate the danger (how often do we watch videos or click on a link online? multiple times a day), but the loss of the physical tape, a tactile object, and the ease with which one could make someone watch a digital clip, means the threat from the video is suddenly non-existent.

The film has a lot of build-up with very little payout. In terms of the opening scene, we have a great opening sequence, that builds up to nothing. It skips out the action, and much of the problems seem easily avoidable, so you lose interest in whether the characters survive or not.

As far as the cast goes, that should be a tell-tale sign. If you recognise the names of the actors and actresses in a horror, that usually means the big names are meant to distract from the muddled excuse for a backstory and plot. Unfortunately, the likes of Johnny Galecki (Leonard from Big Bang Theory), or Vincent D'Onofrio (known for many things including his parts in Full Metal Jacket, Daredevil, Law & Order, Men in Black, and Jurassic World) can't make up for the incomprehensible storyline.

In my experience with horror films, the successful ones are simple. Less is more. Rings tries to be bigger than it is, and leaves the audience frustrated or apathetic, rather than engrossed and in suspense. An unfortunate addition to the franchise.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7611

LOGAN (2017)

This is probably one of the hardest reviews I have ever had to write. Not because there is little to write about or I disliked the film, but because it is really hard for me to write from a non-biased perspective with regards to this film. Logan is the final film for Hugh Jackman (and rumours also say Patrick Stewart) who have played Wolverine (and Professor Charles Xavier) for the last 17 years. Hugh Jackman has reprised his role as Wolverine in every X-Men movie to date (excluding Deadpool, although he was heavily referenced), so I have a lot of history watching this character evolve and develop over time.

But back to the movie as a whole. Logan comes with an R rating; the first X-Men movie to have such a rating (thanks to the success of the R-rated Deadpool movie), and it quite rightly earns that rating. Starting from the very first word in the film, expletives were thrown out, which you initially think is just put in there to get the rating, but the opening scene evolved into a feeding frenzy of violence and gore. Within the first couple of minutes, it has been made clear that this movie is not suitable for children. I repeat: NOT SUITABLE FOR CHILDREN. 

The violence and the expletives take on their own role in this film. Every swear word, every severed limb, every decapitated head, every scream of pain, runs deep emotionally. While it doesn't give you the backstory that is often alluded to (the film takes place in the year 2029, many years after all the other X-Men films), you are aware that their lives have taken a serious toll. Both Wolverine and Xavier are mentally and physically bare, struggling to care for themselves, let alone play the role of the hero.

The villains in the film are probably the only real drawback to the film. They lack the history of Jackman and Stewart, and really don't provide a strong enough position to me. I struggle to understand their motives, and there were many moments in the film where they easily could have ended the film right then and there and succeeded. But they follow the usual villain tropes that allow the protagonists extra chances. I would have also preferred more focus on Logan and Co., as every time it changed the view to that of the antagonists, the film slowed and lost its flow. But at the same time, it again helped to emphasize the state of Wolverine; far from the sleek, invincible, unstoppable force that he was in his "youth". 

The casting was superb, and I loved all of the performances. You could really feel the connection between the protagonists, going far beyond the "we're on a team" mentality, or doing a mission to save the world. The players act both selflessly and selfishly, and show real family dynamics, with bickering, frustration, and anger, but still overwhelming love and respect. The film's darker, gritty tone was not without its comedic elements, but they were naturally a part of the storyline, every action bringing you further into the connection.

The fight choreography was lively and fun, with noticeable differences in camera use and fighting styles between the protagonists. Very little shaky cam, though there were a bit of the quick edit shots; overall the fight scenes flowed well, and managed to remain fast, and edgy, while still coming across ferocious and brutal. The ending really tugged on the heartstrings and provided the conclusive ending that I was looking for. As I exited the theatre, there were very few dry eyes to be seen, and many audible sniffles and sobs. An emotional rollercoaster that I don't think I could bring myself to watch again; it was the perfect ending to 17 years of Hugh Jackman's Wolverine.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7468

LA LA LAND (2016)

La La Land is an interesting film, combining the styles of a stage musical, with a romantic comedy, and an overall jazz theme. The jazz theme alone is a fascinating if not controversial choice, considering the largely Caucasian cast. Gone are the days where musicals were written and sung in a way that really allowed the viewer to understand the lyrics, but at the same time, photography and choreography have come so far that the purpose and plot associated with the songs are discernible without the need for lyrics. 

Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone are the principal protagonists throughout the film and do a brilliant job portraying the frustrations of those in the acting and musical world trying to make it big. Unlike most Hollywood films, where the protagonists reach their goals through sheer positivity and luck, we are struck with a closer shot of realism; the knowledge that talent and determination can often lead to nowhere, and we get a glimpse into why the industry crushes so many dreams.

Emma Stone is the real winning component to the film, with her portrayal of the wannabe actress stuck in a menial job as a barista. Despite being a well known established actress in reality, she successfully pulls off the look and actions of someone with grand dreams, who is starting to lose faith in her ability to get there. She wins your heart with her smile, and your heart sinks when things don't go her way. Ryan Gosling also does well, but really his character is a lot less likeable. The idealistic musician who has talent, but refuses to play ball, comes across as stubborn, cocky, and arrogant. He has a confidence that is smarmy, and while the women seemed to enjoy it, it annoyed the hell out of me. But I do have to admit his presence is necessary, as his attitude is one of the driving forces of the film.

The photography and cinematography are near enough faultless; the colouration of the film alone, gives a period feeling to the film, which helps the musical aspect along that much more. The song styles fit very well, and while the choreography does feel out of place at times (more stage show than the silver screen), it does provide more intensity to the moment.

I much preferred the first act of the film, the honeymoon stage, and the uplifting aura of Stone's performance. But it was the final act that really sold it. This isn't a typical film. It is something that requires a little bit more attention when you watch it. But it's a treat, and worth a watch.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7557

FENCES (2016)

I wanted to like the film when I first read the synopsis, but it turned out to be very difficult for me to watch. Not because of the content, but instead the delivery method. I'm a man that struggles with accents, so when I get an accent, at speed, I will start losing bits and pieces of the conversation. Next thing you know, I'm lost, and all I know is that Denzel Washington has said "N*****" a heck of a lot of times. 

One of the main differences between watching a film at home vs in the theatre is the number of distractions. In the cinema, you have no choice but to pay full attention to the film. At home, however, you may have someone talking to you, you may be doing chores, surfing the web, checking Facebook, there are a plethora of activities that could distract you from full attention. This is a film that requires your full attention; the plot is driven by the fast-spoken dialogue, and it is something you must be attentive to fully appreciate. One of the positives about watching at home is that I can pause and re-watch things that I've missed.

The film is shown in low saturation, giving the film a dated, and pre-dusk feel to it. But the most significant thing that makes this film different is that 98% of the film takes place in one location. Events occur, but they will either occur in the location or just be talked about with another character on location. Rarely, do we glimpse outside of the confines of the lot, and that is what makes the acting, and the dialogue all the more important. 

It took a while to really get invested in the film. HOWEVER, it is a slow-burner, that builds towards a tipping point. A tipping point that was unexpected, out-of-the-blue, and instantly threw a curveball (pun fully intended) into how I saw the movie playing out. Suddenly there was a real plot line. Suddenly you care about the characters. Suddenly I was invested. The second act of the film switches the film from an antiquated biopic to a suspenseful drama. 

In all honesty, I disliked all of the characters in the first act, with the exception of Jim Bono (played by Stephen Henderson). Bono was the face that brought comfort and was the grounding force for the film. Viola Davis does a convincing job emoting Rose's pain, and for someone who has very little dialogue input into the film, does brilliant work with facial expressions and actions. 

Underlying the whole movie is the theme of white privilege, about the effects of racial segregation, stereotyping, and the trickle-down effect it has on the mental health of the families affected by it. It doesn't affect one person, it affects the entire community; children included. It's a thought-provoking piece, that I initially didn't like the look or sound of, but the second half really reeled me in, and now I see why the critic ratings are so high.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7558

SOLACE (2015)

When I read the blurb on the back of the DVD, I did have to have a bit of a laugh to myself. An FBI agent needing help from a "Dr" to help track down a serial killer, let's be honest it sounds very similar to Silence of the Lambs. In fact, Dr John Clancy is played by none other than Anthony Hopkins (who also played Dr Hannibal Lecter in the before mentioned Silence of the Lambs). 

In Solace, Hopkins' character is a bit of a psychic, and this is what drives the film. The other characters are effectively at an impasse, and therefore hold very little significance in the narrative of the plot. As far as Anthony Hopkins' movies go, this is one of his weaker roles. He comes off very similar in style to his previous role as Hannibal Lecter, with a very "uncooperative unless it suits me" personality that constantly hides details from the other characters. 

Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Abbie Cornish are rather forgettable. They play their roles well but really provide no importance to the overall storyline. Colin Farrell's character actually ends up with little screen time, and comes off very unhinged; none of the characters are ultimately likeable. 

As a thriller, the whole psychic theme works reasonably well, even though it's done in a very dumbed-down manner. It allows an extra layer of tension to preside, due to these extra abilities. You don't have to rely on logic, luck, or chance when one has the ability to use their "intuition" to see what is coming. I found myself watching the movie, not to see any of the protagonists succeed, but to see the protagonist fail. So the viewers end up with characters that they are unable to properly empathise with. The pacing of the film is all that keeps our attention going.

This film raises a lot of questions around euthanasia, and mercy killings, and is the most tangible part of the film. The thing that really kept me hooked. It creates such a moral and ethical dilemma and is a source of controversy in the real world, so it is interesting to see how other people or characters react to such ideas. 

Is the film enjoyable? Yes. Anthony Hopkins gives us much of the same; and while it isn't up to the standard of some of his earlier stuff, it is still a thrill to watch. The pacing of the film keeps your attention, despite the lack of character personalities from Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Abbie Corning. Would I recommend watching it? I would. Is it a film that I will watch again and again? Probably not.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7524