ALLIED (2016)

Brad Pitt certainly does love his World War Two era movies. With Inglorious Basterds and Fury already under his belt, Brad Pitt once again takes on the role of a World War Two Allied serviceman, with a Mr & Mrs Smith twist to it. Now it is very important to point out that the first act of the film is set in Morocco, and involves a fair chunk of foreign language. I actually ended up watching a good 20 minutes of the film, trying to take note of all the objects that the camera would focus on, and take note of any odd movements or mannerisms before I thought to check the main title menu and find that English subtitles were in fact available. Re-watching that initial 20 minutes, it made much more sense now that I was able to understand what every character was saying. So...BEFORE YOU HIT PLAY, PICK SUBTITLES.

The movie is split into two main story arcs, the Moroccan arc, where the two main characters first meet, and the London arc, where their story concludes. The two arcs are strung together by a mish-mash mosaic of memories. This montage of important moments, that while significant to the characters themselves, have little relevance towards the movement of the plot, and are thusly skipped over.

The plot itself is enjoyable. We are fed an action, suspense film through the eyes of a romantic. Everything is displayed in a way that is bathed in emotion. Every action has multiple consequences for these two operatives, who must decide who they are lying to; their allies, their enemies, each other, or themselves. With two characters, who are both immediately revealed to the viewer as spies, it sows a seed of doubt to everything that is said and done, as we have no baseline to base anything from. We have no backstory, it all starts with a lie, and you never truly know whether the truth has been revealed.

A much slower war era film, we are treated to a film that takes a look at the working behind the scenes, away from the frontline, where lines are blurred, and despite being at war, much of the world continues to move on as if nothing has happened. The visual environments are stunning. Everything has a vintage hue, the style of dress, the vehicles, and the housing, all add to the cohesiveness of the environment. 

The casting was good. Both Brad Pitt and Marion Cotillard looked like they fit right in with the era, and were irregular enough in their characters personalities that you really didn't know whether you were in for subtle conversation, or guns blazing. They did wonders, keeping the viewer guessing throughout, as there was always a number of available outcomes at every junction. 

I honestly would have enjoyed more passion from Brad Pitt's character, as he did come off as rather unemotional and aloof, but Marion Cotillard did magnificently and kept the engagement level high. An enjoyable film, considering all of the action was treated as emotional ammunition, so it all had a deeper meaning to it. A film that keeps you thinking throughout.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7499

THE DISAPPOINTMENT'S ROOM (2016)

This movie is called The Disappointment's Room, and to be honest, I think any room that someone watches this film in, will become a room of disappointment. Simply put, I was incredibly disappointed and wouldn't recommend it at all. I'm not even going to classify this as a thriller. I'll downgrade it to a drama. If you really want more details then read on...

The movie is around 80 minutes in length but feels a lot longer. I attempted to watch it on four separate occasions but had to stop because I didn't really know what was going on anymore. I assumed that it was because of poor lighting (watching it on a projector during the day), or I was too distracted by other things (txting, or distractions from the flatmate etc.). But when I finally sat down, and watched it from start to finish, without any distractions, I was bored. I frequently had to check how much time remained on the film and was subsequently confused by how far through the film I had progressed, and yet the plot hadn't been found yet.

The plot itself is incredibly convoluted and poorly written. Despite being called The Disappointment's Room, the film is based more around the protagonists past, than it is on the room in question. In fact, I don't even know if the room actually did anything at all. The characters arrive at this house, and they leave in the same state. They were traumatised before, they were traumatised afterwards, but no progression. No character development. There is no obstacle that they must overcome, there is no epiphany or defining moment.

The characters themselves were odd. I usually love Kate Beckinsale (Underworld is one of my favourite film franchises), and yet she has no chemistry with any of the other cast, not her son, not her husband, not the young man that keeps hitting on her for some reason. There are no real emotions on display, and it really makes you struggle to empathise with any of it. If that was the goal, to display an emotional disconnect due to past traumas, then congratulations? If that's the case, they succeeded, but the film suffered because of it.

The "true" story behind the disappointment's room, is a sad story. And it is something that I could connect with on a human level, but there was nothing overly malicious about it. Nothing that lends itself to a horror or thriller movie. A strange lady with old newspaper cutouts and an old rotary phone don't make a film scary. It's just sporadic storytelling, provided in a chopped up, blurry fashion to try and make it seem scarier than it is. Unfit for a horror story, unfortunately.

It had all the tropes that you would expect from a horror; the creepy house, in the middle of nowhere, the dark backstory, but in the process of trying to weave in some weak character development, they've forgotten to actually put in a threat. There are scenes that give the illusion of a threat, but the limited cast and over-the-top nature of the threats made it obvious what was actually happening. They really needed to take it a couple of steps further, to play on Beckinsale's character's mental health, and they could have made it into a reasonable horror. 

Camera-wise, it looked nice. Kate Beckinsale is a woman that I find very attractive, so I enjoy looking at her, the scenes were nicely framed, and there were nice greenery and environments. These didn't save it from the fact that nothing was happening on screen. A lot of the footage could be used for advertising, it is that generic and plotless. High production values, but the content was very much lacking.

As it stands, there were no scares, I got bored and struggled to finish the movie on several occasions, I didn't care about any of the characters, and the two story arcs were practically completely independent of one another apart from occupying a common space.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7500

GET OUT (2017)

This is one of the more peculiar films I have watched recently. With a screenplay written and directed by half of the American sketch comedy duo Key & Peele, we are given a different perspective on the thriller. Combining shock treatment, with humour and racial drama, Get Out is well balanced, and a refreshing change to the usual formulaic content Hollywood churns out on a regular basis.

The film follows an interracial couple; Chris, a black man (Daniel Kaluuya) who is dating Rose, a white woman (Allison Williams). The entire plot follows their trip to visit Rose's parents, which immediately sets the tone with Chris' apparent uneasiness, and his question, of "Have you told them?". Much of the film provides some much needed social commentary on the awkwardness of many "forced" interracial interactions, where the majority feels a need to include the minority and impress them by name-dropping celebrity minority names etc. 

But as a this is a thriller, the film takes a dark turn. Beginning sweet and happy, it swiftly becomes awkward and uneasy, at which point it escalates quickly towards an ending that is downright over-the-top and cultish. There are many jump scares, and this is generally achieved with brilliant camera work, the use of the musical score, and the mannerisms used by the actors; it is amazing how slightly different behaviour can easily lead to uneasiness.

The most surprising aspect of this film, however, came down to the use of comedy. Lil Rel Howery's role as Chris' friend and TSA Agent, is a welcome connection to the outside world, where the silliness of the plot is effectively mocked for the preposterous nonsense that it is. It allows the audience welcome breaks from the constant relenting tension that we feel in the main arc, but is also integral to the major storyline, as nearly every classic horror could be resolved with a car or mobile phone.

Casting-wise, I loved the casting choice of Allison Williams. She came across as genuine in her character's intentions and even when I thought I was losing my ability to empathise with her character she brought me back in, and got me in the edge of my seat. Daniel Kaluuya did well and was enjoyable to watch, but the rest of the cast could have done better if their eccentricities were a little less pronounced, where their actions were the focal point, rather than being able to draw conclusions from their outward appearance and mannerisms.

The film has many a plot hole, and the more that I think about it, the more questions that are raised. And the reveal of specific plot elements lack subtlety, to the point that you can predict much of how the film will progress. But the attitude with which it does so, and the timing, allows the audience to still revel in the comedy, the scares, and the self reflections within the social commentary. 

A film that was brilliant, and yet horrible at the same time. Something you truly have to experience yourself to be able to understand.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7501

JACK REACHER: NEVER GO BACK (2016)

Just for the sake of full disclosure, I haven't seen the first instalment in the Jack Reacher movie franchise, but I have read a couple of the books. As an action film, Never Go Back is a reasonably well-done film. We are provided with another cat-and-mouse plot, with the protagonists racing to uncover a secret while themselves being hunted by the antagonists. A recipe for a fast-paced thriller.

The casting of Tom Cruise in the role of Jack Reacher is an odd one, as he does not have the right dimensions or personality to correctly encapsulate the Jack Reacher of the book. In fact in the opening scenes when Cruise has his first "being followed" incident, it sounds as is he is trying to force his voice to sound deeper and gruffer than it can naturally go (see Christian Bale's "Batman" voice). Tom Cruise comes across as a smarmy, cocky, and rather self-centred person; an odd choice of personality for someone that I am meant to empathise with. However, if you ignore the Jack Reacher source material, the film is good.

The casting choices, in general, weren't bad, but they weren't inspiring either. None of the characters really came across as genuine, and it failed to properly engage me. While Reacher's spontaneous decision-making style works well in the books, it doesn't translate too well on screen, and you end up with a film that lacks subtleties and depth, turning it into a Saturday night popcorn action flick, rather than a deep thinking film. Even Cobie Smulders is no help in improving the film. Finally starting to separate herself from the How I Met Your Mother role, she has been pigeon-holed in military roles due to her general lack of emotion and bland vocal style, and yet even in such a role, she fails to come across as authentic, instead seems held back, and lacks the strength, motivation, and direction that Tom Cruise's character has. 

As with most Hollywood films these days, all of the thinking is done for you, with many explanations from the antagonist's point of view that ruin a lot of the surprise and potential tension. The amount of death in the film was rather a surprise. It did come across rather gruesome and over-the-top at times and seemed like it was being used as a convenient method of driving the plot progression far too often.

Did I enjoy it? I didn't hate it, but I didn't love it. It was an above average action flick. It barely touches the thriller category that it tries to classify itself in, but is certainly a fast-paced action film. I good film to enjoy with friends and family, but not one to dissect or think too much about.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7491

KONG: SKULL ISLAND (2017)

Kong is as classic as classic comes, but no film has ever really been able to recreate the wow factor from those original films. CGI just doesn't match our expectations as the visual quality of the film continues to increase. Kong: Skull Island is, however, a vast improvement in quality since Peter Jackson's attempt. 

Set in the time period immediately post-Vietnam war, the entire film is shot with a vintage filter of sorts, giving an orange, dark, dingy, and grainy feel to the footage. The environments, vehicles and munitions used in the film also help with the overall dated feel of the film. An aspect that I did enjoy was the role of the photographer in capturing moments on film; despite the movie being in colour, the photos were black and white. A brilliant small thing that really brought that authenticity home.

Plot-wise, the film is rather lacking. There is an island, there is Kong, and chaos ensues. Most of the plot and backstory are provided through John C. Reilly's character Marlow, who is the highlight of the film. Providing realism, but still imbibing optimism, Marlow straddles the fence line of insanity and is the only character I get truly invested in. Samuel L. Jackson's role comes a close second, but he crosses the line a little too quickly and loses my support quite easily.

There seems to be a contrast of ideals and ways of thinking between the majority military group, and majority civilian group. The military group are very much portrayed in a "follow orders", and "shoot first" mentality, while the civilian group very much have an "observe" and "protect" vibe going. This in itself would have been much more enjoyable a comparison if the groups had come across the same situations. Instead, we found the military group in a much more hostile situation that was only able to be solved through violence, bringing back the "if the only tool you have is a hammer, you treat everything as if it were a nail" school of thought.

The CGI was much improved, and Kong did look spectacular. The only real problem I found was the pure scale of the creatures. While awe-inspiring, it leaves the human characters playing a negligible part in the film. Their size inhibits them from having any real effect on the proceedings and renders their character traits rather moot (not that there were any strong actors in the film apart from John C Reilly and Samuel L. Jackson). In fact, they seem to have attempted to counter the size difference by adding more people to the cast. The end result is we have an undisclosed number of expendable people. The deaths lose meaning, and you don't empathise with anyone any more.

The monsters were inconsistent, in size, speed and strength, which was rather annoying. But in reality, I was here to see Kong fight. And I saw Kong fight. So it met expectations. I'd just love to have seen a better plot.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7490

ARRIVAL (2016)

Arrival being classed as a drama should give you an idea on the level of "Hollywood" action that the viewers are likely to find. Watching the trailer, and with an idea of the plot, one would expect an aggressive movie with missiles and nuclear weapons, but we are provided with an entirely different experience; a science fiction drama.

When you meet the protagonist, Louise Banks (played by Amy Adams), we discover that she is a linguist. A fact that provides the direction for the rest of the film. Focusing the bulk of the proceedings on engaging in communication with a spacecraft. In reality, this is barely a sci-fi film. The movie just provides a new way to look at establishing a basis for translating an unknown language. This premise itself is interesting as we ourselves learned our language a long time ago. So long ago that we can often lose touch with how easy it is to misconstrue and misunderstand a word; a scenario that in this case could potentially lead to catastrophic consequences. 

Visually, the film is stunning. Finally, we get a sci-fi film that isn't all chrome, holograms, and high tech gizmos; we instead get some very ugly hazmat suits, a scissor lift, and a whiteboard & marker. A very grounding experience. Instead of clean, sterile environments everywhere, we get a dank almost well-like interior, in an area that is dark and gloomy and puts you into a contemplative mood. You aren't distracted by the beauty of the environments, instead, you are focused on the plot.

The casting worked well, and it was interesting to see these comic book characters (Jeremy Renner plays Hawkeye in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and Amy Adams plays Lois Lane in the DC Extended Universe) interacting together, I almost felt I would have preferred more unknown actors/actresses. Jeremy Renner and Amy Adams (and Forest Whitaker) are names and faces that are very well known, so sometimes it does become difficult to uncouple them from their previous roles and to fully engage with them in the movie. 

The pace of the film is quite slow in places and did have me checking how much longer I had to watch a couple of times in the middle, but the beginning and end of the film are gripping to watch. One of the aspects of the film which is probably glossed over as you watch it is the soundtrack by Jóhann Jóhannsson. With many sound effects created simply with layered piano and vocals, we are given an eerie musical playlist that works together with the film, providing room for the dialogue and other sound effects, but still accentuating the tension and emotions in the room. Brilliantly done.

Overall, a very unique stance on the sci-fi "first contact" film, and a refreshing change from the Hollywood releases of late. A film that makes you stop and think; responding instead of reacting to an otherworldly situation. Is it believable? Well, in my honest opinion, if the situation were to arise in real life, I don't imagine the United States would be as restrained as they were in this film, but I could still empathise with the level-headed approach. A pretty accurate portrayal of the wide range of responses that we would come to expect, and something I would definitely look to watch again.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7487

THE GREAT WALL (2016)

The Great Wall stars Matt Damon and is yet another example of whitewashing in Hollywood films. It was one of my biggest takeaways from the film, though only one of many aspects of the film and plot that I struggled to come to terms with. Matt Damon and Pedro Pascal portray William and Tovar, two westerners that lack honour and creed, and in search of a myth, discover entirely new eastern legends that they inexplicably are the only ones capable of providing solutions for. That, in itself,f was quite a sin. To provide a backstory that dates back over 1700 years from the time period of the film, that has the Chinese soldiers successfully doing a task until hours after the Europeans arrive just reeks of lazy writing; an obvious attempt to make western audiences empathize with it purely because of the Caucasian ethnicity of the actors involved. Personally, I would have preferred an entirely eastern cast. 

The film includes a lot of CGI, and sadly the budget of the film wasn't quite enough. Many of the environments come off unrealistic and grainy, and the threats in the film are immense in quantity, size, and strength. The speed of movement, numbers, and the overall ferocity of the threats in the film make it very hard to get truly invested in the film; the odds are insurmountable, and there is no real subtle hints or subtext. You notice things and people that will be relevant later in the plot, but there is no way that the viewer has any chance of figuring it out. It all has to be spelt out with narratives and storytelling. So you just sit back and watch the carnage, waiting for the next step.

That being said, as an action film, there are many parts that I enjoyed. The defence mechanisms set up in the wall were a great touch; sieges have been pretty overdone in film battles, so there were some nice original designs and adaptations to existing ideas, that kept up the excitement. While many of the different coloured Chinese squads helped to differentiate between tasks easily, you couldn't help but laugh at the lack of realism at most of the ideas (specifically the acrobatic specialist Crane troop).

There were several points in the film that managed to elicit a laugh from the audience, generally Pedro Pascal being the source. As well as laughs, the film managed to fit in a few scares, which maintained their shock value regardless of the predictability of the actions. Despite the mix of action, theatrics, laughs, and shocks, the film laboured towards the end; the European mercenary subplot, really halting the plot progression. 

There was a lot of potential with the film. I loved the Chinese fighting styles, and the cultural aspects used in the film. I would have preferred a much more manageable threat, however, as there really was no reason why the monsters wouldn't win in the first wave. I really wanted to see these differing Chinese units fighting a proper battle, rather than each colour having a single method of attack. The European stars had better action scenes, better choreography and a variety of fighting styles. With a more manageable threat, perhaps greater attention could have been taken with the CGI. 

A film that would be fun to watch, but not a film I would want to think about. Simply two teams fighting with as many explosions added as possible. The Great Wall? Not quite. It was a reasonable wall.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7467