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

JACKIE (2016)

This was a disappointing watch. According to Google, there were around three days between the assassination of JFK and his burial, and basing an entire film around one person's view of those 3 days, unfortunately, creates a very dry watch.

The film is based around an "interview" between Jackie Kennedy and a journalist, as they recount the assassination and the days that immediately followed. The entire interview style was both useful and a hindrance to the film; it allowed an extra comparison between how Jackie acts, and how she allows herself to be seen, both during the emotional turmoil and after the immediacy of it has passed. On the other hand, it also took us away from being a first-hand account, to almost being hearsay. When you go from watching an event happen, to watching how a character tells us it happens, while also multiple times mentioning that she will be editing any transcripts, it's hard to take it as seriously.

The film is oddly shot, with odd transitions and dialogue almost cropped out as the camera changes angles and jumps through time. It makes it a little harder to follow but does give it a more aged, period-piece feel. There were several recreations of vintage footage which was a nice touch, though I would have preferred to have seen the actual footage, so I could properly see how well cast the actors and actresses were.

Largely, the film skates by with little to no dialogue. Hoping to express itself purely by Portman's actions and acting ability. Unfortunately, what can often be considered dignity can also come across as emotionless. And what one tries to show as determination and love, could come across as irrational and stubborn. In both of these cases, Natalie Portman really struggled to sell the performance. Every scene seemed to share equal importance no matter what was occurring, which took away from moments that should have endeared us to Jackie. 

I would have preferred a much more streamlined script. straight-forward chronologically; remove the journalist interviews, and the time skipping so that the viewers can properly gauge how the emotions changed over time, how she coped with such immense loss in the public's eye.

Ultimately, the film bored me. Portman came off stone-faced and unlikable, and the most emotional scenes (warning there are some very graphic shots in this film) came off flat and lacked authenticity. The film really needed a larger perspective with better support from the rest of the cast, instead, we have an inconsistent performance that leads a lot to be desired.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7523