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