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