BUMBLEBEE (2018)

I've always been hesitant when it comes to Michael Bay's Transformers franchise. The first film was fun, but every sequel was just the same movie with different characters involved, and bigger explosions. I watched them all for the sake of completionism, but I enjoyed each one less and less.

But to see Steven Speilberg's name attached to this...prequel? reboot? It helped to calm the nerves a bit as I went into the cinema to buy a ticket. 

I would generally place a bit of time into talking about whether or not Bumblebee is a prequel or reboot, as it takes place before the Labeouf/Wahlberg films, but contradicts the first film. That being said every Transformers film has contradicted itself coming up with a new time that Transformers arrived on Earth, so I guess it's not really the sort of film franchise that cares too much about continuity. 

Bumblebee is a much smaller scale film. With only three Transformers being on Earth throughout the film (I'll exclude the two that were only in one scene each) we are finally provided with a film where we can watch and follow the entire thing. When you have bright red, bright blue, and bright yellow, it is much easier to see what is going on during battles. 

With such a minimal Transformer presence, the film is going to be much more human-centred, and I have no problem with that. It allowed for some rich character development from Hailee Steinfeld, who plays the angsty teen protagonist Charlie Watson, as well as providing Bumblebee some time to gain an emotional connection with the human race. In fact, the film goes so far against the grain of what we have come to expect from a Transformer movie, that it actually feels like a combination of the Iron Giant and E.T. where the problem isn't the world ending, instead it's how the world reacts to little alien/robot Bumblebee.

The pacing is a little off and takes a while to get into, but once the ball starts rolling, it speeds up very fast. This slow pace is juxtaposed quite nicely by the opening scenes that show a full-on Transformer fight during the fall of Cybertron. A complete mess to watch, but we finally get to see Optimus Prime is his classic red truck disguise from the animated shows/movie. That alone put a smile on my face.

John Cena showed off some rather exaggerated acting as the military presence in the film but didn't hinder the flow of the movie. Hailee Steinfeld is the standout star of the film, however, far surpassing Mark Wahlberg and Shia Labeouf in terms of emotional engagement and enjoyment. Proof that we don't need Megan Fox or Rosie Huntington-Whiteley to saunter around sexily with the right amount of makeup sweat and dirt to keep the interest.  

Bumblebee's missing voice is addressed in this film too (which again makes you wonder if this is a prequel or a reboot), but apart from that, it is largely a film separated from the rest of the franchise. Simply, a young woman who has discovered an alien, and tries to hide it to keep it safe from the military. A plot we've seen many times before, but with a protagonist at an age that we can have some real emotional character development.

Potentially the best Transformers movie to date, and I hope that if more films are on the way, that it continues on from this new starting point.

AQUAMAN (2018)

Aquaman has had a reasonable amount of interest during the build-up to its release; not so much from people wanting a great film, but more so fans wanting to know whether they can trust Warner Bros. to do the DCEU franchise justice. With a poorly received Suicide Squad & Justice League, and a very polarising mix of responses to Batman v Superman (even the originally disliked Man of Steel is now seen as one of the best DC films released since the Dark Knight trilogy), Wonder Woman has been the sole shining light thus far. James Wan attempts to bring Aquaman to the screen in a visually engaging way, but in the end, it overreaches and ends up falling short of the brilliance that it aspired to be.

The film has the arduous task of world-building; with Earth luckily enough we are pretty up-to-date on the terrestrial life, but we have 7 Atlantean kingdoms that need to be brought to life, displayed in a way that makes it easy to distinguish them apart, and then create some form of plot around them all on top of that. Even with a run time of 143 minutes, that is a tall task. But these kingdoms are all given very different appearances which makes it easy to distinguish, whether it be fish-people, deep-sea creatures, crab people, or the two human-like kingdoms (who luckily have coordinated their kingdoms and dresswear accordingly).

But this movie is about Aquaman, so how did Jason Momoa do? Well, honestly Momoa did a brilliant job with what he was given. He has managed to make Aquaman awesome again after decades of jokes from modern media. He provides great physical action scenes. Being half land-based human, that is where half of the movie takes place, which means you can expect a lot of "fish out of water" humour where his co-star Amber Heard is involved (not dissimilar to Wonder Woman adjusting to the human world in her film), which largely works well. It doesn't necessarily get a loud, gut-wrenching laugh from the crowd, but most certainly fall under the "cute and adorable" category. 

The fight scenes, in general, are rather hit and miss. Right out of the gates we are given a great fight scene between Aquaman and some pirates, which immediately paints Momoa's character as a bit of a badass. But from that point on, once the underwater portion gets included, many of the scenes became overly dependent on the CGI. One aspect that made me audibly sigh, (it's almost as if James Wan couldn't figure out how to end a scene) was how each mini-battle would start. Everything had to be jump scares and explosions through walls. After the third time it happened, I was well over it. And the big battle towards the end looked like a love child between Star Wars and Lord of the Rings, except I had no emotional investment in any of the characters involved, so it had no real impact.

The colouring of the environments is much better done, compared to Justice League. There are much less garish oranges and purples, and a lot more natural light and bright elements. This does take place underwater though, so you do have to get used to the effects of their hair constantly waving around, and their faces constantly morphing. More realistic yes, but also slightly distracting when you are trying to take in a conversation.

The secondary villain was rather unnecessary and ended up looking like a villain from a Power Rangers movie. A recurring reminder that this is all based on comic books. His entire motivation and skill level was quite laughable, and I would have rather he not be in the film at all, as he added nothing to the plot. Otherwise, the casting was quite surprising. As soon as the film started you realise there are many more famous faces in this film than just Jason Momoa. Temuera Morrison, Nicole Kidman, Dolph Lundgren, and Willem Dafoe all have some significant supporting roles in this film. 

My biggest gripe is how in the opening scenes, his badassery has no bounds. He is portrayed in a manner similar to Superman. The man is invincible; with swords, bullets, and grenades have no effect on him. And while that is cool to watch, it also removes all tension from the movie. You never fear that Aquaman will fail, because he is so strong and overpowered. Sure, weaknesses are introduced as the film progresses, but it's much harder to feel engaged with an overpowered character. Superman gets past this by focusing more on ethical and moral dilemmas, more so than brute force fighting. Aquaman, not so much. He still relies on power and increasing his power to win.

The plot is still mildly convoluted. But more importantly, it is understandable. I can follow the film, I understand every motivation, even if some seem over-the-top, and requires a lot of deus ex machina. I'm also happy to report that this is, in fact, a standalone film. This isn't a film that gets messed around because WB want teasers and scenes alluding to future films. Just one end-credits scene (which I still think was preposterous...but comic book films, so whatever).

Overall, the film tried too much. They almost hit the right balance. If they had removed the secondary villain entirely, the film would have still made sense, wouldn't start out with an invincible protagonist, and would provide more space to build the Atlantean story more, without coming across like a side-story that they don't really want to show us. Still, it is above average. Not something I will feel the need to watch again, but something that was reasonably enjoyable to watch once. Currently, I'd rank this 3rd in the DCEU movies, behind Wonder Woman and Man of Steel.


Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr8144

THE PREDATOR (2018)

I watched this DVD a week ago, but I'm only writing this review now because I really haven't been able to figure out how best to talk about this film. Quite simply put, the film has a reasonable first half, but then it loses all sense of what it was trying to do and becomes a hot mess.

There are several plot lines carrying on at the simultaneously, and the movie decides that they are all important and we need to be kept up to date on all of them, so we end up cutting and changing between characters and scenes incessantly. The characters themselves are generally one-dimensional. Here is the "black" guy, the "latino", the "religious one", this guy has Tourettes (that's his only thing), the guy that yells out "your momma" jokes etc. It is a ragtag bunch of quirks and one-liners that attempts to force comedy into places it shouldn't be. This is a Predator movie! Can you really have someone genuinely making jokes minutes after watching people die? 

The push to add in comedy fails in two ways. The film constantly harks back to the original film, jamming in new iterations of "Get to the chopper", "You are one ugly mother f*cker", "If it bleeds...we can kill it", but it also uses similar humour; mainly constantly making jokes around female genitalia, generally in a now distasteful way (who would have thought acceptable humour had changed since 1987?). These jokes obviously fall flat and feel dated, and considering most of the jokes are coming Thomas Jane's "Tourettes" character, it also feels incredibly insensitive. Beyond the jokes failing to get a laugh, it also kills the tension and suspense in the film. Tension and Suspense are the main reason that Predator worked as a film. Predator was a Thriller. The Predator is an action-comedy, and it doesn't really work.

The film was clearly affected by reshoots, with the film constantly switching between day and night, and much of the dialogue feeling out of order. This does nothing to help sort out the plot, which is as tangle labyrinthine story that is going on. Villains that are actually good guys, good guys that are actually villains, the film has no idea what it is actually trying to do. The predator used to be the ultimate killing machine, and every remake, they keep trying to add "bigger and better" predators that just look like horrible CGI game footage, and ruins the fear that the predator has always brought. The bigger types are laughable, so you can't take them seriously, but they make the usual predators look insignificant. And that is without looking at the changes to the lore... The predators have been killing people and ripping out spines to steal the DNA and splice into the next generation to improve the species?? Why would a Predator want the DNA of a species that it has beaten in one-on-one combat? Makes no sense. 

The film is nothing but one-liners held together by deus ex machina. Oodles and oodles of plot convenience and it kills any interest you really have in the characters. Amazing teleportation skills, dog lobotomies, vomiting special items, magic rain man level autism, the film has the worst writing I have come across in a very long time. The worst part of the plot is the overall goal of MegaPredator 2.0; he wants to steal the autistic child so that he can use the DNA to give autism to future generations of Predators because autism is the next step in human evolution...

I would only recommend this film for one reason. If you were planning on having a party and wanted a movie to laugh at. Not because of the intentional comedy, but because of the poor writing, editing, and reshoots, then this could be a goer. A terrible letdown from Shane Black, considering he was in the first Predator film. He should know better. He had so many different aspects that he tried to make work. There are enough aspects that could have been properly fleshed out into 6 or 7 different films. Instead, The Predator became the melting pot of poorly executed ideas.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr8139

SECOND ACT (2018)

As a nearly 30-year-old male, I was unsure if there was anything about this film that I was going to enjoy. Watching the trailer, it looked like an over-the-top romantic comedy that would focus on slapstick and low-brow humour. But in reality, the film was so much more than that. I came out of the theatre with a much greater appreciation of rom-coms.

Nobody doubts that Jennifer Lopez has a great pair of lungs on her, and has done well in the music industry. Where there is plenty of doubt, however, is in her acting ability. In that way, Lopez is actually perfectly cast as the out-of-place woman, trying something new in her 40's. It is quite funny that Lopez is portraying a woman that has just turned 40 when she herself is 49, but she does look great for her age. Lopez's acting has not really improved much over her filmography, but she certainly is getting better at showing a greater range of emotion in the face. 

The well-done aspect of this film is how well the rest of the cast are written around Lopez. While she is the star, Lopez is always sharing nearly every single scene with Vanessa Hudgens, Treat Williams, or Leah Remini, who constantly steal the spotlight, and take the pressure off of Lopez.

The film is quite cheesy and slapstick in its use of comedy, and there is certainly a fair amount of deus ex machina, which does lower the intelligence of the film, but the thing that I love the most, is how the real plot of the film wasn't ruined by the trailer. Sure what you see in the trailer happens, but it becomes a secondary plot. That is the beauty of the film. It makes you switch off the brain when you see a by-the-numbers romantic comedy being advertised, and then it throws a curveball that will have you slapping yourself in the forehead.

The main plot is rather heavy-handed. It is hinted at almost constantly, and while it has the viewer wondering "why is this even a necessary thing to include in the film?" it soon reveals the reason and all of a sudden the tension is increased.

Tension is something that Second Act does surprisingly well. Right from the start, we have events unfolding that create a form of "timer". Every time a specific character reappears, you are reminded that behind the facade of the project timer, there is another timer ticking down in the background, imperative to the main plot. These multiple time constraints and double crosses create a surprisingly engaging film.

Apart from the hidden plot and the tension, the film is very much by-the-numbers. It ticks off all of the requirements and has an ending pretty much on par with what I was expected. Granted, they did rush the climax somewhat and left a few questions. 

I did enjoy the film though, and that really surprised me. I was expecting to be rather bored, but it gave me something new. I could barely call this a romantic comedy, to be honest. Certainly an emotional film, but romance is not the primary theme that pushes the plot along. Neither is being a comedy it's defining characteristic. But alas I cannot say much more without giving away spoilers. The stand out cast came in the form of Treat Williams who portrayed the loving father figure, and Alan Aisenberg & Charlyne Yi who portrayed the lovable outcasts that kept the laughs coming from time to time. 

A heart-warming film, that tugs at those strings, and tackles some pretty heavy moral and ethical questions. I'd recommend giving it a go.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr8124

THE CHILDREN ACT (2017)

Following a family court judge that frequently presides over contentious cases, The Children Act is an intriguing film full of moral and ethical dilemmas. 

To give some context to those unaware of the Children Act 1989 in Britain, the first section introduces the relevant information: "The Children Act 1989 states that children's welfare should be the paramount concern of the courts. It also specifies that any delays in the system processes will have a detrimental impact on a child's welfare. The court should take into account the child's wishes; physical, emotional and educational needs; age; sex; background circumstances; the likely effect of change on the child; the harm the child has suffered or is likely to suffer; parent's ability to meet the child's needs and the powers available to the court." This is the system that Emma Thompson's character Honourable Mrs Justice Maye has the final word on.

The Act gives rise to a lot of contention when you consider many of the ethical questions around healthcare. Whether faced with the question of separating conjoined twins so that one may survive, or whether to force a blood transfusion which goes against the religious beliefs of the family, such cases strip away the choice from the parents as these are decisions that will impact the child's health. Giving more strength to the story is the knowledge that the film (and novel) are both based on a true story.

Objectivity is a difficult thing to maintain during such emotional cases as those that involve life and death decisions regarding a child. The idea of a hospital taking a family to court in order to treat someone is something that you would never think to be necessary, and yet it is quite commonplace in Britain where religion has a much higher rate of practice than here in New Zealand.

The film follows two plot threads; the main plot follows the case of a Jehovah's witness child who requires a blood transfusion to be able to undergo leukaemia treatment, but transfusions are forbidden by the religion. The second plot line involves a look at marital issues between Fiona Maye and her husband Jack Maye (Stanley Tucci), where her career has taken precedence over her personal life.

The film brings forth the concept of a flawed, voluntarily childless character being in control of other people's decisions regarding how their children are raised and medically treated. An interesting quandary even before you start looking at the conflict between church and state, or are faced with the consequences of your decisions. 

While intriguing, the film does struggle with its pacing. The setup for the premise of the film feels rushed, with several cases being brought forward that had as much focus on them. There was very little that told the viewer that this case was going to the significant case that would be the focus of the rest of the film. The marital storyline was really under-utilised and while Stanley Tucci did a brilliant job with the content he was given, it feels like there is so much context missing. We never got to see this couple happy, so being thrown straight into this cold, closed off, emotional emptiness...it doesn't come across as genuine as I would like. 

Emma Thompson does brilliantly as a judge. She oozes the essence of control and power, but all other aspects of her character do feel weak. Fionn Whitehead does well at the overeager near-obsessive personality, but there is no subtlety to his mannerisms and does look like he would be much more at home in a mental hospital. I would actually go as far to say that the minor supporting role of Nigel Pauling, portrayed by Jason Watkins, was the performance that felt the most authentic. 

Overall, The Children Act was well done, but it's length let it down, causing it to rush it's set up, and losing any suspense or tension. With a run-time of 105 minutes, I would have much-preferred something closer to 130 minutes, to get the pacing right, and allow time for us to truly engage with the characters. Apart from Nigel and Fiona, The remainder of the characters only really have a few minutes of screen-time. And it shows in the lack of engagement. Regardless, it's an interesting insight into the British family court system and raises a lot of questions to ponder about once the film is finished.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr8126

MISSION: IMPOSSIBLE - FALLOUT (2018)

I was primarily interested in checking out this film purely because of Henry Cavill's moustache. The moustache that is one of the many, many reasons that people hated the Justice League movie. But I came away with a greater appreciation of the Mission: Impossible franchise. A moustache is a silly thing for people to get up in arms about, but I was intrigued to see why the moustache was so vital to the Mission: Impossible film, that it would be an issue.

But it really does add so much to the general vibe of Cavill's character. His portrayal as August Walker, a CIA assassin was brilliant, and definitely one of the most powerful performances I've seen from Cavill. He looks not just aesthetically muscled, but actually heavily built and strong. He looks more dangerous than all of the times he has been Superman combined. And its one of the aspects that makes him such a great character in the film.

The film itself flows really well. It never really stops to let you have a break. There is always a timer somewhere. Right from the start, each part of the mission has a time function to it, which is constantly pushing the film forward at speeds. Chase scenes, bomb timers, they all add tension and suspense. Add to that the constant challenges to Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise) being pushed to make choices between maintaining an undercover profile to continue the mission, and doing what is ethically and morally right. These elements all build up the character of Ethan Hunt and help him continue to be an engaging character, even in his sixth film in the franchise. Pirates of the Caribbean couldn't even maintain the integrity of Captain Jack Sparrow for five films.

A surprising thing I noticed with Fallout, is that while Tom Cruise movies as usually based solely around his character and ignore everything else (*cough cough* The Mummy), the film actually makes use of his team properly. Ethan Hunt is constantly put into situations that while he is the primary character driving the plot forward and doing most of the work, there are so many aspects that he cannot physically complete without his team (Luther Stickell and Benji Dunn portrayed by Ving Rhames and Simon Pegg respectively). That too is another source of tension as more players mean more chances for things to go wrong.

As far as action goes, Mission: Impossible has always created as much of its scenes as possible with practical effects. Tom Cruise is well known for not having a stunt person and performing all of his own stunts. Even flying a helicopter, a skill that generally takes 12 weeks to get a license for, Cruise got in 6 weeks by training for 16 hours every day. That dedication to the craft shows in the film as each facial expression and body movement is real and allows for more creative camera angles without the extra stunt doubles on set.

Arguably, the plot is convoluted. So complicated that I couldn't even begin to explain what or who the villains actually are. But you never really have a chance to worry about who the bad guys are. You know who the good guys are (Ethan Hunt and Co.), and they are your moral anchor. everybody else could go either way, but you are really too tense and on the edge of your seat to really take note of who is on what side anymore. The plot does get a little over-the-top in the end, and things do get a bit weird, but really, when your film has been building up and accelerating for over two hours, you have to either go big or go home.

Mission: Impossible Fallout is proof that even if your plot is absolute bollocks if you have great suspense, strong, fleshed out characters, and practical action scenes, you can still make a brilliant film.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr8123

CREED II (2018)

Simply put, I am not a huge fan of sports. There is many a thing that I would rather do than watch sports. So I know the film is great when I'm being drawn into it. When I start feeling emotionally invested in the characters.

In all honesty, the film does start off rather weakly. The initially heavyweight match is decidedly uninteresting, and as the first event of the film, nobody is really invested. The film uses a fair amount of narration to try and bridge the gap between the ending of the first Creed film and the beginning of this sequel, but that is a well-known characteristic of poor writing. Every character is thrust into the limelight, whether it is being provided with a world heavyweight title or a recording contract, and it doesn't come off overly authentic. But as the film progresses, and we start spending more time "behind the scenes" the strings of emotional attachment begin to take hold. 

The film (when you exclude the heavyweight title match in the opening scene) is well paced. There is a sense of urgency throughout, which is well-developed thanks to Russell Hornsby's character Buddy Marcelle, whose frequent appearances are a constant reminder of what the unseen public are demanding, and serve as a ticking clock.

Everybody loves an underdog story, and Creed II attempts to pull off two underdog stories in the one film, from both the antagonist and protagonist, taking a much more rounded approach to the characters. Instead of the usual "Russians are the bad guys" trope, which of course was the thing to do back in the days of Rocky IV, we get to revisit those characters and develop them further. We see the effects of the loss in Rocky IV on Ivan Drago, and his need to regain the love of his country and his wife turned into an obsession that affected not only himself but now included his own son. In the end, we start to feel sympathy for both sides.

All being a part of the Rocky Franchise, there is a good level of nostalgia and backstory, that is now fully inter-generational, providing another area that the audience can empathise with. Rocky movies have of course never been known for having fully fleshed out characters. A very simple boxing premise that has grown into a fleshed out alternative timeline. 

While I love how the arc between Ivan and Viktor came to a close, I wish Ivan and Rocky were able to work on their own arc. The seeds of redemption have been sown and I would have loved to have seen it fully-formed, but it did fall just short in that regard. Rocky was really the only character who accomplished very little in this film; what development his character had, had no effect on the plot whatsoever. 

There are many facets of the movie that I could talk about, but they would spoil the movie, and I don't want to do that. And I haven't even really talked about the action/fight side of it really. That alone tells you the emotional weight that the film carries. This isn't just an "I have to train harder to beat him" movie. The emotional aspect is as important, if not more so.

The fights themselves were very well choreographed, each hit feeling heavy and strong, with great camerawork, that showed the power of each opponent. Speed, power, and variety in strikes and styles kept everything interesting and provided great insight into tactics behind the sport of boxing. It also placed a lot of emphasis on the dangers of boxing and the risk of death or permanent brain damage if the match is taken too far.

A well-rounded movie with plenty of action, and by the end of it, some well-rounded characters that you want to see win in one way or another. A long-term look at the consequences of one man's actions early in life affecting a broader circle of people many years down the line. An engaging movie that is well worth a watch.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr8125

JOURNEY'S END (2017)

War films are an incredibly emotive genre when they are done right. The whole concept of watching a group of people fighting and risking their lives for what they believe is in the best interest of their country. It is an incredibly selfless act, that no matter what the nationality, you can really empathise with that nationalism and patriotism. This is the fifth film adaptation of what was originally a theatrical play, but as I have seen none of the previous iterations, I won't be looking to make any form of comparison. I will be simply judging the film based on its own merits; as if it were an original plot.

Following a company of British infantry on the frontline trenches, fulfilling their six-day obligation before the next company takes their place, they await an attack from the German lines as they struggle with the things that they have experienced so far. When they receive information that the Germans will attack before their shift ends, and they will be expected to hold their position with no support, the film truly begins.

While technically a spoiler, it is such a vital part of the direction of the film (and the title gives it away to an extent anyway). It creates such an emotional situation when the men are effectively told that they have only a few days remaining to live. Watching the various ways of dealing with the situation, whether it be trying to escape, "self-medicating", or making the most of the solidarity of the group to distract themselves from the noose hanging over their heads. From brand new days old Officers to broken-down Captains, there is a multitude of different perspectives that cover early every possible option. 

Visibly speaking, the colour grading is striking. In what appears to be mostly shot with just natural light, the colours are faded and murky and have a very wet, dirty vibe. With most shots done from within the trenches, there is a very restrictive, claustrophobic atmosphere that suits the content of the film well. 

Casting-wise, I am truly feeling the over-saturation of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, with the three main cast coming across like Vision, Iron Man, and Spider-Man of the Avengers franchise. Helped by the fact that Lieutenant Osborne is played by Vision actor Paul Bettany. One of the strongest characters in the film, Osborne is the grounded elder of the group, who takes most things in his stride, and has the biggest heart of them all. Captain Stanhope (played by Sam Claflin) has a very Johnny Depp meets Henry Cavill look to him, and his mopey attitude would go well in the DC Extended Universe. Overall his character is far less likeable but one of the more genuine portrayals, with mental instability, struggling with the responsibilities foisted upon him. 

Asa Butterfield's portrayal of the young Second Lieutenant Raleigh didn't fit quite so well. Despite being a freshman in the field, Raleigh came across far too innocent to be in the position that he was in. That being said his performance later in the film was very well done, showing how quickly one came become jaded, and their longstanding beliefs and perspectives shattered. The real surprising performances came from supporting cast Stephen James and Toby Jones. James, adding an air of positivity and control in tense situations, and Jones whose cuisine compromises created moments of levity in other inhospitable situations. 

A slow starter, the film does struggle to get to its feet. Once the pieces are in place, however, and the timer starts to count down, the level of tension and suspense keeps you glued to your seat. Several layers of uncertainty add to the tension and elevate the emotive potential.

100 years of from the end of World War I, it's a fitting time to remind viewers of the other side of the coin. There is the often glamorised side of war, that paints fighting for your country as the best thing you can do for your country, but there is the often forgotten side that poor decisions are made, and lives are ended with nary a thought. Soldiers are expendable to those higher up. All lives matter, no matter the side, and the fragility of those lives is certainly on display here.

Originally posted to: http://djin.nz/Kr8077

SUSPIRIA (2018)

A supernatural/fantasy horror, Suspiria doesn't follow the usual tropes of the genres. In fact, it barely even follows the original film it is based on. While having many of the same character names and taking place in a dance school, the rest of the film is drastically different, to the point that the film is more influenced by the original, rather than being based on it.

Split into six acts and an epilogue, Suspiria has the lengthy run time of two and a half hours, and it uses that extra time to really stretch out the film. The stretching is an aspect of the film that will likely polarise the audience, either coming across as unnecessary and in need of trimming, or a fresh method to bring in tension and suspense without the need for jump scares (because we all know jump scares are so lazy). 

From this reviewers perspective, I was hit with both sides of it. There is a general intrigue in the opening acts of the film if you are unaware of the premise, as you are simply introduced to a doctor and an unstable paranoid woman ranting about people stealing her eyes. Unravelling the truth from the fiction takes a very long time, as the crux of the horror plot is not revealed until a fair way into the film. This adds a lot of tension and suspense, as the uncomfortable vibe you get from many of the characters remains unexplained for so long. That being said, once the reveal comes through and the mechanics are revealed, the film does begin to feel unnecessarily slow. Once the end destination is revealed horrors really aren't helped by the slow pace.

But there is much about the film that is enjoyable to watch, The entire dance style is energetic and physical, as are many of the stunts (including one of most integral parts of the reveal). The strong, raw, sexual nature of the movements are mesmerizing and the amount of the stunts and effects that are completed practically is impressive. The final scenes will again be polarizing; the blood and gore levels finally pay off the slow build of the film, but the eclectic shaky camera shots, rapid cuts, and visual effects jam everything into the single sequence which is certainly over-the-top. Colours are quite subtle, with a faded colour grading, which is again the complete opposite of the original film. Though there is an injection of colour into the final act.

Perhaps one of the weirder things to not about the film, was Tilda Swinton's roles; as she takes on not one, but three characters in the film, including that of a geriatric man (who does end up completely naked at one point in the film). While the multiple roles are not relevant to the plot at all, it is interesting nonetheless. 

The purpose of the dance and the need for dancers is really the big appeal in the film, and I would have really loved to have seen that explored a bit more fully, instead of it all building towards one single act. But Suspiria really pushes the boundaries of what makes a modern horror; avoiding jump scares, long-length, and villains that are out in the open, all create an extensively uncomfortable experience that is a unique way to bring tension. 

Long, but distinctive, with a strong cast of women. Worth checking out.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr8111

A STAR IS BORN (2018)

I feel like I will be in the minority with my views on this film. The general consensus among reviewers seems to be that this is the best movie to come out in 2018, and a shoo-in for an Oscar. But A Star Is Born really didn't have a strong hold on me. Perhaps due to me being a male, the romantic drama in the film wasn't as engaging enough, or perhaps my apathy towards Lady Gaga's music may have had an effect. But overall, I felt the film was far too long and by the end, I couldn't wait for it to finish.

For Bradley Cooper, being the leading man, producer, and director as well as his character having to play guitar and sing, this is likely to be the highlight of his career. Something that will bring his name back into the limelight and provide a solid foundation for his dramatic roles in the future as well as future work behind the camera. Despite my misgivings about the length of the film, I would be out of place if I didn't give some kudos to the many roles Cooper has tried to complete to a high standard.

A Star Is Born is the 4th time that the story has been brought to the silver screen since 1937 (the latest remake being released 42 years ago), so while the storyline is very much a repeat of what has already been done, it is a more modern adaptation, that reaches a new generation of film viewers. One of the biggest changes to the film, over other remakes, is who the focal point falls upon. In previous iterations, the focus is squarely upon the female lead, whereas Bradley Cooper has the focus on the male lead (a.k.a. himself), a move that creates a more emotive experience but ultimately detracts from Lady Gaga's role in the film. 

Cooper takes on the role of Jackson Maine and changes the role to provide a more sympathetic character. Rather than an overly abrasive, obnoxious alcoholic, Cooper tries to convey the pain and depression that his character has used as a justification for his alcoholism, and paints him in a light that the audience are more easily able to understand. the consequence of this though, is that it changes our feelings towards the female lead; Lady Gaga's Ally. With a sympathetic male lead, Ally comes off as an inconsistent character that is impatient and doesn't support her husband, switching from being madly in love with him, to casting him away. It doesn't do the character any justice, especially as the female lead is the subject of the entire movie.

Now, I'm quite a fan of how the film portrays alcoholism. While there is no attempt to justify the alcoholism, it shows an accurate portrayal of the struggles that lead to drinking, the struggles to maintain control, the negative effects of intoxication in the public eye, the emotional fragility, and how those suffering from alcoholism are treated by society. It also tries to show the supportive systems in place to deal with the "disease" of alcohol and drug addiction, which is something those that are struggling need to be reminded of.

But the film struggles to maintain its pace. It starts off well, with excitement and the thrill of fresh love, but as the film progresses into the second act, it starts to feel less organic, forced, and ultimately slow. I found myself fidgeting in the cinema seats on multiple occasions, very aware of how long I had been sitting, wondering how long until I could leave. And that is not how you want a film to make you feel. This is perhaps due to being a remake, that there was less flexibility in the script, as the ending moments of the film were set in stone. Did the film need to be a remake? Just name it something else and take it in a more natural direction and you would have had a brilliant film. Instead, we have something that has all the ingredients to be brilliant (and thus will still likely win awards) but just doesn't fit together properly.

Even having not seen any of the remakes, the second half of the film became very predictable. The overarching plot was predictable from the get-go and the synopsis of the movie tells you everything you need to know to assume the rest, but in the second half of the film, every step and every "twist" was forecast well in advance, and just led me to lose interest. The film would have really been improved if it had compacted that second half down and reduced it's run-time by 30-40 minutes. Two and a half hours is not necessary and overkill. 

The musical numbers were enjoyable to watch. I'm still doubtful to think that Bradley Cooper performed these himself, as the quality of the musicianship is high, and while I dislike Lady Gaga's music, she does have a brilliant, evocative voice. They did lean very heavily on the musical numbers (which you would expect with a film based around the music industry), but there were many occasions where it did not add to the plot at all and was just there to give Lady Gaga or Cooper another chance to show off their performing abilities.

I absolutely loved the start of the film. That first act felt genuine, and I was absorbed in the characters. But the film lost its way as the characters personalities and behaviours changed to whatever was needed to push the film towards the ending. The ending will leave many in tears, and that is all in the power of Coopers acting, and Gaga's vocal performances, but that isn't enough to sway me. Those that love Cooper and Lady Gaga (or even just romance films) will love A Star Is Born, but for those that are after an engaging film that grips you from start to end, this is unfortunately not the answer.

Side note: When you check out the film, keep an eye out for New Zealand's own singer-songwriter Marlon Williams who plays a part in the Roy Orbison tribute scene. 

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr8076

JURASSIC WORLD: FALLEN KINGDOM (2018)

I saw Fallen Kingdom before it came out on DVD, and I thought it was okay. Nothing special, but nothing awful. When I had the chance to watch it at home properly, I tried to give it another go and quickly realised that the movie is an incredible hot mess.

The thing that has made Jurassic Park such a successful film to try and build a franchise from, is its ability to create a sense of wonder in the viewer. Being in a modern landscape with Jurassic creatures would be an amazing sensation to behold, but as Hollywood cranks out more and more Jurassic films, the wonder is lost, and instead replaced with jump scares and more "action".

Right from the start of Fallen Kingdom, we are fed scenarios that contradict each other and events that occur a certain way for plot convenience and to add tension. Whether it be helicopters that can withstand a T-Rex tugging on its rope ladder, a door that stops closing if the controller is broken, a completely different layout of the island to the previous movie, or people that communicated with radios moments ago choosing not to use their radios to add suspense, the film comes across very lazily written. No real thought has been put into the science of things, and it is as if the writers decided the presence of dinosaurs meant all science goes out the window.

The characters make a return with Bryce Dallas Howard and Chris Pratt taking up the roles of Claire and Owen again. Unfortunately, the writers decided to revert the characters back to their original status in the previous Jurassic World movie, ending their relationship off-screen for no reason other than to elicit a few laughs when discussing the break-up and give them something to try and rekindle during the sequel. An entirely unnecessary addition to the storyline that adds nothing to the plot. 

The entire premise of the film revolves around trying to save the dinosaurs from extinction as the island they are on is an active volcano about to erupt, but the plot becomes incredibly convoluted from that point on. I could write over 900 more words at least on parts of the film that left me exasperated due to the impossibility of it occurring, or the contradictory nature of the film in that it doesn't even follow the rules set up within the film itself, but in doing so I would spoil what little plot there is. Combine the trailers for Fallen Kingdom and the first half of The Lost World, and you have the plot for your sequel. 

Perhaps one of the reasons I have started to dislike these films is the departure from realism with respects to the raptors. While in the first Jurassic Park film, the T-Rex saves the day, it does so by accident, and the situation follows that if the humans were to stick around, they would be in danger from the T-Rex. But these films have turned the T-Rex and raptors into "friends" of the humans, working together with them and protecting them, when there is really no basis for it. You can through as much backstory as you want at me, but when you start trying to make me categorise dinosaurs into good and bad carnivorous dinosaurs, then the franchise has really lost everything that made it fun and suspenseful. 

Beyond all of the horrible new plots (don't get me started on the "clone" side-story) and regurgitated old plots, the film is well shot. Crisp and clean, the film has all the aspects of a big Hollywood film that combines dinosaurs with fast-paced action. It will keep the younger kids entertained. I feel the trailers give a false idea of what the movie is truly about only really revealing the first 20 minutes or so, but as it is just reusing the plot from Jurassic Park 2, You are going to have a pretty good idea what will happen as soon as you see the grizzled military men. Jeff Goldblum has a minimal part to play that takes up a 2-minute slot at the start of the film.

So this may entertain the younger fans of dinosaurs, but for anyone that has seen the original trilogy, Jurassic World has lost its spark and has fallen foul with lazy writing and plot convenience. I couldn't even finish it on the second viewing. It wasn't worth my time.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr8071

SMALLFOOT (2018)

Smallfoot is WAG's (Warner Animation Group) second attempt at competing with Pixar and Dreamworks in something that doesn't revolve around the LEGO franchise. While it certainly has some reasonable animation and a great premise, it finds itself getting bogged down by its own big ideas.

The premise of the film is an interesting one; for anyone that has seen the history channel or animal planet, they will know that there are many groups that are out searching for the mythical Bigfoot. This movie turns that idea on its head by showing the other side of the equation with a yeti community that also believes humans to be a myth, apart from a small section that believes it's a conspiracy and go out in search of the elusive "Smallfoot". There are certainly similarities to Monsters Inc. in the yeti communities fear of human but otherwise remains an intriguing notion.

Of course, you can tell in the trailer and movie poster that the two species come across one another and the plot chugs along, using the language barrier to successfully elicit a few laughs. With the yetis casual conversation sounding (and looking?) like aggressive roars to the humans and the humans talking sounding like high pitched squeaking to the yeti, it proposes an interesting idea of the intelligence of creatures that converse at frequencies that we cannot hear. But I'm thinking far too much for a children's animated film.

The plot takes an unusual turn, looking at the rules of those in power being used to keep control of the masses using fear and superstition, dispelling any movement towards science or facts. Bringing governmental conspiracies, and the idea that nearly humans are angry beings that will kill and torture animals...well, those are some pretty heavy topics to delve into. And to be honest, while it will likely go over the kid's heads, they don't go into it deep enough to really keep the engagement of the parents and other older viewers.

Unique plot points aren't all that Smallfoot tries to throw at you. It also is a bit of a pseudo-musical, with several large musical numbers, that are well done, but ultimately forgettable. Nothing that will be stuck in the children's head like "Let It Go", but the pieces sounded good. That is to say that they did stick out like a sore thumb and felt forced into the movie for the sake of trying to sell a soundtrack. But having actual musicians performing the songs was welcome, and provided a variety of sounds, most notably Common's rap track "Let It Lie". Yes, I said rap. 

How was the cast? Well there are a number of huge names in that cast list, but looking at the names of the characters that they played, I was largely at a loss as to which characters they were; and that tells you a lot. Migo, Percy, Meechee and The Stonekeeper were the only ones whose names I could remember, mainly because they were rather forgettable characters. It doesn't matter how different and recognisable they are in appearance if their personality is non-existent. In fact, stand-out cast members came in the form of Common's Stonekeeper, and Danny DeVito's Dorgle (whose minor role was really the most interesting character arc).

Channing Tatum's Migo was likeable, but a very flip-flopping personality of a character, effectively following what the last person has told him to "right", which in itself goes against everything that the movie is trying to tell us in its "question everything" ideals. The human in the film comes in the form of James Corden's Percy, and he is as close to his real-life personality as possible, even to the point of doing his own extensive karaoke song in the movie. If you like James Corden, you will enjoy his character, if not, then you may find yourself taking issue with his derogative Steve Irwin/David Attenborough-influenced character.

The comedy is inconsistent, and mostly follows the rule of thumb of "kids love physical comedy" and is mostly based on the comedy styling of Wile E Coyote, with multiple over-the-top painful situations jammed into a few minutes, before forgetting it, and switching to "lost in translation" language barrier antics, before the climax of the film which features lightly-coloured fast-paced action sequences.

The film starts out with a strong premise, but it loses steam as it progresses. While the animation is good, and the colour scheme does well with the environment it was given, it still fails to create an eye-catching or memorable location. An interesting idea, that will keep the 6-10 age range entertained, but leave the older children and adults checking their watches at the halfway point. Not great, but good.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr8069

SUPER TROOPERS 2 (2018)

Super Troopers 2. Considering the original Super Troopers film debuted back in 2001, it's fair to say that this is a money grab. If there had been sufficient demand or plans for a sequel to come out, it wouldn't have taken 17 years to do so. But it managed to raise 2 million dollars seed money in a crowdfunding campaign in 24 hours, so the film exists. Only one question remains; is it any good?

Despite Super Troopers coming out in 2001, it was a decidedly 90's comedy. A lot of quirky toilet humour that straddles the line between acceptable and unacceptable, shot in a brown faded colour grade to match their outfits. Super Troopers 2 follows along that same vein. It's safe to say that if you were a fan of the first film, you will be a fan of the sequel.

The original crew are all back, and look like they have barely aged at all. And neither has the humour. You will find callbacks to previous skits that were done in the original, and the same themes of hazing the rookie, and trying to shut out Farva, come into play. The movie does have a new location on the Canadian/US border with some disagreements on where the border lies, which leads to the expected hostilities between the US and Canadian forces. So while much of the material is regurgitated from the first film, it isn't the same, it has a twist of being done from a different cultural standpoint. The comedy isn't completely copied over though, and there are a fair few new bits and gags that are fresh and elicit a few laughs.

Unlike the first film that felt like a collection of comedy skits with some plot thrown in at the end, Super Troopers 2 has a plot from start to finish. And while it is a weak and highly coincidental plot, it is a plot nonetheless and gives the movie a direction, which was lacking in its predecessor. 

The franchise (is two films enough to call it a franchise?) has always been over the top, and with that, it does mean the comedy is a bit hit-and-miss depending on where you draw the line for acceptable crassness and intelligence in comedy. With a slow build-up to the film and some rather long extended skits, there are certainly some lulls in the film where one may lose interest if that particular skit isn't appealing to the viewer.

Shot in the same way as the first film, with much the same comedy, this again is like a 90's comedy and has a nostalgic appeal to it despite being a recent film. It harks back to the times of Dumb and Dumber, The Big Lebowski, and Cool Runnings. the world's view on what comedy is appealing has changed over the last 18 years undoubtedly, but the nostalgia still keeps that engagement level up. 

Is it a brilliant, fresh, new comedy that will keep you laughing the whole way through? Not in the slightest. Does it successfully reinvigorate the old jokes with Canadian stereotypes? Hit-and-miss, but mostly so. Is it predictable? Incredibly so, but nostalgia makes it feel comfortable. Will you enjoy it? If you liked the first one, you will like this one ( I can't guarantee the same can be said for the planned Super Troopers 3 though).

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr8064

A SIMPLE FAVOUR (2018)

A Simple Favour (or A Simple Favor, as it's known to the American audiences) is an intriguing murder mystery with a female protagonist. If hadn't seen any of the trailers and didn't know this was a female-centric plot, the opening credits remove any sense of doubt that this would be the case. It was in the first few minutes of this film that I came to realise that most female-oriented movies seem to come with its own standard music style (usually with the presence of some upbeat exotic salsa music). As a male, it's not my place to say whether starting female-centric movies with the same style of music each time is a good thing. It might be something that draws the viewers into the story, but as a male, it feels like a lazy choice was made.

But that is only the opening credits. There is just short of 120 minutes of run-time in this film with a surprisingly minimal cast. Apart from Blake Lively, Anna Kendrick, and Henry Golding, all other characters have minimal involvement. This puts a lot of pressure on the acting chops of these three actors/actresses. Blake Lively does brilliantly as Emily Nelson, a secretive, sultry, seductive PR director with a hidden past. Her performance is authentic, and really gives you a feeling of uncertainty and excitement as you tread the line of acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. 

Anna Kendrick's Stephanie Smothers is- as her name depicts -a smothering mother; over-the-top, always happy to help, and always there. If you know your memes, Kendrick's performance is a spot-on adaptation of Laina Morris' "Overly Attached Girlfriend". While her sudden switch from goody-two-shoes mother to heavy drinking crime detective was a little bit extreme, it certainly fits in with how you would expect a lonely person to cling to a friend. 

The weak aspect of the acting threesome comes from Henry Golding's portrayal of Sean Nelson, Emily's husband. Perhaps written in such a way to ensure focus is kept on the leading ladies, Nelson's performance was weak and lacked any real emotion to garner empathy from the audience. His character is rather flat and is painted as a womanizer who can't keep his d*** in his pants. This is Emily & Stephanie show, and Sean is just along for the ride.

One of the aspects that were surprisingly enjoyable were the outfits. Being a PR person for a fashion outfit, Lively was always adorned in a selection of highly fashionable and often revealing outfits (a suit jacket and tie-piece are certainly not practical, but certainly paints the image of a confident fashionable woman. It added an extra layer of aesthetics to an otherwise repetitive set of environments. Even as a male, it added a flourish that -while the fashion aspect went over my head- still looked very appealing. 

The plot and storyline themselves are very difficult to discuss without spoiling the movie. The film follows Stephanie in her quest to make a friend of Emily, who after sharing some secrets and becoming besties, disappears. Kendrick then becomes a detective of sorts, using some of the skills she learned from Emily to get past barriers that would have previously stopped her in her tracks. It presents an interesting murder mystery that turns into a game of cat-and-mouse, working towards a finale of back-stabbing and deception. The many layers of deceit do make the movie slightly less predictable. Certain points are definitely easy to pick up, but determining how it will end is difficult to predict when there are so many directions that it could potentially go. 

This creates a reasonably engaging film for the viewer, though that isn't to say it is perfect. The pacing isn't always consistent; there are a few lulls throughout the film, and I did find myself checking my watch on a couple of occasions. This probably could have been compacted down a little bit more into a 90-minute film, which would have added a sense of urgency to it all. The format of the film as well, including Stephanie's role as a vlogger, while necessary, is one of the reasons why the film does tend to slow down.

An intriguing film overall. It combines action and crime mysteries, but is a slow-builder in terms of being a "thriller"; it leaves enough plot threads running throughout the film that while you don't have to think hard for it to make sense, as a viewer you want to know how it ends.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr8063