GEOSTORM (2017)

When I went to university, I studied biology not because I enjoyed it, but because I was for some reason good at it. While I was there, however, I did some general education papers in environmental science, which absolutely enthralled me, and made me change the direction of my studies towards that environmental side. So I love when movies try to incorporate such issues as climate change and environmental degradation, air and water pollution, resource scarcity. Such films as Snowpiercer, The Day After Tomorrow, even Avatar and Wall-E are examples of movies that really made you think about the importance of science, and our footprints on the world around us.

Geostorm attempts to consider the ramifications of using technology to combat climate change directly, with a global system of climate controlling satellites. The idea of using technology to directly attempt to nullify the results of climate change is a surprisingly common train of thought for those that deny climate change, believing that even if we were the cause if the climate shifts, that by the time the situation would be dire, technology would be able to fix it (and thus investing in clean technology and doing anything now is unnecessary in their eyes). What has always been missing, however, is the method that technology would take to be able to combat these changes. 

The whole idea of these satellites is really what appeals to me about the movie, and I would have loved a prequel to this film, where you got to see the faux-documentary of the scientists working through the challenges of the varying scales of climate patterns, getting the international community to agree to the creation of such a system that has so much power. Geostorm skips all of that and moves straight to the planet-saving device being used to instead destroy the planet; turning what could have been a brilliant suspense/drama/thriller, into a rather bland "action-packed" disaster movie.

The film, in general, is rather simply written. While the plot is full of holes and is rather convoluted, the cast all have a purpose, and they are all extremely convenient to the plot. A case of lazy writing, with more convenient circumstances than major conspiracies that exist in the world right now. It makes it nearly impossible to engage with the characters and immerse yourself in the storyline because the characters are so one-dimensional.

The CGI was also below par. When we can get realistic looking CGI animals in the Planet of the Apes trilogy, and Disney has water animations so realistic that they specifically tone it back to make it more "cartoony" for the sake of their Finding Nemo franchise, the visual quality of the "natural" disasters throughout this movie was almost cringeworthy. When you try to get caught in the moment, in the danger, and then the abomination of a tornado or tsunami comes on screen, the magic is lost. 

If you want a cheap looking movie with poor acting, and the usual Hollywood survivor bias, then this Saturday night popcorn flick is for you! If you wanted to see stuff getting destroyed, then this may be for you! If you want a film that actually makes a slight lick of sense, then keep on looking. Geostorm only works if you like watching explosions, and don't care enough to notice the obvious holes in the plot. A simple film, with an interesting premise that could have had so much more potential. It entertained me rather basically for just shy of two hours, which you can't really baulk at. But I have no urge to rewatch it.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7870

THE SNOWMAN (2017)

Let's just get this out of the way. I have extreme hate for DVDs that make me sit through trailers before letting me watch the movie. This DVD is set up in a way that if you try to skip the trailers by hitting menu, it goes back to the language setting, and makes you watch them all again. If you try to skip it, it goes back to the start and you watch them all again. You can spend several infuriating minutes going through settings on your computer (if you are lucky enough to have been watching it on a computer) and find the correct "Chapter" to skip past the trailers, but otherwise, you have to wait five and a half minutes before you can even hit "Play". That alone would sometimes be enough to make me not want to watch that DVD again. LET. ME. SKIP. TRAILERS. PLEASE. Now that I have written almost an entire review worth of content on being forced to Watch the American Made and Happy Death Day trailers far too many times, let's get to the actual film.

I chose this film, by reading the synopsis of the DVD, and thought that crime thriller involving J. K. Simmons, Val Kilmer, and Michael Fassbender was intriguing. Having subsequently watched the trailer, it reinforced that this was a movie that I wanted to watch. So first piece of advice, if you haven't seen the trailer and are considering watching this movie, DO NOT WATCH THE TRAILER. Not because it gives away the plot or reveal or anything. Purely because it sets the wrong tone for the film. While they categorise it as a Crime Thriller, I would actually consider it more of a Crime Drama. Based on a best-selling novel, the story is better suited to a television series. There is no "thriller" aspect until the final moments in the film, and this is due to there being nothing that directly affects the protagonists in the film. We watch someone trying to catch a killer for no other reason than because he wants to. Not overly thrilling.

That all being said, as a crime drama it is very well done. We have an interesting killer with a unique modus operandi (usually mentioned as an M.O.), and a lot of variables and suspects that in the end leaves a suitable twist that took me embarrassingly long to figure out. Environments alone were stunning; Shot in Norway, because that was where the film was set, instead of in a studio, or in another similar looking environmental area, there is a definite air of authenticity around the environments in the film. It doesn't feel made-up or put together, which helps the viewers get drawn into the story. 

Casting-wise, I'm not sure how I felt about Michael Fassbender. While he didn't detract from the film in any way, he also didn't fully sell his character to me. Fassbender seems to be in the same class as Hugh Jackman for me, where I love their role in the X-Men franchise, but nothing else lives up to that. He has the "looking pensive" aspect down to an art, but any other emotion really doesn't feel genuine. Otherwise, the cast is well chosen. They all felt like fully fledged characters with backstories I just don't happen to know about, and the way in which they approached Fassbender's character was superb.

Not a great thriller by any measure, but an okay film. Definitely would have worked better as a tv series or even a mini-series, or perhaps just needed a bit more killer/protagonist dialogues/letters to really build a connection that was necessary to create an ounce of threat and suspense. I do enjoy watching someone solve a case, and connecting clues, so if that's your thing, it's definitely worth a watch.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7859

BLADE RUNNER 2049 (2017)

I've honestly never been a fan of Ryan Gosling. I've never found him particularly handsome, and I rate his facial expressions along the same vein as Kristen Stewart (an actress I actually had to google "chick from twilight" to recall her name). It was, therefore, no surprise that I found his acting rather wooden and uninspiring. Thinking about his role in the film, I initially thought his role as a replicant was the reason for his unconvincing style until I remembered the original blade runner film, where the entire crux of the film revolved around whether Harrison Ford's character Deckard, was a replicant or not. Ford's performance had been so human that it became quite the conundrum as it was never properly revealed either way. I would have preferred Gosling to have taken a similar stance on his own character.

The film goes carries on from the original, with amazing breathtaking cinematography, and expansion of the lore and history of the blade runner universe, and while it is full of little bits and pieces that diehard fans will love, it is spread out along the 160+ minute runtime and leaves the average viewer rather bored. Technology and graphics have come a long way since the original, and I really would have loved to have seen more of the gorgeous graphics and environments in this world. The effects were top notch as well, the mix of practical and computer-generated effects did an amazing job bringing back characters from the original (minus the ageing), and creating expansive skylines.

Ignoring Gosling, I found the casting to be rather hit and miss. Leto's performance as Wallace was intriguing, but his presence added very little to the film. Much in the same way of his Joker appearance in DC's Suicide Squad, there was hype about the role, but it was unnecessary. Sylvia Hoeks did a marvellous job running Wallace's affairs and really could have taken on all of that herself without the need for Leto being present at all. Other standout performances came from Dave Bautista and Ana de Amas, who really sold their roles in the film. Bautista especially, really sold the opening scenes and made me wish the entire movie was more along the lines of an action thriller. 

For those wanting to know more about Harrison Ford, take note that he enters the film rather late and while a major character, he has a minor role in this film. Many of the questions that linger from the original film continue to linger, but there are moments and phrases that could be interpreted to answer them, depending on your point of view and how deeply you analyse it.

It may have been the length of the film, but I struggled to really get into the plot. It reads much like the second film of a trilogy, filling in exposition, but really having few story arcs that come to completion in a satisfying way. The twist was well done, but the story still feels cut short. The film is hit and miss for me. Perhaps I need to rewatch the original several more times beforehand to fully appreciate the complexity and layers of the sequel, but as a casual viewer, I left somewhat unsatisfied.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7857