KODACHROME (2017)

The great thing about Netflix is that it brings big names to indie films. The idea of Hollywood wanting a film about a father and son going on a road trip to get rolls of Kodachrome developed, is almost laughable. No action, no adventure, nothing fast-paced, and nothing that could be marketable to children. But here we have what would otherwise be considered an indie storyline, but some big Hollywood names attached to it; namely Jason Sudeikis (We're the Millers, Horrible Bosses, Semi-Pro), Elizabeth Olson (The Marvel Cinematic Universe, Oldboy, Godzilla), and Ed Harris (Gravity, National Treasure: Book of Secrets, The Truman Show, Apollo 13).

The synopsis for Kodachrome really tells you everything you need to know regarding the plot. From that alone, you can make certain predictions about how the film will end and you will most likely be right. But the timing is the aspect that you can't really pinpoint ahead of time, and this is what builds tension. You watch as Harris' character Ben reveals his personality to be that of "an assh*le" who is on a journey of redemption at an unconscious level. Harris does a remarkable job at doing so, without hesitation. He reacts to situations in a narcissistic and selfish manner, which makes the audience instantly dislike him. Every moment that Ben is not "a d*ck" is quickly preceded by a moment where he stoops even lower. The real power in his performance comes as you watch him reach the breaking point because of terminal cancer. You have to have a heart of stone to not feel something by the end of the film.

Kodachrome is a slow burner of a film, and the Kodachrome itself is largely unnecessary to the plot development. This is a story of a son who has spent over a decade not speaking to his father, due to a deep-seated hatred that he holds towards him. Helped along by Olsen's role as a reasonably unwilling mediator, the film is an emotional to-and-fro as father and son are forced to come to terms with their past.

Slow and thoughtful, the film isn't rushed, and it makes use of silence, allowing the acting to come to the forefront. A beautifully shot film (of course it was shot on 35mm Kodak film), that is something that the older photographers will appreciate, having been through the transition from analogue to digital cameras.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7927

STAR WARS: EPISODE VIII - THE LAST JEDI (2017)

Star Wars is one of those franchises that has been around for so long, with so many different directors, across so many different media, that everybody has their own image of how the franchise should unfold. It has gotten to the point where it is nearly impossible to watch the original trilogy because of how dated the effects are (granted they age a lot better than many other franchises as so much of it was physical effects and not digital), as every "prequel" movie involves such a drastic improvement in graphics. When you consider the amount of time that has passed since the prequel trilogy ending and Disney's run of Star Wars films beginning, there have been 65+ Star Wars novels and adaptations, and 18 seasons of animated Star Wars shows that all occur between the cinematic films. So depending on what the fans have read or watched, will affect what they expect the next big Skywalker film to be like. So there is ultimately a lot that could be spoken about in this film. Every aspect of this film has been hotly contested among fans, and the film has been called amazing, life-changing, a travesty and the most confusing thing released.

Generally speaking, the film is split into 3 main intersecting story arcs. Luke Skywalker and Rey, Finn and Rose, and Poe & the Rebels. 

One of the big complaints about the film comes from the pacing of the storylines, with Poe and the Rebels having an exciting opening scene, and a great scene before the climax, but the two hours in between are slow and poorly written. When I first saw the film in the theatres, the person sitting next to me played on their phone at least once every ten minutes until halfway through where they sighed got up and left. There are definitely parts that are slow. And with command structures and communication levels how they are, it is very easy to see why the Rebels are on the backfoot. The Last Jedi is also the movie where you learn more about Poe's gung-ho attitude and the realistic effects and consequences of such behaviours. But the arc led to the climax brilliantly and included a very awesome scene from Vice Admiral Holdo.

One could argue that Finn and Rose's entire arc was unnecessary, unlikely, and served no purpose beyond introducing a rather well-done character portrayed by Benicio del Toro. You have to love the idea of a long time ago in a land far away, there being a casino. It's one of the aspects that really pulls you away from feeling the true multicultural nature of the Star Wars universe, and starts making it look like Disney is taking a more human-centric approach. Trying to force a "diverse" love interest also feels incredibly lazy from the writers. 

And the final protagonists, Luke and Rey. They probably had the most interesting arc, which raised so many more questions than it answered, but it too was full of unnecessary scenes. Why do we have to watch Luke milking a creature and drinking it's "milk"? But we end up with answers to Kylo Ren's beginnings, and an introduction into force projections.

It is strange to say it after his lacklustre performance in Episode VII, but Adam Driver's Kylo Ren really is the standout performance of the movie. His character remains the only character to really get any proper development and whose allegiances remain clouded. With some great fight scenes, and the whole "will they, won't they" story arc going on with Rey, it is almost good enough to make you forget about the anticlimactic mess that is Supreme Leader Snoke. The less said about that the better.

Everybody had been waiting patiently to see what is going on with Luke Skywalker and why he ran off, and the climax of the film is one of those points that people argue about because it was done so well. Fans try to nitpick the scene because they didn't see it coming. My only complaint about the climax comes from the fact that it was so short. There have really been very few full land battles in these latest Star Wars films. It has been either one-on-one or epic sky battles. So I got my hopes up for something huge but was let down by the scale of it.

The effects were great, no issue there. But the length of the film. combined with how little really happens in the plot makes the film feel very slow. The rebels are trying to escape the empire at the start of the film, and they are trying to escape at the end. Things occur in the middle, and losses are received by both sides, but that is the general gist of the plot. Not all that thrilling. So the film will be better received by a Star Wars fan, who will pick up all of the minor details and easter eggs, and they will love the audio commentary that goes with it in the special features. But for the regular moviegoer, it may not provide the consistent action that they need to remain engaged.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7853

GEORGE MICHAEL: FREEDOM; THE DIRECTORS CUT (DOCEDGE2018)

This mysterious documentary concentrates on the formative period in the late Grammy Award winner's life and career. It leads up to the making of his acclaimed, best-selling album Listen Without Prejudice Vol. 1, and the infamous High Court battle with his record label that followed. It also becomes poignantly personal about the death of Michael's first love, Anselmo Feleppa. 

Narrated by Michael, Freedom features his unseen archival and private footage. It reveals how he strove to become one of the most influential recording artists of all time, fighting for all artists by challenging the standard recording contract and thus helping to rewrite the rules of the music industry. Why did he then step out of the limelight and turn his back on celebrity?

The Documentary Edge International Film Festival is coming to Wellington (9 May - 20 May) and Auckland (23 May - 4 June) and in amongst the political, human rights, environmental, arts, economic, and technological documentaries are several music-based pieces. One such documentary came in the form of George Michael: Freedom; The Directors Cut. 

Now, as George Michael is one of my #2 vocalist of all time (#1 goes to Queen's Freddie Mercury), I decided to watch this documentary ahead of it's screening at the Film Festival and give you all my thoughts on it. The first thing to take note of is who the directors of the documentary are. One is a man known as David Austin, a singer-songwriter that was one of Michael's closest friends, but the other director comes in the form of George Michael himself, a documentary that he finished mere days before he passed away on Christmas Day in 2016. This documentary is therefore considered his final work, and it provides extra gravity to it. 

This official documentary covers George Michael's musical career from WHAM!, through his solo career up to his thoughts and opinions so late in his life, and he approaches each topic with an unfiltered honesty about it all. The drawbacks and reasons for keeping his romantic life hidden from his mother, his lawsuit attempting to take down Sony Music Entertainment because their contracts don't allow artists control over when they retire, even his bathroom scandal are all spoken about freely (granted he was pretty open and unashamed at the time anyway). 

As George Michael himself directed this documentary, there is more than a few interviews with musicians and other celebrities that have known him, and they tell their own stories of the first time they heard certain songs, and their own George Michael stories. Stevie Wonder, James Corden, Aretha Franklin, Naomi Campbell, Elton John, Cindy Crawford, Liam Gallagher, Mary J. Blige, Ricky Gervais, Tony Bennett, and Jean-Paul Gaultier all have their say. One part that really hit close to home, was watching how Michael's was treated after he won the American Music Awards Soul Album of the Year in 1988 because he was "white". I couldn't help but draw a comparison to how earlier this year, Bruno Mars was accused of cultural appropriation. 30 years apart, and we still haven't changed as a people. 

Whether George Michael knew his time was coming up when he made the documentary, his commentary removes any implications of hearsay and gossip. He provides his side of the story, and even when talking about his battle in the courts with Sony, includes interviews with the Sony bosses of the time. There is nothing hidden, he accepts his mistakes, it's the tell-all that explains why he disappeared from mainstream media. 

He was always an amazing singer and songwriter, and this documentary shows that underneath it all, he was an amazing person with a kind heart. A must-see.

Originally posted in Issue 53 of the Say What Magazine: http://saywhat.nz

EDIBLE PARADISE - GROWING THE FOOD FOREST REVOLUTION (DOCEDGE2018)

This was the documentary that was simultaneously inspiring and disappointing. A brilliant New Zealand based documentary that looks at alternative uses for Christchurch's red zones post-earthquake. And while I fully support the movement to grow more heritage edible plants in community spaces, the way that the documentary displays things is rather off-putting; it comes off as a form of self-flagellation. 

If you want to see the overly-stereotypical vegan, organic, smug hippies that the media portrays, then this documentary is for you. For example, you will get to watch a man get interviewed, who refuses to stop playing his ukulele-like instrument throughout until he decided to climb onto a shed to pick fruit from a tree. Do you like learning about the many varieties of apples followed by derision and condescension for purchasing the limited options from the supermarket?

There were many parts that I loved. I loved the whole idea of using the unbuildable land of the red zones to plant heritage edible trees to allow the community to feed themselves. I enjoyed seeing how they engaged and got the support of the local councils. I was amazed at the number of fruit varieties that actually existed in New Zealand before organised agriculture and horticulture. But the overwhelming smugness and condescension that I felt directed towards me when I watched the documentary, was less enjoyable. It felt less like a DIY guide to starting your own food forest, and more like an "in-your-face big vege" feature film. 

A good message with a poor attitude. Realistically, the documentary could have been condensed down into a 20-30 minute short. I had big hopes for the piece, as my studies in environmental management have opened my eyes to the virtues of a less wasteful way of living, trying to increase genetic biodiversity in our food supply, and maintaining independence from the supermarkets, but the pretentious nature of people that follow that lifestyle is very noticeable.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7924

BIG IN JAPAN (DOCEDGE2018)

In the decade or so since YouTube became popular, the way in which fame is handed out has been forever disrupted. Getting your 15 minutes of fame no longer required being talented and discovered by someone in the industry. You could get famous overnight by uploading a short video online and "going viral". The quality standards changed completely as people realised that you could get famous by not only being talented, but by being attractive, being stupid, or even purposefully causing harm to yourself and others. The entertainment game changed. This documentary follows ordinary Dave, a man that has no talents or skills, and is not what society deems conventionally beautiful, as he moves to Japan in an attempt to become famous.

While an interesting piece to watch about what different cultures value in entertainment, you can't help but feel that this documentary is nothing but a prank on poor Dave. To have his best friends consistently mock his lack of skills and talents, and putting him into humiliating and demoralising situations for the sake of "getting famous", it really becomes a struggle to see this as something that Dave truly wanted to have happened to him. Watch as Dave tries to do research into how others have become famous, and have his friends keep pushing him into embarrassing himself. The worst part really comes at the end, where he actually reaches his first goal and starts to get somewhere and his friends pull the plug because their girlfriends went back to Australia.

Big In Japan is still an eye-opener into Japanese culture and the foreigners that try to make a name in it. Whether it be a retired boxer that is doing anything to keep his name and persona in the media, the J-Pop hopeful that has signed her life away to the industry, or the cross-dresser who had gone to Japan to get the love he never received growing up in Australia. Hearing from these Japanese culture icons was really the selling point of the documentary. To hear the physical and emotional struggles and costs involved in doing what they do, and their justifications for it. 

The highlight of the documentary for myself was the pieces on Australian heavy metal cross-dresser Ladybeard, as he was the only one that I was aware of beforehand, so it was truly interesting to see why he did what he did, how he reached the fame that he has come to have, and what has happened since the documentary was filmed. An engaging piece, even if it felt more like a dark prank than an actual documentary.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7922

ANOTE'S ARK (DOCEDGE2018)

As an environmental science student who has studied climate change at university, Anote's Ark was probably one of the hardest-hitting and heartbreaking documentaries that I watched. As far as climate change goes, with rising global temperatures, rising sea levels and more severe weather patterns, small island nations are the most at risk. New Zealand is also at risk, but small island nations like Kiribati are the canaries of the world (comparing to the early use of canaries in coal mines which would die is deadly gases were released warning miners to evacuate the mines).

To better explain the risk these small island nations are to flooding from rising sea levels, due to New Zealand's large number of volcanoes and mountain ranges, it's average elevation is 388m above sea level, whereas Kiribati's average elevation is a mere 2 metres above sea level. Kiribati is already prone to more and more frequent floods due to an increase in storm severity and frequency and is therefore frequently at risk of sickness and disease amongst the population due to contaminated water supplies. These are the issues that this nation must somehow overcome.

The documentary follows two different people; the president of Kiribati at the time, Anote Tong, and local mother-of-six, Sermary, who gets an opportunity to leave the country to live and work in New Zealand. When considering from an outsiders perspective it is easy to see it from the President's perspective; either buy land in another place and move, build a place to live in the ocean, or build up the island to reduce the risk of flooding for a few years. But we often forget about the cultural and political aspects associated with such a thing. Asking an entire nation to up and abandon what has been their home for generations is generally going to be out of the question. If they buy land in another country, will they lose their rights as Kiribati natives? There is no way to really fund any major works to build up the islands without aid from foreign countries, many of which still deny climate change is even a thing. 

So while it is great to watch President Anote Tong attempting to convince people to take heed of what is happening in his country, Sermary provides that much more personal account of how it affects the common person, and how moving to another country still is not a solve all solution. Watching the whole documentary, it was the final moments that really hit hard and leave you with a sense of sadness. It follows the same trends that have been seen in Australia and in the United States and leaves a sour taste in the mouth at the end.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7923

GENESIS 2.0 (DOCEDGE2018)

There are very few people in the world that look at the consequences of ivory poachers with satisfaction. The idea that people are running around and killing elephants and rhinos for their tusks and horns is horrific and saddens me. There are, however, some forms of legal ivory, one of which being mammoth tusks. With the exception of one small population that died out in the East Siberian Wrangel Island in 1650, mammoths went extinct 10,000 years ago. With no risk of poaching as the animals are no longer alive, the harvesting of their tusks is largely legal. But how are these tusks harvested, who is doing it, and what is the point of harvesting tusks? Genesis 2.0 looks into these very questions.

The documentary follows two groups of people, that are linked by a set of brothers. Peter Grigoriev is a mammoth tusk hunter, who will spend entire seasons in Siberia, trying to locate a complete, pristine condition mammoth tusk (with some 69kg+ tusks selling for upwards of $100,000, and 20-30 tonnes of tusks being found every year, there is definitely a financial motivation for doing so). But on the other side, we have his brother, Semyon Grigoriev, scientist and mammoth researcher.

The documentary originally just follows the plight of these mammoth hunters, that are willing to take out huge bank loans to fund expeditions, and spend 8 months of the year away from their families, in the hopes of finding a tusk that will raise them out of their current social classes. The film takes a turn when Peter discovers a "fresh" specimen; a mammoth example with frozen flesh and blood, and his brother Semyon enters the picture.

A "fresh" specimen changes Semyon's potential end result from learning about the mammoth's remains, to have the ability to learn from a live specimen if they are able to successfully bring the woolly mammoth back from extinction. Semyon then starts his journey of meeting with a variety of geneticists to consider how best to use what samples they have. From American geneticist and molecular engineer George Church, who wants to make a mammoth/elephant hybrid, to cloning pioneer Woo Suk Hwang, who as already successfully cloned 1000's of dogs for mourning pet owners. 

This documentary looks at the differences in social classes, and the ethical implications of not only bringing a mammoth back from extinction but gene sequencing in general, having the ability in the future to be able to discern illnesses and susceptibility to disease from one's genetics. An interesting look at two sides of the same coin.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7921

RAMPAGE (2018)

Rampage is based on the 1986 arcade game of the same name. Very simply put, the game revolves around 3 mutated creatures that are trying to destroy cities in Illinois while military units try to stop them. That's it. The characters in the game are George the giant gorilla, Lizzie the giant lizard, and Ralph the giant wolf. As far as premises go, it's pretty basic, which is both good and bad for a film adaptation, because it provides more freedom for the writers, but also means there is less background material to go off of. That being said, it couldn't be anywhere near as bad as the Battleship movie, a.k.a. aliens playing transformer noises featuring Rihanna.

Starring in Rampage is Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson. The actor who is in everything these days (6 large Hollywood blockbusters over the 2016-2017 period), much like Jennifer Lawrence and Scarlett Johannson used to be. Finding his niche in the action genre, Johnson has really managed to shed that pro-wrestling image but is yet to really showcase emotions. Be prepared to see more macho-manliness, stepping up, and figurative genitalia measuring between Johnson and every other male character he interacts with, in this film. 

Considering the lack of a backstory in the arcade game, the writers had a great opportunity to come up with motives and deep three-dimensional villains and protagonists, but we end with a film that has a plot aimed towards a primary age child (despite the M rating), but and the parents that would be drawn in purely for nostalgia's sake. The film starts off reasonably well, we get introduced to how these 3 creatures will come to be and are then introduced to the protagonists. The opening scenes are quite brilliant; they originally perplex the audience as you are thrown into the middle of a fracas, they entertain with tense action scenes, they instantly create a feeling of anger towards the antagonist. This is followed by the introduction of the protagonists, and the writers take the opportunity to inject a positive vibe through comedic elements, mixed with their own tension and action.

It starts off quite strong. But then we realise the film is full of expendable characters. And once you get expendable characters, you stop caring about what happens to them. Out of all the cast, there are only really four characters that have any sway in the direction of the plot in the film. Jeffrey Dean Morgan plays a grizzled government agent, who has seen it all, is surprised by nothing and is seriously vibing Tommy Lee Jones' "K" in the Men in Black franchise. Naomie Harris, on the other hand, portrays the convenient plot device, who has the solution to everything. Malin Akerman pulls off a stunning yet crazy performance as the antagonist, assumedly basing a lot of her own performance on that of Christa Miller's "Jordan Sullivan" from Scrubs. Joe Manganiello barely has a cameo; while he does great work and really sells the whole Alien/Predator feel to the "hunt", he was really underutilised.

Am I being too harsh? Am I expecting too much from this film? Perhaps. This was never going to be a film with deep themes and multi-dimensional characters. How does it look then? The CGI is pretty damn good for the most part. Perhaps due to the success of the Planet of the Apes franchise, Hollywood has gotten really good at its computer-generated apes. George the albino gorilla has incredibly realistic hair and body movements, and it was enjoyable to watch. When it got to the other creatures, however, it lost that realistic edge. It certainly looks great compared to the 1986 game, but that's not really a high bar.

As a simple action flick, with giant monsters destroying a city, Rampage is a fun film that is action-packed and uses comedic elements really well. There were more than a few literal laugh-out-loud moments that would keep the positive vibe in the film. If you love your carnage or want to keep the kids entertained for a bit, Rampage will serve you well.

Originally posted at: http://djin.nz/Kr7916

PACIFIC RIM: UPRISING (2018)

Honest trailers described the original Pacific Rim as the greatest stupid movie of all time, with weird romantic interests, confusing operating systems, but still entertaining with lots of giant robots fighting giant monsters. It's an opinion that I can't help but agree with. So when heading in to watch the film I was sure to keep my expectations low, with the only goal of seeing giant robots battle giant monsters again. To that end, Pacific Rim Uprising reached that goal. 

It does come across very Transformer-y. One would say "but they are both franchises based around giant fighting robots", but it goes much further. The film follows one of the protagonists Amara Namani (played by Cailee Spaeny), who is a young street-wise woman living in a destroyed part of town, working on her own giant robots, before she gets dragged into the plot that the male protagonist is begrudgingly reluctant to be involved in. If that doesn't even slightly resemble the beginning of the latest Transformers (The Last Knight), then you clearly haven't watched that film. Cailee Spaeny even has some physical features that match that of a young Megan Fox. 

But the film isn't really about Amara. Pacific Rim Uprising is all about Jake Pentecost and his reluctant search for redemption and forgiveness from his family and peers. As far as plot goes, the reasons that he ends up in control of the flagship jaeger is flimsy, but for the type of movie it is, we allow it. Even the forced tension between John Boyega and Scott Eastwood's characters, thanks to a shared romantic interest, is let go. It's all irrelevant. The only important thing in Pacific Rim Uprising is when and where these giant monsters of Kaiju come in.

And that is the real jewel of the film. The source of the threat came as a surprise, and while looking back there were many hints as to who the real threat was, it was actually well disguised through misdirection and red herrings. It connects the two films and reminds the viewers of those little details that were forgotten from the first movie. The only real downside to it was that until the climax of the film, we have received a rather Kaiju-free experience. "Minor" enemies became too numerous, too easy to kill, and therefore never really created the tension and suspense necessary to keep the viewers properly invested. Even the final boss proved slightly anti-climactic.

I suppose the real issue with the film, is that when in the original film, you have to create giant robots to destroy a surprise enemy, one would expect the robots to be more advanced in the follow-up. More advanced robots fighting better-equipped kaiju. An arms race of sorts. Instead, we are fed a long period of exposition with very similar robots, a series of unfortunate and extremely coincidental events, ending with a hail mary. It was just lacking. The whole plotline around the vastly superior jaeger was not used to full advantage, neither was the plot point that many people were building their own jaegers. I would actually have loved a military vs. militia to come up in the film. 

There were definitely some cool and a few holy s*** moments, and it entertained throughout, but I was there to watch epic battles between the Jaegers and Kaiju, and just like in Batman v Superman, there was just not enough of the actual battles in amongst the exposition-fest.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7883