ACTS OF VIOLENCE (2018)

There is something to be said for the intricacies of the English language. It's amazing how slight differences in a sentence can throw you off. Take the first sentence in the synopsis of this movie "Three Midwestern brothers, a crime lord, and an incorruptible police officer are on a deadly collision course when the youngest brother's fiancee is kidnapped". The first time I read the synopsis, I was under the impression that the crime lord, incorruptible cop, and younger one, were the three Midwestern brothers. Instead, the three brothers are a separate unit. In fact, they are the focal point of the movie (despite the DVD cover making it look like a Bruce Willis movie, he has more of a cameo than a proper role in the film).

The artwork on the DVD cover almost gives this the look of an A-list film. But it really struggles to follow through with similar quality of content inside. Bruce Willis and Sophia Bush have minimal roles in the films, and could, in fact, be removed without any significant changes to the plot. The film is otherwise entertaining (if not rushed), as long as you don't try to over analyse it. The film is a measly 86 minutes long, just shy of an hour and a half, and the plot is noticeably accelerated through certain sections. there is a significant amount of action and testosterone thrown about, that it almost falls along the lines of a budget Fast and Furious movie, with its insistence on the importance of family.

If you look at it on a deeper level, however, you can't help but feel disappointed. Bruce Willis has clearly just jumped on board and done the minimal amount of work necessary to get his paycheck, and the casting directors have clearly wanted it done this way to be able to put Willis' face on the cover in the hopes of attracting viewers. 

There are a number of themes that the film tries to insert in, with topics such as the treatment of veterans and human trafficking, but these are poorly dealt with. To have ex-soldiers shown to be in a situation where the only thing that makes them feel good is to return to killing other people or to have these brothers rushing to the aid of these girls being trafficked directly after a lengthy stint at the strip club. Perhaps it's having a family of white brothers trying to take down criminals who all happen to be ethnic minorities. 

With an accelerated plot and an unnecessarily large amount of deaths, Acts of Violence follows through with its title but fails to create an engaging film. You can watch it, and it will kill an hour and a half. But will you enjoy it? I found myself rather unsatisfied with the ending. It was forced, and it didn't fit at all with the scope of the film. Average at best.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7945

DARKEST HOUR (2017)

Winston Churchill is a very big name historically. Known for being the Prime Minister of Britain during the Second World War, and being the driving force of the allies victory over Hitler. While my knowledge of the political going-on during that period is very minimal, I did know that Churchill was a contentious choice as leader, who was promptly removed from office at the end of the war. It's little snippets of information like that that get the curiosity going, and piques potential viewer's interest. Hollywood would have us believe that the wars are only won on the battlefields, but war is a multi-faceted problem that requires political support as well as troop support. This is the story of Churchill's battle against his own country.

Neville Chamberlain was losing a war and in turn, lost the support of the parliament. With his resignation demanded, his replacement needed to have the support of both the Labour Party and the Conservatives, and due to that fact alone, Churchill is brought into the mix. The film follows Churchill, as he attempts to juggle winning a war when his own War Cabinet members are conspiring against him, maintain peace on the mainland while still keeping their support, and showing a strong hand when every other political body is crumbling under the Nazi onslaught. 

Cast as Churchill is Gary Oldman. With the exception of his eyes, Oldman is near unrecognisable as he loses his hair and gains the extra age and rolls necessary to look the part (obviously, this has all been done with prosthetics) While Oldman does not look like Churchill, he has a number of similar features that combine with his own features to create a Churchill/Oldman hybrid.

Darkest Hour has peculiar pacing, with many of the parts that I found interesting, quickly skipped over, while the more dense but uninteresting pieces getting all the attention. Much of the narrative flow was lost by feeding too much of the background material for the supporting cast, effectively stalling the movie at certain points; there were multiple scenes with Halifax and Chamberlain and others with King George VI or Churchill's secretary that were unnecessary to the movement and understanding of the plot. Oldman's Churchill was the only character in this one-sided feature film that was holding it together. From quotes to mannerisms, Oldman pulled off a very good Churchill.

The "Underground" scene is a particular favourite, with a change of scenery and a script that allows Oldman to shine, it provides another dimension to the character beyond being cranky, and stubborn. As far as plots go, this is not all there. With no action and not focusing too much on the supporting characters, we ended up with a very thin film that struggles to stand on its own merits. Similar to Rogue One of the Star Wars franchise, Darkest Hour provides context and tries to elaborate on smaller details. A film such as this would pair well with Band of Brothers, or Dunkirk as they would feed off of each other. But as a standalone, Darkest Hour is somewhat lacking.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7932