WALKING OUT (2017)

A film that covers big game hunting certainly sounds like an action film, but that is not the focus of this film. Matt Bomer and Bill Pullman are in this film, but their names don't add anything to the film. The film is very simple; it is all about highlighting the difference between hunting and killing. It is done in a bit of a roundabout way, under the guise of father-son bonding, and a quest for redemption.

Following a father and his son, who has become distant since the parents separated, the film follows a big game hunt that goes awry, and their fight to make it home. The son trying to navigate and get his father to safety is obviously a long and tiresome episode, and the film breaks that up by including the fathers own first and only big game hunt with the grandfather. As the film progresses and we are fed more and more of the father's story through flashbacks, we start to see the motivation for this hunt; why so much importance is placed on hunting vs. killing. How his own hubris had negatively affected his relationship with his dad. 

While there are some questionable moments in the film, in terms of being realistic, there are many more that are right on the money. A teens awe of nature, the struggle walking on snow and navigating a white landscape, dehydration surrounded by snow, and the alarming ease in which severe hunting accidents can occur in unexciting ways (it's not always going to be battling a bear or moose to the death). The ending is really the most realistic part of all.

The film is beautifully shot and does well to convey the feeling of isolation. The beginning of the film is less compelling. Faced with the problem of trying to deal with the problem of every young person having a GPS-enabled smartphone, the film does drive a stake further between the father and son, with this unnecessary "Technology will rot your brain" rhetoric hampering this father that wants his son to enjoy visiting him.

As mentioned earlier, Matt Bomer and Bill Pullman are in the film, and really having recognisable names and faces does nothing for the film. Their portrayal of the father and grandfather respectively could be done by any actors and would have actually been more genuine a film if they had been lesser known actors. With Bill Pullman's character taking up less than a couple of minutes of screentime, it feels like the call was made to try to bring in viewers without adding to the quality of the film. Josh Wiggins, who plays the son, David, is the clear star of the film. With the most emotional range, you can see the frustration & helplessness, fascination & wonder, all through his eyes and facial features. 

The world has become very opinionated with the rise of the internet and social media, and there has been a lot of backlash towards hunters when there are two types that are lumped in together. There are those that hunt for food, and to maintain the balance of the ecosystem, hunting invasive species and preventing overpopulation of species, and try to take down the animals in the quickest most humane way. And then there are "hunters" that hunt purely to kill. Large gauge shells, or automatic weapons. No interest in the meat, or the ecosystem. Killing for the sake of killing. A line is drawn, visually and emotionally, and its something that needs to be understood. This film covers both the positive and negative types of hunters, differentiating into the more accurate descriptions of hunter and killer.

It's interesting to see a film using father-son bonding to teach the differences in hunting. Usually, it would be using the hunting to show the importance of father-son bonding. Similar content, but a much different result.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7999

A QUIET PLACE (2018)

A Quiet Place has an interesting concept; a breed of creature that has brilliant hearing and hunts based on sound. It creates such a different vibe for a movie, where everything is dialled down. The general volume and action involved are reduced due to this. Instead of large noises causing jump scares, you end up with your heart racing with every little noise as you wait for a possible attack. Every noise has that delay and suspense as you wait to find out whether the creatures have heard it.

The exact range and strength of the creature's hearing are never properly established, and that vagueness adds to the tension and suspense. Despite the knowledge that you can hide noises with larger noises, there are no known parameters that explain what will result in your death or not. 

To have a film that takes noise to such extremes that the characters must learn sign language in order to survive. To have this family only survive as long as they have because they have a deaf daughter and knew sign language beforehand, it is well written. Little to no verbal communication, there is so much more emphasis on actions and emotive eyes, having to act without the dialogue being the focus (Don't worry there are subtitles to translate the sign language). The subtitles do mean that you need to pay proper attention to the movie otherwise you may miss vital information.

The creatures themselves are typical CGI monstrosities. Clearly, the weakest part of the film visually, but their presence in the film is largely minimal. With a sequel already in the works, there is a definite probability that the creatures larger presence will be detrimental to the success of the film. But as far as this first film goes, it is well balanced. A simple story, that has no real "save the world" storyline; just a simple "keep the children safe" story. The CGI-ness combined with their added presence in the latter parts of the film actually does take away from the fear. You fear a monster that you don't understand and that you can't see or fight against. But it's fair that you can't have a creature that isn't beatable or escapable or what is the point of the film?

Casting-wise, there is definite chemistry between Emily Blunt and John Krasinski's characters Evelyn and Lee Abbott. This is of course helped by the fact that Blunt and Krasinski are married in real life. Children Millie Simmonds and Noah Jupe who play the couples children also have a great relationship on film, and you can see that they care about each other like a brother and sister ultimately do. There is a separation between the parents and the children, however, and while it may be necessary for the story to progress as it does, it does give the feeling that Krasinski has emotionally detached himself from his children, instead focusing his efforts on his wife. It takes a bit away from the climax of the film and could have been written better.

But overall the film is fresh and provides some new ideas to the horror genre. When you look at the film without the monsters, there is an idyllic family situation. Playing games together, managing a farm, growing their own food, running errands together; a tightly knit family unit. A unit that you don't want to see ripped apart.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7998

THE WIFE (2017)

Like most of the younger generations, you could say I am quite a fan of the Game Of Thrones TV series. So I instantly recognised Jonathan Pryce from his role as the High Sparrow from the show. That was all it took to really get me interested in the film. As of writing this review, The Wife currently has a Rotten Tomatoes score of 100% from it's "Approved Critics", though it's actual score is more towards 78%, in line with Metacritic, and 69% on IMDb. What that instantly tells you is that this must be an intellectual film. We all know approved critics will scrutinize every minute detail, while other reviewers will judge on more face-value and entertainment values. 

The film has a reasonably simple premise. It follows the wife of an author who has just won a Nobel Prize in Literature. A woman who is suddenly thrown into the limelight, and has her entire history with her husband dredged up; every infidelity, every argument, every excuse, every secret. There is a mix of love and resentment, towards the husband, and the patriarchal world of old, that has suppressed her own hopes and dreams. These factors are magnified thanks to the presence of their son, who struggles with both living in the shadow of his father's achievements and the reporter that wants to uncover any hidden secrets that the couple has.

It is an interesting story that is attacked from multiple angles. like a rubber band ball that is being cut in various places, unravelling and revealing new omitted information with each layer. The writing of the story is well done. The story follows an elderly couple (both Glenn Close and Jonathan Pryce are 71 in real life), so a lot of their interactions involve sleeping, eating, and trying to look after their health. Despite this limited amount of space and environments, there is still so much secrecy going on. The confidence of the characters is surprising.

Glenn Close does a brilliant job as Joan Castleman. A calm, collected, almost regal personality, as things unravel, you can see how she is pushed closer to the edge with every turn, and her efforts to steady the ship and maintain the fragile equilibrium. She doesn't need to do what she does, a series of flashbacks explain why that is so, and why she battles with her decisions every day.

While an interesting watch, the film is held together by Close's acting. Pryce doesn't really have any great pull in the film (and similarities between his portrayal of John Castleman and High Sparrow highlights his limited acting range), Max Irons portrayal of the son David Castleman, reminds me of Tobey Maguire's Spiderman movies, with an adult trying to play a high school student. In this case, while Irons is playing an adult, his personality is that of a mopey teenager and doesn't match with the parents' personalities at all. Christian Slater's portrayal of the reporter Nathaniel Bone is suitably annoying, as you would expect a pestering reporter to be, but could have been done by anyone else to the same effect.

The film has many of the tropes; 'Behind every successful man is a woman', the neglected child, the unfaithful artist, misdirected accolades, a woman held back because she is a woman, and all of these ideas are intertwined quite well. This is definitely Glenn Close's film, and while it has a few reversals thrown in to keep the audience guessing, without any decent supporting cast, it's not a movie you would watch again. Once is enough.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7993

SICARIO: DAY OF THE SOLDADO (2018)

This sequel came out of nowhere. I wasn't expecting it, and speaking to people afterwards, there were not many people that were. So marketing of the film really has let it down so far in that respect. 

The original Sicario film was a surprise winner, providing a great film with a suitable mix of gore & violence, conflicting ethical standpoints, and enough grey areas to actually make you question where you stand on certain issues. Was a sequel necessary? And would it work as well as it's predecessor?

Day of the Soldado is noticeably missing one key aspect right from the get-go; Emily Blunt. Blunt's Agent Macer provided a grounding force in the original film. That innocence and righteousness that we all idealise. Doing everything we can to protect everyone. It's a contrasting opinion to Josh Brolin's character Matt Graver, who has no qualms in doing whatever it takes to ensure the security of his country, even if it is at the expense of human rights and other lives. That balance between human rights & freedom and security was the factor that really added the tension to the film. Benicio Del Toro role as Alejandro Gillick was also great as the unknown elements to his motivation added the extra intrigue and uncertainty.

And that is what is missing from Day of the Soldado. Without Blunt, there is no grounding force. Instead, we have this weird buddy cop (agent?) film, which has no sense of mystery or tension, changing the genre of the film from a crime thriller into a run-of-the-mill action flick. The relationship between Graver and Gillick is given much more impetus than it deserves and is used to try and bring some sort of tension between the characters as the plot unravels, but there really is no contention. The film starts out with a slick black ops team that are several steps ahead of everyone, and practically invincible, and then the plot unravels, and the film rushes to the end of its runtime. There is no real character development from either of the big players, and it feels like it was rushed and the big twists and reveals were changed to try and force in a third movie in the franchise (which is heavily alluded to).

It is a timely film when you think about it, with the recent news coming out of the US about detaining immigrants and separating kids from their parents. That being said, again without Blunt's character (or a character with a similar moral compass) being present, the film loses it's balanced direction and instead becomes heavily biased against immigrants. Losing the whole sympathetic angle, we watch the grooming of Mexican terrorists from both in and out of the US. When illegal immigrants are having their human rights stripped of them in real life (they may not be legal citizens, but they are still humans) it's quite a shame to see the fear-mongering pushed towards not being able to trust legal migrants and children born in the country. It's something that isn't particularly helpful. The issue is heightened by the fact that the president is referred to as nothing but the POTUS; no face is shown, no name is mentioned. 

But how was the film when you don't compare it to the original film, and avoid looking at the political aspects? It was a typical over-the-top action film. Including so much unnecessary violence that the audience really loses that sense of pain and sadness that should come with human life. The lives are taken without thought, that it lowers the value of human life to the point that nobody cares. You do get to watch some brilliant espionage tactics, psychological warfare, black ops missions, and a whole lot of convoy attacks, which are always fun to watch. 

Sicario: Day Of The Soldado has been turned into a popcorn flick. Switch off the brain, and watch cars explode, Mexican children being turned into gangsters, dangerous immigrants getting shot, helicopters chase down cars, subtlely have your views on immigrants altered without any form of opposing view. Exciting to watch, and a reasonable standalone film, but it doesn't hold a candle to the original.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7983