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