HALLOWEEN (2018)

Boy, there is so much that I could say about this movie, that I really don't know where to start. Halloween is the 2018 sequel to Halloween, the 1978 original. Not to be confused with the seven other sequels of the two Rob Zombie rebooted Halloween films. The 2018 Halloween is a direct sequel and thus retcons the continuity of all films in the franchise apart from the original.

Production-wise this latest instalment is very high quality. The cinematography has some great flow, and the lighting is well utilised (or not utilised, as necessary). It has the look of a big budget film, and that is because, for a slasher film, it does. The original film had a budget of $325,000--which even taking inflation into consideration--is less than $1.3 million dollars today. 2018's budget ran upwards of $10-15 million. A whole order of magnitude higher. So there is the real question that needs to be asked; was that money well utilised?

The film plays off on the fact that it is coming out 40 years after the original, and is referenced during some scenes. They have brought back Jamie Lee Curtis to reprise her role as Laurie Strode, the sole survivor of Michael Myers' 1978 spree, and even bring back Nick Castle to reprise his role as "The Shape" during a scene. Otherwise, taking place 40 years after the original, we have an all-new younger cast (as well as Will Patton, who plays Sheriff Deputy Frank Hawkins, a character that is said to have arrested Myers' 40 years ago, yet was not present in the original film).

The premise of the film is simply Laurie Strode, who has spent her life training, preparing, and waiting for his inevitable escape, attempting to take Michael Myers head on.

The opening scenes of the film are a curious choice; showing Myers in his incarceration, but purposefully concealing most of his face, while still showing that "the shape" is now an old man. Stylistically, I don't understand why they did this. Michael Myers was a character that has always seemed human but had the strength and drive of something more supernatural. That is what drives the tension and fear. The fact that he is an unstoppable force. The act of showing him unmasked as an ageing man--especially one that looks like Tobin Bell's John Kramer from the Saw franchise--loses so much of that power that the character had, and suddenly your audience is no longer afraid of him.

The film really struggles to decide on a direction and ends up coming off unfocused and clumsily written. Myers' character himself seems to have lost a lot of the drive that he had in the original, moving through the cast of characters running into plot device after plot device. With no sense of direction, the showdown that we are waiting for doesn't feel earned when it happens; it simply feels like luck. 

This latest iteration tries to incorporate comedy and cheap jump scares into the storyline, and it is really poorly done. Horror and comedy are the hardest things to combine, with a successful horror relying on the viewer holding tension, yet the aim of comedic elements is to release that same tension. In this case, they contradict one another, jumping from one to the other, removing any suspense that the scenes may have held. The editing was well done for the most part. There were some great scenes done in low light that really managed to get the heart racing, but then there would be a lot of shots where you would just wander around following Myers character around, and it felt out of place and unnecessary. Myers strength lies in being a faint presence in the background. Having his position not known.

Jamie Lee Curtis is back and her character has had a drastic change since the original. With some PTSD, she comes across like she has a borderline personality disorder, switching from a hardy, grizzled, experienced survivor, to a flighty, incompetent victim. It's as if someone dressed up as Terminator's Sarah Connor then got caught in the lie. The paranoia and seclusion of the character was a nice touch in the development but was poorly written into the script. This is made worse by how little screentime Curtis actually ends up getting (far too much time is spent following around kids who had no relevance to the plot).

Without going too much into the plot, the 2018 Halloween is a mixed bag. It pays homage to and even lifts entire scenes from the sequels that it retconned out of continuity. It gives us a visually spectacular film, with some great scenes showing what Myers does best. But it also ventures too much into the comedic side and spends a little too much time playing with the gore element to a point that it feels uncharacteristic. 

It's quite a fun watch if you can handle your gore, and if you can go into the film, free of expectations; it is a slasher flick after all. But be aware that the build-up to the final act is cumbersome and clunky, and the climax is ultimately not all that satisfying. A good sequel. But not anything great.

Originally posted to: http://djin.nz/Kr8161

MARY QUEEN OF SCOTS (2018)

I absolutely love Saoirse Ronan in this film. I cannot stress that enough. Her performance is so captivating in that she perfectly embodies this character. It doesn't feel like I'm watching somebody pretending to be Queen Mary, it feels like I am watching Queen Mary. There is no distinction between the actress and the character. For a character that was supposedly raised in France for the first 19 years of her life, there is no real strong French accent, but her Scottish accent doesn't feel out of place in the film.

The film chronicles the conflict between Mary, the Queen of Scots and her cousin Queen Elizabeth I, from 1561 and 1603, as they both attempt to unify England and Scotland without giving up power. Not dissimilar to the power struggle in The Favourite, the conflict between Margot Robbie's Queen Elizabeth I and Saoirse Ronan's Queen Mary is made evermore treacherous and complicated by the large number of men in their courts that aim to usurp power for themselves.

While other recent Hollywood depictions prefer to focus primarily on the English side of the matter, Mary, Queen of Scots clearly flips the coin and looks out from the other side of the boundary. An intriguing story from a historical sense, it is interesting to see from the letters that they write to each other how they were constantly trying to outthink the other. Alongside that, seeing how the personalities of each monarch differed in how they ruled and attained power; whether it is "becoming" a man in the eyes of the court, or embracing their femininity and using marriages and heirs to amass more power.

The film has some amazingly vibrant clothing, as well as some great period armour, which draws you into the period. The cinematography is breath-taking with some exhilarating wide shots of the Scottish landscape, contrasting the more claustrophobic and dark court interiors. Visually, it is beautiful, but the pacing of the film does leave a lot to be desired.

Considering the film takes place between 1561 and 1603 (I'll do the maths for you, that is 42 years), you would expect to see some visible signs of ageing from the cast. Alas, that is not so. There are some hints to ageing and sickness in Queen Elizabeth's character, but otherwise, the majority of characters seem lost in a time warp in which their appearance does not change. There are a few occasions where the only real way to know time has passed is to look for Mary's son, James, who goes from birth to several years old over the span of a few scenes. 

It is interesting to watch the needs and insecurities of men constantly preventing the whims of these two monarchs from reaching fruition. Even ignoring the pacing issues, they are jamming 42 years of history into a two-hour film. You are best to check it out in the cinema where you have no distractions as Mary, Queen of Scots will require your full attention. If you are a Saoirse Ronan or period film fan, this is definitely the film for you. Otherwise, there may not be enough to keep your attention engaged.

GREEN BOOK (2018)

I went into this film with no knowledge of the synopsis. I hadn't even read the movie poster fully. All I saw was Viggo Mortensen, and I that was enough to get me curious as to what Aragorn was up to these days (I'm talking Lord of the Rings of course). Looking at his co-star Mahershala Ali, I recognised him as Cornell "Cottonmouth" Stokes from Marvel's Luke Cage. Both of these performances were brilliant, I was intrigued to see how well these two actors would perform on what looked like a drama.

Green Book is based on a true friendship between a simple Italian who was employed by a well-educated black classical pianist to escort him on an 8-week tour of the southern states of the United States in the 1960s. Green Book refers to the real travel guide (The Negro Motorist Green Book) used between 1936 and 1966 in the segregation-era, that specified where blacks were allowed to eat, drink, shop, or sleep.

That premise alone promises a large quantity of drama, with two minority groups that were known for not getting along being trapped in a car together for an extensive period of time. It sounds like something that could be used as a buddy sitcom, and with director Peter Farrelly onboard (you may remember him from such films as Shallow Hal, There's Something About Mary, and Dumb and Dumber), you'd be forgiven for thinking this was going to be some trifling slapstick comedy.

What we get instead, is a brilliantly evocative drama is subtle, comedic elements expertly included. As far as the casting goes, the entire film is built on Viggo Mortensen and Mahershala Ali's performances, but an honourable mention is necessary for Linda Cardellini, who had mere minutes on screen but expanded on the family aspect of Mortensen's character exceptionally well. Every action and interaction revealed more about the characters of the family, and it speaks volumes of both her acting ability and the quality of the script and direction.

Viggo Mortensen plays Frank "Tony Lip" Vallelonga, a tough, Italian family man. Not the most educated man in the world, Frank finds himself doing a variety of hands-on jobs to provide for his family. With a prejudice against the blacks, his character finds himself having to work for a black man in order to ensure he is paid for "honest" work. With a receding hairline, and gaining 45 pounds for the film (20kgs) Mortensen embodies the role more and more perfectly with every bit of food he eats on screen.

Mahershala Ali also has a brilliant performance as the black man that has managed to get an education, money, a following, and yet finds himself still disrespected among the white community, and his wealth makes him not so welcome among the black community. While he has a much less active role in the film, his presence alone, and his influence over Mortensen's character creates an enthralling viewing.

The film does start off a little slow, but it creates the backbone for the rest of the film. Green Book is a very by-the-numbers film, but the character development that goes on at the beginning of the film is what makes this such an enticing watch. We aren't looking at a single man with prejudice overcoming that prejudice. We are watching two men whose interactions are having a positive effect on each other's personal growth, and on the people around them in their circles too.

There are obvious racial plot points and themes throughout the story, but they are but the backdrop for the film's storyline, which is focused on a burgeoning friendship. The chemistry between Ali and Mortensen carries this film and their innate sense of comedic timing ensure the audience is going to be laughing out loud with genuine mirth.

Green Book is a feel-good movie, based on a true story, that manages to have you leaving the film with a smile on your face despite the heavy themes and content. It opens the mind to the realities of equality (though admittedly it doesn't delve deep into it), and does have more than a few scenes that leave you feeling awkward when you watch such obvious prejudices in play, and yet the to-and-fro between Ali and Mortensen defuse the tension with relative ease.

A splendid heart-warming story, directed and shot tastefully.

One of my favourite films of the year so far.

DRAGON BALL SUPER: BROLY (2019)

Once the Tournament of Power story arc ended, Dragon Ball fans have been on edge waiting for more content. Enter Dragon Ball Super: Broly. Unlike most of the Dragon Ball Z movies, which have been standalone short films that aren't considered canon, Dragon Ball Super: Broly is a full length (100 minutes) canon addition to the Dragon Ball universe. This effectively retcons the continuity that fans know from the three previous Broly films, as well as the Bardock: The Father of Goku special; reintroducing the characters of Broly and his father Paragus officially.

This reintroduction does mean that there is a lot of exposition in the film, and the first third of the movie takes place in the past, developing and explaining the backstory of the main characters; Vegeta, Goku, Frieza, and Broly. This is potentially the only part of the film that seems to drag, and yet it isn't because fans are being fed a similar history that they may be already aware of. Instead, it feels slow because of the plethora of history we are having jammed into such a small amount of time. We are getting two films worth of content skimmed over in the first 30 minutes, and that lack of depth in otherwise interest aspects of the lore can cause you to fidget in your seats as you wait for the film to focus on something.

The film is effectively split into 30 minutes setting up the history, 30 minutes setting up the present story, 30 minutes of fighting, and a 10-minute epilogue. What this new history does provide, is a much more rounded personality for Broly, one of the film's antagonists. No longer just an unknown player that is super strong and mindless, we are provided with a backstory that actually builds a level of sympathy towards his character. Which is a very bold thing for a Dragon Ball film to try to do; trying to make the viewer want a resolution that doesn't involve wiping the other person out).

The present-day story is rather minimal, but it does inject a healthy dose of humour into the film. Potentially one of the funniest Dragon Ball movies to date, and it works surprisingly well being incorporated into the action scenes, breaking it up into manageable chunks. 

In terms of the number of characters involved in the film, it is far more "realistic" when you are aware of how significantly Vegeta and Goku have surpassed the supporting cast in power level. With only the odd cameo from the occasional character, most are quite rightly left out, and even Goku and Vegeta have practically no character development at all. Everything is aimed at fleshing out Broly.

The 30-minute action scene. Wow. There is so much intensity, so much colour, and various forms of high-quality animation. As is Dragon Ball's style, you can expect a gradual ramping up of powers, clicking through transformations, all of which are gloriously eye-catching. The fight scene has near-enough no dialogue. Just fighting through various environments with a number of different attack styles. Kudos to the direction and choreography in these scenes, as this extensive, and vivid sequence keeps you engaged for the entire time.

Dragon Ball Super: Broly is well done. While I would have loved a little less spoon-fed exposition at the start of the film, it provides enough backstory that non-Dragon Ball fans can still follow it. You don't need to know the intricacies of different Saiyan forms to know what is going on. An entertaining watch, with a hilariously simple soundtrack.

POLAR (2019)

Straight off the bat, I'm going to apologise to anyone that watched the Polar trailer that I linked on the Facebook page yesterday. It was the only one that I could find, and unfortunately, whatever marketing team threw the trailer together decided to spoil many of the set-pieces in the film. So for those that watched it because I linked it, I'm sorry if the film would bring you fewer surprises and enjoyment, and to those that haven't watched it but still intend on checking out the film...avoid the trailer.

Polar is a film adaptation of a noir graphic novel of the same name. The graphic novel in its original form has a complete lack of dialogue, and this is something that is not adhered to in the film but still influences Mad Mikkelsen's character in his stoicism.

Interestingly, one of the most obvious comparisons that will be made with this film is the similarity in stylisation to that of John Wick, but let it be known that the Polar graphic novel preceded the first Wick film by two years. The creators of this film are certainly aware of the similarities and do have a scene that pokes a bit of fun at it.

Polar is split in two, with regards to the style of the film. There are clear visual differences between the protagonists and the antagonists in behaviour, dialogue, wardrobe, and environments. Where theMikkelsen and Vanessa Hudgens protagonist side of the story is dark, gritty, largely non-verbal and serious, Matt Lucas and the other antagonists have a much more outlandishly vibrant portrayal. They are all incredibly colourful and visibly distinctive, residing in more vivid environments, and acting over-the-top in behaviour. It is an aspect that really tries to hit home with that comic book feel but ends up making the film feel unbalanced.

Mikkelsen does a great job in this role, with a look and demeanour that is very Metal Gear Solid meets John Wick, with some very creative gadgets and action scenes that scream James Bond and Daredevil (I'm talking the Netflix series great hallway fights, not Ben Affleck's trainwreck of a film). The antagonists, on the other hand, are practically one-dimensional caricatures, that seem to only have one play, and are otherwise ineffective. But stylistically speaking they are more Suicide Squad (even with the difficult to read pop-up text) with the unnecessarily extravagant violence and gore of Kill Bill. It feels like two completely separate films that were merged into one.

The film takes a while to set itself up and is a little clunky when while it does so, but the premise is actually a reasonably interesting one, not dissimilar to how the Continental raises so many questions about the logistics of things in the John Wick films. It makes you want to learn more about the lore. Once the clunky build up is complete, around 45 minutes in, that is when the movie really becomes a brilliant watch. 

Such a fun action film, that has a fair share of gore (and nudity), I genuinely enjoyed several parts. It is simply let down by the inconsistent tone. When you are going up against a rag-tag group of stooges, it is hard to feel any real tension. When your villain is so over-the-top that he is awkward and laughable, you lose your suspense. While it doesn't ruin the film for me, it does detract from something that could have been much better.

I am all about the serious parts of the film that incorporate some nice dramatic elements and intriguing backstory that result in the nice little twist at the end. With some competent villains, this would have been a much higher quality film, but I'd still recommend giving it a view if you are a fan of Mikkelsen.

I'll end with a slightly spoiler-y discussion topic. What is with Mads Mikkelsen and constantly injuring his left eye? Valhalla Rising, Casino Royale, Doctor Strange affected both eyes, something was going on in that Death Standing trailer and now Polar. They must really want the audience staring into (what remains of) his eyes.

THE KID WHO WOULD BE KING (2019)

The Kid Who Would Be King is a good wholesome family film. By that, I mean kids will love it, and it is suitable for all ages (though some monsters might be a bit scary for the really, really young ones). While it may not have any content to offend any age groups, it also has nothing that will be of interest for adults. This is purely for either kids or adults that can switch off their brains and enjoy things as a child would.

As this film isn't aimed at adults at all, it seems unfair to judge it based on the same criteria as a more mature film, but as viewing it in the cinema would involve adults having to sit through it too, I'll still mention everything.

The Kid Who Would Be King is a modern retelling of the King Arthur story (or perhaps a modern sequel would be a more accurate description). The title of the film actually is a reasonable indicator of what to expect; this is a film that has been unnecessarily stretched out. With a run time of 2 hours and 12 minutes, no matter how enjoyable the movie may be, kids will undoubtedly be squirming and fidgeting in their seats by the end.

The film starts off with a large batch of exposition shown through a nice animated sequence with narration before it switches to the live-action portion of the film. The film follows Alex, a child that looks incredibly familiar. This would be because Alex is portrayed by Lois Ashbourne Serkis, the son of Andy Serkis, who is well-known for his motion-capture work in Lord of the Rings, Planet of the Apes, and Star Wars franchises).

Serkis is the most convincing of the young cast members and does a great job showing a variety of genuine emotion throughout the film. The remainder of the cast- Dean Chaumoo, Rhianna Doris, and Tom Taylor -are rather one-dimensional with very limited character arcs. The character of Merlin is portrayed by two actors, one young and one old (Angus Imrie and Patrick Stewart respectively), and is the character that brings the excitement to the film; likely due to them being the one character that has experience built into their character development. 

Patrick Stewart's presence is quite an odd one, for sure. In so few scenes, it comes across more like a glorified cameo, putting forward a performance of such frenetic energy that he might well have drawn inspiration from Christopher Lloyd's Doc from the Back to the Future franchise. With a knowledge of magic, Merlin uses it not with verbal spells, but with hand signals, giving his out-of-place character an even quirkier appearance. Stewart's wisdom combined with Imrie's comical youthfulness create an interesting dichotomy.

The villain (portrayed by Rebecca Ferguson) certainly looks great, but overall has a limited time on screen, instead, the film uses some rather generic (though admittedly cool-looking) CGI bad guys to maintain the threat level without Ferguson's presence. With so little to do in the film, most what she does is provide exposition, in the opposite way that film is meant to work; telling us instead of showing us. It's because of this, that her motives are weak and uninteresting, and Ferguson's character ends up looking like a thrift-store Hela wannabe (there are some certain similarities to the plot of Marvel's Thor: Ragnarok).

Visually, the film is done amazingly well. The cinematography is stunning, with some gorgeous, vibrant shots of British landscapes. The CGI, while not top-of-the-line, is done well for a kids movie and creates some great action scenes. 

The big downfall for the film really comes from its length. It builds up towards a false climax and then carries on into the third act. This misdirection works against the film, with its already long runtime leading to most viewers "clocking out" and losing interest in the final act. It is unfortunate as the final act has some brilliant action scenes, and is heavily reminiscent of Home Alone. If they had only ended one scene differently, the anticipation and tension would have built and carried the film through.

Overall, the film has a good message, that looks at the value of friends and family, unity over division, and has some good action scenes that would no doubt have the kids wanting to have swordfights in the yard. But the pacing and length of the film, unfortunately, make the film drag to the point that kids start to lose interest. And that was the whole point wasn't it? To keep them quiet and content. 

Might be best to wait until it comes out on DVD.

THE FRONT RUNNER (2018)

There are two different versions of Hugh Jackman out there; the grizzled, muscular, angst machine that is Wolverine, and then there is his more mature serious side, and finally his carefree musical side. Personally, I have come to love his work in the X-Men franchise above all others, with each successive film becoming more and more like the character. It's this ability to really become the character, that always draws me to Hugh Jackman's other films.

In The Front Runner Hugh Jackman plays Gary Hart in this dramatization of a true story about the US Senator, whose presidential campaign in 1988 was rocked by a scandal. The whole film attempts to bring into discussion the downfall of serious journalism towards tabloids and clickbait, constantly asking whether someones personal life is relevant when it comes to their political career; whether people running for public office have the right to privacy.

Unfortunately, the choices in focus for the film reduced the effectiveness of its argument. The film tells us in the opening scenes that Gary Hart is the front runner. It doesn't show us that. It simply comes up in a line of text while also mentioning how fragmented and split the Democratic party is. All in the first few minutes. It doesn't give us any sense of the popularity of the person, or what the public opinion is. There is no way to judge a man's rise or fall if we do not know where he starts. It is these unfocused and rather poorly developed aspects of the story that affect the strength of the message. If you want to talk about the effect of an event on Hart's family, you need to spend the time to truly introduce them and delve into that relationship otherwise there is nothing to compare it to, nothing to empathise with.

The film itself likes to provide a rather realistic portrayal of the cacophony that is the campaign trail in America. Campaign teams, reporters and photographers, there are several occasions where the camera pans across a room, and the focus switches from one person to another, to another. Or from a person to a television show, all while still continuing the audio from the previous focal point at a reduced but still significant volume. It works great to demonstrate the amount of crosstalking and chatter that is constantly going on, with so many different things going on at once, but it also comes across as muddled and can be difficult to follow.

Despite all of this, Hugh Jackman puts on a stellar performance. You can truly empathise with this man that wants to do a job well but is constantly being distracted by things that he deems irrelevant to the job. Instead of focusing on policies and plans, the attention is being put into gossip and rumours, and you can feel that shift in control, tension and frustration. 

Overall, The Front Runner puts forth an interesting argument about the effects of bringing in the personal lives of people in public office and the potential loss of the best candidates in campaigns due to the unescapable breach of privacy that would follow. While it's an intriguing discussion point, the film fails to provide the depth of story and character to properly get its point across, and you leave the theatre- not disappointed or pleased -but rather apathetic towards it. 

A relevant premise for the US today, but poorly executed.

MCKELLEN: PLAYING THE PART (2017)

McKellen: Playing the Part is an interesting watch. This 1.5-hour documentary is cut from a 14-hour interview, which in turn is but a brief summary of Sir Ian McKellen's near 80-year life. As such, the documentary struggles with bias and a lack of time to go into things in depth. The documentary makes use of the footage from the interview mixed in with photos, archived footage, and dramatisations, all to increase the visual strength of the film, and it does a good job, reliably keeping the viewer engaged. 

Where it struggles, however, is in the substance of the interview itself. Throughout the runtime, there are very few questions audibly asked of Sir Ian McKellen. This doesn't make it feel like an interview at all, instead, it comes across more like a grandparent telling stories to a child. McKellen himself mentions how everybody puts on an act when they communicate with another person, editing and choosing their words carefully. Throughout the documentary, you can't help but feel like this is nothing but McKellen revisiting the highlights of his life. There are no real drawbacks or pushbacks mentioned, and as such, it feels less genuine than it should. It feels like important parts are being omitted to make it sound like he was just insanely talented and thrived at every endeavour that he chose to partake in.

The documentary has cherrypicked what they consider to be the important moments of his life, focusing primarily on his theatrical and cinematic career. From his love of performing as a child, to his work as a classical actor, to the on-screen stardom that he is now known for, the documentary tries to touch on each piece. With newspaper reviews, excerpts, recordings, and behind-the-scenes footage all on display as you listen to McKellen monologuing, it helps to bolster this image of Sir Ian McKellen. Of course, it is the image that he and the filmmaker Joe Stephenson wants us to see. Without listening to the full 14-hour interview, we don't have the complete picture of what McKellen was trying to convey, so this piece does feel very much one-sided.

That really is the big downside; I was left wanting more. There are so many events and films that were touched on that I wanted to know more about. Some of the information I was hearing, is reasonably common knowledge, so it wasn't able to add anything to what we already knew. As someone who personally came to know of Sir Ian McKellen through his roles as Magneto (the X-Men franchise) and Gandalf (the Lord of the Rings and Hobbit trilogies), these were the parts that really held my fascination. But with only a few minutes to talk about that part of it, it didn't go beyond the surface, rarely showing something that was not already known.

With the rise in popularity of the biopic in modern cinema, it is almost a shame that that route was not used instead, and focused on a particular phase. His work with the LBGT+ community was very interesting, and I would have loved to have gone into that further. His thoughts on the topic of death were morbid but understandable. There is so much gold in this interview, but nothing is covered thoroughly.

Do not get me wrong. I definitely enjoyed this documentary. It provides a great insight into his life and has a few laughs every once in a while to keep your attention, but falls below expectations. You are very aware at all times that only one side is being explored, and is like reading the synopsis of every play and film he has been in and claiming to understand the man. It's good, but I wanted more.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr8160

FIRST MAN (2018)

First Man is out on DVD today. The film focuses on Neil Armstrong, the first man to walk on the moon (unless you believe Stanley Kubrick was involved in faking the whole thing). First Man is not the action-packed film like predecessors Apollo 13 or Gravity, neither does it highlight the civil rights movement like 2016's runaway hit, Hidden Figures. First Man focuses on Neil Armstrong and the effects that the space race had on his friends and family and ultimately his own mental health.

As such, the film doesn't necessarily focus too much on NASA itself or the mission (while it is always there in the background); First Man is more interested in the costs and sacrifices, the toll that it all took on Armstrong. Almost set up like a war movie, the film opens with the loss of Armstrong's daughter, an event that effects Armstrong's temperament for the remainder of the film, as this meticulous, calculating man, retreats emotionally into an introverted, stoic character. The film spans eight years, as NASA attempts to get ahead in the space race. each experiment or training scenario becomes a battle, where the astronauts don't know whether they will come out alive. 

But while the action and tension increase as the film progresses, the Gosling's emotional connection with the characters withdraws further and further with every loss. As a result of something that could look to be comparable to a form of PTSD, all of the emotional acting comes not from Gosling's Armstrong, but from his wife (portrayed by Claire Foy).

Detached. Grounded. Stoic. Passive. These are all words that could be used to describe the film's portrayal of Armstrong in the lead-up to the successful Apollo mission.

Visually, the film has been shot in an interesting fashion with a variety of different formats. Some of the flashback shots done with a grainier low-tech format (or 60's look, you could call it), others are in higher detail (more likely 70mm), but most importantly, if you pay attention to the aspect ratio, you will notice the later space shots expand the scope, filling the whole screen with maximum glorious detail in a modern IMAX format.

First Man is no big action film. It is a slow building family drama that just happens to include an astronaut. It is refreshing to see a more balanced look at the time, showing the presence of protesters that opposed such high expenditures on NASA (not dissimilar to current disagreements in the US to a certain wall). The film, while still very "America is great", does look more at the personal cost. It glosses over the planting of the flag, to instead remind the viewers of the losses and struggles that it took to get to that point.

One of the advantages that this DVD has over the theatrical release, is the special features. It has finally happened that a DVD actually has some reasonable special features. Probably the most interesting piece comes in the form of the audio commentary. First Man does come with its own fair share of controversy about how things are depicted, or about the accuracy (or inaccuracy) of the film, and these things are talked about at length during the commentary. Whether it be the timing of events, or what Armstrong does on the moon, every decision is discussed.

It's often forgotten, the true cost of such endeavours. And while First Man, is undoubtedly a slow film that tries to minimise the usual "exciting" tropes for a space film, it creates some breathtaking visuals and provides a more balanced look at the space race (even if it only scratches the surface).

Originally posted to: http://djin.nz/Kr8159

IF BEALE STREET COULD TALK (2018)

If Beale Street Could Talk is an adaptation of a novel by American writer James Baldwin; the film itself is directed and the is screenplay written by Barry Jenkins (the filmmaker who also wrote and directed Moonlight) fame. An emotionally-driven story, it focuses on Fonny and Tish, an African-American couple living in Harlem in the 1970s. The film is non-linear, starting at a pivotal point, then going back to the start, filling in the blanks and switching back and forth between the two different timelines. Normally, the non-linear style doesn't work well as the "future" portions tend to give away the conclusion of the "past" portion, but it was actually very well done and gave nothing away.

The film is scripted and directed incredibly well. With the exception of some of Fonny's family members who are under-developed and come across as laughable caricatures, the cast is very well selected, with fleshed-out characters and traits. The film has such a feeling of authenticity, using very little dialogue, instead, allowing blank space and facial emotions to convey what the character is trying to say. You know a film is well-done when dialogue is not needed at all, and Jenkins quality of directing is clear to see. The musical score works well to add to the scenes that have minimal dialogue, though the impact it has does tend to be inconsistent depending on the scene.

The film does struggle with some pacing issues after a very powerful and investing first act. The premise is revealed, and we get a great scene that shows how every significant character responds to that premise. Emotionally charged, conflicting support and aggression, it very quickly garners empathy from the audience. However, the film struggles to get that drive and tension back in any later scenes. It almost feels like the film needs to be compacted down slightly to reduce that runtime and keep the plot moving.

Visually, the film is stunning. A lot of long, slow sweeping shots between characters during dialogue, allowing close-ups of the faces, without any jarring edits flicking from person to person. Again, the cast did an amazing job not just saying their lines, but conveying a specific emotion as they tell it. Their eyes tell you so much more than their words do. If Beale Street Could Talk also has a nice colour palette. Despite the rather dismal premise, the film focuses on the supportive side and keeps everything warm and vibrant, with some lively reds, greens, and gold. The cinematography was also very well shot and directed, with a wide variety of perspectives and timing, that can make the characters feel like they are the only significant people in existence, or portraying how they interact with their environments, everything appears meticulously chosen. 

It is nice to see an African-American family portrayed on the big screen that isn't just stereotypes. These characters have a wealth of development that draws you in and gets you invested in their plight, and it serves as a valid reminder that despite a rapidly changing world that aims for more and more social justice, there are many people in the system that still suffer from historical intolerances. If Beale Street could talk, the world would be ashamed of the stories it could tell.

Originally posted to: http://djin.nz/Kr8158

EIGHTH GRADE (2018)

Eighth Grade brings a modern spin to the coming-of-age drama. Eighth Grade covers that 12 to 13-year-old age in the American education system, the final year before switching from Middle to High School. This would be somewhat similar to 11 to 12-year-old age in the New Zealand system; the final year of Primary/Intermediate before heading to High School/College. 

Films will always be somewhat relatable when they are based on school experiences. The majority of people would have at some point in time gone through the awkward and shy stage, feeling the power of peer pressures, and that need for validation. Elsie Fisher does brilliantly as Kayla, and really opens up your eyes to the new dangers in place thanks to technology and social media.

Whether or not it was written as a social commentary on the dangers of unfettered technology (such as 5th graders having access to Snapchat), it certainly provides it. Being able to observe the effects of that constant connection to the phone from such a young age on the big screen, really opens your eyes, and leaves you with your thoughts well provoked.

While Eighth Grade is certainly rather formulaic in its structure and characters, the film has such honesty and authenticity to it, that you can almost imagine it as a documentary, complete with video commentary between each chapter of the film, almost serving as a warning of things to come for young parents. Very realistic writing portrayed by a very engaging and believable actress, the entire movie hinges on Fisher's acting.

The film is full of awkward situations, and every time things go well, you are filled with an innate sense of dread, waiting for the other shoe to drop. We all know how harsh and judgemental kids can be, and while it never hits the extremes that it could, the relatability hits you in the feels even with lesser events. Such a high ability to empathise with the main character, it launches you back to those school days (minus the rose-tinted glasses) and throws you back into that anxiety-ridden world.

There is a rather harrowing scene in the car at the tail end of the film, which is the only reason I can see to have this film rated M. While it will have you holding your breath, it isn't anything explicit. 

A great movie about a young woman who is trying her best to be outgoing and make friends in the world today. Both uplifting and cautionary, Eighth Grade is a must-see for young adults.

THE FAVOURITE (2018)

The Favourite is an intriguing take on the true story of two cousins vying to be the court favourite during Queen Anne's reign in early 18th century England. The premise is interesting enough to question why this three-way power struggle was never brought to life in mainstream media before, but as Queen Anne's reign only lasted 12 years, this is a but a small fraction of England's history.

Starring Olivia Colman, with Rachel Weisz and Emma Stone in supporting roles, The Favourite is a fresh take on the period drama, combining English History with the Alice in Wonderland stories. Colman, in her role as Queen Anne, has one of the more humanised royal performances I have come across in a long time. Here is a queen that suffers from crippling gout, anxiety, self-doubt, and enough emotional pain to introduce madness into her personality and mannerisms; like a grounded version of the Red Queen from the Alice in Wonderland books. Part of her losses is visually portrayed by the presence of 17 rabbits, which are frequently used as plot devices and become relevant in a more metaphorical sense as the film progresses.

Rachel Weisz plays Sarah Churchill, the Duchess of Marlborough, who is the incumbent favourite whose position is threatened by the introduction of her cousin, Abigail Hill (portrayed by Emma Stone). With a Queen that is imbalanced and pained, who is heavily reliant on her court, the position of court favourite comes with much power. And thus the power struggle between these three women commences.

The film has some beautiful environments that are slightly skewed thanks to some choices in styles, using many wide-angle fisheye shots that are curved at the edges, creating warped and distorted visuals, that add to the uncomfortable nature of following the constant stream of manipulative actions. The sound effects and score in the film also add to this anxiety with repeated audial cues like that of a loud heartbeat and the merging of audio from different scenes into one. All adding to the feeling of distortion and manipulation. 

Colman does a brilliant job pulling off the role in a  convincing manner, but the only other aspect of the film that brings it to greatness is the writing and deadpan acting from Weisz and Stone. Their motives and emotions remain hidden throughout the film. Frequently changing attitude and tact, what is genuine or deceit is a mystery, which draws you in as you try to determine who you want to succeed.

The Favourite does feel rather long, with a runtime of two hours, and this is exaggerated by the way in which it is split into eight chapters. It certainly could have done with having 20 minutes shaved off from its total length, but it does well to keep the audience engaged as it is. 

Overall, The Favourite is an absorbing story of power, deception, delusion, and exploitation. Slightly cumbersome by the conclusion yet impressively arresting nonetheless.

THE MULE (2018)

At the ripe old age of 88, Clint Eastwood is certainly getting on in years. However, both directing and starring, The Mule feels more like self-service than an attempt to provide something meaningful to the art of cinema. Based on a true story, the foundation of the film is already there, but The Mule comes across as incredibly clunky and lazily written.

The first few scenes aim to develop the backstory of our protagonist, Earl Stone, but it rushes through this so quickly that you don't get a chance to really take it in. It comes across more like a pleasant dream that Earl's character would be likely to have rather than something that actually happened. This theme of events and relationships feeling inauthentic carries on throughout the film. Earl's relationship with his family is strained but doesn't feel genuine, and as a result, any attempts at redeeming himself in his families eyes is doomed to fall flat. It just feels poorly acted.

That being said, with the exception of Dianne Wiest who really phoned in her performance, the supporting cast of minor characters were good. The local members of the Mexican Cartel are initially expectedly hostile but warm up to Earl; it feels earned and was brilliantly done. A family that had a flat tire, portrayed genuine emotion and I could empathise with them. But every big name in the cast list was either one-dimensional and flat or didn't have enough screentime to add anything significant to the film. Laurence Fishburne's character could have been played by anyone or could have been taken out of the story altogether, with no effect on the plot. Perhaps it is a consequence of Clint Eastwood directing and starring at the same time, as it feels like the other cast members lacked any direction or motivation.

The pacing in The Mule is also inconsistent, rushing through the initial scenes, and then making random time jumps to the point that you have no idea how much time has passed. Has it been a day? A month? A year? Nobody knows. 

The whole film relies on the performance of Clint Eastwood, yet his character has no real story arc. There is an overarching theme about putting the family first, which does work okay, but there are certain parts of his character that are less than admirable but never change. Whether it be the use of derogatory terms towards minorities, or his constant need to dance and have physical contact with every young woman he sees. These are attributes that are added to his character to remind the viewer that Earl Stone is old. It's unnecessary. We can see that he is old.

There were some good aspects to the character of Earl Stone, mainly what I would call his "I don't give a f**k" attitude. The man who is dealing with Mexican cartels and trying to evade the cartel is doing so without a care in the world. It could come across as either a battle-hardened veteran or a man who has given up on life. But what it does is add comedy to the film. There is the odd line thrown in here and there that gets a chuckle from the audience, but it does negate a lot of the tension too.

If you have watched the trailer you no doubt would expect the film to be a tense thriller, but the trailer is edited that way purposefully. The film itself never really hits the same level of suspense. As such, there is no real sense of satisfaction at the end of the film. It feels like nothing was really accomplished. Storylines remain open and unexplained at the end of the movie, so nothing feels earned. 

It's not a bad movie by any means. It's clunky but entertaining. It's poorly written and paced, but it has some reasonable suspense. It lacks the emotional depth and power to make it a great film. With more character development, more screentime for the supporting cast, and a more coherent timeline, this could have been a great film. Instead, it is simply okay.

Originally posted to: http://djin.nz/Kr8157

BEN IS BACK (2018)

I'll be honest when I say that the after seeing the trailer, Ben Is Back didn't really hold much appeal to me. It looked like a rather by-the-books thriller. In reality, however, Ben Is Back is an incredibly powerful suspenseful drama, packed with emotion.

My hesitation could also have been put down to the presence of Julia Roberts in the lead role of Holly Burns. While Julia Roberts is an amazing actress, she is so well-known that it is hard to see her as anything other than Julia Roberts, and that makes it much more difficult to engage with a film. Lucas Hedges, on the other hand, is still early in his career, so it is much easier to see him as his character, Ben. In the end, the acting is so convincing and authentic, that I walked out of the theatre with the idea that Ben was legitimately the son of Julia Roberts. She has such genuine resolve and love towards Hedges' character that you can't help but feel invested.

The film is based around Ben, who suffers from opioid addiction and turns up to the family home on Christmas Eve when he was meant to still be in rehab. The remainder of the film looks at Ben, and how he is seen by family, friends, neighbours etc. depending on how his addiction has had a ripple effect on them. 

The film doesn't get preachy about drugs being bad, which I appreciate. Instead, it simply shows that there is a problem and that even when people have the best intentions, temptations and their environment can easily draw them back in against their will. The character of Ben Burns is very well-developed, which is also rarely done in film. Usually, a drug addict is portrayed as just that. Here we are shown how his youngest siblings love him with ignorance, how his sister distrusts him, and his stepfather has been pushed to the point of near-contempt. Despite being clean for 77 days, Ben is forced to reenter that world and face and explain the consequences of his addictions head-on.

While there is certainly a tonal shift halfway through the movie, it still consistently maintains a high level of tension. Every piece of information revealed, adds to the list of questions that Ben's mother has for him. As a viewer, you end up with your eyes glued to the screen, as you watch Ben struggle to do what is right, and come to terms with what he has done in the past. 

An incredibly hard-hitting drama. The realism is there. We aren't given the perfect family with the one black sheep. The family alone has so many different facets that it feels genuine. Each member of the family has their own personality that affects how they react to each situation. There is anger, compromise, fear, distrust, and a lot of f-bombs from Julia Roberts. It feels like a family that has persevered for a long time but have been pushed to the edge of what they can handle. All portrayed during events that occur over less than a day in the film. That's right, the film starts on Christmas Eve, and ends on Christmas Day. We see the effects of decades of opioid addiction throughout a community, all in a single day.

Ben Is Back does end abruptly, and while I would love for it to have continued for longer, to see what happens next, stopping as it does, leaves you with the weight of the emotional hit. Sitting in the theatre watching the credits, eventually realising you are still holding your breath, still clutching the armrests. 

It impressed me; and that's hard to do.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr8156

COLD WAR (2018)

Cold War is the latest film from director Pawel Pawlikowski since his 2013 film Ida (which won an Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film).

A gorgeous piece shot entirely in black and white, with an aspect ratio that almost appears completely square in comparison to the widescreen aspects that we have become accustomed to these days. Set between the 1940s and '60s after the cessation of World War II, the film moves between various post-war European countries during the Cold War period.

The aspect ratio combined with the black and white style and prevalence of foreign language really set the scene for the film, providing a dated feel and a bleak emotional environment that the people were living in during the time. It perfectly encapsulates a sense of living in a Soviet-occupied country during that time period, both in crumbling infrastructure outside of the main cities, and the oppressive state of politics and propaganda.

The film follows Tomasz Kot who plays Wiktor Warski, a pianist and musical composer who is forming a musical ensemble, meeting falling for Joanna Kulig's character, singer Zuzanna "Zula" Lichoń. Beyond this, there is no real set plot for the film. We follow these two very different people trying to be together, in a variety of settings and circumstances. The story focuses on their tumultuous relationship from the perspective of Wiktor, literally only showing scenes that involve both characters. The film is a selection of moments that omits everything else to do with their lives. Otherwise significant events of a life are overlooked and ignored in order to focus on the relationship itself. The story of the couple is in fact inspired by director Pawel Pawlikowski's own parents.

The film has no score and instead uses diegetic sound, where all music is physically performed visibly on screen. As such, music forms an important part of the film, and changes throughout the film as the Wiktor and Zula try to make it work. Starting with Folk and Choral music, it transitions through many stages, showcasing Jazz, Salsa, Rock, and Pop, effectively having its own story arc.

The cast does a wonderful job in their roles, Joanna Kulig in particular brightly embodies an impassioned singer that giver her all into every aspect of her life, whether it be her singing, drinking, or her love. With no musical score, and the high contrast black and white scenes, the film relies heavily on the acting ability of Kot and Kulig, and they do brilliantly, creating an engaging and strikingly resonant love story that persists through unending obstacles. 

The ending of the film does feel out of place and slightly unearned, but does not detract from the beauty of the rest of the film. A must-see if you are tired of the excessive behaviour of big-budget Hollywood films

GLASS (2019)

How incredibly underwhelming. Bruce Willis, Samuel L. Jackson and James McAvoy return with their supporting cast from Unbreakable and Split for this cross-over finale, Glass, but fail to meet the high expectations of the audience.

The film struggled with combining the clashing genres of its predecessors. With Unbreakable being a suspenseful drama while Split was more of a psychological thriller, Glass killed the energy of Split in the first act and ultimately failed to build on Unbreakable, showing no progress in David Dunn's character despite being a vigilante for 19 years now. Having a high action first act, before grinding to a halt for the second, it destroys the pacing of the film, to which it never truly recovers.

Despite the film being called Glass, it feels like that name was chosen purely to complete the trio (the personality of McAvoy's character being split, and Bruce Willis' character being unbreakable, and Samuel L. Jackson's character being as brittle as glass), as the film places so much more emphasis on McAvoy's character. McAvoy showcases several more of his 24 personalities, and while he does a great job giving each one their own distinctive touch, a large portion of the film is focused on him switching between identities, leaving Dunn (Willis) and Price (Jackson) shunned to the side for much of the runtime.

It makes sense as to why the marketing has put so much focus on mentioning the previous two films, as there are many flashbacks and callbacks to them, which would otherwise feel incredibly out of place. M. Night Shyamalan has never really mastered flashbacks or non-linear timelines, and it really shows. Each flashback ruins the flow of the film and is a reoccurring reminder that Glass is unable to stand on its own merits.

Perhaps it is simply a consequence of Shyamalan no longer trusting the audience to think, but there is no room for subtlety in this film. Everything must be fully explained, characters will spend entire scenes on nothing but exposition, and while the Shyamalan "twist" usually makes you see the entire film in a different light, it is not the case in Glass. The twist is telegraphed frequently throughout the film, through events and dialogue that you let pass at the time for the sake of the movie. 

Sarah Paulsen plays a new character introduced in the form of Dr. Ellie Staple, but for a character with so much screentime, we aren't really given any context, motives, or backstory. In the end, she comes off very one-dimensional. 

Visually, the movie is mediocre. There are some stunning shots, using reflections among other things, and McAvoy, Willis, and Jackson still have their colour schemes from the previous films (yellow, green, and purple respectively), but otherwise, the environments are sterile, with some questionable wirework during the action scenes.

It has taken around 20 years for this trilogy to come about, but it still feels like the script and shooting for Glass was rushed. Throwing together flashbacks, and a multitude of convenient coincidences, it spends too much time slowly building up towards the climax and then purposefully undercuts itself. Odd editing and inconsistent pacing don't help its case either. 

A disappointing end.