GRÄNS (BORDER) (2018)

Gräns is a Swedish fantasy film released in New Zealand under the name Border. At its core, the film is a crime drama with a heavy dose of romance and a supernatural twist to it.

The film follows Tina, a customs officer who has extraordinary senses when it comes to finding those that are smuggling things. But she comes across someone different that she can't figure out.

The protagonist of the film comes in the form of Eva Melander, who gained 18 kilos to better fit the look of the role, and sat through four hours of prosthetic applications every morning of shooting, to give her the neanderthal/cro-magnon features her character Tina required.

From a visual and atmospheric standpoint, the film is stunning. With a premise that follows somebody that is "different" as she tries to fit in in the real world, Border is full of beautifully shot scenes of Tina escaping the human world and delving into her more natural side. Long wistful stares, running hands through the dirt, swimming naked in a lake, much of the movie aims to convey feelings through actions and mannerisms, without the need for dialogue.

Despite the primitive, apathetic look that Tina carries for much of the film, there is an amazing spectrum of emotion that she is still able to convey through the layers of prosthetics and even manages to input a fair amount of comedic elements into the film; though they are a little hit-and-miss.

Border shows Tina's development as she learns the truth about her differences, as well as the similarities she has with the people she lives among. With seeds of hatred, injustices, and retribution in the air, the film thematically makes a good metaphor for minority prejudices and blind nationalism. 

While I loved the nature scenes and how well it portrays that grounded sense of wonder, the film overall felt a little unbalanced. The crime story arc--which feeds and counters the romance arc--felt undeveloped, and as such, everything that connected to that crime arc was weakened by it. 

The film had a consistent, measured pace, and a strong score, but the overall plot failed to reach any height that could fully engage my interest. The meandering story took so long to get to the climax, and then runs through it so quickly that there was no real tension or suspense, and the drama never really had a chance to feel legit. The romance arc was the done exceptionally well, but all other areas don't get he same effort.

Not horrible, not great. An intriguing idea, but it definitely took the safe route, and a balance between the plot and tranquil contemplative moments was not there. Ultimately, Border is a film that I will have forgotten all but the aesthetics in as little as a few days.

THE GUILTY (2018)

The Guilty was played at the NZ International Film Festival and is now being released to a selection of theatres around the country. This crime thriller does an absolutely stellar job using the mere minimum of budget. The entire film is centred around one man working in two adjacent rooms for 85 minutes. It sounds like it would be a rather sluggish and laboured watch, but the complete opposite comes about. 

Leading man Jakob Cedergren plays Asger Holm, an emergency services dispatcher, who answers the call of a woman being kidnapped and must do what he can to try and save her, from his desk. All other personnel on the screen are irrelevant to the story, and all other characters that are relevant, are never seen.

This is the kind of film that puts the mind into hyperdrive. It is as if the viewers are experiencing an audiobook on the big screen. Not being able to see the events unfolding, only hearing the conversations over the phone, it forces us to use our imaginations to conjure up images of the characters, locations, and events in our heads, using only the sound of their voices over the phone. As such, every member of the audience has their own private experience. 

Photo credit: Nikolaj Moeller

Even with a very limited area to shoot and only one actor to focus on, the film makes creative use of lighting and camera angles to prevent the film from becoming visually monotonous. Extra credit is due for Cedergren also, who is able to create such an emotive performance with so little. You could close your eyes and experience the film with only audio, but you would lose this acutely empathetic showcase from Cedergren. You can feel the stress and tension with every sweat droplet that emerges on his forehead.

The amount of suspense in the film is practically indescribable. Every time a call cuts out, the tension increases. Sitting in complete silence waiting, hoping for them to call back. So perfectly staged and directed, the film has no score, instead, doing the complete opposite and removing background sounds from time to time. Sucking the sound out caused the tension to spike every time, as you could hear your every breath, every heartbeat. The silence was perfectly timed and left you wanting to tear out your hair while you scream at the screen in frustration. But of course, instead, you remain deathly silent not wanting to miss any potential subtle hints.

The Guilty is a groundbreaking experience. A film that is able to portray the full emotional power of a book with near enough no visual stimuli. A direct contradiction to "show don't tell" but it worked so well. Cliffhanger after cliffhanger, The Guilty plays off of our innate need to fill knowledge gaps with stereotypes and prejudices and constantly subverts our expectations with every piece of the puzzle that is revealed. A powerhouse of a film that thrills without action. 

HAL (2018)

I'm a 90's kid, so it's safe to say that I'm not overly familiar with films from the '70s. Seeing Hal being screened at Rialto Cinemas, I decided to see it, not because it looked interesting, but because I could fit it into my mammoth five movies in a day plan. I had seen no trailers, and the movie poster provided no information as to what I could expect from the film. But I went anyway and was pleasantly surprised by what I saw.

Hal is a documentary about a film director, Hal Ashby, celebrating his life's work in Hollywood, his rise and fall at the hands of studio involvement, and his eventual death.

The film takes a rather chronological direction, following the critically-acclaimed films that made up the majority of his life in the '70s; The Landlord (1970), Harold and Maude (1971), The Last Detail (1973), Shampoo (1975), Bound For Glory (1976), Coming Home (1978), and Being There (1979).

Featuring interviews with cast and crew of the feature films, as well as audio recordings and memos from Hal himself, you gain a sense of respect and admiration for the man that put everything into his art. Personal stories from the likes of Jane Fonda, Jeff Bridges, Dustin Hoffman, Jon Voight and Beau Bridges, combine to build a four-dimensional image of a man that cared about the art that he was creating, and fought to the bitter end to try and maintain that integrity against the power and control of studio executives.

Memo's, personal letters, photos and video footage, audio recordings and interviews. The scope of research and material collected and used is immense, and it created such a vivid composition. Despite never having seen his films, to have his influence compared to that of Scorsese, and to see all of these people that genuinely cared about him, despite his flaws, it made me as a viewer care about him, and that is a rare thing for a documentary to do. Too often a documentary becomes cold and disconnected, stating facts and events. Hal goes in-depth into his life and struggles, his many marriages, and of course the making of those seven fundamentally important movies in the '70s.

Studio interference is something that the public is much more aware of now, as films are followed by fans from their inception, all the way through production until finally the release day. To learn how it was present, even in the '70s and '80s, caught me unaware, and firmly rooted Hal Asby as the antihero of his own story

An absolutely brilliant documentary. Well paced, with enough different media formats to keep you engaged throughout its entirety. This made me care about the life of a director that I didn't even know existed, and has added seven more films to the list of things to check out. An eye-opening glimpse into the inner workings of Hollywood.

LORDS OF CHAOS (2018)

Lords of Chaos is loosely based on a novel of the same name. Very loosely. In fact, it's pretty important when you go into this film to remember those opening lines where the film is based on truth and lies; so accuracy is not exactly the goal of the film, especially due to the generally unreliable narrative from the young people involved. Most people that know heavy music would have heard the story of early Mayhem, but it's often forgotten how young they really were--guitarist Euronymous was 16 when he started Mayhem.

For those unaware of what Lords of Chaos is about, it follows the early years of Norwegian black metal band, Mayhem; a band that was highly controversial, being involved with arson, suicide, murder, and self-mutilation. Being a Hollywood film, there is a certain amount of sensationalism going on, with many liberties taken. It creates an engaging film, despite not being overly accurate (which is probably why the bands did not allow any of their music in the film).

The film focuses on guitarist Euronymous as the protagonist and has cherrypicked certain aspects and events to ensure that he comes across as likeable. Omitting a lot of the negative things he did, and inserting a love interest to the story, it makes sure to paint him as the good guy.

Strangely enough, for a film that involves very graphic murder and suicide scenes, there is a good balance of humour. There are several moments where you will have you laughing and it fits together quite naturally. While the first 20 minutes or so are rather slow with little direction, it soon picks up and the pacing improves. 

One thing the film does quite well is to recreate the look and visual setting of the film. But everything is all in the looks. Perhaps it is to do with the films focus on "posers" and "fakers", but Lords of Chaos doesn't actually bother taking the time to go into what makes black metal music unique, and doesn't really look into the black metal community itself. It instead focuses on the interpersonal drama between the band members. It's rather odd that a movie about a black metal band spends so little time on the music, but I guess when you aren't allowed to actually use the band's music, your hands are tied.

Overall, it's an engaging film. It paints the whole black metal scene as a bunch of awkward angsty teenagers, which feels more at home in the punk genre. But it does make you care about the protagonist. And isn't that the whole point? As long as you aren't going into the film for an accurate documentary, there's certainly an interesting dramatic story that is worth a watch.

COLETTE (2018)

I have no idea how to describe this film, but it was incredibly engaging and had me hooked from near enough start to finish. Colette is a biographical drama based on the life of the French novelist of the same name.

The film follows Sidonie-Gabrielle Colette (played by Keira Knightley), a woman from a poor family who marries a "literary entrepreneur" and ends up becoming a ghost writer for him before forming her own identity under the mononym, Colette. As this is based on a real person, I can't help but wonder if Colette inspired the novel and subsequent film adaptation of The Wife, as thematically they are very similar.

Visually stunning, the film switches between the dark, dank, claustrophobic Parisian buildings--during which most scenes take place indoors--and the crisp, vibrant, natural areas of Saint-Sauveur en Puisaye where she was raised. The completely opposition emotional outlooks and disposition between the two areas are black and white and keep the film tracking along without succumbing to monotony.

The film covers the affairs of both Colette and her husband "Willy"--affairs in both an emotional and sexual context--but does so in a liberating way. The film shies away from negativity, instead, pushing the impassioned and raging energy into more creative endeavours, every emotional trough creating the opportunity for another wave of success.

As well as the sexual liberation that is on display thematically, Colette also looks at the concept of creating a brand, challenging gender roles, finding your own identity, and the dangers of celebrity infatuation (something that the world still struggles with).

I cannot put my finger on what exactly is so appealing about this film. The story is simple and linear. Perhaps it comes down to the energy that Keira Knightley and Dominic West put into their performances. There is a certain zest and pizzazz that drives the film forward. A sense of freedom that is unrepentant. Colette is refreshing and daring. Youthful and effervescent. A thrilling combination of tantalizing acting performances with visually arresting environments. 

One of my Top 3 films of the year. Would definitely watch it again, and would recommend it no questions asked.

CAPHARNAÜM (CAPERNAUM) (2018)

Capharnaüm--or Capernaum as it is also known--is a Lebanese drama that has won the Jury Prize at the 2018 Cannes Film Festival receiving a 15-minute standing ovation after its premiere. That is but one of the 22 awards that the film has won so far. A film shot with novices over 6 months the first cut was 12 hours long and was eventually edited down to just over 2 hours. These aspects alone make the film pretty damn impressive, and we haven't even looked at the content.

A story that was in the news recently, and potentially inspired by this film, is an Indian man suing his parents for having him. Being born without consent. It's a controversial topic, considering there is no way to ask for consent, but that is the topic that this film attempts to discuss. Well, not so much gaining consent, but the idea of placing responsibility on the parents, when they choose to have children that they cannot financially support.

Almost antinatalist in its perspective, Capharnaüm brings into question the cultural beliefs that a couple are inferior if they have no children; that the more children they have the more blessed they are, no matter what the living conditions are for the children. High birth rates are not only a consequence of a lack of access to family planning and contraception but a cultural norm that has been a way of life for many generations.

In this film, we watch events unfold from the perspective of Zain, a 12-year-old Lebanese boy who is wanting to sue his parents for continually having children despite their absolute poverty. The film frequently flashes back to earlier in the timeline filling in the story to explain how Zain ended up where he did. This non-linear narrative both works and fails, as the flashback goes off on a completely unrelated tangent to the court case, but the switching of timelines does keep the interest during the slower moments in the film--which is very much noticeable when the film stays in one time for an extended period)--where the pacing otherwise suffers.

The film is an eyeopener in terms of the lives of those in poverty. It is frustrating to see people struggling, to see them put into difficult situations that have no easy answer. To see them being taken advantage of. And be powerless to do anything about it. That frustration is present throughout many parts of the film, and it creates a strong emotional connection with the protagonists of the film. That strong connection will have many viewers in tears. 

The acting is not the strongest and is quite over-the-top at times, but it builds their characters further. Making it feel genuine; more documentary, less Hollywood. The pacing is inconsistent, the flashbacks go thoroughly off-topic in regards to the initial plot device, yet the power of the content is undeniable. It is definitely more on the arty side of the spectrum, and the English subtitles would turn a few away from watching this. But I love that the film has the guts to challenge societal norms, and for that I'd recommend checking it out.

STAN & OLLIE (2018)

I'll be honest, after seeing Holmes & Watson at the start of the year, there was more than a moment's trepidation at the idea of watching another John C. Reilly film. In my opinion, he has had more misses than hits when it comes to his filmography, but this is a film about Laurel and Hardy, the duo who are well known for their physical comedy. And that is the one type of comedy that John C. Reilly seems to try force into all of his films. So what the heck, I figured I'd try to go in with an open mind.

Stan & Ollie ended up being a rather well-done film. Considering that we are talking about a film based on a comedy duo that was popular through the 1920-1940s period, The challenge is significant to keep material fresh when it has been known and repurposed many times for nearly a century now.

Laurel and Hardy's comedy is wholeheartedly innocent, and it still carries a great deal of weight today. Steve Coogan and John C. Reilly do a stand-up job (pun not intended) as Laurel and Hardy (respectively) and bring this slapstick comedy to the big screen with an air of authenticity and passion. Placing a great deal of effort and thought into their performances, they capture the look, movements, and mannerisms of the duo perfectly, from Stan Laurel's head scratch and hand movements to Oliver Hardy's flattened wet hair and swinging gait. John C. Reilly actually has a very convincing performance considering the number of prosthetics he has to wear for the part, but they look and feel like a natural extension of his body.

The film focuses not only on Stan and Ollie but on their wives as well, the two double acts fit together perfectly; complete opposites to both their husbands and each other. They form another source of laughs as well as providing a smaller yet still touching character arc.

Stan & Ollie is not so much about the comedy tour as it is about Laurel and Hardy's relationship as they try to overcome an event in their past, and rekindle their passion and regain the admiration of the public. As such, the film has quite a mature emotional context that does manage to draw you in.

The only thing I disliked about the film was watching crowds laughing during the dance scenes. I don't know whether that is a sign of the times, but it didn't strike me as funny or comedic, so to see an auditorium of people on screen laughing out loud to such a basic thing, it did draw me out of the film. It didn't make me hate the film, it simply stopped me from being able to empathise with the characters, a level of engagement I had to rekindle every time it happened.

But overall this is a fun film. A linear story so it is very easy to follow, with brilliant production that looks like it has been filmed straight out of the early 20th century. With several relationship arcs, there is a strong emotional component that is nicely balanced with some wholesome comedy pieces. No regrets from seeing this film. Bravo.

ON THE BASIS OF SEX (2018)

After watching the documentary RBG (check out my review here) and learning about Notorious RBG a.k.a. Ruth Bader Ginsburg,  I was impressed by her life story and came out of the theatre wondering how long it would be until somebody decided to make a proper Hollywood film about her. Turns out the answer was mere months away.

On The Basis Of Sex does not cover the whole life of Ruth Bader Ginsburg; unlike the 98-minute documentary, On The Basis Of Sex focuses only on her experience at law school and her first case during its 120-minute runtime. For those not in the know, Ruth was one of the first to get into the Harvard Law School after women were allowed to attend and used her education to advocate women's rights and gender equality, eventually becoming an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

Having seen the documentary beforehand, I was already aware of how many amazing things this woman has been able to achieve. So I can honestly say I was a little disappointed on how little scope the film had. I had hoped to watch a very dramatic build in the film as she took on the Supreme Court to get unfair laws changed. Instead, we see the appeal case prior to the Supreme Court cases, and in great detail. 

One thing this does do is hammer home the frustration that all of the characters feel. When you see an injustice and are helpless to fix it, you feel frustrated, and when you know you are in the right but are met with absolute closed-minded stubbornness, it is infuriating. These feelings of passion for civil rights are very well conveyed. The film spends a lot of time focusing on the relationships between Ruth and her family, friends, and opponents. It builds the drama in the film and develops the characters of Ruth and husband Marty very well, but does mean the pace of the film is slow at times.

As far as casting goes, Felicity Jones and Armie Hammer do a great job, Armie playing the doting ever-supportive husband, and Felicity playing the passionate, but timid Ruth. Again, comparing to the documentary, you can't help but feel that Jones has much more confidence and is more outspoken than the real Ruth Bader Ginsburg. But without meeting her in person I can't really tell which is closer to the truth. Jones does showcase Rith's work ethic, and areas of focus very well.

On The Basis Of Sex is a safe film. It brings to the public eye how laws can be changed for the better, and how precedents can be started at any point in time. The focus on inequality is currently very relevant as many countries in the world continue internally dividing. It doesn't push any barriers though. It spends so much time on the build up on the first appeal case, that it doesn't give you an opportunity to apply it to the modern day, and it doesn't provide a satisfying end (unless you want to include some epilogue slides at the end).

It feels like the film was almost there. It was almost to the point where it forces you to consider your standpoint on certain topics, almost gets you to think about privilege. But right when the film gets interesting, it ends. 

Definitely a good watch for those that are unaware of what she has achieved, but On The Basis Of Sex doesn't come close to having the impact of RBG.

THE CLOVERFIELD PARADOX (2018)

The Cloverfield Paradox had an ad at the 2018 Superbowl halftime show, making people aware of the film only hours before its release on Netflix. Now, an entire year later, it's being released on DVD. A very odd marketing strategy considering everyone with a Netflix subscription that wanted to see it would have seen it long before now, and demand from the remaining potential audience would be practically non-existent due to the length of time that has passed, and the generally unfavourable reviews it had received since it's release.

The Cloverfield Paradox was originally not a part of the Cloverfield series. In fact, it was quite far through production--under the name God Particle--before J. J. Abrams decided to link the film to the Cloverfield series and change the name. I really struggle to understand why they would try to create a franchise or cinematic universe in such a way when the film itself has nothing to do with the franchise premise and simply has a couple of scenes added afterwards. It feels like a very lazy way to try and bring in an audience. Granted 10 Cloverfield Lane was a great film if you exclude the final scenes of the film...which just happen to be the parts that were added to link it to Cloverfield. But I digress.

The film has a reasonably good cast, including Daniel Brühl (Captain America: Civil War, Inglorious Basterds, and Bourne Ultimatum), John Ortiz (American Gangster and the Fast and Furious franchise), Chris O'Dowd (The IT Crowd, Bridesmaids, and Thor: The Dark World), and Elizabeth Debicki (Guardians of the Galaxy Vol.2, Widows, and The Great Gatsby). So when a J. J. Abrams film with a well-known cast doesn't sit well with the critics, you can tell the script is not going to be very well written.

As far as the science fiction element of the film goes, the premise is an interesting one. The event occurs and you are thrown into an unstable and completely unknown situation that is dangerous to all crew on board the station. Unfortunately, while the film does a great job creating questions to try and engage the viewers, it answers very few of them. Leaving you feeling unsatisfied with how the film ends. It seems to be a common trope now that when the word "quantum" has been used that you can throw all science and logic out the window and do whatever you want that you think will create the most drama or look the coolest. But things that are unexplainable quickly lose their appeal, as your protagonists lose any form of control in the matter.

The film is in a way split in two, looking at the events occurring on the space station, and following the partners of one of the crew members on Earth. The Earth plotline does provide very little content to drive the story, however, and really could have been removed from the film with little to no effect. It felt shoehorned in there purely to try and link this film with Cloverfield and 10 Cloverfield Lane, showcasing certain aspects that were present in those previous films.

What is potentially the worst faux pas that the movie does is that it fails to "show not tell", instead, feeding exposition at the start of the film using dialogue on a blank screen or news footage. The worst thing about this is that for some reason they decided that they needed to give away the "twist" at the start of the film. The filmmakers have so little trust in the viewers' intelligence that they don't just place hints in the film, they outright tell you exactly what will happen before the events even start. It is rather infuriating. It's like being told the final score of a sports match 5 minutes into the game.

As it is, The Cloverfield Paradox is more supernatural than sci-fi. It has some great cast members, but their characters are all underdeveloped and end up trapped in a Final Destination remake that uses "quantum" as a means of justification. Visually, the film is fine. In terms of the script, the dialogue is clunky, has too much exposition, and doesn't answer any of the questions that it sets up. Altogether it creates an average film. If it was more science-based or at least attempted to explain events that occurred, then the film would be much more than it is, but as it is, you leave the film without satisfaction.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr8185

DESTROYER (2018)

Destroyer is a very different film to what I was expecting. A thematically dark and gritty noir, it has the content that could have made a thriller, but the pacing lends itself more to a drama. Non-linear in its narrative, the film jumps between two timelines; the current path hunting down bank robbers, and her past history and connection with those same people. Destroyer has a protagonist that is initially unlikeable and off-putting, and despite the whole crime and investigation plot of the movie, everything is about the revenge and redemption arc of Erin Bell.

Nicole Kidman is one of those actresses that is highly recognisable. Even with the amount of makeup layered on here, the simply distance of her eyes gives it away. So despite what is a drastic change in appearance, it is still undoubtedly Nicole Kidman, and as such, is much that little bit harder to see her as the character that she is portraying.

Her role in Destroyer is quite a different one to what we are used to. She isn't in this film for the sake of beauty and this gritty, short messy haired woman, with the "no make-up" look and her drug & alcohol abused attributes is a very different character to what we would expect. It is a less than endearing character, and with an even less likeable personality, but Kidman makes Erin Bell a grounded character, who you slowly grow to understand as more of the back story is revealed to the viewer.

There is a contrast between the two timelines in terms of energy. The historical timeline being full of youthful exuberance and love, while the current day story is slow, jilted, and encompassed by rage and anger that really highlights the change that the protagonist has undergone, both physically and emotionally.

The story still feels like something is missing though. Despite the movie being focused on Erin Bell, there is so much of her childhood and upbringing that is left unknown. It's one of the aspects that makes it difficult to determine what her actions will be, and frankly, her actions often go against what would be expected of a protagonist. It's that depth of character that is really missing from the script and makes it difficult to see past the actress portraying her.

The plot itself is quite strong and emotionally heavy, which brings a certain amount of intrigue, but the switching between timelines is inconsistent and can make the story feel overly complicated and convoluted at times. Combine this with some rather extensive montages and transitions as the protagonist is on the move, and the viewer loses sight of how much time has passed, and starts to get a bit bored.

Destroyer is a drab, sluggish crime drama that works to subvert the viewer's expectations. It has a pretty by-the-numbers plot, that is mixed up with a non-linear narrative but has a twist that makes you question everything that you've seen. A slow-burner for sure, and a refreshing change of pace from Kidman.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr8176

HAPPY DEATH DAY 2U (2019)

Where Happy Death Day was released ready for Halloween in 2017, the sequel Happy Death Day 2U came out ready for Valentines Day 2019. While the release date should have no real bearing on the content of the film, it was interesting to see there was actually a shift in tone between the two films, that brings a departure from the horror genre that the first film was in.

This is a direct sequel, taking place the day after the original film (which I suppose is technically the same day that the film ended on), and includes a return of the main and supporting cast. 

Now where the original film was set as a horror slasher film with some dark comedy mixed into it, this sequel moves much further into the comedic element, and instead of focusing on the horror aspect, the film switches to a science-fiction plot, looking to explain the events that are unfolding. The added emphasis on comedy is again a great choice for the film, though, in all honesty, the hit-rate of the comedy is much lower this time around. Making use of both physical comedy, gallows humour, and some super corny content, Happy Death Day 2U keeps you entertained.

As far as the plot goes, I can't say that I'm totally on board with the shift into science-fiction. Both Happy Death Day films so far have a certain amount of suspension-of-belief, and while it works in a supernatural horror film, when you start trying to explain things with science by adding the word "quantum" to something, it starts getting harder to swallow. Science-fiction films are often designed to make you think, whether it be about ethical and moral quandaries, or opening the mind to new opportunities, but in this case, it ends up burdening the characters of the film and limiting the possibilities of the film. Once you start explaining something, you are placing restrictions on it.

If you have seen the trailer, you will know already that there is still a killer out there that needs to be found, but that plot line is quickly abandoned for the majority of the film for the sake of the sci-fi element. A good decision, as the horror was limited to a few simple, repetitive jump scares, and it did allow some very emotional character development (even if it does paint it on very thick).

Jessica Rothe is again brilliant. She really gives her all in this film and is very much the focal point every time she is on screen. It's not often you get to have recurring cast members in what was a horror franchise, and I certainly hope to see much more of Rothe in the future, evolving further and further into a badass. 

The relationship between Rothe and Broussard's characters is one of the weaker points of the film. Perhaps they try to hammer it home because of the whole Valentines Day release, but it never feels truly earned considering from the perspective of Carter (Broussard), he has only known her for a day by the start of this film; even from the perspective of Tree (Rothe), she has maybe known his for a fortnights worth of time. Not enough to warrant the level of emotional affection being fed to us here.

The film did trap itself in its own tropes providing several false endings that take away from the climax of the film. As such the third act of the film dragged on and fouled what was otherwise a rather intriguing film. The film is at its strongest when it is throwing dark humour at the audience. Rothe has impeccable timing and a great handle on physical humour which engages with the audience. While the sci-fi plot does place restrictions on the direction, it also adds another dimension to an otherwise simple premise. If you liked Happy Death Day, then you are sure to get a kick out of Happy Death Day 2U.

HAPPY DEATH DAY (2017)

Happy Death Day is an interesting flick. The trailer paints it as some sort of horror or slasher movie, but in reality, it's more a comedy than a thriller. In fact, I'm adding "comedy" to the tags for this film. Another Groundhog Day genre film (can I call it a genre?) Happy Death Day feels mixed in with Edge of Tomorrow, with the "reset" based on the death as opposed to a 24 hour period. The premise has been rather overdone in the last few years, but the film is fully aware of what it is, and it embraces it fully, even making some self-referential jokes.

Jessica Rothe plays Theresa "Tree" Gelbman who wakes up on her birthday and ends up reliving the same day over and over again as she tries to determine the identity of someone that is trying to kill her. The premise alone removes any real threat from the film, as you feel no fear for the protagonist when they are just reliving the same day over. No matter what happens they get to redo the day. That is actually one of the things you just have to let slide with the film, as our protagonist takes the long route in finding answers. The loss of a threat and any sense of danger is what makes it a purely brilliant choice to make the film more comedic. 

Happy Death Day has some fun, dark humour, and while it follows so many of the tropes, it does so in a creative manner with some spot-on comedic timing. The premise gives it the opportunity to give you every potential solution and provides hints throughout to allow the viewer their own opportunities to figure out what will break the cycle. With so many false endings, you never truly know when the film is over.

The film relies heavily on Jessica Rothe, and her performance is exceptional. She has that bratty sorority white girl attitude but her character is actually given character development, backstories, and an arc. It's clear that she didn't just phone-in her performance. She put in all the effort and the film prospers because of it. Israel Broussard does well as the male counterpart in the film but could not escape from the shadow of Rothe's performance. 

There is a certain amount of suspension of belief needed to really enjoy the film, and with so many unlikeable supporting cast members, and predictable plot points, this could easily be a bad film if you think about it too much. But the timing is really well done, and Jessica Rothe's performance is incredibly engaging for a comedy/slasher. Can't wait to check out the sequel.

BORN RACER: THE SCOTT DIXON STORY (2018)

I thought a movie about five-time IndyCar champion Scott Dixon would be interesting viewing. I do usually tend to enjoy watching origin stories or watching the underdog become the champion; even more so when it is a documentary of sorts, based on a New Zealander. But Born Racer: The Scott Dixon Story doesn't really seem to know what it wants to be.

Not so much the whole story of Scott Dixon, Born Racer follows Dixon during the 2017 IndyCar season as he attempts to rack up his fifth championship win. The piece focuses on this single season, with a few little bits of his history and upbringing added in from running basic go-karts to the professional machines he pilots now. The whole premise is practically non-existent as if they simply wanted to find a use for all the footage they have of him, but it was all over a very narrow window of his career.

The Scott Dixon story is a rather tentative look at the man. While it does provide a better scope of who he is as a person, it does not go too deep into things; again feeling like an unauthorised documentary, that only has the best side of him on display. 

What it does do reasonably well, is to highlight the importance of the team over the man. Scott Dixon's success is heavily reliant on a well functioning team, and the very significant effects of every slight delay on his position in the race are made abundantly clear. In a way, it does paint Dixon as this perfect driving machine that is held back only by his crew, but I prefer to see this team of people that have been by his side--some for over 25 years--as the reason that he has been able to succeed to the degree that he has.

There are certainly intriguing aspects of the IndyCar sport, and for someone not very well versed in motorsports, it was a surprise to see how much of a team sport it was. To see how much trust and confidence you need to have in all of the other drivers despite the fact that you are all vying for the same goal. And to see the emotional toll that IndyCar can have, humanises a very mechanical sport.

To see the love and loyalty between Dixon and his wife, knowing that he has to push all emotional connections away for every race to be able to drive on instinct; because thinking is too slow and can result in death. It takes a strong connection to work with that. To see your closest friends die and keep driving is a level of dedication you don't think about.

I really don't know what they were going for here. This is no documentary. This is no movie. There is no real direction. What we have is Scott Dixon's 2017 IndyCar highlights with some added behind-the-scenes pieces. Something that a motorsport fan would no doubt enjoy, but for someone like myself--that doesn't follow the sport and was hoping to find a thrilling, action-packed story that would teach me the ins and outs of the IndyCar sport and how Scott Dixon got to where he is--it will be lacking in substance.

DAFFODILS (2019)

Daffodils is a gorgeous film. Both heartwarming and heart-wrenching, it plays with emotion and nostalgia to create a touching, if bittersweet movie. Adapted from an award-winning stage play, Daffodils comes to the big screen with a plethora of classic kiwi tunes woven into the tapestry of the script; music from The Muttonbirds, Bic Runga, Crowded House, Th' Dudes, Dave Dobbyn, The Swingers, Chris Knox, and The Dance Exponents are all a part of this very kiwi experience. 

This is effectively a musical, but it isn't portrayed as one. Not breaking away from the plot to insert some out-of-context flash-mob dance scenes, the lyrical content of the songs are instead essentially inserted in the place of dialogue. A very intimate affair, only three of the characters take part in singing the musical numbers, Rose McIver & George Mason (who portray the young couple, Rose and Eric) and Kimbra (who plays their daughter, Maisie, in a "present day" timeline).

The story follows Maisie, who has just left her dying father's bedside to perform a show, but her mind keeps going back to the story her father had just told her, about her parent's relationship. As such, the film takes place for the most part in flashbacks, with some present-day concert excerpts to break the story up, and insert a little bit of energy, and more emotional connection. It also creates a contrast stylistically, from the lighter sun-faded shots in the past to the more vibrant shots in the present time.

And from a visual perspective, the film is strikingly charismatic. It evokes that sense of warmth and nostalgia simply from the lighting used and keeps the films moving with minimal static shots, instead, using pan and truck shots to move alongside the characters. 

The story itself can be a little frustrating, in fact, that is one of the aspects that really grounds the story and makes it feel authentic. We get to see these two characters going through several decades of life together, watching their highs and lows, but as for the latter, you can't help but want to scream at the screen as if it was a horror film and you watching the character do something obviously stupid. In Daffodils, it all comes down to communication. While the use of songs is present to explain what is going through the characters minds, it's there for the benefit of the audience and isn't necessarily an active communication between the two leads (despite some beautiful duets). 

Grounded in reality and beautifully portrayed, Daffodils is a joy to watch. McIver and Mason do a great job bringing their characters to life, and while some of the song choices may go over the heads of the younger audience members, the emotional hold that the songs hold remains nonetheless.

THE LEGO MOVIE 2: THE SECOND PART (2019)

Now the first Lego Movie was hugely successful, The Lego Batman Movie was pretty good, and The Lego Ninjago Movie was adequate. With a gradual downward trend in quality, I went into this film uncertain of what to expect. While it doesn't have the same impact that the first film did, The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part is certainly on par with The Lego Batman Movie at a minimum. 

Following on as a direct sequel to the first Lego Movie the film adds another dimension with the introduction of a new source of characters. For those that have forgotten, the entire first film was effectively a story acted out in the imagination of eight-and-a-half-year-old Finn. In this sequel, as parents do, they encourage Finn's younger sister to join in and we get an actual dimension added in the form of the "Systar" System.  

While a direct sequel, it goes through a quick timelapse with the majority of the film taking place 5 years in the future. A great decision by the writers, as this allows a shift in tone to occur with the human, Finn, growing from the happy-go-lucky eight-and-a-half-year-old, into an angsty teenager. His sister also growing up from the pre-Lego age. This allows a large quantity of relatable visual content to occur as we get to watch the various ways in which different age groups use the different Lego systems; from the simple Duplo to the added complexities of Lego and the more feminine Lego Friends. 

Watching the film you can't help but be reminded of all the scenarios, buildings, and vehicles we would create in our youth. And for those that have siblings, you will know full well the battles that will frequently occur over who gets to play with what.

While an enjoyable film, The Lego Movie 2: The Second Part isn't quite as mature as it's predecessor. There are certainly a few adult jokes that we would be glad that the kids cannot understand, but the movie as a whole has shifted more towards the younger audiences. There are still some good themes, looking a lot at not only family but at gender roles too. One thing that I can't get passed, is the nagging feeling that the end of the film was decided before the rest of the script. By this, I mean that many of the events feel like they were forcing the film in a certain direction, rather than being organic to the characters personalities. 

Screenplay writers Lord & Miller try to throw off the audience by inserting various twists, like young M. Night Shyamalans; while they do catch you off-guard and surprise you, the execution of some of them leave a lot to be desired and end up reducing the effectiveness of the climax. It is the execution that really holds the film back from reaching its full potential. There are some great jokes, but there are also some lazy jokes and others that are poorly timed and fall flat. The storyline becomes rather convoluted in the third act, which is an odd direction considering the film seeming to target younger audiences. You can see what they were aiming for, but the way in which they went for it leaves a lot to be desired.

Overall, it's a fun film. It still has great moments, engaging characters, and it brings something new to what would have become an overused premise. Some creative song and dance numbers are also included which are well written lyrically, even if they are more common in the movie than you would have otherwise expected. It doesn't reach the peaks of originality that its predecessor was known for, but it does a great job at remaining relevant, having an endearing message, and keeping the young'uns in the audience squealing in glee throughout.

WHAT MEN WANT (2019)

Simply put, I was fortunate that I was in a full theatre that had a large proportion of women present. If this was a movie that I had seen outside of that environment, I would have simply labelled this as a sub-par film and left it at that. With a runtime just shy of two hours, I literally snickered twice. Otherwise, this middle-aged male unengaged and apathetic. Clearly, I am not the target audience. 

What Men Want is a genderswapped remake of What Women Want, which was released nearly two decades ago. The film is generic in its direction and follows all of the tropes that we have seen time and time again. 

What the film really struggled with was its sense of pacing and timing. The film tries to incorporate three and a half supporting character story arcs in around the main storyline, and this leads to the excessive runtime that seems to drag on. Each storyline has minimal interaction with the other arcs, and end up feeling like you are jumping from scene to scene in an otherwise inorganic way. This is completely opposite to the way in which it approaches its style of comedy, where it sets up and telegraphs it jokes well in advance and lingers on them for far too long. The two times the film was able to elicit a verbal laugh from me were simply short off-handed comments that were practically made off-screen; throwaway lines that actually caught me off-guard, unlike the rest of it.     

The male characters were over-the-top in their behaviour in every interaction, and it left me feeling unengaged. I understand that the film is catering to a non-male audience, but there was nothing at all for men to empathise with. There were times when you start to get invested in the story, and it goes full-blown physical humour, beating the dead horse for all that it's worth, and it just pulls the viewer out of the film. Completely ignoring that this is a remake, simply put, this would have worked better as a drama than a comedy. There were some good scenes that developed the characters well, but they did not fit well with the comedic elements, in my opinion.

As far as casting goes, Aldis Hodge and Taraji P. Henson were good. I thought Hodge did a great job as a devoted father, and Henson was able to bring a great deal of emotional variation in her performance--though I much prefer her work in dramas. Tracy Morgan (30 Rock) is pretty much playing the only character he has ever played, and there are several cameos from celebrities and athletes that actually are playing themselves; such as Karl-Anthony Towns, Shaquille O'Neal, Mark Cuban, and Mark Cuban. People who wouldn't be so well known outside of the States, but are portrayed in a way that you know they are celebrities. One character I did really enjoy was Sister, an eccentric Shaman portrayed by Erykah Badu, who added some nice quippy dialogue, albeit improvised dialogue. 

The film failed to grab me, but this film wasn't aimed at my demographic. Something that was made very apparent by the consistent laughs that were had by the women in the audience. This appears to tweak their funny bones thoroughly, so I must conclude that this would be a great movie for a girls' night out. Ditch your men, have a few glasses of wine, and enjoy a very straight-forward comedy that pokes fun at the hyper-masculine boys' clubs.

Originally posted to: http://djin.nz/Kr8175

ALITA: BATTLE ANGEL (2019)

Alita: Battle Angel is based on the similarly named cyberpunk manga, Battle Angel Alita. This adaptation to the big screen has been in the works for a while with James Cameron (director of Avatar, The Terminator, Titanic, and Aliens) purchasing the rights to adapt the material twenty years ago, back in 1999. Being too busy to direct this film himself, Cameron stepped back into the producer role allowing Robert Rodriguez to take over the directors mantle. Let's just go right off the bat and say that Alita: Battle Angel is a supercharged visual experience that remains faithful to the source material.

Weta Workshop has done an astonishing job bringing this cyberpunk dystopia to life, with some gorgeous environments, realistic cyborgs, and some emotionally engaging motion capture work done with lead actress Rosa Salazar. The world building is quite thorough, creating a three-dimensional world that feels lived in. You get a sense of the varying social class distinctions and the law and order system in this world, and it feels legitimate. It isn't just a plot device, or set-piece inserted in for the sake a cool action scene. Everything seems to function well, with different systems intertwined. The technology is improving vastly, and it is getting to the point where it is difficult to determine what is real and what is CGI, and it builds that sense of wonder that the environment has.

Many of the cast do a very good job, with Christoph Waltz and Rosa Salazar building a genuine connection. While Mahershala Ali and Jennifer Connelly are high-class actors and do their roles well, the script doesn't really provide enough to justify the huge star power involved. Any other characters could have played those roles. There is a romantic interest in this film which mirrors the manga, but ultimately it felt forced and disingenuous. 

For those that haven't read the source material, they will find the narrative rather fast moving. The film chooses to incorporate several chapters of the manga into a single film and creates a tangle of storylines that end up being rushed, not reaching satisfying conclusions, instead hoping that the action scenes will distract from the convoluted story.

To the filmmakers' credit, the action scenes are very well done. Streamlined and well paced, there is a sense of speed, power, and intricacy, while still being easy to follow. Often thanks to the overuse of slow-mo shots to highlight the speed and choreography, but it is impressive nonetheless. If you have seen the trailers you will know that the film has some pretty deadly scenes, however, the film also only comes with an M rating, this means the film pulls a lot of its punches and struggles to really set a serious tone when the protagonists are meant to be in danger.

Ultimately, the film reaches too far, in my opinion. It spends a huge portion of the film supplying exposition in the form of flashbacks & scientific explanations and tries to set up the "big bad" whom we never really get to see. It falls into the trap that the DC films have fallen into where they spend too much time having to explain backstory for the plot to make sense, and then spend the rest of the film trying to set up a sequel. Focus on making a good standalone film! The ideas are all there, but the narrative is too rushed and messy, and it leaves little room for character development. Strip it back to a simple origin story that covers the first chapter of the manga. That is the part that really builds the emotional connection with the audience, and it is the part that was largely skipped over to get to the action quicker. 

The weak story does make the film less engaging, but the action scenes can certainly grab your attention. It's fun, and it never stops moving, but if you really want to have a full appreciation for the film, I would greatly encourage checking out the original manga. A lot will be repeated in the film, but you will get a fuller sense of the characters and get a development that isn't otherwise given.