SHAZAM! (2019)

"Billy Batson is a streetwise 14-year-old who can magically transform into the adult superhero Shazam simply by shouting out one word. His newfound powers soon get put to the test when he squares off against the evil Dr. Thaddeus Sivana."

Another DC film with another tone change, but the DCEU seems to be done with forcing continuity into their film franchise instead focusing on making a good film. Does it succeed though? Let's take a look.

If you have seen the trailer,  you will know that this film has a lighter tone, more in line with Suicide Squad than Batman v Superman: Dawn Of Justice, and that was a brilliant choice. They have gone all in on this, using the true age of Billy Batson to create some delightful comedic moments playing out the whole "what would you do if you were X-age fantasies"; providing an adult with the mind of a 14-year-old teenager. 

The writing, in general, is outstanding, with many jokes getting me to murmur out a laugh or two (and I am a very difficult person to please), but having most of the audience in hysterics at at least one point or another. The most important aspect of it all being that while jokes are written in quite frequently, it never comes across as cheesy or hammy (now I want a sandwich). There is a sense of subtlety to it, and it doesn't linger on it because the movie has other plans it needs to get on with, so the success of the film doesn't rely on the jokes hitting home. It's just a bonus; that's how these things need to be written.

The whole family of the cast are really well chosen. Asher Angel and Jack Dylan Grazer do a top-notch job as the duo of Billy and Freddy, and while some of their conflicts do feel unduly forced, their chemistry otherwise feels legitimate. The remainder of the family of siblings (Ian Chen, Jovan Armand, Grace Fulton, and especially Faithe Herman) all have minor roles but they really help create an authentic family vibe and prevent an otherwise sterile set. Each scene feels like a lived-in environment.

I really did enjoy the build-up and character development in the first act of the film. Care was taken to ensure that all the pieces were in place, as that connection is vital to subsequent protagonist development later in the film.

Shazam! does have a bit of a pacing issue though, not where the film feels slow, but from where the audience doesn't get a chance to take a break. There is a very strict and consistent level of plot that keeps ticking along, and you don't get a chance to think about what is going on before it jumps into the next set-piece. While it keeps you transfixed to the screen, it means the storyline does make a sharp turn and accelerate quite considerably in the second act, before a third act that almost feels like the writers were unsure how to pull the arc off. 

It has the usual DC struggle where it relies too much on CGI villains. It's one of the reasons why Batman has always done so well on the movie side of things; his scale is much smaller so the villains aren't necessarily as grand and, as a consequence, they usually have a better character development than "I am powerful". Shazam! has a mix of that, with a human villain and some CGI mini-ghost-doomsday monstrosities.

That isn't to say Mark Strong is that much better. While his character does get some development early in the film, it all gets a little one-dimensional and campy. It's as if he was stuck in Kingsman mode (or maybe that is his only acting ability, just like the one character Johnny Depp keeps playing) He is just an outright villain, whose goals don't actually intersect with the hero at all, so it feels rather out-of-place and unnecessary.

The strength of the movie comes from the foster family arc and an exceptional performance from Zachary Levi. Much like Batfleck, I was initially concerned at Zachary Levi being cast in this role, but he really fits the role perfectly, encapsulating that naivety and innocence that comes with youth. The combination of Strong's campy performance and high levels of satirical comedy gives Shazam! a similar tone to that of Aquaman meets Deadpool, so you could certainly say this is in the better half of DCEU films. 

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr8231

US (2019)

"Accompanied by her husband, son and daughter, Adelaide Wilson returns to the beachfront home where she grew up as a child. Haunted by a traumatic experience from the past, Adelaide grows increasingly concerned that something bad is going to happen. Her worst fears soon become a reality when four masked strangers descend upon the house, forcing the Wilsons into a fight for survival. When the masks come off, the family is horrified to learn that each attacker takes the appearance of one of them."

Written and directed by Jordan Peele. Us is the much-anticipated sophomore release after his runaway hit Get Out. The film stars Lupita Nyong'o, Winston Duke, Shahadi Wright Joseph, and Evan Alex as this family that confronted by a coordinated group of doppelgangers. 

What is good about this film is how balanced everything is. This isn't a family with scared, defenceless kids, or stupid, naive parents. Everyone has a modicum of common sense and is able to look after themselves to a point; there are no damsels in distress here. There is a good mix of story and horror, as well as a good comedy and thriller combination. In a way, this sense of balance does prevent the film from being absolutely amazing as each balance represent a compromise in the characteristics that make each category thrive.

The casting was brilliant, Lupita Nyong'o, in particular, putting forward a commendable emotionally unstable performance which her character required, while still showing great strength and being the voice of reason throughout. Winston Duke (both Duke and Nyong'o you may recognise from Black Panther) also shows off his acting chops in a more family man role and proved to be the source of subtle comedy in the film.

The child actors Shahadi Wright Joseph and Evan Alex were well chosen for their roles pulling off the widely variable roles of their protagonist characters as well as their opposing doppelganger antagonists, with some great action scenes.

While the film does feel a little disjointed at the beginning, it all comes full circle with an intriguing backstory that feels right out of an episode of Black Mirror or The Twilight Zone. There are certain parts towards the climax of the film that I would have loved to have not seen, as I had already predicted the outcome, but not knowing for sure creates a great sense of tension and conversation. It was a missed opportunity in my eyes to lift the film that little bit more.

The comedic elements of the film did a great job at reducing tension to give better control of the pacing, to prevent an overwhelming acceleration as the action does set in very early on in the runtime. but it does reduce the height that the suspense can reach, which could have been so much more if the comedy had been toned back a slight bit, allowing the film to bathe in the true chaotic darkness that the trailer imbibed.

The premise alone is really enough to warrant checking out the film; seeing the doppelgangers interacting with their counterparts was a fascinating watch. The cinematography was exciting, with some dark, yet rich imagery and colouration, and an intense score that really stood out. it's not at the same level as Get Out, but still has enough appeal to make a trip to the theatre worthwhile.

FIVE FEET APART (2019)

"Seventeen-year-old Stella spends most of her time in the hospital as a cystic fibrosis patient. Her life is full of routines, boundaries and self-control -- all of which get put to the test when she meets Will, an impossibly charming teen who has the same illness. There's an instant flirtation, though restrictions dictate that they must maintain a safe distance between them. As their connection intensifies, so does the temptation to throw the rules out the window and embrace that attraction."

Is it weird that Cody from The Suite Life of Zach and Cody is 26 now? Or that Moises Arias, a.k.a. Rico from Hannah Montana is 24? The only reason why I mention this is because both of them play a part in this romantic drama Five Feet Apart. That and now I feel incredibly old. There are really only two main constituents of the film to talk about; how well the romance storyline was portrayed, and how well cystic fibrosis (CF) was represented. So let's start by looking at the CF portion.

Ultimately, the film does really well to show how these teens lives are affected by CF. For those not in the know about it, CF is a life-threatening disease that damages the digestive system and lungs, cause excessive amounts of thick mucus to build-up. A lot of medication, physio, and breathing treatments are used to hold the condition at bay, where even a lung transplant can only extend their life by around 5 years.

And that is how it is represented in the film. There are no attempts made to try and make the condition cute or to mask the life-threatening nature of it. In fact, the authenticity of the disease is actually the driving factor of the film; where CF patients actually pose an extreme risk to each other and must stay six feet apart (as a guideline) to prevent the exchange of harmful bacteria. Whereas most romantic dramas will have an external source (the parents, for instance) that prevents "true love" from blooming, but in this case, the restrictions come from their own bodies and the risk of accelerating their journey towards death.

So straight off the bat, you know this is going to be an emotional film. It's about a trio of teenagers that are effectively dying, all currently living in the hospital and aren't able to hang out as teens normally do despite their shared illness. While they can't hang out together, they can be around people that aren't suffering from CF, and the film again does a great job highlighting the close relationships that these kids have with their parents and nurses, and the undeniable loneliness that they would otherwise be constantly afflicted by. So as far as the representation of CF goes, Five Feet Apart has clearly done their homework, and hopefully, this movie is popular and actually helps to bring awareness to the illness (to in turn bring some funding to help researchers in finding a cure).

As far as the romantic interest plot of the film, Hayley Lu Richardson is absolutely amazing in this role. She has all of the grace and authenticity that the role really needed to sell this. While her counterpart Cole Sprouse looks more like the generic bad boy/pretty boy that was just told to where the nose piece to fit the scene, Hayley Lu Richardson truly looks like she is living in a hospital, looks like she has to wear the nose piece 24/7, and has that great demeanour of someone that is going through a lot but determined to make it through. What a battler.

Cole Sprouse with his recent role in Riverdale will no doubt have his fans, and they will love this film regardless of his cheesy dialogue and rather blank acting skills. there are certainly some moments where he does well, but that is in the more quiet, subtle moments. Whenever it comes to big decisions or plot-turning dialogue, everything feels over-the-top and cheesy.

While a more minor role, Kimberly Hébert Gregory a.k.a. Nurse Barb is the other standout performance of the film. As a character not afflicted by CF, she is really the only person that is able to pull off any comedic elements and is able to input a balanced level of sass alongside her near-parental levels of devotion to these kids.

Stella and Will (Hayley Lu Richardson and Cole Sprouse respectively) have some great chemistry on screen. Despite the cheesy dialogue, the whole CF illness adds a new dimension to every interaction, adding danger, as well as an emotional intensity purely from being close to each other. The reason why the film is called Five Feet Apart and not six feet apart is an endearing part of the plot and watching these kids on Death's door, you want them to be able to experience love. There is great use of camera shots, with some close-ups for bringing that strong emotion to the screen, while the wide shots further accentuate the distances they need to keep.

Overall, Five Feet Apart is a by-the-numbers flick that doesn't really provide anything new to the genre, but their representation of Cystic Fibrosis in the film brings such an intense emotional strength to it that you can look past the sappy, sloppily written dialogue and still come out of the theatres impacted by it. Emotional manipulation at it's best, but it works.

DUMBO (2019)

"Struggling circus owner Max Medici enlists a former star and his two children to care for Dumbo, a baby elephant born with oversized ears. When the family discovers that the animal can fly, it soon becomes the main attraction -- bringing in huge audiences and revitalizing the run-down circus. The elephant's magical ability also draws the attention of V.A. Vandevere, an entrepreneur who wants to showcase Dumbo in his latest, larger-than-life entertainment venture."

When Disney first announced they would be doing live-action reboots of their early animation features, I was incredibly sceptical. Especially when the first one would be the animal-heavy The Jungle Book, a film that was shot entirely in a studio. In the end, however, I was thoroughly impressed with that 2016 adaptation. I just wish I could say the same thing about this Dumbo remake. 

While the CGI and visual effects are reasonably spectacular (albeit quite noticeable), the story is where the film really struggles. Surprisingly, for a film that goes on and on about instilling "wonder" in the audience, I left the theatre underwhelmed. Unlike the 1941 original which focused on the non-human characters, the 2019 edition inserts a number of additional human characters all with their own subplots, which actually takes the emphasis away from Dumbo. 

The additional plot points would be expected considering the original film was just over an hour long, and this remake clocking in just short of two hours, but a complete shift in perspective from animal to human proves too much of a distraction and sucks a lot of the emotion from the film. You still get those big impactful moments recreated from the original, but they are pushed into the start of the film in order to service the new storyline.

As far as the casting goes, you can't help but feel like Tim Burton really wanted Johnny Depp and Helena Bonham Carter to this film, but facing enough ridicule for constantly casting them, went ahead and got Michael Keaton and Eva Green involved with the distinct instructions to do their best Depp and Cart impersonations. Colin Farrell does okay, but his entire arc in the story plays out as rather unnecessary. Child actor Nico Farmer has a wooden performance with every line of dialogue spoken in the exact same tone. The only character to get a proper character arc comes from Danny DeVito's ringmaster character, and even that arc takes a while to build into anything.

Dumbo does look adorable. The tiny trunk and big glossy eyes do make you want to say "aww", but at the same time, the face and eyes lack emotional variety. Dumbo always looks on the verge of tears despite being very cute, and it makes it hard to really gauge the emotions of the little elephant (How To Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World remains the leader in expressing emotion in mute characters) 

The entire film is for some reason shrouded in darkness and shadows, and after a while, you do get a bit sick of not being able to see things properly. The lack of a significant amount of lighter clear scenes means you lose the impact of the visual effects and choreography as everything looks the same. The pink elephant scene does still manage to grab your attention though, so kudos to whoever animated that. That piece was exquisitely done.

I'm really trying to figure out what I enjoyed about the film. A couple of the children in the theatre did exclaim "wow" during a flight scene, so perhaps it still has appeal if you are below a certain age range. That being said, there are a couple of scenes that might scare a younger child too, so I'm not really sure where the line is for their target audience.

Dumbo failed to meet expectations, let alone exceed them. With no spark or sense of wonder and no emotional connection to any of the characters, there is no reason to care about the outcome for anyone. I hope that the change in perspective to human-based wasn't a financial decision (Dumbo supposedly had less than a third of the budget of The Jungle Book), as that could spell disaster for future live-action remakes. There's nothing inherently bad about Dumbo. There just isn't much from the story angle that is worth writing home about.

As a side note, there is an interesting comparison between Michael Keaton's characters company and Disney themselves, which I did find quite funny that it mocks Disney's own business practices.

MIRAGE (2018)

"A space-time continuum glitch allows Vera to save a boy's life 25 years in the past, but somehow results in the loss of her daughter and Vera must fight to get her back."

Now I love my sci-fi films as they stretch the limits beyond what is known, but not to the point of pure fantasy. In the case of many sci-fi films that try too hard, there is too often too much explanation given to the plot device and it ruins that suspension of belief, but in Mirage, that is not the case. It is a simple event that occurs during a unique electrical storm. Easy as that. Beyond that premise, the film is a straight-up drama-come-thriller. Be aware that the film is in Spanish, but there are English dubs and subtitles too depending on your preference.

The premise of the film sets up this minimal communication doorway between two characters living in two different times (November 9, 1989, and November 9, 2014) and this communication ends up having a knock-on effect on the lead protagonists life quite significantly, due to 25 years of altered decisions. And that is where the best part of this film comes about, but also one of the most annoying parts.

Working with multiple times and timelines, quite rightly the film needs to have a solid foundation, and Mirage does very well to develop that. It spends the first half an hour of the film setting up both original 1989 and 2014 timelines. The time is spent, however, not only explaining each character's traits but also points out several pivotal moments in their lives, in one of the most unsubtle foreshadowings I have seen. In the writers and directors defence, it still isn't known specifically why so many pieces of dialogue, actions, or items are significant, but it is so obvious that they will be important later.

The time spent developing these timelines is vital to understanding the film as it jumps between times quite frequently, but Mirage does exceptionally well here creating a very cohesive and consistent storyline. Continuity is a major factor in the film, and a lot of effort was put into the details. Despite the slow start to the flick, it soon picks up the pace and through the introduction of a timer of sorts, you get that extra boost of tension that keeps the viewer engaged, and frustrated with any delay or deviation.

With multiple timelines and multiple mysteries, Mirage manages to hold your attention in a largely action-less thriller. In what could be seen as a modern-day adaptation of The Butterfly Effect prepare yourself for oodles and oodles of (necessary) exposition. In fact, most of the third act turns into an active recap.

There are many aspects of the film that I could talk about and call negatives, but the film really did come off as entertaining (once you got past that first development period). I would have loved a bit more subtlety in the dialogue and behaviour of supporting characters, but there is so much to take in with this film. This is one that you may want to watch again straight afterwards, purely to focus on all of the clues that lead to the twists later on.

An above average film that manages to keep the intrigue and still throw a few twists at you, Mirage gets better each time you watch it. 

THE DIRT (2019)

This year is all about musical biopics it seems. This latest one, The Dirt, comes from Netflix and portrays the rise to fame of American glam metal band, Mötley Crüe. Honestly, I've never been a huge fan of Mötley Crüe. I don't mind some of the music, and I've seen them live, but I'm by no means a hardcore fan.

The biopic stars Douglas Booth, Iwan Rheon, Machine Gun Kelly, and Daniel Webber in the respective roles of Nikki Sixx, Mick Mars, Tommy Lee, and Vince Neil, and while their actual physical appearances aren't entirely in line with how the young rockers looked at that age, what the film does capture perfectly is the essence of what life was like for the 80's glam rock band. It's one of the things that The Dirt certainly doesn't shy away from; the amount of sex and drugs that went on. Expect to see a lot of nudity and sex, as well as a lot of drug use and alcohol abuse.

It also is one of the weaknesses of the film too, as the actual music gets put on the backburner. While one would expect The Dirt to focus on how Mötley Crüe came to be, it instead skips past a lot of the formation and practising and instead jumps straight into trying to shock the audience with the amount of sex, drugs, and violence they can throw at the screen. Effectively removing anything that would create chemistry between the four band members, and make us really care about them.

The direction of the film is perhaps the most confusing part of it. You can tell it was directed by Jeff Tremaine because it feels like we are watching an episode of Jackass. Stunt after stunt, prank after prank, the biopic spends more time fishing for reaction shots from extras than it does try to develop its main characters. It flits from event to event like a highlight reel and doesn't really slow down enough to allow the viewer to truly dwell on the repercussions of anything, because consequences are clearly not important until the latter half of the film. (I should also note that I haven't read the book that this was all based on, so who know, maybe the book is the same?)

The rear end of The Dirt is where it starts to shine more. As addictions are taking their toll, we finally get to see their behaviour resulting in negative consequences, and the film finally becomes more than a visual reminder of how many women they have boinked. But again, it still skirts through everything so fast, that you soon forget the previous events and move on.

Overall though, it was a fun biopic. Doing some research you can easily tell that events have been juggled around to try and add more emotional impact at time and to add more drama, and I can see how that would be rather confusing for those die-hard fans who know everything about the timeline of the band (there are certainly enough official and unofficial biographies going around). 

But this film doesn't seem to be made for the die-hard fans. This is made with mainstream appeal. It's light, energetic, and skims over any issues in a high-octane collection of boobs, alcohol and heroin. With such a minimal focus on the actual music, and some mediocre performance pieces (with very bad lipsyncing at times from Daniel Webber) this is just a period piece Jackass or American Pie. It doesn't really get the band chemistry right and plays down a lot of their rebellious nature to create an empty shell of a biopic.

WOMAN AT WAR (2018)

There is something about this film that captured me. Perhaps it was the beautiful landscapes and scenery, perhaps it was the strong and impassioned female lead in the form of Halldóra Geirharðsdóttir, or perhaps it is simply the fact that it actually tried to give a grounded approach to climate change as a significant aspect to the plot. Whatever it was, Woman at War is a wonderful piece.

An Icelandic foreign language film, there are subtitles for the dialogue that isn't in English, but it is very easy to read. Unlike some of the more Oriental languages that speed by in a pinch, you can read at a more relaxed pace, and still take in the majesty of the visual component.

The film follows Halla (played by Halldóra Geirharðsdóttir), a middle-aged single choir teacher who is secretly an eco-warrior on a one-woman mission; set on preventing the operation and expansion of a heavy industrial smelter.

If you have studied environmental science as I have, or simply looked into the topic at all, you will be well aware of how much damage we are doing to the Earth for the sake of economic wealth. Climate change is a contentious issue, widely debated, but this film isn't here to debate it. It is simply stating the opinion of the lead character, and showing what actions she takes as a result, to stop what she considers a horrendous activity that is endangering the quality of life for future generations.

What the film does so well, is developing the character of Halla. Whether it be what channels she lingers on when she channel surfs, her choice in transport modes, or her methods of relaxation and stress relief. The story incorporates all of these things. You aren't being fed one piece of information at a time; the story goes hand-in-hand with character development.

Visually, Women at War is stunning. With vivid and vibrant landscapes with so many different natural features on display, and does a great job showing the environments that Halla is trying to protect. Director Benedikt Erlingsson and co-writer Ólafur Egill Egilsson do a brilliant job of "showing not telling" and every scene catches your eye. There is great attention to detail, especially in set design, with other people present creating an organic lived in feel; an authenticity that tells you that these events are occurring in a real place, not on a studio set.

Such a small decision makes a huge difference from a visual standpoint; focusing on a tv screen while the protagonist wanders offscreen, to show what she cares about without her even needing to be present. The music, that fits perfectly into the story, that it is actually a part of the film to the point that you get to physically see the musicians on screen (diegetic sound), the musicians and singers interacting with the world and characters too in a very respectful 4th-wall-breaking feat. 

Thematically, the film looks at the issues of climate change, global democracy, and the power of large corporates and media outlets. There is an adoption arc that both creates a conflict of interest and cements Halla's position as a mother figure, looking to protect the children.

Such a passionate film, it creates a stir in the loins and plants the seeds of rebellion in the heart of this reviewer, who had long ago given up on creating change. Energetic, blissful, and comedic, Women at War is a must-see. 

THUNDER ROAD (2018)

This is really as Indie a film as you can get. Jim Cummings comes to the big screen in his directorial debut. But Jim Cummings is not only the director, but he is also the writer, main star, and also does the musical score and the visual effects. Based off of a short that he had written (also named Thunder Road), which was composed of a thirteen-minute one-shot take of a funeral scene that used the song Thunder Road by Bruce Springsteen.

Interestingly, the scene has been reshot for the full-length theatrical version of the story and serves as the starting point of the film, but Cummings was unable to get permission to use the song, so the performance is done bare of any music, and ends up making it much more poignant.

Photo owner: Stephanie Franzos

Marketed as a comedy-drama, I think the appeal will really depend on your mindset and experiences. The comedy is not so much slapstick over-the-top humour but instead based on cringe and awkwardness brought on by poor social skills, dyslexia, and other mental difficulties. This gives the humour a dark edge that will be polarizing for audiences. Personally, it came across as sad, not funny, and that has a strong effect on how I view the film.

Simply put, Thunder Road follows Jim Arnaud (Jim Cummings), a police officer grieving for his recently passed mother, going through a divorce, and facing a custody battle for his daughter. There is no big driving force that controls the pacing of the film. Instead, it simply follows Jim around as he slowly unravels in more and more hilarious/tragic ways. 

Photo owner: Stephanie Franzos

The cinematography is rather understated, using slow zooms and pans, alongside more active backgrounds to give the illusion of a more energetic film. The real strength of the film is in its long takes. Combine this with Cummings portrayal of his character and it almost feels like live theatre. No rapid edits from multiple cameras; a near static scene that plays through from start to finish. Where the editing does fall down, is when time passes. There are moments where time is clearly meant to have passed, but there is no clear indication of how much time has passed. All we know is that we are at some point in the future, compared to the previous screen by looking at the change in skill levels, or by what Jim is or isn't allowed to do. Little things like that can end up throwing the audience off temporarily. 

While Cummings character is a police officer, the role of the police is rather underutilised. Allowing a greater depth in the cast with some differing perspectives, it really feels more like a cohesive film during those sections of the story. I would have loved to see more of that, but it would have involved moving slightly away from a Jim-centric focus that Thunder Road currently has.

Photo owner: Stephanie Franzos

This film was not for me. While I enjoy dry, dark humour it felt more like laughing "at" someone rather than laughing "with" them, and that tells you a lot about the strength of Cummings portrayal or his protagonist. It made me uncomfortable watching this man being taken down because of things outside of his control. For those that enjoy a good indie drama, this will certainly appeal, but for that that prefer a faster pace with a more positive vibe, this is not for you.

TRIPLE FRONTIER (2019)

Another Netflix film comes in the form of Triple Frontier, and you have to be impressed with the cast that these Netflix films are able to pull together. With Oscar Isaac, Ben Affleck, Charlie Hunnam, and Pedro Pascal all being names I am well aware of, I certainly had my curiosity piqued about this drama thriller. I say drama thriller because despite how the trailer would show the film, it has pretty much given away the majority of the action in it; the rest of the film boils down to more of a survivor film than an action-packed paramilitary heist.

So the synopsis basically says that this group of ex-Special Forces men (who have been used and discarded by the US military) are going out to plan a heist so that they have something to show for their careers. But things go wrong and they end up fighting for survival. So yeah, the film has two main aspects to it, the heist and the survival. This first half is the part that your general action movie fan will love. There are some recognisable and understandable characters that are introduced; Oscar Isaac's character is introduced in the opening scene via a very exciting munitions-fuelled raid. The action scenes are slick, with some great effects and high-paced cinematography and editing. 

The latter half of the film does slow down considerably, and there is a certain point in the film where the audience can feel that things aren't right, and from that moment on the pace of the film drops off, but the tension increases tenfold.

Because this isn't an action flick. This is a drama that focuses on the variable ethical and moral compass of each character. That is the driving force of the film, but at the same time, it's the reason why the film struggles to really keep you engaged. You have a team of five protagonists who are committing a questionably justifiable act, and as you try to empathise with a character, they fall from grace, and you learn where their moral compass truly lies in the face of adversity, at it leaves you uncomfortable. No matter which character you pick, there are moments that have you questioning whether you like them or not. Without a "good" lead to consistently follow, the audience ends up being taken out of the film, so it doesn't help with immersive-ness. Perhaps Charlie Hunnam should have been the lead in the film over Oscar Isaac; a different perspective could make a hell of a difference.

Outside of the overall feel of the film, the cast is top-notch. I'm loving this post-Batman gloomy and grizzled Ben Affleck, and Oscar Isaac really pulls off the charismatic but unhinged persona. You do have to question whether such big names were necessary though. Apart from each of their introductory scenes, the protagonists have very little character development. There is an informant role that was very well done but left me wanting more. Needed either a greater role, or taken out completely as the performance felt full of significance, but ultimately had little effect.

Thematically speaking, Triple Frontier has a wealth of ideas but doesn't really go into any of them deeply. While the driving force of the film looks at the emotional cost to each character and the degradation of their own code of ethics and morals, the direction of the latter half of the film leads to the film feeling slow, yet still jumps through significant emotional events with little time to truly reflect on it. You don't get a chance to contemplate the importance of each piece of dialogue before you are thrown into another scenario and it's never really mentioned again.

The film is very streamlined though, and apart from its ability to skip over things too quickly, the lack of subtlety around each of the characters one-dimensional traits means the film is really easy to follow. You know exactly when an action is an affront to who they claim to be. It's blunt and to the point, with very little unnecessary dialogue.

The film also has a fun soundtrack. With a visual atmosphere that looks like a Vietnam war film crossed with 1987s Predator, the tracklist of songs fits in great and includes the likes of Metallica, Pantera, Bob Dylan, Creedence Clearwater Rival, and Fleetwood Mac.

With such big-name actors and such a strong start to the film, in the end, I found myself wanting more. The emotional film struck me as a different take on the usual action flick, but the actors that were chosen really don't have the emotional dexterity needed to pull this off. It felt rather sterile, cold, and overall I couldn't care less what happened to any of the characters. It entertained me, but I certainly don't think I'll ever need to see this again.

THE HOUSE THAT JACK BUILT (2018)

Lars von Trier is a rather controversial film director and screenwriter, his recent work coming in the form of The Depression Trilogy; Antichrist,  Melancholia, and Nymphomaniac. After a while, when a director gets a reputation for contention in his films and having people walk out mid-way through, you have to start questioning the justification; whether the gore, death, and mutilation being conveyed on screen actually provides context for the film content, or whether it has been put in specifically to get a reaction from the audience and drum up some free media attention.

The House That Jack Built is an arty psychological horror film, yet at the same time, it is a very mainstream film that is only slightly darker and more macabre than the Saw franchise. The film follows a serial killer (portrayed by Matt Dillon) on a 12-year killing spree during the 1970s and 80s, recounting five notable incidents during that period.

I say the film is both arty and mainstream as it seems to be to rather distinct pieces edited into one. You have a straightforward visual story, displaying the collection of Jack's trophies. This portion of the film could actually be a film on its own and would be a brilliantly shot and thought-provoking film. But it has the arty portion of the film too. A near constant dialogue, as Jack narrates his direction in life to an unknown party, discussing the life, death, icons, and art (with von Trier stroking his own ego, plastering snippets of his previous works as examples of said "high art"), always coming back to the distinction between engineering and architecture. Between the scenes of the film, these discussions are illustrated with imagery like a quickly rushed powerpoint presentation.

Matt Dillon is exceptional in his role as Jack. Every gesture and movement, every smile and word is striking. Carefully calculated, yet unhinged, with a less than ideal dose of OCD which actually ends up adding a comedic element to the film. The film starts off incredibly strong and has you hooked right from the get-go. You can actually empathise with the man as he is practically pushed down a dark path, but the film challenges the audience to see how far they are willing to follow Jack and to agree with his own justifications as he gets more and more brazen.

The House That Jack Built is absurdly dark in its content, with violence directed not only at adults but towards children and animals too, and that will largely be the polarizing element in the film. If you are used to gruesomeness and gore and can remain detached when it comes to children and animals on screen, you will have no issue with the film. It is all rather straightforward. But for those with a strong empathic core, they may struggle with the impact of such scenes.

    

From a visual perspective, it was very well shot. The cinematography has a lot of moving shots, and switches from close-ups to wider shots in a way that keeps it engaging throughout. There is a beautiful crispness to the scenes, that stands out even with a remarkably vintage set production and colour grading.

I would love to see an edit of the film with the external discussions and epilogue removed from the film. It seems very much unnecessary and reduces the effectiveness of the remainder of the film. But I enjoyed it. It had me hooked.

GRETA (2018)

This looked like a film with an interesting premise so I went into the theatre expecting something great, and well, I think every other reviewer has said the same thing; manage your expectations. I'll say again out loud for those at the back. MANAGE YOUR EXPECTATIONS.

Greta follows the lead protagonist (played by Chloe Grace Moretz) who is an innocent naive woman who has recently moved to the big city, and after finding a purse on a train and returning it, ends up caught in a thriving friendship that quickly turns toxic.

The premise of the film exists only on the idea that Frances (Chloe Grace Moretz) is so naive and new to the area that she makes so many horrendously stupid decisions. The whole film rests on Fraser doing the wrong thing. Any other person would never end up in the same situation because of common sense, and that really kills a lot of the potential suspense and tension of the film. You will find yourself groaning or yelling at the screen in frustration at many points.

The real standout performance comes from Greta (portrayed by Isabelle Huppert) who is great at playing a foreign older woman with a bit of an unhinged element to her character. Her performance is authentic enough to keep you watching, despite an unexciting plot. There are certain scenes that will quicken the heart rate and have you feeling awkward and unnerved, and it works very well with the character. At certain points, it feels like Huppert is taking influence from Michael Myers from Halloween, having very little action, but instead watching from the distance.

To put it bluntly, the plot is really boring. It doesn't provide anything new or exciting, instead, giving the viewer a very simple story that forecasts every twist long before it occurs. And while it's nice to have a chance to figure things out for ourselves, it isn't done in a subtle way. It is so in-your-face, that everyone in the theatre knows exactly what will happen, long before the protagonist knows, and it becomes a slow, meandering walk where you watch the character make bad decision after bad decision towards the place she should already be wary of.

The film feels so understated because it has so many little side-stories that end up being loose ends. There are many scenes that end up as filler, and many supporting characters that are unnecessary to drive the plot. Without any proper resolution, it leaves you feeling unsatisfied.

Everything to do with Isabelle Huppert is where the film does well. The portrayal of an overly attached and obsessive character, who turns to manipulation, deception, and stalking to try to extend a toxic relationship. In this technological era, it serves as a suitable warning to the younger ones, but it isn't really enough to justify checking out the film. Greta is mediocre. Nothing special at all.