MY OWN PRIVATE IDAHO (1991)

"In this loose adaptation of Shakespeare's "Henry IV," Mike Waters (River Phoenix) is a gay hustler afflicted with narcolepsy. Scott Favor (Keanu Reeves) is the rebellious son of a mayor. Together, the two travel from Portland, Oregon to Idaho and finally to the coast of Italy in a quest to find Mike's estranged mother. Along the way they turn tricks for money and drugs, eventually attracting the attention of a wealthy benefactor and sexual deviant."

I truly don't know what to say about this film. The concept of basing a rather directionless film around a gay hustler who falls asleep without warning in strenuous conditions, well it seems like the film would be short. But Mike (played by River Phoenix) is not alone in his endeavours and has the occasional support from fellow hustler Scott (played by Keanu Reeves).

Despite the film basing itself around Mike, he doesn't necessarily play much of an active role in the film. With his frequent bouts of narcolepsy rendering him present physically but not mentally throughout many of the activities of the film. With the film loosely adapted from a Shakespearean play, the narcolepsy plays a nice role as a scene ender and starter, allowing Mike to transport from one location and time to another without having to show the actual travel.

Unable to be forced to face any of his demons without the narcolepsy cutting in, Mike plays more of a spectator role in his own life, and as such, the film actually hinges more on the actions of Scott. Unlike Mike, who comes from a broken family and is hustling on the streets to survive, Scott comes from a wealthy family has made a choice to hustle to increase the dramatic nature of his redemption arc when he returns to the family. These opposing family situations are a source of conflict in the film, but also allow for more flexibility in paths the film can follow.  

There is a care-free nature to Scott's character, which comes about from the lack of a like-or-death living situation, and it gives his character the ability to support Mike in his search for his mother when splurging on international flights would be a no-go for the usual hustler. This aura of positivity leads to a number or romantic story arcs which--along with the ever-growing disparity in their future wealth--culminate in the eventual climax of the film.

The film moves from location to location but frequently finds itself gravitating back to a deserted highway in Idaho; back to this vast, uncompromising, and inescapable area. Watching the clouds cruise by as time passes thanks to another narcoleptic episode.

There is a lot of imagery thrown into the film with crashing barns, repetitive imagery of pink fish, and artful sexual poses, but the main appeal of the film comes from this friendship that is shared between Mike and Scott.

There is an inherent melancholic sadness to the film as well as a rebellious streak that fights back against conformity. It creates a visual spectacle of simultaneously unrestricted, yet unrequited love that will polarize its audiences but will more likely endear itself thanks to a campfire scene that manages to capture unmistakably authentic emotions. 

EYES WIDE SHUT (1999)

"After Dr Bill Hartford's (Tom Cruise) wife, Alice (Nicole Kidman), admits to having sexual fantasies about a man she met, Bill becomes obsessed with having a sexual encounter. He discovers an underground sexual group and attends one of their meetings -- and quickly discovers that he is in over his head."

What an absolute rollercoaster this was. The final film from Stanley Kubrick. While I was fully aware of 2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, and The Shining, Eyes Wide Shut was a film that I was not aware of. As a reviewer, I'm generally focused on more modern cinema, and it is taking a while to go back and check out the greats of the film industry.

I wouldn't go as far as to say that Eyes Wide Shut is hypersexualised but in respects usual cinematic content, this is highly sexualised. The entire premise revolves around the protagonist misunderstanding his wife's active sexuality. The belief that Alice (played by Nicole Kidman) is passive in her sex drive--with no sexual wants beyond that of her duty to please the man that she is married to--is the component that causes this delving into the debaucherous erotic exploration once the belief is corrupted.

The following events are where the film's events are up for contention. The protagonist, Dr Bill Harford (played by Tom Cruise), instantly comes across the temptation that his wife initially questioned him about, and from that point on, faces temptation after temptation in quick succession throughout the night. Whether spurred by bitterness and contempt or instead, searching for a similar emotional experience to what was described by his wife, Bill's character goes deep down the rabbit-hole exploring the various roles of sex; its role in power, money, coping with an emotional loss, expressing a kink, or initiating connections. 

Where the contention lies, is whether Bill is actually experiencing these events in real life, or not. With the camera often following Bill around many scenes often come across like a video game from a third person view, most characters involved having their features concealed by make-up, masks, and outfits, in otherwise dark and hazy environments. Bill plays the spectator never actually engaging in any of the erotic displays that he views, despite his supposed wants. And it plays into his sub-conscious moral and ethical codes that have been the linchpin of his life up until this night.

At its heart, Eyes Wide Shut looks at communication in relationships, how both being honest about or omitting knowledge of one's needs, wants, or fantasies can lead to contempt and disdain between partners. A fine balancing act that requires both parties to keep an open mind or suffer from collapse, some will choose to not discuss these issues and live life in a form of conscious ignorance; of eyes wide shut.

As far as the acting capabilities of our two main cast members, Nicole Kidman is the standout performance. More minor in her role, her emotional performance far outshines that of Tom Cruise, and purely by the look in her eyes, is able to convey a veritable treasure trove of emotions and feelings. Nicole Kidman has the role that anchors the film, while still managing to act as the plot device that turns the film on its head. Tom Cruise, on the other hand, is a much shallower actor and struggles to convey emotion through his facial expression; a much blander performance overall that sometimes comes across as an empty template that could allow the audience to insert themselves into his role. But much less emotionally evocative.

Eyes Wide Shut is intriguing and presents a visually stimulating concept that leaves enough unexplained to have you questioning every scene. An absolutely stunning performance from Kidman, and an eye-opening look into the consequences of sexual repression.

BOOGIE NIGHTS (1997)

"In the San Fernando Valley in 1977, teenage busboy Eddie Adams (Mark Wahlberg) gets discovered by porn director Jack Horner (Burt Reynolds), who transforms him into adult-film sensation Dirk Diggler. Brought into a supportive circle of friends, including fellow actors Amber Waves (Julianne Moore), Rollergirl (Heather Graham) and Reed Rothchild (John C. Reilly), Dirk fulfils all his ambitions, but a toxic combination of drugs and egotism threatens to take him back down."

Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson, Boogie Nights is a movie about excess and addiction, whether it be through sex, porn, or drugs. having not watched the trailer or read the synopsis, I was needless to say a little shocked at what I was watching. Following the rise and fall of fictional Eddie Adams (Mark Wahlberg) in the adult-film business under the moniker Dirk Diggler, right from the opening scenes, there is a decidedly homoerotic interaction between Wahlberg and Burt Reynolds that perfectly sets the tone of the film as we look forward to 156 minutes of hedonism and narcissism.

What truly surprised me (considering the content of the film) was the cast. An exceptionally talented cast full of stars; Mark Wahlberg, Julianne Moore, Burt Reynolds. Don Cheadle, .John C. Reilly, William H. Macy, Heather Graham, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Luis Guzmán, Thomas Jane, Robert Downey Sr., Nina Hartley (porn actress) and Alfred Molina (remember Doc Ock from Spider-Man 2). In fact, looking at the timing of the film, this would have been the role to catapult Mark Wahlberg into popularity with his acting career, having only really been known previously as the frontman for Mary Mark and the Funky Bunch.

Based on a mockumentary, which itself was based on the 1981 documentary Exhausted: John C. Holmes, The Real Story, the film doesn't just follow characters involved in the porn industry, but during the tumultuous period in the late 70s and early 80s when the porn industry tried to break into mainstream feature films; a story decision which helps to build several layers, and allows most characters to come with their own separate story arcs simultaneously in a coherent manner. 

What is really well done about the film is the refreshingly non-judgemental and unbiased narrative that it uses. Looking at the various roles in the industry, it neither demonises or glorifies anything, instead, providing a simple cause and effect narrative with minimal social context to any of it. From the porn directors that are trying to greater commodify and legitimise the industry to the pornstars that think their genitals are pure gold, to the ex-porn stars trying to make a living outside of the industry, the arcs are numerous and intertwined to keep each scene busy. Despite it being a mockumentary and what could be considered largely satirical, the topic is still given treated with respect.

Being a film about the pornographic industry, you can expect a lot of sex scenes and breasts on screen, but the cinematography is delightfully shy when it comes to the lower genitalia and more graphic sex. With creative angles or cropping just short of the money shot, instead focusing on the reactions of the other characters. That being said, be aware, there is one long gratuitous shot in the final scene)

With booze, nudity, sex, and excessive drug use, Boogie Nights is a prime metaphor for the American Dream, full of energy and chock full of extravagance and decadence, this two and a half hour long journey does have some slight pacing issues, but the subject matter can't help but keep the audience enthralled throughout. Exceptionally competent work from Paul Thomas Anderson, to balance everything as well as he did. 

THE CLEANERS (2018)

"The hidden shadow industry of digital cleaning, where the internet rids itself of what it doesn't like, such as violence, pornography and some political content."

This documentary takes a look at social media content moderators and the effects of the job on themselves and the world around them. The idea itself sounds innocent enough, but when you start looking at removing "inappropriate" content, the first questions are, what is inappropriate? who decides what is appropriate? and that leads you down a rabbit hole of moral and ethical questions towards censorship, controlled content, and corruption. 

Following a number of moderators from Manila, Philipines, we are met by workers in a company that is outsourced. These workers do not directly work for the social media platforms that they are moderating, which means there are several levels of oversight between the worker making the decision and the media platform themselves. While oversight to some means greater control, every additional layer actually reduces the level of awareness and control that you have. 

So who are the people making these decisions around whether your post is appropriate or not? These are people that live in a country that is 94% Christian. A country that is okay with media blackouts and supports a leader that has publicly said Hitler had a good idea and he wished he could execute 3 million drug users. It really begs the question whether these are the correct people to moderate content for the western world globally. Of course, they do have quality controls in place, but who stipulates those quality controls, and how are they enforced, when only 3% of all decisions are checked? When each worker may have a daily target of 25,000 images, assuming they do an 8 hour day, that gives them around a second per post to decide. That requires the decision to become instinctual, so political, and religious beliefs would be key to effecting that choice.

Ugh, I'm getting too into the questions that the documentary raises rather than talking about the documentary itself. Let's get back on track. The side that is often forgotten about content moderating is that the moderator must view it in its entirety to determine what it is. This means they are frequently the victim of having to view inappropriate content. With reporting becoming more specific nowadays it has allowed the moderators to be specialised, which could be good for quality standards, but is incredibly hazardous to the moderator themselves. Can you imagine having to watch video after video of child abuse, pornography, graphic violence and beheadings, or self-mutilation and suicides? The effect that this could have on a person's mental health is clear, but these workers often come from poverty and are contractually obligated to complete the work.

The ability to control who sees what is a very effective measure of censoring communities that have over 2 billion monthly users (that is more than the population of China). With that level of control, one can remove any sign of antigovernmental content, it can promote racism against a minority group, it can reshape public perceptions on laws, and can hide illegal operations. The power of social media comes from the number of people that have access to it, and The Cleaners does ask the question of whether enough is being done by the companies involved to prevent the promotion of racism, terrorism, child trafficking and porn.

Due to the strict confidentiality of the content, there is very little to see. Most scenes consist of emails or interviews that are done in unrelated areas, so visually there is not much to look at, which is why the documentary relies so heavily on being an engaging topic.  

The documentary itself provides a wide variety of perspectives, but with all these different sources it reduces the overall strength of the argument by convoluting their own aims and objectives; the audience is left with no conclusion as to why the documentary was made. Whether it be about the living conditions of the moderators, the ineffective mental health strategies in place, questioning who controls the content, or who has the right to control the content, or the effects on social media and advertising in promoting outrage, racism and violence. The Cleaners spreads itself thin, and with some odd pacing that almost stops dead halfway through, it doesn't go deep enough to thoroughly engage the audience. The Cleaners is all about asking questions, but provides no answers.

THE GREAT BATTLE (2018)

"In the late seventh century, Korean soldiers defend their fortress from a massive invasion."

I've always personally felt that the further back you go in history, the more honourable the wars become; when it comes to fighting hand-to-hand combat, when the range of your attack is limited to the point that you see the effect of your actions, and when you actually often get to choose whether you fight or not. It isn't so much that fighting is their job so they have to follow orders, but every person fighting believes that they are fighting on the right side.

The Great Battle is a historical fight, as in the battle actually happened. And while there are some little pieces that were added for dramatic effect, most of what is seen on screen did occur in one way or another. The film is essentially a 136-minute runtime split into four huge action sequences. As if you were watching the final battle between the Spartans and the Persians in 300, The Battle of Castle Black from Game of Thrones, and the Battle of Helms Deep from the Lord of the Rings trilogy, all combined into one film. As was the case in all of these aforementioned battles, The Great Battle is an underdog battle, with 5,000 Goguryeo fighters going up against 200,000 Tang dynasty soldiers. 

As this is a South-Korean film, it is not in English, and in all honesty, the start of the film can be a bit confusing due to both armies wearing similar coloured armour and then instantly introducing "traitors" and spies, it takes a while to figure out exactly who is on whose side if you are previously unaware of the history.

Essentially, the plot follows Sa-mul a Goguryeo fighter who is part of a battle that is lost in the opening scenes against the Tang dynasty soldiers. After escaping the battle, Sa-mul is sent to kill the leader of a Goguryeo fortress (Ansi fortress) because they did not join the battle and are blamed for the loss. While Sa-mul is at the fortress, the Tang dynasty soldiers made their way to Ansi and lay siege upon it for the remaining 100 minutes of the film, shifting focus away from Sa-mul, and instead onto Yang Man-chun the Ansi commander.

While the initial set-up of the film was slightly confusing, the large presence of battles in the film means there is actually very little dialogue to worry about and you can enjoy the extraordinary visual spectacle on screen. War is a language that every person can understand. The film effectively has only half an hour to develop the characters and with the presence of these traitor and spy arcs, there is a lot less developed than I would have liked. Most characters only get one or two scenes before the battle begins, and it doesn't leave much room for emotional investment in these characters.

What is really well portrayed though is the complete trust and love that the Ansi people had for their commander, who was also a central character in all of their lives. Creating a city that the people within were willing to fight to protect, to their very last breath. The courage, bravery, loyalty, and strength of these people is the biggest take away from the film.

Splitting the battle Ansi battles into three parts helps to stave off battle fatigue when you have effectively 100 minutes of fighting, with each part focused on certain attempts to bring the fortress down. The direction is very well done as the film expertly switches from control to chaos, and back to control as the Ansi commander tries to determine counters against such an overwhelming enemy. The tactics in play are very well written and choreographed, and while they sometimes feel overly dramatic, were actually used in the battle. Yang Man-chun was truly a brilliant tactician.

While I have read other reviews that complain of battle fatigue, it was not an issue for me. I was enthralled throughout the entire battle and felt myself holding my breath at several points as the tension rose and the battle swung against our team of protagonists. I love a great epic battle, and this one holds so much more power knowing that it is actually a historical battle, not something based on fantasy. The costumes and set designs are incredible, with great attention to detail, and the battle scenes are absolutely glorious.

Do watch this film. Revel in the tactics, root for the underdogs, and make sure you see it on the biggest screen that you can so you can be amazed by the details in every slow-motion action shot. The lack of thorough character development does hold the film back, but that still makes this a brilliant popcorn flick. 

AVENGERS: ENDGAME (2019)

"Adrift in space with no food or water, Tony Stark sends a message to Pepper Potts as his oxygen supply starts to dwindle. Meanwhile, the remaining Avengers -- Thor, Black Widow, Captain America and Bruce Banner -- must figure out a way to bring back their vanquished allies for an epic showdown with Thanos -- the evil demigod who decimated the planet and the universe."

This is it. Directed by the Russo Brothers, Avengers: Endgame is the culmination of 22 films across eleven years. With the expectation of winding up any loose ends from any remaining storylines, as well as trying to provide meaningful roles for every character, this was always going to need to be a carefully orchestrated film. They do it so well; even with all of the constant hype and fan theories bounding around, they manage to throw in more than a few absolute surprises.

I hate when a trailer gives away the entire plot of a film, and Marvel's marketing department did a brilliant job, only using scenes from the first 20 or so minutes of the film to promote it. While for many films that would still be a large portion of the content, Endgame is just over three hours long, so there is so much that has been successfully been kept under wraps.

Despite the marathon runtime, Endgame is surprisingly well paced. The first act is a bit slower, but considering how Infinity War ended, it's really necessary if you want the films to be consistent. The slower patch isn't a bore though as it brings in so much character development, and then boosts the comparative energy of the following acts.

Consistency is something that we have come to expect from Marvel's Cinematic Universe, and I'm pleased to say that the Russo Brothers provide the payoffs that we were expecting and so many more that we weren't. If you have been rewatching the previous 21 MCU films, you will have an even greater appreciation for the amount of fan service that has been cohesively added into the script. I would say that there are so many easter eggs and references in this film, but what becomes abundantly clear, is that this is not referencing other films. The entire MCU is a single cinematic piece, and each little nod is actually further character development. 

While Infinity War was more action-oriented, Endgame focuses more on the emotional impacts and using the traumatic loss to really bring the humanity back to these heroes. We are constantly reminded that our heroes are fallible, and knowing that this is the big finale of the story arc, it means that any character could find their head on the chopping block. No one is safe, and that sense of hopelessness really feeds into the tension and suspense.

It all feeds into the third act, and what an act. The scale of the visual effects and the extent of the choreography is indescribable. Practically every present character is given an opportunity to shine, and the female representation is definitely up a notch with both sexes kicking ass. With so many characters and story arcs, mingling together, the film does struggle to maintain its footing in the final act, and the breadth and scale of the scenes lead to many impactful scenes getting skipped over very quickly. 

As far as specific characters go, Hawkeye finally gets his dues. It may have taken four appearances to get here, but his arc has such emotional strength to it, and it hooks you right in. Captain Marvel is also a much better-balanced hero in Endgame. While her OP status doesn't get nerfed, we finally get to see limitations. Iron Man and Captain America have some incredibly emotionally provocative story arcs, but I won't go into it as I wish to avoid spoilers. 

A great companion-piece to Infinity War, Endgame is much more focused on the Avengers side of things, with an almost grounded first half that harks back to the earlier MCU films. The dark tone is balanced with regular bouts of comedy (Chris Hemsworth manages to find yet another dimension to Thor's character), and it holds your attention throughout. There's no time for a toilet break, and you'll find yourself shushing any whisperers or talkers in the cinema as you scramble to take in every line of dialogue. The scope of the film is huge, emotions run high (there is a high probability people will be chopping onions in the theatre, so bring some tissues), and the payoff is incredibly satisfying.

ONLY FOR ONE NIGHT (2016)

"A married woman (Karrueche Tran) with a perfect life deals with betrayal when her sister drugs her husband and sleeps with him."

Netflix has really dropped the ball with this one. Only For One Night (or Only 4 One Night according to the movie poster) is a 2016 film that is back on Netflix's roster for reasons unknown, and this was one of the slowest, most unoriginal thrillers I've ever seen.

If you have ever seen the 1987 film Fatal Attraction, starring Glen Close and Michael Douglas, or the 2009 film Obsessed, starring Idris Elba and Beyoncé, then you need not bother with Only For One Night. Practically, a toned down version of the former, and a poorly acted carbon-copy of the latter, there are no redeeming factors to this film, beyond having some eye-candy what whatever gender you are into.

The characters lives are too perfect. There is no level of conflict at all between the protagonist (played by Brian White) and his wife (played by Karrueche Tran). It feels like they have been going out for maybe a few days and still deep in the honeymoon phase. It doesn't feel like a relationship that has lasted years. In fact, their in-your-face, over-the-top displays of affection are so irritating that you find yourself hoping that something happens to them because it's just not real. It was like watching two kids saying "no you hang up" on the phone to each other over and over for half an hour despite standing only a metre apart.

The main characters were entirely unlikeable. Initially, you feel for White's character but his actions the next day negate this and you just feel like everyone deserves what they get. The only characters that you feel any empathy for are the wife (who has some shocking line delivery, so luckily her role was minimal) and the son (played by Jarell Houston Jr.), who was probably actually one of the best parts of the film; the opening scene with the juice and cereal was the most endearing and authentic parts of the whole film.

Credit to the sister-in-law (portrayed by Angelique Pereira) as she did a reasonable job at expressing that unhinged, menacing look of obsession, creating a feeling of unease. But she could not fix a poorly written script.

The film lacks so many things. It lacks likeable characters. It lacks good actors. It lacks convincing dialogue. It lacks any form of tension outside of the last 10 minutes of the film. So Only For One Night ends up more of a drama than a thriller, and it failed to keep my attention. As far as a film available to stream on-demand, I found myself pausing on multiple occasions to go do something else because there was nothing gripping me. I had nothing invested with these characters. Not something I would waste time on. Just watch Fatal Attraction. Or if the ethnicity of the characters matters at all, then watch Obsessed.

THE BIG SHORT (2015)

"In 2008, Wall Street guru Michael Burry realizes that a number of subprime home loans are in danger of defaulting. Burry bets against the housing market by throwing more than $1 billion of his investors' money into credit default swaps. His actions attract the attention of banker Jared Vennett (Ryan Gosling), hedge-fund specialist Mark Baum (Steve Carell) and other greedy opportunists. Together, these men make a fortune by taking full advantage of the impending economic collapse in America."

I saw a competition to win a double pass to an advanced screening for this film, but I passed on it. I then received an email specifically asking if I would like to go to the screening, but I was still hesitant. A financial film, starring an eclectic mix of male actors, it didn't catch my interest. But with free tickets available, and free time on my hands, I agreed to attend, and looking back on it, I'm glad I made that decision.

This is indeed a film based on a book about the global financial crisis of 2007-08, and it will spend time explaining to you the different aspects of it; credit default swaps, collateralized debt obligations etc. It sounds horrifically boring, but this film is well done. Directed by Adam McKay (the writer of Anchorman), his influences are ever-present in this biographical comedy-drama. That's right, comedy.

To make the content easier to understand, we are fed a mixture of narrators, actors breaking the fourth wall, and some eye-catching cameos from celebrities to help put difficult concepts into easy to understand terms. The fact that the film is based around someone creating something and having to convince people to help him achieve it, lends itself to a wide variety of explanations. That being said the over-explaining gets a multitude of responses too; sometimes it provides welcome comic relief, often rightly explains a complicated expression, but there are also times that it can come across patronizing and unwelcome.

In all honesty, I was a little uncertain at the start of the film. When I saw some shaky cam and documentary style footage, I thought my earlier hesitance may have been on the right track, but I soon became fully engaged in the film. Each main character had his own specific style of camera shot, which helped to separate the storylines and prevent confusion when switching focus between characters. But most importantly, I learned something with this film. I left that theatre with a greater understanding of what happened to cause the global financial crisis (and it had nothing to do with any possible causes that I had originally thought may have been to blame). I came out of the theatre understanding the hate that was directed towards the bankers and banks. I came out understanding the effects that it had on the United States (New Zealand was obviously affected to a much lesser extent).

I thoroughly enjoyed this film. when it ended, I was disappointed. I wanted it to continue on, and tell me what happened next. I was left with so many unanswered questions of "what next?". The actors performed well. Steve Carell was probably the actor that closely resembled his past work. Christian Bale, however, showed none of his action-era work, instead successfully pulling off a socially awkward outsider with a visual impairment. Brad Pitt manages to provide a stellar performance in a supporting role, not stealing the limelight. 

While well explained, The Big Short requires a mature mind to understand, but I greatly recommend anybody from teen-age upwards to view this film. I would recommend purchasing this when released on DVD, but heck, now you can just stream it on Netflix!

Originally posted to: http://djin.nz/Kr6855

ALIEN WARFARE (2019)

"A Navy SEAL team is sent in to investigate the disappearance of several scientists at a remote outpost."

I wasn't expecting something quite this poor quality from a film in Netflix's roster. While many of the recent additions have been bland, they had high production values. Neither can really be said for this film. Alien Warfare is perhaps on par with The Predator. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if this isn't another Mockumentary for the Predator franchise because that is pretty much what this plot is.

From the flashback in one of the opening scenes of the film, the audience is instantly communicated the budget level of this film, and it is incredibly low; poorly recreated recoils and bad CGI blood look flat and uninspired. What isn't quite so apparent is whether the film is intended as a parody or not. This is definitely deep into the B-movie category, but the effort with which the actors are visibly trying to perform, and the rather generic story do leave uncertainty as to how serious the film is trying to be.

The low budget of the film is also shown through its minimal cast. Outside of its main four protagonists (the Navy SEAL team), the only other major character comes from Isabella (played by Larissa Andrade). Andrade is absolutely stunning in appearance but fills the role of the soil scientist that also understands the lockdown sequences of the lab, as well as mathematical analysis of alien cryptography. Effectively, she is the human-shaped plot device that can spout exposition and do anything that is needed to drive the story forward. When you already have a team of four protagonists, you'd think you could share the technical abilities and skills between them, but alas the SEAL team are left as the usual one-dimensional characters that only know how to shoot a gun.

While it has been done so many times before, the premise is still actually quite reasonable, and they do tease some story arcs that could lead to character development. Unfortunately, the script writing is downright laughable. Literally. The dialogue in this film is so cringey in places that you can't help but laugh-out-loud and it is one of the unintentionally good things about the film. 

The antagonists come in the form of a team of Predator-like creatures, but the props are so badly done that it is really confusing why the entire thing was shot in blatant daylight. Shooting in twilight or dusk can add tension and suspense, but with so much light, every piece of poor acting and every cheap prop is very obvious to even the untrained eye. I guess that comes down to the budget yet again, as a joke about insertion at daytime is slotted into the script.

As far as the SEAL team go, Daniel Washington and Scott C. Roe actually do pretty well as Jonesy and Thorpe respectively, and they have some reasonable chemistry on screen. But the leads Mike and Chris (Clayton Snyder and David Meadows) lack any form of emotional performance.

Alien Warfare has a childishness to it that makes the antagonists feel like a villain from a Power Rangers episode. A cheap Predator rip-off with static cinematography that offers no likeable characters and no satisfactory resolution. The story is resolved, but it happens in a way that feels like the writers had no idea how to end it. This isn't really a movie I can recommend unless you want a film to laugh at while entertaining some friends.

THE AFTERMATH (2019)

"In 1946 Rachael Morgan arrives in the ruins of Hamburg to be reunited with her husband, Lewis, who is a British colonel charged with rebuilding the shattered city. As they set off for their new home, Rachael is stunned to discover that Lewis has made an unexpected decision: They will be sharing the grand house with its previous owners, a German widower and his troubled daughter. In this charged atmosphere, enmity and grief give way to passion and betrayal."

Keira Knightley has already impressed me this year with one of my favourite films of the year so far, Colette. So when I came out of the theatre after that film and spotted the poster for this film, it was instantly in my list of movies to check out as soon as possible. Luckily for me, the local cinema was doing a sneak peek for the long Easter weekend, so I got to check out The Aftermath early as it doesn't officially release for two more weeks (May 2nd). What I saw this time around, however, left me feeling underwhelmed.

The film follows two families (one British and one German) that are sharing a house in war-torn Hamburg mere months after the end of World War II. All entities involved, both families and the city itself, have all suffered extreme losses and leads to what should be some severe tension between all parties. Loss is the driving factor of tension and drama in the film, but for some reason, the script didn't feel it was necessary to fully develop these portions of the story.

More emphasis needed to be made on the relationship between Keira Knightley and Jason Clarke's characters, as their relationship is the crux of the film. Instead, so little time is spent developing the family situation that the budding romantic angle gathers no sympathy from the audience. You are left feeling sympathy for the absent party because their role was not fleshed out enough to make him out as the wedge in the initial relationship. It touches on their reasonings and justifications but fails to delve into anything that could take away from the surface-level romantic affair.

The Aftermath is a simple, clichéd, romantic drama. It follows all the usual beats which make the film incredibly predictable. There were a few attempts to widen the scope of the film, but those additional arcs end up going nowhere (the role of the German daughter is largely redundant). There is no depth to the characters and minimal development throughout the film. While Jason Clarke does warm into his role by the third act and provides a backstory that you can engage with and understand, Alexander Skarsgård's role in the film is nothing but eye-candy. 

Yet Skarsgård is not the worst performance. Knightley, unfortunately, takes that mantle of dishonour jumping from one extreme to the other coming across more bi-polar than anything else. With the film running only 108 minutes, perhaps some scenes were left on the editing room floor, but in the end, Knightley's performance feels rushed and lacks any sense of authenticity (despite the fact that her role is quite similar to that in Colette). This isn't helped by inconsistent pacing in the film which doesn't adequately communicate how much time has passed in the film; it could be years, it could be months, or it could just be 10 days. It's rather hard to gauge.

On the upside, the film has good production values and some really cinematic shots that take place in the city of Hamburg. The location shooting and great outfits and vehicles all come together to create a setting that feels right out of the wars. An accurate aesthetic is not enough to save this film, however, and the uninteresting story that avoids delving into any deep emotional wells leaves The Aftermath feeling empty and inconsequential. 

THE BASEMENT (2017)

"A Los Angeles serial killer kidnaps a famous musician and drags him to a dungeon-like basement."

Yesterday, I reviewed The Silence, which while it was in production during the same time as A Quiet Place, was released a fair time afterwards. In general terms, that would categorise The Silence as a Mockumentary; a low-budget film that exploits another major motion picture by using a similar concept or similar subject matter (other examples would be San Andreas and San Andreas Quake, or Hercules and The Legend of Hercules; both of which had a big Hollywood film starring Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson, and a cheaper copycat film released at the same time to trick viewers into seeing it thinking it's the former films).

The Basement could very well be another Mockbuster. With the recent conclusion of M. Night Shyamalan's Unbreakable trilogy, The Basement puts forward a trailer that brings up a plot that highly borrows from the second film of that trilogy, Split.  

This film has been created on a very small budget. Almost shot completely within a single room, and consisting of pretty much only three characters, the film feels along the same vein as the original Saw film, though the actual content feels more of an amalgamation of Split and Hostel, with a supposed emphasis on a character with multiple personalities, and some torture porn and gore thrown in for good measure.

I say "supposed emphasis" because if I hadn't seen the trailer, I would not have known that one of the characters had multiple personalities. For sure, the character did portray multiple roles (actor Jackson David does deserve credit for a very good set of performances there), the script was missing that depth that properly conveyed that component of his character. There was no sense of conflict between the different roles, no mentioning of the other characters or memory gaps. It just didn't feel genuine.

Also, his victim (played by Cayleb Long), while he did have a rather realistic performance as to how we would expect a real person to respond to the situation, he received little character development. Combine this with the fact that one of the first things we see him do is deceitful, the audience can't trust his actions at all, so his words mean nothing. You don't find yourself on his side because you have no idea where he truly stands

With a low budget and minimal sets, The Basement consists mostly of two characters in a room sitting in chairs talking to each other. The only way that the film will succeed is with a really strong script and story backing it up. The Basement does not have that. There is no sense of direction and as the audience approach the end of the film, you really start to question what the point of the film is. 

A lot comes down to Mischa Barton's character, which is foreshadowed quite clearly by her face taking up half of the DVD movie poster, and her name the only name worth mentioning on said poster. Her role is alluded to as being very significant to the film, but she takes up maybe 5 minutes of screentime in total for the film. 

The only feature of the film that garners any form of reaction is the twist, which is slightly predictable but will still come across as a shock to the majority of the audience. Unfortunately, the film spends further time on it ensuring that every single person watching is aware of what the twist was, even the 5-year-old that logged in to someone else's Netflix profile. The movie treats its audience like uneducated idiots and provides no depth or intrigue to its dialogue.

If you just want to watch some torture porn like in Hostel, there a couple of reasonably done scenes that may interest you. If you are an immature young adult that wants to see a boob, there's one in the opening scene. If you want a compelling performance with a script that keeps you guessing, well you better keep on looking. The Basement offers nothing that you couldn't get anywhere else.