LITTLE WOODS (2018)

In North Dakota, two estranged sisters are driven to extremes when their mother dies, leaving them with one week to pay back her mortgage.

I've watched this film twice already because I really don't know what to make of it. Little Woods is the directorial debut from Nia DaCosta, starring Lily James and Tessa Thompson, and yet it is one of the most understated films I've watched this year.

Understated seems to the direction chosen for the film though. Little Woods provides social commentary on the effects of the US healthcare system. The system that is well known to focus not on making its people healthy, but to make as much money as possible at whatever the cost to society. The often unseen consequences of a workforce that has to work every day or they lose their jobs and their houses. A class of people that can afford neither health insurance nor the full cost of medical procedures. A people that are pushed towards drug dealers, back-alley deals, and illegal border crossings to get the healthcare they need.

That is what is on display here; two sisters who have had a bad decision or bad luck put them in a position that they have no legal way out of. The cinematography and direction lack glamour, but it fits the theme of the film, with its protagonists struggling with poverty and battling their demons. The camera chooses to spend time lingers on their faces as they struggle to wrap their head around every new obstacle thrown in front of them. 

Lily James and Tessa Thompson do a great job and really drive home that intensity that siblings have. That yearning for independence, that love for each other conflicting with the irritation and frustration that they also feel at each other's actions. 

The set design is well done giving that feeling of squalor as we slum it with the lower classes, and in the end, it all comes together to help humanize a subset of the US population that are invisible to the middle and upper classes. 

Despite all this, when the movie ended, I didn't feel satisfied. It progressively built itself up to a climax that didn't pay off. It certainly subverts your expectations, but there is very little to smile at, as the struggle continues on. The film felt almost in denial of its own ending, and will no doubt leave the audience feeling dubious about its downplayed conclusion.

YESTERDAY (2019)

Jack Malik is a struggling singer-songwriter in an English seaside town whose dreams of fame are rapidly fading, despite the fierce devotion and support of his childhood best friend, Ellie. After a freak bus accident during a mysterious global blackout, Jack wakes up to discover that The Beatles have never existed. Performing songs by the greatest band in history to a world that has never heard them, Jack becomes an overnight sensation with a little help from his agent.

The core premise of this film is intriguing. The idea of waking up and nobody has heard of The Beatles? It raises so many questions. What happened to the band members? How does this affect how the music industry evolved? So many questions and unfortunately Yesterday doesn't really answer many of them.

The main issue that I had with the film itself is how misleading the trailer is. The trailer gives you the impression that this premise of Jack Malik making a music career from The Beatles songs is the major storyline of the film. But that is not the case. The screenplay for Yesterday is written by Richard Curtis--known for the likes of Bridget Jones's Diary, Notting Hill, and Love Actually--so it is rather understandable that the romance portion of the film is where the focus of the film is. It is just a pity that the trailer went with the direction that it did, as it falsely represents the film, and many of the extra people it will bring into the theatres to see it, may be disappointed by the turn the film takes in the second and third act.

That first act, however, was exactly what the trailer promised. A delightfully charming story with a good helping of comedy to help move it along. A lot of the film rests on the shoulders of Lily James and Himesh Patel whole will-they-wont-they relationship is something that is incredibly relatable to the audience. Lily James is an absolute treasure to watch onscreen. Admittedly, her character has very little role in the film after the first act, despite her getting a lot of screentime, but she is able to convey so much emotion that it feels genuine and pulls you in. Every time you see her smile, you want to smile along with her. 

If you are a fan of The Beatles, there's certainly a fair amount to enjoy about this film. While this is not a musical by any definition, the iconic music is a big part of the film, and Himesh Patel does a great job performing modern iterations of around 20 different Beatles' tracks.

The event that removes The Beatles from history does come with other consequences and they are a good source of comedy. Surprisingly, despite how often that specific source of comedy is used it manages to remain quite fresh, only diminishing slightly towards the end of the film.

If you are a big Danny Boyle fan, there isn't much to really here to catch your interest. There is no boundary-pushing direction here. Everything is very by-the-books, and while it looks nice it is neither experimental or exciting. This is no Trainspotting. 

Ed Sheeran has a reasonable cameo in the film and you do have to give him props for his role. He takes the self-deprecating humour in the film incredibly well and proves to be a welcome addition to the film's cast. 

Yesterday is a fun flick that uses the premise in the trailer to fuel a romantic comedy for the latter two acts. A great first act that loses pace for the remainder of the film, Yesterday averages out to a mediocre rom-com that only works because of an incredibly endearing performance from Lily James, and the genuine chemistry between James and Patel. 

This will no doubt appeal to any Beatles fans or rom-com fans. Outside of that, Yesterday will leave a lot to be desired. 

SOMETIMES ALWAYS NEVER (2018)

A man searches tirelessly for his missing son who he has not seen in years. When a body is located, the entire family's life is turned upside-down and they must all learn how to reconnect with one another.

Directed by Carl Hunter and starring Bill Nighy, Sometimes Always Never is an eccentric comedy-drama. The title, interestingly enough, refers to how one buttons a three-button suit jacket; sometimes the top button, always the middle, never the bottom. It may seem like an odd choice for the title, but suits and scrabble are the two main recurring visual aspects of the film.

The comedy isn't the sort to have you on the floor laughing, and it certainly isn't physical nor toilet humour. Sometimes Always Never works because of the stilted disconnected use of dialogue. A feature that reminds me of a Wes Anderson film (along with the general symmetry of the cinematography). The odd sense of timing and lingering lends itself well towards the creation of awkward scenarios, and it straddles that line between unsettling and tedious masterfully.

Bill Nighy's performance brings a surprising amount of levity and positivity to a script that has a fair amount of heavy content within it. The is helped by the visual style, which is beautifully vibrant and almost feels like stop-motion animation at times (specifically during car scenes). This visual style is admittedly rather inconsistent and is replaced by the more conventional style towards the latter end of the film.

The film has two main story elements--both revolving around Bill Nighy's character--looking at his obsession with Scrabble and other such word games, and the search for his lost son. These are of course, largely metaphors for a conversation about second best; the substitute that isn't as good as something else; the theme of making do and appreciating what we have. It is a theme that is constantly referred to.

The tone of the film does evolve over the runtime and takes on a thriller feel at times as they search for their missing family member, but the film is at its strength in the family home, with Nighy's quirky mannerisms serving to be almost endearing. 

Sometimes Always Never is a very subdued story. A journey of little steps and miscommunication that has the audience considering how they would cope with a similar loss. Quirky and awkward, against all odds, Sometimes Always Never is lovingly charming. 

MURDER MYSTERY (2019)

A New York cop and his wife go on a European vacation to reinvigorate the spark in their marriage. A chance encounter leads to them being framed for the murder of an elderly billionaire.

I'm sure we all get the same feeling when we hear about a new Adam Sandler film. It's known, without a doubt, that the quality of his career has long since peaked, but he has done well enough to that he can make films, cast his friends, and travel the world, bringing back a modest profit. Frankly, I would do the same if I could. But as the profits of the film rely heavily on fans of his early films still hoping for a comeback to something good, here I am watching it too to let you all know whether it is really worth it.

His last few films have been less than critical successes (The Week Of, Sandy Wexler, The Ridiculous 6, and Pixels have scores of 27%, 27%, 0%, and 16% on Rotten Tomatoes respectively) but Murder Mystery brings a surprise increase in quality. 

Murder Mystery is as advertised, a murder mystery. It comes across as a satirical look at the genre of whodunit detective stories; a live-action Cluedo, if you will. While the genre is full of clichés (and this movie is too) one of the biggest appeals of all, is Sandler's toned down humour. He certainly still raises his voice and yells at times, but it is all a measured part of his traits and comes across as exasperation of the character, not yelling for the sake of cheap laughs. This greater control provides a much more anchored performance that helps draw you in.

The other aspect that really makes the film work as well as it does, is also in the casting; Jennifer Aniston. We last saw Aniston and Sandler onscreen together in 2011's Just Go With It, and it's clear that there is some great chemistry between the two. Once you gain a handle on their personalities, it's really easy to see the two as a bickering husband and wife combo. Their to-and-fro's on-screen really make this high-profile international murder mystery seem relatable.

Beyond those two, however, the supporting cast were rather underutilised. It worked in some respects but ultimately failed to make them anything beyond one-dimensional. In the one sense, it helped as it meant that all of the suspects were pretty much unknown entities; no sense of history or backstory increases the potential options for a killer. On the other hand, the writing was a little bit lazy. A good writer will leave a hint, and then, later on, provide a payoff to that hint. Murder Mystery has a tendency to provide a hint just before the payoff, which greatly diminishes the payoff. Instead of connecting the established dots, they keep creating new dots in order to serve the direction of the story. 

That isn't in every case though, and there is still an easygoing sense of enjoyment as you work your way through the film, coming up with your own hypotheses and reasoning to who the killer would be, and then adjusting as new information came to light. This was where the bickering couple turned into the odd couple, buddy cop duo that keeps tensions high, while still maintaining a positive and humorous atmosphere throughout.

The production values were surprisingly high for a low budget Netflix Adam Sandler film, with some gorgeous environments and slick set designs, but it couldn't make up for what became a convoluted and rushed mess of a climax. Everything had held a good pace, but then fell apart and rushed itself, devolving back into other recent Adam Sandler movies.

Murder Mystery is a fun, light-action whodunit. Enjoyment comes from the great chemistry of the two main protagonists, but it does fall apart towards the end a bit. Regardless, this is definitely one of Sandler's best in the last decade.

THE SECRET LIFE OF PETS 2 (2019)

Max the terrier must cope with some major life changes when his owner gets married and has a baby. When the family takes a trip to the countryside, nervous Max has numerous run-ins with canine-intolerant cows, hostile foxes and a scary turkey. Luckily for Max, he soon catches a break when he meets Rooster, a gruff farm dog who tries to cure the lovable pooch of his neuroses.

The Secret Life of Pets 2 follows on from its predecessor with many returning characters and cast. One big difference is the removal of Louis C.K. from the main role of Max (likely due to the #MeToo controversies from last year), with Max now being voiced by Patton Oswalt. While there are certainly some difference in their voices, Oswalt does a great job of bringing the right energy to Max's character.

I enjoyed the trailer for this one, but I had to try lower my expectations, The first film had the same effect where I absolutely loved the trailer, but it only covered the first couple minutes of the film before drastically changing direction and tone. The same can be said for The Secret Life of Pets 2. The trailer again comes across like a serious of little funny skits, which we see at the start of the film, but the majority of the film itself is a departure from that, transitioning from comical, into an action adventure. This time around, the balance is a lot better.

The film has three different storylines going on simultaneously (Max, Snowball, and Gidget), which can make the film feel a little bit all over the place, but they do eventually start to intertwine towards the main climax of the film. There is a serious story, a comedic story, and a fantastical story, which is what helps the film feel more balanced. While the stories vary in length and pace, there is a great deal of creativity and comedic timing, which keeps it feeling fresh.

The animation style is great. Really fun proportions and shapes, with some beautifully rendered fur and movements. Illumination isn't really known for its brilliant plots. Everything is simply designed to appeal to kids, and they will overuse every franchise until it stops making money (remember when Minions were everywhere?), but we do actually get a reasonable story around Max's anxiety as he struggles with ensuring the safety of his human. It's a fear and anxiety that many people feel towards different people and things, though it could have had a better-developed conclusion; it is still heavily influenced by that "harden up" mentality brought on by generations of entrenched toxic masculinity.

Standout performances come from Jenny Slate's Gidget, who manages to bring in the vast majority of the laughs in the film, and Harrison Ford's Rooster (yes, it's a dog called Rooster...) whose performance grounds the film around all of the other fantastical events going on. 

It's still not a brilliant film, but it's a step up from its predecessor. More importantly, it will easily occupy the little ones.

TOY STORY 4 (2019)

Woody, Buzz Lightyear and the rest of the gang embark on a road trip with Bonnie and a new toy named Forky. The adventurous journey turns into an unexpected reunion as Woody's slight detour leads him to his long-lost friend Bo Peep. As Woody and Bo discuss the old days, they soon start to realize that they're worlds apart when it comes to what they want from life as a toy.

As I'm sure was the case with many of you, I had a lot of hesitation about this film. Toy Story 3 felt like the perfect end to the three-story arc that the characters had completed, ending the franchise on an unexpected high note. It's really rare to have a franchise that wasn't taken advantage of and eventually ruined through poor execution. Just look at what has become of Star Wars and Indiana Jones. So I definitely felt uncertainty going in as I didn't want the respect I had for these films to be ruined by Disney's greed.

There was also the concern of the time that has passed between the films. Who the film would be targeting was unclear; the franchise started 24 years ago, and most kids that would be watching this new iteration wouldn't have been around then (in fact, many wouldn't have been around 9 years ago when Toy Story 3 was released), which makes it feel like the film would have more appeal to the nostalgic adults than the kids. Getting that balance of mature content in a children's film would be the big factor on whether the film does well or not.

Toy Story 4 does not disappoint.

There is always that risk--especially with the fourth film in a franchise--that the writers will fall into the same tropes and clichés, and for the first few scenes it does feel a bit familiar. It feels like it will be a retelling of the usual "getting old and being forgotten" fears of the toys that we have seen before, but then it changes direction and gets much deeper. Toy Story 4 goes way down the rabbit-hole towards self-reflection and existential dread. A well-developed analysis of purpose and selflessness in the wider scheme of things. 

All of this manages to happen while still having a fast-paced adventure from start to finish. The film allows very little time to rest, with a constantly shifting goalpost. With some exceptional direction--considering it's Josh Cooley's feature film debut--the cinematography and art direction of the film are on point. Each environment feels unique, with its own colour palette, lighting, and other environmental features e.g. dust and rain, the quality of the rendering is exquisite. What makes it all the more surprising is that the quality of the story is so good that you don't really notice the visuals so much because you are that engaged with the plot.

In terms of the cast, we have the original cast returning, as well as several new characters being added to the ensemble. There is a definite shift towards the newer characters (with the exception of Woody, Bo Peep, and maybe Buzz), with the remaining OG characters getting largely sidelined. It was a good idea to keep everything manageable and keep a coherent story flowing, but the change in the main cast does lead to a slight shift in tone. Not necessarily a bad thing, but it does feel notably different.

As with most of the Toy Story films, Woody is still the main protagonist in the film, but he is rejoined by Bo Peep who has an incredible amount of character development. One of the first female characters in the franchise to really get this strong story focus, and she is absolutely kick ass.  

The writers do a really good job of balancing the tone of the film, as there are some legitimately dark bits, some really emotionally deep sections, and they interchange between that and lively comedic antics really well. Even the foreboding antagonist isn't quite what they seem, and the uncertainty feeds really well with the conflict in Woody's frame of mind.

While it feels like it is following a recognisable route, there is a fair amount of misdirection involved in the script of the film, and it leads to a lot of genuine surprises and twists when it is finally revealed. Toy Story 4 isn't so much a continuation of the story from the first three films, it is its own complete standalone story, and it will definitely make you feel something. 

It's fun, it's dark, and it has that emotional kick that lets you know that you really care about these characters.

THE SISTERS BROTHERS (2018)

It's 1851, and Charlie and Eli Sisters are both brothers and assassins, boys grown to men in a savage and hostile world. The Sisters brothers find themselves on a journey through the Northwest, bringing them to the mountains of Oregon, a dangerous brothel in the small town of Mayfield, and eventually, the gold rush land of California -- an adventure that tests the deadly family ties that bind.

The film was marketed as a comedy-western but that in itself is a bit of a misnomer. While there are some comedic elements to this film, The Sisters Brothers is a murky, melancholic character piece. Character-driven dramas are largely plotless films that rely heavily on the charisma and relatability of the protagonists. If it is poorly written, then the film will fail without a strong plot.

For the general moviegoer, enjoyment in a character-piece comes from relating to the characters; unfortunately, none of the four main characters involved in this film are. The audience is stuck in a predicament where they neither care, understand, nor relate to any of the major characters. It is a pity when you get such big names a Joaquin Phoenix, Jake Gyllenhaal, and John C. Reilly, yet the final product fails to evoke any kind of meaningful emotion. 

To be fair, Reilly does a good job and is the closest character to someone that I could empathise with, as the film spends a lot of the time trying to humanize him and turn him away from his life of crime. It still takes a very long time time to get used to his character, as his accent instantly pulls you into the frame of mind that we are in an Adam McKay comedy. Riz Ahmed (you may remember him as the antagonist in Venom). Visually, Gyllenhaal and Phoenix are exceptional, and the latter has a top-notch performance (if only his character was likeable at all).

There is an arthouse element that will appeal to a certain crowd (and apparently to most reviewers as well), but I have simpler tastes, and I am not a fan of films that don't feel like they have a protagonist. It feels more like three antagonists and an NPC, and the constant tension between every single character and inconsistent tone made it difficult to truly appreciate the film. 

To be honest, the film failed to grab my attention at all. Right from the opening scenes, there was nothing that made me care about any of the characters and their journey, and as such, with the 121-minute runtime, I was suitably bored with this western film that had no real direction. Not even able to end on a high point, after the climax the film carries on, and then it carries on, and then it carries on before ending on a whimper.

There is no sense of value attributed to any lives in the film, and it desensitizes its audience to the violence onscreen, but the desensitizing doesn't stop there; emotional wellbeing and loyalty are also disregarded on several occasions, with no consistent reasoning provided. It is only in the third act, where it starts to get interesting. When alliances are tested and behaviours are questioned, but alas the film moves on very quickly, returning to the more banal storylines.

The Sisters Brothers is so arthouse that it excludes most modern-day audiences. Brilliant production design, a large budget, high-quality cast and director, but a lack of engaging characters proved to be its downfall.

Originally posted to: http://djin.nz/Kr8325

MEN IN BLACK: INTERNATIONAL (2019)

Chris Hemsworth and Tessa Thompson star as Agent H and Agent M, who employ high-tech weaponry to battle mischievous aliens on Earth. However, the pair also discover a major threat within their own ranks.

Men In Black: International has brought Thor: Ragnarok stars Tessa Thompson and Chris Hemsworth back together. The duo did a good job in Ragnarok injecting some comedic elements due to the opposing nature of their personalities, which worked well within their acting capabilities (we all remember how long it took for Hemsworth to really nail the Thor character). That charisma and onscreen chemistry between them is lacking this time around, and MIB: International falls flat because of it. 

The whole "International" aspect is overstated and is more closely aligned with Kingsman: The Golden Circle where a UK agent is sent to the US agency or vice versa. With very little travelling involved outside of those areas, it seems unnecessary to draw attention to it by putting it in the title. It just heightens expectations without a satisfying payoff.

It simply doesn't feel like the film is happening in the same world as the three previous Men In Black films. Apart from some very minimal cameos from Frank and the worms, there is nothing from the original trilogies that feels familiar (unless you consider wearing black suits to be enough). 

The biggest issue with the film comes from its antagonist, or more specifically its lack of one. There are two creatures that Thompson and Hemsworth's characters (Agent M and Agent H respectively) must repeatedly battle, but when fighting against a creature that doesn't actually have a physical body, the fight loses all tension as there is no way to win. That is ignoring the fact that they are not the big bad in the film, but nothing is revealed until what feels like the epilogue of the film. Which is no help for building suspense or providing a direction for the plot. There is no impending threat to care about.

There is no real narrative direction to the plot; no reason why any of the characters are doing what they are doing. There is the basic "retrieve alien MacGuffin before bad aliens get it" that every Men In Black film has, but there are no other driving factors. Everything seems to revolve around trying to fix a previous stuff-ups and reactionary plot lines are signs of incredibly lazy writing.

Visually, the Men In Black: International is very slick and sleek. Everything is either crisp black and whites, neon blues, or spotless chrome, and is a very consistent colour palette throughout the film. It serves no purpose though. None of the weaponry is awe-inspiring or exciting in the face of enemies that are effectively giant gas clouds with powers. Far too clean, the film looks sterile.

One of the aspects that has always kept the franchise fresh, was the comedy. This one struggles in that respect aswell. If you have ever seen clips of sitcoms with the laugh tracks removed, you'll notice who the actors actually leave time for the audience to laugh, and it sounds very awkward without the laughs inserted. Films do not have such laugh tracks, and as such, if the jokes do not land, we are left with an awkward silence that makes the joke feel even worse and has a negative effect on the tone.

Don't get me wrong, the film is not horrible. It is simply mediocre and lacks anything that would be considered memorable. If you are after something to zone out to after a stressful work week or to keep the kids quiet for a couple of hours, then this will be fine. But it fails to come close to the quality of any of the previous Men In Black films. With no chemistry, a lack of aliens, a lack of antagonists, and no direction in the narrative, Men In Black: International falls flat; a pretty exterior with no content.

ANNA (2019)

Beneath a woman's striking beauty lies a secret that will unleash her indelible strength and skill to become one of the most feared assassins on the planet.

Watching the restaurant scene in the trailer, there was something incredibly satisfying about it. Perhaps it was the very John Wick style of fast-paced gun-based fighting, or maybe it was as simple as having an attractive woman competently kicking ass on screen. Instead, Anna is much more closely aligned to the styles of Red Sparrow and Atomic Blonde.

Sasha Luss, the supermodel turned actress looks absolutely stunning as the honey badger, Anna, and puts on a rather convincing performance. As the titular character, the camera is on her at all times, and if the story was linear, this would be a thrilling story. Luss is absolutely an absolutely gorgeous sight to behold and dominates every scene she is in. By contrast, Luke Evans and Cillian Murphy do their roles well but are underutilised in this film, relegated to minor acting roles. Even Edna--wait this isn't the Incredibles franchise--I mean Helen Mirren, has quite a downplayed role, though her transformation is very well done. 

Narratively, however, this film is a mess. Due to what appears to be a lack of trust in the audiences ability to figure things out, the script is written in a way that constantly omits scenes so that a "twist" will occur later on. Little hints are placed here and there that are certainly able to be picked up on as you watch it, but we still end up flashing back in time to show you every single detail of what was omitted. Once or twice this would not be so bad, unfortunately, this narrative trick is used over and over again despite diminishing returns each time. All it ends up doing is breaking up the flow of the film, absolutely destroying any sense of pacing. Every time skip has you wanting to check your watch to see how much longer you have to sit there.

Even, the score--composed by Eric Serra--was rather generic, allowing even a fast-paced car sequence to become noticeably bland. 

Unlike Red Sparrow and Atomic Blonde, Anna is a very sleek and clean spy film. A daytime spy film, the amount of clarity in each scene and the lack of a specific colour palette gives everything a refreshing and natural tone. On the downside, it shows every little detail of the fight choreography in the action scenes, and while it looks incredibly graceful, it isn't quite so convincing when it comes to having legitimate weight behind it. No matter the training, a large heavy metal object will knock someone out with ease, break bones, or at the very least cause bruises (this physical toll is an aspect that Atomic Blonde does really well).

There is a sense of fun to the film, though. With some great comedic moments that will certainly get a laugh from the audience. Interestingly enough, the comedy comes more from the "cover job" than the assassin side of things. There is a light-hearted energy that is reminiscent of director Luc Besson's earlier works, such as Lucy and The Transporter.

Overall, it's an interesting premise, but it struggles with the execution and the narrative becomes a convoluted mess. Slick and highly stylized, Anna is the epitome of style over substance, but that doesn't mean it can't be fun too.

SCOTCH: A GOLDEN DREAM (2018)

Filmmaker Andrew Peat follows the story of Scotch whiskey, from barley to the barrel.

Scotch: A Golden Dream...I'm actually surprised that they didn't call it A Golden Dram (a dram is a unit of measurement, but is also an informal way of referring to a small amount of scotch whisky). Actually, if I'm being totally honest that they didn't call this documentary Jim McEwan's Golden Dram because that is effectively the story that is being told. 

The documentary follows the life of distiller and master blender Jim McEwan from the age of 15 and goes through his 53-year career in the billion dollar industry of scotch whisky. It's rather an odd narrative direction for a documentary that is not primarily about this man. The doco follows McEwan's career for the first hour and then deviates rather considerably to dabble in other associated topics such as the manufacturing of glass bottle for the end product, and the presence of women in the industry too, but without a doubt, these topics don't feel like cohesive elements of the documentary, instead seemingly tacked on to the end as the runtime was not long enough.

A glorified piece of promotional material for the Scottish Island of Islay and the nine distilleries that it homes, Scotch: A Golden Dream is more self-serving propaganda material than a balanced look at the scotch whisky industry.

That is not to say that the documentary is without merit. There is enough content to appeal to scotch novices and those that are simply curious. It discusses each step in general terms, from the merits of their salty soils, relationships with the local farmers, the treatment, processing, and distillation of the product, to the barrel selection, ageing process, and bottling. Even going as far as to spend a good five minutes looking at different experts methods of fully appreciating your scotch (surprise, it's mostly sniffing it an extended period of time).

The amount of this documentary that focuses on Jim McEwan's personal life and the other industry leaders opinions on him creates a cohesive narrative for the first two acts, but the film does seem poorly titled, and not willing to delve below that surface level content. Pacing falls apart in the latter end and leaves you with uncertainty as to the purpose of the documentary. Is it meant to talk about how the profits from the island's whisky exports aren't making it back to the local community? Is it a look at the sexism that women are exposed to working in the industry? Is it putting forward the idea of localised scotch distilleries as a means of keeping local communities employed? I have no idea...

A nicely produced scotch whisky course for the up-and-coming connoisseur. The information, however, is nothing that a few YouTube videos and a quick Google couldn't provide.

Scotch: A Golden Dream is in selected cinemas in Auckland, Christchurch and Dunedin from June 20th, and Wellington from June 27th.

CHILD'S PLAY (2019)

After moving to a new city, young Andy Barclay receives a special present from his mother -- a seemingly innocent Buddi doll that becomes his best friend. When the doll suddenly takes on a life of its own, Andy unites with other neighbourhood children to stop the sinister toy from wreaking bloody havoc.

Child's Play is back in theatres with its first reboot in 31 years. This means there is no involvement from longtime writer Don Mancini, and the doll is no longer voiced by Brad Dourif. In Dourif's place, we have Jedi and big-time voice actor Mark Hamill, who--fun trivia fact--actually voiced the Chucky doll on an episode of the animated TV series Robot Chicken.

One aspect of the previous Child's Play films that I avoided talking about because it was the most unrealistic aspect of the premise, was the black magic and voodoo. In this iteration, that entire origin has been discarded in favour of a much more grounded approach. This works in general, but it raises the issue that something that is too grounded in reality leaves little space for realistic tension and suspense. All of a sudden, the activities, behaviours, and physics that made sense under the old premise, don't quite stack up under the new.

But in general, I like the new direction. It has its flaws, but it does feel more believable. What I'm not a huge fan of, is the new design of the Buddi doll. Unlike before where an innocent looking Good Guy doll turns evil, we now have the Buddi doll that is unnerving the entire time. Not very helpful when you want to gradually build tension throughout the film if you are already feeling overly tense right from the start. 

One of the aspects that the film does really well, is the comedy. There are many aspects that are guaranteed to get a chuckle out of the audience, stemming from physical comedy, pop culture references, and fish-out-of-water scenarios. If you have watched the earlier Chucky films, I would liken it to 1998's Bride of Chucky where there are some legitimately good comedic elements, but the tone of the film, as a horror, suffers as a result.

The film is a very slow build until it reaches the final act of the film. Like pushing a boulder off a cliff, it takes forever to start moving, carries on rather consistently once it starts rolling, but once it gets to the edge there is no coming back as it falls uncontrollably. I would have preferred a much more grounded in-home scenario, but this film seems adamant that they will incorporate as many elements from all seven of the other films into this remake to ensure its success, but it ends up becoming convoluted, messy, and unmanageable.

There is actually a really good area of development in the film where Chucky is learning things, which was engaging. Finding out how activities and human behaviours that would effect the learning development of the doll, and seeing what would cause a doll to think the use of a knife is a suitable approach to anything, it raises a lot of questions about human nature and what we practice vs what we preach. It has an interesting effect to almost make you empathise with the doll, but this section of the film is soon ignored and the Buddi doll becomes a one-dimensional character for the remainder of the runtime.  

I expected better things from the cast. Well, Aubrey Plaza (Parks and Recreation and Legion) is a name and face that I am well familiar with but her performance is apathetic and unengaging. Child actor Gabriel Bateman is much more convincing, but the remainder of the cast seem to be present purely to fill a quota, and provide potential meat for the grinder. 

This could still work well for a new audience that hasn't seen the franchise previously, but for Chucky fans, this will likely disappoint. Hamill is fine, but without the original origin story, there is no big reveal, and the Buddi doll lacks the intensity and unhinged sadistic streak that brought terror to the big screen the last time. The deaths are creative but are seriously deficient in the gore department (despite the R16 rating), and don't come with the witty one-liners. 

With technological advancement since the origins of the franchise in the '80s, there was potential to restrict the environments of the film and combine Chucky with the technological integration of, for example, HAL 9000 (2001: A Space Odyssey) into a really claustrophobic horror flick. Unfortunately, what we ended up with instead is relatively banal and uninspiring. Nothing horrible, but neither does it provide anything worthy of keeping your attention.

Originally posted to: http://djin.nz/Kr8320