THE PUBLIC (2018)

Downtown Cincinnati librarians Stuart Goodson and Myra see their regular winter day shaken up when homeless patrons decide to take shelter in their library for the night. What starts as a peaceful sit-in quickly escalates into a face-off with the police and the media.

I wasn't too sure what to make of this film after watching the trailer, but when you see names like Emilio Estevez, Alec Baldwin, Jena Malone, Christian Slater, and Jeffrey Wright on the bill, you hope it would be reasonable. The Public ends up being a surprisingly small-scale humanitarian feat. Directed, produced, and starring Emilio Estevez, you can't help but feel that this is a passion project for him; something that will no doubt have an 'Oscar-worthy' scene thrown in.

The Public is a hostage movie like no other. It seeks to provide some social commentary, looking at the general ineffectiveness of keyboard warriors; that group of people willing to sign petitions, send prayers, or yell obscenities at whoever they see as "guilty" parties online, yet are unwilling to do anything that could cause them the slightest inconvenience.

Really though, the film is about the homeless and focuses on the homeless problem, or more specifically how the homeless are treated by others. That is the true strength of the writing in this film. It fleshes out the characters of homeless people beyond the one-dimensional character that they are always portrayed as, and the one-dimensional character that we see them as in real life on the street. Developing the group of characters does a great job of encouraging empathy with the audience, forcing them to acknowledge the homeless as people, rather than an unsanitary part of the environment.

You can tell that this is Estevez's attempt to highlight injustice in a similar way to what has been done with slavery. Pushing the idea that what is right is not always legal, and what is legal is not always right. Estevez balances on that boundary between eye-opening and preachy and largely does so successfully. Where less care seems to have been taken, was with his treatment of the media and political characters; this is where the film completely lacks subtlety and the characters become unlikeable caricatures, completely wasting the talents of Christian Slater and Gabrielle Union.  

The majority of the film takes place within one building, and as far as the cinematography goes, it was nothing too spectacular, but at the same time, you could tell that effort was made to prevent shots from getting too monotonous, taking a number of different perspectives into account. What is quite nice about the characters, is that many lie on different parts of the spectrum; those that abhor the homeless, those that follow the law to the letter, those that used to be homeless, those that used to be addicts, those that want to help but are scared to act, those willing to help, etc. There are a wide variety of perspectives on display.

Surprisingly, The Public is well-paced for a library-based film, that feels quite a bit shorter than its 122-minute runtime. The acting is okay, neither too subtle nor over-the-top (apart from Slater and Union), it simply creates enough empathy that you are willing to wait to see what will hopefully be a happy ending. There is definitely an 'Oscar' moment in the final act but it feels forced; swapping out the obligatory "O Captain! My Captain!" for a sing-a-long.

The standout performance comes from Michael K. Williams who brings so much humanity to the film. Taylor Schilling does a great job with little to work with and is delightfully radiant in her banter, but you can't help but feel that Alec Baldwin phoned in his performance; there was no spark in his eyes. 

Regardless, The Public is a test of your humanity. If you are capable of empathy, then there is something to be gained from checking this one out.

In selected cinemas from August 1st, 2019

SWISS ARMY MAN (2016)

Being stranded on a deserted island leaves young Hank (Paul Dano) bored, lonely and without hope. As a rope hangs around his neck, Hank prepares to end it all, until he suddenly spots a man (Daniel Radcliffe) laying by the shore. Unfortunately, he is dead and quite flatulent. Using the gassy body to his advantage, Hank miraculously makes it back to the mainland. However, he now finds himself lost in the wilderness and dragging the talking corpse named Manny along for the adventure.

Written and directed by Daniel Kwan and Daniel Scheinert, and starring Daniel Radcliffe, and Paul Dano, Swiss Army Man must have been one confusing film to work on behind-the-scenes. That being said, it must have also been quite a great deal of fun too, because this is one heck of a quirky, comedic, fantastical drama.

This is such a peculiar film. You could vaguely describe it as Cast Away meets Weekend at Bernie's, but that would barely scrape the surface of what is going on in Swiss Army Man because Radcliffe's Manny is so much more than a prop. He is a multi-purpose tool that has a function for any situation. An adventure story that makes use of a somewhat magical corpse, is an interesting choice in method to allow our primary protagonist the means to dissect his own life.

This is not a story of how Paul Dano's Hank managed to find his way back to the civilised world. This is the exploration of why Hank got lost in the first place. Much more than a film about farts, they are a metaphor for emotionally holding things in, and learning to let things go. Without any of his own memories, Manny exhibits many of the behaviours of a child. Consistently curious, no filter, and the confidence to ask any questions he may have. Manny the corpse is free of social constructs, and that freedom further highlights the feelings of shame and embarrassment that Hank feels does to his socially awkward nature.

As it progresses, the film becomes ever more fantastical. What started off as a quirky survival film, transcends into an alternative reality of wishes, wants, and creative reconstructions of events passed, and dreams to be. Combined with some absolutely gorgeous cinematography and a brilliant score, the whole experience can be quite enlightening.

The whole film is not quite so full of whimsy though, and that will make this film rather polarizing (not to mention the audience members that can't see Daniel Radcliffe as anything other than Harry Potter will no doubt be disappointed regardless). There are more than several times where plot progression seems to stop dead, and it creates a film where the pacing is slow and inconsistent, working together with Dano's performance to bring about a feeling of melancholy throughout. 

There are some genuinely great moments in the film, but there are also a lot of moments that are not. It almost feels like this would have reached higher regard critically if it had cut its runtime down; there isn't quite enough content to really justify a full feature film.

Swiss Army Man is a thoroughly original film, and it's great to see that new ideas are being brought to life through film. Unfortunately, the inconsistent tone and pacing prevent this from being a mainstream success that it could be. There is a lot of interesting commentary going on in the film once you get past the farts, poops, and erections, a lot of truths, because "before the Internet, every girl was a lot more special".

BEATS (2019)

A reclusive, teenage music prodigy forms an unlikely friendship with a struggling producer. United by their mutual love of hip-hop, they try to free each other from the demons of their past and break into the city's music scene.

Beats is an original film that was released on Netflix over a month ago. There was very little marketing pushing the film forward, and the synopsis did little to really draw me towards viewing the film; the premise of a kid brought up in a bad neighbourhood using sports or music to try to get out, well it's been done many many times before. Nevertheless, quarantined at home with the flu, I decided to give it a go.

Looking at other reviews online, critics are unanimous that the film is a must-see, and yet it barely rates over 60% according to the audience scores. What was interesting though, was to note that on platforms like YouTube, reviews from casual moviegoers were actually largely split by race; Caucasians reviewing negatively based on technical aspects, whereas African-American/Black reviewers viewed the film positively due to its handling of the screenplay content. That alone should tell you that this film (which involves black characters in a black community in Chicago) is really going to be relatable to the black community more so than with a Caucasian audience.

While the premise seems familiar, the direction taken with the film is something else entirely. This could be due to the fact that this is only the second feature film from director Chris Robinson, who primarily directs commercials and music videos. It's actually Robinson's extensive videography (120+) working with artists such as 50 Cent, Akon, Alicia Keys, Busta Rhymes, Eminem, and Jay-Z, that gives his work greater credibility. This isn't someone from the outside trying to show the Hip-hop world, this is someone that knows people and has experience in the industry. It's such knowledge that must lead to some of the choices in the film, specifically decisions to do with language and violence shown. 

The film, in general, could be PG-rated, and it's almost a pity that it isn't. The film starts off like every other generic film of this premise would begin, except it doesn't pull any punches. Our character undergoes a traumatic incident, and we experience it with him. It's shocking, it's unexpected, but most importantly, it's accurate. Robinson also does not discard the experience, it becomes a part of our protagonist's character. It changes him because he now has PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder).

This is what the Black community are praising the film for. Bringing to light what happens in states like Chicago. The reality of poor communities living in areas controlled by gangs, police that are so afraid that they treat everyone as a threat, and schools that are losing funding because kids are not making it into class. The starkness of this world feels almost alien to what I had growing up. It's all shown in the small details, such as having to go through the metal detector every time we enter the school grounds. It's a detail that many would show once and that's it, but every time we go back to the school, we have to go back through the metal detector. It's simply what life is like there.

Of course, Beats is not only about the psychological effects of gang violence on mental health; it is also about the music industry as a way to escape it. I certainly wouldn't consider any of the Hip-hop music on display in the film to be exceptional or groundbreaking. It does, however, show the creation process really well, as well as all of the learning curves (there are many times our young protagonist is called out on a lacklustre beat, which as an audience member you can actually feel the difference in quality). 

As far as casting goes, I always love when a comedian takes on a dramatic role. They tend to have much better control of their expressive capabilities and can pull off a brilliantly emotive performance. Anthony Anderson continues this trend with a great performance. His co-star Khalil Everage also works well, switching between timidness, persistent fear, horror, anger, guilt, or shame on a whim as needed. The screenplay, for the most part, is good. Romelo, August and his mum Carla, all get some great emotional arcs that give the characters necessary development (though admittedly, Romelo's arc feels unfinished). The cinematography and lighting are quite well done, especially during "live performance" scenes where you can feel Robinson's experience in Hip-hop music video directing shine.

Beats succeeds because of the strong backstory and environment that the story takes place in. It manages to build tension and suspense in the audience as the protagonists are experiencing it. Even for those that were not brought up in that kind of neighbourhood, even for those that do not like Hip-hop, there is a solid story here with a message that needs to be heard. In a world where people are becoming increasingly isolated, it's important to see films like these to be reminded of what others are struggling to overcome. 

The odd pacing issue here and there, but overall, a solid release from Netflix.

TRUMBO (2015)

In 1947, successful screenwriter Dalton Trumbo (Bryan Cranston) and other Hollywood figures get blacklisted for their political beliefs.

Being a Kiwi, American history is not something that was taught too much during my primary and secondary school education. The World Wars were really more the focal point (and Ancient Egypt for some reason) so the 'Hollywood Ten' is not something that I was previously aware of. As such, the content of this biographical film was incredibly eye-opening. I mention this because those that are already aware of what occurred with the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) could find the film tedious. The film is not the flashiest, in fact, at times it looks like it could have easily been filmed at a Direct-to-DVD quality, and the topic seems to have been covered many times before; Guilty by Suspicion, Hollywood on Trial, One of the Hollywood Ten, and The Front, for example.

The film, as with most films, is split into three parts; the first leads up to their contempt, the second is living with the blacklist, and the final act is their attempts to rebuild. I mention this structuring as a way of explaining that the film focuses more on the 'Hollywood Blacklist' itself and the consequences it had on those affected. 

As someone that had no idea about all of this, however, I was gripped from start to finish. Trumbo is based on a true story. The story of men being persecuted because of their political beliefs. Beliefs that were not being persecuted when that political country was an ally in the Second World War, but once the Cold War cometh, anything red is a red flag for democracy. The idea that a government could be so black and white about the matter should not be shocking. In fact, it is something that we still see today, but it is no longer just political affiliations; it is also religions and ethnicities that are targeted. Trumbo brings it to the big screen in a big way; a reminder of the consequences to the innocent human beings that are persecuted, even affecting those associated with them.

The film is not all one-sided. It, of course, has the story that it is trying to tell, but it is not afraid to show both sides of that person. Whether it be excessive drug-use (though the film focuses on pills rather than marijuana), the negligent yet controlling father-figure, or the hypocrisy of reaping the benefits while speaking ill of democracy. Flawed characters are very real, and these multi-dimensional portrayals are a constant reminder despite Bryan Cranston's unnatural accent.

There is a great ensemble cast involved. From the aforementioned Bryan Cranston, Diane Lane, Helen Mirren, and Elle Fanning, to John Goodman, Alan Tudyk, and... Louis C.K.. I was hesitant to mention Louis C.K. because of the scandal that came out with the #MeToo movement, but he is an important part of the film. His character of Arlen Hird (a composite character; a combination of more than one individual) was the anchor for much of the film. Dalton Trumbo represented the cream of the crop, the tall poppy that has a lot of money to get by on, but Hird represents those that didn't; the middle to lower class that suddenly couldn't pay for medical bills, rent, or food. His situation makes him constantly question Trumbo's motivations, interrogating him at every opportunity, because he has more to lose. The banter between Bryan Cranston and Loius C.K. is the cement that holds the central core of the film together. John Goodman is great too, but for different reasons.

Admittedly, some of the other cast can come across as one-dimensional. David James Elliott and Helen Mirren's portrayals of John Wayne and Hedda Hopper were so thinly veiled that their performances may have well have been an audition tape for the villain in an upcoming Disney film. More caricature than real. So, while the protagonists got to flex their good and bad sides, the antagonists didn't get the luxury.

This incredibly intriguing look into the political system of the United States and how it affects so many seemingly independent industries is fascinating. As well, it harks back to the era where screenwriting was worth more than its weight in gold. Where production on a film did not start until the script was finalised, and more importantly until the script was deemed high enough quality. It's something that is missing in today's society where seeing films is so prevalent that the quantity of output is more important than the quality (ironic coming from a man aiming to release a movie review every single day, I know).

It's a great feeling when you find a film that grips you. Trumbo doesn't have any of the fancy cinematography, and the score is nothing to write home about, but that sense of immersion you get from these actors performances is amazing. Definitely one worth checking out.

SECRET OBSESSION (2019)

When Jennifer wakes up with amnesia after a traumatic attack, her doting husband cares for her. But she soon realises that the danger is far from over.

Now I know I posted it at the top of the page, but if you haven't seen Secret Obsession yet and are intending on seeing it, DO NOT WATCH THE TRAILER. The trailer does what Netflix has a horrible habit of doing, spoiling the twists in their psychological thrillers. Once you spoil the twist, you really can't call it a psychological thriller anymore. It becomes more of an action-drama. I will do my best to write this review without spoilers (including spoilers from the trailer).

Now I would say that this is a great example of what happens when someone takes on too many roles in a film. Peter Sullivan is down in the credits as Director, Screenplay Writer, and Co-Producer. One could look at that and think he may have split his attention too much, but when you consider the fact that he has directed 19 TV movies in the last eight or so years (13 of which being TV Christmas films) it's, unfortunately, safe to say that expectations for this film can be lowered. Significantly.

Secret Obsession stars Dennis Haybert (24), Brenda Song (Disney's The Suite Life of Zack & Cody and The Suite Life on Deck), and Mike Vogel (Cloverfield). While these are definitely some recognisable faces, it can't save what was a horrendously predictable movie. Even if you haven't seen the trailer, the film reveals the twist in the first act, undermining any sense of tension that the film has. 

This isn't helped by legitimately bad writing. I would say acting, but I've seen these cast members in much better productions before. Our antagonist looks like an antagonist from the get-go. There is no sense of mystery, and our protagonist has little to do beyond moving to and from the bedroom. Despite Secret Obsession effectively being a poorly done remake of Stephen King's Misery, nothing good was added to this familiar stalker story. There are a few times during the story where it builds intrigue, and it's usually to do with the development of the supporting cast, but the arcs are disregarded before anything comes of it. The film is a 10-minute short that has been stretched out to 97 minutes.

This is the sort of film that has you actively sighing at the screen. The antagonist's motives don't make sense. The amnesia part of the premise is the most concerning. scenes and actions are constantly being repeated. It is a mess. The truth is, the pacing is so slow that I ended up closing my browser halfway through because it had failed to keep my interest. I ended up watching the rest a few days later out of boredom, and so I could warn anyone that cares enough to read this.

As far as positive things for the film? It was nice to see some diversity in the cast. I just wish they had a better story to tell. For a "psychological thriller" it didn't have any jump scares which I was happy to see, unfortunately, the film had no tension or suspense either. The production is reasonable, with some nice environment shots.

There is nothing new here. Well, there is nothing new that is good here. They have an action-packed opening scene that makes no sense, and they have a supporting cast that has more interesting storylines (David Haybert and Eric Etebari's characters specifically) implied but disregarded without consequence. I can only hope Fred Durst can do a better job with his upcoming stalker film with John Travolta, The Fanatic.

LOST & FOUND (2017)

Seven strangers with very different stories have one thing in common: they are all searching for something. Their seven lives unexpectedly intertwine at a small lost and found office in an Irish train station.

I went into this film with no knowledge beyond the two-sentence synopsis above, and it took a few moments to figure out what was going on because it does not have a single linear narrative. Lost & Found is an anthology; a collection of seven or so short stories that are all based in the same small Irish town.

Each story is neatly split into its own chapter with a title card. Despite the film being neatly split into short sections of the film that could be critiqued independently, they occur in the same town, with a cast of recurring characters, with the events of earlier stories in some cases affecting later chapters. It's a curious mix of independent yet dependent short stories, that--apart from a couple specific mentions of time passing--provides little in the way of a narrative direction. 

Perhaps what appeals the most about Lost & Found is the small-town mentality. That innate sense of drama that comes around because everyone knows everyone. You can't take any form of action without bumping into people you know and being questioned. It is well put forward in the film, and neatly encapsulates what it is like to live in a small town, where reputations are easily formed and difficult to lose. 

Labelled as a comedy-drama, you can feel the comedic vibes more from Richie Buckley's score than from the actual script. The comedic elements have a peculiar over-the-top subtlety (is that even a thing?). Perhaps a more accurate way to explain it is that the performances are quite exaggerated at times, but the final punchline after the build-up is often a one-liner that is easy to miss, thanks to the accent and pace of the delivery. Realistically, the drama is where Lost & Found shines. With the chapters Ticket to Somewhere and The Will, really hitting home at an emotional level.

This is definitely a passion project for director Liam O Mochain, having filmed it a few days at a time over several years and, unfortunately, it is visibly obvious, with the actors gaining and losing weight between scenes, as well as inconsistent hair length and stubble. The film also suffers from the short story format leaving very little room for character development. Put together with the change in appearance, this can lead to confusion in scenes when characters are reintroduced.

With emphasis placed on the milestones and significant events of one's life (engagements, weddings, and deaths) the stories are pleasant and mildly endearing. Beyond keeping track of each character's interactions in this spider's web of connections, there is little that you would consider thought-provoking, and without a consistent device or character driving the narrative (despite O Mochain's presence in nearly every chapter), the film meanders rather than setting a clear direction, ending as abruptly as it started.

BOOKSMART (2019)

Academic overachievers Amy and Molly thought keeping their noses to the grindstone gave them a leg up on their high school peers. But on the eve of graduation, the best friends suddenly realize that they may have missed out on the special moments of their teenage years. Determined to make up for lost time, the girls decide to cram four years of not-to-be-missed fun into one night -- a chaotic adventure that no amount of book smarts could prepare them for.

Watching the trailer for this film in the cinema, I knew that this would be a must-see film. The directorial debut from Olivia Wilde and her choice of a coming-of-age comedy film is surprising, but ultimately a great choice.

Booksmart has a few easily recognisable faces among the adult cast in the form of Jason Sudeikis, Lisa Kudrow, and Will Forte and the latter two do a brilliant job in their limited screentime of the excessively supportive parents of an LGBT character. Sudeikis is a less grounded a character who goes for the obvious laughs, yet even he manages to get some laughs from the film's content.

The film is not about the adult characters though, instead, it is all about the friendship between Amy and Molly (portrayed by Kaitlyn Dever and Beanie Feldstein respectively), and their mission of--after nothing but studious behaviour--going to a party the night before their graduation. With the majority of the film taking place over one night, there is that invisible ticking timer that builds tension and suspense in every scene, that compounds and ticks ever faster with every obstacle that is thrown in front of our protagonists.

This is a fish-out-of-water scenario in many ways, and this is the source of much of the humour as we watch these girls--whose studious behaviour at school has given them a less than fun reputation--try to wrangle their way into the "party of the year". Their role as outsiders in the world of partying leads to some great comedic elements, but the best part is that it comes from a variety of sources. It is not all just the obvious low-hanging fruit from the joke tree, and this is mainly thanks to some good writing. More specifically, the comedy has a better variety because it is not only based explicitly on the main story arc.

Whether it is Billie Lourd's Gigi, Molly Gordon's Triple A, Skyler Gisondo's Jared, or Jessica Williams aptly named character Mrs Fine, the supporting cast are given their own mini-story arcs which create their own laughs as well as emotional engagement, separate from the main story. This extra level of development fleshes out the community and it really feels like all of these characters are in fact real. This is helped along even further by the characters being balanced. They are not one-dimensional characters (unlike the adults); each person as their strengths and flaws without judgement.

The only real downside to the film is its heavy reliance on the soundtrack. Sometimes it works really well, but there are times where the volume doesn't seem realistic (say in a party scene), and there are some emotional moments that get severely undermined by the use of the song. It comes across that Wilde doesn't quite have enough faith in the script to give it the control that is needed. 

This is no instant classic, but it's definitely a uniquely energetic comedy that manages to land more than a few laughs. Many would compare this to Superbad, and while there are similarities, Booksmart has a little bit more class.

DARK CITY (1998)

John Murdoch (Rufus Sewell) awakens alone in a strange hotel to find that he is wanted for a series of brutal murders. The problem is that he can't remember whether he committed the murders or not. For one brief moment, he is convinced that he has gone completely mad. Murdoch seeks to unravel the twisted riddle of his identity. As he edges closer to solving the mystery, he stumbles upon a fiendish underworld controlled by a group of ominous beings collectively known as the Strangers.

Another request from a follower was to review Dark City, directed by Alex Proyes (who also directed The Crow) and starring Rufus Sewell, Kiefer Sutherland, William Hurt, and Jennifer Connelly. Now Dark City was released in October of 1998 which happens to be the same year that The Matrix was released (The Matrix preceded Dark City in New Zealand cinemas by only six months), and this has been widely quoted as being one of the main reasons as to why cult followers claim Dark City failed to reach the same levels of popularity.

Dark City has a lovely aesthetic. Gothic, steampunk, and crime-noir all at once, there is a clear influence from films like 1982's Blade Runner. The brickwork of the buildings in this constantly murky, bleak, and grimy environment creates a rich mood and atmosphere that feels like something you'd read in a graphic novel (specifically, Frank Miller's Sin City series, or Batman: The Dark Knight Returns mini-series). 

This visual style is one of the aspects that does differentiate it from The Matrix. While they definitely have similarities in the type of story that they are trying to convey, The Matrix has more of an artificial sleekness to it. With its use of colour filters and glossy costuming, there is a purposeful unnatural and exaggerated nature to the film. Dark City, on the other hand, has a more grounded and authentic feel to it, thanks to the recognisable period look that it has.

Another aspect that differs, is its use of effects. Dark City has a reasonably high reliance on CGI with its antagonists' plot. While there are certainly some breathtaking parts of the CGI (especially around environmental manipulation), there are other types of CGI that have not aged so well. Unlike The Matrix which places more emphasis on practical effects, Dark City was more at comfortable with using CG effects, which severely dates the visual experience. 

The plot is genuinely intriguing and deals with a large amount of deception and manipulation to an unknown level of scale. It creates a brilliant and engaging mystery right from the start, remaining unpredictable throughout the film, even after it lets you peek behind the veil, constantly subverting your expectations. A big reason why the story is so gripping is that it is so original. This is a story that hadn't been done before.

The pacing is a little bit uneven, however, taking a while to build up and develop, leaving the audience in the dark for a long time. After it has set itself up, though it spirals out of control and at high speed; to continue my comparisons, this is The Matrix and The Matrix Reloaded all in the same film. A competent intriguing mystery in a new world, that quickly devolves into an anarchical superfluous mess.

One of the real downsides to the film is, unfortunately, the direction of the cast's acting. Connelly's character comes across as largely apathetic, Rufus Sewell is uncharismatic, Kiefer Sutherland is as irritating as Stevie from Malcolm in the Middle, and William Hurt is rather inconsistent in his performance. The film tries to give us the idea that there is real chemistry between Connelly's character and her beau, but it isn't believable. One could definitely argue the case that the apathetic personalities of the characters are down to the consequences of the antagonist's actions, but ultimately it leaves the audience unengaged. The antagonists too were rather over-the-top. Interesting to begin with, but as the film progressed, they lead to more questions than you get answers for. 

Overall, Dark City is an intriguing viewing. While the characters aren't all that likeable, they help put forward this curious environment that makes you question what makes us human. Are we the sum of our memories or are we something more? I can see the reasons why this was not taken up as easily as The Matrix; this is not as easy to swallow as the Wachowski brothers (sisters now) sleek and streamlined project. That being said, I'd love to see this remade with some modern CGI.

POINT BLANK (2019)

Pitted against rival gangs and corrupt cops, an ER nurse and a career criminal must work together to survive the fight of their lives.

New to the Netflix Original roster is Point Blank. Not to be confused with either of the Point Break films or the 1967 crime-noir Point Blank, 2019's Point Blank is an action-thriller directed by Joe Lynch (who also directed the 2014 film, Everly), starring Anthony Mackie and Frank Grillo (Falcon and Crossbones from the Marvel Cinematic Universe), as well as Marcia Gay Harden, Teyonah Parris, and Christian Cooke.

As far as action-thrillers go, Point Blank is a very simple, well-paced story. With a youthful soundtrack, the energy is kept up at all times. That being said, there are definitely some times where the song choices (or more specifically the volume at which they are played) feel a bit overbearing and too on-the-nose; a failed attempt at emotional manipulation, an aspect that failed to a similar extent in Captain Marvel. When it works though, it comes with a rush of nostalgia that is reminiscent of the classic 80s action flicks.

In fact, the story itself feels like a modern interpretation of one of those classic action stories. If it weren't for some of the more modern technology and higher production values, this would fit in perfectly if it had been made 30+ years ago. The basic plot stretches out that runtime through the use of constantly changing goalposts. Every time the conflict is resolved or overcome, a new obstacle is introduced. It keeps the tension high, but at the same time, you can't help but feel that the movie would have had been a very simple short story rather than a feature if the two lead characters actually talked to each other and communicated. To that extent, the film can lead to a bit of frustration as easily resolvable issues get strung out.

What the film does well is to set up the story, jumping straight into the action. The first act of the film is the strongest part of the film and really sets a great tone; mixing the seriousness of Grillo with the light-hearted but out-of-his-depths performance from Mackie. Later in the film, the tone is tested quite considerably as new characters being introduced brings the tone squarely into the comedy category, at which point you would think you were watching a Kevin Hart film. Point Blank does not take itself too seriously, going as far as to add some pop culture references into the mix.

While Mackie and Grillo put on a good performance as the bickering "buddy-cop" style of duo, the real power in the cast comes from the chemistry between the characters of the two brothers on-the-run, Abe and Mateo (Frank Grillo and Christian Cooke respectively). Despite only sharing one or two scenes together in the entire film, their bond carries the emotional weight and is similar to the criminal brothers in another film I recently reviewed, Good Time. While their closeness is apparent, their characters are given very little in the way of motivation for their actions, which could have really brought the film to that next level.

Overall, the film feels familiar. Despite some intriguing performances from the women to mix things up (and display that women are not always the helpless damsel-in-distress), Point Blank does nothing spectacular and offers nothing new to the genre. It builds itself up well, but once you reach the climax, the film seems to be in a rush to finish, and little care is taken to provide a satisfying end. Everything is simply rushed through. 

With all that said, I still enjoyed the film. Point Blank is well-executed and is not by any means attempting to revive the classic action-thriller. It's a nice homage to the genre, that keeps a reasonable pace and hits those nostalgia buttons frequently. It's fun, but nothing to rave about.

THE ROVER (2014)

In the near future, mankind's greed and excesses have pushed civilization to the breaking point. Society is in decline, and the rule of law has disintegrated. Hardened drifter Eric (Guy Pearce) wanders across this dangerous and desolate landscape. When thieves steal Eric's car -- and only remaining possession -- they leave behind Rey (Robert Pattinson), a wounded comrade. Eric forces Rey to help him hunt down the gang in an unrelenting quest to take back the one thing that matters to him.

The Rover is a bleak post-apocalyptic crime-drama. Directed by David Michôd, and starring Guy Pearce and Robert Pattinson, the film takes place 10 years after "the collapse" and looks a few years shy of Mad Max territory. The aesthetics of the film are drab and gritty and look like they had some influence on the visual direction of James Mangold's 2017 film, Logan.

What is striking about the film is the simplicity of it all. Eric (Guy Pearce) has his car stolen and he spends the film trying to track it down again. A very basic plot, that only manages to drive the film forward because of the dystopian post-societal setting that the characters are within. This setting keeps tensions high, with a distinct lack of law bringing the true nature of mankind to the forefront. Unfiltered, selfish actions and behaviours occur without penalisation or opposition.

This is definitely a film that you need to watch when you are alert and awake; despite how exciting the initial 20 minutes of the film are, The Rover is definitely a drama, not a thriller. It is one of the slowest of slow-burns, which is compounded by Eric's personality traits. With a distinct dislike of conversation and a very strict one-track mind, Eric's stubborn attitude and uncooperative nature do him no favours.

Even though his character has an aversion to talking more than necessary--his character is a traditional strong but silent type--Guy Pearce puts on an incredibly expressive performance. You don't need him to explain things to know that the man is tired, beatdown, and has nothing left to lose. This is the complete opposite of Robert Pattinson's character, Rey, a talkative young man who shows signs of slight mental disabilities with his slurred southern US accent. It is the interactions between Rey and Eric that both slows the pace of the film almost completely, and manages to bring humanity to the characters that live in a world with no value for human life.

Perhaps one of the more out-of-place elements of the film is the score and soundtrack. Often using dissonant, fuzzy, and abrasive noises, the sound is often messy and intrusive, not allowing any peace as Eric's mission progresses. The soundtrack is especially peculiar at a certain point later in the film in a scene with Pattinson's Rey, where he sings along with a song on the radio. Again this choice feels misplaced, and inappropriate for the tone that the director had set up.

The Rover has some gorgeous cinematography, which--as you would expect to be the case after the collapse of civilisation--uses as much natural light as possible. It creates a huge disparity between many of the internal and external shots but pushes the idea that the luxuries and infrastructure that we are accustomed to, are no longer available. As this is not a thriller, the editing of the scenes is reserved and subtle too, making good use of long shots. 

Pearce and Pattinson make a great ensemble, and The Rover certainly entertains as long as you aren't expecting a fast-paced thriller. There is definitely a little bit of lazy writing where the characters are providing exposition in dialogue rather than showing the backstory in the film, but any answers to questions posed, are left until the final act; the intrigue and tension helping to keep engagement high. 

WATER FOR ELEPHANTS (2011)

Jacob Jankowski (Robert Pattinson), a veterinary student, is close to graduating when a terrible tragedy forces him to leave school. With nowhere else to go, he hops on a passing train and finds it belongs to a travelling circus. Jacob takes a job as an animal caretaker and meets Marlena (Reese Witherspoon), a beautiful circus performer. Their shared compassion for a special elephant named Rosie leads to love, but August (Christoph Waltz), Marlena's cruel husband, stands in their way.

Water For Elephants is a period romantic melodrama and is a very similar story to Disney's latest "live-action" adaptation of Dumbo. The interesting thing is that I much prefer this. While Water For Elephants is clearly a romance film, that particular aspect of the story is not the only thing of importance. There are a series of storylines and arcs around the Benzini Brothers Circus, that are independent of the romance, and it creates a much more immersive experience.

The film seems to draw inspiration from the style and structure of James Cameron's Titanic, opening the movie with the elderly "current-day" version of our lead character who is telling his story before the film flashes back in time for the majority of the film, coming back to the current day at the conclusion. Apart from these little bookend scenes, the narrative is linear and very easy to follow. The majority of the film takes place in the past so let's turn our focus to that part of the film.

Visually, Water For Elephants is gorgeous. The sets and costume design are on point and really look like something you would expect from the 1930s. And much like you would anticipate one's treasured memories to be, you can feel the love and warmth that our protagonist has for his time at the circus; everything is very light, soft, and warm in tone.

As this is all about a 1930s circus, live animals are par for the course. It's actually quite conflicting to see because we all know about the abuse that the animals go through in these situations, but to visually see it happen with our own eyes, it really hits home. Luckily, as all of the animals seen on screen are real bonafide animals, we can be happy in knowing that any abuse is faked with CGI. It is fascinating how spectacular it is to see a real animal used in a film, especially when you can imagine how difficult it would be to choreograph a scene to include them while ensuring they are treated properly the entire time. Of course, because there are animals, that means Rosie the Elephant is technically an actress (played by Tai the Elephant), who despite having a smaller role in the film, performs well. 

The other cast do well aswell. Robert Pattinson is fine; though he does come across rather wooden at the start, he seems to warm up to the role as the film progresses, much as his character would be expected to react as he enters a new environment before becoming accustomed to it. His performance is overshadowed by Christoph Waltz, who really steals the spotlight in everything he does. He always manages to put on a great performance when it comes to portraying characters that have an outwardly pleasant exterior hiding a darker core, and his descent and unstable nature is perfectly displayed. 

Water For Elephants does an amazing job of developing the world of a travelling circus. It takes its time building relationships, explaining hierarchies, and general daily tasks that go on. It feels like a real situation from the amount of information provided. Not just a couple of characters in a place, but an entire society with its unique social structures and laws. The strength in the development really helps to gain that emotional engagement with the audience, but also has the negative effect of slowing the pace of the film in the first two acts.

The romantic storyline is adequate. It follows most of the expected tropes, but the way that it is interwoven with the other storylines keeps you engaged. Unfortunately, the romance is the weak point in the film, with Reese Witherspoon and Robert Pattinson's characters having very few interactions worthy of creating love, over lust. It feels more like a schoolyard crush than the life-changing romance that director Francis Lawrence wants it to be. 

Overall, the film is a great reminder of why circus animals are a bad thing, while also bringing attention to what life in the travelling circus was like for those that had nothing to go home to, which almost looks like a dystopian past. The acting was satisfactory, and the romance portion of the film was not the sole focus of the film, giving it more mainstream appeal. 

Water For Elephants is a spectacle as you watch it, but forgettable once it ends, and yet, as I mentioned earlier, this is what I wish 2019's Dumbo had been.