THE LIGHTHOUSE (2019)

Two lighthouse keepers try to maintain their sanity while living on a remote and mysterious New England island in the 1890s.

The Lighthouse is loosely based on the tragedy of Smalls lighthouse, an incident that led to the unexplained deaths of two Welsh men in 1801. Where there is a mystery, the mind quickly turns to the supernatural, and The Lighthouse does not shy away from the dark or fantastical.

It's nice to have a change of pace and return to more traditional styles of film-making from time to time. Filmed in black and white on 35mm film with an aspect ratio of 1.19:1, the binary "colour" and almost-square field of vision provide challenges that have not been an issue in decades. Things such as lighting and framing are suddenly much more important when you are working in a horizontally restrictive space. The focus turns away from simply aesthetically pleasing compositions, towards a stricter, efficient use of space, and cinematographer Jarin Blaschke manages these constraints well under the direction of Robert Eggers to create a claustrophobic but nevertheless evocative atmosphere. The costume and set designs are brilliantly done and really draws you into the time period.

With only two characters in the film, Eggers utilizes Robert Pattinson and Willem Dafoe very well. Dafoe playing the experienced and outgoing wickie with a power complex, Thomas Wake, whereas Robert Pattinson plays the inexperienced and reserved, Ephraim Winslow. As these two wildling opposing personalities are forced together into a confined area with no communication with the outside world, tensions soon flare. Dafoe is absolutely at home with a role like this, sporting a beard that is so perfect for the character that it must be one he has grown himself.

Robert Pattinson, on the other hand, puts on a performance that--while seemingly less authentic--has a greater acting range, as we observe his character going mad through the needless harassment from his superior. Loneliness, frustration, desperation, anger and rage, transcendent joy, are all a part of Pattinson's repertoire, and should without a doubt but Batman fans at ease about the man's acting abilities. 

Thematically, The Lighthouse looks at the idea of character identity, and the paranoia and madness that comes from complete isolation from the rest of the world. A tense, psychological piece that has minimal need for over the top action. It cultivates suspense in a more subtle dramatic manner, and that subtlety helps it further by allowing audiences the ability to come up with their own interpretations. Something out of place is not immediately explained, nor is it ever explained. Events simply occur, and the rationale behind it is left to the audience to surmise. Refreshing to see an audience given that kind of freedom and treated with maturity.

Another A24 film, The Lighthouse is dark and bleak, with some creative fantastical elements. Switching from tense dramatic moments to chaotic thriller sequences, there is much to enjoy. The recommendation is to check it out on the big screen if you aren't used to the more "square" ratios, just to allow the audience to fully appreciate what is on display.

THE CURRENT WAR (2020)

The dramatic story of the cutthroat race between electricity titans Thomas Edison and George Westinghouse to determine whose electrical system would power the modern world.

In my eyes, to really enjoy a film I need to either be emotionally engaged or I need to learn something; educational or emotional; feel or think. There has been enough mucking around during production of The Current War that neither side of the coin gets the execution they deserve. Without going into details, this film was rushed into an early release in 2017 and after failing to make a ripple, the film was shelved for two years until Director Alfonso Gomez-Rejon released a Director’s cut. 

Marketing for the film has been rather limited, and that will likely come at the detriment of the audience's expectations. Not through any major faults in the film, but because it involves the names Thomas Edison and Nikola Tesla. There is a lot of information online about the differences between the two inventors, but unless you are well versed on all aspects of the American electrical revolution, that limited knowledge will lead you towards a false expectation of what the film is about. 

While Tesla does make an appearance, this story is about Edison and George Westinghouse. While Edison’s light-bulbs are present, this story is about electrical currents that are already known. It is a story about the internal politics between inventors, with very little to do with the actual art of inventing. 

What is undeniable, is that the pacing is unstoppable. It consistently moves; the frenetic cinematography from Chung-hoon Chung is overly extravagant, but does not allow this film--flooded with dialogue--a chance to stagnate. The pacing, however, doesn’t quite make up for the lack of content, and even reduces the impact of what should have been hugely emotional moments. The moments that would endear the audience with a character (such as a tragedy or loss) are skimmed over, and the aspects of the story line that pique your curiosity (a.k.a. the more technical elements of the creation of an invention) are almost missing entirely. 

The musical compositions by Dustin O'Halloran and Hauschka are epic in many ways, trying to manipulate an emotional response to several scenes that don’t match the score in magnitude. The music goes above and beyond, with such an unnecessary force that it breaks the audience’s connection with the story. 

The cast are too perfectly picked. Benedict Cumberbatch plays yet another emotionally cold, but cocky intellectual that thinks he is the smartest person in any room; his performance as Thomas Edison simply a carbon copy of his Doctor Strange or Sherlock Holmes adaptations. Nicholas Hoult is another modest, but brilliantly smart character with good intentions; his Tesla coming off not dissimilar to Beast from the X-Men franchise. Even Michael Shannon is another powerful and domineering antagonist, whose Westinghouse shares many similarities with Man of Steel’s General Zod. 

Not all acting performances can be tarred with the same brush, though. Michael Shannon—while initially a shaky rendition—does warm into the role, and has one of the only well-executed character development arcs in the story, helped by a solid supporting performance from his in-movie wife Marguerite (portrayed by Katherine Waterstone). 

When The Current War gets things right, it evokes such a strong sense of wonder, and there are certainly moments throughout the films 107-minute run time that meet that requirement. Edison’s monologue about finding the right filament, Westinghouse’s determination for the highest quality product, Tesla’s unconstrained genius. These are the elements that hook you in and make you want to see more. Alas, they are only a tease of what the film could have been with a stronger script and fewer typecast actors.

The Current War is in cinemas February 27, 2020

Originally posted to: http://djin.nz/Kr8579

MR. JONES (2019)

Welsh journalist Gareth Jones risks his life to expose the truth about the devastating famine in the Soviet Union in the early 1930s.

Welsh journalist Gareth Jones risks his life to expose the truth about the devastating famine in the Soviet Union in the early 1930s. When you think of genocide, the Holocaust during World War II is usually what pops into mind. The Rwandan or Armenian Genocides may also come to mind. A story that isn't so well known is that of Holodomor, the man-made famine of Ukraine. Mr. Jones is, as such, based on a true story.

What is unfortunately very clear is that our main character lacks any charisma. Gareth Morgan is a man that does not partake in recreational drugs, alcohol, or love interests, instead, only having an interest in journalistic integrity and finding out the truth at any cost. The final aspect of his personality should be what drives the script, but much of the time is improperly spent proving how little people care about his concerns on the Soviet Union or Hitler, and on how much of a buzzkill Mr Jones is. Perhaps the real-life Gareth Jones was such a bland individual, but there were many more exciting elements of the story that they could have pulled focus towards.

It is the narrative structure of Mr. Jones that really holds it back; spending the entire first act setting up a story that could have been done in a couple of minutes, rushing through the more engaging Ukranian arc in the second act, ending with a third act meanders in a disjointed and pace-less mess. Despite the significant amount of time delegated to set up the background to the story, there is very little character development, beyond again and again re-establishing that Mr Jones has the most integrity of all the characters, and it proves to be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

Mr Jones (portrayed by James Norton) ends up an uninteresting, and unrelatable character. A character with no flaws, who operates in a world of black and white. This means he has no elements of his character to overcome and develop, which create no personal stakes. It is because of this that Mr Jones becomes difficult to empathise with. His character is cold, clinical, and no matter what horrors and travesties Mr Jones comes across, he is merely a part-time spectator.

Vanessa Kirby is just as forgettable, but on the other side of the coin, Peter Sarsgaard does a phenomenal job as the greasy Pulitzer prize-winner Walter Duranty. Oozing with confidence, there is no question that he is at home in the Moscow environment. There is a great subtlety to his mannerisms that leave you unsure of how much his loyalties have been corrupted by the life of abject opulence he lives.  

The visual elements are the true strength of the film. The contrast between the environments of Moscow and Ukraine is immense. Moscow is alive with people, lush with a warm colour palette of dark greens, yellows, and browns. The Ukraine environments, on the other hand, are nearly devoid of colour, desaturated, with blues and blacks splattered across a crisp, white canvas. people are fewer, as are buildings and vehicles. The colour palette and set design form a desolate and bitterly cold atmosphere. The desaturation allows emphasis to be placed on items through the use of colour, highlighting how out of place and foreign food has become.

Mr. Jones does well to show to depths of the famine; starvation, abandonment, death, and cannibalism. But this section of the film is largely rushed through, and able to walk away at any moment, Mr Jones has shown no emotional connection to any of it; by extension, neither does the audience. The cinematography further aggravates the most important act of the film by the amount of handheld shaky-cam and close-up shots employed. While reasonable in short bursts, the frequent use of the camera style prevents the audience from having any sense of geography. We simply see a sad thing and then move on to another. Clinical, and unengaging.

This is an important story, and one has to wonder about which of the themes director Agnieszka Holland is trying to convey. The film has three potential primary messages; Communist and Socialist regimes lead to overwhelming death and famine, Democratic Capitalists will happily ignore human rights issues to ensure trade continues, and the integrity of the media has been corrupted for a long time. With US election campaigns in full swing and Bernie Sanders rising in popularity with his Socialist policies, is this meant to be a warning of sorts against turning your back on Democracy? Is it meant to warn about the proliferation of lies in the media? There is no clear direction to the bias of the film's narrative. 

Going as far as to include a recurring subplot around George Orwell writing Animal Farm throughout the film (which is more than a little on the nose), Mr. Jones may simply be an attack on both political systems that allowed a man-made famine to let an estimated 7 million Ukrainians die. With an uncertain narrative direction and a protagonist that failed to hook in the audience, Mr. Jones fails to take advantage of the powerful story it is trying to communicate. It does, however, pique curiosity about Holodomor, making one want to learn more. Perhaps that is all that Mr. Jones wants of us.

Mr Jones is in theatres from February 27, 2020

UNCUT GEMS (2019)

A charismatic jeweller makes a high-stakes bet that could lead to the windfall of a lifetime. In a precarious high-wire act, he must balance business, family and adversaries on all sides in pursuit of the ultimate win.

Adam Sandler has become an increasingly contentious actor for me in recent years. While I enjoyed his earlier works when I was younger, his style of films has become increasingly stale and repetitive. This has led to a negative connotation to most films his production company has churned out. To that end, it's important to stipulate that Uncut Gems is not a film produced by Adam Sandler. He is the star of the film, but his only role is that of the actor. So technically, despite what looks like a typical unlikeable Adam Sandler character in the trailers, this is not an Adam Sandler film. This is actually a film by the Safdie Brothers, and what Josh and Benny Safdie do best, provide depth and nuance to unlikeable characters.

One of their earlier films, Good Time, managed a similar feat with a low-life criminal (played by Robert Pattinson) and became an indie hit. Combine all of this information with the fact that it is an A24 Studios production (the studio responsible for Midsommar, Gloria Bell, Hereditary, Amy, Lady Bird, Moonlight, The Killing of a Sacred Deer, and many more), there are enough indicators of quality to overpower the abrasive stink of Adam Sandler.

I have always been a firm believer that successful comedians are intimately aware of how far they can push an audience on a topic, a skill that transfers well to creating emotionally compelling dramatic performances. Whether it be Marlon Wayans in Requiem For A Dream, Seth Rogen in Steve Jobs, Eddie Murphy in Dreamgirls, or Jim Carrey in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, comedians in dramatic roles provide a treasure trove of engaging films.

Adam Sandler pulls off what is likely his best performance in the last two decades. His role as the main character, Howard Ratner, is breathtaking as he does not allow the audience a chance to breathe. His own worst enemy--both protagonist and antagonist--he creates a litany of conflict and tension through his own actions and poor judgement calls. A jeweller with a gambling problem, his addiction leaves him forever wanting to maximise his bank balance, to prove he knows more about sports than the betting agencies.

From the abrupt opening scenes, the audience is thrown into a state of disarray, with no option but to watch our main character try to find a way out of a hole by digging deeper, finding ways out,  but continually digging deeper. All in the hopes of succeeding in being justifying his troubles with a big win. Howard is never likeable as a character; abrupt, condescending, narrow-minded, yet simultaneously weak-willed and spineless, there is a constant sense of desperation that leaves the audience pitying his character on his way to self-destruction.

Brilliantly paced, the tension never lets up. Characters are constantly in heated arguments, yelling over each other, threatening each other with physical harm, and the conflict leads to risky decisions being made. Like watching a man drowning, there is a sense of wonder as we watch a situation where the sensible options are never even considered. 

Uncut Gems has a very particular visual look, with blue highlights and high contrast, creating a period look with a cold atmosphere in the jeweller's workplace. Cinematography is reasonably similar to the style on the Safdie Brothers other films (especially when it comes to aerial shots of vehicles on the roads), utilising smooth movements and tracking shots to push that unnerving sense of never-ending movement to the extreme.

A blue-collar adaptation to The Wolf of Wall Street, Uncut Gems is strenuous and exhausting, playing on your nerves and never letting you rest. A spectacular performance from Adam Sandler, with an exquisite display from Julia Fox in a supporting role (her feature film debut). Well worth checking out.

THE CALL OF THE WILD (2020)

Buck is a big-hearted dog whose blissful domestic life gets turned upside down when he is suddenly uprooted from his California home and transplanted to the exotic wilds of the Alaskan Yukon in the 1890s. As the newest rookie on a mail-delivery dog sled team, Buck experiences the adventure of a lifetime as he ultimately finds his true place in the world.

There is an inherent Disney quality to this film. Even though The Call Of The Wild is technically under the flag of 20th Century Studios, there is a clear impression of overly safe decisions having been made; a direction that has become a calling card for Disney. For those that have read the original novel by Jack London (from which the film is adapted from), this release will feel overwhelmingly muzzled. A necessary cost if the film is to appeal to a younger target audience, but a significant change to the tone of the story nonetheless.

Compared to the novels six or so sets of owners and challenges, The Call Of The Wild only makes use of around three of those stories. This affects the pacing, with the second act slowing down considerably, especially with extra efforts put in place to connect this series of events through more ways that our main canine companion, Buck. An over-reliance on the star-power of Harrison Ford, both the movie poster and trailer heavily overexaggerate Ford's presence in the film, holding nothing more than the role of an extra and narrator for the first two acts; a travesty of sorts as Omar Sy's role as Perrault forms one of the more substantial and exhilarating sections of the feature.

One of the biggest concerns is the computer-generated elements. The majority of this film appears to be shot in front of a green screen, with lavishly coloured digital scenery that looks nice but is still generic enough to fall short of being awe-inspiring. In a film with minimal cast, environments form a vital component of the visual medium and the clarity just wasn't there. The digital cinematography has some gorgeously framed sequences, though, and takes full advantage of being able to put a "camera" in places that a live-action adaptation would have difficulty replicating.

Buck is the most important element of the CGI however, as he is the main focus of the film, and as put under a higher level of scrutiny by the viewers. Excluding a couple of short scenes marred by extreme sequences that come across as very unnatural, Buck's fur rendering and movements are animated to a quality that varies between great and exceptional. The biggest tell of Buck's computer-generated origin is the way in which he moves. While agile and streamlined there is a fluidity that is comparable to a man pretending to be a dog. A real dog will tend to have sharp, jaunted movements, with little regard for its own safety when it comes to walking or running into things. It is little behavioural things that constantly remind the audience that Buck is not real, and it meddles with how well the audience can empathise with the characters.

While the CGI is just far enough from perfect to be noticeable, the personality of Buck is exemplary. A likely consequence of director Chris Sanders--who both wrote and directed much of Dreamworks highly successful How To Train Your Dragon franchise-- Buck is a highly emotive construct, and despite the obvious lack of dialogue (he is a dog, after all), the animators have placed a lot of effort and energy into how Buck conveys emotions and forms organic relationships.

With less content than the novel, and several story points changed, the pacing will likely bore the younger audiences. With many dark scenes, plenty of slow contemplative scenes, and a lot of unnecessary repeated comedic elements, The Call Of The Wild would have been better suited with a mature rating, allowing some of the darker components of the original story to remain in the script. The story, thematically speaking, is interested in exploring the best and worst of humanity as Buck attempts to discover his place in the world, but much of the tragedy and successes have been removed from the screenplay forming a more standard story without the proper emotional highs and lows. 

With a runtime of 100 minutes, and little in the narrative structure to let you know how far along in the film you are you, unfortunately, feel every minute as it passes. It struggles to hook you in. With 1.5 times the budget of Disney's Togo--which trained real dogs for their sled-dog film--one would expect more, but Willem Dafoe's performance trumps that of Harrison Ford, and dog actor Diesel gives a stronger performance than that of the animated dog Buck. 

One of the last remaining films of 20th Century Studios pre-merger film slate, the company is ending its independence with a whimper. Torn between wanting to tell a story with depth for maturer audiences, and wanting to not exclude the younger audiences, The Call Of The Wild has ended up being a film that doesn't cater to either age group. Production-wise the film is fine, and it looks adequate, but the tone and pacing make it a tedious affair. Togo should have gotten a cinematic release, leaving The Call Of The Wild for the Disney+ streaming service

The Call of the Wild is in cinemas from February 20, 2020

Originally posted to: http://djin.nz/Kr8563

SONIC THE HEDGEHOG (2020)

Sonic tries to navigate the complexities of life on Earth with his newfound best friend -- a human named Tom Wachowski. They must soon join forces to prevent the evil Dr. Robotnik from capturing Sonic and using his powers for world domination.

There has been no shortage of controversy around this adaptation of Sonic The Hedgehog. With the initial trailer receiving a litany of backlash due to a more "realistic" choice in character design, Paramount announced a redesign and pushed back the release of the film by several months. The redesign came back and is much more faithful to the source material's character design, but is that enough to make this film a worthwhile watch?

This is based on the Sonic the Hedgehog SEGA videogame franchise and, for that reason, the film will obviously hold a greater appeal to fans of the franchise. The set-up for the film contains much of what you would expect to see; a series of ramps, jumps, & loop-de-loops, gold rings, a variety of environments, and our titular character, Sonic, running really fast. It is in these initial scenes of the film that it sets up an intriguing premise with some memorable characters. Unfortunately, once the set-up has been completed, this whole piece is largely disregarded to make way for a story that revolves around the human characters.

Human-based plots are a common go-to, relegating our titular characters to the comedic supporting sidekick role (not dissimilar to Pokémon Detective Pikachu and the 2019 Dumbo remake), in the vain hopes that nostalgia will make up for a weak script and "phoned-in" acting performances. In an interesting twist, this is not so much the case with Sonic. Yes, the script is still weak and full of clichés and tropes, but there is a definite sense of passion and care put into the performances from our human characters.

James Marsden and Tika Sumpter play our main protagonistic couple Tom and Maddie, and despite some cringe-worthy and predictable dialogue, the chemistry that they have between themselves and the supporting cast works amazingly well. The characters have limited backstories, but still feel like well-rounded characters; their known personality traits are not their only defining features. Sonic himself is voiced by Ben Schwartz, and balances the energy well, creating a mellow and enjoyable voice performance for the majority of the film while still being able to inject energy and pace when the blue devil needs it.

The standout human performance has to go to Jim Carrey as Dr Robotnik. In a call back to Carrey's earlier  mid to late-90's works (Ace Ventura: Pet Detective, The Mask, Batman Forever, The Cable Guy, Liar Liar, etc.) Robotnik has peak flamboyance impeccable comedic timing. Coming off like more self-aware and sadistic version of Sheldon Cooper from The Big Bang Theory, condescending, self-righteous, and as in-your-face as you can get. His personality type contrasts well with Sonic and Tom, providing a great foil. 

This is far from being critically acclaimed though. Outside of the opening scenes, there is very little about the remainder of the narrative is very much generic; there is nothing that would specifically require Sonic as a character to be involved, where his role could be replaced by anything or anyone else with little change to the story needed. The longer you think about the structure and the decisions made onscreen, the more holes and plot conveniences you discover. 

It's important to realise that this isn't targeted at adults. While adults would certainly have the greatest nostalgic reaction to the film, the simplicity of the story and the level of humour lends itself to youths more. There is little to appeal explicitly to adults, with much of narrative being jam-packed with pop culture references, toilet humour, flossing (the Fortnite dance, not dental hygiene). While nothing spectacular, the story is still watchable for adults, and with competent acting performances to make up for the shortfalls of the script.

The action is well-executed with some well-directed special effects and some well-choreographed "speed" scenes. Comparisons would be given to the Quicksilver scenes from X-Men: Days of Future Past or X-Men: Apocalypse, but this style goes all the way back to Hammy the Squirrel in 2006's Over The Hedge.

This is as good as it's gonna get considering the source material. It sets itself up well and creates engaging characters on both sides of the antagonist/protagonist spectrum. It would have been nice to get more exploration of the other worlds, but there is room for this in a potential sequel. On that note, make sure you stay for the two mid-credit scenes, if you are after more references to the SEGA franchise, this should make up for the lack of said references in the bulk of the film.

This is surprisingly competent and enjoyable. Paramount made the right decision in pushing it back for the character redesign. Fingers crossed for a sequel. 

A GUIDE TO SECOND DATE SEX (2019)

Laura and Ryan are seemingly perfect for one another, having both been destroyed by past relationships and not knowing what they are supposed to do during a second date. In the hopes of getting things right, the two embark on a second date.

For so long a time, UK and US humour have been considered very distinct and separate beasts. UK humour usually full of deadpan sarcasm, dry wit, and subtlety, whereas the US humour over-explains, exaggerates, and favours physical and/or blue humour. A Guide to Second Date Sex is a British comedy that utilises more of the US eccentricities of humour and generates something so palatable that it throws all geographical stereotypes out of the window in favour of covering a topic that is relatable to pretty much anyone.

And that is the greatest thing about this film. The relatability of the characters and the situations. As the title would suggest, the story focuses around the second date, in this case, specifically looking at a sober second date after an impassioned, unplanned, and inebriated first date. With sobriety, comes overthinking, anxiety, awkwardness, and poor decisions, and it is absolutely hilarious to watch. Even the most confident of souls have no doubt had a moment where they felt unsure about how to initiate a relationship, overthinking about strategies and plans, and inevitably getting swayed into making dodgy decisions thanks to advice from friends, family, or online sources that really have no place in the situation.

The main protagonists in the film are two average looking brits. No finely-toned abs, managed body hair, or catwalk level fashion sense is on display. George MacKay and Alexandra Roach could be any of us, and it adds to their relatability. MacKay has failed to truly impress in past films. Having reviewed his performances in Where Hands Touch, Ophelia, and even 1917, he failed to deliver engaging performances due to the emotional unavailability his face portrays, not dissimilar to the reputation that plagues Kristen Stewart. Not stoicism, but dry and blank performances. This is, however, not the case with A Guide to Second Date Sex. MacKay is brimming with a veritable spectrum of emotions, and has a youthful exuberance that feels grounded and realistic, and can even make the audience look past some really bad facial hair. Roach works well as the Yin to MacKay’s Yang, proving to be the more tempered personality of the two.

When much of the comedy comes from physical humour, it would be too easy for performances to get exaggerated and hyperbolic, and at first glance it does seem over-the-top. It isn’t outside of the realm of believability though, as the events that occur are common relatable events, there is just an impression of greater magnitudes because A Guide to Second Date Sex is a sequence of awkward moments; a compilation or highlight reel of potentially cringe-worthy scenarios that are enacted onto this duo over a single night.

What is surprising, is how much of the comedy hits home. Working by creating such a strong empathetic link with the audience that they feel shame and embarrassment on behalf of the protagonists, our own experiences in youth feed into the dread and tension as we observe another couple going through the awkward phase of learning each other’s boundaries.

Directed and written by Rachel Hirons, the narrative of A Guide to Second Date Sex is well-paced. Everything does start off abruptly which may catch the audience off-guard, but as the film progresses, the manic nature of the story settles into well-coordinated chaos. The story takes place in two different times, frequently flashing back to the week prior and, admittedly, the structure is not the most cohesive. While the content is interesting and creates a point of comparison for the relationship, the points at which we return to the past come across as random and lack the parallels that would normally equate to a comparison.

The cinematography from Paul MacKay is well-executed, considering the majority of the film occurs within a flat. The lighting and framing are chosen well to create a lived-in, comfortable atmosphere that still feels restrictive enough to generate awkward scenarios at a whim. All done while not ever feeling boring or repetitive.

Despite some structural bumps in the story, Hirons’ story is well-scripted, and transitions into different moods through each act. From the quirky, teen comedy, to the tense, dramatic relationships, there is no wasted space. Each character has a purpose, and they fulfil that purpose well. A highly recommended choice.

A Guide to Second Date Sex is in cinemas from February 13, 2020

Originally posted to: http://djin.nz/Kr8560

BIRDS OF PREY (AND THE FANTABULOUS EMANCIPATION OF ONE HARLEY QUINN) (2020)

After splitting with the Joker, Harley Quinn joins superheroes Black Canary, Huntress and Renee Montoya to save a young girl from an evil crime lord, Black Mask in Gotham City.

What a long and peculiar name. Birds of Prey (And The Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn) as a film, is just as bizarre. Like dipping a piece of chocolate in orange juice, the overall flavour is distinctive, but it isn't the most enjoyable.

DC has come a long way with its DCEU properties since the dreaded days of Batman vs Superman and Justice League and has worked best when it limited its films to a single topic and allowed the more fantastical elements of the comic book universe to come to life. Shazam! and Wonder Woman were refreshing as the connections to the rest of the DCEU were vastly limited to references and easter eggs, and not actually using the screentime to set-up plots for future movies. Birds of Prey is another example of a largely standalone film, full of whimsical elements, but it falls short of being something great. It actually struggles to be average.

Helmed by some new talent in the industry, it is written by Christina Hodson, and directed by Cathy Yan. Birds of Prey is only Yan's second feature film, and Hodson has only been writing feature films since 2016, most notably writing for the Transformers spin-off, Bumblebee. While it is exciting to see some more non-male representation in films, the lack of experience is noticeable as the Birds of Prey has a tendency to copy other styles, rather than create its own. It will likely be difficult to find a review that doesn't compare this film to that of Tim Millers's 'merc-with-a-mouth', Deadpool (or closer yet, David Leitch's Deadpool 2, with Cassandra Cain having a similar role to that of Rusty Collins), with the same style of meta-humour, over-use of narration, and glorification of violence. Beyond that, the film also carries the same energy, non-linear narrative with visually creative tangents, that is reminiscent of those late 90's films from Danny Boyle and Guy Ritchie (specifically that of Trainspotting, and Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels). 

Starting off the film with an extensive animated opening scene overlayed with exposition, the audience is fed the entire history of Harley Quinn before the film starts. When the only necessary information from that was that she was in a toxic relationship and they broke up, spending several minutes of recapping Suicide Squad seems unnecessary. But that is how all exposition is provided to the audience; through narration, going against the rule of "show don't tell". Narration, in and of itself, is not a bad thing, but when it is used as a substitute for strong scriptwriting and character development, that is when it takes on a negative element.

The character development in Birds of Prey is lacking substantially. There is only one thematic arc throughout the entire film, and the characters are forced to comply with that theme, rather than giving the characters any real strong choices in the film. It gives the characters a passive status that makes them far less interesting to watch. Black Canary, Cassandra Cain, and even Harley Quinn, are all simply along for the ride. Pushed along by external forces of the male antagonist Black Mask, and even the Joker's lack of presence having a larger effect than any decisions the female protagonists make. Any sense of conflict was resolved within a scene or two. It provides little to no stakes, which combined with weak character development means there is little reason to care about the characters in the film.

For the most part, the casting was great. Margot Robbie is still an absolute queen as the unstable Harley Quinn, Jurnee Smollett-Bell is a powerful looking Black Canary, and Ewan MacGregor makes for an outright flamboyantly quizzical Black Mask. The two characters that did not fit in were Mary Elizabeth Winstead's Huntress and Rosie Perez's Detective Montoya. Both from a visual perspective and through their role in the story, they feel so out-of-place and simply added on. Huntress' arc is practically its own story independent of Quinn's arc. and Montoya has no necessary function at all. It's to say that Birds of Prey spread itself too thin, trying to introduce the Birds of Prey team, and also cover Harley Quinn's emancipation, but didn't have the time to do both stories justice.

With little worth writing home about, in terms of the narrative, the standout component of the film is the visuals. With a plethora of costume changes and vivid environments, Birds of Prey is, for the most part, very engaging for the eyes. The cinematography is pretty reasonable from Matthew Libatique (best known for his work on such classics as Phone Booth, Inside Man, Iron Man, Black Swan, Mother!, and Venom) with an almost schizophrenic nature to the camera style, switching between wide-angle steady-cam shots and the closer epileptic shaky-cam that creates a frenetic sequence that is somewhat difficult to follow. The choreography was well executed with a great variety of actions, movements, weapons, and combinations to keep things interesting. 

While Birds of Prey (And The Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn) does have the nice message that you don't need a man to protect you when you have a strong support network, the way in which it puts forward that message, is almost contradictory. With too much unnecessary exposition and narration, weak character development, and no big threats, Birds of Prey was 109 minutes of "nothing special". This should have been split into two films, the emancipation of Harley Quinn could have been a strong dramatic feat, considering the overwhelming popularity of Joker. The action was well-executed but held back by the lack of depth in its characters.

On the upside, Bruce the Hyena is brilliant, and I wish I saw more of him!

Birds of Prey (And The Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn) is in cinemas from February 6, 2020

Originally posted to: http://djin.nz/Kr8561