PLAYING WITH FIRE (2019)

When straight-laced fire superintendent Jake Carson and his elite team of firefighters come to the rescue of three siblings, they quickly realize that no amount of training could prepare them for their most challenging job yet -- babysitting. As their lives, jobs and depot get turned upside down, the three men soon learn that children -- much like fires -- are wild and unpredictable.

I really don't know what I expected with this film. That is to say that I cannot fathom a single thing in the trailer that would give me the impression that Playing With Fire would be an entertaining movie. Perhaps I was lulled into a false sense of security by John Cena's reasonable performances in 2018's Bumblebee and Blockers. Needless to say, this was a complete waste of 96 minutes. 

The cast should have really been a huge indicator. John Cena really hasn't managed to break out of that highly narrow military niche that he is in, and it is really limiting in the roles that he gets, and the amount of charisma that he is able to portray; because he has none in this film. John Leguizamo has been in around 40 films, the majority of the roles being a form of comic relief--and a forgettable one at that. Keegan-Michael Key...well you could say I have lost faith in his choice of roles since seeing him in The Predator, and as hard to believe as it is, this is The Predator for kids. This is The Predator meets Instant Family. It isn't a hyperviolent alien action flick, but it has the same style of one-note characters that heavily relies on physical comedy and toilet humour. If farts, poo, and vomit are your comedy gold, then this is the film for you!

There are so many questionable choices in this film. Who is the target demographic? The number of times we watch John Cena stripping off his shirt and wandering around topless, as well as the forced romantic subplot with the awkward scientist (that no child would care about), it would lead you to believe that the biggest target audience is the mothers of the children, and not the children themselves (and really if you were going to try to go after the repressed single-mother audience, at least cast Channing Tatum!). The level of humour is so low, that only the youngest of children will enjoy it, or perhaps Bronies (thanks to the unhealthy amount of My Little Pony that has been incorporated).

The story is incredibly predictable. As soon as an event occurs, you know exactly what the endpoint of that subplot will be. Every single one. There is no subtlety at all to the writing or the cinematography, and while you can let children's films get away with that kind of thing, it still needs to be an enjoyable journey. And this is just painful to watch. Perhaps the biggest letdown of the film is its premise. The trailer shows off these smokejumpers, jumping out of helicopters into raging infernos to battle fires and save lives. Does any of that happen outside of the opening scenes? No. Near enough the entire film occurs within the smokejumpers station. It wastes what is an exciting occupation. The story could have been based around any other occupation; a policeman, the coastguard, a ranger, a security guard, a janitor, and had no real effect on the plot.  

While the kid actors are cute and adorable, this film is a complete disappointment. It could entertain toddlers if you were streaming it, but there is nothing that would entertain the maturer audiences. Playing With Fire harks back to the days before writing good stories with comedy for both young and old, became the expectation. This is a straight-to-streaming film, and I have no idea how it managed to get a theatrical release.

THE INVISIBLE MAN (2020)

When Cecilia's abusive ex takes his own life and leaves her his fortune, she suspects his death was a hoax. As a series of coincidences turn lethal, Cecilia works to prove that she is being hunted by someone nobody can see.

Universal really screwed up when they tried to create their Dark Cinematic Universe, to connect all of their monsters on the big screen. They were so narrow-minded in their focus on making sure that 2017's The Mummy set up the franchise that they forgot the most important parts of creating a film. Make the story good, and the character likeable. Sure you can work around those two aspects, but for the majority of things (and especially if you want a cinematic franchise), you need to focus on the titular character (NOT Tom Cruise or Russell Crowe's S.H.I.E.L.D copycat, Prodigium, an organisation so bland that I had to Google the film to find the name). 

I'm rambling about a different film because I want to remind everyone about The Mummy film that didn't star Brendan Fraser, and completely bombed, destroying a franchise before it even moved beyond a single film. Perhaps it is a sign of the times, where audiences don't want to wait for films, so studios are churning out franchise films all in different stages of production simultaneously to try and meet that demand. Nevertheless, Universal appears to have taken the criticism's of the Dark Universe to heart,  and started from square one with an almost indie-level budget, standalone horror film. And it does it well.

Australian screenwriter, actor, producer, director, and birthday buddy of mine, Leigh Whannell, is a name you really need to keep an eye out for if you have a hankering for horror. He wrote the screenplays for the first three Saw films (before they got overly dramatic and convoluted), as well as Dead Silence, the whole Insidious franchise, and more recently, Upgrade. His latest release--which he has written, produced, and directed--is The Invisible Man, and he takes everything that worked well in Upgrade, strips it back to the bare essentials while turning the tension up to 11. What Whannell continually gets right is strong character development and a powerful and cohesive narrative. 

The story goes back to the science-fiction roots of the character of The Invisible Man, and as such really grounds the story in reality. It forces every instance of violence, concern, and paranoia, to mean so much more to the audience. Placing our protagonist (played superbly by Elisabeth Moss) in the role of an emotionally and physically abused woman creates a strong sense of empathy and sympathy. The psychological effects of such abuse can certainly affect one's judgement, and it adds layers upon layers of uncertainty when you are dealing with the concept of a patient, invisible assailant. 

I cannot overstate how well Moss' performance is. This isn't a "full face of make-up, running away from the bad guys in a wet, skin-tight shirt and heels" role. This is a hauntingly realistic portrayal of an abused woman trying to escape, that has been pushed to the brink of insanity. As the film progresses, the toll on Moss' character is visible to see from the bags under her eyes when she cannot sleep, to the increasingly erratic behaviour as she starts to question her own reality. A stunning performance. 

The cinematography from Stefan Duscio is also really well-executed. Framing is an important part of filmmaking, and as certain styles become the norm, they can be exploited. Purposefully not framing the protagonist in the centre of the frame, will give the impression that there is someone else in the room. If the camera is panning and suddenly it stops on a chair, you instinctively start to second-guess whether there is a person there or not. Adding in a mix of perspectives that aren't that of our protagonist, and the audience start succumbing to the paranoia themselves. With every piece of empty space potentially leading to an attack.  

It is important to note that this is not an action-thriller; this is a psychological horror, and the pacing in the first two acts is very measured and deliberate. From the opening scenes where we watch Moss making her way through a variety of obstacles for several minutes, uttering barely a word, Whannell has made it clear, that loud noises and explosions are not the source of tension; it's the silence. The pacing does pick up in the final act and has a satisfying climax to it.

If this is the creative freedoms that future Dark Universe standalone titles will be getting, I cannot wait for the next one. The Invisible Man is dark, tense, and keeps you on edge throughout the entire runtime. The cinemas are closed at the moment, but see if you find a way to stream it online. it's well worth supporting.

THE ROOKIE: SEASON 1 (2018)

Starting over isn't easy, especially for small-town guy John Nolan, who, after a life-altering incident, is pursuing his dream of becoming an LAPD officer. As the force's oldest rookie, he's met with scepticism from some higher-ups who see him as just a walking midlife crisis. If he can't keep up with the young cops and the criminals, he'll be risking lives -- including his own -- but if he can use his life experience, determination and sense of humour to give him an edge, he may just become successful in this new chapter of his life.

Ever since his time as Malcolm Reynolds in Firefly or even Richard Castle in Castle, Nathan Fillion has had a legion of fans that eat up every single cameo appearance or role that he undertakes. For the most part, it has to do with the man’s bottomless tank of charisma. Whether he is a cocky space smuggler or a self-deprecating everyman, there is always enough good nature and humility to make his performances memorable and easy to connect with. As such, it is difficult for Fillion to not fit into his roles. That is also the case for The Rookie. 

The series is quite simply a police procedural that takes place in a different portion of the police career. Not the Police Academy, CSI division, or Special Cases, The Rookie is the Scrubs of the police world, straight out of theoretical learning, now a fish-out-of-water on the frontlines. The beat cop. It works well as we can put ourselves in the shoes of our rookies, who are learning the ropes along with us. Their moments of panic in dangerous situations mirror our own reactions and create strong bonds with the characters. 

Fillion’s character of John Nolan (the world’s oldest rookie) presents a new angle to an oversaturated genre, allowing a wider age group to engage with the characters, whilst effectively pitting life experience against youth (or more simply, the boomer vs millennial mentality). A much-needed thematic direction these days considering the constant onslaught of “if you hold a different perspective you are wrong”, that pervades society.

The Rookie wastes little time in introducing long-term story arcs, creating goals to move towards, as well as providing a source of conflict and tension. It still manages to maintain a largely episodic narrative structure, with each episode including its own separate story that is introduced and solved within the episode. This offers greater flexibility when it comes to viewing in order or skipping episodes, and forms a relaxing casual viewing experience. Each episode still provides greater depth to the characters involved, but the structure doesn’t put The Rookie in the same boat as serialised shows where one must be concerned about spoilers or remembering every detail from previous episodes. The Rookie is simply a pleasure to watch, and Fillion’s charisma pushes that point home every time.

There is a certain Americanized value to the show, where the rookies are thrown into some highly dangerous situations in no time at all; a teaching method that would be highly questionable if it did, in fact, happen in real life. The Hollywood way of always heightening the tension and elevating the risks, and being overly dramatic in general. It works well to keep the interest of the audience, and it hits the middle ground of cop procedurals, not as gritty and realistic as the documentary-style shows, but definitely more grounded than most other police dramas. The entire show is well-produced and has a strong diversity quota, and a variety of character types to bounce off and interact with Fillion’s John Nolan.

The strength of the series comes from its development of characters. Starting with what originally looks like 100% good rookies vs 100% bad criminals, and starts introducing more and more shades of grey as the series progresses. As imperfections to their characters are introduced, they become more real, and bond even stronger with the audience. Being a Fillion-fronted series about rookies, the series certainly seems to have limitations to its output (what happens when Nolan is no longer a rookie?), but until that point, I look forward to seeing where this goes. 

The Rookie: Season 1 is being released on March 25, 2020

Originally posted to: http://djin.nz/Kr8596

THE PERSONAL HISTORY OF DAVID COPPERFIELD (2019)

The life of David Copperfield from childhood to maturity, with his own adventures and the web of friends and enemies he meets along his way.

Based on the Charles Dickens novel, The Personal History, Adventures, Experience and Observation of David Copperfield the Younger of Blunderstone Rookery, The Personal History of David Copperfield is not about the American Magician. A period autobiographical piece, this work of fiction is largely inspired by Charles Dickens' own experiences.

The film is near enough episodic in nature for the first act; each age period coming with its own location, characters, and subplot. It isn’t until the second act when things start to settle down and become more serialised allowing the previous subplots to intertwine into a larger collective storyline. With a curious mix of narrative styles, the film begins with David Copperfield narrating his autobiography in a theatrical setting, before an audience, to which the viewers are set up with visual flashbacks allowing Copperfield to be present as an observer himself from time to time. This allows for creativity and flexibility in how things are put forward; such as narrating one’s own birth or exaggerating scene transitions with visual metaphors.

David Copperfield features an abundance of acting talent, with the likes of Dev Patel, Hugh Laurie,

Tilda Swinton, Benedict Wong, Peter Capaldi, and Gwendoline Christie filling out the ranks. Dev Patel has been proving his worth in Hollywood films, from Slumdog Millionaire and Lion, to Hotel Mumbai, his facial hair provides him with the ability to look like a variety of visually distinct characters (alongside his acting talent). In this case, he is clean-shaven, and he looks so different from his role in Hotel Mumbai, that I have found myself rechecking the cast list to make sure that it is, in fact, the same person.

With a comedic quality to the story, our supporting characters are all quirky in one way or another, largely summed up with a single defining trait. This provides a consistent source of humour, and while the impact is reduced by its predictable nature, there are enough characters to provide a variety and prevent too much in the way of repetition. Hugh Laurie is potentially the most enjoyable support character; extremely eccentric compared to the others, yet still a more restrained performance compared to his early Blackadder days. 

David Copperfield relies heavily on its use of comedy, as the story does take a few dark turns from time to time, but the mood is always that of levity. The story in itself is, oddly, lacking in content. It as if the first 100 minutes of this 119-minute film is spent setting up the backstory for a quickly resolved climax. A common issue with the film (which is highlighted by its reliance on comedy) is that it skips over the emotionally poignant moments of the film, constantly moving on towards the next plot point, reducing the impact of the darker moments and preventing the audience from being able to properly empathise with any of the characters.

From a visual perspective, there is a very clean and modern vibe to this period piece. When even the homeless characters are dressed in loud, colourful suits, one questions the world that they are observing; when the fictional aspect is brought to the forefront. The cinematography is well-executed, using lower angles to give the perspective of David Copperfield at younger, shorter ages.

Add caption

Overall, The Personal History of David Copperfield is charming and pleasant. Dev Patel manages to portray a likeable enough character to maintain audience interest despite very little of consequence going on in the story. The comedic elements are predictable but still executed in a manner that has a surprisingly high success rate. It is the bubbly, effervescent vibe of the film that makes it work so well, but at the end of the day, The Personal History of David Copperfield is enjoyable but not memorable.

The Personal History of David Copperfield is in cinemas from March 25, 2020

Originally posted to: http://djin.nz/Kr8597

RADIOACTIVE (2020)

The scientific and romantic passions of Marie Sklodowska-Curie and her husband Pierre Curie, and the reverberations of their discoveries throughout the 20th century.

If you had to name a female scientist, most people would pick Marie Curie. In fact, while I know there are many brilliant women responsible for scientific greatness (such as the brilliant mathematicians from Hidden Figures), I couldn't name another one. Therefore the idea of bringing the life and accomplishments of Marie Curie to the big screen is something that could fill a gap in the cinematic market

While the opening scenes are very generic, what director Marjane Satrapi does really well, is building intrigue and instilling empathetic characteristics in her lead protagonists. Marie Curie is portrayed by Rosamund Pike as an incredibly intelligent and driven, to the point of being high-strung. This intelligence is displayed through a focus on the technical aspects of the scientific process, and through that, this film improves in quality. This is a biopic, and as such, it is easy to bypass integral components that give the audience an accurate representation of the struggles and obstacles that were in place, but enough focus is spent on the process, in a manner that may not be completely understood, but can be followed. The process of turning 4 tonnes of material into a few millilitres of radium, is not visually exciting, but it builds a rapport with the audience, as we understand the work and intelligence that sits behind Marie Curie’s discovery.

Radioactive does not only look at the origin of the discovery but the cost and applications of that discovery. A discovery that occurred because the maths didn’t add up, nothing was known about the properties of the element. Quite a significant element of the discovery--that happened during Marie Curie’s lifetime--was the eventual unearthing of the physical effects of the element when it is concentrated into significant quantities. It adds a layer of danger when people are creating uses for the product without a thought about the long-term effects. In an interesting choice in the narrative, Satrapi chooses to inject additional scenes into the film--from other periods in time--turning the science that the audience may not understand, into recognisable applications that came from the discovery of radioactivity; from nuclear energy to nuclear bombs and X-rays.

The set design and costuming are well done, creating a strong period feel to the film. The authenticity in the design does mean that the colour scheme can become rather repetitive with a lot of cotton, browns, and blacks. This monotony is broken up with a number of colourful regurgitations that contrast the normal colour scheme, utilising the fluorescent and radio-luminescent nature of radium to form a connection with trippy, flowing visual displays to portray dreams, nightmares, hallucinations, and flash-forwards in time.

Not all of these visual displays work, however, and while they are useful in theory, in practice they disrupt the narrative flow of the story and are used in a manner that could be construed as emotionally manipulative. Marie Curie was highly intelligent, but to attempt to connect her--in a grieving manner--to the negative applications of her discovery that occurred 10-50 years after her death…is visually breath-taking, but very much in bad taste. The depiction of a certain WWII event was particularly cringe-worthy to watch.

The direction of the narrative is also unclear. Is this about the intelligence of Marie Curie? Is this about the dangers of science? Perhaps it is providing commentary on how women are not supported in STEM careers like men are? Or is it about the power of love and collaboration to reach greater heights? The film flits between themes often contradicting itself, or simply changing stance with little justification. Combine this with the narrative disruptions from the flash-forwards in time and you end up with inconsistent pacing that may frustrate the audience at times. 

The non-science elements are rather under-developed, with characters appearing and disappearing depending on their relevance to the radioactivity storyline (family members included). That being said, the strongest element of the human characters is the connection between Sam Riley’s Pierre Curie and Rosamund Pike’s Marie Curie. Riley is incredibly charismatic, and perfectly conveys that sense of admiration and devotion, whereas Pike battles with the conflicting priorities of being a scientist and being a wife. 

Radioactivity is the story of Marie Curie and has a wealth of information about the woman. While it follows the generic formula for a biopic--the rise to fame, the fall from grace, the revival--the one theme that is well-executed is the strong sense of sacrifice, and it carries the film to fruition. Slightly messy in a narrative sense, the characters of the Curies and the procedural direction works well to create an intriguing film overall. 

Radioactive is in cinemas from March 26, 2020

MILITARY WIVES (2020)

The film centres on a group of women in England whose partners are away serving in Afghanistan. Faced with the men's absences, they form a choir and quickly find themselves at the centre of a media sensation and global movement. Inspired by global phenomenon of military wives choirs, the story celebrates a band of misfit women who form a choir on a military base.

Sometimes we come across things that are so completely formulated that they become distracting to the overall story of the feature. Military Wives is one of those things. 

If you ask a group of people to move about until that are spread out randomly, in most cases, the people will unwittingly end up avoiding clumping together and actually space themselves out evenly; the human brain simply likes order and separation. In what could be best described as a threeway between Desperate Housewives, Stepford Wives, and Fisherman's Friends, Military Wives works in a similar fashion, trying so desperately to create unique and different individuals, that it forgets to include commonalities to the point that it doesn't feel like a natural group of people. It feels planted and forced.

It all comes down to the fact that this is "inspired" by a true story. This isn't bound to being faithful to the real story, instead, fabricating fictitious characters, scenarios, and locations. Unlike Fisherman's Friends which tried to base its characters and performances on the actual people involved, Military Wives has created something that ticks too many boxes when it comes to the dramatic tropes. 

Luckily, the content of the film is still relatable, so despite an obviously faked sequence being put together to create this film, it still manages to collect sympathy and empathy from the audience to maintain minimal engagement. It isn't the choir that hooks you in, it is the ever-increasing awareness of the emotional strain that a military wife goes through, and how they deal with it. Whether it be packing away the belongings to remove any reminders, creating calendars to countdown to their return, or simply drinking to distraction, the reality of living a life where for several six-month periods these women live with the fear that every single news bulletin, phone call, txt, or knock at the door could be the moment they learn their spouse is dead.

It is a reality that the film does take seriously and does not glorify the war in any fashion. It tries to respectfully shine a light on the women left behind. Drinking to avoid thinking about the dangers of the military is understandable, but the unhealthy nature of suppressing one's emotions is also abundantly clear, so the transition away from this and forming a support network as the film progresses is uplifting, no matter how fabricated the drama is.

Our main characters Kate and Lisa (Kristin Scott Thomas and Sharon Horgan respectively) have enough opposing personality characteristics to make compelling foils. While their interactions are mostly formulaic and generic, forming the bulk of the conflict in the story, it allows the supporting cast to have more freedom with their dialogue, garnering more than a few laughs with some blue humour. It is these little pieces of humour sprinkled on top that prevents the film from sinking under the heaviness of it's more morbid elements. 

The diegetic music is inconsistently handled, varying wildly between comedically bad and good, peaking into great in a couple of patches. Oddly, the most awe-inspiring moment (musically speaking) it isn't in the film's climax, but instead under a bridge. Jess (portrayed by Gaby French) has an absolutely gorgeous voice and quite rightly shines the brightest. In an intriguing twist, Military Wives manages to gather enough engaging moments to bring on literal physical goosebumps in the climax with lyrical content stealing the spotlight over musical quality. 

It has been over two decades since director Peter Cattaneo released The Full Monty, and Military Wives makes a suitable follow-up. It doesn't push any boundaries, but it hits just enough right notes to get you swept up in the moment. Emotional support networks for the win!

Military Wives is in cinemas from April 9, 2020

Originally posted to: http://djin.nz/Kr8562

NT LIVE: FLEABAG (2019)

Written and performed by Phoebe Waller-Bridge (Fleabag, Killing Eve) and directed by Vicky Jones, this 67-minute play is a rip-roaring look at some sort of woman living her sort of life. Fleabag may seem oversexed, emotionally unfiltered and self-obsessed, but that’s just the tip of the iceberg. With family and friendships under strain and a guinea pig café struggling to keep afloat, Fleabag suddenly finds herself with nothing to lose.

Theatre has often been mislabelled as a pretentious retelling of English plays; full of outdated language with the same outdated stories. It has long tarred the theatrical stage with the reputation of being old and unoriginal, offering nothing new to the scene. That, of course, is not the case, it merely lacks the awareness when it comes to bringing in a fresh audience. In comes NT Live, bringing theatre to the more accessible silver screen of the cinema.

Later adapted into two seasons of BBC television, National Theatre Live: Fleabag brings the original one-woman theatrical show that started it all. The creative child of Phoebe Waller-Bridge, Fleabag is an eye-opening exercise in minimalism and powerful storytelling.

As this is a stage play, there is little to comment on with relation to cinematography, with the majority of the visual landscape involving a woman sitting atop a chair in the centre of the stage. Thanks to static camera angles, any sense of movement is brought on through the narrative journey that Waller-Bridge brings to the audience, helped by some subtle lighting changes to highlight location or changes in time.

It doesn’t take long to realise how fluent Waller-Bridge is with the character, Fleabag, which she is portraying. With the exception of a few excerpts of audio thrown in from off-stage from time-to-time, all information comes from Waller-Bridge. Switching between dialogue styles, Waller-Bridge conveys dialogue, narration, backstory, thoughts and opinions, exposition and embellishments, all without hesitation. All without creating any confusion as to what is going on. There is confidence and certainty in the performance that fills the viewer with a sense of authenticity.

This is not the story a young lover in a faraway land, kept from the object of her fantasies by a torn family. This is the story of a woman in modern-day London. A woman that wants to get out of the rat race. A woman that enjoys sex. A woman that enjoys a drink or two (or maybe 12). A woman that has just been through a break-up. Super relatable traits that are put about in a super relatable context. It’s modern, kitschy, earnest, and engagingly honest. 

This abrupt and candid story is both cringe-worthy and laugh-out-loud hilarious, frequently jumping between the two with such a lack of filter and consequence that the viewer cannot help but become engrossed in this protagonist whose life is slowly unravelling before us in exquisite detail.

Set up as a long-format comedy stand-up, Waller-Bridge’s ability to command the audience’s attention for a full hour and a half is exemplary. Her sense of timing is immaculate, taking full advantage of silence--sometimes waiting 10-15 seconds to drop a punchline--as well as well-timed omissions and exposition choices. Her knowledge of Fleabag’s story is so well-tuned that it doesn’t feel like she is regurgitating a script; it feels like an honest recollection of past events as if every time she tells the story it will be a little different, and the authenticity is empowering.   

If you love sharing gossip, or the idea of an expletive-laden, sex-filled, binge-drinking stories with a tragic backstory is up your alley, Fleabag will tick all of those boxes and more.

NT Live: Fleabag is in selected cinemas from March 5, 2020

GUNS AKIMBO (2020)

Miles is a video game developer who inadvertently becomes the next participant in a real-life death match that streams online. While Miles soon excels at running away from everything, that won't help him outlast Nix, a killer at the top of her game.

I’m not sure what I was expecting when confronted with the idea of muggle Harry Potter with guns attached to his hands being thrown into an underground death match. The premise is clearly outlandish and over-the-top, but considering my favourable opinion of Death Race and The Condemned (and to a lesser extent, The Hunger Games and Battle Royale), I had high hopes of being entertained.

And initially, that was indeed the case. Jumping straight into the action with a high-pace, high-intensity gunfight, Guns Akimbo was a veritable flurry of energy and excitement. Quick edits of high powered rifles, excessive glorified drug-use affecting and exaggerating the speed of the action sequence, bodies flipping onto tables and cameras flipping along with them, all within a neon-infused lair. The scene looks flashy at first glance and sets up one of our antagonists well as a crazy ass-kicking bad-ass, but the up-close camera style combined with the quick edits and constantly changing speeds, ends up being messy and increasingly difficult to follow. Fine for a single scene, not ideal for the full length of the movie.

What is missing from Guns Akimbo is a sense of its own unique identity. Combine the literal drug-fuelling from Crank, with the damaged and psychotic blonde anti-hero with the bleached skin that licks her guns from Suicide Squad, the fish-out-of-water with unusable hands from Edward Scissorhands, the neon-accentuated high-contrast dystopian environments of Nekrotronic, the video game mechanics of Grand Theft Auto and Gamer, the styling of Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, the one-liners of Scarface, and the general premise of The Running Man. The resulting amalgamation is what we have here; Guns Akimbo. There is nothing inherently distinct in this Daniel Radcliffe flick, where its incessant pop culture references are more copy and pasted from other films, than paying homage to.

For kiwi audiences, there is a certain thrill to seeing Radcliffe run for his life through Auckland’s central business district, and figuring out the complexities of day-to-day life with guns for hands is an absolute treasure trove of physical comedy, but for a supposed satire on the dangers of unrestricted internet entertainment, it glorifies absolutely everything in excess; the drugs are magical and lifesaving, a shotgun blast to the crotch is the preferred form of violence, and no life beyond the protagonist’s has any value.

Simply put, the script is weak and relies too heavily on the visual element to keep the audience’s interest. It works fine for the first act, but the film is so bloated with unnecessary subplots and forecasts the major plot points so far in advance, that it ends up with a 95-minute run-time that feels more like 155 minutes. Along with the weak script, the characterization is also lacking. Using narration instead of showing us the character development, Radcliffe comes across as less likeable, and Samara Weaving--while nearly unrecognizable--is one-note and lacks any charisma.

It's loud, it's obnoxious, it's violent, it's needlessly gratuitous, and if I was still a teenager, I may love this. Unfortunately, when you don't care about any of the characters, there is less little reason to care about what happens in the story. Inconsistencies in the plot are glaring and become more noticeable as the plot progresses. Chaotic and full of bright colours, but Guns Akimbo falls short of being memorable.

DOWNHILL (2020)

A woman starts to have second doubts about her husband after he runs away from an approaching avalanche, leaving her and their two sons behind.

Yet another film that Hollywood has decided to remake for the American people, Downhill is based on the 2014 Swedish film, Force Majeure, and even finds itself filming on location in the same country of Austria. With a premise that is more inspired by Family Guy or The Simpsons, a father’s actions in the face of danger leaves him uncertain of his position in his own family.

I mention Family Guy and The Simpsons because this is the typical sitcom family; the loving yet bumbling and neglectful husband, the neurotic, nagging, high-strung wife, and the two kids that are more plot device than their own developed character. It speaks to the level of originality the audience is to expect from this feature. While comedic elements are still present, it is important to note that this is by no means the usual Will Ferrell style of comedy, Downhill has a much lower quantity of physical humour, and is not above creating fully dramatic moments. 

It is this variability that is the saving grace of the film, allowing the audience to see a variety of situations and emotional responses to the premise, highlighting the personality traits and flaws in both of our main characters (played by Will Ferrell and Julia Louis-Dreyfus). 

Louis-Dreyfus provides the majority of the tension, and for good reason. Dealing with anger and resentment towards the absent “pillar” of the family, Louis-Dreyfus continually sets the stakes, as her partner’s reliability and trustworthiness called into question. Ferrell, on the other hand, sticks to his usual role of comic relief, soundly of the “show must go on” and denial mentality as he dodges around the topic of his own cowardice; clearly affected but not willing to confront the turn of events, his behaviour quickly becomes erratic and over-compensatory.

Only his second feature film set for theatrical release--his previous film being The Way, Way Back in 2013--Nat Faxon has yet to really carve his own directing style. There are a couple of tense moments that really to the spotlight on Faxon’s flair for the dramatic, but they are few and far between, with the remainder of the film being composed of the predictable formulaic sitcom-style comedy. There was an opportunity to take the film in a really dramatic direction, and to that end, Will Ferrell was a poor choice in casting. Not only does he create a false impression of the style of the film, but he reduces the impact of the premise when the “abhorrent behaviour” is something that is expected of an over-the-top Ferrell character.

Thematically, Downhill is all about that family dynamic and dealing with a scenario where the masculinity and ego of the father figure have been disrupted. It calls into question a train of thought that goes through many a parent's mind; when children are such a significant part of their lives, what are they sacrificing for that? What remains of their unique personality and character traits if you remove parenthood from it? It is a thought that leads many into mid-life crises, buying cars, bikes, and extravagant holidays to regain their lost sense of freedom and discovery.

For the most part, Downhill proposes a premise and explores two contrasting responses in a way that feels balanced, and grounded. It creates scenarios for our primary protagonists to learn and grow through, but Faxon doesn’t have the determination to see it through to the end, creating a very one-sided affair. There are many supporting characters and events that could have created more drama--with more originality--but non-vital aspects are swiftly disregarded after use and events are snubbed in order to force a specific ending. 

Downhill is a very familiar film, and there comes a comfort along with that. A capable comedy-drama with a few impactful moments, Faxon hasn’t yet learned how to trust his audience--removing all facets of subtlety with unnecessary expository dialogue--but still manages to formulate an enjoyable outing.

Downhill is in cinemas from March 5, 2020

Originally posted to: http://djin.nz/Kr8580