KONG: SKULL ISLAND (2017)

Kong is as classic as classic comes, but no film has ever really been able to recreate the wow factor from those original films. CGI just doesn't match our expectations as the visual quality of the film continues to increase. Kong: Skull Island is, however, a vast improvement in quality since Peter Jackson's attempt. 

Set in the time period immediately post-Vietnam war, the entire film is shot with a vintage filter of sorts, giving an orange, dark, dingy, and grainy feel to the footage. The environments, vehicles and munitions used in the film also help with the overall dated feel of the film. An aspect that I did enjoy was the role of the photographer in capturing moments on film; despite the movie being in colour, the photos were black and white. A brilliant small thing that really brought that authenticity home.

Plot-wise, the film is rather lacking. There is an island, there is Kong, and chaos ensues. Most of the plot and backstory are provided through John C. Reilly's character Marlow, who is the highlight of the film. Providing realism, but still imbibing optimism, Marlow straddles the fence line of insanity and is the only character I get truly invested in. Samuel L. Jackson's role comes a close second, but he crosses the line a little too quickly and loses my support quite easily.

There seems to be a contrast of ideals and ways of thinking between the majority military group, and majority civilian group. The military group are very much portrayed in a "follow orders", and "shoot first" mentality, while the civilian group very much have an "observe" and "protect" vibe going. This in itself would have been much more enjoyable a comparison if the groups had come across the same situations. Instead, we found the military group in a much more hostile situation that was only able to be solved through violence, bringing back the "if the only tool you have is a hammer, you treat everything as if it were a nail" school of thought.

The CGI was much improved, and Kong did look spectacular. The only real problem I found was the pure scale of the creatures. While awe-inspiring, it leaves the human characters playing a negligible part in the film. Their size inhibits them from having any real effect on the proceedings and renders their character traits rather moot (not that there were any strong actors in the film apart from John C Reilly and Samuel L. Jackson). In fact, they seem to have attempted to counter the size difference by adding more people to the cast. The end result is we have an undisclosed number of expendable people. The deaths lose meaning, and you don't empathise with anyone any more.

The monsters were inconsistent, in size, speed and strength, which was rather annoying. But in reality, I was here to see Kong fight. And I saw Kong fight. So it met expectations. I'd just love to have seen a better plot.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7490

ARRIVAL (2016)

Arrival being classed as a drama should give you an idea on the level of "Hollywood" action that the viewers are likely to find. Watching the trailer, and with an idea of the plot, one would expect an aggressive movie with missiles and nuclear weapons, but we are provided with an entirely different experience; a science fiction drama.

When you meet the protagonist, Louise Banks (played by Amy Adams), we discover that she is a linguist. A fact that provides the direction for the rest of the film. Focusing the bulk of the proceedings on engaging in communication with a spacecraft. In reality, this is barely a sci-fi film. The movie just provides a new way to look at establishing a basis for translating an unknown language. This premise itself is interesting as we ourselves learned our language a long time ago. So long ago that we can often lose touch with how easy it is to misconstrue and misunderstand a word; a scenario that in this case could potentially lead to catastrophic consequences. 

Visually, the film is stunning. Finally, we get a sci-fi film that isn't all chrome, holograms, and high tech gizmos; we instead get some very ugly hazmat suits, a scissor lift, and a whiteboard & marker. A very grounding experience. Instead of clean, sterile environments everywhere, we get a dank almost well-like interior, in an area that is dark and gloomy and puts you into a contemplative mood. You aren't distracted by the beauty of the environments, instead, you are focused on the plot.

The casting worked well, and it was interesting to see these comic book characters (Jeremy Renner plays Hawkeye in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, and Amy Adams plays Lois Lane in the DC Extended Universe) interacting together, I almost felt I would have preferred more unknown actors/actresses. Jeremy Renner and Amy Adams (and Forest Whitaker) are names and faces that are very well known, so sometimes it does become difficult to uncouple them from their previous roles and to fully engage with them in the movie. 

The pace of the film is quite slow in places and did have me checking how much longer I had to watch a couple of times in the middle, but the beginning and end of the film are gripping to watch. One of the aspects of the film which is probably glossed over as you watch it is the soundtrack by Jóhann Jóhannsson. With many sound effects created simply with layered piano and vocals, we are given an eerie musical playlist that works together with the film, providing room for the dialogue and other sound effects, but still accentuating the tension and emotions in the room. Brilliantly done.

Overall, a very unique stance on the sci-fi "first contact" film, and a refreshing change from the Hollywood releases of late. A film that makes you stop and think; responding instead of reacting to an otherworldly situation. Is it believable? Well, in my honest opinion, if the situation were to arise in real life, I don't imagine the United States would be as restrained as they were in this film, but I could still empathise with the level-headed approach. A pretty accurate portrayal of the wide range of responses that we would come to expect, and something I would definitely look to watch again.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7487

THE GREAT WALL (2016)

The Great Wall stars Matt Damon and is yet another example of whitewashing in Hollywood films. It was one of my biggest takeaways from the film, though only one of many aspects of the film and plot that I struggled to come to terms with. Matt Damon and Pedro Pascal portray William and Tovar, two westerners that lack honour and creed, and in search of a myth, discover entirely new eastern legends that they inexplicably are the only ones capable of providing solutions for. That, in itself,f was quite a sin. To provide a backstory that dates back over 1700 years from the time period of the film, that has the Chinese soldiers successfully doing a task until hours after the Europeans arrive just reeks of lazy writing; an obvious attempt to make western audiences empathize with it purely because of the Caucasian ethnicity of the actors involved. Personally, I would have preferred an entirely eastern cast. 

The film includes a lot of CGI, and sadly the budget of the film wasn't quite enough. Many of the environments come off unrealistic and grainy, and the threats in the film are immense in quantity, size, and strength. The speed of movement, numbers, and the overall ferocity of the threats in the film make it very hard to get truly invested in the film; the odds are insurmountable, and there is no real subtle hints or subtext. You notice things and people that will be relevant later in the plot, but there is no way that the viewer has any chance of figuring it out. It all has to be spelt out with narratives and storytelling. So you just sit back and watch the carnage, waiting for the next step.

That being said, as an action film, there are many parts that I enjoyed. The defence mechanisms set up in the wall were a great touch; sieges have been pretty overdone in film battles, so there were some nice original designs and adaptations to existing ideas, that kept up the excitement. While many of the different coloured Chinese squads helped to differentiate between tasks easily, you couldn't help but laugh at the lack of realism at most of the ideas (specifically the acrobatic specialist Crane troop).

There were several points in the film that managed to elicit a laugh from the audience, generally Pedro Pascal being the source. As well as laughs, the film managed to fit in a few scares, which maintained their shock value regardless of the predictability of the actions. Despite the mix of action, theatrics, laughs, and shocks, the film laboured towards the end; the European mercenary subplot, really halting the plot progression. 

There was a lot of potential with the film. I loved the Chinese fighting styles, and the cultural aspects used in the film. I would have preferred a much more manageable threat, however, as there really was no reason why the monsters wouldn't win in the first wave. I really wanted to see these differing Chinese units fighting a proper battle, rather than each colour having a single method of attack. The European stars had better action scenes, better choreography and a variety of fighting styles. With a more manageable threat, perhaps greater attention could have been taken with the CGI. 

A film that would be fun to watch, but not a film I would want to think about. Simply two teams fighting with as many explosions added as possible. The Great Wall? Not quite. It was a reasonable wall.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7467

ALONE IN BERLIN (2016)

Starring Brendan Gleeson (who has had roles in such films as Braveheart, Gangs of New York, and the Harry Potter and Mission Impossible franchises) in the role of Otto Quangel, and his wife Anna is played by Emma Thompson (known from such films as Sense and Sensibility, Love Actually, and also had a role in the Harry Potter franchise), the main cast is capped off by Daniel Brühl (Inglorious Basterds, Rush, Bourne Ultimatum, and most recently Marvel's Captain America 3: Civil War) who is cast as Escherich, a Police Inspector. With such well-established names, one would expect a rather thrilling drama.

Ultimately, this film is heartbreaking. Set in the centre of mid-World War II Germany, we have the story of a disenfranchised couple attempting to spark a revolution against the Nazi regime. The scenery and environment are beautifully created, with a yellowed tone that provides a period aura to the film, and gives that little bit more authenticity.

Emotion is something that was not so easy to come by in the film. Seesawing between apathy and quiet sadness, there were very few visible or public examples of grief or anger. While it did help portray the effects of police brutality in Nazi Germany, and the notion that everyone is being watched (which was specifically mentioned several times throughout the film), it did stifle the film somewhat, and made it that little bit harder to empathise with the protagonists; who I knew I should want to succeed but felt that they didn't really care about the results themselves.

Escherich was really the only source of movement in this incredibly slow game of cat and mouse. It was good to see some good detective work used in his quest to track the "Hobgoblins", but you couldn't help but think that there were some obvious plot holes and investigative points that he could have followed up that would have got a result sooner. His role was not engaging; while the Quangel's were dull, they gave the impression of parents who had lost purpose and were unaffected by the potential negative consequences of their actions. Escherich was just too fresh-faced for this film. He looked like a boy with no experience who had no place in the position he was in.

The most engaging part of the film comes towards the end. Stuck between a rock and a hard place, Otto is faced with a difficult decision that changes the direction of the film and leaves the audience wondering what will happen. As 'Alone in Berlin' is based on a fictional novel, so whether they follow in the footsteps of Otto and Elise Hampel (their real-life counterparts) is constantly in the mind of the viewer. Event after event hits, with difficult decision after difficult decision to be made by the main cast, and despite some off-screen implied consequences, the film provides the protagonist with a result even if it was posthumously. 

Overall, I enjoyed it. It was much slower than a usual Hollywood-type film, and it helped build the tension without the need for over-exaggerated danger and action. Everything happens small, but it all had a meaning, and I feel I have learned something from the German point of view that isn't often talked about. Worth a watch.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7465

RESIDENT EVIL 6: THE FINAL CHAPTER (2016)

As the name implies, this sixth film is the final instalment of the franchise. By this point I think most fans are watching the films for the sake of completionism; The original film was brilliant, but began their decay soon afterwards, entering a steep decline in quality storylines after the third instalment Extinction. But hope still remained that for the final piece, we would receive some consistency and cohesiveness. No such luck.

Apparently the fifth instalment was so engaging, that I completely forgot that it existed, so I was initially a little bit confused at the location and characters present in the opening scenes of this latest film (this is despite the 10 minute recap and narration that I had to sit through, as they outlined the entire franchise again. "Previously on Resident Evil..."). One of the consistent grievances with movies is the overpowered nature of the main character Alice, and the enemies. The normal T-virus zombies and other survivors have pretty much had no role in the film apart from adding gore as we try to find more creative ways to get them all killed. Nothing changes here, apart from the entire scenario being accelerated to try and fight several big boss fights in.

The entire movie has been stripped of suspense and tension and instead opts to purely work with shock and confusion. Rather than the absence, and subtle hints of a presence, everything is immediately revealed with an excessively loud 'roar' or 'screech'. My big annoyance with the film is the fact that I cannot enjoy any of the fight choreography, as the entire thing is edited in a way that you have multiple angle changes per second, giving the illusion of high-speed actions, without being able to actually know what happens. While it is okay to do on occasion, the high number of fight scenes makes it incredibly hard to follow, and eventually, it just becomes irritating (perhaps the budget was so low that they had to do that so you couldn't see the poor choreography and special effects?).

There are so many holes in the logic of the plot, that I almost walked out of the cinema multiple times (and watched two people leave and not come back). In fact, that is the reason why I am writing this review straight after the film. To reach as many people as possible early on. The film becomes a slog, with constant battles, the re-use of the cloning plot device, and eventually a predictable and unsatisfying end. There were so many opportunities for the villains to "win", that the film should have been called 'Resident Evil: The series of repetitive coincidental plot devices'. Everything you have seen is regurgitated, you can predict nearly every death, every action because you have already seen it all before. It attempts to use nostalgia to keep the interest, but it just makes the film stale.

Now it wasn't all bad. I'll give them that much. There were some great reveals about 3/4 of the way through the film, and it answered many questions that I didn't know I had. So it provided a bit of satisfaction; that feeling of things being wrapped up. It was one of the things that I didn't expect, so I genuinely enjoyed that part. How they used it to end the film, however, was disappointing and a cop-out, in my opinion. But for a moment there, everything made sense and the world was good.

I would, unfortunately, say it is best to give this one a miss. I could go on with the issues I had with it, but just know that I was thoroughly disappointed with it.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7437

PASSENGERS (2016)

Visually, this movie was amazing. The environments were breathtaking and a thrill to watch on the big screen. You just get taken in by the emptiness of space and it really helps you engage with the main character Jim (despite travelling through space being a difficult thing to empathise with). The writers have done a brilliant job in creating the premise and finding legitimate ways to justify it. Everything you think of that could avoid the problems that the protagonist comes across, is covered. There is a reason why it is that way. They cover pretty much all their bases...almost too well.

I suppose one of the things that I was able to understand was Jim's perspective of isolation and loneliness. It made me seriously consider the ethical implications put forward by the film; if you strand a man on an island, and he could strand another person with him, would you doom that person to a life stranded for the sake of companionship? With the possibility of living the rest of your life completely alone, it is a difficult decision that one would have to wrestle with every single day. Contemplating the conundrum myself, I thought of a dark solution to the problem of living alone for 90 years, and it really hit home when I saw Pratt go through the same motions. It really made me connect with his character, as he truly considered every possibility.

That is one of the other well-done things about the film. The majority of the film is shot with only 3 members of the cast. An amazing feat to get so much emotion and development with such minimal use of cast. The use of a cyborg character with limited functions in the film is a great workaround when you have such minimal cast, allowing the sense of being alone, but still providing good banter, comedic fills, and providing the protagonist with a sounding board so that he doesn't instantly come off as a crazy man talking to himself.

The one part of the film that I took exception to was how the film turned plot-wise. The second half of the film changed from a thought-provoking ethical dilemma, and it was turned into an all-out action film that rendered the previous ethical dilemma moot. Once it went full action, the cracks in the plot started to show through, and I started to disconnect from the characters. I was entertained, but it was predictable and not really a surprise at all.

There are so many small things that bring levity to the film, whether it be the "class" of passengers, sending emails through space, communicating with robots, or the things people do when alone. But ultimately it falls short of a great film; the drastic change in focus between the two halves of the film, and the negating effects of one on the other ends up ruining all of the credibility that it creates.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7438

ASSASSIN'S CREED (2016)

Movies that are based on video games are always difficult to do with success (some would argue that it is still yet to be successfully done). Generally, this is thought to be because of the differences in the medium; the game involves hours of personal involvement and full control of the main character, whereas a film obviously provides a cinematic approach that by comparison can struggle to properly engage the viewer. So I was curious to see how well this would turn out.

The film starts off with some script, before a multitude of time jumping; from the 15th century, to 30 years ago, then up to 2016. All in an attempt to portray the lineage of assassins. In all honesty, it had already started to bore me at this point. The jumping made it harder to properly engage and with the character when you are getting introduced to so many characters, and so much backstory without any answer as to what you need to really keep track of. Don't get me wrong, I loved the 15th-century parts. In fact, I loved everything directly related to that part of the film. The setting, the characters, the movements, and fight scenes, the hallucinations. I enjoyed it all.

My general area of dislike came from the "current day" portions of the movie. In the game you will spend the vast majority of your time in the past, so to spend so much time in the current time (i.e. away from the assassin stuff) was frustrating. I can understand that coming up with a viable plot for an Assassin's Creed film would be difficult, but I can't help but feel that the balance between historic and present scenes was off. This also would have had a double damaging effect on the film as it led to rushing the stuff that we want to see. The pacing entirely felt off, moving from far too slow, to way too fast. Accelerating to the point that we never had a chance for anything to sink in. It just rushed from one thing to the next. 

It is probably one of the best video game based movies I've seen, but it still falls short from expectations. There are very few stealth moments, and the assassin stuff while well done, just didn't take up enough of the film. Hell, I would have preferred a film with no "present day" scenes. Just give me more assassins!

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7426