LOGAN (2017)

This is probably one of the hardest reviews I have ever had to write. Not because there is little to write about or I disliked the film, but because it is really hard for me to write from a non-biased perspective with regards to this film. Logan is the final film for Hugh Jackman (and rumours also say Patrick Stewart) who have played Wolverine (and Professor Charles Xavier) for the last 17 years. Hugh Jackman has reprised his role as Wolverine in every X-Men movie to date (excluding Deadpool, although he was heavily referenced), so I have a lot of history watching this character evolve and develop over time.

But back to the movie as a whole. Logan comes with an R rating; the first X-Men movie to have such a rating (thanks to the success of the R-rated Deadpool movie), and it quite rightly earns that rating. Starting from the very first word in the film, expletives were thrown out, which you initially think is just put in there to get the rating, but the opening scene evolved into a feeding frenzy of violence and gore. Within the first couple of minutes, it has been made clear that this movie is not suitable for children. I repeat: NOT SUITABLE FOR CHILDREN. 

The violence and the expletives take on their own role in this film. Every swear word, every severed limb, every decapitated head, every scream of pain, runs deep emotionally. While it doesn't give you the backstory that is often alluded to (the film takes place in the year 2029, many years after all the other X-Men films), you are aware that their lives have taken a serious toll. Both Wolverine and Xavier are mentally and physically bare, struggling to care for themselves, let alone play the role of the hero.

The villains in the film are probably the only real drawback to the film. They lack the history of Jackman and Stewart, and really don't provide a strong enough position to me. I struggle to understand their motives, and there were many moments in the film where they easily could have ended the film right then and there and succeeded. But they follow the usual villain tropes that allow the protagonists extra chances. I would have also preferred more focus on Logan and Co., as every time it changed the view to that of the antagonists, the film slowed and lost its flow. But at the same time, it again helped to emphasize the state of Wolverine; far from the sleek, invincible, unstoppable force that he was in his "youth". 

The casting was superb, and I loved all of the performances. You could really feel the connection between the protagonists, going far beyond the "we're on a team" mentality, or doing a mission to save the world. The players act both selflessly and selfishly, and show real family dynamics, with bickering, frustration, and anger, but still overwhelming love and respect. The film's darker, gritty tone was not without its comedic elements, but they were naturally a part of the storyline, every action bringing you further into the connection.

The fight choreography was lively and fun, with noticeable differences in camera use and fighting styles between the protagonists. Very little shaky cam, though there were a bit of the quick edit shots; overall the fight scenes flowed well, and managed to remain fast, and edgy, while still coming across ferocious and brutal. The ending really tugged on the heartstrings and provided the conclusive ending that I was looking for. As I exited the theatre, there were very few dry eyes to be seen, and many audible sniffles and sobs. An emotional rollercoaster that I don't think I could bring myself to watch again; it was the perfect ending to 17 years of Hugh Jackman's Wolverine.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7468

LA LA LAND (2016)

La La Land is an interesting film, combining the styles of a stage musical, with a romantic comedy, and an overall jazz theme. The jazz theme alone is a fascinating if not controversial choice, considering the largely Caucasian cast. Gone are the days where musicals were written and sung in a way that really allowed the viewer to understand the lyrics, but at the same time, photography and choreography have come so far that the purpose and plot associated with the songs are discernible without the need for lyrics. 

Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone are the principal protagonists throughout the film and do a brilliant job portraying the frustrations of those in the acting and musical world trying to make it big. Unlike most Hollywood films, where the protagonists reach their goals through sheer positivity and luck, we are struck with a closer shot of realism; the knowledge that talent and determination can often lead to nowhere, and we get a glimpse into why the industry crushes so many dreams.

Emma Stone is the real winning component to the film, with her portrayal of the wannabe actress stuck in a menial job as a barista. Despite being a well known established actress in reality, she successfully pulls off the look and actions of someone with grand dreams, who is starting to lose faith in her ability to get there. She wins your heart with her smile, and your heart sinks when things don't go her way. Ryan Gosling also does well, but really his character is a lot less likeable. The idealistic musician who has talent, but refuses to play ball, comes across as stubborn, cocky, and arrogant. He has a confidence that is smarmy, and while the women seemed to enjoy it, it annoyed the hell out of me. But I do have to admit his presence is necessary, as his attitude is one of the driving forces of the film.

The photography and cinematography are near enough faultless; the colouration of the film alone, gives a period feeling to the film, which helps the musical aspect along that much more. The song styles fit very well, and while the choreography does feel out of place at times (more stage show than the silver screen), it does provide more intensity to the moment.

I much preferred the first act of the film, the honeymoon stage, and the uplifting aura of Stone's performance. But it was the final act that really sold it. This isn't a typical film. It is something that requires a little bit more attention when you watch it. But it's a treat, and worth a watch.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7557

FENCES (2016)

I wanted to like the film when I first read the synopsis, but it turned out to be very difficult for me to watch. Not because of the content, but instead the delivery method. I'm a man that struggles with accents, so when I get an accent, at speed, I will start losing bits and pieces of the conversation. Next thing you know, I'm lost, and all I know is that Denzel Washington has said "N*****" a heck of a lot of times. 

One of the main differences between watching a film at home vs in the theatre is the number of distractions. In the cinema, you have no choice but to pay full attention to the film. At home, however, you may have someone talking to you, you may be doing chores, surfing the web, checking Facebook, there are a plethora of activities that could distract you from full attention. This is a film that requires your full attention; the plot is driven by the fast-spoken dialogue, and it is something you must be attentive to fully appreciate. One of the positives about watching at home is that I can pause and re-watch things that I've missed.

The film is shown in low saturation, giving the film a dated, and pre-dusk feel to it. But the most significant thing that makes this film different is that 98% of the film takes place in one location. Events occur, but they will either occur in the location or just be talked about with another character on location. Rarely, do we glimpse outside of the confines of the lot, and that is what makes the acting, and the dialogue all the more important. 

It took a while to really get invested in the film. HOWEVER, it is a slow-burner, that builds towards a tipping point. A tipping point that was unexpected, out-of-the-blue, and instantly threw a curveball (pun fully intended) into how I saw the movie playing out. Suddenly there was a real plot line. Suddenly you care about the characters. Suddenly I was invested. The second act of the film switches the film from an antiquated biopic to a suspenseful drama. 

In all honesty, I disliked all of the characters in the first act, with the exception of Jim Bono (played by Stephen Henderson). Bono was the face that brought comfort and was the grounding force for the film. Viola Davis does a convincing job emoting Rose's pain, and for someone who has very little dialogue input into the film, does brilliant work with facial expressions and actions. 

Underlying the whole movie is the theme of white privilege, about the effects of racial segregation, stereotyping, and the trickle-down effect it has on the mental health of the families affected by it. It doesn't affect one person, it affects the entire community; children included. It's a thought-provoking piece, that I initially didn't like the look or sound of, but the second half really reeled me in, and now I see why the critic ratings are so high.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7558

SOLACE (2015)

When I read the blurb on the back of the DVD, I did have to have a bit of a laugh to myself. An FBI agent needing help from a "Dr" to help track down a serial killer, let's be honest it sounds very similar to Silence of the Lambs. In fact, Dr John Clancy is played by none other than Anthony Hopkins (who also played Dr Hannibal Lecter in the before mentioned Silence of the Lambs). 

In Solace, Hopkins' character is a bit of a psychic, and this is what drives the film. The other characters are effectively at an impasse, and therefore hold very little significance in the narrative of the plot. As far as Anthony Hopkins' movies go, this is one of his weaker roles. He comes off very similar in style to his previous role as Hannibal Lecter, with a very "uncooperative unless it suits me" personality that constantly hides details from the other characters. 

Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Abbie Cornish are rather forgettable. They play their roles well but really provide no importance to the overall storyline. Colin Farrell's character actually ends up with little screen time, and comes off very unhinged; none of the characters are ultimately likeable. 

As a thriller, the whole psychic theme works reasonably well, even though it's done in a very dumbed-down manner. It allows an extra layer of tension to preside, due to these extra abilities. You don't have to rely on logic, luck, or chance when one has the ability to use their "intuition" to see what is coming. I found myself watching the movie, not to see any of the protagonists succeed, but to see the protagonist fail. So the viewers end up with characters that they are unable to properly empathise with. The pacing of the film is all that keeps our attention going.

This film raises a lot of questions around euthanasia, and mercy killings, and is the most tangible part of the film. The thing that really kept me hooked. It creates such a moral and ethical dilemma and is a source of controversy in the real world, so it is interesting to see how other people or characters react to such ideas. 

Is the film enjoyable? Yes. Anthony Hopkins gives us much of the same; and while it isn't up to the standard of some of his earlier stuff, it is still a thrill to watch. The pacing of the film keeps your attention, despite the lack of character personalities from Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Abbie Corning. Would I recommend watching it? I would. Is it a film that I will watch again and again? Probably not.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7524

JACKIE (2016)

This was a disappointing watch. According to Google, there were around three days between the assassination of JFK and his burial, and basing an entire film around one person's view of those 3 days, unfortunately, creates a very dry watch.

The film is based around an "interview" between Jackie Kennedy and a journalist, as they recount the assassination and the days that immediately followed. The entire interview style was both useful and a hindrance to the film; it allowed an extra comparison between how Jackie acts, and how she allows herself to be seen, both during the emotional turmoil and after the immediacy of it has passed. On the other hand, it also took us away from being a first-hand account, to almost being hearsay. When you go from watching an event happen, to watching how a character tells us it happens, while also multiple times mentioning that she will be editing any transcripts, it's hard to take it as seriously.

The film is oddly shot, with odd transitions and dialogue almost cropped out as the camera changes angles and jumps through time. It makes it a little harder to follow but does give it a more aged, period-piece feel. There were several recreations of vintage footage which was a nice touch, though I would have preferred to have seen the actual footage, so I could properly see how well cast the actors and actresses were.

Largely, the film skates by with little to no dialogue. Hoping to express itself purely by Portman's actions and acting ability. Unfortunately, what can often be considered dignity can also come across as emotionless. And what one tries to show as determination and love, could come across as irrational and stubborn. In both of these cases, Natalie Portman really struggled to sell the performance. Every scene seemed to share equal importance no matter what was occurring, which took away from moments that should have endeared us to Jackie. 

I would have preferred a much more streamlined script. straight-forward chronologically; remove the journalist interviews, and the time skipping so that the viewers can properly gauge how the emotions changed over time, how she coped with such immense loss in the public's eye.

Ultimately, the film bored me. Portman came off stone-faced and unlikable, and the most emotional scenes (warning there are some very graphic shots in this film) came off flat and lacked authenticity. The film really needed a larger perspective with better support from the rest of the cast, instead, we have an inconsistent performance that leads a lot to be desired.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7523

GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY VOL. 2 (2017)

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 has been a long time in the making; at least when you take hype into consideration. The first movie was such an overwhelming success, especially for a lesser known group of characters that all needed to be introduced and fleshed out before a story can be properly engaged with. With the bar set so high by its predecessor, and the high level of media coverage if you follow the superhero genres on social media, the hype will be the huge obstacle for the sequel to overcome.

Now let's temper the hype machine by saying straight out of the gate that I don't feel it is as great as the original. It is good, don't get me wrong, but the focus was in the wrong place. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 has one main story arc based around the parentage of Chris Pratt's character Peter Quill (Starlord), a storyline that was hinted at, at the end of the first Guardians of the Galaxy movie. There are also three other sub-stories revolving around the character development of Rocket, Yondu, and Gamora & Nebula. What this does mean is that Groot (voiced by Vin Diesel) and Drax the Destroyer (portrayed by Dave Bautista) really have little effect on the plots beyond being a couple of extra hands, and a source of hilarity.

The opening scene of the film brings us to the Guardians of the Galaxy right before a battle, which we then barely get to see any of, as Groot steals the spotlight and becomes the focus for the majority of the said battle. While it provides a few laughs and awws (Baby Groot is indeed adorable), it sets the tone for the whole film in a way that makes us feel like these characters are incompetent but indestructible, and struggle to see any further enemies in the film as an actual credible threat.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 has a plethora of laugh-out-loud moments, but it has so many that after a while you became very aware of parts of the film that lacked comedy, as it had suddenly become the thing that was keeping you engaged with the plot; waiting for the slap-stick humour. Perhaps the comedy was necessary to try and balance the plot, as the content is surprisingly dark for a Marvel film (which often cater to younger audiences than competitor DC's films). Yondu's story arc specifically is quite heart-wrenching at times.

With 5 end credit scenes, Stan Lee cameos, and a primary focus on the comedic element of the characters, it felt like a film full of moments, without proper content in the scenes connecting them together. There were times when the scene ended and we returned to see the progress of other characters and it was a surprise because I had forgotten about the other characters; their plotline ceased in our minds, not long after they left the screen.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 had plenty of great aspects to it; the creativity of Rocket's munitions and his tactical brilliance was an art in itself and a pleasure to watch. The character development of Yondu brought much-needed depth to the character, even if it was a little cheesy at times. I did find a lot of the dialogue felt forced, and wasn't coming across as organic conversation, which again seemed to repeat itself a lot, or spend too much time on a single punch line.

The real stand out character in Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 however, was newcomer Mantis. Pom Klementieff does a brilliant job bringing the character to life in a convincing way. Her makeup/SFX were convincing too; you compare Mantis to Pom, and you can't even tell that it is the same person. Other visual environments were exquisite and well rendered, though the primary setting of the movie did come across a little bit garish. Very bright colours in the capital, though the outer reaches have a much more realistic, and dull tone to them.

I enjoyed the film, but with no real connection to the major Infinity War storyline, I was hoping for a strong story with some really genuine character development. I felt underwhelmed in that sense, but I was still thoroughly entertained, even if it was in more of a "Saturday night popcorn" kind of way.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7518

ALLIED (2016)

Brad Pitt certainly does love his World War Two era movies. With Inglorious Basterds and Fury already under his belt, Brad Pitt once again takes on the role of a World War Two Allied serviceman, with a Mr & Mrs Smith twist to it. Now it is very important to point out that the first act of the film is set in Morocco, and involves a fair chunk of foreign language. I actually ended up watching a good 20 minutes of the film, trying to take note of all the objects that the camera would focus on, and take note of any odd movements or mannerisms before I thought to check the main title menu and find that English subtitles were in fact available. Re-watching that initial 20 minutes, it made much more sense now that I was able to understand what every character was saying. So...BEFORE YOU HIT PLAY, PICK SUBTITLES.

The movie is split into two main story arcs, the Moroccan arc, where the two main characters first meet, and the London arc, where their story concludes. The two arcs are strung together by a mish-mash mosaic of memories. This montage of important moments, that while significant to the characters themselves, have little relevance towards the movement of the plot, and are thusly skipped over.

The plot itself is enjoyable. We are fed an action, suspense film through the eyes of a romantic. Everything is displayed in a way that is bathed in emotion. Every action has multiple consequences for these two operatives, who must decide who they are lying to; their allies, their enemies, each other, or themselves. With two characters, who are both immediately revealed to the viewer as spies, it sows a seed of doubt to everything that is said and done, as we have no baseline to base anything from. We have no backstory, it all starts with a lie, and you never truly know whether the truth has been revealed.

A much slower war era film, we are treated to a film that takes a look at the working behind the scenes, away from the frontline, where lines are blurred, and despite being at war, much of the world continues to move on as if nothing has happened. The visual environments are stunning. Everything has a vintage hue, the style of dress, the vehicles, and the housing, all add to the cohesiveness of the environment. 

The casting was good. Both Brad Pitt and Marion Cotillard looked like they fit right in with the era, and were irregular enough in their characters personalities that you really didn't know whether you were in for subtle conversation, or guns blazing. They did wonders, keeping the viewer guessing throughout, as there was always a number of available outcomes at every junction. 

I honestly would have enjoyed more passion from Brad Pitt's character, as he did come off as rather unemotional and aloof, but Marion Cotillard did magnificently and kept the engagement level high. An enjoyable film, considering all of the action was treated as emotional ammunition, so it all had a deeper meaning to it. A film that keeps you thinking throughout.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7499