THE FLORIDA PROJECT (2017)

The Florida Project is a film for critics and film students. It exists to bring to light the lives of those of lower socioeconomic status and provides a litany of scenes to critique and discuss. For the regular movie crowd that has become accustomed to Hollywood "beautiful people and fast-paced action" films, this will fall short due to the lack of progress and direction of the film. Wikipedia is able to describe the plot in only one sentence; "Set during the summer, Moonee, a precocious 6-year-old girl, lives with her mother Halley in a community of extended-stay motel guests in Kissimmee, Florida." If that doesn't intrigue you, then this isn't the film for you, and you need not read any further.

The film provides a look at the disparity between the image that Disneyland portrays within its boundaries compared to the surrounding areas. Areas once full of potential accommodation lots to cater to incoming tourists, that have since fallen into disrepair, been abandoned, and reduced to low-income housing for those that struggle are one missed payment away from being homeless. Areas where arson, vandalism, drug use, alcoholism, and assault, are par for the course. But this is the area where the leading lady (our six-year-old Brooklyn Kimberly Prince, aka Moonee) thrives. She holds the innocence of a child, with the wisdom of a teenager. While she may not be able to comprehend the full context of every little play, she is a girl that has lived around a revolving door of people, and in turn has learned to recognise their quirks, and how to manipulate people to get her way. Whether it's trying to get free meals from a family friend, free ice cream by begging from strangers, or using peoples kindness to help her reach her own goals.

These are skills that she has picked up from Halley, her young, single mother, who embodies the respectfulness of a cream pie to the face. Disenfranchised about the world, she has long ago given up, in every manner but one (providing for her daughter), and we watch as doors close around her one by one and she spirals into a nosedive that she cannot escape. Portrayed by Bria Vinaite, Halley is a character that creates conflicting opinions.' she is both an absent mother, and a loving mother. We watch as she steals and scams tourists, undercuts larger companies, lies and manipulates people, and if she doesn't get her way we watch as she explodes in anger, with violence, coarse words, and spiteful actions. But we also watch her take every step that she can to keep a roof over her child's head, provides a level of habit and routine, and when she gets a windfall, all the spoils go to her daughter.

The film almost comes across as a documentary, as we watch Moonee corral her friends towards any adventures at any cost. They make do with the bare minimum of provisions and still enjoy every single day, whether it be spitting on a car from a balcony, or going on a rural safari to see some cows. Even if a friend gets grounded, Moonee fills that gap with another child from the neighbouring motel that she only just met. She's a child of opportunity and she takes every available one, no matter the consequence. 

Willem Dafoe is the anchor in this movie, affording the positive male influence that is missing from many of these children's lives. Portraying Bobby, the owner of the Magic Castle Motel that Halley and Moonee live in, Dafoe has a role that is sparse and injected into little bits throughout the film. But he is still connected to every piece and takes personal responsibility for many things that are above the call of duty because he has that spark of humanity in him. He is definitely the most endearing adult character in the film, and you can see the struggle that he goes through every day ensuring his tenants pay up, but being as accommodating as possible because he knows they have no alternatives.

The film is shot beautifully, with the colours giving a youthful nostalgic feel, while the use of shadows brings back the reality and drudgery. The film feels real; there is no real resolution, people don't talk about their problems, everything is a form of conflict, people act irrationally out of spite and anger, instead of a journey with a direction it's repeating habits day in day out, and it's all there on the screen. It serves as a great reminder that the world is not always what you see. There is darkness amongst the light, and light amongst the darkness. The Florida Project attempts to bring this to the forefront. But what am I meant to do with this information?

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7771

THE MUMMY (2017)

This is the remake that was never asked for. A film to start the Dark Universe for the monster films, and while I can see why they chose the Mummy film (it was a brilliant franchise), this remake has gone ahead and destroyed its chances at being taken seriously. The Marvel Cinematic Universe started with Iron Man, a standalone film that only brought in connections to other IPs in the end credit scene. The first DC Extended Universe film that wasn't critically panned was Wonder Woman; another standalone film that only referenced the connected universe at the end of the film. The success of these films is that they allow the characters to star in their own films with their own plots. The film is meant to carry its own weight, and not just be a vessel to introduce as many characters as possible into a "universe". Therefore, the introduction of Dr Henry Jekyll and the Prodigium organisation at the absolute beginning was the films first misstep.

Tom Cruise playing an arrogant, narcissistic character, is as good casting as having Robert Downey Jr play an arrogant, alcoholic, millionaire playboy. They are essentially playing themselves. Unfortunately, an arrogant narcissistic character is not what the film needed. Ultimately, the film is called The Mummy, and the mummy, Ahmanet, should, therefore, be the primary focal character. Even in the original superior Brendan Fraser franchise, despite Fraser being the main character, the film still equally followed the path of the Mummy, Imhotep. In this remake, Tom Cruise takes the forefront of every scene, and Ahmanet is cast aside, having even less importance than the character of Set, who despite never actually being a visible character on screen, still manages to reduce Ahmanet's intimidation levels to that of an angry child.

Jake Johnson portrays Corporal Chris Vail, arguably the most interesting character in the film. He is the only character that isn't over the top in personality, and the only person who is realistic in his opinions; such as bombs are bad, we should run away from guns, Tom Cruise's character Sergeant Nick Morton makes bad judgement calls, etc. He is the character that we can empathise with the most because in his boots we would know better than to enter those situations too. 

I really wanted to like the film. The idea of an attractive female mummy was intriguing, and I was looking forward to seeing a powerful woman being portrayed. Instead, we got an angry child, that is running around trying to do the bidding of the male god, and pining after the body of Tom Cruise for some reason, and was easily captured. Hardly a viable threat, and a wasted opportunity.

The film felt like a Mission Impossible movie. It was all running and action scenes while the other half was needless exposition in a convoluted plot with so many holes in it. I am disappointed in how lacklustre the film was, and how unlikable nearly every single character was. 

Brendan Fraser, your Mummy films will always be number 1.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7724

THE PROMISE (2016)

As a rock music lover who has been a fan of the Armenian-American heavy metal group System of a Down, and following the lead singer Serj Tankian on social media, means I've often seen articles and comments made by him regarding Turkey and the Armenian Genocide; namely the lack of any acknowledgement from officials that it even happened. So I heard about this movie through him, as he composed a song for the end-credits alongside the late Chris Cornell, and it piques my interest. 

The film itself has a stellar cast line-up with Oscar Isaac (Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Ex Machina, X-Men: Apocalypse), Batman (I mean, Christian Bale), and the gorgeous Charlotte Le Bon. Charlotte was an interesting choice as while I was watching it, my flatmate walked in and the first thing he said was "nice french accent". I found it interesting because it is explained that the character had spent several years in Paris, and had returned to rediscover her Armenian heritage; I did not think anything of this until my flatmate pointed out the authenticity of the accent. A quick Google told me that Charlotte is actually French-Canadian in ancestry, so it led me to a question. Was the history of her character changed to get around her accent? An interesting thought.

The film started off rather generically; one of the issues with having big names in your film is that it becomes more difficult for your audience to truly see them as their characters, and then the audience may start to over-analyse every action. The film follows Oscar Issac's character Michael (pronounced Meekhell) as he works to progress from working in an apothecary to becoming a qualified doctor. The quick introduction of the woman that he "will learn to love", and the lively, beautiful woman who was married to Bale's character, leaves very little room for subtlety. The film wants a love triangle and takes no time throwing one together. It takes a while to truly warm up to the characters because of the speed at which we are introduced to them (admittedly they aren't really the important plot points in the film).

In this way, the pacing of the film seems a bit inconsistent. We are thrust into the film with very little backstory, and with the film focusing on the three protagonists, we see very little from the other side of the conflict. Reasonings and justifications from the opposition are hinted at, but it is very much the matter of noticing words that characters use, to assume their intentions. A lot of the film relies on your emotional investment in the main characters, to give you a feeling of a nation working against them, rather than giving you a single antagonist character that you can focus the negative emotions towards. It's a film that successfully instils the feeling of shifting goalposts; which while likely an accurate representation of the events, is sometimes frustrating to watch.

There is a lot of potential with the film, but it would have worked better if it was more firmly rooted in historical accuracy. I'm not by any means saying that the genocide didn't happen, but using fictional characters locked in a love triangle that coincidentally puts them at the centre of every clash that occurs, makes it much harder to take the film too seriously. What is accurate? Who is based on a real person? Who is fictional? I don't have the answers to these questions with a few exceptions. Something along the lines of the Band of Brothers miniseries would have been a better route to follow, but with far fewer survivors, perhaps that wasn't a viable option. 

Slow to get into, but ultimately it managed to keep my interest. Was it satisfying to watch? Not at all. Was it meant to be satisfying? Well, no. This isn't a Hollywood film with a usual happy ending and the conflict resolved. There is only the Promise.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7717

BAYWATCH (2017)

I only watched this film for one reason; Alexandra Daddario. Despite her having a smile that makes her look a bit unhinged, her eyes are magnificent. You get lost in them. So mesmerizing. So I was shocked to see how one of the running jokes of the film revolved around how Zac Efron's character keeps staring at her breasts. In real life, Alexandra Daddario is one of the few people that would never have that problem because her eyes are that luxurious. And that really outlines one of the big problems with the film. It feels like the casting was done completely separate from the scripting; that is to say that the cast was chosen because of their popularity and attractiveness, with no regard for how well they fitted in with the jokes and personalities in the script. 

The film really struggled with what it wanted to be; it wanted to be cheesy like the original tv series, but it also wanted to be edgy, and action-packed. But each of these aspects reduces the effectiveness of the others. They attempt to be edgy by inserting as many penis jokes in as possible, and it negates the action. The action scenes negate the cheesiness. It ends up battling with itself, which is a losing battle. But was I entertained? I watched the whole movie through in one go without having to pause. So it did manage to keep me reasonably engaged. Did I hate the film? No, I didn't love it, but it wasn't atrocious by any means. Did it have everything I expected? I expected hot women barely clothed, slow-mo running along the beach and some cameos from the original cast. Tick, tick, tick.

The cinematography was great. Crisp, clean environments with a wide variety of camera angles. It was fun to watch, even if the plot was more like Fast and Furious meets Transporter meets Mall Cop; it certainly isn't a plot that requires you to think. But the story was far more complicated than it needed to be. All it needed was the first half of the film. Saving people on the beach, and a competition to pick new lifeguards. It would have been a wholesome film, with some reasonable snarky comments from Dwayne Johnson. None of this unnecessary buddy cop drama. Keep it simple.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7725

DENIAL (2016)

This release could not have been better timed, with the recent events unfolding in the United States; a.k.a the rise of neo-nazis into the public eye. The world needs a reminder of what occurs when people divide and rank the human species. A commonly paraphrased quote says "Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it", and with this generation being the last to be able to come face-to-face with a Holocaust survivor, maintaining the validity of the events is integral.

Denial is a slow-moving film. It is both frustrating and an eye-opener. The prospect that someone denies the Holocaust happened is laughable, but the reality of having to come up with incontrovertible proof of the matter is an entirely different matter. It causes you to question what you know. The reality is that as humans we are very easy to manipulate; we believe "reputable" sources. However, what counts as a reputable source is not so clearly defined anymore, and with the internet, misinformation is everywhere. 

The film slowly builds towards the court case which is undoubtedly the most exciting part of the film, as we are looking to see our own knowledge tested; to be able to hear what evidence people have to deny what we believe, and to hear the evidence that proves them to be incorrect. Despite the rather morbid topic, the film is self-affirming and in that regard, it almost comes across as a feel-good film, where the protagonist must overcome several obstacles that provide the antagonist with an advantage.

With many of the court scenes repeated verbatim as they were in the actual court case, Denial provides a valid and accurate representation of the process, and was definitely a necessary move in a movie about misinformation. The casting was generally top notch; Rachel Weisz was my only concern, as her fame does make it harder to see her as her character. She is still the gorgeous actress I remember from the Mummy franchise, just here she is given a frumpy hairstyle and a Boston accent; it was the only part that didn't feel authentic. That being said, despite differences in appearance the real Deborah Lipstadt clearly had no qualms with her casting.

The film is fueled by emotion and gives a great presentation of the battle between emotion, beliefs, and objectivism. I would have loved longer, more in-depth coverage of the court scenes, but with the run-time that the film has, again the balance was amicable.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7703

ALIEN: COVENANT (2017)

A lot of the successful franchises all began with a simple concept; Terminator had a cyborg trying to assassinate someone, Predator had an 'invisible' creature 'hunting' people, and Alien involved trying to escape a deadly alien that wanted to use the humans as a host for its parasitic babies. The downfall of the ongoing sequels is arguably the addition of backstory (apart from Terminator 2: Judgement Day, which kicked ass). When a film starts placing too much emphasis on explaining the history and lore of the franchise over several films, you find the genre that the film fits in start to shift away from the original film.

In the case of Alien, the original film started off as a horror, which then became more along the line of action movies in the follow-up sequels. When the prequel Prometheus came around, it nearly came across as a drama with a superficial plot thrown in to generate action scenes to keep the interest of the audience (and it largely failed at that). The general lore is interesting, but the portrayal of it in the films leads a lot to be desired. With how poorly Prometheus was received, I was curious to see how Alien: Covenant would compare; with the inclusion of the word Alien, one would hope it signals a move towards the style of the original film.

Covenant is a movie of two intersecting parts; you have the plots relating to the lore and backstory, and then the human vs alien element. While the film starts on an exciting note, it falls into the trap of following convenient plot devices to lead the characters towards where the director needs them to be. Whether it is the husband-wife relationships in the crew that caused the poor judgement, or just poor writing, it's impossible to tell, but every character makes the worst decisions you could think of. 

The appeal of Alien movies has always been in the tension and suspense of being in a dark place, where the enemy knows its way around better than you, and the humans getting picked off one by one, by an unseen enemy. Covenant loses that aspect entirely by trying to shoehorn in the evolution of the Alien species, because suddenly every little thing must be pointed out and made obvious. There is no shock and surprise left. Despite some very realistic CGI these days, Aliens will always seem rather unrealistic, so to suddenly have them out in the light (as can be seen in the trailer, and cover of the DVD) they lose their mystique, and a lot of their threat (it's easier to kill an enemy you can see), as well as just looking ridiculous.

The film does do well at attempting to bridge the gap between Prometheus and Alien but is still well below expectations. When half of the film is backstory and exposition, you have to wonder whether the main arc of the film should have been centred around that portion of the lore, rather than trying to explain it inside of a different storyline. 

The film tries to fit action, horror, and drama all into the same film while explaining things in a way that a five-year-old child would understand. Ultimately, it becomes far too predictable. Michael Fassbender is both a delight and a hindrance depending on which character you look at (Walter vs. David), but you know what is going to happen. You are aware of every bad decision, you already can guess the consequences, and it isn't long into the film before you can outright guess the outcome. 

The environments are stunning (much of it was filmed in New Zealand (no need for CGI there), but the pacing of the film, and the avoidable nature of every threat, makes the film difficult to properly enjoy. Good for a date night if you want to give your partner some jump scares, or interested Alien evolution. As an action/horror/sci-fi it's a definite improvement on Prometheus, but still can't hold a candle to the original two Alien films.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7702

RINGS (2017)

The Ring was a very simple idea. Be unfortunate enough to watch a cursed video, then you receive a call telling you that you'll die in seven days. This will come to fruition unless you make a copy of the video and fool another unfortunate person into watching the video and pushing your death sentence on to them. So, a pretty simple concept. Watch the video and die, or copy it and someone else dies. A simple idea, how could you go wrong?

Well, Rings tries too hard to reinvent the wheel. In an attempt to modernize the film, the hardcopy VHS has been changed to a digital video. While it is meant to accelerate the danger (how often do we watch videos or click on a link online? multiple times a day), but the loss of the physical tape, a tactile object, and the ease with which one could make someone watch a digital clip, means the threat from the video is suddenly non-existent.

The film has a lot of build-up with very little payout. In terms of the opening scene, we have a great opening sequence, that builds up to nothing. It skips out the action, and much of the problems seem easily avoidable, so you lose interest in whether the characters survive or not.

As far as the cast goes, that should be a tell-tale sign. If you recognise the names of the actors and actresses in a horror, that usually means the big names are meant to distract from the muddled excuse for a backstory and plot. Unfortunately, the likes of Johnny Galecki (Leonard from Big Bang Theory), or Vincent D'Onofrio (known for many things including his parts in Full Metal Jacket, Daredevil, Law & Order, Men in Black, and Jurassic World) can't make up for the incomprehensible storyline.

In my experience with horror films, the successful ones are simple. Less is more. Rings tries to be bigger than it is, and leaves the audience frustrated or apathetic, rather than engrossed and in suspense. An unfortunate addition to the franchise.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7611