JUSTICE LEAGUE (2017)

Justice League follows on with the typical pacing that we have become accustomed to with DC after Batman vs Superman; where they cram multiple movies worth of content into a single film, trying to sum up new characters in a quick 5-10 minute side story. Realistically, I would have loved to have had a Cyborg and Aquaman origin movie take place before Justice League, simply so that we get a better idea of the personality of each character beforehand, and so that we aren't wasting time in the culmination of the Justice League faffing about introducing new main characters, their backstories, and even introducing the movie equivalent of NPC's (read: here's a scene added purely to create a cool but unnecessary moment later in the film).

With so many big names, you expect a lot of character development and great acting, and the latter was certainly present. But when you include so many main characters in one film they don't actually end up getting a lot of screentime. And this leads to a disconnected feeling between the characters. In regards, to an authentic feeling of putting together a team for the first time, it's pretty much on point. But from an effectiveness standpoint (i.e. the ability to save everyone from a world-ending power) they certainly lack any proper cohesion.

Individually, the casting was brilliant. It wasn't until I was sitting in the theatre looking at a large picture of the Justice League, that I noticed how much more ethnically diverse they all looked, from their original comic book sources. The great thing is that I almost didn't notice; better casting, that is not only inclusive but better representative of the world we live in. Batman and Wonder Woman have the best onscreen chemistry by far, which is certainly helped by their history in the DCEU so far. 

I was apprehensive about how well Ezra Miller's Flash would work on the screen. The trailers made him out to be a wise-cracking awkward individual and having seen several years of a successful TV Flash, I was unsure of how well he would fit. Fears were ultimately unfounded, with the Flash (and to an equal extent, Alfred the Butler) becoming a light-hearted and positive influence (and some brilliant comedic flair) to contrast the broody Batman and Cyborg characters. Still not a huge fan of his costume, but really it isn't a big issue at all.

But I really don't know what they were thinking with the villain, Steppenwolf. DC faced some backlash from the use of CGI in the villain Doomsday from Batman vs Superman, and yet they have upped the ante and increased the quantity of CGI in the film. All bad guys are faceless creatures, that provide nothing more than unrealistic cannon fodder. One minute there are literally thousands on the screen, then there is only a handful; the inconsistencies in strength and number of enemies really messes with your ability to truly understand the level of threat posed to the world or our heroes. Steppenwolf himself seems to be a rather lacklustre and uninteresting enemy (He seems incredibly weak compared to Doomsday who managed to kill Superman. Whereas Steppenwolf can't even lay a hand on him. Not to mention the fact that he doesn't even attempt to attack the Justice League beforehand, he only weakly defends against their attacks.

The tone of the film overall fits between Batman vs Superman and Wonder Woman in both quality and tone; lacking a strong, coherent storyline, but still able to convey positivity and some good vibes in amongst the doom and gloom. There is also some nice colouring choices (obviously helped by the large level of CGI in the film, where each character has their own colour profiles in their environment; Batman having dark and desaturated tones, compared to the bright, clear, natural brown and beige colours, or Steppenwolf's high contrasting darks, with bright, iridescent purples and orange.

This has fallen into the trap of trying to overreach. Trying to catch up to Marvel's Cinematic Universe, where they can throw multiple characters together, into any situation and reap huge profits. But they need to spend time introducing the characters first. Nevertheless, the film was enjoyable and got more than a few grins out of my usual pessimistic self. It's certainly a step in the right direction, and I certainly hope the Justice League members all get their own standalone films out of this (even Alfred. I'd love to see where he got all that sarcasm and snark from).

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7805

BLADE OF THE IMMORTAL (2017)

Many of the younger generations are well aware of Matt Groening's animated TV series Futurama. Most of which would also remember the 'Parasites Lost', the episode where Fry eats a decaying egg salad sandwich from a vending machine at a truck stop, and ends up with microscopic worms that heal his body against injuries and illness, eventually improving his physique and giving him superior strength. Blade of the Immortal is effectively that storyline, reimagined in a style similar to Quentin Tarantino's Kill Bill movie series, starring a copy of Marvel's Wolverine.

While reasonably entertaining to watch, there are several aspects of the film that let down the film; the skills of the main character Manji, the quantity and quality of the enemies, and the climax of the film. 

Manji is a "highly skilled samurai", and we see great examples of this in the opening scene. Unfortunately, from that point on, he shows few further examples of his great skills. He certainly does create a large body count, but it wouldn't necessarily be thought of as skillful especially considering every major villain that he encounters manages to beat him, dealing a death blow, and Manji is only ever saved by the fact that he is immortal. 

The villains were also an unfortunate addition to the film. While initially we were treated with new, original ideas on villains, who had interesting aesthetics and different fighting styles, the original lineup introduced at the start of the film appeared to have been a misdirection. There was no real set number of bad guys that needed to be defeated. Instead, the protagonists end up on the receiving end of an endless barrage of forgettable, expendable enemies. The first two or three battles had you on the edge of your seat, but soon you become aware of the extent of Manji's immortality, and the level of threat drops considerably. 

The climax I won't go into as it will spoil the ending, but needless to say, things don't go as planned, and while it created an ending that wasn't necessarily predictable, you lost a large chunk of the minimal character development that occurred during the film. 

The film itself has desaturated colours, that provide a more authentic eastern feel, juxtaposing the usual high saturation of Hollywood films. While not necessarily to the extent of a Tarantino film, there is no aversion to the use of blood and gore in this film, and it creates something that will likely appeal to the young adult demographic. An action-packed film, but not something that would really hold interest over multiple viewings.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7791

BERLIN SYNDROME (2017)

Berlin Syndrome is one of those films that is intriguing, but also difficult to fully appreciate as a male. The prospect of being locked in a room after what was meant to be a one night stand seems like something I would personally put up a lot of fight about. I'd probably either find a way out or be snuffed out quickly due to being problematic. But I am a physically imposing male, with a lot of weight behind me. It is difficult to truly comprehend a situation where I could be completely physically dominated by someone else. 

This is what creates tension and suspense in the film; being in a position where you cannot overpower your captor, and being in a position where you weren't a spontaneous choice. You were planned. You were not the first. A situation where you are controlled to such an extent that the only time you can get new information is when your captor is present, and the only way to get your restrictions removed is to go along with his plans. 

As far as casting goes, it seems as if they chose one of the most European looking Australian actresses that they could find. Teresa Palmer is a naturally stunning woman, but with the de-saturation of colours throughout the film, she ends up looking more German than her co-star Max Riemelt who is German by birth. The film really struggled to get me to empathise with any of the characters. We never got to spend enough time with Teresa's character, Clare, before she gets into trouble, and thus there is no emotional investment in the character. Max Riemelt does well in his portrayal of Andi, a rather disturbed young man, who despite seeming to struggle at interpreting his own language, plays a compelling performance.

The layout of the film was a little bit odd. It felt more like a film about Andi, than a film about Clare, who I thought was the main protagonist. The film would have been much more emotionally investing if it had stuck with Clare throughout the film, rather than jumping between the two characters. While the way it has been done certainly helped to explain Andi's tics and accentuate his social oddities, at did little to highlight Clare's situation. I would have been much more convinced if I only knew as much as she did.

Berlin Syndrome is like watching a failing marriage; watching one partner purposefully antagonise the other in order to get a reaction. It feels awkward to watch, it feels weird, but it doesn't feel dangerous until the climax of the film. The climax did get my interest. There was finally something exciting going on, but it was too little too late. Not a film I would watch again.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7767

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