GEOSTORM (2017)

When I went to university, I studied biology not because I enjoyed it, but because I was for some reason good at it. While I was there, however, I did some general education papers in environmental science, which absolutely enthralled me, and made me change the direction of my studies towards that environmental side. So I love when movies try to incorporate such issues as climate change and environmental degradation, air and water pollution, resource scarcity. Such films as Snowpiercer, The Day After Tomorrow, even Avatar and Wall-E are examples of movies that really made you think about the importance of science, and our footprints on the world around us.

Geostorm attempts to consider the ramifications of using technology to combat climate change directly, with a global system of climate controlling satellites. The idea of using technology to directly attempt to nullify the results of climate change is a surprisingly common train of thought for those that deny climate change, believing that even if we were the cause if the climate shifts, that by the time the situation would be dire, technology would be able to fix it (and thus investing in clean technology and doing anything now is unnecessary in their eyes). What has always been missing, however, is the method that technology would take to be able to combat these changes. 

The whole idea of these satellites is really what appeals to me about the movie, and I would have loved a prequel to this film, where you got to see the faux-documentary of the scientists working through the challenges of the varying scales of climate patterns, getting the international community to agree to the creation of such a system that has so much power. Geostorm skips all of that and moves straight to the planet-saving device being used to instead destroy the planet; turning what could have been a brilliant suspense/drama/thriller, into a rather bland "action-packed" disaster movie.

The film, in general, is rather simply written. While the plot is full of holes and is rather convoluted, the cast all have a purpose, and they are all extremely convenient to the plot. A case of lazy writing, with more convenient circumstances than major conspiracies that exist in the world right now. It makes it nearly impossible to engage with the characters and immerse yourself in the storyline because the characters are so one-dimensional.

The CGI was also below par. When we can get realistic looking CGI animals in the Planet of the Apes trilogy, and Disney has water animations so realistic that they specifically tone it back to make it more "cartoony" for the sake of their Finding Nemo franchise, the visual quality of the "natural" disasters throughout this movie was almost cringeworthy. When you try to get caught in the moment, in the danger, and then the abomination of a tornado or tsunami comes on screen, the magic is lost. 

If you want a cheap looking movie with poor acting, and the usual Hollywood survivor bias, then this Saturday night popcorn flick is for you! If you wanted to see stuff getting destroyed, then this may be for you! If you want a film that actually makes a slight lick of sense, then keep on looking. Geostorm only works if you like watching explosions, and don't care enough to notice the obvious holes in the plot. A simple film, with an interesting premise that could have had so much more potential. It entertained me rather basically for just shy of two hours, which you can't really baulk at. But I have no urge to rewatch it.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7870

THE SNOWMAN (2017)

Let's just get this out of the way. I have extreme hate for DVDs that make me sit through trailers before letting me watch the movie. This DVD is set up in a way that if you try to skip the trailers by hitting menu, it goes back to the language setting, and makes you watch them all again. If you try to skip it, it goes back to the start and you watch them all again. You can spend several infuriating minutes going through settings on your computer (if you are lucky enough to have been watching it on a computer) and find the correct "Chapter" to skip past the trailers, but otherwise, you have to wait five and a half minutes before you can even hit "Play". That alone would sometimes be enough to make me not want to watch that DVD again. LET. ME. SKIP. TRAILERS. PLEASE. Now that I have written almost an entire review worth of content on being forced to Watch the American Made and Happy Death Day trailers far too many times, let's get to the actual film.

I chose this film, by reading the synopsis of the DVD, and thought that crime thriller involving J. K. Simmons, Val Kilmer, and Michael Fassbender was intriguing. Having subsequently watched the trailer, it reinforced that this was a movie that I wanted to watch. So first piece of advice, if you haven't seen the trailer and are considering watching this movie, DO NOT WATCH THE TRAILER. Not because it gives away the plot or reveal or anything. Purely because it sets the wrong tone for the film. While they categorise it as a Crime Thriller, I would actually consider it more of a Crime Drama. Based on a best-selling novel, the story is better suited to a television series. There is no "thriller" aspect until the final moments in the film, and this is due to there being nothing that directly affects the protagonists in the film. We watch someone trying to catch a killer for no other reason than because he wants to. Not overly thrilling.

That all being said, as a crime drama it is very well done. We have an interesting killer with a unique modus operandi (usually mentioned as an M.O.), and a lot of variables and suspects that in the end leaves a suitable twist that took me embarrassingly long to figure out. Environments alone were stunning; Shot in Norway, because that was where the film was set, instead of in a studio, or in another similar looking environmental area, there is a definite air of authenticity around the environments in the film. It doesn't feel made-up or put together, which helps the viewers get drawn into the story. 

Casting-wise, I'm not sure how I felt about Michael Fassbender. While he didn't detract from the film in any way, he also didn't fully sell his character to me. Fassbender seems to be in the same class as Hugh Jackman for me, where I love their role in the X-Men franchise, but nothing else lives up to that. He has the "looking pensive" aspect down to an art, but any other emotion really doesn't feel genuine. Otherwise, the cast is well chosen. They all felt like fully fledged characters with backstories I just don't happen to know about, and the way in which they approached Fassbender's character was superb.

Not a great thriller by any measure, but an okay film. Definitely would have worked better as a tv series or even a mini-series, or perhaps just needed a bit more killer/protagonist dialogues/letters to really build a connection that was necessary to create an ounce of threat and suspense. I do enjoy watching someone solve a case, and connecting clues, so if that's your thing, it's definitely worth a watch.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7859

BLADE RUNNER 2049 (2017)

I've honestly never been a fan of Ryan Gosling. I've never found him particularly handsome, and I rate his facial expressions along the same vein as Kristen Stewart (an actress I actually had to google "chick from twilight" to recall her name). It was, therefore, no surprise that I found his acting rather wooden and uninspiring. Thinking about his role in the film, I initially thought his role as a replicant was the reason for his unconvincing style until I remembered the original blade runner film, where the entire crux of the film revolved around whether Harrison Ford's character Deckard, was a replicant or not. Ford's performance had been so human that it became quite the conundrum as it was never properly revealed either way. I would have preferred Gosling to have taken a similar stance on his own character.

The film goes carries on from the original, with amazing breathtaking cinematography, and expansion of the lore and history of the blade runner universe, and while it is full of little bits and pieces that diehard fans will love, it is spread out along the 160+ minute runtime and leaves the average viewer rather bored. Technology and graphics have come a long way since the original, and I really would have loved to have seen more of the gorgeous graphics and environments in this world. The effects were top notch as well, the mix of practical and computer-generated effects did an amazing job bringing back characters from the original (minus the ageing), and creating expansive skylines.

Ignoring Gosling, I found the casting to be rather hit and miss. Leto's performance as Wallace was intriguing, but his presence added very little to the film. Much in the same way of his Joker appearance in DC's Suicide Squad, there was hype about the role, but it was unnecessary. Sylvia Hoeks did a marvellous job running Wallace's affairs and really could have taken on all of that herself without the need for Leto being present at all. Other standout performances came from Dave Bautista and Ana de Amas, who really sold their roles in the film. Bautista especially, really sold the opening scenes and made me wish the entire movie was more along the lines of an action thriller. 

For those wanting to know more about Harrison Ford, take note that he enters the film rather late and while a major character, he has a minor role in this film. Many of the questions that linger from the original film continue to linger, but there are moments and phrases that could be interpreted to answer them, depending on your point of view and how deeply you analyse it.

It may have been the length of the film, but I struggled to really get into the plot. It reads much like the second film of a trilogy, filling in exposition, but really having few story arcs that come to completion in a satisfying way. The twist was well done, but the story still feels cut short. The film is hit and miss for me. Perhaps I need to rewatch the original several more times beforehand to fully appreciate the complexity and layers of the sequel, but as a casual viewer, I left somewhat unsatisfied.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7857

MOTHER! (2017)

Broadly categorized as a psychological drama, Mother! has a level of twisted imagery and events that lend it more towards the horror category. As arty as a film can be with such names as Jennifer Lawrence, Javier Bardem, Ed Harris, and Michelle Pfeiffer, the film works to remove any unnecessary extravagances, placing the focus purely on the quality of the actors and the depth of the portrayal of the characters. An example of the minimalistic take is how none of the characters are given names; referred to as Mother, the Poet, Man, and Wife, the names are not needed and therefore not known.

The film takes place in one setting; either inside the house or directly outside the house, and follows the point of view of Jennifer Lawrence's character, the Mother, with all shots with focused on Lawrence's face, looking from her point of view, or over her shoulder. The viewer receives no information that the protagonist doesn't have, and it creates a very immersive experience. Seeing all that she sees, it does not take long to start seeing the set of events leading to a chain reaction.

The entire plot revolves around the Bardem and Lawrence's characters and their contradictory viewpoints. Lawrence's Mother, who has fully renovated their home herself, connecting with it on a spiritual level, making the house effectively a part of herself, and whose only want is to spend her time with her husband isolated from the rest of the world. Bardem's Poet, on the other hand, is the ever-obliging host, who craves to please those that worship his work. These contradictory viewpoints begin to clash and escalate as more characters begin to enter the story until the situation devolves into the climax of the film.

Mother! is a polarizing film. You will either love it or hate it. It leaps beyond the boundaries of what is expected from a film and takes the viewer on a journey that will no doubt frustrate and baffle them. Lines between reality and fiction blur as time moves and bounds inconsistently. The film has no filler; every action leads on towards something further into the film, but that is not to say it is easy to follow, not in the slightest. Climaxing with an irreconcilable hallucinogenic fever dream sequence that folds in on itself, we are treated to a vicious cycle that highlights a selfish, narcissistic society which takes what it wants.

An intriguing story, that leaves you with many unanswered questions. The framing and perspectives of the shots are truly brilliant, and the plot is certainly a simple and original idea but is it enough to make it a great film? That is up to each viewer to decide on their own. I was engaged, and I empathised with Lawrence's Mother character, but it is not a film I will feel the need to see again.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7856

I, TONYA (2017)

This is based on a true story. A story that I had no knowledge of (I'm 29), but a story I now realise I have seen referenced before on multiple occasions (one example of which involves an episode of The Simpsons where Moe is orchestrating an "accident" to prevent Mr Burns from taking part in their bowling team). Needless to say, it is interesting to come across the source after seeing the references. But I digress.

I, Tonya is based on a true story; a story created by stitching together multiple contradictory eyewitness accounts of events. The end result is part comedic, and part unreliable, as the characters that are reenacting the scenes, frequently break the fourth wall, to refute the testimonies of the other characters. It almost comes across as an argument between several people being played out word for word, without any editing. Narration, commentary, contradictory statements are all par for the course in this film.

But it is well done. I had no idea that a film about a figure skater from the 80s and 90s would have engaging characters, and yet this is what I found. You come across many situations that are incredibly relatable, whether it is the recognition of the emotionally absent mother, the abusive partner, the differences in treatments of differing social classes. These are portrayals of real people, and the viewers can really empathise and sense the frustration, fear, and anger, that the characters exhibit on screen.

The casting was superb. Not being aware of the story, or who any of the characters were beforehand, I thought perhaps they had gone with a purposefully over-the-top, dated, stereotypical, "white trash" look. Having seen Margot Robbie and Sebastian Stan looking amazing in their respective DC and Marvel movies, to see them in a film like this felt incredibly out of place. But wait until the credits. You will be shown footage of the real people, where you can see samples of the scenes that they were recreated from, word-for-word (even the more unbelievable parts, I'm looking at you, Shawn Eckhardt). 

The flow of the film works well up until the tail-end of the film. The viewer watches the struggles of Tonya Harding as she works her hardest to be the best she is at what she does, attempting to overcome prejudices, abusive spouses, lack of funding, towards her final goal of performing in the Olympics. A section of the film that is glossed over with a simple narration rather than a reenactment. From a film studies perspective, it is a choice that denies us the payoff that we've been waiting for which is arguably the same thing that happens to Tonya Harding. 

Personally, I enjoy getting a good payoff in a film. It helps the feeling of completion, but truth be told, the way the film has been done is the strength of the film. It doesn't take sides. It portrays all points of view. It doesn't try to glorify people or paint them in a better light. It's starkly honest, and it hits home. Emotionally engaging. A must-watch.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7851

KINGSMAN 2: THE GOLDEN CIRCLE (2017)

Let's get this out of the way first and foremost. Channing Tatum has no large part in this film. So women that are looking at seeing this film for him(or men if that is your kind of thing), look forward to maybe 5 minutes of screentime. I say this because many Channing Tatum movies tend to be rather lacking in plot and just involve seeing the actor in as many skintight or completely shirtless scenes as possible, so if that is what you are looking for, you will definitely be disappointed.

Kingsman is one of the films that I like as it invigorated the stalling spy genre, in my eyes. It offered something fresh from the recycled content that we would continually get from Mission Impossible or the James Bond franchises. In the opening scenes, we are party to a high-speed street race/fight scene, which had me immediately concerned. The scene rung alarm bells, with the over-the-top CGI and fast-paced camera changes, feeling very Mission Impossible. The extreme pace at which the scene ran, was difficult to properly follow and was an incredibly bold and colourful affront to the eyes. 

Luckily the alarm bells that I heard were rapidly silenced. With nearly all information that you learned from the first film, rendered moot, we are put into a reboot of sorts; a reimagining, much like Top Gear UK vs US, The Office UK vs US editions. We get an americanised version of the Kingsman. The Statesman. 

As far as plots go, The Golden Circle felt almost too short. Much of the storyline revolves solely around the protagonists, with very little time spent building up the villain, which I felt was unfortunate. Samuel L Jackson did a brilliant job in the first instalment of the franchise, and I felt Julianne Moore didn't get the chance to really shine. 

Kingsman 2 provides much of what we have come to expect: quotable speeches, unique fun gadgets, teenage-level humour, with a generous dash of action. The action was certainly amped up in this sequel but felt rushed, rather than the slow languishing gore that we were treated to in the original. As with most sequels, it didn't live up to the hype, but it's very rare that a sequel will. It still provided a heap of entertainment and several laugh-out-loud moments.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7827

THE GIRL WITH ALL THE GIFTS (2016)

The premise of the movie is refreshing. It takes the usual zombie movie idea (or "hungries" as they call them), and flips it upside down, providing an "infected" character that is the protagonist, rather than the antagonist. Too often are the infected portrayed as an evil being that must be cleansed from the earth through fire and headshots. Here we have a more realistic entity; a fungal infection that spreads very fast and forms a symbiotic relationship with its host.

The film is very well structured, and has a wide range of characters that you would expect to come across, the willing and unwilling subjects, those that were brought up in a system that knows no different, the uninfected that see the potential in the infected for a cure, the potential as a living breathing organism with a life, and those that hate the infected completely. You get to experience all of the emotions and personalities, you can align yourself with whichever characters you want and can see how each personality trait plays out in terms of survival rates.

The idea of symbiotic relationships, two organisms prospering together, is a common theme throughout the film, where you find many opposite personalities relying on the other for survival, and having to place trust on otherwise unwanted sources of aid. Being able to trust something that you know has the ability to kill you and your entire team, having to choose to remove the one thing that protects you (for instance a mask that stops hungries from biting), to save your team long term.

I had never heard of this film before, and frankly wasn't expecting anything too spectacular. But I had a very high level of engagement with the film. You feel each moment of suspense, you feel the dread every time a wrong step is taken, you feel hope when something goes right, and you feel unease at the unknown elements. Potentially this film may take out the top spot in terms of zombie films plot-wise, especially with regards to the character development of the "hungries" with realistic and believable characteristics. 

Casting-wise, I am not familiar with most of them. A factor that I enjoy in films such as these because it forces the cast to be convincing in their portrayal of their characters. Often, big names can rely on their status as established actors to get them through a film without people being too critical as the audience are blinded by the stars previous successes. The lesser known cast will often put across a more convincing performance.

The film is beautifully shot, with a yellow-green hue, which gives a rustic, and organic feel to the film. The military uniforms, vehicles, the natural environments, the hungries, the spores, they all have a similar colour scheme to them, and it adds to the sickness of the film; someone that is unwell is usually described as "green in the face". Every aspect is well thought out. Including the ending, which was entirely unexpected, but remains hopeful, and again realistic and grounded.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7828