PACIFIC RIM: UPRISING (2018)

Honest trailers described the original Pacific Rim as the greatest stupid movie of all time, with weird romantic interests, confusing operating systems, but still entertaining with lots of giant robots fighting giant monsters. It's an opinion that I can't help but agree with. So when heading in to watch the film I was sure to keep my expectations low, with the only goal of seeing giant robots battle giant monsters again. To that end, Pacific Rim Uprising reached that goal. 

It does come across very Transformer-y. One would say "but they are both franchises based around giant fighting robots", but it goes much further. The film follows one of the protagonists Amara Namani (played by Cailee Spaeny), who is a young street-wise woman living in a destroyed part of town, working on her own giant robots, before she gets dragged into the plot that the male protagonist is begrudgingly reluctant to be involved in. If that doesn't even slightly resemble the beginning of the latest Transformers (The Last Knight), then you clearly haven't watched that film. Cailee Spaeny even has some physical features that match that of a young Megan Fox. 

But the film isn't really about Amara. Pacific Rim Uprising is all about Jake Pentecost and his reluctant search for redemption and forgiveness from his family and peers. As far as plot goes, the reasons that he ends up in control of the flagship jaeger is flimsy, but for the type of movie it is, we allow it. Even the forced tension between John Boyega and Scott Eastwood's characters, thanks to a shared romantic interest, is let go. It's all irrelevant. The only important thing in Pacific Rim Uprising is when and where these giant monsters of Kaiju come in.

And that is the real jewel of the film. The source of the threat came as a surprise, and while looking back there were many hints as to who the real threat was, it was actually well disguised through misdirection and red herrings. It connects the two films and reminds the viewers of those little details that were forgotten from the first movie. The only real downside to it was that until the climax of the film, we have received a rather Kaiju-free experience. "Minor" enemies became too numerous, too easy to kill, and therefore never really created the tension and suspense necessary to keep the viewers properly invested. Even the final boss proved slightly anti-climactic.

I suppose the real issue with the film, is that when in the original film, you have to create giant robots to destroy a surprise enemy, one would expect the robots to be more advanced in the follow-up. More advanced robots fighting better-equipped kaiju. An arms race of sorts. Instead, we are fed a long period of exposition with very similar robots, a series of unfortunate and extremely coincidental events, ending with a hail mary. It was just lacking. The whole plotline around the vastly superior jaeger was not used to full advantage, neither was the plot point that many people were building their own jaegers. I would actually have loved a military vs. militia to come up in the film. 

There were definitely some cool and a few holy s*** moments, and it entertained throughout, but I was there to watch epic battles between the Jaegers and Kaiju, and just like in Batman v Superman, there was just not enough of the actual battles in amongst the exposition-fest.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7883

READY PLAYER ONE (2018)

I'm really struggling to figure out a way to properly start this review without using a string of expletives; I was that caught off-guard by the film. Watching both of the trailers, I had a mild curiosity due to the number of gaming and movie characters present, but otherwise, I felt rather apathetic towards the film. This is a film directed by Steven Spielberg, however, so I decided to give it a chance, and I am incredibly thankful that I did. By far, the best film to come out in 2018 so far. I'm hesitant to talk freely about the film because of a) spoilers, and b) I don't want to overhype the film, as my low expectations potentially could have contributed to my high appraisal of the film.

The premise of the film is simple, the future is a world where real-world experiences have little value, instead, everybody lives their lives online through an avatar, which can be in any form that they wish. These avatars can do whatever they wish, whether it be performing, fighting, relaxing, dating, clubbing, the sky is the limit. This is highly relatable as many generations in our current age use movies and games to escape reality and live vicariously through other characters. To see a world portrayed on a screen where the only real precious commodity is an internet connection is a jarring dystopia that is too close for comfort.

Ready Player One follows the protagonist Wade Watts a.k.a. Parzival as he attempts to decipher a code and unlock items that will grant him immeasurable wealth and control of the online world. The world brimming with avatars, characters, and items from popular franchises, is full of pop culture references from as far back as the 1960s to now. The movie is a treasure trove of characters (e.g. Joker and Harley Quinn, Duke Nukem, Freddy Krueger), vehicles (e.g. A-Team van, Bigfoot monster truck, the Adam West Batmobile, the Back to the Future DeLorean), and weapons (e.g. Halo Assault Rifles, Gears of War Lancer), and the trailer alone has had people pausing and searching frame by frame to discover as many easter eggs as they can. The magnitude of what is involved and the hoops that must have been jumped through to be able to use all of these intellectual properties is immense and incredibly impressive (or is it perhaps a large globally dominant corporate giving themselves a large pat on the back). This is a film best enjoyed on a large screen.

Contemplating how the plot of the film manages to be so engaging, it likely comes down to the source material. The film is based on the 2011 science fiction novel of the same name, written by Ernest Cline. This always helps create more involving and authentic characters in the films, as the actors and actresses have a greater breadth of the character than what is portrayed in the film, thanks to the original material. We also know that the film will remain faithful to the main premises, as the writers for the film are Zak Penn and none other than Ernest Cline himself. Other factors come from the game-like nature of the virtual world, with in-world money, upgrades, character customization, races and fights, there is a level of competitiveness that gets thrust upon the viewer drawing them in.

The cast was well picked, with Tye Sheridan's portrayal of Wade Watts being brilliantly awkward, and Olivia Cooke's Art3mis character delightfully charming and foxy. The remainder of the cast can come across overzealous and at times lack depth of character, but their presence in the film is to fill out the team or providing an antagonist to push back, and in this case, playing on the idea of not knowing who is behind the keyboard is a theme that allows for a diverse cast, even though it is unnecessary to the plot. It is great to see that while appearances may not match, personalities transcend the two worlds.

Graphically speaking, thanks to the style of the avatars it is easy to differentiate between the in-game and real-world scenes, but unlike actual video game movies like Assassin's Creed (which spent far too much time in present-time and not enough in the past "assassin" timeline), Ready Player One has actually struck a perfect balance between virtual and real, showing real-world consequences without getting bogged down in the specifics, allowing the pace of the film to steadily increase.

The overall plot of the film is incredibly basic, but is still incredibly entertaining, and will likely have gamers and movie buffs alike enthralled. Finally, a film not spoiled by the trailers, that delivers a pretty close to a family-friendly performance. A safe bet for a good time.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7909

BETTER WATCH OUT (2016)

Better Watch Out is a psychological thriller/horror. Another film that is based around Christmas time to try to provide the world with alternative choices in Christmas film, this is not a family-friendly wholesome choice by any means. Best described as a dark, twisted home invasion that tips it's hat to Home Alone, Better Watch Out provides a variety of twists that will leave you scratching your head.

Taking place within the confines of a single property, you would expect this Australian-shot 90-minute film to feel claustrophobic, and to an extent, it is (which helps to build suspension and tension), but to an even greater extent, the layout of the house and the camera angles give the illusion of space and connectedness that prevents the film from feeling monotonous and repetitive. 

Going into a horror film, you expect to receive shocks but remain in the dark as to when the horror will begin. So until you know the terror has begun, you find yourself taking note of every quick movement, every loud noise, every "red flag". Director Chris Peckover does a brilliant job stretching this portion of the film out, teasing the audience with false starts leaving you questioning what is relevant or not in respect to the overall plot. 

The initial twist caught me off-guard, and Peckover did a great job working the script to keep me guessing as the film progressed. With a film that only primarily consists of 7 cast members, to keep the direction of the film open for so long is a challenge that is well navigated. The film will leave you questioning the effects of our dependence on technology, and the imbalance between knowledge & intelligence with emotional maturity. 

Cast-wise Olivia de Jonge does a brilliant job as the protagonist, caught between a rock and a hard place, and spending much of the film tied up with her mouth taped, she does an amazing job conveying emotion through her eyes. The young actors Levi Miller and Ed Oxenbould show incredible maturity in their acting while still maintaining the youthfulness necessary for their parts. Their trust in each other is one of the important facets of the film.

There is not much more I can mention without giving away the plot, so I will mention the extras. The DVD only includes one extra; the "Making Of" feature. Now unlike many films that have a two-to-three minute featurette that has already been online for months that was used as a teaser prior to the film's theatrical release, the "Making Of" included in the special features is actually a full blown 50-minute piece looking at the choice in casting, collaborative writing with the cast, shooting winter "snow" scenes in the heat of Australia, and stunts, among other things. It gives a much greater appreciation for the film when you see how much work was put into it. One thing I loved, was learning that Olivia de Jonge did five takes with a real tarantula-sized spider crawling across her face, despite her fear of spiders, to save the studio an exorbitant amount of money to try create CGI spiders.

So this isn't a 90-minute film. It's a 140-minute film+featurette, which is integral to achieving the full attraction of the film. There are so many aspects that you look over in a horror/thriller because your eyes aren't on the details, but there is a definite satisfaction gained by understanding the efforts put in after you have seen the finished product.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7901

TOMB RAIDER (2018)

The film was both highly anticipated and yet still had low expectations. Being another video game movie, there was no way that the film was really looking to garner any high expectations beforehand, and yet the choice of actress really brought some hope. Alicia Vikander brings realism back to the franchise.

From the opening scenes, we get to see a woman, brilliant but not perfect, physically healthy but emotionally hurting. A woman with flaws. Much in the same way that the character of James Bond was rebooted with Daniel Craig to show a grittier more realistic character, Vikander's Lara Croft is tough as nails and has the attitude and determination that we know and love from the video games. Watching her fight, flee, and "out-fox" many opponents, there is a great deal of physicality to the movie.

The movie itself is based on the rebooted game franchise and lives within the same timeline. If you have played through both Tomb Raider (2013) and Rise of the Tomb Raider (2015), you will recognise much of the plot and environment to be similar to that of the first game, with some hints from the second. In itself, it did feel like a bit of a cop-out, to redo the scenes and plot from something that was already released only 5 years ago (and has sold over 11 million copies as of November 2017). But there are some subtle differences, and of course, it feels more realistic and games are far less hampered by physics. There are a few points during the film where the CGI is very noticeable (primarily during falls), but in general, the effects are very well done. 

This is a prequel so there is a fair amount of background to lay down, but even so, I was really hoping for some more challenging puzzles. It is one of the aspects of the games that kept it fun and challenging, but there was only really one puzzle out of three that provided a challenge at all. This also affected the pacing of the film, with a brilliant high energy start to the film, that pushes trying to maintain that flow until the climax, but it feels forced.

Supporting cast Daniel Wu and Walter Goggins did well in their roles, and the chemistry between Wu's character Lu Ren and Lara Croft was palpable despite the characters realistically spending very little time together. Walter Goggin's role as the antagonist was also convincing. His role and his priorities were clear from the get-go, and he was nothing if not committed to the role. 

Certainly not a bad film, one of the best video game films to date. It's captivating at times, and I'm engaged enough with the characters that I really want to see some sequels with these characters. There is plenty of action (even if it is rushed), and it ditches a lot of the supernatural elements, providing a much more grounded film. I would have loved to see the film last another 30 minutes so that we could spend more time exploring the tomb, but as it is only a prequel, it stands as an observation and not a complaint.

Definitely worth the watch.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7882

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