ANOTE'S ARK (DOCEDGE2018)

As an environmental science student who has studied climate change at university, Anote's Ark was probably one of the hardest-hitting and heartbreaking documentaries that I watched. As far as climate change goes, with rising global temperatures, rising sea levels and more severe weather patterns, small island nations are the most at risk. New Zealand is also at risk, but small island nations like Kiribati are the canaries of the world (comparing to the early use of canaries in coal mines which would die is deadly gases were released warning miners to evacuate the mines).

To better explain the risk these small island nations are to flooding from rising sea levels, due to New Zealand's large number of volcanoes and mountain ranges, it's average elevation is 388m above sea level, whereas Kiribati's average elevation is a mere 2 metres above sea level. Kiribati is already prone to more and more frequent floods due to an increase in storm severity and frequency and is therefore frequently at risk of sickness and disease amongst the population due to contaminated water supplies. These are the issues that this nation must somehow overcome.

The documentary follows two different people; the president of Kiribati at the time, Anote Tong, and local mother-of-six, Sermary, who gets an opportunity to leave the country to live and work in New Zealand. When considering from an outsiders perspective it is easy to see it from the President's perspective; either buy land in another place and move, build a place to live in the ocean, or build up the island to reduce the risk of flooding for a few years. But we often forget about the cultural and political aspects associated with such a thing. Asking an entire nation to up and abandon what has been their home for generations is generally going to be out of the question. If they buy land in another country, will they lose their rights as Kiribati natives? There is no way to really fund any major works to build up the islands without aid from foreign countries, many of which still deny climate change is even a thing. 

So while it is great to watch President Anote Tong attempting to convince people to take heed of what is happening in his country, Sermary provides that much more personal account of how it affects the common person, and how moving to another country still is not a solve all solution. Watching the whole documentary, it was the final moments that really hit hard and leave you with a sense of sadness. It follows the same trends that have been seen in Australia and in the United States and leaves a sour taste in the mouth at the end.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7923

GENESIS 2.0 (DOCEDGE2018)

There are very few people in the world that look at the consequences of ivory poachers with satisfaction. The idea that people are running around and killing elephants and rhinos for their tusks and horns is horrific and saddens me. There are, however, some forms of legal ivory, one of which being mammoth tusks. With the exception of one small population that died out in the East Siberian Wrangel Island in 1650, mammoths went extinct 10,000 years ago. With no risk of poaching as the animals are no longer alive, the harvesting of their tusks is largely legal. But how are these tusks harvested, who is doing it, and what is the point of harvesting tusks? Genesis 2.0 looks into these very questions.

The documentary follows two groups of people, that are linked by a set of brothers. Peter Grigoriev is a mammoth tusk hunter, who will spend entire seasons in Siberia, trying to locate a complete, pristine condition mammoth tusk (with some 69kg+ tusks selling for upwards of $100,000, and 20-30 tonnes of tusks being found every year, there is definitely a financial motivation for doing so). But on the other side, we have his brother, Semyon Grigoriev, scientist and mammoth researcher.

The documentary originally just follows the plight of these mammoth hunters, that are willing to take out huge bank loans to fund expeditions, and spend 8 months of the year away from their families, in the hopes of finding a tusk that will raise them out of their current social classes. The film takes a turn when Peter discovers a "fresh" specimen; a mammoth example with frozen flesh and blood, and his brother Semyon enters the picture.

A "fresh" specimen changes Semyon's potential end result from learning about the mammoth's remains, to have the ability to learn from a live specimen if they are able to successfully bring the woolly mammoth back from extinction. Semyon then starts his journey of meeting with a variety of geneticists to consider how best to use what samples they have. From American geneticist and molecular engineer George Church, who wants to make a mammoth/elephant hybrid, to cloning pioneer Woo Suk Hwang, who as already successfully cloned 1000's of dogs for mourning pet owners. 

This documentary looks at the differences in social classes, and the ethical implications of not only bringing a mammoth back from extinction but gene sequencing in general, having the ability in the future to be able to discern illnesses and susceptibility to disease from one's genetics. An interesting look at two sides of the same coin.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7921

RAMPAGE (2018)

Rampage is based on the 1986 arcade game of the same name. Very simply put, the game revolves around 3 mutated creatures that are trying to destroy cities in Illinois while military units try to stop them. That's it. The characters in the game are George the giant gorilla, Lizzie the giant lizard, and Ralph the giant wolf. As far as premises go, it's pretty basic, which is both good and bad for a film adaptation, because it provides more freedom for the writers, but also means there is less background material to go off of. That being said, it couldn't be anywhere near as bad as the Battleship movie, a.k.a. aliens playing transformer noises featuring Rihanna.

Starring in Rampage is Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson. The actor who is in everything these days (6 large Hollywood blockbusters over the 2016-2017 period), much like Jennifer Lawrence and Scarlett Johannson used to be. Finding his niche in the action genre, Johnson has really managed to shed that pro-wrestling image but is yet to really showcase emotions. Be prepared to see more macho-manliness, stepping up, and figurative genitalia measuring between Johnson and every other male character he interacts with, in this film. 

Considering the lack of a backstory in the arcade game, the writers had a great opportunity to come up with motives and deep three-dimensional villains and protagonists, but we end with a film that has a plot aimed towards a primary age child (despite the M rating), but and the parents that would be drawn in purely for nostalgia's sake. The film starts off reasonably well, we get introduced to how these 3 creatures will come to be and are then introduced to the protagonists. The opening scenes are quite brilliant; they originally perplex the audience as you are thrown into the middle of a fracas, they entertain with tense action scenes, they instantly create a feeling of anger towards the antagonist. This is followed by the introduction of the protagonists, and the writers take the opportunity to inject a positive vibe through comedic elements, mixed with their own tension and action.

It starts off quite strong. But then we realise the film is full of expendable characters. And once you get expendable characters, you stop caring about what happens to them. Out of all the cast, there are only really four characters that have any sway in the direction of the plot in the film. Jeffrey Dean Morgan plays a grizzled government agent, who has seen it all, is surprised by nothing and is seriously vibing Tommy Lee Jones' "K" in the Men in Black franchise. Naomie Harris, on the other hand, portrays the convenient plot device, who has the solution to everything. Malin Akerman pulls off a stunning yet crazy performance as the antagonist, assumedly basing a lot of her own performance on that of Christa Miller's "Jordan Sullivan" from Scrubs. Joe Manganiello barely has a cameo; while he does great work and really sells the whole Alien/Predator feel to the "hunt", he was really underutilised.

Am I being too harsh? Am I expecting too much from this film? Perhaps. This was never going to be a film with deep themes and multi-dimensional characters. How does it look then? The CGI is pretty damn good for the most part. Perhaps due to the success of the Planet of the Apes franchise, Hollywood has gotten really good at its computer-generated apes. George the albino gorilla has incredibly realistic hair and body movements, and it was enjoyable to watch. When it got to the other creatures, however, it lost that realistic edge. It certainly looks great compared to the 1986 game, but that's not really a high bar.

As a simple action flick, with giant monsters destroying a city, Rampage is a fun film that is action-packed and uses comedic elements really well. There were more than a few literal laugh-out-loud moments that would keep the positive vibe in the film. If you love your carnage or want to keep the kids entertained for a bit, Rampage will serve you well.

Originally posted at: http://djin.nz/Kr7916

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