ALONE IN BERLIN (2016)

Starring Brendan Gleeson (who has had roles in such films as Braveheart, Gangs of New York, and the Harry Potter and Mission Impossible franchises) in the role of Otto Quangel, and his wife Anna is played by Emma Thompson (known from such films as Sense and Sensibility, Love Actually, and also had a role in the Harry Potter franchise), the main cast is capped off by Daniel Brühl (Inglorious Basterds, Rush, Bourne Ultimatum, and most recently Marvel's Captain America 3: Civil War) who is cast as Escherich, a Police Inspector. With such well-established names, one would expect a rather thrilling drama.

Ultimately, this film is heartbreaking. Set in the centre of mid-World War II Germany, we have the story of a disenfranchised couple attempting to spark a revolution against the Nazi regime. The scenery and environment are beautifully created, with a yellowed tone that provides a period aura to the film, and gives that little bit more authenticity.

Emotion is something that was not so easy to come by in the film. Seesawing between apathy and quiet sadness, there were very few visible or public examples of grief or anger. While it did help portray the effects of police brutality in Nazi Germany, and the notion that everyone is being watched (which was specifically mentioned several times throughout the film), it did stifle the film somewhat, and made it that little bit harder to empathise with the protagonists; who I knew I should want to succeed but felt that they didn't really care about the results themselves.

Escherich was really the only source of movement in this incredibly slow game of cat and mouse. It was good to see some good detective work used in his quest to track the "Hobgoblins", but you couldn't help but think that there were some obvious plot holes and investigative points that he could have followed up that would have got a result sooner. His role was not engaging; while the Quangel's were dull, they gave the impression of parents who had lost purpose and were unaffected by the potential negative consequences of their actions. Escherich was just too fresh-faced for this film. He looked like a boy with no experience who had no place in the position he was in.

The most engaging part of the film comes towards the end. Stuck between a rock and a hard place, Otto is faced with a difficult decision that changes the direction of the film and leaves the audience wondering what will happen. As 'Alone in Berlin' is based on a fictional novel, so whether they follow in the footsteps of Otto and Elise Hampel (their real-life counterparts) is constantly in the mind of the viewer. Event after event hits, with difficult decision after difficult decision to be made by the main cast, and despite some off-screen implied consequences, the film provides the protagonist with a result even if it was posthumously. 

Overall, I enjoyed it. It was much slower than a usual Hollywood-type film, and it helped build the tension without the need for over-exaggerated danger and action. Everything happens small, but it all had a meaning, and I feel I have learned something from the German point of view that isn't often talked about. Worth a watch.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7465

RESIDENT EVIL 6: THE FINAL CHAPTER (2016)

As the name implies, this sixth film is the final instalment of the franchise. By this point I think most fans are watching the films for the sake of completionism; The original film was brilliant, but began their decay soon afterwards, entering a steep decline in quality storylines after the third instalment Extinction. But hope still remained that for the final piece, we would receive some consistency and cohesiveness. No such luck.

Apparently the fifth instalment was so engaging, that I completely forgot that it existed, so I was initially a little bit confused at the location and characters present in the opening scenes of this latest film (this is despite the 10 minute recap and narration that I had to sit through, as they outlined the entire franchise again. "Previously on Resident Evil..."). One of the consistent grievances with movies is the overpowered nature of the main character Alice, and the enemies. The normal T-virus zombies and other survivors have pretty much had no role in the film apart from adding gore as we try to find more creative ways to get them all killed. Nothing changes here, apart from the entire scenario being accelerated to try and fight several big boss fights in.

The entire movie has been stripped of suspense and tension and instead opts to purely work with shock and confusion. Rather than the absence, and subtle hints of a presence, everything is immediately revealed with an excessively loud 'roar' or 'screech'. My big annoyance with the film is the fact that I cannot enjoy any of the fight choreography, as the entire thing is edited in a way that you have multiple angle changes per second, giving the illusion of high-speed actions, without being able to actually know what happens. While it is okay to do on occasion, the high number of fight scenes makes it incredibly hard to follow, and eventually, it just becomes irritating (perhaps the budget was so low that they had to do that so you couldn't see the poor choreography and special effects?).

There are so many holes in the logic of the plot, that I almost walked out of the cinema multiple times (and watched two people leave and not come back). In fact, that is the reason why I am writing this review straight after the film. To reach as many people as possible early on. The film becomes a slog, with constant battles, the re-use of the cloning plot device, and eventually a predictable and unsatisfying end. There were so many opportunities for the villains to "win", that the film should have been called 'Resident Evil: The series of repetitive coincidental plot devices'. Everything you have seen is regurgitated, you can predict nearly every death, every action because you have already seen it all before. It attempts to use nostalgia to keep the interest, but it just makes the film stale.

Now it wasn't all bad. I'll give them that much. There were some great reveals about 3/4 of the way through the film, and it answered many questions that I didn't know I had. So it provided a bit of satisfaction; that feeling of things being wrapped up. It was one of the things that I didn't expect, so I genuinely enjoyed that part. How they used it to end the film, however, was disappointing and a cop-out, in my opinion. But for a moment there, everything made sense and the world was good.

I would, unfortunately, say it is best to give this one a miss. I could go on with the issues I had with it, but just know that I was thoroughly disappointed with it.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7437

PASSENGERS (2016)

Visually, this movie was amazing. The environments were breathtaking and a thrill to watch on the big screen. You just get taken in by the emptiness of space and it really helps you engage with the main character Jim (despite travelling through space being a difficult thing to empathise with). The writers have done a brilliant job in creating the premise and finding legitimate ways to justify it. Everything you think of that could avoid the problems that the protagonist comes across, is covered. There is a reason why it is that way. They cover pretty much all their bases...almost too well.

I suppose one of the things that I was able to understand was Jim's perspective of isolation and loneliness. It made me seriously consider the ethical implications put forward by the film; if you strand a man on an island, and he could strand another person with him, would you doom that person to a life stranded for the sake of companionship? With the possibility of living the rest of your life completely alone, it is a difficult decision that one would have to wrestle with every single day. Contemplating the conundrum myself, I thought of a dark solution to the problem of living alone for 90 years, and it really hit home when I saw Pratt go through the same motions. It really made me connect with his character, as he truly considered every possibility.

That is one of the other well-done things about the film. The majority of the film is shot with only 3 members of the cast. An amazing feat to get so much emotion and development with such minimal use of cast. The use of a cyborg character with limited functions in the film is a great workaround when you have such minimal cast, allowing the sense of being alone, but still providing good banter, comedic fills, and providing the protagonist with a sounding board so that he doesn't instantly come off as a crazy man talking to himself.

The one part of the film that I took exception to was how the film turned plot-wise. The second half of the film changed from a thought-provoking ethical dilemma, and it was turned into an all-out action film that rendered the previous ethical dilemma moot. Once it went full action, the cracks in the plot started to show through, and I started to disconnect from the characters. I was entertained, but it was predictable and not really a surprise at all.

There are so many small things that bring levity to the film, whether it be the "class" of passengers, sending emails through space, communicating with robots, or the things people do when alone. But ultimately it falls short of a great film; the drastic change in focus between the two halves of the film, and the negating effects of one on the other ends up ruining all of the credibility that it creates.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7438

ASSASSIN'S CREED (2016)

Movies that are based on video games are always difficult to do with success (some would argue that it is still yet to be successfully done). Generally, this is thought to be because of the differences in the medium; the game involves hours of personal involvement and full control of the main character, whereas a film obviously provides a cinematic approach that by comparison can struggle to properly engage the viewer. So I was curious to see how well this would turn out.

The film starts off with some script, before a multitude of time jumping; from the 15th century, to 30 years ago, then up to 2016. All in an attempt to portray the lineage of assassins. In all honesty, it had already started to bore me at this point. The jumping made it harder to properly engage and with the character when you are getting introduced to so many characters, and so much backstory without any answer as to what you need to really keep track of. Don't get me wrong, I loved the 15th-century parts. In fact, I loved everything directly related to that part of the film. The setting, the characters, the movements, and fight scenes, the hallucinations. I enjoyed it all.

My general area of dislike came from the "current day" portions of the movie. In the game you will spend the vast majority of your time in the past, so to spend so much time in the current time (i.e. away from the assassin stuff) was frustrating. I can understand that coming up with a viable plot for an Assassin's Creed film would be difficult, but I can't help but feel that the balance between historic and present scenes was off. This also would have had a double damaging effect on the film as it led to rushing the stuff that we want to see. The pacing entirely felt off, moving from far too slow, to way too fast. Accelerating to the point that we never had a chance for anything to sink in. It just rushed from one thing to the next. 

It is probably one of the best video game based movies I've seen, but it still falls short from expectations. There are very few stealth moments, and the assassin stuff while well done, just didn't take up enough of the film. Hell, I would have preferred a film with no "present day" scenes. Just give me more assassins!

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7426

BAD MOMS (2016)

"Amy (Mila Kunis) has a great husband, overachieving children, beautiful home and successful career. Unfortunately, she's also overworked, exhausted and ready to snap. Fed up, she joins forces with two other stressed-out mothers (Kristen Bell, Kathryn Hahn) to get away from daily life and conventional responsibilities. As the gals go wild with their newfound freedom, they set themselves up for the ultimate showdown with PTA queen bee Gwendolyn and her clique of seemingly perfect moms."

This is one of those films that I was a little apprehensive about. On the one hand, I love Mila Kunis (she is probably one of my top actresses, up there with Kate Beckinsale), Kristen Bell (I really miss Veronica Mars, adorable!), and Christina Applegate (who doesn't love Anchorman?!). But on the other hand, a near enough 100% female cast, combined with comedy...well I've been less than impressed with past attempts at female comedy films (not to mention, the title of the film tends to make me think it's not really targeted at males, which is the gender that I am a part of).

I don't know why I don't generally enjoy female comedy. Maybe it's too on the nose, maybe the topics are things that I don't normally joke about, maybe I'm sexist (I'm just saying. I don't want to be, but I'm pretty sure the world affects what I consider humorous, so there is a chance that I subconsciously won't give it an honest chance). But before I get into the review, I will give you two disclaimers; 1) I really love Mila Kunis at the moment. I have a hell of a crush on her, and I could probably watch her shovel an offal pit and find it entertaining. 2) I was watching this film with the flatmates over a few beers and ended up about 6 beers deep by the end of the film, so there is a chance that I may not be as critical as I would otherwise be.

Anyways, on with the review. I was honestly surprised by this film. It started off slow, and followed the usual tropes that I would expect of a "chick flick" genre of film. It felt manufactured, and the cast didn't quite gel as well as I wanted; none of it really felt genuine. Almost like a poorly directed episode of desperate housewives. But once the overall introduction and internal narrative were finished (while she is incredibly attractive, Mila Kunis' narrative voice does leave a lot to be desired) the film changed for me. It changed from being a sappy, whiny, complaining film, and the protagonist's behaviour fell more in line with something that I could empathise with; an overworked human being, underappreciated in employment and with family, who ends up under extreme pressure from the stress.

So from that point on I was emotionally invested in the protagonist and relished in seeing how she coped with the stresses and overcame the events and obstacles in her path. While a female-oriented film, I found the comedy to cater more towards a male audience (be prepared for a multitude of jokes and inaccurate information regarding perceptions around male genitalia, including some rather interesting interpretations on dealing with uncircumcised...well if you don't know what I am speaking of, then you are too young to understand).

Halfway through the film, there was a slight change in the direction of the plot. It again started to follow the generic formula for a chick flick, and I started to lose interest, but within 20 minutes or so, the direction meandered back onto a path that I enjoyed following and empathised with more. The film gave me many "laugh out loud" moments, many "face-palms", and many cries of frustration. I was truly invested, and wanted to see it through to the end. Mila Kunis was really the only member of the cast that properly sold the performance however. Kristen Bell and Kathryn Hahn were both enjoyable, and provided a source of laughs, but never truly came across as authentic. Christina Applegate, never came across as genuine either, but provided a good antagonist, whose successes fueled my investment in the protagonist's goals.

I was surprised by how much I enjoyed the film. It felt like the humour that I was used to, despite it being provided by the female sex; which was a refreshing and enjoyable experience. But I did feel it was a little too disproportionate in the equality, in my opinion. I don't know whether it was a deliberate decision, or whether that is just how things work in the United States, but I was shocked to see so little representation of males at the Parent Teacher Association meetings. I myself would like to think I would take an interest in my child's educational experience (if I had a child), so it was odd to see little to no males involved in many of the PTA scenes. The film was still enjoyable despite this, but it was something that I did observe and take note of during the film.

The end credits scenes themselves are hilarious. I missed maybe 40% of the scenes during the credits because I was on the floor laughing too loudly about the discussions between the actresses and their real-life mothers (I laughed the loudest during one anecdote featuring Al Pacino). Overall, it ticked enough boxes to be something that I would see again. There was enough innuendo and jokes for me to have missed a few; enough for me to enjoy it and see something new next time I watch it.

Originally posted to: http://djin.nz/Kr7409

SUICIDE SQUAD (2016)

"Figuring they're all expendable, a U.S. intelligence officer decides to assemble a team of dangerous, incarcerated supervillains for a top-secret mission. Now armed with government weapons, Deadshot (Will Smith), Harley Quinn (Margot Robbie), Captain Boomerang, Killer Croc and other despicable inmates must learn to work together. Dubbed Task Force X, the criminals unite to battle a mysterious and powerful entity, while the diabolical Joker (Jared Leto) launches an evil agenda of his own."

I love my superhero movies, so anything DC or Marvel related is something I look forward to with bated breath. DC hasn't really had the greatest track record as of late, but the trailers had me thinking this film would be an action-packed, comedy filled extravaganza.

The soundtrack is both appealing and unappealing. I'm a bit of a rocker, so to have the movie open with The Animals 'House of the Rising Sun', feels like a great start. I love having my chosen genre of music put into a mainstream film like this seems ideal, but it really didn't fit in. Despite the film playing hits from the likes of Queen, Black Sabbath, The Rolling Stones, and AC/DC ('Bohemian Rhapsody', 'Paranoid', 'Sympathy for the Devil', Dirty Deeds Done Dirt Cheap', respectively). The soundtrack felt separated from the movie, and in many cases was a distraction from what was going on in the plot.

The first bits of the movie serves as an introduction to the villains. This was a part that I quite liked. It is something that is done in the comic books because the actual members of the Suicide Squad change so frequently (in the comics, Suicide Squad missions are actually suicide missions, so many villains don't survive long). While good to get to know the characters, it was easy to see which characters they were really pushing; Harley Quinn received an extensive introduction, including multiple flashbacks and scenes, whereas the rest of the team receive very short introductions if any at all.

The whole premise of the film is quite odd in that it undermines itself, selling itself as a team of "meta-humans" to battle other meta-humans, despite the initial team of 9 Suicide Members was comprised of 6 humans, with no superpowers. So I was rather confused as to why they picked the characters for this film as they did (unless they were looking purely at future spin-offs and sequels). Casting-wise however, I feel they were largely on the dot. Margot Robbie does a brilliant job demonstrating the energy, enthusiasm, and mental instability of Harley Quinn. Will Smith's rendition of Deadshot, while unexpected, was great. He provided the professionalism that the character required while also being a source of humility, compassion, and even having a sense of humour to lighten the mood in otherwise tense situations. Even Jai Courtney was an engaging Captain Boomerang.

Cara Delevingne, however, left a lot to be desired. Her interpretation of Enchantress felt weak and was irritatingly portrayed (constantly wiggling and waving like she is having a seizure of some sort). Jared Leto's Joker was, while not horrible, it was unnecessary. Looking at the film as a whole, his presence had no effect on the plot, and if anything, it prevented the main plot from being able to properly develop. In terms of the plot, there really isn't any sign of a strong one. It takes a good 45 minutes just to create the team, which means you only have an hour left to create a dangerous situation, send in the team, and resolve the situation. So after the build-up, it never really had a chance to build tension properly. No real chance for the team dynamics to develop, alliances and internal dissension to develop etc.

The villain's minions are strange CGI monstrosities, with no real introduction, and no real explanation. In fact, the villains themselves have no real motivation and direction. So there is never a real threat. Inconsistent effects of damage and injury also make it harder to follow. There really are so many plot holes and nit-picking aspects that I could easily write 4000 words just on the negative aspects (Don't get me started on the writers' apparent hatred of helicopters). But the reality is that I still enjoyed the film. I enjoyed it more than the theatrical release of Batman v Superman. It's a Saturday night popcorn flick by definition. You'll enjoy it. It has action, and it has comedy, but there is nothing else to it. No substance.

If you know nothing about the history of the Suicide Squad in the comics, and just want a no-brainer film where you can switch off and stop thinking, then you will very much enjoy it.

Originally posted to: http://djin.nz/Kr7408

MOANA (2016)

"An adventurous teenager sails out on a daring mission to save her people. During her journey, Moana meets the once-mighty demigod Maui, who guides her in her quest to become a master way-finder. Together they sail across the open ocean on an action-packed voyage, encountering enormous monsters and impossible odds. Along the way, Moana fulfils the ancient quest of her ancestors and discovers the one thing she always sought: her own identity."

Moana is a film, that I was unsure of what to expect. Creating children's films with female leads is becoming more common, but sometimes you find that despite them being the "focus" of the film, they aren't really the focus, and instead fulfil the same tropes as in the past; the skinny, beautiful white girl that exists as a romantic interest with no bearing on the plot. So seeing a movie named "Moana", where the story looks based around a male character "Maui" (voiced by none other than Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson), I was fearful that this would be a failed attempt at bringing some equality to their movies. But I needn't have worried. Right from the opening scenes, we see that everything revolves around the title character, and in fact, there are no romantic interests introduced in this film at all. 

The film begins on the fictional Polynesian island of Motunui (in the real world, Polynesia encompasses around 1000 islands within a triangle that has New Zealand, Hawaii, and the Easter Island as its corners), and does well to provide a brief introduction to the history and culture of the Polynesian islands. It delves into such things as community positions and roles, elders and story-telling, migratory tendencies, and the tattoos role in the culture. 

Working our way through Moana's childhood, we skip forward to a time when she must make a decision whether to follow the wishes of her father or those of her grandmother. Now I've mentioned in other Disney reviews how there are so few films that have whole families. There is always a loss somewhere, but this movie deals with it well, weaving in the cultural beliefs of the afterlife into the plot of the film, with characters still able to affect the decisions of the protagonist (so good job to the writers there). The film is reasonably serious. There are a lot of dangerous situations, but they are approached in a light-hearted way that doesn't detract from the message in any way. Moana's animal companions provide a great source of hilarity, (Heihei the rooster is great, even if a little comparable in the role to that of Scrat in the Ice Age franchise). The plot has a weight to it, that is crushing insignificance, and while there are successes along the way, there are many failures, that keep you guessing as to the direction that it will go.

One of the aspects that I loved the most, was the animated tattoos of Maui. It effectively introduces an additional mute character, that acted as a conscience for the demigod, as well as keeping track of who comes out on top of any disagreements, providing some great comedy too. It helped to create more banter in situations that would otherwise come across as stale, allowing characters to voice concerns and thought processes without it feeling too forced.

On the other hand, I was a little sceptical of the songs. After Frozen's 'Let It Go', I think everyone is hoping that no other songs are as infectious as it was, though it appears that Disney is trying to replicate it with the tune "How Far I'll Go". The song has similarities to 'Let It Go' (the titles alone are similar sounding), and the song is revisited on multiple occasions throughout the film, with variations in lyrics to mirror the changes in the plot. With the song itself, there is nothing wrong. My main irk with the songs comes with the style of song. While the vocal attributes during discussions and conversations are quite similar to those of the Polynesian communities, during some, the style immediately changes (I suppose you could say it sounds American?). Very catchy songs (you'll be singing "You're Welcome" on the drive home), but I just wish it fitted in better in the film vocally.

Visually, the film is beautiful. The environments are lush, the colours are bright, and the blacks are dark. The environments do tend to vary a little between life-like computer-generated textures, and cartoony effects. Despite the clearly unscientific plot and animated look of the film, it portrays itself amazingly well, tugging at my heartstrings during many moments. I legitimately felt saddened when I realised how far the film had progressed, and it dawned on me that the movie was coming to an end soon; I could have easily watched it for another hour without getting bored. A film I would definitely recommend watching (and maybe buying the soundtrack too).

Originally posted to: http://djin.nz/Kr7407