DENIAL (2016)

This release could not have been better timed, with the recent events unfolding in the United States; a.k.a the rise of neo-nazis into the public eye. The world needs a reminder of what occurs when people divide and rank the human species. A commonly paraphrased quote says "Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it", and with this generation being the last to be able to come face-to-face with a Holocaust survivor, maintaining the validity of the events is integral.

Denial is a slow-moving film. It is both frustrating and an eye-opener. The prospect that someone denies the Holocaust happened is laughable, but the reality of having to come up with incontrovertible proof of the matter is an entirely different matter. It causes you to question what you know. The reality is that as humans we are very easy to manipulate; we believe "reputable" sources. However, what counts as a reputable source is not so clearly defined anymore, and with the internet, misinformation is everywhere. 

The film slowly builds towards the court case which is undoubtedly the most exciting part of the film, as we are looking to see our own knowledge tested; to be able to hear what evidence people have to deny what we believe, and to hear the evidence that proves them to be incorrect. Despite the rather morbid topic, the film is self-affirming and in that regard, it almost comes across as a feel-good film, where the protagonist must overcome several obstacles that provide the antagonist with an advantage.

With many of the court scenes repeated verbatim as they were in the actual court case, Denial provides a valid and accurate representation of the process, and was definitely a necessary move in a movie about misinformation. The casting was generally top notch; Rachel Weisz was my only concern, as her fame does make it harder to see her as her character. She is still the gorgeous actress I remember from the Mummy franchise, just here she is given a frumpy hairstyle and a Boston accent; it was the only part that didn't feel authentic. That being said, despite differences in appearance the real Deborah Lipstadt clearly had no qualms with her casting.

The film is fueled by emotion and gives a great presentation of the battle between emotion, beliefs, and objectivism. I would have loved longer, more in-depth coverage of the court scenes, but with the run-time that the film has, again the balance was amicable.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7703

ALIEN: COVENANT (2017)

A lot of the successful franchises all began with a simple concept; Terminator had a cyborg trying to assassinate someone, Predator had an 'invisible' creature 'hunting' people, and Alien involved trying to escape a deadly alien that wanted to use the humans as a host for its parasitic babies. The downfall of the ongoing sequels is arguably the addition of backstory (apart from Terminator 2: Judgement Day, which kicked ass). When a film starts placing too much emphasis on explaining the history and lore of the franchise over several films, you find the genre that the film fits in start to shift away from the original film.

In the case of Alien, the original film started off as a horror, which then became more along the line of action movies in the follow-up sequels. When the prequel Prometheus came around, it nearly came across as a drama with a superficial plot thrown in to generate action scenes to keep the interest of the audience (and it largely failed at that). The general lore is interesting, but the portrayal of it in the films leads a lot to be desired. With how poorly Prometheus was received, I was curious to see how Alien: Covenant would compare; with the inclusion of the word Alien, one would hope it signals a move towards the style of the original film.

Covenant is a movie of two intersecting parts; you have the plots relating to the lore and backstory, and then the human vs alien element. While the film starts on an exciting note, it falls into the trap of following convenient plot devices to lead the characters towards where the director needs them to be. Whether it is the husband-wife relationships in the crew that caused the poor judgement, or just poor writing, it's impossible to tell, but every character makes the worst decisions you could think of. 

The appeal of Alien movies has always been in the tension and suspense of being in a dark place, where the enemy knows its way around better than you, and the humans getting picked off one by one, by an unseen enemy. Covenant loses that aspect entirely by trying to shoehorn in the evolution of the Alien species, because suddenly every little thing must be pointed out and made obvious. There is no shock and surprise left. Despite some very realistic CGI these days, Aliens will always seem rather unrealistic, so to suddenly have them out in the light (as can be seen in the trailer, and cover of the DVD) they lose their mystique, and a lot of their threat (it's easier to kill an enemy you can see), as well as just looking ridiculous.

The film does do well at attempting to bridge the gap between Prometheus and Alien but is still well below expectations. When half of the film is backstory and exposition, you have to wonder whether the main arc of the film should have been centred around that portion of the lore, rather than trying to explain it inside of a different storyline. 

The film tries to fit action, horror, and drama all into the same film while explaining things in a way that a five-year-old child would understand. Ultimately, it becomes far too predictable. Michael Fassbender is both a delight and a hindrance depending on which character you look at (Walter vs. David), but you know what is going to happen. You are aware of every bad decision, you already can guess the consequences, and it isn't long into the film before you can outright guess the outcome. 

The environments are stunning (much of it was filmed in New Zealand (no need for CGI there), but the pacing of the film, and the avoidable nature of every threat, makes the film difficult to properly enjoy. Good for a date night if you want to give your partner some jump scares, or interested Alien evolution. As an action/horror/sci-fi it's a definite improvement on Prometheus, but still can't hold a candle to the original two Alien films.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7702

RINGS (2017)

The Ring was a very simple idea. Be unfortunate enough to watch a cursed video, then you receive a call telling you that you'll die in seven days. This will come to fruition unless you make a copy of the video and fool another unfortunate person into watching the video and pushing your death sentence on to them. So, a pretty simple concept. Watch the video and die, or copy it and someone else dies. A simple idea, how could you go wrong?

Well, Rings tries too hard to reinvent the wheel. In an attempt to modernize the film, the hardcopy VHS has been changed to a digital video. While it is meant to accelerate the danger (how often do we watch videos or click on a link online? multiple times a day), but the loss of the physical tape, a tactile object, and the ease with which one could make someone watch a digital clip, means the threat from the video is suddenly non-existent.

The film has a lot of build-up with very little payout. In terms of the opening scene, we have a great opening sequence, that builds up to nothing. It skips out the action, and much of the problems seem easily avoidable, so you lose interest in whether the characters survive or not.

As far as the cast goes, that should be a tell-tale sign. If you recognise the names of the actors and actresses in a horror, that usually means the big names are meant to distract from the muddled excuse for a backstory and plot. Unfortunately, the likes of Johnny Galecki (Leonard from Big Bang Theory), or Vincent D'Onofrio (known for many things including his parts in Full Metal Jacket, Daredevil, Law & Order, Men in Black, and Jurassic World) can't make up for the incomprehensible storyline.

In my experience with horror films, the successful ones are simple. Less is more. Rings tries to be bigger than it is, and leaves the audience frustrated or apathetic, rather than engrossed and in suspense. An unfortunate addition to the franchise.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7611

LOGAN (2017)

This is probably one of the hardest reviews I have ever had to write. Not because there is little to write about or I disliked the film, but because it is really hard for me to write from a non-biased perspective with regards to this film. Logan is the final film for Hugh Jackman (and rumours also say Patrick Stewart) who have played Wolverine (and Professor Charles Xavier) for the last 17 years. Hugh Jackman has reprised his role as Wolverine in every X-Men movie to date (excluding Deadpool, although he was heavily referenced), so I have a lot of history watching this character evolve and develop over time.

But back to the movie as a whole. Logan comes with an R rating; the first X-Men movie to have such a rating (thanks to the success of the R-rated Deadpool movie), and it quite rightly earns that rating. Starting from the very first word in the film, expletives were thrown out, which you initially think is just put in there to get the rating, but the opening scene evolved into a feeding frenzy of violence and gore. Within the first couple of minutes, it has been made clear that this movie is not suitable for children. I repeat: NOT SUITABLE FOR CHILDREN. 

The violence and the expletives take on their own role in this film. Every swear word, every severed limb, every decapitated head, every scream of pain, runs deep emotionally. While it doesn't give you the backstory that is often alluded to (the film takes place in the year 2029, many years after all the other X-Men films), you are aware that their lives have taken a serious toll. Both Wolverine and Xavier are mentally and physically bare, struggling to care for themselves, let alone play the role of the hero.

The villains in the film are probably the only real drawback to the film. They lack the history of Jackman and Stewart, and really don't provide a strong enough position to me. I struggle to understand their motives, and there were many moments in the film where they easily could have ended the film right then and there and succeeded. But they follow the usual villain tropes that allow the protagonists extra chances. I would have also preferred more focus on Logan and Co., as every time it changed the view to that of the antagonists, the film slowed and lost its flow. But at the same time, it again helped to emphasize the state of Wolverine; far from the sleek, invincible, unstoppable force that he was in his "youth". 

The casting was superb, and I loved all of the performances. You could really feel the connection between the protagonists, going far beyond the "we're on a team" mentality, or doing a mission to save the world. The players act both selflessly and selfishly, and show real family dynamics, with bickering, frustration, and anger, but still overwhelming love and respect. The film's darker, gritty tone was not without its comedic elements, but they were naturally a part of the storyline, every action bringing you further into the connection.

The fight choreography was lively and fun, with noticeable differences in camera use and fighting styles between the protagonists. Very little shaky cam, though there were a bit of the quick edit shots; overall the fight scenes flowed well, and managed to remain fast, and edgy, while still coming across ferocious and brutal. The ending really tugged on the heartstrings and provided the conclusive ending that I was looking for. As I exited the theatre, there were very few dry eyes to be seen, and many audible sniffles and sobs. An emotional rollercoaster that I don't think I could bring myself to watch again; it was the perfect ending to 17 years of Hugh Jackman's Wolverine.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7468

LA LA LAND (2016)

La La Land is an interesting film, combining the styles of a stage musical, with a romantic comedy, and an overall jazz theme. The jazz theme alone is a fascinating if not controversial choice, considering the largely Caucasian cast. Gone are the days where musicals were written and sung in a way that really allowed the viewer to understand the lyrics, but at the same time, photography and choreography have come so far that the purpose and plot associated with the songs are discernible without the need for lyrics. 

Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone are the principal protagonists throughout the film and do a brilliant job portraying the frustrations of those in the acting and musical world trying to make it big. Unlike most Hollywood films, where the protagonists reach their goals through sheer positivity and luck, we are struck with a closer shot of realism; the knowledge that talent and determination can often lead to nowhere, and we get a glimpse into why the industry crushes so many dreams.

Emma Stone is the real winning component to the film, with her portrayal of the wannabe actress stuck in a menial job as a barista. Despite being a well known established actress in reality, she successfully pulls off the look and actions of someone with grand dreams, who is starting to lose faith in her ability to get there. She wins your heart with her smile, and your heart sinks when things don't go her way. Ryan Gosling also does well, but really his character is a lot less likeable. The idealistic musician who has talent, but refuses to play ball, comes across as stubborn, cocky, and arrogant. He has a confidence that is smarmy, and while the women seemed to enjoy it, it annoyed the hell out of me. But I do have to admit his presence is necessary, as his attitude is one of the driving forces of the film.

The photography and cinematography are near enough faultless; the colouration of the film alone, gives a period feeling to the film, which helps the musical aspect along that much more. The song styles fit very well, and while the choreography does feel out of place at times (more stage show than the silver screen), it does provide more intensity to the moment.

I much preferred the first act of the film, the honeymoon stage, and the uplifting aura of Stone's performance. But it was the final act that really sold it. This isn't a typical film. It is something that requires a little bit more attention when you watch it. But it's a treat, and worth a watch.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7557

FENCES (2016)

I wanted to like the film when I first read the synopsis, but it turned out to be very difficult for me to watch. Not because of the content, but instead the delivery method. I'm a man that struggles with accents, so when I get an accent, at speed, I will start losing bits and pieces of the conversation. Next thing you know, I'm lost, and all I know is that Denzel Washington has said "N*****" a heck of a lot of times. 

One of the main differences between watching a film at home vs in the theatre is the number of distractions. In the cinema, you have no choice but to pay full attention to the film. At home, however, you may have someone talking to you, you may be doing chores, surfing the web, checking Facebook, there are a plethora of activities that could distract you from full attention. This is a film that requires your full attention; the plot is driven by the fast-spoken dialogue, and it is something you must be attentive to fully appreciate. One of the positives about watching at home is that I can pause and re-watch things that I've missed.

The film is shown in low saturation, giving the film a dated, and pre-dusk feel to it. But the most significant thing that makes this film different is that 98% of the film takes place in one location. Events occur, but they will either occur in the location or just be talked about with another character on location. Rarely, do we glimpse outside of the confines of the lot, and that is what makes the acting, and the dialogue all the more important. 

It took a while to really get invested in the film. HOWEVER, it is a slow-burner, that builds towards a tipping point. A tipping point that was unexpected, out-of-the-blue, and instantly threw a curveball (pun fully intended) into how I saw the movie playing out. Suddenly there was a real plot line. Suddenly you care about the characters. Suddenly I was invested. The second act of the film switches the film from an antiquated biopic to a suspenseful drama. 

In all honesty, I disliked all of the characters in the first act, with the exception of Jim Bono (played by Stephen Henderson). Bono was the face that brought comfort and was the grounding force for the film. Viola Davis does a convincing job emoting Rose's pain, and for someone who has very little dialogue input into the film, does brilliant work with facial expressions and actions. 

Underlying the whole movie is the theme of white privilege, about the effects of racial segregation, stereotyping, and the trickle-down effect it has on the mental health of the families affected by it. It doesn't affect one person, it affects the entire community; children included. It's a thought-provoking piece, that I initially didn't like the look or sound of, but the second half really reeled me in, and now I see why the critic ratings are so high.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7558

SOLACE (2015)

When I read the blurb on the back of the DVD, I did have to have a bit of a laugh to myself. An FBI agent needing help from a "Dr" to help track down a serial killer, let's be honest it sounds very similar to Silence of the Lambs. In fact, Dr John Clancy is played by none other than Anthony Hopkins (who also played Dr Hannibal Lecter in the before mentioned Silence of the Lambs). 

In Solace, Hopkins' character is a bit of a psychic, and this is what drives the film. The other characters are effectively at an impasse, and therefore hold very little significance in the narrative of the plot. As far as Anthony Hopkins' movies go, this is one of his weaker roles. He comes off very similar in style to his previous role as Hannibal Lecter, with a very "uncooperative unless it suits me" personality that constantly hides details from the other characters. 

Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Abbie Cornish are rather forgettable. They play their roles well but really provide no importance to the overall storyline. Colin Farrell's character actually ends up with little screen time, and comes off very unhinged; none of the characters are ultimately likeable. 

As a thriller, the whole psychic theme works reasonably well, even though it's done in a very dumbed-down manner. It allows an extra layer of tension to preside, due to these extra abilities. You don't have to rely on logic, luck, or chance when one has the ability to use their "intuition" to see what is coming. I found myself watching the movie, not to see any of the protagonists succeed, but to see the protagonist fail. So the viewers end up with characters that they are unable to properly empathise with. The pacing of the film is all that keeps our attention going.

This film raises a lot of questions around euthanasia, and mercy killings, and is the most tangible part of the film. The thing that really kept me hooked. It creates such a moral and ethical dilemma and is a source of controversy in the real world, so it is interesting to see how other people or characters react to such ideas. 

Is the film enjoyable? Yes. Anthony Hopkins gives us much of the same; and while it isn't up to the standard of some of his earlier stuff, it is still a thrill to watch. The pacing of the film keeps your attention, despite the lack of character personalities from Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Abbie Corning. Would I recommend watching it? I would. Is it a film that I will watch again and again? Probably not.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7524