KINGSMAN 2: THE GOLDEN CIRCLE (2017)

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE GIRL WITH ALL THE GIFTS (2016)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE DARK TOWER (2017)

The Dark Tower is based on the 8-book series written by Stephen King. A book series that spans 4000+ pages, condensed and adapted for a film that lasts only 95 minutes. That is the first of many issues with this film; it doesn't take the time to properly develop any characters. You are thrown into the thick of things, as the antagonists and protagonists rush to provide exposition as they continually accelerate towards each other. 

In general, I love Idris Elba's work to date. He has a gruff but lovable charm that woos the audience every time. But even that doesn't save him here. We have a deeply flawed character that has given up and ends up fighting for redemption, despite not wanting it. Matthew McConaughey is his usually confident, suave self and fits well with the character of Walter, this powerful sorcerer bent on destruction. These are the only two characters that really matter in the film. There is no room for anyone else. All other backstories and plot arcs are rendered insignificant, and the film struggles because of it.

Ignoring how much better the film could have been if it had taken more from the books and taken its time to develop its characters, even then it was lacking. Looking at it as a pure Sci-Fi/Fantasy/Action film, it still lacked direction. A storyline full of convenient plot devices means there is poor storytelling going on. It's difficult to tell whether having so many writers involved had an effect, but it certainly feels as if the film was a compromise between different ideas; no real direction, and no strength in characters. 

Visually, it was an interesting film. Watching two people from different worlds struggling to come to terms with the other's world. It was an action-packed "odd couple" show. An entertaining film, but nothing that engages the mind, or makes you want more. It is definitely a pity. The environments were intriguing, and Idris Elba's portrayal of Roland Deschain the Gunslinger was imposing and grandiose, but not enough to save the film.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7822

THE MAN WHO INVENTED CHRISTMAS (2017)

The entire premise of the film seems laughable; a period film based on an author's process of writing 'A Christmas Carol'. But what we end up with is an emotionally engaging drama. No matter how short an amount of screentime the actors get, every character feels genuine and authentic. Perhaps it is helped by the fact that I am less familiar with any of the cast (with the exception of Jonathan Pryce, who I recognise from the HBO TV series Game of Thrones), but I love watching a film, where I legitimately feel like I am watching the characters, and not actors pretending.

I have always had a sense of curiosity around creative people, wondering how they are able to come up with such elaborate stories and histories of fictional characters, so to watch "Charles Dickens" spend so much time and effort determining the name of a character that so perfectly fitted this unknown character that he wanted to portray was eye-opening. The idea of being haunted, bullied, and stalked by these characters throughout the creation of the story was a brilliant piece of work both plot-wise and aesthetically.

The story comes across as a bit of a slow burner, as you acclimate to the period of the film, and readjust yourself to a different way of living; simpler times, with stricter rules, but still has a charm to it. The characters are often aloof and argumentative, but the emotive and mood changing aspect of an artist's personality is a well-documented trait. So while you may disagree with their choices, you can still understand why they did it. 

There was a particularly heart-wrenching scene between Charles Dicken's and his father, where words were said, and the full gravity of the potential effects of those words are clear to see. We understand the justification, but we still feel for both characters. The realisation that many of his fictional characters are based on his own personality traits; both negative and positive. Emotionally, the film was exquisite. It really forces you to think unselfishly, to be generous towards others, and it did so in a creative and fun way that had surprisingly few scenes of Dicken's writing.

This is not just a retelling of 'A Christmas Carol', this is a behind the scenes look at its creation. A look at the parts of Dicken's family history that have created such character-defining traits in the well'known author, and provides an idea of the physically and mentally draining effect that the creative process had on everybody involved. 

I was unsure what to expect from this film, but I walk away from it with a firm appreciation. Highly recommended.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7813

ATOMIC BLONDE (2017)

As far as spy films go, until recently it's safe to say that the genre had gone stale; offering either rehashes and reboots of the always classy and perfect James Bond, or the always running away from explosions style of Mission Impossible's Ethan Hunt. The films stopped providing anything new and became stale, until such films as Spy Movie and the Kingsman franchise breathed a breath of fresh air, injecting humour into the genre. Atomic Blonde continues that trend of redefining the spy genre, with a more realistic take on being a spy.

Atomic Blonde strips away the glamorous cars, seductive models, private planes, expensive cocktails, tailored suits, sci-fi technology, and choreographed dancing (I mean fight scenes, where the protagonist receives minimal to no injuries). You get a realistic idea of what the life of a spy may be like; not knowing who to trust, the realisation that your mission must go on even if compromised, as your government will easily burn a liable asset, the knowledge that everybody you contact is either using you or at risk from people that want to use you. It's a brilliant piece of work that has you trying to determine each characters loyalties, but never providing enough downtime to be able to properly consider the facts; another more realistic aspect of time-sensitive matters. 

Visually, the environments are dark and gritty, and the characters are quite rightly standoffish and aloof. Attention to detail is evident, and the physical toll of constant combat can be seen on the face of the protagonist as the film progresses. 

Casting-wise, I've always enjoyed Charlize Theron. While she acted very well, aesthetically, she wasn't altogether convincing; she looked out of place right from the start, and that is something that doesn't seem to fit with "MI6's most lethal assassin" as it's hard to be an effective assassin when you stick out like a sore thumb. On the other hand, James McAvoy's portrayal of the MI6 Berlin station chief, who is heavily entrenched in the intelligence game, is superb. he almost blends into the surroundings in his own home and pulls off the "proper" spy look.

Atomic Blonde does come with its fair share of faults; mainly the constant laboured action throughout the film, but in the end, it is a very enjoyable film with a strong female protagonist that kicks ass. A refreshingly gritty; an almost modern European adaptation of Quentin Tarantino's Kill Bill.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7811

JUSTICE LEAGUE (2017)

Justice League follows on with the typical pacing that we have become accustomed to with DC after Batman vs Superman; where they cram multiple movies worth of content into a single film, trying to sum up new characters in a quick 5-10 minute side story. Realistically, I would have loved to have had a Cyborg and Aquaman origin movie take place before Justice League, simply so that we get a better idea of the personality of each character beforehand, and so that we aren't wasting time in the culmination of the Justice League faffing about introducing new main characters, their backstories, and even introducing the movie equivalent of NPC's (read: here's a scene added purely to create a cool but unnecessary moment later in the film).

With so many big names, you expect a lot of character development and great acting, and the latter was certainly present. But when you include so many main characters in one film they don't actually end up getting a lot of screentime. And this leads to a disconnected feeling between the characters. In regards, to an authentic feeling of putting together a team for the first time, it's pretty much on point. But from an effectiveness standpoint (i.e. the ability to save everyone from a world-ending power) they certainly lack any proper cohesion.

Individually, the casting was brilliant. It wasn't until I was sitting in the theatre looking at a large picture of the Justice League, that I noticed how much more ethnically diverse they all looked, from their original comic book sources. The great thing is that I almost didn't notice; better casting, that is not only inclusive but better representative of the world we live in. Batman and Wonder Woman have the best onscreen chemistry by far, which is certainly helped by their history in the DCEU so far. 

I was apprehensive about how well Ezra Miller's Flash would work on the screen. The trailers made him out to be a wise-cracking awkward individual and having seen several years of a successful TV Flash, I was unsure of how well he would fit. Fears were ultimately unfounded, with the Flash (and to an equal extent, Alfred the Butler) becoming a light-hearted and positive influence (and some brilliant comedic flair) to contrast the broody Batman and Cyborg characters. Still not a huge fan of his costume, but really it isn't a big issue at all.

But I really don't know what they were thinking with the villain, Steppenwolf. DC faced some backlash from the use of CGI in the villain Doomsday from Batman vs Superman, and yet they have upped the ante and increased the quantity of CGI in the film. All bad guys are faceless creatures, that provide nothing more than unrealistic cannon fodder. One minute there are literally thousands on the screen, then there is only a handful; the inconsistencies in strength and number of enemies really messes with your ability to truly understand the level of threat posed to the world or our heroes. Steppenwolf himself seems to be a rather lacklustre and uninteresting enemy (He seems incredibly weak compared to Doomsday who managed to kill Superman. Whereas Steppenwolf can't even lay a hand on him. Not to mention the fact that he doesn't even attempt to attack the Justice League beforehand, he only weakly defends against their attacks.

The tone of the film overall fits between Batman vs Superman and Wonder Woman in both quality and tone; lacking a strong, coherent storyline, but still able to convey positivity and some good vibes in amongst the doom and gloom. There is also some nice colouring choices (obviously helped by the large level of CGI in the film, where each character has their own colour profiles in their environment; Batman having dark and desaturated tones, compared to the bright, clear, natural brown and beige colours, or Steppenwolf's high contrasting darks, with bright, iridescent purples and orange.

This has fallen into the trap of trying to overreach. Trying to catch up to Marvel's Cinematic Universe, where they can throw multiple characters together, into any situation and reap huge profits. But they need to spend time introducing the characters first. Nevertheless, the film was enjoyable and got more than a few grins out of my usual pessimistic self. It's certainly a step in the right direction, and I certainly hope the Justice League members all get their own standalone films out of this (even Alfred. I'd love to see where he got all that sarcasm and snark from).

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7805

BLADE OF THE IMMORTAL (2017)

Many of the younger generations are well aware of Matt Groening's animated TV series Futurama. Most of which would also remember the 'Parasites Lost', the episode where Fry eats a decaying egg salad sandwich from a vending machine at a truck stop, and ends up with microscopic worms that heal his body against injuries and illness, eventually improving his physique and giving him superior strength. Blade of the Immortal is effectively that storyline, reimagined in a style similar to Quentin Tarantino's Kill Bill movie series, starring a copy of Marvel's Wolverine.

While reasonably entertaining to watch, there are several aspects of the film that let down the film; the skills of the main character Manji, the quantity and quality of the enemies, and the climax of the film. 

Manji is a "highly skilled samurai", and we see great examples of this in the opening scene. Unfortunately, from that point on, he shows few further examples of his great skills. He certainly does create a large body count, but it wouldn't necessarily be thought of as skillful especially considering every major villain that he encounters manages to beat him, dealing a death blow, and Manji is only ever saved by the fact that he is immortal. 

The villains were also an unfortunate addition to the film. While initially we were treated with new, original ideas on villains, who had interesting aesthetics and different fighting styles, the original lineup introduced at the start of the film appeared to have been a misdirection. There was no real set number of bad guys that needed to be defeated. Instead, the protagonists end up on the receiving end of an endless barrage of forgettable, expendable enemies. The first two or three battles had you on the edge of your seat, but soon you become aware of the extent of Manji's immortality, and the level of threat drops considerably. 

The climax I won't go into as it will spoil the ending, but needless to say, things don't go as planned, and while it created an ending that wasn't necessarily predictable, you lost a large chunk of the minimal character development that occurred during the film. 

The film itself has desaturated colours, that provide a more authentic eastern feel, juxtaposing the usual high saturation of Hollywood films. While not necessarily to the extent of a Tarantino film, there is no aversion to the use of blood and gore in this film, and it creates something that will likely appeal to the young adult demographic. An action-packed film, but not something that would really hold interest over multiple viewings.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7791