RBG (2018)

One would not expect a film/documentary about the life of a US Justice to be something that would have mass appeal. That being said, there has been a recent change in the type of people that are becoming cultural icons. Moving away from the Kardashians and Jenners, the younger generations have started following those people that are actively working to bring to light or improve what we have come to see as a flawed system. 

Being based in America, Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a person I was not aware of, but I have heard the name in popular TV shows (such as Family Guy and The Simpsons), though no context is provided. But having an understanding of how difficult it is to make changes in the US due to their multi-layered two-party system, I was intrigued to see what how this fight for equality was attributed to her.

The documentary covers the entirety of Justice Ginsburg's life, so there is a wide variety of photos, videos, and audio that all come in a variety of qualities. Initially, it does stand out, and the transitions from grainy footage to sharp, clear HD was visually jolting, but as the film progresses, the transitions become less apparent as you are drawn into the content, rather than being distracted by the packaging.

The story being told is indeed remarkable and worthy of a film feature. Showing how she was inspired by lawyers protecting people's rights during the "Red Scare", and went on to become a lawyer in a world where female lawyers weren't wanted, to find work in a world that didn't want to employ her, and then stand up for equal rights by convincing people to change the laws. All done through hard work and a well thought-out strategy (all while looking after her child, and a husband who had cancer). 

With the way the world is today, the rise of "SJW's" (standing for "social justice warrior", and is a negative term for an individual who promotes socially progressive views, including feminism, civil rights, and multiculturalism and identity politics), RBG is the piece that reflects on how change was actually achieved in the States. Not by attacking those in places of power, but by bringing them to your side by getting them to empathise with your struggles, and working both sides of the issue. 

RBG follows the important cases that Ginsburg brought before the Supreme Court in the 70's and displays excerpts of actual audio from the cases. You hear her specific choices in words, the disdain and patronizing way in which she was often treated, but most importantly, you hear her not getting flustered and instead, having an ironclad argument that is prepared for any type of rebuttal. RBG fights not only for women's rights, but also men's rights, and that is the key that has led to her popularity in that she isn't attacking a group or trying to remove privileges. She is simply trying to remove barriers to provide actual equality.

We have a tendency to support the underdog in battles, and this is a brilliant example of it happening in real-life for altruistic reasons. There are no self-serving motives. This woman wants the world to be a better place and is willing to do the work to get it that way, and I can't help but feel proud when I watch it happen. 

Not only celebrating a successful litigative career, and her movement towards dissent as the balance of the Supreme Court turns more towards the Conservative side, RBG serves as a how-to for a world that wants to enact change. Forget the endless marches and small petitions. Find specific examples that can highlight the wrongdoing and can be used to change the law. Do not be the vegan that calls meat-eaters "monsters". Do not be the keyboard warrior that attacks people online assuming "oppressed minorities" are offended by things. The way to win an argument is not to yell. Be better. Do not aim for the moon. Work for small changes that will create a precedent and build up over time. 

She is the Notorious RBG. She balanced family and career. She has made an impact by improving equal rights in the United States. A must-see.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr8042

LUIS AND THE ALIENS (2018)

Luis and the Aliens is an unfortunate film that fails in many aspects. There is the bare minimum required, which has enough fast-moving colourful objects to entertain very young children but offers nothing that would make anyone over the age of 10 want to watch it. It has been 23 years since Pixar released Toy Story, and from that point onwards, there has been a steady increase in the quality of children's animated movies, that engages both child and adult alike. 

I'm not too sure who came up with the storyline, or how many people the story had to go past before it was greenlit, but it seems peculiar to have a story about a child whose principal is trying to get him taken away from his father. There is nothing of substance to the plot, and there is minimal character development from the characters. 

The animation is bright and colourful and largely well done. The opening sequence almost comes across as realistic until you come across the characters, so there is definitely a certain quality to it. However, movements don't always come across so well done; some movements glide as if they weren't animated properly, and other movements feel laggy. The character designs were fine and had enough variation that you could easily distinguish between human and alien, but it does feel a bit derivate to base the Ufologist father figure on the Ancient Aliens Guy Giorgio A. Tsoukalos (potentially the only "joke" that would be catered towards adults in the audience).

With a run time of under 90 minutes, the film feels long, as there is no emotional investment in any of the characters. The story consistently moves forward thanks to convenient plot devices, such as the aliens' ability to do anything that the story requires to get out of a sticky situation, which removes any sense of tension or suspense. There is a "twist" that is telegraphed early in the film and is so in-your-face that there is no enjoyment at figuring it out, and while it all connects together, it is ultimately convoluted and needlessly complicated.

There is an interesting theme that looks at the neglect that some children go through, and the consequences of such behaviour on the children, but the film goes about it in a strange way, with none of the human adults actually having Luis best interests at heart, and it paints a very poor picture of those who believe in aliens, single parents, homeowners associations, child protective services, and school principals. 

The film is rather light-hearted and fun (minus some forced emotional plot points later in the film) but would have been much better served as a "G" rating than a "PG" as no parent would want to sit through it. Unfortunately, there are some "scarier" scenes that may frighten the younger children, so whoever this movie is targeted at is really a very small age bracket (ages 5-8 maybe?). When it comes out on DVD, this may be more popular as you can put it on and walk away, but as an adult, having to be present and sit through the film, it offers nothing engaging.

The cast has no really big names. Will Forte is probably the most well-known name in the cast list, but despite his career in animated and comedy films, no characters throughout the film have any emotion or authenticity. It all sounds stale, empty and emotionless. As if all lines were recorded over the phone with no context provided to the voice actors. Potentially, this could be due to the fact that is a German film that has been dubbed over with English dialogue, so things just don't quite match up.

Luis and the Aliens really fell short of expectations. The animation is good (though the fight sequences could definitely be improved), but the story and dialogue were very poorly written. With scenes too scary for the really young children, but not enough substance to keep the interest of older children, there really is a limited market for the film.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr8041

DEADPOOL 2 (2018)

Deadpool 2 was green-lit nearly immediately after the original film debuted at the cinemas. Its popularity was immense, and the film was incredibly well done. Similar to the other unexpected Marvel favourite, Guardians of the Galaxy, audiences revelled in the movie despite being unaware of the characters beforehand. The storytelling and narrative were unique and well-written. Unfortunately, everything that made Guardians of the Galaxy great was reused in Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2, and the film largely faded into mediocrity.

It's safe to say that Deadpool 2 has had the same problem. While there are some stark differences, between the original and the sequel, the comedic gold that was unexpected and fresh in the in Deadpool, became tired and overused in Deadpool 2. 

Differences came in the form of more action, perhaps due to the loss of director Tim Miller and his replacement David Leitch. Leitch is probably best known for his work on the action-packed John Wick franchise. Unlike the Deadpool predecessor, which focused more on comedy, the sequel was much more action-oriented, to the point that it really lost a lot of the Deadpool vibe that had been created in the first film. What comedic elements that remained in the film's second instalment was largely reused material, in the form of jokes around Wilson's appearance, his inconsistent ability to regrow limbs, and over-the-top homoeroticism.

This was exacerbated by the ratio of Wade Wilson to Deadpool, with the anti-hero spending much of the film out of his uniform. Clear attempts to humanize Wilson's character to make his creation of the X-Force seem less unusual for the "lone wolf" that Deadpool usually is. The entire mood of the film was dark and peculiar, with the protagonist effectively wanting to end his life throughout the entire film, but then revelling in helping others and meeting new people; the two factors clashed significantly. 

The change in Deadpool's preference for working alone, to wanting to form a team, led to an expanding of the cast, which was largely unspectacular. With the exception of Domino. Visually, looking the complete opposite of her comic counterpart, Zazie Beets does a brilliant job bringing Domino to life; with a great positive, upbeat vibe that perfectly fits with her "luck" abilities.

Josh Brolin does well as Cable, though his character comes across as rather one-dimensional. He looks the part, though some may argue he looks less imposing compared to his own comic counterpart, it added some material to the comedy side of things (which was unfortunately already "old" as the jokes had already been used in the trailers beforehand). 

Morena Baccarin is still absolutely gorgeous, and while her role in the film is necessary to the plot, her presence was minimal, and I'd really love to see more of her in the next film (if they make a Deadpool 3). TJ Miller, on the other hand, didn't need to be in the film at all, and served little to no purpose, in terms of moving the plot forward, or providing comedic value.

The storyline felt lacking. Despite some brilliant action scenes in the "convoy" scene, the plot felt again regurgitated with a heavy Terminator influence, and some very lazy writing, which while sometimes was joked about by the fourth-wall-breaking antihero, was far more present than the viewer would initially believe. Pay attention to Cables actions throughout the film, and you quickly find many plot holes, where the story moves along for the sake of convenience alone.

Is it an entertaining film though? It certainly is. The action is well choreographed, and there are some great examples of teamwork in the fighting styles used. The comedy, however, failed to strike as often as it did in its predecessor, and as a result becomes like every other superhero movie, when the appeal of Deadpool, is his antihero status and his inability to adhere to moulds. Ryan Reynolds has secured his position as Deadpool and is at the point where no other actor could do the role justice, but they really need to refocus on what makes Deadpool great.

The convoy sequence along with any other part involving Domino makes this a film worth watching. Entertaining, but another case of sequel-itis.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7956

ISLE OF DOGS (2018)

Isle of Dogs. Let's start with the title. It is descriptive of the story; all dogs exiled to a small island. An Isle of Dogs. But it is also a homophone (if a sentence can, in fact, be a homophone); Isle of Dogs spoken out loud, sounds very similar to "I love dogs", which is what this movie is largely about; a little boys love for his dog, Spots.

The film is a stop-motion animated film by Wes Anderson. So a similar style to that of Fantastic Mr. Fox, but something that is more beautifully crafted. Whether technology has improved, or more effort and money was put into the animation team, the film is much more polished, with better details and smoother animation. The intricacy of the environments and the characters are amazingly built, and you soon forget that the film has been physically built piece by piece, not a computer generation. Visually, as is Wes Anderson's style, the scenes are symmetrically shot, which is appealing, but oftentimes unnecessary. 

That is the crux of the Wes Anderson style. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't. The central symmetrical shots look nice, but never add to the story. The characters suffer from a case of stilted dialogue, where they sound like the actors have spoken their lines with no sense of context. There is no sense of emotion from any of the characters (apart from Chief and Atari, voiced by Bryan Cranston and Koyu Rankin respectively), so really the presence of an all-star cast including Scarlett Johansson, Bill Murray, Jeff GoldBlum, Edward Norton, Tilda Swinton, and Liev Schreiber is entirely wasted.

Apart from Atari and Chief, there is no character development from any other characters and no other story arcs that go through to completion from any of the "minor" characters. Just a single, straightforward arc. The story in the film is basic but has several layers of narration and unnecessary unfinished side quests and love interests to make the film feel fuller. There is no need for love interests in the film, the 12-year-old boy Atari does not need an 18-year-old American exchange student pining over him (weird and wrong in so many ways?!), and Spots, doesn't need his own arc, with a love interest either. Both could be scrubbed from the film, with no effect on the story.

One of the most noticeable elements of the film is it is based in a fictional Japanese city. This means all the humans speak Japanese. Yet all the dogs speak English, and they don't understand each other. With only certain parts translated by an onscreen human translator and other parts paraphrased by a secondary dog character, much of the scripting is lost due to a lack of subtitles, or potentially biased paraphrased translations. Subtitles are simple enough to get used to, and having certain things translated by other characters leads to miscommunication, doubling up of some plot points, and missing other points completely. It is a mess. 

The movie would almost work better without any dialogue at all, rather than having such extensive narration, storytelling, and translations throughout the story (and let's not get into the characters specifically telling you how they feel about every little aspect). 

The story seems really poorly written. The characters (apart from Atari and Chief) are unrelatable and show no emotion at all in their voice acting. Visually, Isle of Dogs is stunning. But not enough attention was paid to creating a story worth telling.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr8008

UNSANE (2018)

Let's start with the whole "unique" take that this film has. The entire thing was filmed with an iPhone 7+. Of course, Steven Soderbergh still has all of his attachments and other camera accessories, so this isn't just someone running around with a mobile phone. The claim is that nobody will be able to tell it was filmed with a phone, and straight off the bat I can say that is not true. It is glaringly obvious that a phone camera was used. There is no depth to the camera shots, with everything coming off flat, and the lighting has much larger extremes, with light sources becoming glaringly bright throwing the rest of the scene into darkness.

But that isn't to say that it doesn't work. In a world of selfies, the new generations know all about the effect of lens distortions or the otherwise unflattering results of the front-facing camera turning on too close to the face. Such views do give a more personal touch and allow you to truly see things from their point of view. A phone can get angles that just wouldn't be easily feasible with a larger movie camera. 

The film follows Sawyer Valentini (portrayed by Claire Foy) as she struggles with a situation where she feels like she is constantly monitored and stalked by someone from her past. Thanks to some misdirection, Sawyer is held against her will in a mental institute and is forced to deal with the unknown two-pronged threat of either a stalker or her own sanity. This splits the film into two halves, the first being the unknown period when either option is up in the air, and the latter half where the true threat is revealed and the film switches from psychological thriller to plain B-grade horror. Claire Foy does a brilliant job in the film, though her characters' actions are questionable at times, which can lead to you disconnecting from the character at times. 

When you have a movie that is based around the unknown status of one's own sanity, filming with the phone did help the aesthetic and vibe of the film, from an artistic sense. The flatness that obscures your depth perception, and the variable exposure between blinding light and murkiness that adds to that dream/nightmare/drug-trip feel. The intense presence of contrast and shadows add to the darkness of the film. 

The film works best during the former half, as you as the viewer, are forced to try and determine whether or not Sawyer is sane or not. As things are slowly revealed it changes your opinions as actions change from justified to unjustified at the drop of a hat. It adds tension and keeps the viewer engaged in the film. The second half involves none of this. Once the answer is revealed, engagement switches off, until the epilogue. Nothing is required beyond watching to see what happens, and it is such a drastic change in tempo that the film loses a lot of impetus. 

The writers would have been better off having the film continue to build without the answer to the question being so obviously provided. Leave it to the end. Heck, never reveal it. The lack of resolution would be a greater hook for many.

While the use of an iPhone to film is incredibly obvious, it certainly gave a different feel to the film and makes you realise what is possible with less equipment. It serves as a reminder that anyone can make a film, and has personally piqued my own curiosity enough to make me consider making my own movie with a phone, to see if I can do it better.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr8009

WALKING OUT (2017)

A film that covers big game hunting certainly sounds like an action film, but that is not the focus of this film. Matt Bomer and Bill Pullman are in this film, but their names don't add anything to the film. The film is very simple; it is all about highlighting the difference between hunting and killing. It is done in a bit of a roundabout way, under the guise of father-son bonding, and a quest for redemption.

Following a father and his son, who has become distant since the parents separated, the film follows a big game hunt that goes awry, and their fight to make it home. The son trying to navigate and get his father to safety is obviously a long and tiresome episode, and the film breaks that up by including the fathers own first and only big game hunt with the grandfather. As the film progresses and we are fed more and more of the father's story through flashbacks, we start to see the motivation for this hunt; why so much importance is placed on hunting vs. killing. How his own hubris had negatively affected his relationship with his dad. 

While there are some questionable moments in the film, in terms of being realistic, there are many more that are right on the money. A teens awe of nature, the struggle walking on snow and navigating a white landscape, dehydration surrounded by snow, and the alarming ease in which severe hunting accidents can occur in unexciting ways (it's not always going to be battling a bear or moose to the death). The ending is really the most realistic part of all.

The film is beautifully shot and does well to convey the feeling of isolation. The beginning of the film is less compelling. Faced with the problem of trying to deal with the problem of every young person having a GPS-enabled smartphone, the film does drive a stake further between the father and son, with this unnecessary "Technology will rot your brain" rhetoric hampering this father that wants his son to enjoy visiting him.

As mentioned earlier, Matt Bomer and Bill Pullman are in the film, and really having recognisable names and faces does nothing for the film. Their portrayal of the father and grandfather respectively could be done by any actors and would have actually been more genuine a film if they had been lesser known actors. With Bill Pullman's character taking up less than a couple of minutes of screentime, it feels like the call was made to try to bring in viewers without adding to the quality of the film. Josh Wiggins, who plays the son, David, is the clear star of the film. With the most emotional range, you can see the frustration & helplessness, fascination & wonder, all through his eyes and facial features. 

The world has become very opinionated with the rise of the internet and social media, and there has been a lot of backlash towards hunters when there are two types that are lumped in together. There are those that hunt for food, and to maintain the balance of the ecosystem, hunting invasive species and preventing overpopulation of species, and try to take down the animals in the quickest most humane way. And then there are "hunters" that hunt purely to kill. Large gauge shells, or automatic weapons. No interest in the meat, or the ecosystem. Killing for the sake of killing. A line is drawn, visually and emotionally, and its something that needs to be understood. This film covers both the positive and negative types of hunters, differentiating into the more accurate descriptions of hunter and killer.

It's interesting to see a film using father-son bonding to teach the differences in hunting. Usually, it would be using the hunting to show the importance of father-son bonding. Similar content, but a much different result.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7999

A QUIET PLACE (2018)

A Quiet Place has an interesting concept; a breed of creature that has brilliant hearing and hunts based on sound. It creates such a different vibe for a movie, where everything is dialled down. The general volume and action involved are reduced due to this. Instead of large noises causing jump scares, you end up with your heart racing with every little noise as you wait for a possible attack. Every noise has that delay and suspense as you wait to find out whether the creatures have heard it.

The exact range and strength of the creature's hearing are never properly established, and that vagueness adds to the tension and suspense. Despite the knowledge that you can hide noises with larger noises, there are no known parameters that explain what will result in your death or not. 

To have a film that takes noise to such extremes that the characters must learn sign language in order to survive. To have this family only survive as long as they have because they have a deaf daughter and knew sign language beforehand, it is well written. Little to no verbal communication, there is so much more emphasis on actions and emotive eyes, having to act without the dialogue being the focus (Don't worry there are subtitles to translate the sign language). The subtitles do mean that you need to pay proper attention to the movie otherwise you may miss vital information.

The creatures themselves are typical CGI monstrosities. Clearly, the weakest part of the film visually, but their presence in the film is largely minimal. With a sequel already in the works, there is a definite probability that the creatures larger presence will be detrimental to the success of the film. But as far as this first film goes, it is well balanced. A simple story, that has no real "save the world" storyline; just a simple "keep the children safe" story. The CGI-ness combined with their added presence in the latter parts of the film actually does take away from the fear. You fear a monster that you don't understand and that you can't see or fight against. But it's fair that you can't have a creature that isn't beatable or escapable or what is the point of the film?

Casting-wise, there is definite chemistry between Emily Blunt and John Krasinski's characters Evelyn and Lee Abbott. This is of course helped by the fact that Blunt and Krasinski are married in real life. Children Millie Simmonds and Noah Jupe who play the couples children also have a great relationship on film, and you can see that they care about each other like a brother and sister ultimately do. There is a separation between the parents and the children, however, and while it may be necessary for the story to progress as it does, it does give the feeling that Krasinski has emotionally detached himself from his children, instead focusing his efforts on his wife. It takes a bit away from the climax of the film and could have been written better.

But overall the film is fresh and provides some new ideas to the horror genre. When you look at the film without the monsters, there is an idyllic family situation. Playing games together, managing a farm, growing their own food, running errands together; a tightly knit family unit. A unit that you don't want to see ripped apart.

Originally posted on: http://djin.nz/Kr7998