WRATH OF MAN (2021)

 

Mysterious and wild-eyed, a new security guard for a cash truck surprises his co-workers when he unleashes precision skills during a heist. The crew is left wondering who he is and where he came from. Soon, the marksman's ultimate motive becomes clear as he takes dramatic and irrevocable steps to settle a score.

Look! It's another Guy Ritchie film with Jason Statham. They are likely a more iconic duo than Tim Burton and Johnny Depp, but when you have a winning formula, you don't really want to mess around with it too much, do you? Simply put, Wrath of Man has that non-linear storytelling that Guy Ritchie uses more often than M. Night Shyamalan uses twists in his filmmaking, and while the frenetic energy of his earlier films (Snatch, and Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels) has waned, this feature is still a tense, well-paced, action-thriller.

That shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone familiar with Jason Statham's work. While his signature fighting style has become repetitive (if you've watched the Transporter, Mechanic, or Fast & Furious franchise films), it is still fast, it has the aura of power, but most importantly, there is a precision in his style, that would have made him a brilliant John Wick, had he decided to move away from hand-to-hand combat sooner and transition to guns and marksmanship. 

The appeal of a non-linear narrative in Guy Ritchie movies has always relied on the convoluted nature of the stories, to create a nearly unrecognisable plot that requires a narrator to guide the audience through the various moving pieces until the events form a cohesive story and the context adds meaning to previous scenes. It means far less in films like Wrath of Man, however, where the story is rather straightforward, with no real big twists. There is no big reveal that is obscured by the non-linear storytelling, and any of the "big reveals" come across as unearned as they are either heavily alluded to a mile in advance or have no context or purpose at all. It was always the interconnected nature of the characters that draws everything together, but Wrath of Man feels lazier as if Guy Ritchie simply wanted to create his own Kingsman or James Bond flick. Perhaps because this is not an original story, and is instead based on the 2004 French film, Cash Truck. 

As a filmmaker, he still has more hits than misses, however, and Wrath of Man is still an incredibly entertaining film. It lacks the plot and character cohesion that would have made it a brilliant and thought-provoking piece, but when it comes to heists and gunfights, the action is in-your-face and delightful. Cinematographer Alan Stewart does a great job building a sense of uniformity and security in this armoured truck depot, and creates a strong sense of anger and power with the framing and lightwork of Statham's scenes, despite the surprisingly low level of long action sequences. The editing from James Herbert is a little glitchy at times but overall doesn't negatively impact the flow of the film. Christopher Benstead uses an interesting style of reverberating and repeating sound effects incorporated into the soundtrack of the film, which forms interesting transitions and builds a sense of unease and tension. 

The characterisation is weak. Most characters are one-dimensional, and the final act throws everyone into identical suits, which makes it difficult to follow who is where, and the geography of the action sequences becomes easily muddled. It lowers the impact of the final act somewhat, leaving you expecting more to come, to only realise that the play has already been completed. Full of grey areas, the film's antagonists and protagonists are not really identified. Backstories are avoided, real names don't really exist, and everything is contained. It leads to a small-scale story with minimal investment in the characters' lives. 

Don't let the trailer fool you. Post Malone barely manages a cameo, and Josh Hartnett's role is completely unnecessary and unwarranted. This film is all about the wrath of Jason Statham, and despite all of its drawbacks, Wrath of Man will still have you on the edge of your seat, grinding your teeth, and holding your breath. Ritchie's narrative style may be slowly unravelling, but his sense of tone is as strong as ever. 

Wrath of Man is in cinemas from April 29, 2021

TWIST (2021)

 

A thrilling modern-day take on Charles Dickens' novel, `Oliver Twist', as a gang of street hustlers plan the heist of the century.

Modern-day retellings are a dime a dozen. Like sequels, prequels, and spin-offs, it's difficult to get greenlit with an original film idea, when the audience is largely unwilling to invest in something that they don't already know about. It's how Game of Thrones continues to get spin-offs despite a widely panned final season, and how Disney made a killing reanimating the classic Lion King film without changing any aspect of the plot or dialogue. Having experienced Twist, it's apparent that the film was greenlit on the "connection" to Oliver Twist alone.

Twist gets off to a reasonable start with some adequately fast-paced parkour and some snazzy camera tricks that make the visual experience feel fresh and modern until you remember that this is effectively how 2014's The Kingsman started. As the use of parkour (or "free-running" as the characters continually remind us) is consistently applied throughout the film with the same camera tricks being applied over and over again, it starts to pale in comparison to better rooftop-parkour films such 2004's District 13 franchise, and suddenly Twist doesn't feel fresh and trendy; it feels like an outdated and unfashionable, one-trick pony. 

An unfortunate deterioration of the first impression, the cast represents another swing and miss from the production crew. Expectations are high when you get big names like Michael Caine, Lena Headey, Rita Ora, and David Walliams involved, yet they all struggle in their own ways. With so little to work with from the script, Michael Caine's Fagin lacks any form of character development and runs on autopilot. His only conceivable acting prompt and direction seem to replicate his personality from Alfred in the Dark Knight trilogy. 

Lena Headey is caught between two of her past roles, aiming somewhere between the grittiness of Dredd's Madeline "Ma-Ma" Madrigal and the cold, selfishness of Game of Thrones' Cersei Lannister, and landing on the petulant, adolescent personality of Star Wars' Kylo Ren; loud and irritating, but neither threatening nor intimidating. Rita Ora is so inconsequential to the film's plot that it requires effort to remember what scenes her character was in, let alone the character's purpose (outside of being a "woke" gender-bent Artful Dodger).

This is one of those films that fails because it wanted to be something else. They didn't want to be a Charles Dickens adaptation. They wanted to be part of the wave of Guy Ritchie-esque sporadic heist films without having the expertise to build likeable characters with understandable motives and big stakes. 

The dialogue is ham-fisted and cliché, the action sequences are geographically muddled and poorly constructed with an uninspired indie tracklist that doesn't blend, the character relationships have no substance or implied history to them. Every piece of information and exposition is told through dialogue. 

It is confounding how a film can have so many big names, retell a known popular story, and yet feel so empty and devoid of substance. It lacks the complexity to entertain the adult mind, and yet the content is too violent for the younger audiences. It attempts to be woke and edgy with gender-bending characters, but to be honest, watching 47-year-old Lena Headey forcefully make out with the 23-year-old Sophie Simnett (who is acting the role of a teenager) is more unsettling than liberating. 

I don't know what they were thinking, but they clearly didn't put enough thought into it. This attempt to put a new twist on Oliver Twist has simply gone wrong. There is action, there is parkour, there are recognizable faces (along with the lead, Raff Law, a.k.a. Jude Law's son). These elements may not be linked in any sort of credible narrative thread, but they are still there. Watchable but not overly enjoyable, with each roof jump or camera flip eliciting a louder and louder groan of frustrated boredom.

Twist is in cinemas from April 29, 2021

Originally posted to: https://djin.nz/Kr8837

I BLAME SOCIETY (2020)

 

The lines between art and real-life begin to blur when an ambitious filmmaker realizes she's good at getting away with murder.

Sometimes you can get a film that is technically a good film, potentially even great, yet it leaves the audience feeling out of place and uncomfortable. I Blame Society manages to tick a lot of boxes from cinematography and character-building standpoints. Be that as it may, to a mainstream audience the aspects that the film succeeds in may also succeed in making it off-putting; both visually and thematically.

It is quite often the case with satirical works, where the line between reality and fiction begins to blur, and confusion creeps in around whether the audience is meant to laugh or be concerned. Director, Writer, and Star, Gillian Wallace Horvat, starts blurring the line immediately, with the main character of the feature to an unknown extent based on Horvat herself, sharing name, occupation, and family. 

I Blame Society starts off innocent enough, with the illusion of a documentary based around a back-handed compliment she received from friends, a simple premise that soon spirals into sociopathy as her narcissistic attributes hook in deep as she struggles to gain any support towards her career in filmmaking.

The entire film is a facade that aims to look as amateur as possible. Constant mixes of resolution and aspect ratios give the appearance of multiple different devices being used to record the feature, which would allow Horvat to complete the feature without any help. Shots are effectively layered and constructed, showing Horvat collecting or placing different devices to indicate how that angle was achieved. 

All in all, this looks like a very amateurish production. There is nothing that looks polished, everything feels raw. It doesn't make it an overly enjoyable viewing experience, however. Dissecting the scenes would be a great activity for film students, but for the regular moviegoer, it is unappealing in its raw visual style and frenetic nature.

The film attempts to attack the film industry itself and its false-flag allyship with women, diversity, and LGBTQ+ communities, and how producers and managers will leverage their power to capitalize on those demographics trying to make it in Hollywood, taking advantage of how far a filmmaker will be for their craft. The satire is very much on-the-nose and accurate but does little in the way of affecting the main plot of the film. One could perhaps argue that Horvat's lack of support has accelerated her spiral into darkness, but it simply doesn't feel genuine.

And that is the real issue here. I Blame Society doesn't feel real. It feels structured and manufactured and, in many places, the low-budget effects will cause trouble with the audiences' suspension of disbelief. The gender politics, faux feminism, and filmmaking style are great discussion points for those that are aware of the techniques and topics, but for those looking for a narrative with likeable characters, I have to side with the "broducers" in the film and say that, it just didn't appeal; the slow pacing and erratic visual mediums make I Blame Society a chore to sit through. 

There is certainly a message, and Horvat has certainly not made any compromises and is unapologetic in her journey of creating this piece, but this will not appeal to the general masses as it simply is not an easily digestible film.

I Blame Society is in cinemas from April 29, 2021

WHITES (2010)

 

Working in the kitchen of a countryside hotel, Roland can cook with the best of them when he puts his mind to it but laziness gets the better of him, much to the annoyance of restaurant manager Caroline and his long-suffering sous chef Bib. It doesn't help that Skoose the apprentice chef has zero respect for Bib or that quirky waitress Kiki takes orders for eggless omelettes.

Situational awareness is one of the greatest sources of comedy. Knowing where the humour works best and implementing it at the right time, will always determine whether a gag is successful or not. Situational awareness does seem to be rather lacking in their choice to host the 2010 BBC series Whites. While Whites fits into the two main themes of being British/European and consisting of eight or fewer episodes, there is little for the Acorn TV audience to gain from Whites beyond nostalgic re-watchability.

Whites is a short-lived six-episode series from over a decade ago, that was never renewed for a second season. A quirky occupational-based episodic series, very much inspired by the classic Fawlty Towers or the more recent classic, the fourth-wall-breaking, The Office. The small scale of the series and low number of episodes meant the majority of the show was dominated by the main characters, Alan Davies and Darron Boyd, with no real opportunity to properly develop any other characters or relationships.

The biggest concern (and this is where situational awareness comes into it) is that the whole affair is unenticing and lacks energy. If you consider TV Chefs like Gordon Ramsay, for example, who have been on repeat on mainstream international television since 2004, across at least 17 different series, there is already a lot of content out in the market, around cuisine-related situations. Hells Kitchen and Kitchen Nightmares hyped things up further by displaying the dysfunction that occurs behind those two-way kitchen doors, to such positive ratings that every culinary show has tried to benefit from that style. 

Considering the reality shows, this comedy absolutely pales in comparison. It would have been enjoyable to those trying to avoid reality TV back in 2010, but in 2021, for new audiences, Whites provides nothing new, and it provides it all in a blasé fashion.

The blasé mood is, of course, intentional, and creates a lot of conflicts which does work for the humour, but everything has not aged well. What may have been a well-sculpted set-up and reveal a decade ago, now telegraphs a highly predictable situation with a dry sense of humour that elicits very few laughs for its runtime. Low laughs, one-dimensional characters, and an aimless pair of protagonists all culminate in a mediocre show; neither offensive nor inoffensive. It merely coasts by on the charisma of Alan Davies.

If they had been given 12 episodes, Whites could have generated some reasonable character developmental arcs that would have allowed the series to move outside of the restrictive environment of "culinary events in a castle". To transform Roland's (Alan Davies) lack of ambition and do justice to Darren Boy's Bib who was, without a doubt, the heart of the series.

If you have already seen Whites and enjoyed it, you can rejoice as there is a legal way to rewatch the series. If you haven't seen it yet, then you may be in for some quiet viewing sessions, as the comedy fails to outdo the natural comedy that exists in reality shows already.

Whites is on Acorn TV from April 5, 2021

Originally posted to: https://djin.nz/Kr8832

SIX MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT (2020)

Summer 1939. Influential families in Nazi Germany have sent their daughters to a finishing school in an English seaside town to learn the language and be ambassadors for a future looking National Socialist. A teacher there sees what is coming and is trying to raise the alarm. But the authorities believe he is the problem.

It is incredibly difficult to screw up a film with the Nazis involved. At least up until recently, there has never been a more polarizing separation of good and evil, as there has been between the Nazis and whoever happens to oppose them. Human sterilization, experimentation, forced breeding, death camps, and the slaughter of minorities, are all aspects that the world used to unanimously agree were bad things. 

Simply from the sight of a Nazi swastika, the audience knows who the villains are. And yet, here we are, muddying the waters by combining Nazi high command's daughters with an Anglo-German British spy in pre-world War Two times. All of a sudden, the audience is in a position where the characters need to be developed to fully recognize who is good or bad. If only Six Minutes to Midnight had made that effort.

This is one of those stories that is based on something true. Influenced by it. This is a fictional story that uses an unusual set of circumstances and attempts to use that polarizing view to build a successful, dramatic thriller. The story revolves around a finishing school in East Sussex, England, that taught young German girls how to speak English and lady-like etiquette; one of those girls being the daughter of one of Hitler's high command. A potentially scandalous situation in hindsight, but one that clearly never bore fruit, which is why Six Minutes to Midnight is noticeably fictionalized. 

This project is only the third theatrical feature film to come from Andy Goddard, who has been better known for his directorship of television material, and Six Minutes to Midnight carries that television vibe. Despite the presence of cinematographer Chris Seager, who was involved with Watchmen, and The Alienist, this project comes across as decidedly bland, with desaturated colours and uniform lighting.

There are a plethora of pleasing landscape shots, but they have little connection to the story and thus fail to build any emotional investment in the film. Despite his work directing some praise-worthy Marvel television series (Daredevil, The Punisher, Luke Cage), Goddard's directing style fails to create a convincing emotional narrative.

More likely, it is the lack of charisma from Eddie Izzard. His first attempt at scriptwriting, Izzard's Six Minutes to Midnight is noticeably ham-fisted and clunky, with underdeveloped characters chase scenes that employ more physical humour than tension, a cavalcade of movie tropes, and a narrative structure that doesn't flow. Those who have been rewatching Hannibal on Netflix will recognize the face of Abel Gideon, who Izzard portrayed, and be disappointed at the poor character development and lack of authenticity that Izzard has brought to this new role. 

Six Minutes to Midnight makes no attempt to develop any of its central characters. With a large group of girls at this school, only three of them are even given names, let alone arcs, personalities, and opinions. It's this complete disregard for character-building that prevents the film from gaining any momentum. Without any setup around the girls, there is no sense of conflict, nothing for the audience to empathize with, and certainly no stakes worth being concerned about. 

Goddard and Izzard simply assumed having Nazis and World War Two would mean no character development would be needed, and yet they specifically choose characters that walk along both sides of the Anglo-German boundary. Allegiances need to be established. Loves, lusts, and hate need to be on display, but all of these characters are empty; empty of emotion, and empty of individuality.

The final act does start to improve in terms of pacing, but it is too little, too late, and Six Minutes to Midnight ends right when the film starts to get interesting. The dramatic elements lack any of the ingredients to generate tension, the action sequences are sporadic, never gaining momentum, and the final moments of the film come across as forced. It doesn't feel genuine, every action is specific to move the story forward, with little regard for whether it comes across as organic. No time is given for any moments to build character or allow impactful scenes to have an impact. 

A potentially interesting story is wasted on poorly developed characters, with either exaggerated performances or a complete lack of emotion. Six Minutes to Midnight has been years in the making. Perhaps they would have benefited from working on the script for a few more years.

Six Minutes to Midnight is in cinemas from April 22, 2021

Originally posted to: https://djin.nz/Kr8815

COSMIC SIN (2021)

Seven rogue soldiers launch a pre-emptive strike against a newly discovered alien civilization in the hopes of ending an interstellar war before it starts. 

Wow. Just wow. Sometimes when you look at a movie poster you can just tell that the film is going to be incredibly low-budget. That certainly seems to be the case with Cosmic Sin, and yet they have somehow managed to get Frank Grillo and Bruce Willis involved in this perplexing visual experience. You look at Bruce Willis in this astronaut-ish suit and are reminded of the classic film that he also starred in, 1998's Armageddon. The comparison is ill-fated (as is the hilariously accurate title), as neither Frank Grillo (who recently surprised me in Boss Level) nor Bruce Willis could make Cosmic Sin worth sitting through.

One of the biggest things that ruin a film is the amateur move of "telling not showing". When you have a visual medium, "showing" is obviously going to be the most engaging. If a picture is worth a thousand words, Cosmic Sin's 24 frames per second across a 90-minute runtime could be an engaging narrative, and yet everything that we learn is through excessive exposition. The opening scene itself is interrupted by five black screens with text. The audience must read to learn what the technological advances are and must continue reading to learn about why Willis' character is hated. It is lazy writing from both Director/Writer Edward Drake and his co-writer, Corey William Large.

The screenplay is so poorly written that there are only four things that occur on-screen; an inciting incident, the continuation of that incident, a retreat, and a final conflict resolution. All four situations are action scenes that are set up by the overused expositive dialogue that immediately precedes it. the action scenes faring no better, are as exciting and eventful as watching two sets of Star Wars stormtroopers shooting at each other; lots of shots being fired, but nothing of note happening as a consequence.

One cannot help but feel sympathy for the cast, who were given ham-fisted cringe-worthy dialogue, no character development, and a complete lack of action choreography. Looking forward to seeing lots of future technology from the year 2538? I hope you are ready for handguns, flares, and knives!

The special effects were noticeably low-budget, and this also affected the cinematography, with most of the scenes being shot with superfluous red and blue lighting to obscure the backgrounds, and very few wide shots being used, focusing mostly on close-ups with coverage from the forehead to the shoulders. This constant up-close-and-personal viewpoint is unwanted and ends up making Cosmic Sin that much more difficult to watch. 

Michael Bay seems to be the only Director who can make the constant close-ups work in an action scene, cinematographer Brandon Cox simply confuses an already unwieldy science-fiction film, by making its action sequences undecipherable, with a complete lack of geography and blur and slow-motion effects that do nothing beyond stretch out the runtime. What are the people doing? Where are the people? What are their immediate goals? Everything is unknown. Characters appear, disappear, and reappear, without motive, context, or explanation.

B-movies generally know what they are, and they are enjoyable because of the limitations of their budgets. Cosmic Sin takes itself far too seriously despite the script having a complete lack of content. It consistently poorly executes elements that other films have done better; the redemption arc is practically absent, Independence Day speeches fall flat, and the passing of the torch is done without emotional impact.

I love the idea of Frank Grillo and Bruce Willis in space fighting aliens. Much like Pacific Rim and the idea of giant robots fighting giant monsters, it's a hard concept to screw up, and yet Cosmic Sin is exactly what it says it is; a sin at a cosmic scale. With the exception of some reasonably intriguing alien visual character designs, Cosmic Sin was a waste of 90 minutes. 

Watch Armageddon, Aliens, and Independence Day, and leave this monstrosity to disappear into obscurity.

Cosmic Sin is in cinemas from March 11, 2021

Originally posted to: https://djin.nz/Kr8811

BLACKBIRD (2019)

 

Lily and Paul summon their loved ones to their beach house for one final gathering before Lily decides to end her long battle with ALS. The couple plans a loving weekend complete with holiday traditions, but the mood becomes strained when unresolved issues surface between Lily and her daughters Jennifer and Anna.

There is clearly a new topic that Hollywood likes to talk about; euthanasia. This is the second film to be released within a month about ending one's life early due to a terminal illness. Unlike Supernova, which dementia as a vehicle for discussing the topic, Blackbird uses amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), a progressive neurodegenerative disease that affects nerve cells in the brain and the spinal cord. A disease that slowly weakens muscles until movement and even swallowing is no longer possible. 

Euthanasia has only just recently become something that the mainstream media and general public have a majority deciding the process is ethical. There is still a large number of people who are against it, however, and that is where this film gets its controversial edge. There are many conflicting views (religiously, ethically, and morally) but it is at the stage of indecision where both sides can still promote a genuine debate.

Blackbird comes with an ensemble cast including Sam Neill, Mia Wasikowska, Lindsey Duncan, Kate Winslet, Rainn Wilson, and Susan Sarandon. In almost a political move, Director Roger Michell is unflinching in the view that the film requires a lot of big names to generate enough of an audience. In a manner of speaking, Michell is not wrong, as while Blackbird is thought-provoking, its venture into the darker side of drama is unnerving and surprisingly cold.

The veteran status of many of the actors is clear and shows in their performances. There is no bad acting to be seen; simply awkward situations, awkward characters, and often unlikeable personalities. Nevertheless, these characters come across as real, developed people; flawed people that have their own battles with illness and selfishness. 

With the very simple premise of somebody with a terminal disease wishing to end their life, it leaves a lot of room for dramatic elements around the various family members coming to terms with that idea. In fact, there is so much space for content, that scriptwriter Christian Torpe starts the film at what thematically is at the endpoint, where the family has already come to terms with the premise, and completely breaks it again, muddying the water, before attempting to regain the status quo. 

Susan Sarandon absolutely steals the spotlight with her portrayal of someone suffering from a terminal, incurable disease, someone who is at peace with the idea of choosing the terms of her own death. While I lack the personal experience to judge the performance based on its accuracy to the ALS disease, what is so well executed is the balance of debilitation. 

Walking the line portraying a person who is terminally ill enough in a visual sense; not so badly that the entire audience would immediately agree she needs to be put out of her misery, but also not fit and cheerful enough that one would disagree with her terminal diagnosis. Right in the sweet spot of contention, and her afflictions are inconsistent enough to validate every character's concerns.

What works really well in Blackbird is the grounded nature of the film. There are a number of elements that are used to create conflict in the film but Michell and Torpe don't go overboard. there was potential to bring in several other plot points that were quite strongly alluded to, but no matter what the source of conflict, everything remains centred around its effect on the central premise. 

At no point did the audience get dragged deep into the rabbit hole. Several times, we were treated to a peek inside, but then we were brought back to the main story and how it all relates. Nothing in the film is allowed to take you away from the central discussion of euthanasia and whether someone with a terminal disease has the right to choose when and how they will die. 

From a cinematography standpoint, this is very little to talk about, mostly straightforward wide shots with a few close-ups for emotional scenes, but it's generally nothing fancy; nothing that will take the spotlight away from the various valid perspectives of this dying woman and her family. The music is minimal with many moments in the film simply bathed in complete silence, and emphasizes the experiences of the family. That awkwardness and inability to know how to deal with the scenario. 

All in all, Blackbird is not really here to be enjoyed. This is a vehicle for understanding the concept of voluntarily losing someone prematurely. Letting someone choose to end their life while they are still a positive association in your life; before they become the drain, a burden, a thing that is no longer recognizable as the person they once were. 

Would you let someone die a hero, or have them live long enough to become the villain?

Blackbird is in cinemas from March 4, 2021

Originally posted to: https://djin.nz/Kr8810