Directed by: Barry Jenkins
Written by: Barry Jenkins, Tarell Alvin McCraney
Starring: Alex Hibbert, Ashton Sanders, Trevante Rhodes. Mahershala Ali
Usually when I leave a cinema I like to talk about the film right away, highlight the moments that I loved or hated, and really get in to the meat of the discussion. I love talking about movies, it's what I do.
This film left me quiet and disquieted.
I've seen films that have left me with this hollow sensation before; the sense that what I had just experienced was disturbingly true to life. Despite the film's extremely specific character focus, there's an incredible connection that can be drawn to the story because of what this film is and what this film is about.
*Warning: Spoilers Ahead*
Moonlight focuses on three stages in the life of Chiron; the first stage, Little, focuses on his time as a child. Chiron is dubbed 'Little' for his shy persona and small size, he's often bullied, which isn't helped by an emotionally abusive mother, Paula. Chiron's places of solace are in his friend Kevin, and Juan and Teresa, a drug dealer and his girlfriend, who take Chiron in to their home and feed him, after finding Chiron hiding in a dope house.
The second stage, Chiron, follows Chiron in his last year of high school. Here we see the taciturn Chiron being constantly bullied by another student. Terrel, and coming to terms with his sexuality as he has his first encounter with Kevin.
The third stage, Black follows Chiron as an adult, now a drug dealer after leaving juvie, and a completely different person, now hugely muscular and much more talkative. This sees Chiron come to see his mother because she wants to reconcile, and return to Kevin after years of not talking.
Each of these sequences is a story to behold all on its own. The stages are very deliberately set up in a traditional three-act structure, but each act on its own it just laden with themes and meaning to consider, with their own individual emotional climaxes that shape the life of Chiron.
Little was the most affecting of the three for me. Juan is hardly the person that you'd normally associate with the idea of a father figure, but this drug dealer gives young Chiron a home, feeds him, gives him a place to stay, teaches him to swim, and passes wisdom on to him. What I love about this film is that it doesn't try to force moral opinions of wrong or right, it simply presents these events as they are, and shows the complicated nature of them, an unavoidable sea of grey. Juan is a drug dealer, but Juan is also not emotionally abusive and tries to help Chiron find his identity. It's only more complicated from there as Juan finds out that he deals, albeit indirectly, to Paula. We don't see easy resolutions, either; Juan doesn't immediately give up his ways and become a man of the cloth or something ridiculous, and Paula doesn't just up and stop her crack habit. There's no happy resolution here, and Little comes to an emotional climax as Chiron sits at Juan's table, and first asks Juan what a 'faggot' is and why the other kids call him one, before asking if Juan is a drug dealer. There's so much to be said about what happens in this scene that I'm not sure where to even begin, but the fact that the scene ends with Chiron leaving and Juan hanging his head in shame is powerful. Juan is a father figure who has taken this boy in to try and help raise him, he's discovered that he has contributed so fundamentally to the problem, and he won't stop. The whole scene is beautifully acted as well; particularly Ali as Juan, who clearly expresses the complexity of the scene. Little nods, meaning in exchanged looks, the way he pauses before answering, in that moment, Ali has truly become Juan, and everything shared between Ali, Hibbert as Little, and Janelle Monae as Teresa is true and believable in a way that's rare to see.
Before I move on to Chiron, I want to briefly emphasise this film's use of sound, or rather, lack thereof. It's common in realistic filmmaking to avoid sound that isn't diagetic, and Moonlight is no exception. This isn't a film that requires a piano or some violins to tell you how to feel, the film shows itself and asks you to interpret how you feel about it. The film is given meaning through what we can see rather than what we can hear.
Chiron is sad and twisted. Juan is dead, and it's barely mentioned. The man who had such a significant effect on Chiron as a child is now dead as Chiron struggles as a teenager. The film doesn't dwell on his death, only offering a line to express that he is, and the effect is incredible, capturing both why death is meaningful in narrative and why death is meaningful in real life. In narrative, Juan was once a driving force in the story of Chiron's life and no longer is, and the only thing that remains is the effect that had/can still have on remaining characters; in reality, even a close friend or family member will hold a place in our lives after their death, but it isn't something that everyone talks about all the time every day. There's this theme of avoiding the past that's started with this revelation, and it continues well in to Black, but more on that later. Chiron's sexual realisation is powerful because of who draws it out; Kevin was the only boy close to Chiron when they were children, even giving him a different nickname, 'Black', and now he's here again, helping Chiron find out a little more about who he is. But as poignant a scene this is (there's no gratuity about it; is you didn't know it was happening, you wouldn't even realise), it's what comes next that left a pit in my stomach. Terrel's bullying of Chiron reaches it zenith when Terrel coerces Kevin in to beating Chiron. Just the evening before, Kevin was the closest Chiron had ever been to another person, and now that man was beating him. It's a hard-hitting scene, and seems like a comment on the fusion of sex and violence in culture. The film doesn't halt its onslaught or tough scenes, either; Chiron storms back in to school with a vengeance, and smashes a chair over Terrel's back, knocking him unconscious. It's as fast as it is shocking, but instead of revelling in this moment that should be cathartic for Chiron, the film instantly shows Chiron being sent to juvie for nearly killing a fellow student. This movie doesn't offer up a satisfying vengeance, it shows us what happens in reality if you beat someone over the head with a chair. Scenes like this are so effective and hammer home the uneasy feeling the film is trying to give you, showing you the struggles without sugarcoating them or offering a way out.
Black is the closest this film gets to achieving some kind of closure. Chiron has become everything that he wasn't, a muscular, street-talking drug dealing thug, but we learn with time that this is a mirage Chiron has put in place to hide his perceived weaknesses. His talk with his mother is a hopeful one; she's now clean and helping others at a rehab centre, and while he at first spurns her apologies with the words he's repeated since childhood (I hate you), he eventually breaks down and forgives her. Life doesn't magically get better for the two of them from here, and it's important that this film treats this moment as barely the start of something. Chiron's reunion with Kevin is much heavier, and a shadow of what you wish it could be after all the pain Chiron has been through. The final emotional climax does arrive, however, as Chiron finally lets his masquerade fall and reveals his true self to Kevin in a single utterance, "you were the only one". It's not some sweet declaration of love, it's a sombre cry for help from a man who has suffered from the way his life has shaped him. The final embrace between Kevin and Chiron didn't look of romance but of understanding; Kevin understands his place in the shaping of Chiron's life, and Chiron has his first moment of real openness in his life. Things aren't alright, but this is a start. This film never shies away from the more difficult moments, and the finale in Black is no exception. As the film came to a close, I knew the filmmakers wanted me to feel the uncertainty of the characters, and I most certainly felt as they did about the whole depressing yet hopeful situation.
This film's narrative is unique and challenging, but there's also so much to talk about this film at the visual level, because the film goes a long way to include little details that repeat and solidify imagery in our mind. One of my favourite examples of this happens across all three acts. In Little, Juan wears an ear stud in his right ear; in Chiron, Kevin wears on in his left; in Black, Chiron wears a stud in each ear, a small symbol to reinforce the idea that Juan and Kevin have played such a heavy part in Chiron's identity. It's the little things like this that elevates the film above so many others that I've seen, such as the use of ice water in Chiron to help heal Chiron's wounds is reflected in Black when Chiron uses ice water as he feels his tough facade breaking. This film uses visual language to reinforce the narrative so effectively, the filmmakers have well and truly achieved what it appears they set out to do, presenting a film that really confronts you about the effect people have on each other.
This review isn't anywhere near as complete as I would like it, but it's the best I can really do after one viewing.
*Edit: I re-watched it tonight (25/02/2017) with some friends, and I realised immediately that I made a mistake, in that Juan wears a stud in both ears, not just his right. This furthers Chiron's amplified emulation of Juan in Black, so it's still a nice detail, but not for how I miread it initially.
While I'm here, I just want to quickly talk about the film, why it's the best of 2016, and therefore why I think it should win over the likely choice La La Land. I absolutely love both films, but each is an entirely different experience, and they left me with a whole different set of thoughts and emotions. When I came out of La La Land, I had a strong sense of feeling like I'd seen something drawn from an idealistic past and painted with realistic modern colours. It was a sobering take on films from another age, and imitated so well that the thought that held in my mind was "I wish they still made movies like this". In the case of Moonlight, the thought was more along the lines of "I have never seen a movie like this before". The first time I watched Moonlight was like the first time I watched 2001 (though I'd argue that Moonlight is far more accessible than 2001); I had witnessed film done in a way that felt entirely new, and that doesn't happen often when you watch movies as much as I do. I can't quite put my finger on exactly why Moonlight feels this way in the technical sense; however, I can say that the film was unsettling in the way it was all so perfectly believable. Part of what can make a film critically successful is the ability of the film to make you forget that you're watching a film, and Moonlight executes this without fault; I truly felt, for the duration of the film, that I was not just watching a film, but that I was being given a window in to another person's life. This is realist filmmaking at its finest, something that Kubrick was known for, which is perhaps why my mind first goes to 2001 when I try to recall an experience similar to Moonlight. Everything that happens in Moonlight seems as if it really happened, and that we were simply watching captured footage of real events rather than a dramatisation of them. This is just one reason why I believe Moonlight to be the best film of 2016.
The Verdict: Moonlight is... different. I find it difficult to summarise the film the way I usually do here, because it's deeply layered and just begging for multiple viewings. It's also hard to find a single film to compare it to, so I cannot say something as simple as "if you liked this film, you'll love Moonlight'. The subject matter and realistically slow-burn style of storytelling also don't make this film something that will appeal to a lot of people as entertainment; this is the sort of film that reminds you that film is also art.
Rating: 10/10
Published January 30th, 2017
Monday, 30 January 2017
Saturday, 28 January 2017
2017 Film Review: Lion (2016)
Directed by: Garth Davis
Written by: Luke Davies, adapted from the book A Long Way Home by Saroo Brierly
Starring: Dev Patel, Nicole Kidman, Rooney Mara
IMDb Link
The 89th Academy Awards is coming up, and the nominations have been announced (See the full list here). As such, it's now a necessity for me to see every Best Picture nominee before the Awards' night. I've already seen Arrival, Hacksaw Ridge, Hell or High Water, and La La Land, and of the five I haven't seen, Lion was the only one playing in a theatre close by.
*Warning: Spoilers Ahead*
Lion tells a true story that takes a look at some important issues. We follow Saroo (played as a child by Sunny Pawar, and as an adult by Patel), a boy living a small village in India with his mother, brother and sister. While waiting for his brother to return, Saroo falls asleep on a train that doesn't stop moving for two days, and eventually ends up in Calcutta, about 1500 kilometres from his home. After suffering hardships on the streets, he is eventually taken to an orphanage, before being adopted and taken to Hobart, Tasmania to be raised by his new parents.
The film is at times heartbreaking, and this is in large part due to the two actors who play Saroo; Pawar is positively adorable, and it hurts a little every time something bad happens to him. He's an innocent little child, and you just want the scenes on the streets to end so that he can taken from danger. This is very intentional; the filmmakers leave you with the knowledge that these circumstances are not unique to Saroo. Patel handles the more complicated emotions Saroo experiences as an adult wonderfully; he struggles deeply with the feeling that he is missing a piece of his home, while trying his hardest to not seem ungrateful to his adoptive parents. Patel is very expressive and it makes his performance very convincing; this is helped by the fact that he absolutely nails the Australian accent.
The rest of the film is solid. Davis utilises the camera exactly how you'd hope in an intense human drama, focusing almost entirely on faces, while using wider and longer shots only to accentuate distance between characters. Lighting suits the tone very well, especially the nighttime scenes in Calcutta, as Saroo runs from kidnappers and finds sanctuary at a shrine; darkness is used to solidify moments of fear for Saroo's safety. There's also some fantastic editing in the second and third acts, as the film shows Patel struggling with his home sickness by fitting his long lost brother in to moments of his daily life, and cutting between near-identical shots of his actions and how they relate to his memories.
From a storytelling perspective, there were a few minor issues I had that seem to have come from the fact that this is a true story. There's an obvious need to maintain faith to what actually happened, but this sometimes left odd gaps and sudden changes. This in some ways makes the film more realistic, as life sometimes just throws things at us, but it also hampers the film's overall message, so I'm unsure how to feel about these slight problems. The first that comes to mind is Saroo's adoptive brother Mantosh. He's included in the film because the real Saroo has an actual adoptive brother named Mantosh, but in the film he doesn't have much use. There's some family-based drama surrounding him as he creates issues for his and Saroo's parents, but there's little resolution to the topic, (apart from a scene where Saroo apologises to a passed out Mantosh) and he seems simply forgotten about by film's end. There's also Saroo's girlfriend Lucy (Mara). Whilst I enjoyed Mara's performance, her character was strangely inconsistent, suggesting her support for Saroo but never really showing it, and like Mantosh she seems to be dropped from the plot after a certain point.
The Verdict: Parts of Lion will play your heartstrings like a fiddle. The themes of identity and the issues surrounding lost children in India are presented solemnly, with a message appealing to do work to stop the injustice; the film's goal is very well defined. Patel is brilliant of Saroo, capturing complex emotions and presenting a flawless accent. Because of the film's message, and because it has been nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars, I highly recommend going to see this film.
Rating: 7.5/10
Published January 28th, 2016
Written by: Luke Davies, adapted from the book A Long Way Home by Saroo Brierly
Starring: Dev Patel, Nicole Kidman, Rooney Mara
IMDb Link
The 89th Academy Awards is coming up, and the nominations have been announced (See the full list here). As such, it's now a necessity for me to see every Best Picture nominee before the Awards' night. I've already seen Arrival, Hacksaw Ridge, Hell or High Water, and La La Land, and of the five I haven't seen, Lion was the only one playing in a theatre close by.
*Warning: Spoilers Ahead*
Lion tells a true story that takes a look at some important issues. We follow Saroo (played as a child by Sunny Pawar, and as an adult by Patel), a boy living a small village in India with his mother, brother and sister. While waiting for his brother to return, Saroo falls asleep on a train that doesn't stop moving for two days, and eventually ends up in Calcutta, about 1500 kilometres from his home. After suffering hardships on the streets, he is eventually taken to an orphanage, before being adopted and taken to Hobart, Tasmania to be raised by his new parents.
The film is at times heartbreaking, and this is in large part due to the two actors who play Saroo; Pawar is positively adorable, and it hurts a little every time something bad happens to him. He's an innocent little child, and you just want the scenes on the streets to end so that he can taken from danger. This is very intentional; the filmmakers leave you with the knowledge that these circumstances are not unique to Saroo. Patel handles the more complicated emotions Saroo experiences as an adult wonderfully; he struggles deeply with the feeling that he is missing a piece of his home, while trying his hardest to not seem ungrateful to his adoptive parents. Patel is very expressive and it makes his performance very convincing; this is helped by the fact that he absolutely nails the Australian accent.
The rest of the film is solid. Davis utilises the camera exactly how you'd hope in an intense human drama, focusing almost entirely on faces, while using wider and longer shots only to accentuate distance between characters. Lighting suits the tone very well, especially the nighttime scenes in Calcutta, as Saroo runs from kidnappers and finds sanctuary at a shrine; darkness is used to solidify moments of fear for Saroo's safety. There's also some fantastic editing in the second and third acts, as the film shows Patel struggling with his home sickness by fitting his long lost brother in to moments of his daily life, and cutting between near-identical shots of his actions and how they relate to his memories.
From a storytelling perspective, there were a few minor issues I had that seem to have come from the fact that this is a true story. There's an obvious need to maintain faith to what actually happened, but this sometimes left odd gaps and sudden changes. This in some ways makes the film more realistic, as life sometimes just throws things at us, but it also hampers the film's overall message, so I'm unsure how to feel about these slight problems. The first that comes to mind is Saroo's adoptive brother Mantosh. He's included in the film because the real Saroo has an actual adoptive brother named Mantosh, but in the film he doesn't have much use. There's some family-based drama surrounding him as he creates issues for his and Saroo's parents, but there's little resolution to the topic, (apart from a scene where Saroo apologises to a passed out Mantosh) and he seems simply forgotten about by film's end. There's also Saroo's girlfriend Lucy (Mara). Whilst I enjoyed Mara's performance, her character was strangely inconsistent, suggesting her support for Saroo but never really showing it, and like Mantosh she seems to be dropped from the plot after a certain point.
The Verdict: Parts of Lion will play your heartstrings like a fiddle. The themes of identity and the issues surrounding lost children in India are presented solemnly, with a message appealing to do work to stop the injustice; the film's goal is very well defined. Patel is brilliant of Saroo, capturing complex emotions and presenting a flawless accent. Because of the film's message, and because it has been nominated for Best Picture at the Oscars, I highly recommend going to see this film.
Rating: 7.5/10
Published January 28th, 2016
Thursday, 26 January 2017
A Look at the Worst: The Last Airbender (2010)
Directed by: M. Night Shyamalan
Written by: M. Night Shyamalan
Starring: Noah Ringer, Nicola Peltz, Jackson Rathbone
IMDb Link
I've watched a lot of bad movies in my time. I actively seek out these movies and go out of my way to watch them. Whether they're 'so bad they're good' or simply so awful they destroy any joy you might find in being creative, there's a certain appreciation I get for film as a whole by watching these sorts of movies. By seeing how low film can sink, I feel better about the good movies that I watch, and so I want to use this space to start talking about some of the worst movies I have ever seen; maybe you'll watch these films and gain a greater appreciation for film overall, maybe you'll simply see which films I talk about and add them to your 'do not watch' list.
I've recently been watching M. Night Shyamalan movies. In preparation for Split I watched Signs (being the only somewhat good Shyamalan movie I hasn't seen yet), and I also recently sat through The Happening (which, while pretty terrible, was not as bad as I was expecting), so my mind has drifted back to this most awful of movies, The Last Airbender. Before I go any further, I would just like to point out that I've never watched Avatar: The Last Airbender, so when I got ready to watch this film, I had no bias of expectation based on the show.
I did, however, know that there was heavy criticism of the film from fans of the show. Most people I know when questioned on their opinion of the movie refuse to acknowledge its existence. There's been complaints about so much in this film, and when I first went in to it I half-expected to come out of the film with a higher than average opinion of it, my ideas towards to film had been set that low. Somehow, unfortunately, the film managed to be worse than I had initially thought.
The biggest problem with the film is the plot. Sure the acting is some of the worst I've ever seen, the cinematography/direction is laughable even when compared to Shyamalan's other worst films, the characterisation is flat and shallow, the effects are terrible when you consider the films $150 Million budget (a fact that I'd like to emphasise, as it baffles me that people pour this much money in to something without realising that what they're doing is fundamentally awful), it's all terrible, but the utter worst this film has to offer is the plot. While I'm sure many elements were well implemented in the show, here everything is shoved in just because it's a recognisable aspect from the show; characters that have no impact on the plot seem to be here for no reason at all, plot points are raised and dropped with impunity, absolutely everything that characters do seems to be done for no reason, and while watching I just kept thinking, 'maybe they had an explanation for this in show'. It came as no surprise to me to find out that the film was trying to cover the entire first season of the show. It's the same issue with video game movies, you're trying to take so many hours of something and compress it down to just over an hour and a half. The movie is 1/5 the length of season 1, so elements are obviously lost in the translation; but many of the film's plot points are simply indecipherable; it's not so much a compressed version of the show as it is a highlight reel of snapshots from the show, but done with a veil of terrible effects, acting and characterisation.
So much of this movie just happens. Elements like the 'Spirit World' or the fact that Fire Benders apparently need a fire source to do their bending aren't explained in any way, not even boring exposition, and the characters seem to go from place to place simply because the movie says so, and the movie only says so because they decided to use this scene from the show. The problem with utilising the entire first season of a show as the basis for your movie is that you're essentially trying to pull together a three-act structure from twenty different two or three act structures, so elements such as the Moon Spirit and the princess are introduced and cast aside within five minutes, with no build-up or payoff, and for reasons that movie doesn't make entirely clear. There's no significance to Uncle Iroh making fire from nothing because we as an audience are given no idea what that means. I assume it means that Iroh is super powerful, but he's given so little screen-time that there's no reason to care. There's also the problem with this movie's plot being based on a story that was not complete by the end of the first season, so this film's plot doesn't end succinctly while also trying to force a sequel.
The characterisation doesn't fair any better. Katara and Sokka have no point in the show other than to wake up Aang. After that, there's no development for them; Katara remains a bossy and petulant child, Sokka remains a humourless bore. They add nothing to the plot apart from a terrible rousing speech from Katara and an out-of-nowhere romance for Sokka that also goes nowhere. The only characters to get any development at all are Aang and Zuko, who only really get hints at a slow change rather than improving as characters overall. This is another problem with trying to force an entire season of a show in to one movie, while also telling an incomplete story; the changes that occur within Aang and Zuko were likely slowly developed, because in shows they have the time to work through their characters struggles episode-to-episode, season-to-season, In a film, there has to be significant change in a character in order for their arc to be worthwhile, but this film doesn't make that happen because the show didn't make that happen. This film is simultaneously a slave to the show's constraints and apparently awful at attempting to replicate the show, it's a hilariously sad and bizarre conundrum.
While effects and directing are still on the table, I don't want to push on too much longer, so at this last juncture I want to talk about the acting, because it's noticeably awful. Dev Patel I feel sorry for as Zuko, because he seems to be legitimately good actor (I'm seeing Lion this weekend so hopefully that will reinforce what Slumdog Millionaire has already told us), but in The Last Airbender he's simply overacting, and in the process coming off a little ridiculous when compared to everyone else who doesn't seem to even be trying, especially Noah Ringer, Nicola Peltz, and Jackson Rathbone. Rathbone is probably the worst of these three as Sokka; while I haven't seen the show I do know that Sokka is supposed to be the comic relief, but Rathbone is completely flat and unemotional, like he's channeling his character Jasper from the Twilight series. His line delivery is so odd, as if he isn't sure what people are going to say to him, nor of what he's supposed to say back, so instead of dialogue we get these odd pauses in his speech. Nicola Peltz is awful in general, as I hope anyone who's seen Transformers: Age of Extinction will tell you, but I'm a bit more leniant on her here because she's younger, only fifteen when the film came out in theatres. The same goes for Ringer, who was not only just thirteen at the time of the film's release, but also appearing in his very first movie. That said, neither of them fall any less flat than Rathbone. Peltz is the most noticeable, as she has a majority of the dialogue; she seems to talk like a highschool student who's giving a speech about a topic she's only pretending to know about. Ringer must've simply been told by Shyamalan to never change the tone or level of his voice, because it just never happens. The lack of real characterisation doesn't help us an audience connect to the characters, but the lack of inflection in any of the actor's voices just makes them seem stiff and alien, like all three are body snatchers trying to not get caught.
The Verdict: The Last Airbender is the worst high-budget film I have ever seen. There's simply no excusing how bad the film is when there's so much money going in to it, literally more than all of the other 'worst movies' combined. If you've seen this film, I'm sorry for your lost time and brain cells, and if you haven't, be thankful. You're probably better off just watching season 1 of the show at 5x speed; you'd use the same amount of time and get more entertainment out of it.
Rating: 2/10
Published January 27th, 2017
Written by: M. Night Shyamalan
Starring: Noah Ringer, Nicola Peltz, Jackson Rathbone
IMDb Link
I've watched a lot of bad movies in my time. I actively seek out these movies and go out of my way to watch them. Whether they're 'so bad they're good' or simply so awful they destroy any joy you might find in being creative, there's a certain appreciation I get for film as a whole by watching these sorts of movies. By seeing how low film can sink, I feel better about the good movies that I watch, and so I want to use this space to start talking about some of the worst movies I have ever seen; maybe you'll watch these films and gain a greater appreciation for film overall, maybe you'll simply see which films I talk about and add them to your 'do not watch' list.
I've recently been watching M. Night Shyamalan movies. In preparation for Split I watched Signs (being the only somewhat good Shyamalan movie I hasn't seen yet), and I also recently sat through The Happening (which, while pretty terrible, was not as bad as I was expecting), so my mind has drifted back to this most awful of movies, The Last Airbender. Before I go any further, I would just like to point out that I've never watched Avatar: The Last Airbender, so when I got ready to watch this film, I had no bias of expectation based on the show.
I did, however, know that there was heavy criticism of the film from fans of the show. Most people I know when questioned on their opinion of the movie refuse to acknowledge its existence. There's been complaints about so much in this film, and when I first went in to it I half-expected to come out of the film with a higher than average opinion of it, my ideas towards to film had been set that low. Somehow, unfortunately, the film managed to be worse than I had initially thought.
The biggest problem with the film is the plot. Sure the acting is some of the worst I've ever seen, the cinematography/direction is laughable even when compared to Shyamalan's other worst films, the characterisation is flat and shallow, the effects are terrible when you consider the films $150 Million budget (a fact that I'd like to emphasise, as it baffles me that people pour this much money in to something without realising that what they're doing is fundamentally awful), it's all terrible, but the utter worst this film has to offer is the plot. While I'm sure many elements were well implemented in the show, here everything is shoved in just because it's a recognisable aspect from the show; characters that have no impact on the plot seem to be here for no reason at all, plot points are raised and dropped with impunity, absolutely everything that characters do seems to be done for no reason, and while watching I just kept thinking, 'maybe they had an explanation for this in show'. It came as no surprise to me to find out that the film was trying to cover the entire first season of the show. It's the same issue with video game movies, you're trying to take so many hours of something and compress it down to just over an hour and a half. The movie is 1/5 the length of season 1, so elements are obviously lost in the translation; but many of the film's plot points are simply indecipherable; it's not so much a compressed version of the show as it is a highlight reel of snapshots from the show, but done with a veil of terrible effects, acting and characterisation.
So much of this movie just happens. Elements like the 'Spirit World' or the fact that Fire Benders apparently need a fire source to do their bending aren't explained in any way, not even boring exposition, and the characters seem to go from place to place simply because the movie says so, and the movie only says so because they decided to use this scene from the show. The problem with utilising the entire first season of a show as the basis for your movie is that you're essentially trying to pull together a three-act structure from twenty different two or three act structures, so elements such as the Moon Spirit and the princess are introduced and cast aside within five minutes, with no build-up or payoff, and for reasons that movie doesn't make entirely clear. There's no significance to Uncle Iroh making fire from nothing because we as an audience are given no idea what that means. I assume it means that Iroh is super powerful, but he's given so little screen-time that there's no reason to care. There's also the problem with this movie's plot being based on a story that was not complete by the end of the first season, so this film's plot doesn't end succinctly while also trying to force a sequel.
The characterisation doesn't fair any better. Katara and Sokka have no point in the show other than to wake up Aang. After that, there's no development for them; Katara remains a bossy and petulant child, Sokka remains a humourless bore. They add nothing to the plot apart from a terrible rousing speech from Katara and an out-of-nowhere romance for Sokka that also goes nowhere. The only characters to get any development at all are Aang and Zuko, who only really get hints at a slow change rather than improving as characters overall. This is another problem with trying to force an entire season of a show in to one movie, while also telling an incomplete story; the changes that occur within Aang and Zuko were likely slowly developed, because in shows they have the time to work through their characters struggles episode-to-episode, season-to-season, In a film, there has to be significant change in a character in order for their arc to be worthwhile, but this film doesn't make that happen because the show didn't make that happen. This film is simultaneously a slave to the show's constraints and apparently awful at attempting to replicate the show, it's a hilariously sad and bizarre conundrum.
While effects and directing are still on the table, I don't want to push on too much longer, so at this last juncture I want to talk about the acting, because it's noticeably awful. Dev Patel I feel sorry for as Zuko, because he seems to be legitimately good actor (I'm seeing Lion this weekend so hopefully that will reinforce what Slumdog Millionaire has already told us), but in The Last Airbender he's simply overacting, and in the process coming off a little ridiculous when compared to everyone else who doesn't seem to even be trying, especially Noah Ringer, Nicola Peltz, and Jackson Rathbone. Rathbone is probably the worst of these three as Sokka; while I haven't seen the show I do know that Sokka is supposed to be the comic relief, but Rathbone is completely flat and unemotional, like he's channeling his character Jasper from the Twilight series. His line delivery is so odd, as if he isn't sure what people are going to say to him, nor of what he's supposed to say back, so instead of dialogue we get these odd pauses in his speech. Nicola Peltz is awful in general, as I hope anyone who's seen Transformers: Age of Extinction will tell you, but I'm a bit more leniant on her here because she's younger, only fifteen when the film came out in theatres. The same goes for Ringer, who was not only just thirteen at the time of the film's release, but also appearing in his very first movie. That said, neither of them fall any less flat than Rathbone. Peltz is the most noticeable, as she has a majority of the dialogue; she seems to talk like a highschool student who's giving a speech about a topic she's only pretending to know about. Ringer must've simply been told by Shyamalan to never change the tone or level of his voice, because it just never happens. The lack of real characterisation doesn't help us an audience connect to the characters, but the lack of inflection in any of the actor's voices just makes them seem stiff and alien, like all three are body snatchers trying to not get caught.
The Verdict: The Last Airbender is the worst high-budget film I have ever seen. There's simply no excusing how bad the film is when there's so much money going in to it, literally more than all of the other 'worst movies' combined. If you've seen this film, I'm sorry for your lost time and brain cells, and if you haven't, be thankful. You're probably better off just watching season 1 of the show at 5x speed; you'd use the same amount of time and get more entertainment out of it.
Rating: 2/10
Published January 27th, 2017
2017 Film Review: Yu-Gi-Oh!: The Dark Side of Dimensions (2016)
Directed by: Satoshi Kuwabara
Written by: Satoshi Kuwabara, Masahiro Hikokubo
Starring: Dan Green, Eric Stuart, Daniel J. Edwards
IMDb Link
I was a such a huge fan of the Yu-Gi-Oh! series when I was a child (read: right now), so be warned, anything I say may be laced with nostalgia. Please don't judge me too harshly for actually going to see this movie.
*Warning: Spoilers Ahead*
After so many years and so many other series, Yu-Gi-Oh! decided to take a trip down Memory Lane and revisit the characters from the original series. Yugi, Kaiba, Joey, Tristan, Tea, they're all back for a last adventure, one that isn't a non-canon mess like The Pyramid of Light, nor a complete fanservice similar to Bonds Beyond Time; The Dark Side of Dimensions falls somewhere in between.
The film offers a plot that's over-complicated, even for Yu-Gi-Oh!. We have Kaiba obsessing over the Pharoah Atem, who has now passed on after losing in a fated Duel to Yugi. Kaiba carries the weight of the fact that he never defeated the Pharoah, and has gone so far as to create new Virtual Reality technology that he hopes will eventually allow him to travel between dimensions. There's also a new villain in Deeva, a student of Shadi (a character who died in the show), who's here now with a vengeance, using an energy called "Plana" (I believe) to try and reforge the universe. There's also some more elements involving Kaiba attempting to re-assemble to Millennium Puzzle to revive Atem, and the re-discovery of the evil Millennium Ring. There's so much unnecessary plot detail, and it weighs the movie down, bringing the running time to over two hours, which feels doubly slow because it takes an hour and a half of that just to get to what the fans want to see: Yugi and Kaiba Dueling. Before this point, there's an incredible number of flashbacks and reinforcement of Deeva's motivations. Some movies never try to clarify a villain's motivations; this film seems adamant on making sure that you know.
Even with an average-at-best plot, films like this get away with offering fan service. Any Yu-Gi-Oh! fan's heart is going to skip a beat if they hear Yugi or Atem say "It's Time to Duel!" (I know mine did, just a little bit), and no-one can complain if old favourites like the Dark Magician and the Blue-Eyes White Dragon show up. The filmmakers were more than aware of this; even though the Duel everyone came to see doesn't happen until the last half an hour, there's still plenty of moments where we see these classic monsters in action, including a scene where Kaiba imagines and then simulates his Duel with Atem. With that in mind, the writers seem to be in love with Kaiba; they wrote several moments where his psychotic obsession makes him look like a smug badass, including a scene where his technology is so powerful it overpowers universe-forging magic, and another where his will to win is so great he literally pulls the card he needs in order to win from the ground beneath him.
There's little more to draw from this movie; there's a moral of "fear leads to hate", but that been used a dozen times already, most notably by Star Wars (in fact, there's moment in the film where a character almost word-for-word quotes Yoda). The animation is fantastic compared to the original show, so it's great that these iconic characters and monsters get a visual update, but other than that, there's little the film can offer to a wider audience.
The Verdict: As a fan, I was satisfied just to see the original cast of characters and their iconic monsters on the big screen. However, as the film's plot is so convoluted and ties so deeply with the series, this film will only please people who were or still are fans.
Rating: I don't think I should rate this, my personal bias likely softens the weak points of the movie when compared to the perspective of a general audience. However, if I have to put a number to it, I'd place it somewhere in the middle of the ratings I gave for the other two Yu-Gi-Oh! movies I've seen, making it a 4/10.
Published Januray 27th, 2017
Written by: Satoshi Kuwabara, Masahiro Hikokubo
Starring: Dan Green, Eric Stuart, Daniel J. Edwards
IMDb Link
I was a such a huge fan of the Yu-Gi-Oh! series when I was a child (read: right now), so be warned, anything I say may be laced with nostalgia. Please don't judge me too harshly for actually going to see this movie.
*Warning: Spoilers Ahead*
After so many years and so many other series, Yu-Gi-Oh! decided to take a trip down Memory Lane and revisit the characters from the original series. Yugi, Kaiba, Joey, Tristan, Tea, they're all back for a last adventure, one that isn't a non-canon mess like The Pyramid of Light, nor a complete fanservice similar to Bonds Beyond Time; The Dark Side of Dimensions falls somewhere in between.
The film offers a plot that's over-complicated, even for Yu-Gi-Oh!. We have Kaiba obsessing over the Pharoah Atem, who has now passed on after losing in a fated Duel to Yugi. Kaiba carries the weight of the fact that he never defeated the Pharoah, and has gone so far as to create new Virtual Reality technology that he hopes will eventually allow him to travel between dimensions. There's also a new villain in Deeva, a student of Shadi (a character who died in the show), who's here now with a vengeance, using an energy called "Plana" (I believe) to try and reforge the universe. There's also some more elements involving Kaiba attempting to re-assemble to Millennium Puzzle to revive Atem, and the re-discovery of the evil Millennium Ring. There's so much unnecessary plot detail, and it weighs the movie down, bringing the running time to over two hours, which feels doubly slow because it takes an hour and a half of that just to get to what the fans want to see: Yugi and Kaiba Dueling. Before this point, there's an incredible number of flashbacks and reinforcement of Deeva's motivations. Some movies never try to clarify a villain's motivations; this film seems adamant on making sure that you know.
Even with an average-at-best plot, films like this get away with offering fan service. Any Yu-Gi-Oh! fan's heart is going to skip a beat if they hear Yugi or Atem say "It's Time to Duel!" (I know mine did, just a little bit), and no-one can complain if old favourites like the Dark Magician and the Blue-Eyes White Dragon show up. The filmmakers were more than aware of this; even though the Duel everyone came to see doesn't happen until the last half an hour, there's still plenty of moments where we see these classic monsters in action, including a scene where Kaiba imagines and then simulates his Duel with Atem. With that in mind, the writers seem to be in love with Kaiba; they wrote several moments where his psychotic obsession makes him look like a smug badass, including a scene where his technology is so powerful it overpowers universe-forging magic, and another where his will to win is so great he literally pulls the card he needs in order to win from the ground beneath him.
There's little more to draw from this movie; there's a moral of "fear leads to hate", but that been used a dozen times already, most notably by Star Wars (in fact, there's moment in the film where a character almost word-for-word quotes Yoda). The animation is fantastic compared to the original show, so it's great that these iconic characters and monsters get a visual update, but other than that, there's little the film can offer to a wider audience.
The Verdict: As a fan, I was satisfied just to see the original cast of characters and their iconic monsters on the big screen. However, as the film's plot is so convoluted and ties so deeply with the series, this film will only please people who were or still are fans.
Rating: I don't think I should rate this, my personal bias likely softens the weak points of the movie when compared to the perspective of a general audience. However, if I have to put a number to it, I'd place it somewhere in the middle of the ratings I gave for the other two Yu-Gi-Oh! movies I've seen, making it a 4/10.
Published Januray 27th, 2017
Wednesday, 25 January 2017
2017 Film Review: Resident Evil: The Final Chapter (2016)
Directed by: Paul W.S. Anderson
Written by: Paul W.S. Anderson
Starring: Milla Jovovich, Iain Glen, Ali Larter
Another early screening, another early review.
The Resident Evil series was never good, only occasionally approaching mediocre, and I love the films dearly for it. Each film up to this point had been somewhat pointless and mostly forgettable, but they've got a special place in my heart, partly because I first watched them with my dad when I was a kid, and partly for their 'so bad it's good' style. As such, it's unfortunate that this film abandons what kept the films in mediocre schlock territory for something slightly different, something that I imagine the filmmakers had hoped would make this film a little more, and end up failing miserably.
*Warning: Spoilers Ahead*
The plot of the Resident Evil films has never been consistent. Motivations of characters change from film to film, ideas that are raised in some films are dropped in the next ones, characters are written in and out of the story based on the availability of the actors, and the effects of the all-important T-Virus, as well as the presence of a cure, changes depending on which film you're watching. The whole series is essentially jury-rigged, each story a Frankenstein's Monster of plot points, with the only aspect in any way somewhat coherently tying the series together being the zombies. The only reason to really watch these movies is to see a zombie shooting gallery, with a few new monsters now and then just to spice things up. This is why it's baffling that The Final Chapter goes so plot heavy.
The film opens the same way all of them do, with a long, bored narration from Alice (Jovovich), who explains the same information we already know ("everybody died... problem was, they didn't stay dead"). Also, while I'm on the topic, I don't understand why a film series needs to re-tell an audience who's likely already seen the previous films; I've heard "My name is Alice" so many times that just hearing the phrase makes my head hurt. Alice also establishes some heretofore unknown information about the founder of the Umbrella Corporation and his original reason for creating the T-Virus. The issue here is, the creator of the T-Virus is a completely different character from the one who was already established in Resident Evil: Apocalypse. The series is prone to these kinds of retcons, but The Final Chapter makes so many that simply make no sense and even go against so many things established by the previous films that I was left wondering why Paul W.S. Anderson even bothered to go down this road. The thing that bothers me most about the plot, however, is what happens next.
The fifth, and, before this point, worst Resident Evil film, Resident Evil: Retribution, ended on an exciting note, setting up a massive fight for survival, with a line of heroes as a last defense against the zombie horde, hinting at new monsters and a potentially cool shootout with a now powered up Alice. The Final Chapter not only skips over the fight completely, but also retcons Alice getting her powers back, instead reporting it as a betrayal by Albert Wesker (Shawn Roberts). The film trades a stupid but fun and chaotic battle for a slow open with a character change that makes no sense given the plot of the previous film. I know that this is Resident Evil, so there are those who will dispute the idea that I should care about the plot (Paul W.S. Anderson clearly doesn't), but I'm honestly just more annoyed that there's no apocalyptic zombie battle with psychic super powers. That's really all these films had going for them, and The Final Chapter drops it after five minutes to have this weak character study of Alice's identity, something I doubt anyone watching these films would care about. The film also adds a goal for Alice, to obtain a cure for the T-Virus created by the Umbrella Corp. (something that has been around since the second film, Apocalypse, but no-one seems to talk about).
The out-of-place plot re-introduces Dr. Isaacs, the main villain from the third Resident Evil film, Extinction, who was killed by a laser grid but revived here after it's revealed the earlier one was just a clone (this isn't actually the most ridiculous part of the plot, they've had cloning since Extinction). Instead of being a scientist working on finding a cure for the T-Virus, Dr. Isaacs is actually the CEO of Umbrella Corp., and has had the cure for a while. This is where the film takes a left turn and adds a strange Biblical spin to the movie, making Dr. Isaacs a religious fanatic who purposefully released the T-Virus to wipe out humanity as a second Noah's Flood. There's also a group of humanity's last survivors, including series regular Claire Redfield (Larter); these characters are here to be used as fodder during action scenes, as is tradition with zombie movies.
The action arises eventually, but when it does, it's a mess. In the five years since the previous film, Anderson has gotten considerably worse at shooting action scenes. He was never good, a bit like a poor man's version of a poor man's Zack Snyder, but I could comprehend about 50% of his action scenes, which is more than I can say for most action directors nowadays. His overstylised and overused slow motion is gone in this film, replaced by cut-to-pieces action sequences that are truly awful to watch. I know action movies have been declining lately because of their overuse of cuts, but this film took it to a new level, using as many as twenty-three cuts in the space of ten seconds in order to show Alice getting here fingers cut off, or seven shots to show a car fly through the air for five seconds.
Sometimes filmmakers take their series in different directions, try to make them more than what they have been in the past, offer new and exciting ideas to the story or even shoot in a more dynamic way to at least give the appearance of a fresh take, and sometimes filmmakers are even successful at it. This is not one of those times. I have enjoyed each one of the Resident Evil films, including their terrible effects, overdone action, and cheesy dialogue. The Final Chapter seemed to try to do more than its predecessors, and ended up doing less. I've been soft on every film in the series up until this point, but this last film has stripped the veneer, destroyed my rose-tinted glasses.
The Verdict: They saved the worst for last. If you've seen the previous five, you'll probably see this one, and if you haven't then you shouldn't start a film series with Part 6. Everything that I enjoyed about the schlocky Resident Evil series were missing from this film. I hate to say it, but I really hope that this is, in fact, the final chapter.
Rating: It hurts a little to do this, but 3/10
Published January 25th, 2016
Written by: Paul W.S. Anderson
Starring: Milla Jovovich, Iain Glen, Ali Larter
Another early screening, another early review.
The Resident Evil series was never good, only occasionally approaching mediocre, and I love the films dearly for it. Each film up to this point had been somewhat pointless and mostly forgettable, but they've got a special place in my heart, partly because I first watched them with my dad when I was a kid, and partly for their 'so bad it's good' style. As such, it's unfortunate that this film abandons what kept the films in mediocre schlock territory for something slightly different, something that I imagine the filmmakers had hoped would make this film a little more, and end up failing miserably.
*Warning: Spoilers Ahead*
The plot of the Resident Evil films has never been consistent. Motivations of characters change from film to film, ideas that are raised in some films are dropped in the next ones, characters are written in and out of the story based on the availability of the actors, and the effects of the all-important T-Virus, as well as the presence of a cure, changes depending on which film you're watching. The whole series is essentially jury-rigged, each story a Frankenstein's Monster of plot points, with the only aspect in any way somewhat coherently tying the series together being the zombies. The only reason to really watch these movies is to see a zombie shooting gallery, with a few new monsters now and then just to spice things up. This is why it's baffling that The Final Chapter goes so plot heavy.
The film opens the same way all of them do, with a long, bored narration from Alice (Jovovich), who explains the same information we already know ("everybody died... problem was, they didn't stay dead"). Also, while I'm on the topic, I don't understand why a film series needs to re-tell an audience who's likely already seen the previous films; I've heard "My name is Alice" so many times that just hearing the phrase makes my head hurt. Alice also establishes some heretofore unknown information about the founder of the Umbrella Corporation and his original reason for creating the T-Virus. The issue here is, the creator of the T-Virus is a completely different character from the one who was already established in Resident Evil: Apocalypse. The series is prone to these kinds of retcons, but The Final Chapter makes so many that simply make no sense and even go against so many things established by the previous films that I was left wondering why Paul W.S. Anderson even bothered to go down this road. The thing that bothers me most about the plot, however, is what happens next.
The fifth, and, before this point, worst Resident Evil film, Resident Evil: Retribution, ended on an exciting note, setting up a massive fight for survival, with a line of heroes as a last defense against the zombie horde, hinting at new monsters and a potentially cool shootout with a now powered up Alice. The Final Chapter not only skips over the fight completely, but also retcons Alice getting her powers back, instead reporting it as a betrayal by Albert Wesker (Shawn Roberts). The film trades a stupid but fun and chaotic battle for a slow open with a character change that makes no sense given the plot of the previous film. I know that this is Resident Evil, so there are those who will dispute the idea that I should care about the plot (Paul W.S. Anderson clearly doesn't), but I'm honestly just more annoyed that there's no apocalyptic zombie battle with psychic super powers. That's really all these films had going for them, and The Final Chapter drops it after five minutes to have this weak character study of Alice's identity, something I doubt anyone watching these films would care about. The film also adds a goal for Alice, to obtain a cure for the T-Virus created by the Umbrella Corp. (something that has been around since the second film, Apocalypse, but no-one seems to talk about).
The out-of-place plot re-introduces Dr. Isaacs, the main villain from the third Resident Evil film, Extinction, who was killed by a laser grid but revived here after it's revealed the earlier one was just a clone (this isn't actually the most ridiculous part of the plot, they've had cloning since Extinction). Instead of being a scientist working on finding a cure for the T-Virus, Dr. Isaacs is actually the CEO of Umbrella Corp., and has had the cure for a while. This is where the film takes a left turn and adds a strange Biblical spin to the movie, making Dr. Isaacs a religious fanatic who purposefully released the T-Virus to wipe out humanity as a second Noah's Flood. There's also a group of humanity's last survivors, including series regular Claire Redfield (Larter); these characters are here to be used as fodder during action scenes, as is tradition with zombie movies.
The action arises eventually, but when it does, it's a mess. In the five years since the previous film, Anderson has gotten considerably worse at shooting action scenes. He was never good, a bit like a poor man's version of a poor man's Zack Snyder, but I could comprehend about 50% of his action scenes, which is more than I can say for most action directors nowadays. His overstylised and overused slow motion is gone in this film, replaced by cut-to-pieces action sequences that are truly awful to watch. I know action movies have been declining lately because of their overuse of cuts, but this film took it to a new level, using as many as twenty-three cuts in the space of ten seconds in order to show Alice getting here fingers cut off, or seven shots to show a car fly through the air for five seconds.
Sometimes filmmakers take their series in different directions, try to make them more than what they have been in the past, offer new and exciting ideas to the story or even shoot in a more dynamic way to at least give the appearance of a fresh take, and sometimes filmmakers are even successful at it. This is not one of those times. I have enjoyed each one of the Resident Evil films, including their terrible effects, overdone action, and cheesy dialogue. The Final Chapter seemed to try to do more than its predecessors, and ended up doing less. I've been soft on every film in the series up until this point, but this last film has stripped the veneer, destroyed my rose-tinted glasses.
The Verdict: They saved the worst for last. If you've seen the previous five, you'll probably see this one, and if you haven't then you shouldn't start a film series with Part 6. Everything that I enjoyed about the schlocky Resident Evil series were missing from this film. I hate to say it, but I really hope that this is, in fact, the final chapter.
Rating: It hurts a little to do this, but 3/10
Published January 25th, 2016
Sunday, 22 January 2017
2017 Film Review: xXx: Return of Xander Cage (2017)
Directed by: D.J. Caruso
Written by: F. Scott Frazier
Starring: Vin Diesel, Donnie Yen, Deepika Padukone
xXx is excessive, an 80s action movie dialed up to 11, with all the ridiculous action, cheesy one-liners and sexy women you could ask for. This is all the movie is, and all it sets out to be.
*Warning: Spoilers Ahead*
A hacking device called "Pandora's Box" is being used to pull satellites out of the sky and crash them in to Earth for strategic strikes. The device is captured by the CIA, but then quickly stolen by a crack team of action heroes (led by Donnie Yen), which leads CIA Agent Jane Marke (Toni Collette) to track down Xander Cage (Diesel) and have him retrieve Pandora's Box. After killing Xander off in the second xXx, this film just retcons him back with a quick 'he faked it' and is then right back in to the action.
There's little more to the plot than this, apart from the usual action tropes of reconsidering who the bad guy is and inevitable betrayals based around murky motivations about surveillance and security vs freedom, and there really doesn't need to be. Everything else is just an excuse for Vin Diesel to hit on sexy women and occasionally get in to implied orgies, or perform outrageous stunts that you know are impossible but don't really care because they look cool. Donnie Yen and Tony Jaa both get a chance to show off their fighting and acrobatic skills, though Jaa is a little wasted in his mostly pointless role, and the rest of the cast apart from Padukone are mostly pointless past their cool introductions.
The action sequences vary between good and bad; there's a lot of the "cut-o-rama" style of editing in some of these scenes, but there's a fair few that aren't, and there's obviously some fun to be had in the silliness of skiing down a jungle mountain in Brazil, surfing using a dirt bike apparently outfitted for the water, or fighting and flipping over cars in the middle of a busy road. It's mindless action, with no real stakes or anything to really care about, but it's one of another in a long line of movies that are just designed to entertain you for an hour and a half, with its place squarely in the middle of a Sunday afternoon, when you need to simply turn your brain off for a while.
The Verdict: xXx: Return of Xander Cage is essentially what it tries to be, an outlandish action movie designed to do nothing more than get the adrenaline pumping and look cool. It's not amazing, nor does it really try to be, but it may be worth the watch if you don't mind checking your logic and critical thinking at the door.
Rating: 5/10
Published January 22nd, 2017
Written by: F. Scott Frazier
Starring: Vin Diesel, Donnie Yen, Deepika Padukone
xXx is excessive, an 80s action movie dialed up to 11, with all the ridiculous action, cheesy one-liners and sexy women you could ask for. This is all the movie is, and all it sets out to be.
*Warning: Spoilers Ahead*
A hacking device called "Pandora's Box" is being used to pull satellites out of the sky and crash them in to Earth for strategic strikes. The device is captured by the CIA, but then quickly stolen by a crack team of action heroes (led by Donnie Yen), which leads CIA Agent Jane Marke (Toni Collette) to track down Xander Cage (Diesel) and have him retrieve Pandora's Box. After killing Xander off in the second xXx, this film just retcons him back with a quick 'he faked it' and is then right back in to the action.
There's little more to the plot than this, apart from the usual action tropes of reconsidering who the bad guy is and inevitable betrayals based around murky motivations about surveillance and security vs freedom, and there really doesn't need to be. Everything else is just an excuse for Vin Diesel to hit on sexy women and occasionally get in to implied orgies, or perform outrageous stunts that you know are impossible but don't really care because they look cool. Donnie Yen and Tony Jaa both get a chance to show off their fighting and acrobatic skills, though Jaa is a little wasted in his mostly pointless role, and the rest of the cast apart from Padukone are mostly pointless past their cool introductions.
The action sequences vary between good and bad; there's a lot of the "cut-o-rama" style of editing in some of these scenes, but there's a fair few that aren't, and there's obviously some fun to be had in the silliness of skiing down a jungle mountain in Brazil, surfing using a dirt bike apparently outfitted for the water, or fighting and flipping over cars in the middle of a busy road. It's mindless action, with no real stakes or anything to really care about, but it's one of another in a long line of movies that are just designed to entertain you for an hour and a half, with its place squarely in the middle of a Sunday afternoon, when you need to simply turn your brain off for a while.
The Verdict: xXx: Return of Xander Cage is essentially what it tries to be, an outlandish action movie designed to do nothing more than get the adrenaline pumping and look cool. It's not amazing, nor does it really try to be, but it may be worth the watch if you don't mind checking your logic and critical thinking at the door.
Rating: 5/10
Published January 22nd, 2017
Wednesday, 18 January 2017
2017 Film Review: Split (2016)
Directed by: M. Night Shyamalan
Written by: M. Night Shyamalan
Starring: James McAvoy, Anya Taylor-Joy, Haley Lu Richardson
I got to see an early screening of Split tonight, so here's an early review.
M. Night Shyamalan has had a peculiar career. During my 2016 movie run, I watched no less than four of his films (The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, The Village, and The Last Airbender), and it baffles me that the first two films and the last two came from the same writer and director, when each pair are literal leagues apart in terms of quality. Thankfully, this film is much closer to his better work.
The film focuses on Kevin (McAvoy), a man with Dissociative Identity Disorder, whose mind contains twenty-three separate and wildly different personas. One of these personas, Dennis, kidnaps and imprisons three girls (Taylor-Joy, Richardson, and Jessica Sula), in preparation for the arrival of a twenty-fourth personality, referred to by the others as 'The Beast'.
Like Unbreakable or The Sixth Sense, Split is a study in character through a supernatural lense, with intense thrills laid over the top. We're given a story set in our world, but built around a preposterous premise, and instead of behaving as if the idea we're presented with is silly, Shyamalan doubles down on the seriousness of the situation by using the premise as away to look at character, and providing very real danger to the girls, with the added paranoia of not knowing which member of Kevin's mind will take over next.
McAvoy is incredible here; he portrays each person in Kevin's mind perfectly, able to go from hilarious to menacing within a few seconds, as he switches from nine-year-old Hedwig to the quiet but strict Patricia to the intense neat-freak Dennis. Shyamalan's direction helps here; every scene involving Kevin and the captive girls interacting has a lot of tight close-ups with a particular focus on facial expressions, as well as a lot of POV shots to convey a claustrophobic atmosphere, as if we're stuck with the girls in their nightmare. That said, this isn't a nerve-shattering horror, but it does step in to 'nope, I'm out' territory more than once.
What I found interesting was how well Taylor-Joy kept up with McAvoy in her portrayal of the character of Casey. Part of this is the fact that the film explores her struggles as much as it does Kevin's, but the scenes that stuck with me most are the ones that involved these two talking to each other; McAvoy manages to convey menace or innocence with just his eyes, and Taylor-Joy manages to stare fear, understanding and a will to survive right back at him, while what they say to each other carries to weight of their respective histories that are explored over the course of the film. McAvoy has given one of his best performances yet, but after this and The Witch (2015) Taylor-Joy is quickly becoming a very notable actress.
One more thing I want to praise in Shyamalan's direction is how restrained it is in comparison to his early work. One of my biggest disappointments in Unbreakable was the moment after the climax, as the frame freezes and we're given a few short words to summarise what should've been either shown or left to our imagination. Here Shyamalan lets moments speak for themselves; a poignant shot is left poignant, with no words or narration to help us understand what has been made clear by what we can see. There's also no focus on any particular twist in the story, the film doesn't try to whammy you in order to stick with you, just lets the disintegration of Kevin's mind and how they relate to the struggles of Casey sit with you. There is a specific surprise moment for people who are familiar with Shyamalan's work, but it has no bearing on the film's story.
The Verdict: Split is a very good return to form for Shyamalan, largely due to his solid direction and McAvoy's fantastic performance. If you enjoyed Shyamalan's early work, you should absolutely go see this.
Rating: 7/10
Published January 18th. 2016
Written by: M. Night Shyamalan
Starring: James McAvoy, Anya Taylor-Joy, Haley Lu Richardson
I got to see an early screening of Split tonight, so here's an early review.
M. Night Shyamalan has had a peculiar career. During my 2016 movie run, I watched no less than four of his films (The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, The Village, and The Last Airbender), and it baffles me that the first two films and the last two came from the same writer and director, when each pair are literal leagues apart in terms of quality. Thankfully, this film is much closer to his better work.
The film focuses on Kevin (McAvoy), a man with Dissociative Identity Disorder, whose mind contains twenty-three separate and wildly different personas. One of these personas, Dennis, kidnaps and imprisons three girls (Taylor-Joy, Richardson, and Jessica Sula), in preparation for the arrival of a twenty-fourth personality, referred to by the others as 'The Beast'.
Like Unbreakable or The Sixth Sense, Split is a study in character through a supernatural lense, with intense thrills laid over the top. We're given a story set in our world, but built around a preposterous premise, and instead of behaving as if the idea we're presented with is silly, Shyamalan doubles down on the seriousness of the situation by using the premise as away to look at character, and providing very real danger to the girls, with the added paranoia of not knowing which member of Kevin's mind will take over next.
McAvoy is incredible here; he portrays each person in Kevin's mind perfectly, able to go from hilarious to menacing within a few seconds, as he switches from nine-year-old Hedwig to the quiet but strict Patricia to the intense neat-freak Dennis. Shyamalan's direction helps here; every scene involving Kevin and the captive girls interacting has a lot of tight close-ups with a particular focus on facial expressions, as well as a lot of POV shots to convey a claustrophobic atmosphere, as if we're stuck with the girls in their nightmare. That said, this isn't a nerve-shattering horror, but it does step in to 'nope, I'm out' territory more than once.
What I found interesting was how well Taylor-Joy kept up with McAvoy in her portrayal of the character of Casey. Part of this is the fact that the film explores her struggles as much as it does Kevin's, but the scenes that stuck with me most are the ones that involved these two talking to each other; McAvoy manages to convey menace or innocence with just his eyes, and Taylor-Joy manages to stare fear, understanding and a will to survive right back at him, while what they say to each other carries to weight of their respective histories that are explored over the course of the film. McAvoy has given one of his best performances yet, but after this and The Witch (2015) Taylor-Joy is quickly becoming a very notable actress.
One more thing I want to praise in Shyamalan's direction is how restrained it is in comparison to his early work. One of my biggest disappointments in Unbreakable was the moment after the climax, as the frame freezes and we're given a few short words to summarise what should've been either shown or left to our imagination. Here Shyamalan lets moments speak for themselves; a poignant shot is left poignant, with no words or narration to help us understand what has been made clear by what we can see. There's also no focus on any particular twist in the story, the film doesn't try to whammy you in order to stick with you, just lets the disintegration of Kevin's mind and how they relate to the struggles of Casey sit with you. There is a specific surprise moment for people who are familiar with Shyamalan's work, but it has no bearing on the film's story.
The Verdict: Split is a very good return to form for Shyamalan, largely due to his solid direction and McAvoy's fantastic performance. If you enjoyed Shyamalan's early work, you should absolutely go see this.
Rating: 7/10
Published January 18th. 2016
Sunday, 15 January 2017
2017 Film Review: Collateral Beauty (2016)
Directed by: David Frankel
Written by: Allan Loeb
Starring: Will Smith, Edward Norton, Kate Winslet
This movie is designed to make you cry, yet as the film came to its climax, I burst out laughing.
*Warning: Spoilers Ahead*
Collateral Beauty is about love, death, and time. It's easy to know this because, rather than attempt any form of subtlety, the film talks about them constantly. We're introduced to Howard (Smith), the CEO of an advertising company whose daughter died two years ago, leaving Howard a shell. The only communication he makes is three letters he writes: one to love, one to time, and one to death (they seriously repeat these words over and over in the movie, I felt like I was being beaten over the head). Howard's business friends (Norton, Winslet and Michael Pena) find out about these letters, and pay actors to appear before Howard as love, time and death (Keira Knightley. Jacob Latimore, and Helen Mirren respectively). Howard's friends then record these encounters and digitally remove the actors from the shots in order to make Howard look crazy, so that they can convince a board that Howard is unfit to command the company, and save the company before it goes bankrupt. As I sit here describing it now, the film just becomes worse and worse in my mind. The plot is so unnecessarily complicated and morally awful, and the execution is just so illogical. What's terrible is, this isn't even the worst of it.
Norton, Winslet and Pena's characters all have some issue related to love, time and death respectively, because of course they do. Norton has a daughter that hates him because he cheated on his wife, her mother, and he just wants her to love him again (gotta have him relate to love in the most obviously sad way). Winslet is fighting her biological clock, running out of time to have a child (please kill me). Pena is dying of cancer that has plagued him at various points in his life (and just happens to be coming back now). All of these issues are mentioned once and then promptly solved by a couple of "deep and meaningful" sayings. This is so feeble, but it's also hypocritical, because the film takes the time to condemn the same sorts of sayings offered by religions and other coping mechanisms people use to deal with their problems, as if the cliches this film offers are somehow better.
This film is so stupid it hurts, so I won't talk about it much longer, but I do want to talk about the end. Throughout the film, Howard has gone to this woman who runs a grief counseling group for parents who have lost their children. The two have a few chats, but don't appear to really know each other. However, at the climax of the film, it is revealed that this woman is actually Howard's ex-wife whom he divorced after the death of their daughter. The two behave as complete strangers before this point, and the film's justification of this is 'they had to become strangers again so they could fall in love', or something to that effect. It was at this point that the film broke me, and I was unable to stop laughing. To make matters worse, the film shortly after insinuates that the three actors who played love, time and death are actually love, time and death; again, all I could do was laugh at how badly this film was trying to make me care, while in fact doing the opposite.
The Verdict: I found Collateral Beauty to be nothing more than an obvious and pathetic attempt to manipulate my emotions. The main plot ends up being far less relatable than it's trying to be, and the subplots are all poorly developed and solved easily, making for nothing but a series of serious issues being overcome with a few weak platitudes that aren't deep just because charismatic people say them. I absolutely do not recommend seeing this film. You may get some appeal out of it if you cast aside the irrationality of the plot and have never heard people talk about love, death and time before, but otherwise this film is just a waste.
Rating: 2/10
Published January 15th, 2017
Written by: Allan Loeb
Starring: Will Smith, Edward Norton, Kate Winslet
This movie is designed to make you cry, yet as the film came to its climax, I burst out laughing.
*Warning: Spoilers Ahead*
Collateral Beauty is about love, death, and time. It's easy to know this because, rather than attempt any form of subtlety, the film talks about them constantly. We're introduced to Howard (Smith), the CEO of an advertising company whose daughter died two years ago, leaving Howard a shell. The only communication he makes is three letters he writes: one to love, one to time, and one to death (they seriously repeat these words over and over in the movie, I felt like I was being beaten over the head). Howard's business friends (Norton, Winslet and Michael Pena) find out about these letters, and pay actors to appear before Howard as love, time and death (Keira Knightley. Jacob Latimore, and Helen Mirren respectively). Howard's friends then record these encounters and digitally remove the actors from the shots in order to make Howard look crazy, so that they can convince a board that Howard is unfit to command the company, and save the company before it goes bankrupt. As I sit here describing it now, the film just becomes worse and worse in my mind. The plot is so unnecessarily complicated and morally awful, and the execution is just so illogical. What's terrible is, this isn't even the worst of it.
Norton, Winslet and Pena's characters all have some issue related to love, time and death respectively, because of course they do. Norton has a daughter that hates him because he cheated on his wife, her mother, and he just wants her to love him again (gotta have him relate to love in the most obviously sad way). Winslet is fighting her biological clock, running out of time to have a child (please kill me). Pena is dying of cancer that has plagued him at various points in his life (and just happens to be coming back now). All of these issues are mentioned once and then promptly solved by a couple of "deep and meaningful" sayings. This is so feeble, but it's also hypocritical, because the film takes the time to condemn the same sorts of sayings offered by religions and other coping mechanisms people use to deal with their problems, as if the cliches this film offers are somehow better.
This film is so stupid it hurts, so I won't talk about it much longer, but I do want to talk about the end. Throughout the film, Howard has gone to this woman who runs a grief counseling group for parents who have lost their children. The two have a few chats, but don't appear to really know each other. However, at the climax of the film, it is revealed that this woman is actually Howard's ex-wife whom he divorced after the death of their daughter. The two behave as complete strangers before this point, and the film's justification of this is 'they had to become strangers again so they could fall in love', or something to that effect. It was at this point that the film broke me, and I was unable to stop laughing. To make matters worse, the film shortly after insinuates that the three actors who played love, time and death are actually love, time and death; again, all I could do was laugh at how badly this film was trying to make me care, while in fact doing the opposite.
The Verdict: I found Collateral Beauty to be nothing more than an obvious and pathetic attempt to manipulate my emotions. The main plot ends up being far less relatable than it's trying to be, and the subplots are all poorly developed and solved easily, making for nothing but a series of serious issues being overcome with a few weak platitudes that aren't deep just because charismatic people say them. I absolutely do not recommend seeing this film. You may get some appeal out of it if you cast aside the irrationality of the plot and have never heard people talk about love, death and time before, but otherwise this film is just a waste.
Rating: 2/10
Published January 15th, 2017
Thursday, 12 January 2017
2017 Film Review: Moana (2016)
Directed by: Ron Clements, John Musker, Don Hall, Chris Williams
Written by: Ron Clements, John Musker, Don Hall, Chris William, Jared Bush, Pamela Ribon, Aaron Kandell, Jordan Kandell
Starring: Auli'i Cravalho, Dwayne Johnson, Rachel House
I finally sat down to watch Moana, and I'm so glad that I did. Even when they've got their storytelling down to a formula, Disney still manages to impress.
*Warning: Spoilers Ahead*
Moana (Cravalho) is the daughter of a chieftain (totally not a princess, as the movie breaks the fourth wall to make some funny jokes about) for a village on an island in ancient Polynesia. Her role is to eventually become the chieftain herself, and guide her people, keeping them safe on the island. However, she feels an innate call to adventure on the high seas, an attitude that is discouraged by her father and encouraged by her grandmother. Moana learns that her ancestors were voyagers, travelling from island to island, and that they stopped when the sea became treacherous, after the demi-god Maui (Johnson) stole the heart of the goddess Te Fiti, which caused a curse to slowly spread throughout the ocean. Moana then goes on a journey to find Maui and restore the heart of Te Fiti, chosen by the ocean itself ever since she showed her selflessness as a child.
The factor I want to most hammer home about this move is that it is gorgeous. The environments are photorealistic, but also over-saturated enough that there isn't a disconnect between the realistic environments and the cartoony characters (such as in The Good Dinosaur). The characters are incredibly fluid, and there's a lot of little things that go along way to make the movie much more enjoyable to watch. Maui's tattoos are a god example here; they're alive as much as he is, and there's many little moments where the characters in his tattoos move. Animation has come a long way, and Moana is a perfect example of some of the best work animators are doing today.
The characters are also fantastic. Moana herself is a nice change of pace from the usual Disney princess; there's no love interest for her to fall head over heels for without knowing the first thing about him, there's not even some specific guy she likes on the island waiting for her when she gets back. She goes out on this adventure all by herself (save for a stow away chicken, but more on him soon), and makes mistakes that she has to learn from. She's selfless and a little sweet and fiery enough that her heroic moments feel right when they happen. She contrasts well with Maui, who's a fun anti-hero; initially just a selfish jerk who leaves Moana on an island and steals the chicken to eat for himself, he of course goes on a journey of rediscovering of why he wanted to help people in the first place. This character development is a little glossed over for the sake of focusing on Moana's journey, but that's probably fine considering the movie's title. As for the chicken, Heihei (Alan Tudyk, who manages to get some credit in just about every Disney movie these days), he's one of your usual animal sidekicks. He's dumb as bricks (eating, throwing up and re-eating a rock, pecking everything in front of his beak, regularly walking of a boat's edge in to the ocean, etc.) and his funny little moments are all fine, if a little grating in how often they happen.
The story is just what you'd expect from a Disney movie. They hit the usual beats, such as a parent-figure dying in order to spur the hero in to action, the hero being initially rebuffed by the villain before returning after a pep talk and a song, the secondary character leaving but returning at the exact right moment to help complete the story, etc. While it's all presented with dazzling visuals, there is that slight feeling of "ok, so this is the part of the movie where X happens" that pervaded my whole experience to an extent. This isn't inherently a problem, good stories get retold, but this feeling stems from my only problem with the movie, which is the death of Moana's grandmother. There's no real foreshadowing, other than a line of 'when I die, I hope I come back as (a manta ray)", and it just happens, as if the writers got to the part in the script where Moana had to go on her journey, and one said "Hey, she's already learnt that her people are naturally voyagers and that her people will die if she doesn't go on this journey, do you think she's motivated enough?" to which another replied "Nah, kill her grandmother, just to be sure." It's my one issue with the movie because it's not only unnecessary, it basically comes out of nowhere. Other than that, I think this movie achieved everything it wanted to achieve.
The Verdict: Moana is an excellent movie. The animation is sometimes breathtaking and the music is very much on point (pitch perfect, one might say). The story is often predictable and feels a little played-out, but it's not enough to majorly impact how much charm the characters and environment exude. I recommend this movie to everybody; even the most cynical and hardened if they aren't afraid that a kid's movie might make them feel again.
Rating: 8/10
Published January 12th, 2017
Written by: Ron Clements, John Musker, Don Hall, Chris William, Jared Bush, Pamela Ribon, Aaron Kandell, Jordan Kandell
Starring: Auli'i Cravalho, Dwayne Johnson, Rachel House
I finally sat down to watch Moana, and I'm so glad that I did. Even when they've got their storytelling down to a formula, Disney still manages to impress.
*Warning: Spoilers Ahead*
Moana (Cravalho) is the daughter of a chieftain (totally not a princess, as the movie breaks the fourth wall to make some funny jokes about) for a village on an island in ancient Polynesia. Her role is to eventually become the chieftain herself, and guide her people, keeping them safe on the island. However, she feels an innate call to adventure on the high seas, an attitude that is discouraged by her father and encouraged by her grandmother. Moana learns that her ancestors were voyagers, travelling from island to island, and that they stopped when the sea became treacherous, after the demi-god Maui (Johnson) stole the heart of the goddess Te Fiti, which caused a curse to slowly spread throughout the ocean. Moana then goes on a journey to find Maui and restore the heart of Te Fiti, chosen by the ocean itself ever since she showed her selflessness as a child.
The factor I want to most hammer home about this move is that it is gorgeous. The environments are photorealistic, but also over-saturated enough that there isn't a disconnect between the realistic environments and the cartoony characters (such as in The Good Dinosaur). The characters are incredibly fluid, and there's a lot of little things that go along way to make the movie much more enjoyable to watch. Maui's tattoos are a god example here; they're alive as much as he is, and there's many little moments where the characters in his tattoos move. Animation has come a long way, and Moana is a perfect example of some of the best work animators are doing today.
The characters are also fantastic. Moana herself is a nice change of pace from the usual Disney princess; there's no love interest for her to fall head over heels for without knowing the first thing about him, there's not even some specific guy she likes on the island waiting for her when she gets back. She goes out on this adventure all by herself (save for a stow away chicken, but more on him soon), and makes mistakes that she has to learn from. She's selfless and a little sweet and fiery enough that her heroic moments feel right when they happen. She contrasts well with Maui, who's a fun anti-hero; initially just a selfish jerk who leaves Moana on an island and steals the chicken to eat for himself, he of course goes on a journey of rediscovering of why he wanted to help people in the first place. This character development is a little glossed over for the sake of focusing on Moana's journey, but that's probably fine considering the movie's title. As for the chicken, Heihei (Alan Tudyk, who manages to get some credit in just about every Disney movie these days), he's one of your usual animal sidekicks. He's dumb as bricks (eating, throwing up and re-eating a rock, pecking everything in front of his beak, regularly walking of a boat's edge in to the ocean, etc.) and his funny little moments are all fine, if a little grating in how often they happen.
The story is just what you'd expect from a Disney movie. They hit the usual beats, such as a parent-figure dying in order to spur the hero in to action, the hero being initially rebuffed by the villain before returning after a pep talk and a song, the secondary character leaving but returning at the exact right moment to help complete the story, etc. While it's all presented with dazzling visuals, there is that slight feeling of "ok, so this is the part of the movie where X happens" that pervaded my whole experience to an extent. This isn't inherently a problem, good stories get retold, but this feeling stems from my only problem with the movie, which is the death of Moana's grandmother. There's no real foreshadowing, other than a line of 'when I die, I hope I come back as (a manta ray)", and it just happens, as if the writers got to the part in the script where Moana had to go on her journey, and one said "Hey, she's already learnt that her people are naturally voyagers and that her people will die if she doesn't go on this journey, do you think she's motivated enough?" to which another replied "Nah, kill her grandmother, just to be sure." It's my one issue with the movie because it's not only unnecessary, it basically comes out of nowhere. Other than that, I think this movie achieved everything it wanted to achieve.
The Verdict: Moana is an excellent movie. The animation is sometimes breathtaking and the music is very much on point (pitch perfect, one might say). The story is often predictable and feels a little played-out, but it's not enough to majorly impact how much charm the characters and environment exude. I recommend this movie to everybody; even the most cynical and hardened if they aren't afraid that a kid's movie might make them feel again.
Rating: 8/10
Published January 12th, 2017
Sunday, 8 January 2017
2017 Film Review: Passengers (2016)
Directed by: Morten Tyldum
Written by: Jon Spaihts
Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Chris Pratt, Michael Sheen
I have a soft spot for sci-fi. Put a film in space, or on an alien planet, set it in a dystopian future or throw in some A.I. shenanigans, I'll probably enjoy it more than I do most films. This was definitely how I felt at the start of Passengers; the concept of two people doomed to die on a spaceship with only each other for comfort sounds like an interesting way to examine human concepts like loneliness, morality and outlook on life, but by the end, the movie doesn't really do much with its ideas.
*Warning: Spoilers Ahead*
The film opens on the Avalon, a spaceship heading for Homestead II, a planet set to be colonized by the Avalon's population of 5000 passengers, and over 200 crew. Everyone is in hibernation, as the trip from Earth to Homestead II is 120 years. The Avalon makes contact with an asteroid field on its journey, and its shield is overloaded, causing one of the hibernation pods to malfunction and release its passenger, Jim Preston (Pratt), 90 years too early, with no way of getting back to sleep, and his only company being the automated robots and androids in the film, including the bartender Arthur (Sheen). The film's first act deals with Preston coming to terms with his situation, and it's easily the strongest part of the film; Pratt's charisma carries here, as Preston first tries to escape his ordeal and put himself back to sleep, then tries to escape his thoughts by living the high life and making the most of what the ship has to offer, then slowly approaches the idea of suicide to try and escape the fate dealt to him. The whole sequence is slickly edited, and does a good job of showing time pass without having to actually tell you. The film moves too quickly through this; Preston's emotional journey is given to us through montage, so the film never really lets us get attached to him as a character.
At the end of his rope, Preston discovers the pod of Aurora Lane (Lawrence), and thanks to some convenient video interviews kept on the ship, Preston learns about her and grows attached to her. It is here that he fights a moral dilemma; he knows how to wake her up, but doing so would doom her to the same fate as himself. After battling with the choice for weeks, he eventually releases her, letting her believe it was an accident the same as it was for him. This should have laced the second act with tension as the two became romantically entangled, but the film doesn't do much to suggest that there are stakes; the romance blossoms with cheesy flair, as Preston and Lane exchange charming and clever banter. The film never really doubles down on the terrible thing Preston has done until the film decides it's time to reveal this fact to Lane. When it does, Lawrence's performance is great; Lane immediately cuts off all contact from Preston, and her roller coaster of emotions as she deals with what has been done to her and by whom it has been done is very believable. Unfortunately this is followed by the final act.
It felt like at this point in the film the writer ran out of script. Rather than try to figure out how to get these two people to reconcile their differences, have Lane slowly come to understand Preston's position when he did what he did, turn away from him and find a way to go back in to hibernation herself, or anything that would make sense with the film's themes, the story takes a left turn and throws a life-endangering, ship-destroying spanner in to the works and forces the two of them to work together, which ultimately leads to them getting back together, No more talking about the fact the he's doomed her to die on this ship, he nearly dies to save the crew so everything's ok and they love each other again. It was brisk, immature and unsatisfying, with a strange cameo appearance from Laurence Fishburne that doesn't really do anything to help the story in a way that couldn't have been done without him. It's a truly disappointing ending that doesn't mesh with the rest of the story at all, abandoning the existential themes for a romance that, once again, had been passed over in montage, so there was never really any attachment to. The film starts out wanting to be a classical sci-fi that meditates on the nature of man and turns in to a poorly done action/romance in space.
The Verdict: Great concept with a fantastic start, Passengers falls apart as the film exchanges compelling (if slightly cheesy) character drama for some extreme space thrills, which were ineffective and dragged the movie on an unnecessary twenty minutes. This film is passable, something worth the watch if you enjoy sci-fi and/or romantic drama, but offering little of interest after its first half.
Rating: 5.5/10
Published January 8th, 2017
Written by: Jon Spaihts
Starring: Jennifer Lawrence, Chris Pratt, Michael Sheen
I have a soft spot for sci-fi. Put a film in space, or on an alien planet, set it in a dystopian future or throw in some A.I. shenanigans, I'll probably enjoy it more than I do most films. This was definitely how I felt at the start of Passengers; the concept of two people doomed to die on a spaceship with only each other for comfort sounds like an interesting way to examine human concepts like loneliness, morality and outlook on life, but by the end, the movie doesn't really do much with its ideas.
*Warning: Spoilers Ahead*
The film opens on the Avalon, a spaceship heading for Homestead II, a planet set to be colonized by the Avalon's population of 5000 passengers, and over 200 crew. Everyone is in hibernation, as the trip from Earth to Homestead II is 120 years. The Avalon makes contact with an asteroid field on its journey, and its shield is overloaded, causing one of the hibernation pods to malfunction and release its passenger, Jim Preston (Pratt), 90 years too early, with no way of getting back to sleep, and his only company being the automated robots and androids in the film, including the bartender Arthur (Sheen). The film's first act deals with Preston coming to terms with his situation, and it's easily the strongest part of the film; Pratt's charisma carries here, as Preston first tries to escape his ordeal and put himself back to sleep, then tries to escape his thoughts by living the high life and making the most of what the ship has to offer, then slowly approaches the idea of suicide to try and escape the fate dealt to him. The whole sequence is slickly edited, and does a good job of showing time pass without having to actually tell you. The film moves too quickly through this; Preston's emotional journey is given to us through montage, so the film never really lets us get attached to him as a character.
At the end of his rope, Preston discovers the pod of Aurora Lane (Lawrence), and thanks to some convenient video interviews kept on the ship, Preston learns about her and grows attached to her. It is here that he fights a moral dilemma; he knows how to wake her up, but doing so would doom her to the same fate as himself. After battling with the choice for weeks, he eventually releases her, letting her believe it was an accident the same as it was for him. This should have laced the second act with tension as the two became romantically entangled, but the film doesn't do much to suggest that there are stakes; the romance blossoms with cheesy flair, as Preston and Lane exchange charming and clever banter. The film never really doubles down on the terrible thing Preston has done until the film decides it's time to reveal this fact to Lane. When it does, Lawrence's performance is great; Lane immediately cuts off all contact from Preston, and her roller coaster of emotions as she deals with what has been done to her and by whom it has been done is very believable. Unfortunately this is followed by the final act.
It felt like at this point in the film the writer ran out of script. Rather than try to figure out how to get these two people to reconcile their differences, have Lane slowly come to understand Preston's position when he did what he did, turn away from him and find a way to go back in to hibernation herself, or anything that would make sense with the film's themes, the story takes a left turn and throws a life-endangering, ship-destroying spanner in to the works and forces the two of them to work together, which ultimately leads to them getting back together, No more talking about the fact the he's doomed her to die on this ship, he nearly dies to save the crew so everything's ok and they love each other again. It was brisk, immature and unsatisfying, with a strange cameo appearance from Laurence Fishburne that doesn't really do anything to help the story in a way that couldn't have been done without him. It's a truly disappointing ending that doesn't mesh with the rest of the story at all, abandoning the existential themes for a romance that, once again, had been passed over in montage, so there was never really any attachment to. The film starts out wanting to be a classical sci-fi that meditates on the nature of man and turns in to a poorly done action/romance in space.
The Verdict: Great concept with a fantastic start, Passengers falls apart as the film exchanges compelling (if slightly cheesy) character drama for some extreme space thrills, which were ineffective and dragged the movie on an unnecessary twenty minutes. This film is passable, something worth the watch if you enjoy sci-fi and/or romantic drama, but offering little of interest after its first half.
Rating: 5.5/10
Published January 8th, 2017
Thursday, 5 January 2017
2017 Film Review: The Edge of Seventeen (2016)
Directed by: Kelly Fremon Craig
Written by: Kelly Fremon Craig
Starring: Hailee Steinfeld, Haley Lu Richardson, Blake Jenner
The Edge of Seventeen is a lot like most other teen coming-of-age films; our main character thinks they're better than everyone else while simultaneously hating themself, and they spend most of the film trying to figure themselves out while dealing with the problems that they face. It isn't anything new, but in this case it is very well done.
The film focuses on seventeen-year-old Nadine (Steinfeld), who has issues with how her brother Darian (Jenner) has seemingly always had it easy in life and the fact that her mother has always given him preferential treatment, and whose father died when she was thirteen. Her only friend is Krista (Richardson), whom Nadine has been close with since childhood.
Things begin to change for Nadine when she discovers Darian and Krista the morning after they've slept together. Nadine finds it impossible to deal with the fact that they stay together after this and rudely distances herself from both of them.
What's interesting here is that while the people in the movie do stupid things, it never feels out of character or meaningless. Nadine drives anyone close to her away, she steals her mum's car keys and drives off, she gets herself in to a situation with a boy she barely knows - but all of these things are exactly what you'd expect a self-destructive teen to do. Her mother doesn't know how to deal with Nadine's behaviour, and often acts selfishly, but it makes sense given her clear insecurities. The plot points may have been done before, but the characters here are nuanced to the point that they feel like people rather than characters, and that's why it's so rewarding to see Nadine go through the process of self-realisation. There's genuine heart and effort put in to this film and the process of meditating on character moments, it's almost certainly at least a little bit of a self-portrait.
The dialogue in these sorts of films always toe the line between cleverly witty and far too unrealistic for how people in real life talk, but the film makes it work, particularly with Mr. Bruner (Woody Harrelson). the one character who somewhat goes against the tropes usually associated with his type of character. If you've seen the trailer, Bruner fits the role of the mentor-teacher character in this coming-of-age film, but instead of offering some awful emotional dialogue that supposed to be profound in some way, he refuses to take the little things seriously, while still offering help when it's truly needed. He's a bit of a dick, and he offers some of the most hilariously scathing lines in the film.
The Verdict: The Edge of Seventeen is very well told, even if it's considerably cliche. The characters are multi-faceted and irrational, problems aren't solved with easy fixes, and every conversation is joyfully cringe-worthy as the main character slowly realises that other people have problems too. I found the film thoroughly entertaining, and absolutely worth the watch.
Rating: 7.5/10
Published January 5th, 2017
Written by: Kelly Fremon Craig
Starring: Hailee Steinfeld, Haley Lu Richardson, Blake Jenner
The Edge of Seventeen is a lot like most other teen coming-of-age films; our main character thinks they're better than everyone else while simultaneously hating themself, and they spend most of the film trying to figure themselves out while dealing with the problems that they face. It isn't anything new, but in this case it is very well done.
The film focuses on seventeen-year-old Nadine (Steinfeld), who has issues with how her brother Darian (Jenner) has seemingly always had it easy in life and the fact that her mother has always given him preferential treatment, and whose father died when she was thirteen. Her only friend is Krista (Richardson), whom Nadine has been close with since childhood.
Things begin to change for Nadine when she discovers Darian and Krista the morning after they've slept together. Nadine finds it impossible to deal with the fact that they stay together after this and rudely distances herself from both of them.
What's interesting here is that while the people in the movie do stupid things, it never feels out of character or meaningless. Nadine drives anyone close to her away, she steals her mum's car keys and drives off, she gets herself in to a situation with a boy she barely knows - but all of these things are exactly what you'd expect a self-destructive teen to do. Her mother doesn't know how to deal with Nadine's behaviour, and often acts selfishly, but it makes sense given her clear insecurities. The plot points may have been done before, but the characters here are nuanced to the point that they feel like people rather than characters, and that's why it's so rewarding to see Nadine go through the process of self-realisation. There's genuine heart and effort put in to this film and the process of meditating on character moments, it's almost certainly at least a little bit of a self-portrait.
The dialogue in these sorts of films always toe the line between cleverly witty and far too unrealistic for how people in real life talk, but the film makes it work, particularly with Mr. Bruner (Woody Harrelson). the one character who somewhat goes against the tropes usually associated with his type of character. If you've seen the trailer, Bruner fits the role of the mentor-teacher character in this coming-of-age film, but instead of offering some awful emotional dialogue that supposed to be profound in some way, he refuses to take the little things seriously, while still offering help when it's truly needed. He's a bit of a dick, and he offers some of the most hilariously scathing lines in the film.
The Verdict: The Edge of Seventeen is very well told, even if it's considerably cliche. The characters are multi-faceted and irrational, problems aren't solved with easy fixes, and every conversation is joyfully cringe-worthy as the main character slowly realises that other people have problems too. I found the film thoroughly entertaining, and absolutely worth the watch.
Rating: 7.5/10
Published January 5th, 2017
Sunday, 1 January 2017
2017 Film Review: Assassin's Creed (2016)
Directed by: Justin Kurzel
Written by: Michael Lesslie, Adam Cooper, Bill Collage
Starring: Michael Fassbender, Marion Cotillard, Jeremy Irons
New Year, a whole new set of movies to review. Let's get this going.
Video game movies just never seem to get it right, and Assassin's Creed is no exception.
*Warning: Potential Spoilers Ahead*
I had somewhat high hopes for the film, or at least high for a video game movie. Instead of basing the story on an existing Assassin's Creed game, the film is its own story set inside of the same universe as the video games, focusing on a different lead protagonist. This avoids the usual trap video game movies fall in to where they try and cram a super-detailed 20-hour interactive story in to a 2-hour space.
Unfortunately, just because the idea is good, it doesn't stop the execution from being terrible. In order to catch people unfamiliar with the game series up, the movie's plot is very convoluted, filled with little details that simply weigh the movie down and cause an incredible amount of time within the movie to be spent in the modern era. While the game series had largely focused on the historic sequences with only infrequent trips to the present, the film apparently needs as much time as possible to flatly explain to you some of the nuances of the conflict between the Assassin's and the Templars. The 'war fought in the shadows' angle could work, but it isn't shown to us, only told to us through boring dialogue scenes that take up about 70% of the screen-time. The filmmakers also decided to go for an oddly preachy angle; the head Templars talk about how they've used religion and consumerism to control people, and certain main characters are continually pushing their goal as 'an end to violence'. It came off as a little pathetic, since the series that the movie is based on had found its success through consumerism and excessive violence.
With boring, expositional modern sequences, I was hoping to at least be entertained by the historic sequences. Somehow, these were even harder to watch. I recall several shots that let the audience witness a battle from an eagle's eye view, but the shots were so brown and obscured that I could hardly see what was happening. Every shot in the past has a dark, dry and brown colour palette, and they use so much dust and dirt to obscure every other shot that nothing really registers, like the visual equivalent of white noise. This is exacerbated during the action scenes. Most action movies nowadays get criticised for overly shaky cameras used in action, or action scenes being cut to pieces, each of which make action hard to register and less impactful, which usually makes it less enjoyable. Assassin's Creed has both of these factors, in addition to an odd choice to essentially hide half the action by shooting from behind bird cages or underneath carriages. It's as if the filmmakers didn't want to spend any time on fight choreography or CGI, so they shot everything in a way that made the action so incomprehensible it couldn't even register as cool or interesting, and hid all their poor work behind layers of dirt and dust. There is exactly one shot that impressed me across all of the historical sequences, and it's a shot they used in the trailer. There, you just watched the best part of the movie, you don't have to see it now.
One more little note, because it got egregious by the end of the film, is the lighting. At first, I thought the filmmakers were going for the 'work in the shadows' theme of Assassin's Creed by obscuring everyone's faces so that you could barely see them, but in one scene a light fixture literally dangles and causes Fassbender's Callum's face to be lit and unlit the entire scene, and it was jarring to look at. If they were going for some 'his character is choosing between the light and the dark' concept I might've been able to forgive it, but in this scene he's simply lying down because of temporarily paralysis, talking to Marion Cotillard about his injuries, and the constantly changing light doesn't help anyone.
What makes this particularly bad, however, is that the film is played so straightforward. The film is devoid of any self-realisation about the ridiculousness of its own plot, save for one line from Fassbender, which just feel out of left field because it's the only one. This also makes the film devoid of any real fun, it just takes itself way too seriously.
The film isn't completely iredeemable, though what few good qualities it has certainly doesn't make it worth watching. The acting is bearable, and I'd even go so far as to say the Jeremy Irons is good; but even the film's stellar cast can't save the movie when their dialogue is either boring or unnecessarily weird. The film's historic actions sequences are awful, but the film's climax is a modern action sequence that has a few decent flourishes.
The Verdict: I found Assassin's Creed to be an largely unenjoyable experience. The film was poor in almost every regard, and had few redeeming factors. Perhaps fans of the series will get more enjoyment out of it because it's their favourite product on the big screen, but otherwise I would not recommend this movie at all.
Rating: 3.5/10
Published January 2nd, 2017
Written by: Michael Lesslie, Adam Cooper, Bill Collage
Starring: Michael Fassbender, Marion Cotillard, Jeremy Irons
New Year, a whole new set of movies to review. Let's get this going.
Video game movies just never seem to get it right, and Assassin's Creed is no exception.
*Warning: Potential Spoilers Ahead*
I had somewhat high hopes for the film, or at least high for a video game movie. Instead of basing the story on an existing Assassin's Creed game, the film is its own story set inside of the same universe as the video games, focusing on a different lead protagonist. This avoids the usual trap video game movies fall in to where they try and cram a super-detailed 20-hour interactive story in to a 2-hour space.
Unfortunately, just because the idea is good, it doesn't stop the execution from being terrible. In order to catch people unfamiliar with the game series up, the movie's plot is very convoluted, filled with little details that simply weigh the movie down and cause an incredible amount of time within the movie to be spent in the modern era. While the game series had largely focused on the historic sequences with only infrequent trips to the present, the film apparently needs as much time as possible to flatly explain to you some of the nuances of the conflict between the Assassin's and the Templars. The 'war fought in the shadows' angle could work, but it isn't shown to us, only told to us through boring dialogue scenes that take up about 70% of the screen-time. The filmmakers also decided to go for an oddly preachy angle; the head Templars talk about how they've used religion and consumerism to control people, and certain main characters are continually pushing their goal as 'an end to violence'. It came off as a little pathetic, since the series that the movie is based on had found its success through consumerism and excessive violence.
With boring, expositional modern sequences, I was hoping to at least be entertained by the historic sequences. Somehow, these were even harder to watch. I recall several shots that let the audience witness a battle from an eagle's eye view, but the shots were so brown and obscured that I could hardly see what was happening. Every shot in the past has a dark, dry and brown colour palette, and they use so much dust and dirt to obscure every other shot that nothing really registers, like the visual equivalent of white noise. This is exacerbated during the action scenes. Most action movies nowadays get criticised for overly shaky cameras used in action, or action scenes being cut to pieces, each of which make action hard to register and less impactful, which usually makes it less enjoyable. Assassin's Creed has both of these factors, in addition to an odd choice to essentially hide half the action by shooting from behind bird cages or underneath carriages. It's as if the filmmakers didn't want to spend any time on fight choreography or CGI, so they shot everything in a way that made the action so incomprehensible it couldn't even register as cool or interesting, and hid all their poor work behind layers of dirt and dust. There is exactly one shot that impressed me across all of the historical sequences, and it's a shot they used in the trailer. There, you just watched the best part of the movie, you don't have to see it now.
One more little note, because it got egregious by the end of the film, is the lighting. At first, I thought the filmmakers were going for the 'work in the shadows' theme of Assassin's Creed by obscuring everyone's faces so that you could barely see them, but in one scene a light fixture literally dangles and causes Fassbender's Callum's face to be lit and unlit the entire scene, and it was jarring to look at. If they were going for some 'his character is choosing between the light and the dark' concept I might've been able to forgive it, but in this scene he's simply lying down because of temporarily paralysis, talking to Marion Cotillard about his injuries, and the constantly changing light doesn't help anyone.
What makes this particularly bad, however, is that the film is played so straightforward. The film is devoid of any self-realisation about the ridiculousness of its own plot, save for one line from Fassbender, which just feel out of left field because it's the only one. This also makes the film devoid of any real fun, it just takes itself way too seriously.
The film isn't completely iredeemable, though what few good qualities it has certainly doesn't make it worth watching. The acting is bearable, and I'd even go so far as to say the Jeremy Irons is good; but even the film's stellar cast can't save the movie when their dialogue is either boring or unnecessarily weird. The film's historic actions sequences are awful, but the film's climax is a modern action sequence that has a few decent flourishes.
The Verdict: I found Assassin's Creed to be an largely unenjoyable experience. The film was poor in almost every regard, and had few redeeming factors. Perhaps fans of the series will get more enjoyment out of it because it's their favourite product on the big screen, but otherwise I would not recommend this movie at all.
Rating: 3.5/10
Published January 2nd, 2017
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)