spryfilm.com

Reviewing Film, TV and home releases

recent posts

about

I am a reviewer of films and television at Spryfilm.com and I upload stories to thisissouthtaranaki.com.
  • Trailer: “A Star is Born” (2018)

    Trailer: “A Star is Born” (2018)

    Trailer: “A Star is Born” (2018)

    Error
    This video doesn’t exist

    “A Star is Born” stars four-time Oscar nominee Bradley Cooper and multiple award-winning, Oscar-nominated music superstar Lady Gaga, in her first leading role in a major motion picture. Cooper helms the drama, marking his directorial debut.

    In this new take on the tragic love story, he plays seasoned musician Jackson Maine, who discovers—and falls in love with—struggling artist Ally. She has just about given up on her dream to make it big as a singer… until Jack coaxes her into the spotlight. But even as Ally’s career takes off, the personal side of their relationship is breaking down, as Jack fights an ongoing battle with his own internal demons.

    A STAR IS BORN is directed by and starring Bradley Cooper, and stars Lady Gaga, Andrew Dice Clay, Dave Chappelle and Sam Elliot.

    A STAR IS BORN releases in New Zealand cinemas on October 4, 2018.

    star is born spry film review 1

  • DVD/Blu-ray review: “Death Wish” (2018)

    DVD/Blu-ray review: “Death Wish” (2018)

    “Death Wish”  (2018)

    Thriller/Action

    voting-concept-rating-two-golden-stars-d-render-illustration-white-background-60907242

    Running Time: 107 minutes

    Written by: Joe Carnahan

    Directed by: Eli Roth

    Featuring:  Bruce Willis, Vincent D’Onofrio, Elisabeth Shue, Dean Norris, and Kimberly Elise

    Ben: “People rely on the police to keep them safe. That’s the problem. The police only arrive after the crime has taken place. That’s like. Trapping the fox as he’s comin’ out of the hen house. If a man really wants to protect what’s his. He has to do it for himself.”

    Remakes are nothing new in the Hollywood tradition, in fact these days they take many forms in reboots, sequels, prequels as well as faithful remakes from original sources, not only that they are not limited to film but can be transplanted to the small screen as well. They are so common that almost every week there is some kind of reworking released online, on television or in cinemas. Of course, it goes without saying that many are cheap imitations or flounder in the packed environment falling by the wayside, it takes something special to rival an older work or even surpass it especially if that original was any good or beloved. In the case of this week’s new release “Death Wish” (2018) which is a remake of Michael Winner’s “Death Wish” (1974) featuring the rugged Charles Bronsan as the husband who wrecks revenge on New York street criminals after a brutal assault on his daughter and the murder of his wife. This seemed to be ripe for a remake especially in the crazy gun culture we now find ourselves in. It would seem that in skilled hands this new remake would be able to make some kind of comment on not only society forty years later but also the way in which the world has changed, how far people are willing to go to protect their families as well as a variety of other issues that have arrived on our doorstep. Whilst gun control in most countries is a no brainer it is the US that has an inordinate amount of not only gun crime but violence within its borders. So how does this new remake measure up?

    This new movie is a pale comparison to its forbearer in many respects, which is unfortunate as the original has not aged well, especially in terms of the fact that there were four sequels made that have devalued the original in many ways. This new movie transplants the action from New York to Chicago where there are extreme amounts of shootings as well as record numbers of murders involving guns. What is apparent from the beginning is that all the social reasons for such violence as well as the overwhelming number of shootings by African Americans are completely ignored in favour of a revenge movie with little moralising or solutions to the epidemic that proffers the advice that it is better to add to the violence than reduce it – surely one of the reasons that gun crime is so prevalent. As film-makers I would have thought that it would be one of the aims of a film like this to investigate the reasoning behind so much violence, seeing people grapple with issues of loss as well as options that are available to people in terms of the results of such crime – none of that is present here.

    This new movie is directed by Eli Roth who made his name in the horror genre helping create a sub-genre known as ‘torture porn’ with his two creations “Hostel” (2002) and “Hostel 2” (2005), he also has made a cannibal horror in the troubled and lambasted “Green Inferno” (2012) – I believe these roots are present here. This new movie “Death Wish” could be said to be a pre-cursor to his own movies in that elements of revenge as well as brutal violence and torture appear in both. Roth is not the most gifted or subtle director working today, he does seem to feel the need to leave everything onscreen with little value in examining the possible themes that may be involved in his work. It is a shame then that he had the possibility of breaking free of his own oeuvre to bring to the screen what could have been a special movie that came at the right time, socially  – with record numbers of shootings in the US as well as being set in Chicago a city beset by crime. There is only one screenwriter credited, that is action director/writer Joe Carnahan who it seems was a writer for hire and in terms of a remake this is a perfectly acceptable update, but the nuance really had to be driven by the director, who it appears has no real interest in creating something that people would want to see or want to discuss – which is one reason this movie disappeared from cinemas so quickly as well as making no real impact in any international market.

    The movie revolves around Paul Kersey, who lives with his wife Lucy and college-bound daughter Jordan, works as a trauma surgeon at a Chicago hospital. During the Kerseys’ lunch, Paul gives the keys to his car to a valet, Miguel, who secretly takes a picture of their home address from the car’s navigation software. Later, while Paul is working late at the hospital, three masked men invade the Kersey’s home. Jordan and Lucy are both shot and Paul learns at the hospital that Lucy died and Jordan fell into a coma.

    In another decade having Bruce Willis as the main character in a movie would have meant something far different than it means in 2018, especially with the sub-par movies he has been appearing in for the past ten years. Sure, Willis has still been in some good movies but mostly as a character part, cast for his persona rather than any real talent or draw, the only real exceptions being the 2010 action flick “RED” (2010) and the fantastic Sci-Fi “Looper” (2012) – although in the latter he was playing third fiddle. Willis in “Death Wish” is definitely phoning it in, this movie just does not measure up to even the performance the stoic Bronsan gave forty years ago which again is a real missed opportunity for the narrative of the movie. The supporting cast would normally be great in any other movie, with Vincent D’Onofrio, Elisabeth Shue, Dean Norris, and Kimberly Elise are all at least attempting to play to the strengths of their previous roles as well as the type of characters they are portraying. Unfortunately, they all come off one note as the material is not only derivative but reductive as well with all the roles being not only typical but archetypical as well as unimaginative, copies of better characters in much better movies.

    The revenge genre is one that has been in existence for decades with far better examples than this or even the original it is based on. If you want a more recent example which is far better try watching “The Brave One” (2007) with Jodie Foster or the older and much more low budget “I Spit on your Grave” (1978). Both of these movies are not only more original but are also more realistic as well as being from a female point of view which is by itself far more relevant than both “Death Wish” movies. The most problematic part of this entire movie is the racial violence that is involved with African Americans as well as Hispanics seen as not only the ‘other’ but as the enemy and the villains of the piece. This is all without the requisite background on the disparity in wealth between cultural groups or the racism that exists within every community – even though in one aspect Willis is seen ‘broing’ it up in one scene then brutally gunning people down the same people in the next. There is also the issue of violence carried out in others names as well as the fact that we see, not only in this movie mind you, that revenge is an acceptable act if you feel bad enough. My opinion on this movie is one that is based on social realities and not some kind of escapist fantasy that surely by now we have moved past. The problem of this being escapist is that it is set very much in a real world with real people – even the parts where we see real radio personalities commenting on what is happening is absurd as well as placing this movie in a real setting – something that is far more dangerous than you might initially think.

    The revenge genre is one that has been in existence for decades with far better examples than this or even the original it is based on, if you want a more recent example which is far better try watching “The Brave One” (2007) with Jodie Foster or the low budget “I Spit on your Grave” (1978). Both of these movies are not only more original but are also more realistic as well as from a female point of view which is by itself far more relevant than both “Death Wish” movies. The most problematic part of this entire movie is that racial violence that is involved with African Americans as well as Hispanics seen as not only the other but as the enemy and the villains of the piece without the requisite background on the disparity in wealth or the racism that exists within the community – even though in one aspect Willis is seen ‘broing’ it up one scene then brutally gunning people down in the next. There is also the issue of violence carried out in others names as well as the fact that we see, not only in this movie mind you, that revenge is an acceptable act if you feel bad enough. My opinion on this movie is one that is based on social realities and not some kind of escapist fantasy that surely by now we have moved past. The problem of this being escapist is that it is set very much in a real world with real people – even the parts where we see personalities commenting on what is happening is absurd as well as placing this movie in a real setting – something that is far more dangerous than you might initially think. The reason being is that means the actors, production and the studio are making a statement in reality, that revenge and taking the law into your own hands in a violent way is perfectly acceptable – however you should make your own mind up, mine has been.

    If you are wanting to watch an entertaining Bruce Willis movie with action, suspense and thrills then you should revisit the ‘Die Hard’ franchise which is still entertaining all these years later. I would not recommend “Death Wish” at all, I was not only bored but found myself making fun of it not long after it started, it is one of the worst movies I have seen in a long time and definitely is the worst movie I have seen this year. This is the kind of exploitative movie that should make everyone involved embarrassed for thinking something like this belongs in 2018 – if it was reframed or had some dense themes there would be a credit to having made it, but alas there is none so please watch something else.

    “Death Wish” is out now on DVD & Blu-ray.

    Bruce Willis stars in a scene from the movie “Death Wish.” The Catholic News Service classification is O — morally offensive. The Motion Picture Association of America rating is R — restricted. Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian. (CNS photo/Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Pictures) See MOVIE-REVIEW-DEATH-WISH March 1, 2018.

     

  • Official Teaser Trailer: “LEGO® Movie 2” (2018)

    Official Teaser Trailer: “LEGO® Movie 2” (2018)

    About The LEGO® Movie 2:

    Error
    This video doesn’t exist

    The much-anticipated sequel to the critically acclaimed, global box office phenomenon that started it all, The LEGO® Movie 2, reunites the heroes of Bricksburg in an all new action-packed adventure to save their beloved city. It’s been five years since everything was awesome and the citizens are facing a huge new threat: LEGO DUPLO® invaders from outer space, wrecking everything faster than they can rebuild. The battle to defeat them and restore harmony to the LEGO® universe will take Emmet, Lucy, Batman and their friends to faraway, unexplored worlds, including a strange galaxy where everything is a musical. It will test their courage, creativity and Master Building skills, and reveal just how special they really are.

    The LEGO® MOVIE 2 is directed by Mike Mitchell and stars Chris Pratt, Elizabeth Banks, Will Arnett, Nick Offerman, Alison Brie, Tiffany Haddish, Stephanie Beatriz, and Arturo Castro.

    The LEGO® MOVIE 2 releases in New Zealand cinemas on April 11, 2019.

    The_lego_movie_2_poster_2019

  • Film review: “A Quiet Place” (2018)

    Film review: “A Quiet Place” (2018)

    “A Quiet Place” (2018)

    Thriller/Horror

    images

    Running Time: 90 minutes

    Written by: John Krasinski, Bryan Woods and Scott Beck

    Directed by:  John Krasinski

    Featuring: John Krasinski, Emily Blunt, Millicent Simmonds, Noah Jupe

    Evelyn: “Who are we if we can’t protect them? We have to protect them.”

    Thanks to various decisions as well as new production companies, I am looking at you Blumhouse, there seems to be more and more quality horror movies being produced each year, as well as finding success with audiences and critics, most importantly this is happening in theatres. It appeared that with last years “Get Out” (2017) which was produced for US$4.5 million dollars and generated over US$255 million at the box office as well as being nominated for a slew of Oscars (winning Jordan Peele the best screenplay award) the limit may have been reached for measuring success in the genre – it appears that the top has not been reached for this genre, not even close. Now comes the release of not only a great horror movie but of a great film, in “A Quiet Place” (2018). Firstly, surprise of surprises this is not a Blumhouse film, it is a production company known for Horror remakes, Platinum Dunes who counts director Michael Bay as one of its main owners, as well as counting its biggest success as the remake, “A Nightmare on Elm Street” (2011) – not a great pedigree at all or an example of the promise of producing what must be the Hollywood movie of the year so far, at least on a par with the critical and box office success of “Black Panther” (2018), look for a possible screenplay nomination come awards time for Krasinski and co.

    “A Quiet Place” owes much of its success in terms of quality to co-writer, director and star John Krasinski whose talent he seems to have been hiding in even though he has written and directed other projects. He seems to have shinned the idea of making genre movies which after this home run appear that he has a natural talent for as well as a calling. This movie is so well written and directed that it is an almost perfect genre film feel, not only that it has a great central idea with much of the narrative naturally built around it as well as taking it further to producing something truly rare, an original monster movie that is actually hard to compare it to any other film of its kind. It cannot be understated how impressive this movie is as well as the incredible job that Krasinski has been able to pull off not only with an original script but also with a relatively low budget that is shot on location with some studio work. Not only that but one of the central aspects of the film is the use of sign language and Krasinski as well as his producers have done something that few have done before, that is to actually cast a deaf actress in the part of a deaf character, making that person the central character that not only the narrative is based around but the plot is as well. “A Quiet Place” is an example of taking a script, casting it perfectly, operating within a low budget as well as creating a visual style that suits the genre.

    The film is set in 2020, most of Earth’s human population has been wiped out by sightless creatures with hypersensitive hearing and a seemingly impenetrable armoured shell that attack anything that makes noise. The Abbott family — husband Lee, wife Evelyn, congenitally deaf daughter Regan, and sons Marcus and Beau — silently scavenge for supplies in a deserted town. Though skilled in American Sign Language, the family must nonetheless be vigilant lest they make accidental noise. Four-year-old Beau is drawn to a battery-operated space shuttle toy, but his father takes it away. Regan returns the toy to Beau, who unbeknownst to her has also taken the batteries his father removed. Beau activates the shuttle when the family is walking home through the woods, near a bridge. Its noise makes him an instant target for a nearby creature, and he is swiftly killed.

    There is no doubt in my mind that this movie is perfectly cast with a mixture of experienced as well as great actors, juxtaposed with some new talent that prove themselves to be well chosen as well as being able to match talents with the more experienced cast members. As well as John Krasinski in the role of the father there is his real life wife Emily Blunt in the role of the mother. Krasinski is just wonderful as the father who only has one job, protect his family at all costs; he is a smart resourceful man who speaks very little, as all good actors do conveys emotion as well as plot details through his face as well as sign language. Emily Blunt as the mother of the family has more speaking parts but also carries much of the emotion of the film; she also has to do a lot of physically nuanced acting which is a challenge in its own right. It would not be fair to the other cast members to say she is the central character or hero of the piece but she as an actress is rewarded by a great script as well as a solidly written character. The cast is rounded out by three children Millicent Simmonds, Noah Jupe and Cade Woodward who are all excellent as well as perfectly cast, but it is Simmonds who steals the movie as the oldest child as well as the chief agent of change who really comes through by the end of the movie. Simmonds is also really deaf so of course there is an authenticity to her role, which informs the entire film as well one of the main reasons the family, has lasted so long, surviving on wits as well as intelligence. She is also a revelation although she has appeared in other movies before it has to be said that “A Quiet Place” is one of those special films that allows her to show a full range of emotions as well as acting both physically and emotionally in a very good movie, one of the best of the year so far.

    Whilst this is definitely not Krasinski’s directorial debut there was little hint that he had a film like “A Quiet Place” within him or ready to be made. It is an old adage that film is a visual medium but when the subject of the movie is being is silent then there is no room for endless exposition, which has become a hallmark of Hollywood movies in recent years with exceptionally lazy film-making. In fact from the opening scene this movie represents itself as something that has seldom been seen, an English language movie that uses American Sign Language as its language with the need for almost total sub-titles throughout. The conceit that almost any noise could be met with death is an almost primal feeling of what could be represented as isolation. Imagine being surrounded by people but not being able to speak, not being able to communicate the most basic pieces of information – even though you are with someone it is isolating bur anything else will effect everyones survival. The question remains is that without human communication do we survive or just prolonging the inevitable. From the very beginning we realise that something has happened to the world, the family we see is terrified, it is not until the use of newspapers as prime information both in the streets as well as at the family’s home do we know what is occurring, as well as the reason why there is fear of noise of any kind which has been replaced by silence, deafening in a way.

    What Krasinski has done is to take a conceit like aliens or monsters hunting through the use of sound and expanded on that with many issues and solutions that are extremely well thought out as well as being told in a very compact and economical way. I will not spoil anything but there are many situations that have been mapped out in full, with obstacles as well as solutions, which fit well with the overall narrative as well as plot. This is something many genre movies could learn from, come up with a story that will fit within a narrative then realise the strengths and weaknesses of any antagonist as well as the protagonists – exactly what Krasinski has done as co-writer and of course director.

    In many ways “A Quiet Place” does nothing that hasn’t been seen in many genre movies before but where it deviates from a vast majority is to take the typical monster movie, then give it a twist in terms of not only its narrative but the way the rules operate in its particular universe. It also heightens the mood and atmosphere by making this a family drama not as a result of the invasion but making this the central aspect of the plot, which again differentiates itself from other genre movies. The themes of family protection as well as the idea of familial loss and the ability to move past tragedy is as important as fighting the aliens or surviving in a hostile world. I recommend “A Quiet Place” highly and am not being original or alone as one of the best movies of the year so far, go and see it in a cinema where hopefully the audience will play along with the great narrative.

    “A Quiet Place” is in cinemas now.

  • Trailer: “Tag” (2018)

    Trailer: “Tag” (2018)

    Trailer: “Tag” (2018)

    Error
    This video doesn’t exist

    One month every year, five highly competitive friends hit the ground running for a no-holds-barred game of tag — risking their necks, their jobs and their relationships to take one another down. This time, the game coincides with the wedding of the only undefeated player. What should be an easy target soon becomes an all-out war as he knows they’re coming to get him.

  • Film review: “Kodachrome” (2017)

    Film review: “Kodachrome” (2017)

    “Kodachrome ” (2017)

    Drama

    3-stars

    Running Time: 100 minutes

    Written by: Jonathan Tropper

    Directed by: Mark Raso

    Featuring: Ed Harris, Jason Sudeikis, Elizabeth Olsen, Bruce Greenwood, Wendy Crewson, and Dennis Haysbert

    Ben: “We’re all so frightened by time, the way it moves on and the way things disappear. That’s why we’re photographers. We’re preservationists by nature. We take pictures to stop time, to commit moments to eternity. Human nature made tangible.”

    Is there any more genre of movie more revisited than the road movie? It is not only a genre unto itself but is also a sub-genre of every other master genre in existence. The very idea of a road movie is to prove the adage that it is the trip that is the aim of any journey not the final ending place – something that anyone who has ever been on a trip can agree with. So now we have the new film “Kodachrome ” (2017) arriving in cinemas today, which really does set out to prove that point as well as taking a rather myopic journey through a standard father and son relationship that begins rocky but of course as you would expect ends with some measure of understanding and closure. To say that within a few minutes of the film beginning that any canny audience will be able to work out the broader details of this movie is an understatement. I am not discounting the value in familial relationships as well as the damage that can be caused by unthinking parents as well as resentful children but does every second drama that is produced have to be about this as well as the healing process that families can go through. As with many of these types of movies, of which there are plenty, there is a mixture of drama and comedy as well as a scenic trip through parts of the US that are made to be filmed as well as endless montage sequences that fill out the running time. As with many movies that follow a broad outline of other movies if you are going to produce one then there had better be something unique to identify it as well as sperate it from the crowd. The question is does “Kodachrome” succeed or fail on this point, or is it just another father and son story with good intentions?

    “Kodachrome” is based on a magazine article (am increasing trend over the past decade or so) which has been adapted by Jonathan Tropperwho has had some success on television as well as theatrically but I would say that his understanding of real relationships fall into a fantasy category which I believe his work speaks to, he does not write about how relationships are but how they are on television and in movies. The director of this movie is relative newcomer Mark Raso who seems to have been able to bring the skill required to take what is in the screenplay and make it visual along with his actors who seem to be inhabiting their roles the best they can.

    The movie revolves around a wayward, world-famous photographer dad, Ben (Ed Harris), and his distant music-exec adult child, Matt (Jason Sudeikis), who is on the verge of being fired from his label. That his father is in the last stages of liver cancer and has only months to live make the mission they embark upon all the more fraught. At issue are four mystery canisters of Kodachrome film that Ben, as analogue as they come, has just discovered and he wants to get them developed in order to put on one final exhibit of his work. But the only photo lab that still processes Kodachrome is located in Parsons, Kansas—and it is just days away from closing up shop.

    There are three main cast members that make up the film, which is headed up by the great Ed Harris who seems to be fitting into ‘old man’ parts as he gets older, which is a shame as he is a person that really grew into acting as his career went from strength to strength. The kind of role he is playing here is one that will be familiar to anyone that has ever been to the movies, that is the estranged father who is now dying of cancer, needing to reach one last milestone or make one last attempt at something he failed to do during his life. The cast is rounded out by Jason Sudeikis and Elizabeth Olsen as the son and Ben’s nurse, all three have excellent chemistry as well as extensive experience so this film for them is not testing at all, there is little challenge in these roles, they are archetypical roles that are expected in a movie within this familial genre. Along the way the three encounter various characters either related or not, portrayed by some great character actors Bruce Greenwood, Wendy Crewsonand Dennis Haysbert. To be honest I enjoyed these minor characters more than the main characters, maybe because I was a little distracted and bored by the narrative as well as the plot.

    There is no getting away from the title of the movie, “Kodachrome”, which refers to the undeveloped film that the characters are on the way to develop. It is a wise decision to frame the family drama around the trip to develop the film, (no pun intended) as it is of course a meta narrative – a film about film made on film. Unfortunately this is where the inventiveness ends, as, like the story itself the metaphors and references are very heavy handed as well as preachy to the point of missing its own narrative arc. We are asked to go on a physical as well as a metaphorical trip with the main cast that also asks us to dip into melancholy as well as nostalgia. Focusing on the nostalgia angle for a moment we are asked to associate the loss of physical film with the loss that the father and son will be going through as well as what they have lost over the intervening years which is a cheap manipulation of the audience, something that should be earned within the narrative not associated with some other action or thing. As I said it is cheap manipulation, something the director should have addressed as to bear in mind the subtly required of this movie. Of course the flaw with linking emotion to what is, a redundant technology is assuming that people know about the movement away from film, that they actually even care about that move at all. Like this film the knowledge of that move does not really matter because the fact that this movie was even filmed on physical film will be missed by the audience, they will not even know about it, except for the title at the end that informs us it was indeed on the old medium, but really does it matter and who cares?

    There is some drama as well as some humour within this film, but like many recent bigger movies that have failed this year, I am looking at you “Solo” (2018), as soon as the credits roll you might have trouble remembering what this movie was about as well as what was the overriding themes, and where did I park the car? This may have been a more succefful movie in terms of quality if one story were picked and that was delved into to give the movie an anchor, some meaning and finally some real entertainment. There is a very real importance to the move to digital from film, this may have been a great way to inform people about this, instead of mixing it up and using it as a truly mixed (and redundant ) metaphor.

    “Kodachrome” is out now only in cinemas, although it has been distributed by Netflix.

    Kodachrome
  • Streaming review: “Safe” (2018)

    Streaming review: “Safe” (2018)

    “Safe” (2018)

    TV Series

    stars-2-5

    Episodes: Eight

    Created by: Harlan Coben

    Featuring: Michael C. Hall, Amanda Abbington, Marc Warren, Audrey Fleurot, Hannah Arterton, Nigel Lindsay, Laila Rouass, Emmett J. Scanlan, Amy James-Kelly, Amy-Leigh Hickman, Hero Fiennes-Tiffin, Louis Greatorex

    Why is it that now pulp stories are being made directly into limited television series every writer now thinks they are Lynda La Plante or Jimmy McGovern, able to turn their attention into creating something that is original but ends up not only being reductive but repetitive of other better as well as slightly more believable material. I was actually looking forward to this new crime drama “Safe” (2018), with a main actor I liked in Michael C. Hall as well as a character actor that has made some excellent television as well as a great actor in Marc Warren who always judges his performance by the material he is given. I also held out hope that writer Harlan Coben might create something unique as well as a must watch, with a good story as well as some interesting situations. I don’t envy these types of genre shows especially when there have been some great ones produced not only in the UK (possibly the best example is “Broadchurch”), but of course in Scandinavia that routinely produce some excellent original narratives that always seem to directly comment on the undercurrent of social issues that exist within that part of the world using the Scandi-Noir framework. When these shows miss the mark then they really need to be called out especially when the narrative is based on previous incidents as well as some unbelievable coincidences and illogic decision making that few people would make, let alone believe. Although judging from some other reviews I am alone in my dislike of this show, there have been many positive reviews, I only started to watch it after a recommendation to me, what I found was that it comes off as a cheap imitation of much better material that is now in abundance on a variety of platforms.

    The main creative behind “Safe” is best-selling author Harlan Coben, who has created a show that has at its heart is a fairly simple story of a missing person, a murder and all the elements that go along with that. It is easy to see how this was devised, in fact about halfway through most viewers should see where this headed, to a conclision that is not only ridiculous in its simplicity but if a viewer stops to understand where it is headed they should see that it relies on far too many coincidences to even start to be believebale. The only way to make this plot unfold in any coherent way is to bait and switch the narrative so that elements of the story unfold in a non linear fashion thereby dishing out important aspects of the story piecemeal otherwise the ‘twist’ as such would be given away in the first episode. Frankly this is a tool used to disguise lazy and unoriginal storytelling as well as poor choices by the writers and directors that have been made after there was a kernel of a good idea or an interesting start of a show or movie.

    “Safe” focuses on Englishman Tom Delaney (Hall), a paediatric surgeon and widowed father of two teenage daughters. He is struggling to connect to his daughters as they still grieve the loss of his wife from cancer one-year prior. After his 16-year-old daughter Jenny goes missing, Tom ends up uncovering a web of secrets as he frantically searches for her.

    The show has a very large cast led by American transplant Michael C. Hall and the home grown Amanda Abbington who is attempting to break out of her character actor status,  attempting to lead a show from beginning to end. Hall has always had a habit of playing extremely flawed characters in both the legendary HBO show “Six Feet Under” (2001-2005) and of course as the serial killer in “Dexter” (2006-2013). I found it hard to decide why Hall made this show, as he is an odd fit here as well as having an extremely dodgy English accent, I found him a little unbelievable in this role but I can see how others may like him as a Father who is attempting to understand his family. Abbington on the other hand is one note from start to finish; I don’t think she is suited to be the lead but is better off in smaller doses in character parts, much like her previous role in “Sherlock” (2010-2017). The highlight for me was Marc Warren as Tom’s best friend and confidant who is one of the few honest and proper characters in the show, he has a revelation that he takes on board far to easily which only adds to the issues of the show. The rest of the cast is rounded out with a variety of actors who are far to good for this pedestrian piece of television, but my favorite performance is from the always great Nigel Lindsay as Jojo. He is just a comedy genius as a Father who makes the wrong decision every time he comes up against a problem, he lit up the screen every time he appeared, I wish he had have been in the show a lot more, it may have made the eight episodes much more bearable.

    The idea behind this series is a very good one in my opinion, to have a story that for the most part takes place within a gated community means that those living their are able to be studied within a close knit community – it is not an original idea though, it has been done before in other television shows and movies, so from that idea the plot and narrative needs to not only hold together but more importantly be original. There are ideas about personality as well as what it means to have trauma in life as well as how to handle that in a way that leads to healing. It is unfortunate that the series has been hamstrung by an unoriginal as well as flawed narrative that undercuts the main story so much that one cannot exist without the other. In any good story the narrative should not create the story, but compliment it, but that is exactly what occurs here, the weakness is that if this were a linear narrative this show would be over in twenty minutes not stretched out over eight long episodes.

    My other main issues are the inconsistent motives and decisions made by almost all the characters within the show, which mostly make little or no sense at all. Almost every time someone comes up against an issue or problem there is a convenient revelation or solution handed to them which becomes again, a weakness in the narrative. There is also the issue that all of the main characters that existed and were involved in an incident almost thirty years ago still live in exactly the same area, having never traveled or moved away. This is something that I cannot wrap my head around most people move at least once in their lifetime and will normally move away from their childhood suburbs, in this show literally everyone still lives with a few kilometers of where they grew up, really, please!

    Now if you are a casual viewer and do not care about being treated like an idiot this show may be for you however if you enjoy quality shows that are thought out and not derivative of other far better and skilled shows then you should wisely give this a miss and seek out something more original that will be far more satisfying and worthwhile, our time is far too short to be spent watching lazy television.

    Episodes:

    1. When his teenage daughter doesn’t return home after a party, Tom Delaney anxiously combs the neighborhood and learns her boyfriend is also missing.
    2. Fearing a friend was involved in Jenny’s disappearance, Tom enlists Sophie’s help. Emma investigates disturbing allegations about a teacher.
    3. An anonymous tip leads to a frenzied chase — and another puzzling clue. Zoe draws up a list of grudges. Tom glimpses a side of Rachel he never knew.
    4. While Tom follows a new lead about Jenny, Sophie and Emma deliver devastating news. The Marshalls struggle to keep their cool.
    5. In the wake of a dangerous confrontation, Sophie warns Tom to stay out of the investigation. Tom learns that Jenny was hiding a secret.
    6. As a deadly fire rages, Tom frantically tracks Jenny’s phone. More details about Chris’s death emerge, and a confession tears a family apart.
    7. Sophie blocks Tom’s attempts to speak with Henry. While searching for Bobby at Heaven, Tom and Pete spot a familiar face.
    8. Tom begs for Sophie’s help getting to Bobby. Before the night of the party, a cryptic entry in Rachel’s diary sends Jenny on a quest for the truth.
  • DVD Review: “Water Rats” (1996 – 2002)

    DVD Review: “Water Rats” (1996 – 2002)

    “Water Rats Season 1 – 6” (1996 – 2002)

    Television

    177 Episodes

    Created by: John Hugginson & Tony Morphett

    Featuring: Colin Friels, Catherine McClements, Mouche Phillips, Toni Scanlan, Steve Bisley, Peter Bensley, Aaron Pedersen, Jay Laga’aia

    Det Sgt Jack Christey: “I mean, you know, it’s a simple request. I ask them to find a yacht in Sydney Harbour and they can’t do it. I mean, how hard is that? A yacht is a very, very large object.” [as he walks away, Tommy mutters]

    Sr. Constable Tommy Tavita: “Yeah, there are tens of thousands of them on the Harbour you moron.”

    This  month sees the release of Water Rats – Collection 1 (Volume 1-4) on DVD, a 24 disc box set collecting the first half of the series which will be followed later by a second set, here I will reflect on this first set, the characters as well as general review of the stories and what it has to offer almost twenty years later. When the next box set is released I will cover that period at that time.

    Over twenty years ago the television show “Water Rats” (1996 – 2002) started airing on Australian television, on the Nine Network, it had an expansive cast was filmed on the Sydney Harbor and involved not only the criminal aspects of the Harbor Patrol but their personal lives as well, if only in a limited capacity. There is no doubt that the early years of the show were the best, it had some interesting storylines as well as some unique characters that worked very well together, with a mixture of new young actors as well as some experienced older veterans that were as recognizable now as they were then. In terms of diversity there was a Samoan character as well as an openly Gay character although neither of these aspects was commented on within the show much.

    “Water Rats” premiered on 12 February 1996, and ran for six seasons and 177 episodes. Colin Friels and Catherine McClements were the original stars of the series and were instrumental in the show’s early success. Friels was the most well known of the cast, he had been  a mainstay of the Australian acting community for over three decades at that point.

    I wanted to review this television series for a few reasons; one was that I had never seen an episode as I had assumed it was a bit old fashioned as well as not very interesting to me on a personal level – cops on the harbor… boring! The second reason was that as a younger person I had become fond of the Australian television show “Blue Heelers” (1994-2006), to be honest I still have a weakness for that show, that revolved around a small-town police station with outsized stories and a wide variety of characters that came and went over its twelve-year run. The creators “Blue Heelers” were also responsible for the creation and airing of “Water Rats”. The final reason was to compare what we now call a ‘procedural’ against some of the similar shows in this decade. What I discovered was, for me, quite interesting as well as eye-opening to the quality of the show, the actors and the storyline – this was a high-quality production that not only introduced some interesting characters but took full advantage of the locale as well as the kind of city Sydney was turning into on the eve of the Olympics as well as the new millennium.

    After a only few episodes of viewing the most obvious and striking element of the series are the varied locations that are used to illustrate the geographic differences that the Police have to deal with on a daily basis in Sydney. The good news is that this element is not far from the truth as anyone that has visited Sydney can tell you. Not only that but the Sydney Harbor is known around the world with some of the most iconic landmarks on the planet. So, the producers made the wise decision to use real locations as well as use the harbor to film on water action which would have made the production not only complicated but also extremely expensive, particularly in the 1990s. Some of the famous locations were Shark Island, Sydney Harbor Bridge, The Gap, White Bay Power Station, Fort Denison, The Rocks, Middle Harbour, Long Bay Correctional Centre, North Headand the Middle Head Fortifications. There are may reasons that location shooting is important but for this show it all leads to the authenticity of the entire series, sure there are many locations that are used repeatedly but there are very few scenes shot on a sound stage that are readily identifiable as such, the main ones being office scenes as well as interrogation scenes which are completely understandable. Location shooting has several advantages over filming on a studio set, the main one being the illusion of reality can be stronger; on a set, it is hard to replicate real-world wear and tear, as well as architectural details, and the vastness of a city is difficult to recreate on a backlot.

    The actors that were cast at least in the first three seasons of the show were of various genders, ages and to a certain extent cultures. There is no doubt that at the beginning of the series there was an attempt to have everyone involved in one way or another but after a while it becomes obvious that the main storylines are based around the characters of Holloway and Goldstein played by Colin Friels and Catherine McClements respectively. Both are and were at the time, experienced stage and screen actors who share natural chemistry onscreen which leads to some ‘will they’ or ‘wont they’ moments, which do ultimately resolve themselves in natural way entering the fourth season. There is much made of both characters backgrounds in him being from a rough family as well as her being Jewish, although nothing is ever really resolved with either as the producers decided to make the episodes more procedural in nature and their backgrounds are only used as coloring for the series. This was a missed opportunity, I wonder if there was ever a rebooted version in a limited run if some of the cultural disparities would be involved, I would certainly hope so.

    The other aspect of the show was the use of a boat crew that included the Samoan Jay Laga’aia as the only non white face in the entire cast, which maybe at the time was a stretch but now seems a little like a missed opportunity especially as the rest of the crew involved in the show are extremely white and in some cases may be slightly racist in their views, which again because there is no commitment it comes off as an after thought without the ability to challenge some of these beliefs. In fact there is no attempt at all to being in any Samoan culture which again looking back seems like a missed opportunity. The remainder of the cast, which went through many changes, is made up of a variety of well-known character actors that all perform well, after almost two hundred episodes these actors all grew into their roles and it must have been comforting to play them. There is no doubt that Sydney has a wide variety of cultures that inhabit the city, there are Asian, Middle Eastern, European and a host more so not to have them widely represented seems like short sightedness on the producers part, there really was a trick missed which does make the show come off as a whites only situation which is not fair on the city itself.

    As this is a show that started airing over twenty years ago there is a very different method to the operation of each season but it is still very recognizable to some of the procedurals operating today. While each season was not ‘themed there were storylines that appeared on and off again that normally came to some kind of resolution either during the season or at its conclusion, that in some cases saw main characters leaving the show which for this kind of narrative was unique. It also gave the opportunity to introduce new characters, keeping the show as fresh as possible as it headed into the new millennium. In the background there were always stories of police corruption which fitted with the real life police, as at the time there had been a clean up of the police force which is reflected here, particularly with the old school character of Holloway who was under suspicion for his run on the show, for me this aspect was a nice reflection of real life, as well as being a little scary to known that corruption was that rife.

    My only concern about viewing a show that is now (relatively) quite old, as well as being set in a pre-9/11 world was would it still be entertaining, not only that, but would it hold my interest and be relevant to the world that we live in today? I can honestly say that I enjoyed this show immensely, there was something pure in the fact that almost all the technology used then is still in most cases being used now, there were mobile phones, the internet was being widely used and the issues we face today were being addressed then as well. The only real gap that is noticeable is the lack of any real social media, which would not alter any story in a major way if it were told today, but would only serve to enhance the investigative nature of the detectives.

    In fact this show was a refreshing break as every single story and character is hands on in a real and identifiable world where there is a definite tactile nature to each story being told, many of the people that are victims or criminals seem to be cut from an all together real cloth with some great Australian character actors portraying them. In fact one of the narrative aspects of the show that became apparent as well as novel was the way in which danger is treated, as is the real consequences of bad decisions made on the water, as well as gun violence and crime which is pervasive here. There are many deaths within the show, with most happening in the water in and around the harbor which reflects the dangers that exist in waterways with the police unable to save everyone, I found this to be very effecting especially mixed with the real locations used giving the stories some sobering reality not seen in many other police based shows, it seems like something real that we as viewers can identify with, unlike physical or gun violence which for most people is removed or only seen on television.

    I have to say that I would recommend this television show to people that enjoy something a little different as well as a series that has some local flavor as well as some original characters coupled with characters that many will recognize as tropes of the police procedural but it has enough drama as well as humor to keep any viewer happy as well as being very difficult to stop watching, I look forward to the second set, I hope I don’t have to wait too soon.

    Season One

    Season one ran for 26 episodes and major storylines included:

    – Jonathon Goldstein trying to deny Rachel access to their young son, David.

    – Frank’s relationship with crime scene officer, Caroline Cox.

    – Helen’s sexuality comes out in the open, particularly to Rachel, who seemed to be the only character who did not know Helen was gay.

    – The death and subsequent investigation of Frank’s brother, Kevin.

    – Rachel’s relationship with Knocker, which turned out to be a deadly one.

    – Clarke’s affair and his subsequent resignation.

    – Frank being investigated by Internal Affairs on two occasions.

    Season Two

    The second season of Water Rats ran, again, for 26 episodes. Season two also took the detectives to Melbourne, a change from Sydney harbour. It also introduced a new character, Constable Tayler Johnson, as well as a few minor ones, including:

    Colin “Chopper” Lewis (played by Anthony Martin)

    Senior Constable Sam Bailey (played by Kelly Dale)

    Michael Jefferies (played by John Adam)

    Gail Hawker (played by Anne Tenney)

    Major storylines included:

    – Rachel’s relationship with the well-off Michael Jefferies.

    – Jeff becomes Chief Inspector.

    – Frank once again, is investigated by I.A, but this time for a much more serious offence, murder.

    – Tayler is Helen’s niece.

    – Terry is stabbed and decides to leave the Water Police.

    – Dave is speared by spear gun and cannot continue diving.

    – Jeff and his wife separate.

    Season Three

    Season three ran for 31 episodes. New characters included:

    Constable Emma Woods

    Liz Robinson (played by Rebecca Hobbs)

    Detective Senior Constable Jack Christey

    Detective Sergeant Louise Bradshaw (played by Sonia Todd)

    Terry Madigan (played by Ritchie Singer)

    Major storylines included:

    – Frank getting back together (for a while) with his ex-wife Liz.

    – Rachel and tough-talking detective Jack Christey have a one-night stand.

    – Tayler is shot.

    – Rachel works with Tommy on a number of occasions, while Frank is away.

    – Frank’s relationship with undercover cop Louise ends tragically when she is shot dead.

    – Helen is promoted to Senior Sergeant.

    Season Four

    The fourth series ran for 32 episodes. It was a series of change for Water Rats, which included both Colin Friels’ and Catherine McClements’ departures within 18 episodes of each other. It introduced some new and old characters such as:

    Detective Senior Constable Michael Reilly

    Detective Sergeant Jack Christey

    Gillian Swain (played by Liz Burch)

    Suzi Abromavich (played by Roxane Wilson, who also appeared in one episode in series three)

    Detective Senior Constable Alex St Clare

    Major storylines included:

    – Helen’s relationship with lawyer Gillian Swain.

    – Michael Reilly, from VIP security, becomes the third detective.

    – Frank leaves the Water Police, sailing to Venezuela.

    – Jack replaces Frank and his relationship with Rachel gets off to a rocky start.

    – Jack is promoted to Detective Sergeant.

    – David is kidnapped.

    – Rachel and Jack start their relationship again.

    – Rachel is stabbed, and dies in Jack’s arms.

    – Jeff and his wife get a divorce.

    – Tayler leaves the Water Police, joining Pol-Air.

    – Alex St Clare replaces Rachel.

     

  • DVD/Blu-ray review: “Black Panther” (2018)

    DVD/Blu-ray review: “Black Panther” (2018)

    “Black Panther” (2018)

    Action

    images

    Written by: Ryan Coogler & Joe Robert Cole

    Directed by: Ryan Coogler

    Featuring: Chadwick Boseman, Michael B. Jordan, Lupita Nyong’o, Danai Gurira, Martin Freeman, Daniel Kaluuya, Letitia Wright, Winston Duke, Angela Bassett, Forest Whitaker, and Andy Serkis

    Ulysses Klaue: “Tell me something. What do you know about Wakanda?”

    Everett K. Ross: “It’s a Third-World country. Textiles, shepherds, cool outfits.” 

    Ulysses Klaue: “All a front. Explorers have searched for it, called it “El Dorado”. They looked for it in South America, but it was in Africa the whole time. I’m the only one who’s seen it, and made it out alive.”

    “Black Panther” (2018) has to be one of the most anticipated superhero movies yet, with a bold director, a huge cast, some mavericks behind the scenes as well as a against the grain release date, this has all the markings of not only something new but a deviation as well as breaking new ground for Marvel Studios as well as parent Disney. Whilst the first few MCU movies laid the foundation for what was to follow, introducing new characters, integrating storylines and breaking new actors the middle movies were a little ho-hum treading water, attempting to let the ‘Avengers’ movies handle the heavy lifting. “The Avengers” (2012) was an unmitigated success, it did something that no one had ever seen before, but it was the follow up “Avengers: Age of Ultron” (2015) which was less than successful that changed things. It showed that audiences craved more, a little less integration, as well as maybe moving away from the infinity gems that had been holding everything together. Marvel films then pivoted slightly attempting to change what an MCU movie was by attempting to subvert expectations as well as what would be considered the norm for comic book movies.

    Which brings us to the movies that followed that were a little more self contained, had real stakes, better villains as well as not shying away from humor while maintaining a serious streak that would follow through to other movies and characters which has led to the rebirth of characters as well as breaking new ground. All of these aspects can be seen in “Guardians of the Galaxy” (2014), “Thor: Ragnarok” (2017), “Captain America: Civil War” (2016) “Ant-Man” (2015) and “Doctor Strange” (2016).

    Now comes what might be the MCU’s biggest gamble yet, the full length debut of the ‘Black Panther’ character, the first African, as well as African set character who was first introduced in “Captain America: Civil War” to great success, not only jump starting the movie but giving it a heart that it could rest its conclusion on. While this is not the first time an African American has directed a comic book film, that honor goes to the Hughes Brothers for “From Hell” (2001), which was based on a graphic novel. However “Black Panther” is the highest profiled film ever to be directed by an African American as well as having a majority of African Americans featuring in all the main roles. The leader of this movie is undoubtedly co-writer/director Ryan Coogler who will receive much of the acclaim or blame depending on how this is received, he seemed the obvious choice as he not only brings an immense amount of talent which can easily be seen in his previous efforts, his incredible debut “Fruitvale Station” (2013), as well as the Oscar nominated reboot “Creed” (2015). Coogler also brings his frequent co-star Michael B. Jordan (himself no stranger to superhero movies) as well as a host of willing collaborators, among them cinematographer Rachel Morrison (the first woman nominated for a cinematography Oscar this year) who lends the movie a shot in the arm visually, a departure from other MCU movies.

    “Black Panther” begins centuries ago, a meteorite of vibranium lands in the heart of Africa. Five tribes warred over the alien metal, until one warrior discovered the “heart-shaped herb”—a plant affected by the vibranium—which when ingested, gave him superhuman strength and reflexes. With these new abilities, he became the first “Black Panther” uniting the five tribes to found the nation of Wakanda. Using vibranium, the Wakandans developed highly advanced technology, but shut themselves off from the rest of the world, posing as a Third World country.

    In the present day, following the death of T’Chaka, T’Challa is to be crowned king of Wakanda. With help from Okoye, head of Wakanda’s royal guard the Dora Milaje, he extracts his ex-lover Nakia from her undercover assignment among human traffickers so that she can attend the ceremony. T’Challa is challenged for the crown by M’Baku, leader of the rival J’Bari tribe, but T’Challa defeats him in ritual combat and assumes the throne. This is when the movie really gets going and the narrative settles down to what might typically be a MCU origin movie, the plot then takes centre stage with some great deviations and revelations.

    The striking thing about “Black Panther” is that it is actually one of the more stand alone movies that the MCU has produced to date, it is an isolating movie in theme as well as practically. It is set in Africa in the fictitious country of Wakanda, with most of its running time restricted to that country, this works extremely well as it is concerned with its main character as well as the conflict he has both with his enemies and himself, as well as his place among his ancestors. This film portrays an African country with autonomy, agency as well as a King who is concerned with the protection of his people, who has a worldview that is narrow, so much so that there is little time for the outside world. Interestingly this is a stance that many right wing governments throughout the world are identifying with. There is no doubt that there is both a liberal and conservative streak existing in this film, with room for both – a lesson many could learn, there is no need for extremism as many live in the middle.

    At the heart of this movie is the central character of T’Challa (Black Panther) played by Chadwick Boseman who has not had the longest acting career in movies or television but to his credit has played many real life icons in US history such as Jackie Robinson in the underrated “42” (2013), Thurgood Marshall in “Marshall” (2017) and in what could have been a mistake the magnificent James Brown in “Get on up” (2014) where Boseman shines in what should have been an Oscar nominated role. What these roles have done in my mind is to prepare an actor like Boseman in playing people that are all larger than life, hold a very public profile, are seen as outsiders as well as having incredible drive to be successful as well as seeing others as real people. From the outside it may seem like easy casting, just get any black guy and put him in a suit, but the astute will see why Boseman was cast. As a Prince then King, Boseman exudes what it must be for a leader that could set millions free but knows to do this would exact a terrible toll – he seems to know when to bring what emotion and I cannot think of a better actor to play this part. The rest of the cast is excellent especially Michael B. Jordan who as a flawed version of T’Challa plays him as human as possible something Daniel Brühl did so well in a previous film. This is such a rich cast from a variety of backgrounds that all of them lend their own unique talents, adding to the overall tapestry of the film, which is excellent – I hope to see some of these supporting characters in other films.

    This is a wonderfully directed film with some real flourishes of the camera, as well as original digital backdrops and digital paintings, the colors are as you would expect rich as well as deep, which nods to the African colors that we are used to seeing in other productions. As well as all this the technology that Wakanda uses with all that entails mixed with some of the older weapons and buildings is very well done – nothing dominates too much, when you see Shuri’s lab there is a wonderful African mural in the background, or the energy weapons on the shapes of spears – all thought out so that there is real cultural representation. As you would expect the special effects, choreography and CGI are all at their very best with the Panther suit taking centre stage as well as some new gimmicks thanks to the incorporation of vibranium.

    The story as mentioned is as self contained as any previous MCU film has been, which is great because as the audience we are concerned only with the characters onscreen, they are all we need, as well as the issues that they are facing which are all too real and relatable to the world we live in. “Black Panther” touches on colonialism, interference in sovereign states, the military, cultural artifacts, the role of democracies as well as how best to help other countries and people without hegemonic domination as well as war. What is great is that it gives the main character the time and space needed to come to a compromise that will have the best effect all the while utilizing Wakanda’s vast resources.

    There is so much to this film; it is the gift that keeps giving. If you have the chance to get to this movie you should grab it. It is a chance to see a culture not seen in big budget comic book films; it borrows from African Nations but never seems to be just using a cultire but illustyrating how they work. It teaches that there is a price for honor that honor without sacrifice is worthless and living up to a promise is important. I recommend this to all and I cannot wait for more stories about Wakanda, the Black Panther and T’Challa himself.

  • Film review: “Solo: A Star Wars Story” (2018)

    Film review: “Solo: A Star Wars Story” (2018)

    “Solo: A Star Wars Story” (2018)

    Sci-Fi

    3-stars

    Running Time: 135 minutes

    Written by: Jonathan Kasdan & Lawrence Kasdan

    Directed by: Ron Howard

    Featuring: Alden Ehrenreich, Woody Harrelson, Emilia Clarke, Donald Glover, Thandie Newton, Phoebe Waller-Bridge, Joonas Suotamo, and Paul Bettany

    Han Solo: “I heard a story about you. I was wondering if it’s true.”

    Lando Calrissian: “Everything you’ve heard about me is true.”

    Was anyone really wanting a Han Solo origin story? Had Disney and Lucasfilm’s run out of ideas so quickly that this was their second non-episode movie out of the gates? Not only that but with all the behind the scenes shenanigans that took place would this even be executed very well – expectations were set pretty low for me on this one. The producers had begun by making a decision that at this point for any blockbuster is de rigueur, that is assembling a relatively unknown (and cheap) main actor (Alden Ehrenreich) then surrounding him/her with a bunch of well-known character actors or lead actors slumming it, as well as taking a large pay check, which explains the presence of Woody Harrelson, Emilia Clarke, Donald Glover, Thandie Newton and Paul Bettany. As has been the case with the previous ‘Star Wars’ spinoff you hire an up and coming writer or director, let them do their work, then fire them for not making a movie you like, hence the original directors Lord & Miller were replaced with a safe middle of the road director like Ron Howard, who knows how to follow a mandate. What remains to be seen is if “Solo: A Star Wars Story” (2018) is really a worthy entry into ‘Star Wars’ lore or will it fall short with a simple story, routine characters, or will it be fondly remembered in the long term. Unfortunately with expectations so low it could manage to be seen as a victory that may please fans after the negative reaction that fans (not critics) had with the what I think is the excellent “Star Wars: The Last Jedi” (2017). What I found was that I enjoyed the experience of watching the movie but it had no real impact once the credits started to roll, judging from the reaction in the sparsely populated screening I attended the feeling was a common one.

    The one thing that Ron Howard as director knows how to do is direct a script, place a camera, deal with actors as well as studios and to bring a coherent story to the screen. However, the one thing Howard has never had to do is to deal with a studio like Lucasfilm, operate with the budget here, in excess of US$200 million or to rescue a perceived troubled production. To be fair Howard had a lot going for him, some supportive producer’s as well as a mostly extremely experienced cast, that he bolstered by adding Paul Bettany as well as a crew that had seen it all before he arrived. What he has put onscreen is as you would have expected some great CGI sequences as well as some humour, which he knows very well and has let his stars shine in a movie that is all about bravado and one of ‘Star Wars’ best loved characters who here is not the brave General from the past three movies but more of the braggard from the first movie that audiences have loved over the past forty years.

    The movie is centred on Han Solo who finds adventure when he joins a gang of galactic smugglers, including a 196-year-old Wookie named Chewbacca. Indebted to the gangster Dryden Vos, the crew devises a daring plan to travel to the mining planet Kessel to steal a batch of valuable coaxium. In need of a fast ship, Solo meets Lando Calrissian, the suave owner of the perfect vessel for the dangerous mission — the Millennium Falcon.

    The star of this movie is in the title, anyone who was going to try and play Han Solo, filling the shoes of legendary superstar Harrison Ford was not only going to have a big job on their hands but was going to have to face the wrath of all the fans who would be judging him from the first stills that were published last year. It has fallen to relative newcomer Alden Ehrenreich to play Solo, who for the most past does a passable if not admirable job, which is saying something as there had been some early negative reports about his performance from the set. The supporting cast is absolutely filled with some terrific actors who all give their usual high standard of performance, they include Woody Harrelson, Thandie Newton and Paul Bettany, all playing tropes you will recognise from hundreds of other science fiction movies not forgetting any number of characters from the ‘Star Wars’ universe. As for the new blood of actors that have been cast including Emilia Clarke, Donald Glover and Phoebe Waller-Bridgewho all contribute something special in a movie that could have seen them marginalised in a variety of ways it is Glover who really shines stealing the movie from all involved. Donald Glover playing Lando Calrissian is all about performance of a character that has only been hinted at and seen very little in the canon, here we see Lando as a young man who is all about legend and action, if there is going to be one character from this movie that should be seen in a stand-alone it is Lando being played by Glover whose status as a performer is only getting bigger. Then there is the voice of Phoebe Waller-Bridge who has become famous for her excellent series “Fleabag” (2016 – present) here does an Alan Tyduk playing a robot with all the right moves as well as all the right lines, something that has been expected in a ‘Star Wars’ movie for the past few years.

    This is, in the end a very safe bet, there is nothing offensive in its execution, it has no teeth or makes no real leaps from any other similar movie, which is a shame as it could have been so much more. There are no real narrative surprises at all, no real surprise reveals, in fact as the narrative rolls on you can guess what is going to happen next, almost everything is covered off in the first half of the movie. I actually struggle to see the point of a movie like this other than making a lot of money, which is fine as thats what studios are supposed to do. However in the long run do movies like this hurt the brand of the ‘Star Wars’ brand? I think they do, I was only drawn to this to do a review, I think I will be giving the next spinoff a miss only because they lack any real narrative surprise or bite.

    As with all major blockbusters as well as ‘Star Wars’ movies there is a reliance (some may say over reliance) on special effects that seem to up that stakes from movie to movie. “Solo: A Star Wars Story” is no different with not only some great set pieces but the time and money needed to pull these off has been dedicated to them and they look simply amazing especially for a movie that is essentially a spin off from the main run of movies. My only concern is that the next few spin off movies will attempt to increase the CGI stakes, it might be a nice break to have a character driven story instead of one driven by special effects.

    There really is nothing negative about this movie, it is a run of the mill origin sotory something we can expect more of as the years go by and Disney/Lucasfilm want to release a ‘Star Wars’ movie each year, we can probably expect to see a drop off in quality as well as more issues behind the scenes as filmmakers attempt to make something different while the producers want to make more of the same vanilla type movie. It actually does not matter what anyone says about this movie, it is going to have a huge opening weekend, and go on to make around US$1 billion dollars worldwide, giving licence to Disney to make more of these movies. The only thing stopping the money making machine will be the time of year it is being released at, this is the first ‘Star Wars’ Summer movie release so there is definitely more competition, this will be a true test of the brand in terms of other blockbusters, this will be an interesting time indeed.

    “Solo: A Star Wars Story” is out now only in cinemas.

     

    SOLO: A STAR WARS STORY Emilia Clarke is Qi’ra and Alden Ehrenreich is Han Solo
  • Film review: “The Bookshop” (2018)

    Film review: “The Bookshop” (2018)

    “The Bookshop” (2018)

    Drama

    images

    Written & Directed by: Isabel Coixet

    Based on the novel by Penelope Fitzgerald

    Featuring: Emily Mortimer, Patricia Clarkson and Bill Nighy

    From the novel:“Courage and endurance are useless if they are never tested.”

    To say that this movie represents aspects of life that are from a bygone age is an understatement, it is a period piece set in the 1950s, taking place in and around a bookshop, an independent one at that, as well as making comments about government control and the fickle nature of the public. It also speaks to the rights of women; how small towns operate in regard to change as well as the social hierarchy that exists not only in small towns but in larger ones as well. “The Bookshop”(2018) is a very special film, it is mannered as well as paced in a very special way, with a spoken narrative that permeates the narrative like a low budget movie from the era when sound was expensive so narration was a must – speaking in a third person to give a point of view. However, after viewing it the entire narrative makes sense as well as reflecting a time before any real kind of technological revolution had occurred, where entertainment was found either in the cinema or on the page. I had very different emotions running through me while viewing this film, it could be said to be manipulative but in a very positive way, it speaks to the dissemination of information as well as knowledge, reflecting that knowledge can be derived from high culture as well as pop culture, something that has only magnified since the embracing of popular culture from the 1980s onwards. On top of that there are some subtle performances from the three principles, Emily Mortimer, Patricia Clarkson and Bill Nighy, as well as the perfectly cast supporting actors.

    “The Bookshop” is adapted from a novel by writer/director Isabel Coixet, who is originally from Spain, and while she has produced movies in English before, it is not her natural language. This in some cases may be a drawback, and at times may seem like it has impacted the film, but all mannerisms and seeming odd language is all on purpose. Not only is the film looking at a society from the outside in, which in most cases means certain truths are able to be uncovered by an outsider which is both the main character as well as the writer/director. One of the larger elements that I took away from this movie was the treatment by  small town people on the protagonist of the story for some very personal reasons, those being that I had recently watched the Harry Dean Stanton film “Lucky” (2017) which deals with some of the same issues in very different ways and I have just moved to a very small town in New Zealand where already there are some similarities I can easily identify with.

    The film, as the novel does, is set mainly in 1959, and centres around Florence Green, a middle-aged widow, who decides to open a bookshop in the small coastal town of Hardborough, Suffolk. The location chosen is the Old House, an abandoned, damp house said to be infested by ghosts. After many sacrifices, Florence manages to start her business, which grows for about a year after which sales slump. Mr. Brundish, the lonely and mysterious inhabitant of the house at the top of the hill, is Florence’s best client. The influential and ambitious Mrs. Gamart, wants and intends to set up an arts centre in the Old House.

    There are three central but very different performances in “The Bookshop” by Emily Mortimer, Patricia Clarkson and Bill Nighy, all great character actors from three different generations of actors, at least it would appear that way, but Mortimer and Clarkson are closer in age than you may first think. Personally I always find it hard to go past Nighy as the best thing about any film he appears in, here he plays the elder statesman perfectly, all ticks as well as knowing glances to Florence as well as quiet desperation. As this is a film that relies on mannerisms all three actor’s must portray most of their emotions through non-verbal acting, it is here where they all excel as their own acting experience is vast, in the hands of lessor actors this would be an inferior film indeed. The two supporting actors that rise to the challenge of the material are James Lance as a somewhat antagonist Milo North and young actress Honor Kneafsey who plays Christine a character that belies her size as well as the part she plays in the story. All told the performances in this film match the nature of the material in a way that needs to be seen to be appreciated.

    “The Bookshop” is set in a time where the post war malaise has dissipated, rationing has ceased and the new intelligentsia is making a stab at cultural relevance, not only that but a woman setting up shop in a small town taking on the ruling class of the day as well as the men in the town speak volumes to the main characters ambition and of her grief wanting to relive her previous life as well as having something to remind her of happier times when she was married to the love of her life. It is no accident that two of the main authors named in the film are Ray Bradbury and Vladimir Nabokov. Bradbury was an author that came from a literary background but would ultimately be someone whose work was absorbed into the popular culture and still does with one of his novels being remade into a move this year. Nabakov to was someone who wrote the literary classic ‘Lolita’ (1955) but whose very name is a term used to this very day to describe a kind of girl. This speaks to the larger picture of high culture versus pop culture which in turn informs one of the aspects of the story where an arts centre is wanted by the upper class while a bookshop is centred on by the actual inhabitants of the small village – this is a tension that still exists in terms of cultural capital that is battled for by various groups to this day all over the world.

    There is so much going on within this narrative that it could be talked about for some time, but the small town aspect is forward in my mind and plays ultimately like a horror story or sorts, or at least at times it seems that way. Ultimately the population seem to accept Florence Green’s shop but when the influential and obviously rich and well connected Mrs. Gamart decides to close her shop down almost everyone turns on Florence immediately as they are either scared of Gamart or want to appease her, this is an aspect of small town life that is not only worrisome but has been reflected in a variety of genres and time periods, one of the more extreme could be said to be “The Wicker Man” (1973). However its not all bad news with a film that could be said to be a juxtaposition to this one, and a healthy one at that in the great “Lucky”. Whilst the townsfolk in “The Bookshop” are not only fearful but sheepish the opposite is true in “Lucky” where the townsfolk are not only happy and supportive but are central to the main characters survival as well as acceptance of who he is, thereby making all of their lives richer for the experience. One wonders if the townspeople of “The Bookshop” had have behaved honourably the outcome would have been brighter as well as happier and less destructive.

    Be warned this is not the happiest of stories with some fairly nasty people using as well as being used to castrate the ability of one person to bring as well as find happiness in her own and others’ lives. It paints a dark undercurrent in English life of classism which still exists and has been accentuated by racism. The fear of those involved screams of the right wing, as well as Trumpism, Brexit and any other similar movement. The story illustrates what fear can do to people if they let it in, the ‘other’ in this case is a woman as well as real culture that would transplant the way in which it was possible to reach the masses by side stepping the hegemonic forces that existed in the 1950s. I cannot recommend this film highly enough and you should seek it out in cinemas right now.

    “The Bookshop” is out now only in cinemas.

  • Official Trailer Debut: “The Happytime Murders” (2018)

    Official Trailer Debut: “The Happytime Murders” (2018)

    Official Trailer Debut: “The Happytime Murders” (2018)

    Error
    This video doesn’t exist

    No Sesame. All Street. THE HAPPYTIME MURDERS is a filthy comedy set in the seedy underbelly of Los Angeles where puppets and humans coexist. Two clashing detectives with a shared secret, one human (Melissa McCarthy) and one puppet, are forced to work together again to solve the brutal murders of the former cast of a beloved classic puppet television show.

    THE HAPPYTIME MURDERS is based on an original story by Todd Berger and Dee Robertson; with the screenplay penned by Berger. Brian Henson is the director of the film, whilst Melissa McCarthy will play human lead Connie Edwards.

    THE HAPPYTIME MURDERS releases nationally on 6th September, 2018.

    Happytimemurdersposterbigimg5992

  • Film review: “The Strangers: Prey at Night ” (2018)

    Film review: “The Strangers: Prey at Night ” (2018)

    “The Strangers: Prey at Night ” (2018)

    Thriller/Horror

    3-stars

    Running Time: 85 minutes

    Written by: Bryan Bertino and Ben Ketai

    Directed by: Johannes Roberts

    Featuring: Christina Hendricks, Martin Henderson, Bailee Madison and Lewis Pullman

    Kinsey: “Why are you doing this?”

    Dollface: “Why not?”

    Ever since the original home invasion horror “The Strangers” (2008) burst into cinemas it was a completely unusual as well as original movie, scary as well as eerie as at its heart was the unknown as well as the very real feeling of isolation, two elements that the horror genre lives on from its very beginning to right now. Not only that but the movie was built around the performances of two extremely talented and well-known actors who were possibly at the top of their popularity, Scott Speedman and Liv Tyler. The trick to that movie, if it can be called that was to frame it around a couple who were possibly breaking up after a long relationship, who had just been to a friend’s wedding. So, in a natural way the tension was high from the off, then the writer/director added to the tension with the unknown people terrorizing them for the rest of the movie, for no particular reason – it was an excellent non-supernatural horror movie that has only gotten better with distance.

    It’s hard to imagine why it has taken over ten years for a sequel to be produced, but here we have “The Strangers: Prey at Night” (2018) with a new cast who might not all be well known, but the leads of the movie are two well established character actors in Christina Hendricks and Martin Henderson, who play parents to a brother and sister, once again we have relationships that are in flux but for reasons that are only hinted at in the opening act of the movie. Whilst the first movie felt like a breath of fresh air, as well as timeless, this new sequel arrives in a time where horror is being looked at afresh with so many successes as well as fresh narratives that have not be seen before. Instead of having a mise en scène that seemed to be 70s based this new movie seems to be echoing the 1980s, right from the opening with Kim Wilde’s ‘Kids in America’ (1981), the use of the imagery of the band ‘The Ramones’ as well as a variety of other references, that really set this movie up as something that will be as fresh as the original. In fact the very idea of this movie taking ten years to reach the screens may have been a happy accident as it really has given some natural distance from those events all those years ago.

    “The Strangers: Prey at Night ” is directed by Johannes Roberts who may be familiar as he also directed (and wrote) “The Other Side of the Door” (2016) and “47 Metres Down” (2017) two movies I would not rate as very good genre movies at all, all plot holes as well as tired tropes produced on small budgets who ideas were far better than their actual execution – I would never revisit these or recommend them as worth viewing. What is apparent is that armed with a script by Bryan Bertino and Ben Ketai, Roberts has directed a very good movie that despite many elements counting against it, is a very good horror movie that fits within the genre as well as elevating itself above what could be described as just another slasher movie, particularly in it’s narrative being based around a family in deep dysfunction.

    The film opens with a “Based on True Events” message. In a secluded trailer park, the three masked killers — Dollface, Pin Up Girl, and the Man in the Mask — arrive and park their truck in front of a trailer. Dollface wakes one of the sleeping occupants by banging on the door. When the woman goes to investigate, Dollface kills her off-screen and goes to the bedroom to lie down in bed next to the woman’s sleeping husband.

    Mike and Cindy, their son Luke, and their rebellious daughter, Kinsey, take a family trip to their aunt and uncle’s trailer park to spend time together before Kinsey leaves for boarding school. Cindy calls ahead and leaves a voicemail, informing Uncle Marvin that they are running late. After arriving at the grounds and collecting the keys to their trailer, they settle in and hear a knock at the door. Cindy answers the door to find Dollface – unmasked, but hiding in the shadows. She asks if Tamara is home. Cindy informs her she is at the wrong trailer, and Dollface leaves. As the family sits down to play cards and implores Kinsey to join, Kinsey storms out and Cindy sends Luke after her to try and reach out. As Kinsey and Luke wander around the trailer park, they stumble upon a trailer with the door wide open. Inside, they find their aunt and uncle brutally murdered.

    As with the first movie there are many elements that are at play within “The Strangers: Prey at Night”, one of the major ones is the concept of isolation, not only of the family but the anonymous killers as well as the emotional relationships within that family group. Interestingly the physical isolation of the family is one of the elements that could save them, in that with nothing else to rely on the family will be forced to do anything to fend off the killers – so in isolating the family, the killers in one respect may have woven in their own downfall. Of course the emotional isolationism that exists within the film, that of the daughter separating herself emotionally from her brother and parents is the mirror of that physical isolation which comes into play throughout the movie, she is protecting herself from being sent away, in doing so sets up an extra level of protection from the killers, maybe even in one aspect being as cold as they are. The isolation of the killers motives to their actions is interesting as is the reason this family was ‘chosen’, which of course is random which may be the scariest of all. At least in films like
    “Race with the Devil” (1975) there was a tenuous reason for people to be chased by their unknown assailants, here there is none which makes it all the more frightening.

    The juxtaposition that is used in the movie is interesting as well, there is the comparison of the city at the beginning of the film, which is modern, to the rural area which can be seen as backward or low on technology. This is something that is overlooked in many movies, as it is in real life. The idea of connectivity as well as connectiveness is one that is assumed to be universal but it is becoming apparent that there are the haves and have nots in regard to technology, access to internet as well as being woke as to the climate that we exist in. The killers in the movie are low-fi, able to get into places by seemingly willing it, they do not know or care about the latest thing which is apparent by their garb, all left over from the first movie. This is also a movie that is violent but is in opposition to much of the 80s pop music used within the movie, the most obvious section takes place in a pool that is already loaded with meaning, a place that is normally of joy as is the music, being played over the PA is Bonnie Tyler’s ‘Total Eclipse of the Heart’ (1981), but in this case is a place that is full of violence and loss, something that should not be lost on audiences. When thinking about these aspects it must be said that this is a competently directed movie with some excellent flourishes as well as action that belies Roberts previous work, he also uses music as well as the actual locale to excellent use combiningg music, geography, action and his actors perfectly.

    One of the most important aspects of the movie are the masks the killers wear which distort the wearer’s appearance, causing them to look strange and unusual. Also, these  masks do not feature moving mouths, so when the wearer speaks, the sound appears to come out of nowhere. Wearing these masks changes the wearer’s behaviour. Many people wear masks as part of becoming a character, causing the wearer to act in accordance with that character. Additionally, some people love the freedom that a mask’s anonymity provides. These killers are not only hiding behind these masks but use them to terrorise their victims in a way rarely seen in movies, they are almost like kabuki but with a very Western twist.

    This is a movie that begs to be unpacked, much like its predecessor that at the time was not looked on with much critical love at all. I really liked this movie, it had some great performances, tells its story very quickly as well as maintaining its air of authenticity and creepiness. The slasher sub-genre has gone out of fashion in the past ten years, it is simply not enough for some madman to show up and start murdering teenagers, this is a movie with a story at its heart, one of family, inherent mortality and acceptance which does come at the end, with a caveat as well. If you can seek this out, but I would recommend watching the original first.

    “The Strangers: Prey at Night” is out now in cinemas.

     

     

  • FEATURETTE: “Mowgli” (2018)

    FEATURETTE: “Mowgli” (2018)

    New Featurette: “Mowgli” (2018)

    From the creator of Gollum and Caesar comes a new telling of the story of MOWGLI. See Andy Serkis and an incredible cast bring the jungle to new life:

    Error
    This video doesn’t exist

    The story follows the upbringing of the human child Mowgli, raised by a wolf pack in the jungles of India.  As he learns the often harsh rules of the jungle, under the tutelage of a bear named Baloo and a panther named Bagheera, Mowgli becomes accepted by the animals of the jungle as one of their own. All but one: the fearsome tiger Shere Khan. But there may be greater dangers lurking in the jungle, as Mowgli comes face to face with his human origins.

    MOWGLI features an impressive roster of stars under the direction of Andy Serkis, including Christian Bale as Bagheera, Cate Blanchett as Kaa, Benedict Cumberbatch as Shere Khan, Naomie Harris as Nisha, Andy Serkis as Baloo, Matthew Rhys as Lockwood, Freida Pinto as Messua and Rohan Chand as Mowgli, the boy raised by wolves.

    Rounding out the cast is Peter Mullan, Jack Reynor, Eddie Marsan & Tom Hollander.

    JUNGLE BOOK ORIGINS

  • New Trailer: “Mowgli” (2018)

    New Trailer: “Mowgli” (2018)

    New Trailer: “Mowgli” (2018)

    Error
    This video doesn’t exist

    The story follows the upbringing of the human child Mowgli, raised by a wolf pack in the jungles of India.  As he learns the often harsh rules of the jungle, under the tutelage of a bear named Baloo and a panther named Bagheera, Mowgli becomes accepted by the animals of the jungle as one of their own. All but one: the fearsome tiger Shere Khan. But there may be greater dangers lurking in the jungle, as Mowgli comes face to face with his human origins.

    MOWGLI features an impressive roster of stars under the direction of Andy Serkis, including Christian Bale as Bagheera, Cate Blanchett as Kaa, Benedict Cumberbatch as Shere Khan, Naomie Harris as Nisha, Andy Serkis as Baloo, Matthew Rhys as Lockwood, Freida Pinto as Messua and Rohan Chand as Mowgli, the boy raised by wolves.

    Rounding out the cast is Peter Mullan, Jack Reynor, Eddie Marsan & Tom Hollander.

    JUNGLE BOOK ORIGINS

  • Official Trailer – “Mile 22” (2018)

    Official Trailer – “Mile 22” (2018)

    Official Trailer – “Mile 22” (2018)

    Error
    This video doesn’t exist

    An elite American intelligence officer, aided by a top-secret tactical command unit, tries to smuggle a mysterious police officer with sensitive information out of the country.

    MILE 22 is directed by Peter Berg and stars Mark Wahlberg, Lauren Cohan, Iko Uwais, Ronda Rousey and John Malkovich.

    MILE 22 releases in New Zealand cinemas on August 23, 2018.

  • DVD Review: “Molly’s Game”(2017)

    DVD Review: “Molly’s Game”(2017)

    “Molly’s Game” (2017)

    Drama

    voting-concept-rating-two-golden-stars-d-render-illustration-white-background-60907242

    Running Time: 140 minutes

    Written & Directed by: Aaron Sorkin

    Featuring:  Jessica Chastain, Idris Elba, Kevin Costner, Michael Cera, Brian d’Arcy James, Chris O’Dowd, Bill Camp, Graham Greene, Claire Rankin, Joe Keery, and Jeremy Strong

    Molly Bloom: “I’ll be hosting a game in this suite every Tuesday night. The first buy-in, two hundred and fifty thousand.”

    Disappointment is the word that comes to mind after watching Aaron Sorkin’s directorial debut, “Molly’s Game” (2017) a film that is so unsure of itself and what it wants to be that the writer/director seems to have included just about every kind of plot device possible to make a coherent movie, none of which really come together, making this something that reflects everything that is wrong with Sorkin’s writing. That is the way in which characters communicate between themselves, as well explaining the plot to an audience, just a word of advice Mr. Sorkin, film is a visual medium, if I wanted almost two and a half hours of people talking I would listen to a podcast or audiobook, both would be more original and entertaining than this movie based on the memoir ‘Molly’s Game: From Hollywood’s Elite to Wall Street’s Billionaire Boys Club, My High-Stakes Adventure in the World of Underground Poker’ by Molly Bloom.

    There is no doubt that Aaron Sorkin, at his best, can deliver a great television show like “The West Wing” (1999-2006) or an equally compelling film like “The Social Network” (2010), high minded liberal projects that not only attract great actors but are helmed by even greater producers and directors. Of course when Sorkin himself has control we get “Studio 60 on Sunset Strip” (2006-2007) and “Steve Jobs” (2015) two disappointing projects that both fell in love with dialogue over visuals as well as coolness over substance. Even though they had other directors these two pieces were utter disappointments, which suffer from similar issues to “Molly’s Game”.

    This is the true story of Molly Bloom, a young woman who ran the world’s most exclusive high-stakes poker game in Los Angeles and New York City, for nearly a decade, before being arrested by the FBI. Her players included Hollywood celebrities, athletes, business titans and the Russian mob. With the help of her lawyer, Molly must face federal charges.

    I have no doubt that when actors are offered or are aware that an Aaron Sorkin script is in the offering there must be a queue a mile long, after all if there is even a chance to appear in something that could be a ‘West Wing’ or ‘Social Network’ then you must grab it. That explains how the two leads; Jessica Chastain and Idris Elba are able to come aboard, as well as supporting actors Kevin Costner, Michael Cera, Chris O’Dowd and Graham Greene are cast. Chastain plays the title character of Molly as a vampish raccoon eyed femme fatale who seems to be smarter than everyone, except for the male lead of course, Idris Elba as her lawyer that acts as an audience substitute, who is explained to what is going on in the plot, with a narrative that is so full of flashbacks you will be forgiven for leaving the cinema with a case of whiplash. Both Chastain and Elba have suffered from the same fate in recent years, after bursting onto the scene with some memorable roles they have either had the leads in fairly ordinary as well as forgettable films, or, had flashy supporting roles in good films, but been relegated while the leads get all the glory. With “Molly’s Game” they are playing frankly unbelievable people who every time they want to make a point have to point out some arbitrary metaphor then meander to the point, supplying  voiceover to action that is described then acted out – it is frankly a waste of their talents to ask them to perform these roles in a movie that begs to be directed by someone who knows the craft. The same can be said of the supporting actors who to have to act like characters out of a rat pack film, all too cool and knowing to be treated as real people.

    That brings me to the script as well as the way the film has been structured, edited and shot. This should have been a slam-dunk of a film to direct but somehow Sorkin takes what is on the surface an interesting real life story turning it into a never-ending mess of constant set up, with very little pay off. In fact I struggled to see what the film was attempting to say but was just happy it ended after its marathon like running time. Not only does the main character constantly explain almost every flashback scene in voice over, but then the exact thing she talked about is acted out so we have many aspects of the movie done twice. As if that were not bad enough within each scene everything is painstakingly explained literally as well as in metaphor. Another aspect of the film is the meandering nature of it as well as the multiple sub plots that go nowhere as well as being reexamined at many points throughout the narrative, which lends to the running time of this quasi drama that wishes it were in fact a thriller – which it is not. There is a distinct lack of editorial decision making, firstly in the script, which I shudder to think how long that was, then in the actual edit room where I also do not want to think how long the possible first cut was. At times I found myself asking why certain scenes were present when they obviously should have been cut to streamline the movie into something that is actually compelling.

    While this film is about Molly as a character as well as some kind of cautionary tale, one of the key problems is that there is often talk about the rich and famous but there are no real revelations about who these people were. Not only that there is too much time explaining (literally once again) why these names are not being mentioned which leads to a meta narrative that unfortunately does not work within the confines of this film. I can see it working in a book, but here it just falls victim to the narrative as a pointless endeavor.

    Molly’s Game should have been a very good movie, with performances that could have captured the imagination; instead they are rote as well as staid and boring. When you have Jessica Chastain and Idris Elba the screen should be crackling and the audience transfixed to what is happening, not wondering when will this movie end. Not only that but for a film about poker it may have added to the narrative if Molly actually played the game. There is a section in the movie where the obviousness of her lack of agency exists where the players just decide to play somewhere different thereby negating any power she has. What is interesting about that is that audiences can do the same thing to Sorkin, that is leave and go to a better well thought out and visual film.

    Jessica Chastain and Idris Elba in MOLLY’S GAME
  • Film review: “Dark Crimes” (2018)

    Film review: “Dark Crimes” (2018)

    “Dark Crimes” (2018)

    Thriller

    voting-concept-rating-two-golden-stars-d-render-illustration-white-background-60907242

    Running Time: 92 minutes

    Written by:Jeremy Brock

    Directed by: Alexandros Avranas

    Featuring: Jim Carrey, Agata Kulesza, Charlotte Gainsbourg, Kati Outinen, Zbigniew Zamachowski, and Marton Csokas

    Kozlow: “The river has an end and a beginning.”

     

    There is undoubtedly a dark side to Jim Carrey’s professional and personal persona, which has never been fully explored on film, although he has dabbled in films that have very serious and definite dark corners. “Dark Crimes” (2017) is an attempt by the actor at something very dark, as well as a very original as well as exciting narrative. However this movie has been made with what is a novice writer as well as director so it never really amounts to much for anyone involved, which is a missed opportunity. In fact, this movie reminded me much of the Nicolas Cage starring, Joel Schumacher directed “8mm” (1999) which was made after Cages Oscar win and when Schumacher seemed lost as a director – both men have never really recovered career wise, which is a loss for audiences everywhere. Carrey who has been extremely quiet and absent from movies since the misjudged decision to rekindle earlier success with “Dumb and Dumber To” (2014) has made the decision to almost retire from acting and live a life in retreat so it was with some anticipation that I looked forward to watching this thriller, but it did end up being decidedly average which was a real shame for audiences.

    Early in his career Jim Carey was always unfairly judged on his early career comedy as well as the massive success he had with those movies, so much so that almost any attempt at something serious has always been looked down on by the critical elitists as well as those in Hollywood who thought they were too good for his style. There have been few actors that have reached the giddy heights that Carrey has in terms of a bonafide box office draw, he broke early comedy records before turning his hand to high concept dramas that still made people want to watch him. Even his critical failings such as the recent “Dumb and Dumber To” made a relatively large amount – people still like Jim Carrey and are willing to go to the theatres to see him. Something that can not be said for many of his peers who are nearing their sixties. If there is one thing that Carrey has earned is the right to spread his wings, trying different genres and fail if needs be. His perceived fear of failing could be said to have led to him taking small roles in small movies, just to see if he can operate within tightly resourced movies with inexperienced directors.

    “Dark Crimes” is directed by Alexandros Avranas, a relative filmmaking novice, but someone who has directed a couple of movies in his native homeland of Greece, here he gets to make his English language debut which may explain the lack of narrative coherence as well the difficult relationship the screenplay has to the finished movie. This is also the first time that Avranas has directed someone else’s screenplay, which has been written by Jeremy Brock who is as experienced a screenwriter as there has ever been. Brock has adapted this story from an article by New Yorker writer, David Grann who not only is experienced but other stories of his have been adapted into movies, such as the incredible “The Lost City of Z” (2016) that deserved far more attention than it received on its release. The issues with this film are all around the direction as well as the decisions that have been made in terms of tone as well as how the narrative plays out in relation to the fairly simple plot, which is a shame as the general idea that this movie is based around is actually very good.

    The film follows Tadek who is a detective who takes on a case involving the murder of a businessman. To his and everyone’s surprise the case is identical to a character’s murder in a recently published novel by a man named Kozlow. While the crime appears to be an open and shut case, Tadek discovers a darker secret. This is a secret that like many thrillers dresses itself up as a twist but falls short when the revelation counts.

    The star of this movie is of course Carrey complete with old man beard that he has been sporting for the past few years, it is obvious why he has it here, to disassociate viewers from his face so that there is a separation between comedian and dramatic actor – it does work to an extent, but at times I felt myself looking into the beard, so at times it did become a distraction. Now I have to say that I enjoy watching Carrey, he is a fine actor with an obvious understanding of how to act as well as inhabit a character, which he does here extremely well – as I have said I just thought that he was better than the material or this director. The main supporting actors are the protagonists Charlotte Gainsbourg and Marton Csokas who are both excellent, playing as direct opposites to Carrey. For me it is Csokas, who has been a mainstay of movie bad guys for over two decades, is not only a great character actor but a scene stealer as well, I always find myself transfixed by his performances as well as his endless supply of accents which he seems to have at his disposal. As well as Csokas there is Charlotte Gainsbourg who has proven herself a very capable actor particularly in movies where the narrative is not clear or traditional in the way some audiences might expect, she is also not afraid of any acting challenges, which in a movie like this is very important, as it means there is a tendency to side with her, which may or may not be a mistake.

    My feelings about this movie are mixed, the actual story is very good as well as original, it has a Kafkaesque feel as well as non traditional Hollywood methods to tell this story, that in the hands of a more experienced director might have worked in the narratives favour. However, while this film looks and feels like a dark thriller in the vein of “Seven” (1995), with some flourishes that fit in with the genre, it has a very uneven pace as well as some divergences that feel false as well as exceptionally hollow, not authentic at all. A more experienced director may have been able to take an objective view of the screenplay, challenging some of the basic parts as well as decisions to come up with something more original as well as gripping. It seems on the surface that the power within the production would have been with Jim Carrey and the screenwriter who are as about as experienced as you can get, not only that they are also A-list talent who are able to hold sway over the production, it may also explain why the director has returned to his homeland for his next film.

    That is not to say that this is a terrible movie or unwatchable, but for a movie with a running time of ninety minutes it will seem like a much longer experience which is definitely not something that should occur. The best movies are those that fly by, no matter the running time, the narrative should be original enough that an audience should be curious about not only what happens next but how threads relate to each other as well as coming together to form the plot. The reason that this is worth watching is that the pedigree behind this movie is just fantastic, it is based on a very good article as well as being written and adapted by two great writers, if you stick through the movie you will be surprised by the general story as well the confrontational ending that may even surprise you.

  • Film review: “Lucky” (2017)

    Film review: “Lucky” (2017)

    “Lucky” (2017)

    Drama

    images

    Running Time: 90 minutes

    Written by: Logan Sparks and Drago Sumonja

    Directed by: John Carroll Lynch

    Featuring: Harry Dean Stanton, David Lynch, Ron Livingston, Ed Begley Jr. and Tom Skerritt

    Lucky: “It’s all going to go away. You, you, you, you, me, this cigarette, everything… into blackness, the void. And nobody’s in charge, and you’re left with… ungatz.”

    Elaine: “And what do you do with that?”

    Howard: “What do you do with that?”

    Lucky: “You smile.”

    If there was one thing I loved watching it was Harry Dean Stanton onscreen, he was as honest an actor as there ever was or will ever be in this world. For me, like many, the first time I remember watching him was as the hardy if mono syllabic mechanic in “Alien” (1979), when by then he could have been considered in his midlife, perhaps past ‘it’, in fact he was fifty-three, a time when many actors are in the last throes of a long career. For Stanton the best was yet to come as he would have some of his best and most memorable roles to come. He would appear in some of the greatest and most original director’s films of the following four decades, one of his best in Wim Wenders classic “Paris, Texas” (1984). So, it is fitting that his final performance should be the lead in a movie not only about mortality, but friendship in his final great character, Lucky, surely this can be no coincidence – his own truth shines in this great role.

    Of course, the other undeniable fact is that the casting of Stanton is no accident in that this great character actor has been cast by another, in first time director John Carroll Lynch a mainstay of film in all genres, who is the same age Stanton was in that timeless horror movie. It is obvious that Lynch recognizes that Stanton who is a singular talent was the only choice to play Lucky a man at the end of life who is looked on fondly with love by a small knowing community, something both actor and character have in common – this is a thoughtful, touching movie that never descends into cheap emotion or melancholy, something that a first-time director might look to for a shortcut to emotion. That cheapness was never Stanton’s way, it appears that Lynch may be cut from the same cloth.

    “Lucky” directed by first timer John Carroll Lynch who is better known and more recognizable as an actor may seem like an odd choice for this subtle screenplay by Logan Sparks and Drago Sumonja, but in fact like many first-time actors turned directors he has been on so many sets with directing legends that he has been able to make this those sets his unofficial film school. It is not just the fact that he has been on a number of sets but Lynch has also been able to cover a number of genres as well as mediums which means he has seen and heard experiences from a wide variety of people in front of, as well as behind the camera. Not only that but as a leading character actor he has the ability to play many parts which lends to the fact that he is able to absorb what is occurring around him – a strength to be sure. With all this taken into account along with the fact that he has appeared in films with a wide range of budgets from independents with no money to big studio movies where budgets can be enormous he knows how to make a dime stretch which he must have here. Finally he is able to being together some true legends such as  Ed Begley Jr.and Tom Skerritt as well as up and coming (compared to the rest of the cast) character actors like Ron Livingston, you get a pretty special film, one that in spirit could be compared to David Lynch’s “The Straight Story” (1999) – that film had a Stanton cameo that was a treat indeed.

    The movie tells the story of Lucky a 90-year-old atheist and his struggle against encroaching old age. The film depicts his coming to terms with his own mortality, as he searches for enlightenment in his final days.

    This movie is all about mood and performance pure and simple, with of course the weight being borne by Stanton with his famous gruff no nonsense attitude as well as the feelings that he emotes from an audience when they realize as he does that his time on this Earth is limited, with interactions now being rare and cherished by those around him. The supporting cast of Ron Livingston, Ed Begley Jr.and Tom Skerritt are all perfect with various generations being represented that all have their own history with Hollywood as well as all being incredibly talented actors, give up the limelight so that their costar can take center stage and shine like few times before in his long career. These kind of independent films are made by those actors willing to not only sign on for little or no money, but they use their experience to flesh out the characters that they will play to such an extent as to give the film another dimension not seen by screenwriter or director before and during production, when you are able to cast actors of such expertise that is exactly what you get – this film is all the better for it. Sometimes these performances are found in the edit, I have to imagine Lynch must have been a very happy man when he started viewing the footage.

    The center of the film belongs to Stanton, it is here where Lynch allows him to shine with the performance of a song that means more as time rolls by, in Lucky’s life, as well as the life of the song, finally with the life it is celebrating. Those that have seen the exceptionally good documentary “Harry Dean Stanton: Partly Fiction” (2012) will not be surprised by his musical skill, although within that narrative you learn as much about him in this movie that you did in that documentary. But like that documentary it is not the story that is the important part, it is the journey, and in “Lucky” we are let in on the last days of a man whose past is a mystery, but does that matter? The narrative and plot would seem an afterthought, as we all get to know a man that has lived a life but enjoys his own routine in his very old age – he is living the life he has chosen and will meet his end on his terms not others, expectations do not matter to him one iota.

    This was not planned as Stanton’s last film, in fact there is one more coming, but this is a fitting tribute to the man who touched so many audiences with his dry wit, his humanity as well as his talent that was evident in all his performances whether he apperared onscreen for a long time, or not. Stanton was a man who knew all the cool people, he was one himself of course, he hung out with Newman, Lynch, Shepard, Kristofferson, Harry and many more on his terms, he was a master at understated performances always holding something back, with a knowing look in his eyes. I feel sad that I will not see him in any new films, but I feel lucky to have known who he was and to be introduced to him because of an Alien, I feel luckier still to have seen this last performance, any viewer should.

    “Lucky” will screen at the New Zealand International Film festival 2018.

     

  • Film review: “Deadpool 2” (2018)

    Film review: “Deadpool 2” (2018)

    “Deadpool 2” (2018)

    Action

    images

    Written by: Rhett Reese & Paul Wernick and Ryan Reynolds

    Directed by: David Leitch

    Featuring: Ryan Reynolds,  Josh Brolin, Morena Baccarin, Julian Dennison, Zazie Beetz, T.J. Miller, Brianna Hildebrand, and Jack Kesy

    Deadpool: “Sorry, I’m late. I was rounding up all the gluten in the world and launching it into space where it can’t not hurt us ever again.”

    Here we are after the undisputed success of “Deadpool” (2016) this time two years ago, there was never a doubt that a sequel would be produced to cash in on what was a tough road to the screen for the self-titled ‘merc with a mouth’. The perfect combination of R rated violence, humor and action was something sorely missing in comic book movies to that point – it could have been said to have filled a niche with it’s over the top everything. Not only that but its main champion writer/producer/ star Ryan Reynolds who after years of trying to be an A lister was, before this breakthrough, being shown the door to ignominy. In fact, the first movie was not even on studio Fox’s’ radar until test footage was leaked that gave a taste of the possibility of what “Deadpool” could be – the rest is history, on a modest US$58 million budget managed to not only set the record for the opening R rated weekend box office but generated over US$750 million worldwide. “Deadpool” also led to the possibility of other serious R rated comic book movies being produced which now seems like a no-brainer but until this time it was thought to be commercially unviable.

    After a few false starts, the main one being the jettisoning of original director Tim Miller for “John Wick” (2014) and “Atomic Blonde” (2017) director David Leitch, this new movie arrives fully formed as well as being a very good sequel,  and compliment to the first – audiences will be pleased with the ramped-up action, characters as well as fourth wall breaking humor while sidestepping the issues of success, as the budget for this movie is still modest by Hollywood comic book standards. I have to be honest that when I heard that Leitch had replaced Miller as director my heart had sunk as his first solo outing “Atomic Blonde” was not close to being a movie I thought was good, in fact while the action was acceptable, the narrative was wholly unoriginal as well as being sparse. However, given that both Deadpool movies are light on story but heavy on action it seems any issues with director are going to be on the back burner, for now anyway.

    This time around Deadpool forms a team of mutants called the X-Force to protect young mutant Russell from the time-traveling soldier Cable. That’s pretty much the story, the complications arise with the interaction of our titular hero with almost everyone else in the movie, so it’s basically a pretty familiar plot with the twist that no-one really likes the hero and the fact that it plays much more comedy than anything else.

    There is no doubt that both Deadpool movies are driven by Ryan Reynolds who has taken it on himself to not only be the face of the franchise (yes, I know he wears a mask) but will seemingly shy away from nothing to remind everyone who the hero is as well as what kind of movie he is making. It may seem like his efforts are tireless but after two failed goes at superheroes as well as a few other franchises Reynolds recognizes what he has, that it may not last long so he had better make hay while the sun shines. To his credit he carries out everything Deadpool related with as much originality as he can, no one is safe from his humor, no star, studio or property which in the days of trying not to be offensive, he is a welcome relief. This new instalment may not have the cutting wit of the first but it still manages to bait and switch many characters and storylines in under two hours.

    What the filmmakers have done with this new movie is to expand the cast as well as bringing a character that many readers will recognize from marvel lore, not only that but he is a major part of the Marvel Comic book Universe, that being the time travelling mutant, Cable, played here by Josh Brolin who is perfectly cast as the movies central antagonist. The definite new star of the movie is Brolin who seems like perfect casting as the gruff Cable who really does steal the movie, as he has already done this year as Thanos, in fact as he does in almost all of his performances – he plays off Reynolds like a master, in fact this is more like a buddy comedy movie than anything else which is where it succeeds over the first instalment. Returning after the first movie are Morena Baccarin, T.J. Miller and Brianna Hildebrand who all serve very different purposes as girlfriend, comedy counterpart and a link to the X-Men which are always made fun of. While I enjoy Baccarin I can see that she may have a been a character to hold Deadpool back, as for Miller he is having issues of his own so he will not be back for a third. As for Hildebrand who was dynamite in the first film as well as featuring in the second season of “The Exorcist” television show, here she has grown more assured and is a bright spot among bright spots, I hope she returns for a third film or even a possible X-Force movie. The newcomers include Julian Dennison, Zazie Beetz, and Jack Kesy who all add so much, along with Brolin, but of the three it is Beetz who has spent a few years in small roles grabs the reins and runs with the best character in the movie besides the titular hero. Beetz as Domino is as much fun as Deadpool who has a super power just as odd, she has great lines and at times is a co-lead as capable as Deadpool himself – I hope she returns for any sequel or spinoff.

    One of the major strengths of the first movie was the humor which is on full display here with the breaking of the fourth wall to address the audience as well as to make comments on not only the incestuous nature of hero films but of the repetitive nature that all audiences have to recognize by now. Deadpool the movie and characters are all about trying to subvert expectations so it is with great relish we see “Hunt for the Wilderpeople” (2016) star Julian Denison here as a young mutant as well as the maguffin of the piece, he has a natural wit that fits in well with Reynolds and compatriots as well as again not being the typical ‘kid’ in a movie as the annoying brat that is more the norm in Hollywood movies. This all goes back to the humor as well as commentary that is to be made which is done by Reynolds himself who for the most part speaks from experience having been through the mill himself, as a young and now a middle aged actor.

    My only concern is with director David Leitch who on the surface may seem like a good fit but obviously has a hard time understanding the difference between plot and narrative as well as how to seamlessly fit these two elements together while maintaining the action as well as the edge to the movie, this was something Tim Miller from the first movie was able to do, his absence in my mind is all too noticeable. The problems that befell Leitch’s first solo outing “Atomic Blonde” are all to visible here, what makes for a great stunt co-ordinator may not make for a good director.

    If you enjoyed the first movie then this will be right up your alley, it moves the story along as much as possible and also lays some groundwork for a spinoff or direct sequel. It is apparent Reynolds has as much fun playing the part as audiences do going along to see him. This is that rare sequel that raises the bar delivering what should be one of the blockbusters of this year.

    “Deadpool 2” is out now only in cinemas.