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.
  • “Tomb Raider” (2018) – Official Trailer

    “Tomb Raider” (2018) – Official Trailer

    Lara Croft is the fiercely independent daughter of an eccentric adventurer who vanished when she was scarcely a teen. Now a young woman of 21 without any real focus or purpose, Lara navigates the chaotic streets of trendy East London as a bike courier, barely making the rent, and takes college courses, rarely making it to class. Determined to forge her own path, she refuses to take the reins of her father’s global empire just as staunchly as she rejects the idea that he’s truly gone. Advised to face the facts and move forward after seven years without him, even Lara can’t understand what drives her to finally solve the puzzle of his mysterious death.
    Going explicitly against his final wishes, she leaves everything she knows behind in search of her dad’s last-known destination: a fabled tomb on a mythical island that might be somewhere off the coast of Japan. But her mission will not be an easy one; just reaching the island will be extremely treacherous. Suddenly, the stakes couldn’t be higher for Lara, who—against the odds and armed with only her sharp mind, blind faith and inherently stubborn spirit—must learn to push herself beyond her limits as she journeys into the unknown. If she survives this perilous adventure, it could be the making of her, earning her the name tomb raider.

    TOMB RAIDER is directed by Roar Uthaug and stars Oscar winner Alicia Vikander in the lead role, Dominic West, Walton Goggins and Daniel Wu.

    TOMB RAIDER releases in New Zealand cinemas on March 15, 2018.

    Error
    This video doesn’t exist
  • DVD & Blu-ray review: “Ken Burns’ The War” (2007)

    DVD & Blu-ray review: “Ken Burns’ The War” (2007)

    “Ken Burns’ The War” (2007)

    TV Series/Documentary

    Episodes: Seven

    Created by:  Ken Burns and Lynn Novick

    Featuring: Adam Arkin, Tom Hanks, Keith David, Samuel L. Jackson, Josh Lucas, Bobby Cannavale and Eli Wallach

    Ken Burns: “I think that the overwhelming deciding factor to create THE WAR was the knowledge that we were losing 1,000 veterans each day in the United States — this is a loss of tangible memory that I just couldn’t countenance as a historical filmmaker. I also fear that we as a nation are losing our historical compass. Many Americans are not demonstrating a grasp of the nation’s history and that was a motivating factor as well.”

    If you don’t know who Ken Burns is then you are missing out on an entire genre of television documentaries that are all almost second to none. The sheer amount and breadth of these documentaries is immense, using some of the most ground breaking techniques as well as being exhaustively researched they are all extremely entertaining. It used to be that Burns (with partner Lynn Novick) used to produce the very best long form documentaries around, but with the advent of reality television, binge watching, crime shows and many other innovations, as well as new formats, Burns style has suffered from comparison to these. The other factor which has increasingly become apparent is that they also border on being too nostalgic. What is interesting is that this series, “The War”, only borders on the nostalgic but never crosses the line, which in itself is a relief as it makes a difference from Burns other work.

    In “The War” Burns creates a picture of a time when the world was simpler, as well as portraying this world on an extremely personal level. This illustrates how ‘normal’ families were treating the War as well the what to befall not only them but there hometowns.

    The film focuses on World War II in a “bottom up” fashion through the lenses of four “quintessentially American towns” – Luverne, Minnesota; Mobile, Alabama; Sacramento, California and Waterbury, Connecticut

    The documentary does scream of jingoism, as well as flag waving, offering an experience that only the Americans could love. Even though this is ten years old and was produced during the Bush administration, you may be forgiven for thinking this was created this year during the Trump Presidency. It is quite a shame that the image that is produced by this series is that of the savior, something I think the US really lives off as they currently steer the world toward a precipice against any number of ‘enemies’.

     

    “The War” doesn’t care about allies or enemies, there are no cutaways to anyone else’s wartime experience, but that is not a fault, it is by design. In its over 14 hour running time there are many stories as well as described experiences, there is a reliance on the personal as opposed to the rigid history lesson one might expect, but that once again is Burns style. Its not, however, style over substance, but there is a lot of emotion that sometimes does not have any concrete conclusion. Which, from a metaphorical view is fine as when the war ended it was not over for many people, in fact families faced lifetimes of grief as well as loss from the period the US were involved in the conflict.

    What was really enjoyable about this series was that is not something you might find on the ‘History Channel’ or in a formal documentary series. This show is all about the people on the ground, something an observer like Mike Moore might do for current times. What Burns does is to have first hand interviews with people that were at the places of action or more socially conscious historians with a smattering of other observers thrown in to make the entire endeavor feel emotive. What this does is to make the entire subject stay with the viewer for some time as well as having a much larger impact. You can imagine your family going through something like what these subjects have gone through and pose questions about your own morality, strength as well as what it means to defend others rights.

    That’s why when viewing this re-release of “The War” I cannot help think about how times have changed as well as how they haven’t. At the time of World War II the US was almost isolationist not wanting to involve itself in what was happening outside its borders. After the war however the US became a big player on the international stage involving itself in numerous wars with smaller countries, losing every time and making the world a much worse of place. They then decided to influence governments making messes along the way, leading us to situation we find ourselves in now. I think many people could learn a thing or two as well as get in touch with their humanity by watching even half of this series.

    This as well as many other Ken Burns series should be a part of any household. It is true that they are American centric but there are many universal truths about what Burns is trying to say as well as promote. Go and get this now!

     

  • “The Lego Ninjago Movie” (2017): Kicks & Bricks: Making The LEGO NINJAGO Movie

    “The Lego Ninjago Movie” (2017): Kicks & Bricks: Making The LEGO NINJAGO Movie

    In this big-screen NINJAGO adventure, the battle for NINJAGO City calls to action young Master Builder Lloyd, aka the Green Ninja, along with his friends, who are all secret ninja warriors. Led by Master Wu, as wise-cracking as he is wise, they must defeat evil warlord Garmadon, The Worst Guy Ever, who also happens to be Lloyd’s dad. Pitting mech against mech and father against son, the epic showdown will test this fierce but undisciplined team of modern-day ninjas, who must learn to check their egos and pull together to unleash their inner power.

    THE LEGO NINJAGO MOVIE is directed by Charlie Bean, Paul Fisher and Bob Logan and stars Dave Franco, Justin Theroux, Fred Armisen, Abbi Jacobson, Olivia Munn, Kumail Nanjiani, Michael Peña, Zach Woods, and the legendary Jackie Chan.

    Error
    This video doesn’t exist
  • “All the Money in the World” (2018) – Official Trailer

    “All the Money in the World” (2018) – Official Trailer

    Rome, 1973. Masked men kidnap a teenage boy named Paul. His grandfather, J. Paul Getty, is the richest man in the world, a billionaire oil magnate, but he’s notoriously miserly. His favorite grandson’s abduction is not reason enough for him to part with any of his fortune. All the Money in the World follows Gail, Paul’s devoted, strong-willed mother, who unlike Getty, has consistently chosen her children over his fortune. Her son’s life in the balance with time running out, she attempts to sway Getty even as her son’s mob captors become increasingly more determined, volatile and brutal. When Getty sends his enigmatic security man Fletcher Chace to look after his interests, he and Gail become unlikely allies in this race against time that ultimately reveals the true and lasting value of love over money.

    “ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD” was directed by Ridley Scott. The film stars Michelle Williams, Kevin Spacey, Mark Wahlberg, Romain Duris, Charlie Plummer.

    ALL THE MONEY IN THE WORLD releases in New Zealand cinemas on January 4, 2018.

    Error
    This video doesn’t exist
  • DVD & Blu-ray review: “Wonder Woman” (2017)

    DVD & Blu-ray review: “Wonder Woman” (2017)

    “Wonder Woman” (2017)

    Thriller/Action

    3-stars

    Running Time: 141 minutes

    Written by: Allan Heinberg

    Directed by: Patty Jenkins,

    Featuring: Gal Gadot, Chris Pine, Robin Wright, Danny Huston, David Thewlis, Connie Nielsen and Elena Anaya

    Diana Prince: “The gods made the Amazons to restore peace to the world, and it’s what I’m going to do.”

    Possibly one of the most anticipated super hero movies in recent history has arrived in the form of the Patty Jenkins directed, Gal Gadot starring “Wonder Woman” (2017), an Amazonian warrior who after years of training, shunning the world of ‘man’, is drawn into World War I by the wayward stumbling of soldier and deferring to the men Steve Trevor. If you have been following Wonder Woman’s journey to the big screen you will know that she first appeared in the terrible Zack Snyder directed “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice” (2016) where she stole the show with her kick ass attitude and not deferring to the men – she got on with showing off almost all of her tools, the shield, the sword, the lasso, those bracelet’s and of course her battle hardiness. Now as every good super hero as well as possible new franchise needs is an origin story, not just any story but a great one – something Warner Bros./DC has finally learnt from Marvel. As with any good origin story this one is built around a solid character, with some moral unrest as well as a few friends to help out where needed. What also helps is a director that can handle a huge budget as well as the expectations from the studio and audience alike. What we get is a very mixed bag with a film that starts strong then plot contrivances combined a with a very weak as well as confusing third act lets this film down but is still a great ride.

    This movie ended up breaking many box office records and director Patty Jenkins has closed a deal to return for the sequel, becoming the highest paid female director ever. Now that “Wonder Woman” has come out on home release there is talk that Warner Brothers will seriously push it for some Oscar consideration. Speaking of Warner Brothers, after this and the recent horror hit “IT” (2017) they are having a great year both at the box office as well as critically.

    Before she was Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot), she was Diana, princess of the Amazons, trained to be an unconquerable warrior. Raised on a sheltered island paradise, Diana meets an American pilot (Chris Pine) who tells her about the massive conflict that’s raging in the outside world. Convinced that she can stop the threat, Diana leaves her home for the first time. Fighting alongside men in a war to end all wars, she finally discovers her full powers and true destiny.

    For me the first question that had to be answered was all to do with the director, that is, the hiring of a relative newcomer to direct what is potentially the blockbuster of the year as well the re-launching after a much publicized failure (thanks Zack Snyder) in 2016. I am happy to say that Patty Jenkins has done an outstanding job given all the inherent limitations as well as having a huge studio hovering in the background. It has been pretty obvious in the press as well as the marketing that Jenkins and star Gal Gadot have been on the same page right from the jump. Seeing a hero that is based in Greek mythology brought to life in three dimensions as well as it being done so competently is a real gift for audiences, one I hope they embrace with open arms. This film was always going to be directed by a woman, Warner Bros. had to beat Marvel at something and if they are unable to do so with the product or success, they at least could be first at something – having the first female led superhero movie as well as having a woman direct what is probably one of the largest budgeted superhero movie’s is a start. I think it is unfortunate that we do live in an age where this is seen as a step forward but women have been systemically cut out of this process.

    The next step to get right was the casting and when Gal Gadot was cast as Wonder Woman for her debut many people had no clue who she was. However with a super strong marketing campaign as well as a few “Fast and Furious” films under her belt the public quickly became aware who was playing the Amazonian Princess – in fact this is a role if handled correctly could be the answer for Warner Bros. to have a face for the DC Universe that is 100% unique as well as being one of the three pillars of the DC Universe – giving those tired old warhorses Batman and Superman a well deserved break – is it me or are those two so last century. Gadot has embraced this character so well that she shines onscreen and even though the story may seem a little rehearsed, overblown and at times just like any other superhero origin, particularly a DC one – how can they still not get their endings right? Have you seen “Guardian’s of the Galaxy: Volume 2” (2017)? She seems above it all and able to handle anything.

    The other two standouts for me are Chris Pine (Steve Trevor) and Lucy Davis (Etta Candy) – I was not sure how I would feel about seeing these two characters brought to life but like all great actors Pine and Davis are fully invested. I was invigorated to see Chris Pine take this role, as was it a sidekick role that has the job of showing Diana the ropes, so to speak. But Pine with his own franchise and after his own turn in last years excellent “Hell or High Water” (2016) it is obvious that this role required something special and real, so Pine is your man. After years of playing characters such as Dawn in the original “The Office” (2001 – 2003), Dianne in “Shaun of the Dead” (2004) and Emily in “Maron” (2015 – 2016) it is deserving she play Wonder Woman’s number 2 in the amazing Etta Candy – straight from the comics, she plays her wonderfully and threatens to steal the movie.

    It was with some relief when I found the story shifting from Paradise Island to the ‘modern’ world that this was going to be set during World War I. The relief came from the fact that we were not going to be subjected to World War II and all the tropes that go along with it. In my mind it always seems to be a lazy way to move the plot as well as establishing a narrative as almost any fantasy or comic book film will use the Nazis as the ‘bad guys’ thereby negating the need to build three dimensional antagonists. With “Wonder Woman” however there was a need to establish a villain, the standout being Elena Anaya as Dr. Poison who I found to be extremely compelling and original, for a comic book villain that is. Unfortuabltey the same cannot be said of Danny Hustons whose idea of seeming evil is ywllng, a lot, as well as having no clue about what his motivations are, expet he is bad and just has to kill everyone else – really? That’s a villain in 2017, all he was missing was a moustache to twirl. However and no spoilers give it was about to get worse.

    Once again we see with these high priced and still overblown superhero movies a massive reliance on CGI, which of course is the case with “Wonder Woman”, the difference with the better films is that this use of special effects is combined with great characters as well as interesting action moments that serve as one scene or moment. It could be with Jenkins background in independent movies, she directed Charlize Theron to a best actress Oscar for her only previous movie the serial killer biography “Monster” (2003), that she is able to take character first building around that to give a complete moment. Of course there are still third act issues with the big showdown that we have come to expect, but it is saved by the Gadot doing what she does best in with the character that is to stand up and not look back.

    Unfortunately it has to be said the entire movie is ultimately let down by the ending as well as a final battle which I thought had ended with something akin to previous Marvel film. I also thought it was going to be a smarter ending which was hinted at in regard to the war, our place as humans in conflict and the fact that there is no easy answer. Boy was I ever wrong, it the film took a left turn, and suddenly I felt I was back at the end of “Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice” – what a nightmare, please get me out. It was such a shame to see a film let me down this much.

    I will not go into any real plot details as this movie is better left as a surprise even though the trailers have given away a few of the key points which is par for the course these days but this is a movie definitely worth seeing on the big screen and for my mind without a second watch is still in the top 15 comic book films produced to date. It is a true relasation of a property (again with a painful third act) that has gone through some turmoil over the past ten years with issues from medium, to directors, to writers to who would play the main part. But “Wonder Woman” is a fantastic watch for all ages and both genders, you should really have as part of any good library. We should be thankful to have a Wonder Woman finally come to life.

    “Wonder Woman” is out now on DVD and Blu-ray.

    Special Features:

    • Epilogue: Etta’s Mission – Etta Candy gets the boys back together for a secret mission that could impact humanity’s future.
    • Crafting the Wonder – Wonder Woman finally comes to life in her first, breathtaking solo film. Explore the journey to create an adventure worthy of DC’s greatest warrior.
    • Warriors of Wonder Woman – Witness the creation of the Amazon army as the women of “Wonder Woman” transform emotionally and physically into the world’s most powerful and heroic warriors.
    • The Trinity – Filmmakers and comic book creators explore the legend of Wonder Woman and how she stands shoulder to shoulder with Superman and Batman to create the pillars of the DC Universe.
    • The Wonder Behind the Camera – Meet the women behind the wonder as they welcome a group of aspiring filmmakers on set for an exclusive, once-in-a-lifetime experience.
    • Finding the Wonder Woman Within – Feel the power of Wonder Woman as award-winning poets and inspiring public figures reveal the impact and importance of DC’s greatest heroine.
    • Extended Scenes
    • Blooper Reel
  • DVD review: “The Frozen Dead” (2017)

    DVD review: “The Frozen Dead” (2017)

    “The Frozen Dead” (2017)

    TV Series/Drama/Thriller

    images

    Episodes: Six

    Created by: Gérard Carré , Pascal Chaumeil and Caroline Van Ruymbeke

    Featuring: Charles Berling,  Julia Piaton,  Pascal Greggory

    It is fair to say that television crime dramas, in particular foreign language crime dramas are now a dime a dozen, they exist in almost every language covering a variety of normally brutal and heinous crimes. These international television shows seemed to begin with the Nordic Noir genre that started with the excellent “The Killing” (2007-2012) from Denmark which itself was re-made in the US as a hit there. What followed was a myriad of not only crime, but political stories primarily from those Nordic countries that attempted to originate new stories as well as sympathetic flawed people who were only one step behind their quarries. These whodunits spread throughout the world expanding beyond their origins with many variations on a theme, one of the most successful English language versions being “Broadchurch” (2013 -2017) from the UK featuring David Tennant and Olivia Coleman.

    What all of these shows have in common in terms of plot and narrative is rather simple, with most of them obviously created with an ending in mind, sometimes that ending (as well as revelation) can be shocking enough to come out of left field where no viewer may expect the story to end up. The other thing that these narratives have in common is an almost endless supply of red herrings that keep an audience guessing throughout what can seem like an endless amount of episodes. As a viewer i find not only the amount of episodes as well as the endless amount of suspects exceedingly frustrating.

    Now comes the latest in this tradition, this time from France with a show that has as its backdrop the beautiful Pyrenees Mountains which become a character using the isolation of an area unlike many other similar shows. “The Frozen Dead” (originally titled  “Glacé”) broadcast in France in January 2017 is different to many of the genre shows around, it is only six episodes and the landscape is amazing, there are seemingly parallel storylines which make sense and are linked as are the performances which are superb.

    “The Frozen Ground” (2017) is set in the Pyrenees where the corpse of a headless horse is discovered 2,000 meters up a mountain strung up atop a cable car. The investigation is entrusted to Captains Martin Servaz of the SRPJ of Toulouse and Irène Ziegler of the National Gendarmerie . Not far from here, young psychiatrist Diane Berg begins psychotherapy sessions with Julian Hirtmann, a dangerous serial killer arrested years ago by Captain Servaz and now incarcerated in a high security prison.

    The story itself does not lend itself to a deep description here as that would only lead to spoilers, this show is definitely more enjoyable by not knowing what is going to happen next, as well as what the relationships between all the major as well as the minor characters are at the beginning of the story.

    This show is expertly directed by Laurent Herbiet as well as being beautifully photographed by Dominique Bouilleret who both use the geographic location of the Pyrenees, as not only a unique backdrop for the action but also incorporate it as a character to visually show the audience the kind of isolation that each of the separate characters are going through as they progress through the main story as well their own separate narratives. Herbiet really does know this story, which is reflected in the tight storytelling as well as the time that is given over to not only each character, but also their importance within the narrative, which is linked directly to the plot. This last point may seem self evident but it is a consistent weakness with many other crime dramas, they can get lost within their own story as well the meaning that story has in relation to the actions that they take.

    As well as the characters being spot on, the cast has been chosen very well, Charles Berling as the main protaganist, Martin Servaz becomes increasingly sick as the story unfolds, with the realisation that the motivation of the protagonists starts coming together. The second lead is Julia Piaton as Irène Ziegler whose motivations and background become more relevant and apparent as she works her way through what starts as a simple animal death. Piaton and Berling work together as a one two punch as well as any onscreen partnership ever has. On the other side of the story we have the mesmerizing as well as menacing Pascal Greggory as serial killer and somewhat mentor Julian Alois Hirtmann who operates almost entirely from two rooms in an asylum – he acts with such limited physical support that you would forgive him for being one note, but trust me he isn’t, he offers such a well rounded performance you will be wondering what his motivations are right to the end. Finally, the rest of the supporting cast are all great, with varying performances that change a lot right from the first episode to the last without a hint of insincerity or shenanigans by the writers of the series. For me I must say I always find it a real refreshing feeling to see actors I have never seen before especially when they are in a project this good.

    The writing on this show is actually one its top strengths which may seem obvious but in fact by time something this complex gets to the screen the heart of it can be removed by over zealous producers and directors, but that is not the case here. This has as I have said greta characters but it also has them making honest decisions, in particular the son of one of the suspects has some incredibly hard things to come to terms with, and i think his performance for me is the most real as is the conclusion he comes to – that is all down to the decision made by the writers.

    As I have already stated this is a really good crime series with very little in the way of false leads or starts, it ratchets up the thriller aspects while never coming up short on plot elements that propel the story along, at times very quickly. It also creates space for real character moments that ring true not only to the story but to each of the characters that they interact with. As with any modern crime story the ‘heroes’ are flawed but find their way through life by clinging (desperately sometimes) to positive aspects of life whereas the similarly flawed ‘villains’ are almost nihilistic in nature, illustrating there is indeed a thin line between the good and the bad. This is a show that is easily re-watchable, unlike other genre shows due to its fast pace and relatively short episodes both the number and length. I recommend this highly not only to watch but is well worth the investment to own a copy.

    “The Frozen Dead” is available now on Netflix

    Charles BERLING
  • DVD review: “Personal Shopper” (2017)

    DVD review: “Personal Shopper” (2017)

    “Personal Shopper” (2016)

    Drama

    5stars_small

    Running Time: 110 minutes

    Written & Directed by: Olivier Assayas

    Featuring: Kristen Stewart, Lars Eidinger, Sigrid Bouaziz, Anders Danielsen Lie, Ty Olwin, Hammou Graia, Nora von Waldstatten, Benjamin Biglay, Audrey Bonnet and Pascal Rambert

    Maureen: “My twin brother, Louis, died here. It’s been 95 days. We made this oath. Whoever died first would send the other a sign.”

    It has been five years since Kristen Stewart completed the teen vampire/ werewolf movies in the five film ‘Twilight’ series, adapted from Stephanie Meyer’s best selling books. It would be incorrect to say this was Stewart’s big break – that came in 2002 playing Jodie Fosters diabetic daughter in David Fincher’s “Panic Room”. From that 2002 film until 2008 when “Twilight” was released she had been making waves in mostly independent films. However, where she once was a young woman with acting talent, we are now witnessing the talent promised for so long in two of her better films, the 2014 “Clouds of Sils Maria” and the release this week in New Zealand of “Personal Shopper” (2016), both written and directed expertly by Frenchman Olivier Assayas.

    “Personal Shopper” revolves around Maureen, a personal shopper, who serves wealthy clients in major cities, buying clothes and accessories, and taking care of mundane chores. She lives in Paris but travels to London and other cities for her employment. Her fraternal twin and brother has recently died; they both had a similar genetic heart problem, as well as this they both believed they had connections to the spirit world, her brother more than she.

    Opening the film, Maureen stays over at her late brother’s house, hoping he will reach her beyond death. His significant other Lara wants to sell the house, and buyers want to know it is free of unhappy spirits. The film suggests what she sees and reacts to, including a series of knowing texts received even while she is on a train to and during her time in London, from “Unknown”. She believes she is in touch with ghosts.

    This film really suits Stewart and what has become her signature acting style, as such she is suited for this role like no other at the same age. Stewart, at the age of only twenty-seven is amassing a nice oeuvre of work like no other, except for maybe Jennifer Lawrence – although the fact that Stewart has spread her wings well as working with many Europeans in Europe says a lot about the kind of actress she is choosing to become. In saying that Stewart does not have to chase a payday, as the residuals from the ‘Twilight’ films will keep her in the black for the rest of her life – which must be a nice luxury.

    Stewart’s Maureen is a woman who is facing a crisis as well as something that has been stalking her for the entirety of her life, that is, the possible impending death of herself and/or her brother – this is a concept that most people from her economic and social background don’t face until much later in life. Stewart handles this with aplomb as her style and mannerisms suits this charater down to the ground. She seems to be relishing the opportunity to be working with a European like Assayas (again) as well as the subject matter of the two films she has made with him.

    One of the great things about Stewart is her ability to play supporting parts to other actresses as well as her ability to not seem to have an ego for her on-sceen personas. Assayas shoots Stewart in close up with these shots not being complementary as we see imperfections in her face as well as the age that she has seemed to gain through the stresses of her very existence. It is something to see an actress willing to give up her ‘look’, not to have makeup or to play a ‘real’ person that is not perfect looking. It is a juxtaposition between the glam pictures you may see of Stewart to this flawed, haunted as well as haunting person that is searching for some truth and perhaps closure.

    Olivier Assayas has had a long career as well as being a force in French and International cinema for years, he has made a wide variety of films in multiple genres, he has to be one of the more prolific directors in the world today. He also enjoys partnerships with actors, hopefully this is the start of something with Stewart who he obviously enjoys working with – it must also help get a budget when you have a champion with such international clout and awareness.

    There are many elements to this film that make it unique to the environment it has been released into, it co-opts many genres to give us twists on each one. I loved this movie, but it would be nothing without Stewart who is perhaps shaping to be the actress of her generation.

    “Personal Shopper” is out now on DVD.

     

  • Film review: “mother!”

    Film review: “mother!”

    “mother!” (2017)

    Drama/Thriller/Horror

    images

    Running Time: 121 minutes

    Written and Directed by: Darren Aronofsky

    Featuring:  Jennifer Lawrence, Javier Bardem, Ed Harris and Michelle Pfeiffer

    Woman: “You give, and you give, and you give. It’s just never enough.”

    It has been far too long since Darren Aronofsky has graced us with a film, the last being the Russell Crowe starrer “Noah” (2014) which was monumentally underrated as well as a surprise left turn after the Oscar nominated masterpiece “Black Swan” (2010). Even this new film “mother!” (2017) was a surprise for audiences as well as the filmmaker who was working on writing a children’s film (if you can believe that after watching this) but was unable to crack it, so wrote “mother!” in a matter of days – some would say that it shows, with a paper thin plot, but a narrative (Aronofsky’s specialty in my mind) that really does show how gifted a filmmaker he has become.

    “mother!” is something of an enigma, it covers many genres within its almost two hour running time, but no matter what genre you try to define it by there is absolutely no doubt that it is one hundred percent original – it also illustrates what a director can accomplish with a willing cast and crew. This is a film that begs to be rewatched as the narrative is really something to behold. This film is really short on plot, something that all original Darren Aronofsky films have in common, while being long on themes, visual trickery and layered meanings, you will be left to sort these out some time after the end credits roll. I am going to say right up front that I loved this film from the house coming alive in the opening to the incredible performances that really do show Aronofsky cares as much about his actors as he does about the look and feel of his films – I would not be surprised if this was going to feature heavily in next years Academy Awards.

    As I have said the plot of “mother!” is scarce but the official synopsis is thus: A young woman’s (Jennifer Lawrence) tranquil life with her husband (Javier Bardem) at their remote country home is challenged by an unnamed couple (Ed Harris and Michelle Pfeiffer) who arrive and lodge with them. To say that this just scratches the surface of what actually happens in the film is an understatement, but the narrative moves in a seemingly straight line but it is obvious there are some pretty heavy fantastical sequences particulacy in the third act – it really does go bonkers, just strap in and enjoy the ride.

    There are three elements that are almost immediately apparent after we see the woman played by Jennifer Lawrence get out of bed at the outset of “mother!”, the photography/cinematography has been designed with the story in mind, there is a noticeable fuzz or grain that gives the feeling of almost blurriness that leads to the confusion of the main character which in itself is vital for this story. Longtime Aronofsky collaborator cinematographer Matthew Libatique knows just what is required, which leads me to another element, which again is visual. That is that the shots of Jennifer Lawrence are almost always close ups of her head, when we follow her we are almost always just seeing the neck upwards which brings me to the fact that this film is told from her point of view, there are really only two times when it is not and they are brief – it leads to a tour de force performance by Lawrence, not entirely dissimilar from Natalie Portman’s performance in “Black swan”. This film is so dense with so much going on that you are still thinking about what you have seen even when we move on to the next scene, there is much more to say but I don’t want to spoil this great film too much.

    It has to be said that the music by Jóhann Jóhannsson is suitably atmospheric as it usually is, and it is great to see him working outside of his usual collaborator Denis Villeneuve on something that he has probably never seem before a true surrealist nightmare of biblical proportions and he is up to the challenge making it seem easy and not a task.

    To be honest I am not sure where to begin with what the film is actually about, but it is definitely metaphorical as well as allegorical on a number of issues that have had an effect on the director as well as possibly his cast. It is extremely dense and layered, which means there are very different ways of reading what is going on at any given time. One example is that the film on one level, is about marriage and the domestic nature of what that means, when one person seems to be the only one trying to make a real relationship work. I also could not help but think that the directors own relationship with Rachel Weisz was also a contributing factor to many of the aspects of the narrative such as someone who has a partner who is more successful and is being pulled away by external factors – the solution is to sometimes have a child but then they too are often under public scrutiny. Does this sound familiar? Try comparing this section of “mother!” to any celebrity marriage, you start to see similarities, there is the cult of personality as well as people who start to believe the hype that surrounds them – almost any reality star can share that story. Whether or not this film is about a hell that is run by someone who requires the adoration of the masses like some devil is open to consideration as well – to make something he perhaps requires a muse whose energy he uses up and spits out, in this case it is just a never ending cycle, a man who uses women over and over again – this last analysis almost sounds political in nature as well.

    As you come to expect from any, in fact all of Aronofsky’s films, is that the people who want to work with him are all of the highest caliber. This is no more so than here where we have Oscar winners Jennifer Lawrence and Javier Bardem playing husband and wife, both giving, what I think are career best performances in roles that could have been cyphers or tropes that could exist in other films that have touches of surrealism. In early supporting roles there are the great Oscar nominated actors Ed Harris and Michelle Pfeiffer, playing husband and wife as well. Both of these veterans bring something very different to their roles, Harris plays a willing victim while it is Pfeiffer who really has a role to sink her teeth into, and has some menace to play with, baring her teeth at Lawrence in attempting to undermine her position as the matriarch of the household.

    Darren Aronofsky has created something really special with this film but it requires a leap of faith if you are going to really enjoy it. It has madness, horror, hunour and violence that hover around the somewhat unreliable central figure. This is the work of someone who has the buy in from his producers, actors and crew in creating one of the most unique Hollywood films ever. “mother!” is the bastard child of David Lynch and Ken Russell with a touch of Werner Herzog for good value. It is a film that is open to interpretation and in fact seems to welcome it, you can imprint many meanings onto it, from marriage to politics to celebrity to Hollywood itself – I absolutely loved it, just don’t try and work out what’s going on in any traditional sense.

    “mother!” is out now only in cinemas.

  • Film review: “Spookers” (2017)

    Film review: “Spookers” (2017)

    “Spookers” (2017)

    Documentary

    images

    Running Time: 90 minutes

    Written by: Veronica Gleeson, Peter O’Donoghue and Florian Habicht

    Directed by: Florian Habicht

    Florian Habicht: “…I held a workshop with some of the actors and asked them to write down their dreams and nightmares on bits of paper. We ended up scripting these dreams which they acted out as dramatic scene, which are now woven throughout the documentary … as filmmakers we were moved by their ability and courage.”

    There is no doubt in my mind that New Zealand director Florian Habicht is our best, as well as our most creative director working currently. He also has to rate as one of the best director’s we have ever produced from within New Zealand. Not only has Habicht directed narrative film but he has also directed a number of excellent documentaries – “Kaikohe Demolition (2004), “Land of the Long White Cloud” (2009) and “Pulp: A Film About Life, Death and Supermarkets” (2014). These films not only take place in New Zealand but also show us as we are, as well as reflecting very different aspects of our social culture that make up what it is to be a New Zealander.

    Unlike other narrative filmmakers and documentarians that work in New Zealand or are trying to make New Zealand stories Habicht does not use irony or some kind of heightened reality, he approaches his work as well as his subjects with a curiousness that we have if we were making similar stories. Not only that, he also, I believe, sees himself as the outsider or the ‘other’, while he maintains that the people he is filming are the ‘normal’ ones, while we are the strangers looking in on what have become different parts of the cultural, political and social landscape. Now comes what may seem like a strange choice to make for a documentary but once viewed you can see why Habicht was so attracted to it. It covers people who are seen as minorities who are a family that work through hardships as well as successes like people who are related by blood.

    “Spookers” (2017) takes viewers inside and behind-the-scenes of the Southern Hemisphere’s biggest horror theme park, located in the former Nurse Hostel in the Kingseat Hospital Grounds in Auckland.

    I am not going to spoil this documentary by going to far into each charater or the owners, but suffice to say you are introduced to employees, employers, a nurse who used to work at Kingseat as well as a previous patient. Habicht is wise enough to give a portion of the running time over to the nurse as well as the ex-patient,  offering some commentary through the employees about what it is like to be in a place where former mental patients and carers worked and lived.

    If you have seen Florian Habicht’s first film “Woodenhead” (2003) which is a kind of surreal gothic fairy tale which could be said to inhabit the literary works of the Brothers Grimm, you will know what kind of filmmaker he can be as well as the kind of quirky outlook he is able to have within his own films. This is no more apparent than in “Spookers” where he not only interviews the family and employees of the nightclub but also interprets their dreams into a kind of reality for the viewer to experience. This like most of Habicht’s work is something that is unique to himself, he does have a touch of the David Lynch coupled with Jim Jarmusch who I am sure are influences on his work.

    This is Habicht’s first documentary and major work since the excellent “Pulp: A Film About Life, Death and Supermarkets” (2014) which coincided with a reunion of the Britpop band ‘Pulp’, it not only highlighted the band as well as their music but used their hometown of Sheffield as a character that becomes a part of the documentary to great effect – as does the populace that know of the band. This is something that Habicht repeats here, but instead of the geographical area being a secondary character it is the primary one, with the people and their stories taking center stage, it is quite a feat to see the people behind the scenes as well as behind the makeup start to reveal themselves within their own narratives.

    For decades New Zealanders did not see themselves, the essential ‘us’, on the big screen but now it is commonplace with the advent of reality television to see a brand of New Zealand onscreen or some kind of exaggerated view of ourselves, or even just some made up stylized version that is influenced by US cinema. What I absolutely love about Florian Habicht is that he is not afraid, for better or worse, to let his subjects whether they be an alternative band, some fisherman or an entire town speak for themselves with little filtering. Of course as with any documentary we are still be shown and are invited to see a point of view which is on some level artificial, the people involved are all wearing masks, even the nightclub is hiding what it is, this of course is done by others, such as the owners of the club. While they and their employees reflect on the past of the hospital, I wonder if any real reflection is done by the patrons – I think not.

    “Spookers” touches on the employees lives within as well as outside of their ‘Spookers’ environment, we are given glimpses of the experiences that have shaped them, from being HIV-positive, to suffering from depression to physical health concerns. But as a viewer we are always brought back to their lives within ‘Spookers’, what it means to them as well as the stories they have invented for their characters there. It is actually inspiring to see the employees be creative in ways they may have thought they would not get a chance to be – they are listened to as well as respected by their customers as well as their fellow workers.

    The style used by Habicht could be considered eclectic as it changes quite a bit throughout the narrative. It starts quite formal, moving though some surreal elements while reverting back to its beginning as being quite formal once again. Some of the best parts are the mixing of background environments that are in a mall or outside a dairy where the subjects are interviewed in full horror make-up talking in their familiar Kiwi drawl – but like anything once you see it a few times it seems ‘normal’.

    This is just a great documentary and like Florian Habicht’s other documentaries it really does open the viewer up to other segments of New Zealand as well as a niche business that has been running  for almost twenty years without much real fuss. What is interesting as well is the exploration of the geographic area, that is a horror house, which like the people that inhabit it (albeit as employees and not patients) has a unique story that many may not know about. I recommend this highly as Habicht is once again proving he has excellent taste, can listen to all kinds of people and can really spot and explore ideas that are fascinating to see unfold on the big screen. As I have already stated this is a glimpse of another part of New Zealand rarely seen in true life or in cinema. The fact that Habicht was able to make this into a movie and not a television show is testament to his talent as well as his vision for this story which is what he is primarily interested in as we should all be.

    “Spookers” is released on the 14th September in theatres only.

  • DVD & Blu-ray review: “Rough Night” (2017)

    DVD & Blu-ray review: “Rough Night” (2017)

    “Rough Night” (2017)

    Comedy

    2,0

    Running Time: 101 minutes

    Written by: Lucia Aniello & Paul W. Downs

    Directed by: Lucia Aniello

    Featuring: Scarlett Johansson, Zoë Kravitz, Kate McKinnon, Jillian Bell and Ilana Glazer

    Alice: “Okay, before we go we got to do the human friendipede, yeah?”

    Pippa: “What is a human friendipede?”

    Alice: “It’s a photo we always take that’s like the movie Human Centipede, where they’re sewn together mouth to anus, but it’s with friends so it’s special. I get the middle!”

    Frankie: “Why do you want the middle?”

    Well another week and yet another US comedy has been released on DVD & Blu-ray,  a movie that held such promise with its premise ends up being another in a long line of missed opportunities as well as just being very unfunny as well as awkward, for everyone involved, the writers, director, the actors and most especially us, the audience.

    I can actually see the appeal of “Rough Night” (2017), a group of women coming together to celebrate a friends wedding when things go wrong and hilarity ensues. It’s a shame as this really is not that movie, in fact it is seriously unfunny which is a shame as all the actors that appear, especially the women are all extremely talented, even if one or two of them are untested in comedy waters. But still with the talents of Kate McKinnon, Jillian Bell and Ilana Glazer you would think they could add something, unfortunately that is not the case.

    The movie begins in 2006, four friends, Jess, Alice, Frankie and Blair, bond during their first year of college. A decade later they reunite as Jess is about to get married to her fiancé Peter. Alice decides that the four should spend the weekend in Miami partying. They are also joined by Pippa, Jess’s friend from her semester in Australia. The friends get high and party at a club and then decide to hire a male stripper. When the stripper arrives at the door, he makes Jess uncomfortable with his rough talk. Alice decides to take a turn and jumps on him, causing them to both fall and the stripper to hit his head on the edge of the fireplace, killing him.

    From this point the movie attempts to walk a line between some kind of believability, as well as a fantasy world that reads like a womens version of the “The Hangover” (2011) or at least it attempts to inhabit that world. What the filmmakers should have done is to embrace one or the other. Too many comedies this year are attempting to hybridize their narratives by adding either action, thriller elements or even horror elements to no avail. What directors and screenwriters need to do is firstly write a script that is funny and makes logical sense, all the other bells and whistles can come later when further drafts are written. It seems to me that initial ideas are enough and talent is built around them which is not a sound way to operate. One other aspect of modern comedies is the feeling that too many rely, and then fail, through the need to improvise much of their performances which is a huge mistake. This not only divides the narrative of the film but can then lead to a competition among the cast which again removes focus from the point of the film. That is not to say that improvisation is not necessarily a negative but the difference between a movie like “Anchorman” (2004) which has elements of improvisation but at its heart has a story, and a movie like “Rough Night” which meanders and has large chunks that are unfunny I think is obvious to anyone.

    The cast that has been assembled is top notch, with experience versus novice talent that do, in most cases, compliment each other but they all seem to be pulling in different directions with no feeling of chemistry between any of them, even when they are supposed to be friends with some commonalities. In fact the entire movie feels rushed somewhat, with little time given to know the characters, there is only the cursory introduction to each of the woman, they are only really outlines of real people which again, can damage a comedy, as we feel no real allegiance to any of them – something it has in common again, with many other similar comedies produced this year. The leads are Scarlett Johansson, Zoë Kravitz, Kate McKinnon, Jillian Bell and Ilana Glazer who are all great talents, the comedy is definitely led by McKinnon, Bell and Glazer who really do anchor the movie, but it is Kravitz and Johansson who seem a little lost within their roles and for all intent and purposes are the straight ‘men’, serving up the jokes for the others to hit them out of the park, so to speak.

    “Rough Night” has been written by Lucia Aniello & Paul W. Downs, as well as being directed by Aniello, the creators of the excellent “Broad City” (2014 – ) television series. Whilst that is a good recommendation and you would be right in thinking that their talents and vision should translate to the big screen the fact that it doesn’t is probably not a fair reflection of their talents. There is a divide between movies and television and that is whilst one is a writer’s medium, television, the other is a definite producer/director medium, this is where they have fallen down. I belive that they may have even had a different script or vision which was mishandled by producers, and the movies eventual stars, which is not uncommon in Hollywood movies that are seen as vehicles as well as sure fire hits – which this was definitley not.

    This movie was such a let down in terms of the talent involved and what ended up on screen. What should have been a fun feminist comedy about possible marriage, friendship as well as what it means to have relationships in this new millennial ultimately becomes nothing more than a one act mess about the death of a possible stripper – even this is not stuck to with a lame save for the ladies after they are found out. This just comes of as a less edgy female copy (three time removed) of “The Hangover” which time has not been kind to. If I were you I would gove this a wide berth, then you wont have a rough night.

    “Rough Night” is out now on DVD & Blu-ray.

  • DVD & Blu-ray review: ” The Mummy” (2017)

    DVD & Blu-ray review: ” The Mummy” (2017)

    “The Mummy” (2017)

    Thriller/Action

    3-stars

    Running Time: 107 minutes

    Written by: Ben  David Koepp, Christopher McQuarrie, and Dylan Kussman

    Directed by:  Alex Kurtzman

    Featuring:  Tom Cruise, Sofia Boutella, Annabelle Wallis, Jake Johnson, Courtney B. Vance, Marwan Kenzari, and Russell Crowe

    Jenny Halsey: You are a good man. 

    Nick Morton: You don’t know that. 

    Jenny Halsey: Yes, I do. There’s good man inside of you fighting to come out. You saved my life. You gave me the only parachute without thinking. 

    Nick Morton: [taken aback] I thought there was another one!

    This week sees the release of another recent Summer movie that was set up as an opener to a larger ‘monsters universe’, but this movie did not meet expectations at the US box office, although it did do better at the international one so more of these movies might be  on the way. Once again we see a  movie that was savaged by critics as well as rumours of Tom Cruise taking over behind the scenes. What is neglected in those stories is the fact that the director, Alex Kurtzman was out of his depth as a novice director so the production was having issues with a tight deadline for Cruise who had to go and make the latest ‘Mission Impossible’ movie – so him as a senior player had that right i believe.

    On with the review…

    Apparently shared universes are the new ‘in’ thing, they are supposed to give a studio the ability to run movies with similar themes parallel to each other without having the hang up of actual sequels – but of course not doing away with them entirely. This film is supposed to be the launch of a “Dark Universe” that links vampires, mummy’s and all sorts of other traditional Universal monsters together – you may have heard of this before, that’s because in 2014 Universal tried to launch it then with “Dracula Untold” (2014) starring Luke Evans and Charles Dance, directed by Gary Shore – it was met with not great reviews or box office so now Universal have decided that it never happened and have opted to re-launch the Universal Monster (UMU maybe?) universe with this Tom Cruise starrer “The Mummy” (2017). This first movie is something of an uneven trip, that does not always succeed, and in the end is really an enigma – it ends up being caught between genres not sure of what it wants to be, probably because it has too many masters.

    The film centers on Nick Morton (Tom Cruise), a somewhat soldier of fortune attempting to plunder ancient sites for timeless artifacts then selling them to the highest bidder. When Nick and his partner come under attack in the Middle East, the ensuing battle accidentally unearths Ahmanet, a betrayed Egyptian princess who was entombed under the desert for thousands of years. With her powers constantly evolving, Morton must now stop the resurrected monster as she embarks on a furious rampage through the streets of London.

    The last time the Mummy movies were remade was in 1999, when Stephen Sommers directed the similarly titled “The Mummy” (1999), that was a worldwide hit featuring Brendan Fraser, Rachel Weisz, John Hannah and introduced Arnold Vosloo as the titular character. There were three films in the series and it ended up being extremely successful, if not a little uneven in places – but made out at the box handsomely. Sommers even had his own idea of linking the monsters, which he failed to launch with the Hugh Jackman starrer “Van Helsing” (2002), which was a major flop for the studio, so plans ended there – or so it seemed.

    Now we have a misguided attempt from producers Robert Orci and Alex Kurtzman who came to fame as screenwriter’s for J.J. Abrams various film and television projects. Unfortunately for me these two are linked with one of the most over rated screenwriters working today, Damon Lindeloff. Between the three of them they came close to ruining the Star Trek, Alien and Lost franchises. It’s a wonder anyone lets them near their films, I know I wouldn’t. When it comes to the this new ‘Mummy’, they have attempted to mitigate the risks by casting Tom Cruise as a possible antagonist as well as having a special appearance by Russell Crowe as Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde. Even with these superstars as well as up and coming actress Sofia Boutella as the titular character, fresh of the hit “Kingsman: The Secret Service” (2014), they cannot save this movie from being nothing more than a diversion. It is such a shame because Universal and their monsters have a rich vein in not only scares but also great empathetic characters. One only needs to view the the early 20th century versions to see a well of greatness – in fact one could do worse than rewatching those true classics today.

    Superstar Tom Cruise is trying something new, this is the first horror film, of a kind, that he has appeared in, as well as the first new franchise he has tried to be a part of since his role as Ethan Hunt. His success lies in his ability to commit to each role he takes, here he is a victim as well as an action hero, he seems to be the only one that knows what film he is in – he lends much humor to the film which is sorely lacking from everyone else, which is a missed opportunity. They try and give him a sidekick in the form of Chris Vail played by the excellent and underused Jake Johnson, who appears without any logic or reason as a ghost, much like the Griffin Dunne character in “An American Werewolf in London” (1981) – here it may have been better if he was the sidekick instead of the vapid as well as trope heavy Jenny played with vanilla essence by Annabelle Wallis. Boutella who vamps it up as the Mummy, looks like she belongs in this movie, much like Crowe who chews the scenery left, right and center round out the cast.

    The film has been competently directed, but when you have the cast and crew as well as a big budget then things should really turn out more dynamic than this has. Looking at the credits, when a film has five people credited as writers something has gone wrong somewhere, so in the end this has a fairly standard plot for a mummy movie: Someone finds a sarcophagus, ships it back to blighty, the mummy escapes, curses everyone and is the finally defeated. The narrative too is fairly simple, particularly when there is a voice over explaining everything, as the plot moves forward. Somehow the people behind the camera have really managed to try and seem to make things complicated, have reigned in Cruise producing something that is a little bland – it has not committed completely to being a comedy, an action film, a horror or even a thriller so we have something that is stuck firmly in no mans land – this is something that happens more commonly these days with big budget films.

    Don’t get me wrong this is not a bad movie at all, in fact I would say that it only just misses the mark for a Summer blockbuster. It is no fluke that Tom Cruise makes very good movies, with a quality that is not found with many other actors, directors or producers. Interestingly Cruise who is a producer in his own right does not have a production credit on this and I would argue that if he did it would have been a tighter more logical film without many of the plot holes. When you look at movies he has produced they are nothing if not logical as well as being extremely well thought out – look at “The Edge of Tomorrow” (2014), possibly one of the best Sci Fi films of recent years as well as being hellishly original (to a point) – maybe they would have been better off ditching some of the many writers and producers and getting Cruise involved behnd the camera as well.

    Regardless of all that if you like a supernatural action film with some laughs then this could be for you. It is a good film for the family; with no real frights just a lot of action, and you may be pleasantly surprised. The next movie that will be appearing will be “The Bride of Frankenstein” in 2019, featuring Javier Bardem as the monster, that’s if this one has any life in it.

    “The Mummy” is out on DVD & Blu-ray on 13th September 2017.

  • “It” (2017) – “Welcome to the Loser’s Club” Featurette

    “It” (2017) – “Welcome to the Loser’s Club” Featurette

    Error
    This video doesn’t exist

    Stephen King created characters who believe everything that children believe, yet not. They don’t believe in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, but when the lights are out, they still think something’s under the bed. Through their fears and individual experiences, they come together to form the Losers’ Club. This film is not your standard horror movie as it deals with friendship and confronting darkness together.

    For as long as their town has existed, Derry has been the entity’s hunting ground, emerging from the sewers every 27 years to feed on the terrors of its chosen prey: Derry’s children. Banding together over one horrifying and exhilarating summer, the Losers form a close bond to help them overcome their own fears and stop a new killing cycle that began on a rainy day, with a small boy chasing a paper boat as it swept down a storm drain…and into the hands of Pennywise the Clown.

    IT is directed by Andrés Muschietti and Bill Skarsgård, Jaeden Lieberher, Jeremy Ray Taylor, Sophia Lillis, Finn Wolfhard, Wyatt Oleff, Chosen Jacobs, Jack Dyland Grazer, Nicholas Hamilton and Jackson Robert Scott.

  • Film review: “It” (2017)

    Film review: “It” (2017)

    “It” (2017)

    Horror

    images

    Running Time: 135 minutes

    Written by: Chase Palmer, Cary Fukunaga and Gary Dauberman

    Directed by: Andy Muschietti

    Featuring: Jaeden Lieberher, Bill Skarsgård, Jeremy Ray Taylor, Sophia Lillis, Finn Wolfhard, Wyatt Oleff, Chosen Jacobs, Jack Dylan Grazer, Nicholas Hamilton and Jackson Robert Scott

    Ben Hanscom: “Derry is not like any town I’ve been in before. People die or disappear, six times the national average. And that’s just grown ups. Kids are worse. Way, way worse.”

    After a dreadful Summer at the US box office comes a movie that could redeem it somewhat as the prestige film season begins in earnest – that is the horror remake/adaptation of one of Stephen Kings most famous (and largest) novels, ‘It’ written in 1986, adapted once already as a television mini-series in 1990. Whilst the miniseries was set up in the present and told in flashbacks that featured the now infamous ‘Pennywise the Dancing Clown’ played with inimitable ferociousness by the great Tim Curry – leaving a mark on a generation as one of the most terrifying clowns in either TV or cinema – this new movie tracks slightly differently in tone as well as its narrative structure.

    Originally set up at Warner Bros. with Cary Fukunaga as the both writer and director, after his huge success with the first season of HBO’s “True Detective” (2014 – present) he was the top choice, as well as Will Poulter as Pennywise this seemed like a slam-dunk. But as with many modern big budget films, or when studios have second thoughts Fukunaga left over differences, Poulter quickly followed suit, it looked like the project may be dead, but in stepped relative newcomer Andy Muschietti and Pennywise was recast with another gamble in the form of Bill Skarsgård. The challenge was always going to be how to condense a thousand page book into a possible two hour running time, but this I am happy to say has been solved in what must be one of the greater leaps of faith for a studio to make with unproven talents in front and behind the camera.

    The plot has been split between the younger and older selves of the book with the frst film serving as a period piece set in the 1980s and if the sequel is to happen it will be set in modern times (2016) with a few possible flashbacks (apparently already filmed). The good news is that this film will already be enough of a hit for the sequel to be green lit and will be filmed early next year. The other piece of great news is that this movie stands on its own even if a sequel was never to be made with an ending that makes sense, but if you know the plot leaves a door open for one more visit to Derry.

    “It” takes place in Derry, Maine in the summer of 1989, a group of outcast preteens known as “The Losers Club” fight against an immortal, shape-shifting entity responsible for the disappearance of dozens of children in their town, and are forced to confront their own personal demons in the process.

    This is actually quite a unique film, particularly in the horror genre in that it has a large budget (compared to the cost of modern Horror movies), is based around children, but does not treat them as such, in fact they are for all intents and purposes the adults of the film – as well as all of this the film is aimed at an adult audience not the PG soaked one that has to be pandered to with only small amounts of violence, gore and coarse language. One other aspect of this film that I loved was the choices that each of the protagonists makes, they seem to be honest, as well as real in terms of the world they are inhabiting, something that is from the novel as well as the miniseries. If you have seen recent horror movies like “Annabelle: Creation” (2017) you will know about illogical, nonsensical decisions that are the inciting incidents that make absolutely no sense.

    This film is well directed by Andy Muschietti, whose only other movie was the 2013 horror hit “Mama” produced by Guillermo del Toro based on his own short film. Here Muschietti must bring a well loved book to the screen with not only a sense of style, but an inexperienced cast as well as having one eye on the future, but always maintaining that this movie live in its own present. He has done an excellent job by marshaling his cinematographer Chung-hoon Chung, who brings a fresh originality with his work on his South Korean movies that mix genres as well as acting and directing styles. The film is not without its tropes and this is probably as a result from a mix of screenwriters that have taken passes at Fukunaga’s original script to try and boost parts that the studio thought were appealing – luckily though this is a visual film with many thrilling elements to hide any narrative flaws, which do exist.

    “It” is the very definition of an ensemble piece with a few characters that take more of the screen time than others, those being Jaeden Lieberher as Bill, Jeremy Ray Taylor as Ben and Sophia Lillis as Beverly, all heroes to be sure. Within this group though it is newcomer Sophia Lillis who shines as the real center of the group, she plays her part as heroine, victim and sometime love interest of both Ben and Bill. Lillis has the unenviable job of being the only girl in the group as well as coming of age in a town full of children that make up stories about her with a home life that is full of possible molestation and of course a killer clown that by the end of the movie she comes face to face with, she is definitely someone to keep an eye on in the future, a star turn then for her in this film. On the other side of the coin there is Nicholas Hamilton as Henry Bowers the human protaganost and Bill Skarsgård as Pennywise the otherworldly villain who causes all of the mischief. This really is Skarsgård’s movie with him obviously having a great time bringing one of the more iconic villains to life and scaring anyone he comes across – if they do make another movie I look forward to his return, I just hope I don’t have to wait long.

    Another aspect of this film that dovetails with a current resurgence is the fact that is in set in the 1980s (although barely as it is 1989) much like the recent amazing “Stranger Things” (2016 – present) and the disappointing “Atomic Blonde” (2017). The 1980s pedigree is clear with music from ‘The Cure’, ‘The Cult’ and ‘Anthrax’ as well as movies present like “Batman” (1989), Lethal Weapon 2” (1989) and “A Nightmare on Elm Street 5: Dream Child” (1989). There are even jokes when Beverly discovers Ben listening to ‘New Kids on the Block’, and when they enter his bedroom a poster of the same – exceptionally funny. Of course the reason for the film to be set in the 1980s is that the next one will be twenty seven years later, which will be 2016 – I am assuming there will be some past references to make this workable – we shall have to wait and see.

    This movie works extremely well on all levels, it works as a horror movie, a coming of age movie, a thriller and really a multitude of other genres as well, that is what is great about it, it also introduces a new crop of young actors as well the solidification of a visionary director in Andy Muschietti who I hope will direct the sequel. I can only assume that Cary Fukunaga will have no more to do with these movies as he has moved on but that is a shame as I can not help but think he is a large part of the success of this movie.

    I recommend “It” to you if you love Stephen King, horror movies or just a good film; it looks great on the big screen with performances that really jump off the screen with scares as well as humor – if you are going to see one movie this month it should be this one.

    “It” is out now only in theaters.

     

  • Blu-ray & DVD review: “Baywatch” (2017)

    Blu-ray & DVD review: “Baywatch” (2017)

    “Baywatch” (2017)

    Action/Comedy

    2,0

    Running Time: 116 minutes

    Written by: Mark Swift & Damian Shannon

    Directed by: Seth Gordon

    Featuring:  Dwayne Johnson, Zac Efron, Priyanka Chopra, Alexandra Daddario, Kelly Rohrbach, Jon Bass and Ilfenesh Hadera

    Mitch Buchannon: “Welcome to Baywatch. Our team is the elite of the elite. We’re the heart and soul of this very beach. We protect when other people don’t want to protect, and we go above and beyond.”

    The assault on the idea concept of comedy in movies continues with the release of the remake or reboot or whatever you want call this comedy abomination that is “Baywatch” (2017) out this week on DVD & Blu-ray.

    Now I wouldn’t have said this movie was doomed from its announcement, especially with the early word that Dwayne Johnson was involved, someone who is not afraid to laugh at himself as well as carry a movie that needs some very big shoulders to support it. Its unfortunate then that the studio that released this, Paramount, decided to stick Johnson with a director as well as screenwriters that seem to have no clue to what they are working on. They also seem to have no idea on how to use their secret weapon, who is normally a charmer as well as someone who can deliver almost any kind of dialogue all while inviting the audience to come with him on some kind of journey – here however none of that works, so we have what must be one of the worst movies of the year so far, along with many other comedies that have missed the mark by a mile.

    The movie starts out in Emerald Bay, Florida, Lt. Mitch Buchannon and his team of lifeguards, including second-in-commmand Stephanie Holden and veteran C. J. Parker, protect the beaches and the bay as part of an elite division known as Baywatch. Having made over 500 rescues in his career, Mitch is beloved by the community, to the annoyance of local beat cop Garner Ellerbee and Mitch’s superior, Captain Thorpe.

    At the upcoming tryouts for new lifeguards, three people stand out: surfer Summer Quinn, an old friend of Holden’s, Ronnie, a chubby nerd with a crush on C. J. (that is gradually returned), and Matt Brody, a former Olympic swimmer who fell from grace after vomiting during a race and now has to perform community service as part of an unspecified plea deal. Quinn and Ronnie both pass the trials, but Brody refuses to do so and insists that his celebrity status alone entitles him to a place on the team. Despite Brody demonstrating his abilities by assisting in the rescue of a drowning woman and her son, Mitch complains to Thorpe that he is unfit. Thorpe, in turn, insists that rehabilitating his image is necessary to convince the city not to further cut Baywatch’s funding.

    From here the plot if you could call it that becomes needlessly complicated as well as extremely crass, as it stands for no really good reason.

    I have complained about the lack of good comedies that have been released this year, and “Baywatch” has to top the list of not only being humourless, but it even manages to mishandle the action elements that may have saved this from being extremely tiresome to watch – I watched this at home and found myself hoping for the end to come, it meandered from one tireless set up to the next without seeming to go anywhere at all. My feeling was that no-one really committed to a genre so each aspect of this movie is underwhelming.

    Normally any movie, especially one that relies on personality or has to because the plot is absent, that has at its center Dwayne Johnson, is already ahead because he is just so charismatic as well as being able to make fun of himself means that he can be on the audiences side as well as being in on the joke. One need only look at the “Fast and Furious” franchise to see he is one of the only actors actually hamming it up, making those dreadful movies bearable for those of us that like the over the top nature that is inherent within those movies. “Baywatch” the movie, has not earned that so we are just looking at Johnson as part of this film not apart from it. The supporting cast is made up of both experienced as well as newish actors that all come off as one note and not appealing at all. So we have Alexandra Daddario, Zac Efron and Priyanka Chopra struggling with a plot as well as trope filled exposition while appearing alongside newbies Kelly Rohrbach, Jon Bass and Ilfenesh Hadera really not coming to terms with the kind of movie they are in as well as having very little actual screen presence.

    The argument could be made that there was a similar situation with the original television show with some experienced actors as well as some very average novice actors. My argument against that, as well as illustrating the superiority of the television version is that it was a different time, 1989 to 1999, the show knew exactly what it was and the talent in front of the camera was vastly superior to the people we have now. Here is some of the talent involved in the series and its an easy argument with time on our side that these actors have at least more talent as well as huge screen presence than that of this poorly attempted translation, we have of course David Hasselhoff, Parker Stevenson, Billy Warlock, David Chavert, Alexandra Paul, Erika Eleniak, Pamela Stevenson and many many others. If there was a small percentage of their presence in this movie it would have been a far better watch.

    Its not only in front of the camera where mistakes have been made, the writers (which is a generous title), Damian Shannon and Mark Swift, have only had two somewhat other successes, if they could be called that, which were the middling horror re-imagining (I am being kind) “Friday the 13th” (2009) and “Freddy vs. Jason” (2003). Both of these movies are genre pieces and are just updating other people’s work, which may have been the appeal here, but sadly there is nothing they have added to “Baywatch” to even make it remotely interesting. So it is here where the director should make some decisions to enhance what is a lackluster script, but this is where the inexperience of Seth Gordon shows. Sure he had a hit with “Horrible Bosses” (2011) but misfired with “Identity Thief” (2013) then in between has directed a lot of comedy televison which means he was trying to learn how to direct narrative on the fly, which again shows here in this movie, where he was probably stuck between his script his producers as well as his actors – I am not envious because what we have been left with is a mess of a film both narratively as well as plot wise with an inconsistent tone as well as a R-rating slapped on to make it seem edgy – which it is not.

    The filmmakers needed to pick a tone and style then follow through on that, I can see why they chose some kind of action/comedy route, which worked well with the redo and big screen adaptation of the hit “Starsky and Hutch” (2009) but there you had writers, a director and most importantly stars who could handle the material and knew not only what they were doing but also what they were doing. This is yet another misfire from the studio Paramount who have not been able to buy a hit this year and the slate for the rest of the year looks dire as well.

    This is definitely not worth a purchase and to be honest even if you could watch this free it is unlikely you would enjoy it; in fact if you watched it on a plane you would not be forgiven for walking out.

    “Baywatch” is out on DVD & blu-ray now.

  • Streaming review: “The Mist” (2017) – Episodes 8, 9 & 10 – I am glad thats over!

    Streaming review: “The Mist” (2017) – Episodes 8, 9 & 10 – I am glad thats over!

    “The Mist” (2017)

    Fantasy/Horror

    2,0

    10 Episodes

    Produced by: Guy J. Louthan and Amanda Segel

    Featuring: Morgan Spector, Alyssa Sutherland, Gus Birney, Danica Curcic, Okezie Morro, Luke Cosgrove, Darren Pettie, Russell Posner and Frances Conroy

    An unexplained mist slowly envelops the city of Bridgton, Maine, creating an almost impenetrable barrier to visibility. The residents of the town soon learn the situation is even more precarious as hidden within the mist are numerous monsters of various sizes that attack and kill anything that moves.

    Episode Eight: “The Law of Nature”

    Cinematographer: André Pienaar

    Directed by: Guy Ferland

    Episode Nine: “The Waking Dream”

    Cinematographer: André Pienaar

    Directed by: Nick Murphy

    Episode Ten: “The Tenth Meal”

    Cinematographer: André Pienaar

    Directed by: Guy Ferland

    I have to say I am actually sorry I started watching this show as it was nowhere near as good as I thought it was going to be, or as good as it promised from the outset. The signs were there early on – in the actors, the way the narrative struggled to move forward as well as the situations everyone finds themselves in – the same situations most genre characters find themselves in, there is absolutely nothing new plot wise or narratively that draws a viewer in – it is a massive letdown in every single way a television show can be, particularly in this age where quality can be so high.

    These last three episodes feel extremely long even thought they run a standard forty minutes, the writing is on the wall early into these episodes, the fact that you can feel the show petering out much like many of the characters seems like a relief – for some of them death must feel a sweet relief not to have to spout the cheesy lines, be around the horrid unbelievable sets and not to have to think about he ludicrous protracted storylines that feel that are going nowhere fast.

    I can only hope that this series does not get a renewal as there are plenty of other original ideas that exist that deserve the time and money this show is taking up – it is like a sick addiction because once this started I had to see it through to the end just to make sure I was not like one of the characters in the mist, hallucinating something that isn’t there.

    The lead actors Alyssa Sutherland and Morgan Spector as Eve and Kevin Copeland seem to want to make this show work, but Sutherlands acting ability is narrow and what worked for her in “Vikings” does not work here, the indifference as well as airiness works against her in a role where she has to project and show emotion, which on the evidence available seems hard for her to do. To be fair, towards the end of the show her range is starting to show but it is too little too late for me to identify with her or to even really care. On the other hand Spector’s character just seems a cypher as well as hollow, apparently it is enough for him to want to return to his family for us to care about him, but ultimately he feels like a jerk with little emotion for someone who is supposed to have a family – the angriness that his brother was showing turns up in him at the drop of a hat, it seems an afterthought to attempt to give him some depth.

    What should have taken a few episodes has taken nine, that is, the actual reason for the mist to be present in the town – which is still not answered but you can check off one lazy cliffhanger which I hope we never have to endure an answer. I can see what was hoped for with this series, that is to have a slow burn to the end so that the second season may concentrate on where this mist came from. But to be honest it took so long that I could imagine people just thinking who cares, and turning the show off, permanently. Its not enough these days to drop people into situations where there is needless misdirection’s as well as storylines that go absolutely nowhere and to expect that to appeal to viewers, because it doesn’t. There are too many other quality shows that exist on endless platforms that for a new show there needs to be a definite hook, and for a show to base itself on a horror novella and not deliver horror is unforgivable.

    The internal logic to the show keeps falling down on itself with little reason for why people behave the way they do. The way in which religion and commerce come up against each other all the way through the series, in particular the last few episodes is not only tired but also trite. It was almost as if the show runners didn’t think the original concept was good enough and so manufactured themes that might have sounded good on paper but when it came to execution fell short. They may have worked with more experienced as well as visionary directors but as with the actors and writers this is a decidedly amateur affair.

    This may have worked better as a limited series show with a hard ending that not only answered some pretty serious questions about humanity as well as fear but also was a genre piece. This show has one pretty big thing against it as I have said and that is the film that Frank Darabont wrote and directed. That movie had one of the best as well as most horrific endings to any film of the past twenty years at least.

    “The Mist” is streaming now on Netflix.

  • Blu-ray review: “Narcos – Season Two” (2015 – )

    Blu-ray review: “Narcos – Season Two” (2015 – )

    “Narcos – Season Two” (2015-)

    images

    Drama, Television Series, Action, Thriller

    Episodes: 10

    Created by: Carlo Bernard, Doug Miro, Chris Brancato

    Featuring: Wagner Moura, Boyd Holbrook, Pedro Pascal, Paulina Gaitan, Juan Murcia

    Pablo Escobar: “Geniuses are always branded as crazy.”

    Yet another excellent Netflix show makes it ways onto Blu-ray and DVD this month and like many of their offerings they hit it out of the park. And in early news the show has been renewed up to at least season 4, so you should really start now!

    This second season unlike the first spans a very short amount of time in fact as the first season illustrated the rise of Pablo Escobar, this second season shows the final days of his rule as well as his ultimate defeat. This is one of the main differences in the seasons with the second being a huge step up in quality as well as performance, especially with he portrayal of Escobar by Wagner Moura who shines in this role like few people rarely do.

    Its great to see the pressure has been ratcheted up from the first season with cartel as well as Escobar coming under extreme pressure from the U.S. and Colombian authorities, so of course the violence that has been brought to bear by Escobar have increased dramatically. This is something that is commonly ignored in other mediums such as the excellent Ted Demme film “Blow” (2001) and more recently in the Tom Cruise movie “American Made” (2017).

    The great thing about this show is that it has been given the time through season one as well as in this season to really show how Escobar was in terms of his violence, his paranoia and how he felt about his friends as well as his enemies.

    We are also treated to see the people who are in pursuit of him, in most cases these people are lauded by the people who are producing stories about them. Of course in reality they were pawns of other higher up officials who had their own reasons for pursuing the cartel as well as Escobar, these are more than addressed within this second season.

    I recommend this television show highly and in fact it is eminently rewatch able particular as new seasons are released. This is a must watch for fans of great drama.

    Special Features:

    • Audio Commentary with Director Andrés Baiz, Producer Eric Newman, and Actor Wagner Moura
    • “Unredacted: Declassifying Narcos: Season Two” Featurette
    • Deleted Scenes

    If you enjoyed this series, try these:

    Blow (2001)

    The Infiltrator (2016)

    Breaking Bad (2008-2013)

    Scarface (1983)

    NARCOS
    Narcos
  • Stephen King’s “IT” – ‘Face Your Fears’ Featurette

    Stephen King’s “IT” – ‘Face Your Fears’ Featurette

    The featurette takes the viewer on an emotional and terrifying journey of the story using film footage and behind the scenes. Filmmakers, the cast, and Steven King speak to the fears that the story taps into and how the kids find the strength in being together as they realize the fate of the cursed town in which they live in.

    Error
    This video doesn’t exist

    For as long as their town has existed, Derry has been the entity’s hunting ground, emerging from the sewers every 27 years to feed on the terrors of its chosen prey: Derry’s children. Banding together over one horrifying and exhilarating summer, the Losers form a close bond to help them overcome their own fears and stop a new killing cycle that began on a rainy day, with a small boy chasing a paper boat as it swept down a storm drain…and into the hands of Pennywise the Clown.

    IT is directed by Andrés Muschietti and Bill Skarsgård, Jaeden Lieberher, Jeremy Ray Taylor, Sophia Lillis, Finn Wolfhard, Wyatt Oleff, Chosen Jacobs, Jack Dyland Grazer, Nicholas Hamilton and Jackson Robert Scott.

    IT releases in New Zealand cinemas on September 7, 2017.

  • Streaming review: “The Defenders” (2017 – )

    Streaming review: “The Defenders” (2017 – )

    “Defenders” (2017)

    TV Series/Drama/Action

    3-stars

    Episodes: 8

    Created by: Douglas Petrie & Marco Ramirez

    Featuring: Charlie Cox, Krysten Ritter, Mike Colter, Finn Jones, Eka Darville, Elden Henson, Jessica Henwick, Simone Missick, Ramon Rodriguez, Rachael Taylor, Deborah Ann Woll, Élodie Yung, Rosario Dawson, Scott Glenn and Sigourney Weaver

    Danny Rand: “I’m the immortal Iron Fist.”

    Luke Cage: “You’re what?”

    Claire Temple: “You’re on the same side.”

    After two years in the making the show that Netflix promised they were building towards has arrived and is streaming right now, “The Defenders” (2017), the uniting (in some cases reuniting) of four of the separate heroes that have come before in their own shows – Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Luke Cage and Iron Fist. The question for me is does this team-up television series live up to the best of the singular series as well as leaving behind and improving on the weakest one, as well as the weaker aspects of the rest? The simple answer is that it pretty much delivers on the promise of what we were told a few years ago, while not being perfect it does hold the attention for the eight episodes that have been produced which is all we could ask for, especially after the disappointment that was “Iron Fist” (2017) earlier this year. Indeed it felt that this smaller Hells Kitchen Universe may be sagging under its own weigh of expectations, particularly because one of the better characters, The Punisher, was going to be absent from this super team series.

    The definite high points of these shows has been both “Daredevil” seasons as well as the surprise that ended up being the first series of “Jessica Jones” with its Machiavelli like villain, ‘The Purple Man’ played by possibly the best bad guy in any Marvel film or television show, David Tennant. None of the other shows has really come close to these except for the first half of “Luke Cage” with his initial villain ‘Cottonmouth’, played by newly minted Oscar winner, Mahershala Ali. So it is unfortunate that we have now been stuck with ‘The Hand’ an evil empire like organization that was so effective and menacing in the comics has been turned into some kind of ineffectual crime syndicate with what turns out be pretty mundane objectives. With only half of the main villains really feeling like a threat to our heroes – something this show has in common with many of the other Marvel properties – truly menacing villains are so hard to get right. It appears the showrunners are unable to decide whether ‘The Hand’ are spiritual, mystic or just a crime family that have an unlimited amount of foot soldiers as well as a fractured leadership.

    “The Defenders” is set just a few months after the events of the second season of Daredevil, and a month after the events of the first season of Iron Fist, the vigilantes Daredevil, Jessica Jones, Luke Cage, and Iron Fist team up in New York City to fight a common enemy: The Hand.

    This is not a perfect show and in fact contains many tropes as well as weaknesses that are inherent in many comic book adaptations, but as I have said there is much to like, in particular the casting as well as how all of these disparate actors come together with many of their own supporting actors, actually works extremely well, something the show runner Marco Ramirez has to be commended for as he had no control over pre virus casting choices. The other aspect that I thought was great was the way in which the storyline was streamlined but kept (or tried to) things simple such as the Elektra/Matt story, The Hand as a criminal organization, what was happening with that big hole as well as some of the more relevant stories with the supporting characters in particular Claire (Rosario Dawson) – with all her contact with the main heroes. To be fair as far as I could tell The Hand storyline is resolved at the end of the series which if it is, means that all the other series have actually meant something, also I am totally ready to move on from this situation, and for new problems, issues and villains to emerge. To be fair it is the “Daredevil” series that has the most to offer with a variety of options including of course the return of Kingpin, the emergence of Gladiator and possibly the introduction of Daredevils most iconic foe, Bullseye.

    Once again it is Jessica and Matt that steal the show followed closely by Luke, but the entire series feels dull when Danny is involved. In saying that Danny has improved greatly from his own series but there are still concerns about his actual character, I don’t really understand his motivations as well as his partners, Colleen, who actually was even more annoying than ever. I can only hope that when his second season starts (with a new show runner, the previous one was fired) his story, motivation as well as his existence is more clearly defined as well as his look, his powers and the odd way he always loses his temper. The use of Sigourney Weaver as the head of ‘The Hand’ lent the show some real class and menace, which was needed as the rest of the fingers of ‘The Hand’ seemed anemic at best. The reintroduction of Elektra was fun, but how it was managed was a bit clumsy, as when it happened in the comics the process lent more mysticism to ‘The Hand’, which was missing here and was missed overall. In my mind ‘The Hand’ were much more malevolent, menacing and could be counted on to feel like a true threat to anyone they went up against so they ended up disappointing me by quite a large margin.

    As I have sais this is not perfect and one of my main issues, and this may sound pedantic, were the sets as well as the general mise en scène which looked not only average but under budgeted, especially the final episode which was about as underwhelming as it gets – really a cave with some obvious styrofoam rocks and walls – just shocking. Another issue was the seemingly endless supply of henchmen that appeared out of nowhere whenever the heroes needed some sort of obstacle, which got tiring as well as the uninspired fight choreography which looked like the kind of thing you might have expected in “Iron Fist” not “Daredevil”. Something else that was more annoying than anything else was the timelines as well as actual threat of ‘The Hand’ as in one instant they seem everywhere and unstoppable but then they are easily taken down by blowing up a building – Huh? Once again the villains in Marvel are not thought out or there is no follow through in maintaining the meanings behind the bad guys, they just seem thrown together.

    With all that being said this was still at least the third most enjoyable series out of the six so far, the positives far out weigh the negatives, which is always good. The length, eight episodes, made the time fly by and it seemed a better way to structure the series as it did cut out any real extraneous material, something “Luke Cage” and to a greater extent “Iron Fist” could have done with. I found it really enjoy able and watchable because over a short period of time there are many storylines wond up with a steady eye on the future with some of our heroes accepting that they may have destiny as well as them knowing they can call on each other in the future so I would say that in the not so distant future there will be a “Defenders MKII”.

    “The Defenders” is streaming now only on Netflix.

     

    Marvel’s The Defenders
  • DVD & Blu-ray review: “Free Fire” (2017)

    DVD & Blu-ray review: “Free Fire” (2017)

    “Free Fire” (2017)

    Comedy/Thriller/Action

    3-stars

    Running Time: 90 minutes

    Written by: Ben Wheatley and Amy Jump

    Directed by: Ben Wheatley

    Featuring: Sharlto Copley, Armie Hammer, Brie Larson, Cillian Murphy, Jack Reynor, Babou Ceesay, Enzo Cilenti, Sam Riley, Michael Smiley and Noah Taylor

    Harry: “Hey, I like your cardboard armor.“

    Vernon: “It’s protection from infection.”

    It has been eight years since Ben Wheatley made his debut as a film director/writer/producer/editor with the excellent micro budgeted “Down Terrace” (2009), since then he has made five other films including the movie reviewed here, “Free Fire” (2017). This movie marks the second time that Wheatley as well as his partner Amy Jump have worked with a modest budget, as well as really not making much of a return in terms of a return to investors. While Wheatley is a critical darling in the UK he really has not made much impact beyond those borders, which is a shame as the last two movies he has made (High-Rise (2015) and this one) has had a murderers row of actors appearing in them, such as Oscar winner’s Brie Larsen, Jeremy Irons, as well as huge international stars, Luke Evans, Tom Hiddleston, Sienna Miller, Sharlto Copley, Armie Hammer, Jack Reynor as well as character actors Sam Riliey, Michael Smiley, Cillian Murphy and many others – so he’s not short of friends. It’s a real pity then that that “Free Fire” (2017) as well the previous one have made little critical, cultural as well as financial success as they really deserve better, in fact like many other multi-hyphentes it is possible he should pare down his duties and concentrate on one or two, like writing and directing.

    The movie tells the story of Stevo and Bernie who are driving to meet two IRA members, Chris and Frank. The group meet outside a Boston warehouse, where they wait with intermediary Justine. A representative arrives, Ord, who leads them inside. The group is there to buy guns from arms dealer Vernon and his associates, Martin, Harry, and Gordon. Despite tensions between the two groups and the fact that Vernon supplied the wrong weapons, Chris’ group secures the weapons in a van and hand over the money in a briefcase.

    Stevo notices that Harry was the one who beat him up the day before, and refuses to go near him, irritating Frank. Harry eventually notices and lashes out at Stevo, furthering the tensions between the group. Stevo seemingly apologizes, but then brags about what he did to Harry’s cousin. Infuriated, Harry shoots Stevo in the shoulder. Both groups split off and begin shooting at each other.

    This is truly an odd movie with the entire plot front loaded in the first thirty minutes, then non-stop action, blood and violence for the next hour. It could be argued that this is almost the same as Tarantino’s debut “Reservoir Dogs” (1993), but that would be missing the narrative element that was employed there, where the director not only played with time but also toyed with emotions through the very different characters as well as employing the music he became known for in his next few outings. Here though Wheatley dispenses with any kind of narrative flourishes so that when the plot has been explained (almost fully I might add) there is absolutely no where for each of the characters to go and that’s saying something considering this is a massive cast – with little time whether it be story time or actual time for any of them – which is a huge opportunity missed, its almost like Wheatley had the idea of the movie then took the rest of the night off – it shows you need more than the idea of an idea and a great cast – it really does smack of laziness.

    As you would expect from a Ben Wheatley movie the casting is amazing with the standouts for me being Armie Hammer as the go between of the buyers of the illegal weapons, the IRA led by Cillian Murply and Michael Smiley, backed up the drugged out, bumbling idiot savant Sam Riley. While the sellers of the firearms are led by the wise cracking Sharlto Copley, who here reminds me of his debut in “District 9” (2009), all mouth – he is a great actor to see in full flight but he does have limited range so the material should suit his set of skills.

    Unfortunately for me this is possibly Whealtey’s weakest and least coherent movie to date, I have enjoyed the way he takes a story but adds a twist that is completely out of left field but makes it work so well, particularly in a cinematic sense as well as his usual narrative flourishes. Wheatley also uses very small budgets to serve as a strength to his mode of film making, when there are limited choices to make in terms of time and money he always seems to make the correct one. He has also for the most part (“High-Rise” exempted) used small intimate casts of actors (as well as characters), which again seem to suit the director as he can maintain control over all aspects of filmmaking. With his last two movies there has been a wider net cast in terms of the troupe of actors, what worked well in “High-Rise”, that is having a huge cast of well known actors that for the most part have proved themselves on stage as well as in movies (Tom Hiddleston, Jeremy Irons, Sienna Miller, Luke Evans, and Elisabeth Moss) does work so well in “Free Fire” where many of the actors used are actually unproven and so they all seem to be doing their own thing which works against what plot exists here.

    There have been many movies set completely or for a large part of the narrative in one space, there are obvious advantages to this – the budget can be tighter as well as small, the actors can live in their environment, there should be a decreased amount of preparation, the space can be intimate not only for the crew and cast but also for the audience, tension can be ratcheted up as the need for escape is always present and many other factors that can only be known to the people making the movie. One of the great examples of this as mentioned is “Reservoir Dogs” where all of these points are touched upon with a big cast all having their own day in the sun. However here in this film there just feels like there are no stakes at the beginning of the story and by the end I was hapy for it to be over, even with its not too long running time – it is almost as if Wheatley ran out of steam, got disinterested and hoped it would take care of itself – unfortunately it doesn’t.

    Now while this is an interesting premise for a movie it is not the best with very little to hang on to as a viewer so in the end it is watchable, the actors are fun to watch and there is quite a bit of action, but I would hesitate to actually purchase this movie, so would say it is worth a watch but maybe on a streaming service.

    “Free Fire’ is released on the 30 August 2017.

  • Streaming review: “The Tick” (2017 – )

    Streaming review: “The Tick” (2017 – )

    “The Tick” (2017 – )

    TV Series/Comedy/Action

    images

    Episodes: 6

    Created by: Ben Edlund

    Produced by: Peter Serafinowicz & Patrick Warburton

    Featuring: Peter Serafinowicz, Griffin Newman, Valorie Curry, Brendan Hines, Jackie Earle Haley, Yara Martinez

    The Tick: “Another urban legend dispelled: ninjas don’t bounce.”

    ‘The Tick’s’ origins go back to 1986 when artist Ben Edlund created him as a mascot for a comic company, which eventually turned into a comic, that became an animated series which in turn became the short lived and loved television series, “The Tick” (2001) featuring the perfect casting of Patrick Warburton in the eponymous titled superhero role. Now Amazon Studios have resurrected the character in an initial six episode run that acts as a kind of origin story although not for the main character but wisely for The Ticks sidekick chum, Arthur who is played as a nebbish accountant conflicted by his need to exact revenge on the main super villain, ‘The Terror’ for the death of not only his father but also his superhero idols.

    After a major glut of comic book movies and television shows over the past few years it is refreshing to see something from the 1980s being brought up to date, as well as making a relevant comment on its own genre, while feeling not only refreshing but actually funny as well, exploring themes that exist outside of its genre, there are themes of family expectations, corporate politics as well as actual politics, what it means to either have a secret identity or existing just as a super hero (or villain), and what it means to exist as a hero or villain living on a day to day basis – what matters most in life, you, your friends or family or society as a whole?

    The Tick is a nigh-invulnerable superhero in a blue tick costume that arrives in The City to help combat crime, and uncover the mysterious figure behind the city’s underworld. He befriends (or may have been imagined into existence by) a nervous and mild-mannered young man called Arthur who becomes his sidekick: They come to realize that an apparently long-dead supervillian called “The Terror” may still be pulling the strings in the city’s underworld.

    When a show is called “The Tick” you had better get that casting correct, in this case that has been done so effectively that it was easy to see the Patrick Warburton version easily transforming into the Peter Serafinowicz version of the same hero. Serafinowicz who has been a staple of the English comedy scene for well over fifteen years as well as an accomplished voice actor (he was the voice of Darth Maul in “Star Wars: Episode 1 – The Phantom Menace” (1999)) shines here using all of his talents as well as natural physical ability as the oddball ‘The Tick’ as well as being a great foil to his sidekick Arthur, both his real as well as his superhero name. Griffin Newman playing Arthur the real main character of this show was born to play this role, he not only echoes the Arthur from the comics but also fits perfectly with the other Arthurs that have come before him. Not once does he play the character with any irony, in fact he plays him so straight with enough natural subtly that the show almost works without the Tick sticking his nose in at every turn – but I suspect that is the point not only of Arthur but the television show as well. The cast is rounded out with some other excellent actors but for me the next best is Yara Martinez as Ms. Lint who can fry you with electricity, Martinez has had a pretty successful career as a character actress in pretty much every television show you can imagine, so it is here where she has her chance to make a mark in more than one episode – here she shines.  Its enjoyable to see a new face that has been around for a while take a part and make it her own, especially a character that is quirky as well as morally lost (well at the beginning) as Ms. Lint is. Rounding out the cast is the wonderful Jackie Earle Haley who after his Oscar nomination all those years ago has proven to be a master of the morally bankrupt characters particularly adept under make up, he is the wild card in a cast that is pretty good to begin with. Look out for Alan Tudyk as the voice of a sentient boat called ‘Dangerboat’ who lives with another hero, ‘Overkill’ just classic you have to see their relationship to believe it.

    The show is well directed by a slew of experienced television directors led by veteran Wally Pfister, whose claim to fame as well as moving into directing was as the longtime cinematographer of Christopher Nolan. Having experienced directors is a must for a short run show possibly made on a tight budget as it means they hit the ground running with their own style, the do not have to ease their way into some kind of new style – it is driven by the writer as well as the actors who have a strong say in their own creations. Speaking of the writer, Luan Thomas, has had very little experience in the scheme of things, he has done a wonderful job of creating an origin story over six episodes that leads nicely into the second lot of shows out in 2018.

    What I really enjoyed about the show as the fact that the villain if the piece, ‘The Terror’ is the maguffin of the first series, where Arthur as well as Ms. Lint are both looking for him for extremely different reasons. They are both like lost children looking for different things, one is looking for a father figure (thats the best possible case), the other is looking for revenge on someone who killed his father – this is something that is kind off rectified in the last episode – even though you can see the ending coming it is still rather enjoyable. On one of the other aspects that is great is that the motivations of every character are laid out in the simplest terms, even the wayward main character The Tick just wants to beat the bad guys – he just needs an assist. This is something that many television shows do not do, they meander around for a few episodes trying to be cool as well as looking good but fail on the plot – this is where “The Tick” shines as it knows what its about.

    I recommend this highly for most ages but if you loved any of the other iterations of “The Tick” or want a laugh with some action as well as pathos then this is for you – highly recommended.

    “The Tick” is streaming now on Amazon.