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.
  • DVD & Blu-ray review: “The Fate of the Furious” (2017)

    DVD & Blu-ray review: “The Fate of the Furious” (2017)

    “The Fate of the Furious” (2016)

    Action

    2,0

    Running Time: 136 minutes

    Written by: Chris Morgan

    Directed by: F. Gary Gray

    Featuring:  Vin Diesel, Dwayne Johnson, Jason Statham, Michelle Rodriguez, Tyrese Gibson, Chris Bridges, Nathalie Emmanuel, Kurt Russell, Scott Eastwood, Charlize Theron and Helen Mirren

    Roman Pearce: “Why are they shooting at me?” 

    Tej Parker: “I don’t know. Maybe because you’re in a orange Lamborghini.“

    Roman Pearce: “Shut up, Tej!”

    This film franchise has been on the precipice twice, once after the third entry was released “Fast and Furious: Tokyo Drift” (2005), secondly after the sudden death of star Paul Walker, when “Furious 7” (2015) was still in production. But now against all odds the billion dollar franchise returns with its eighth installment, “The Fate of the Furious” (2017), apparently the start of a new trilogy for that old warhorse Vin Diesel, who has proved over the past few years that this is all he has to offer audiences. Such a shame for an actor that proved he was more than a muscle bound actor in such films as “Saving Private Ryan” (1998), the timeless “The Iron Giant” (1999) and the memorable “Boiler Room” (2000). The franchise that began as a cautionary tale about street racing has re-invented itself at least twice, once as a heist series and now as some kind of hybrid franchise, balancing a few time honoured genres.

    This movies plot, if you could call it that, begins with Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel) and Letty Ortiz (Michelle Rodriguez) are enjoying their honeymoon in Cuba when Dom is approached by elusive cyberterrorist Cipher (Charlize Theron), who has kidnapped Dom’s ex-girlfriend Elena Neves and their son, whom Dom didn’t know about, to force Dom to collaborate with her. Dom and his crew, comprised of Letty, Roman Pearce, Tej Parker and Ramsey, are then recruited by DSS agent Luke Hobbs (Dwayne Johnson) to help him retrieve an EMP device from a military outpost in Berlin. During the getaway, Dom goes rogue, forcing Hobbs off the road and stealing the device on Cipher’s behalf, while Hobbs is arrested by the local authorities and locked up alongside an old enemy, international assassin Deckard Shaw. They are later extracted from prison by intelligence operative Tom Petty (Kurt Russell) and his new partner, Eric Reisner (Scott Eastwood), who recruit Shaw (Jason Statham) to help Hobbs and the crew find Dom and capture Cipher.

    That’s just the opening of the movie that sees the set up pay off over the next few hours of screen time. This film stands as the most over the top installment yet, I say that in a good way as the action film genre has recently suffered from either unoriginal ideas, aging stars or hacky directors – this franchise is just warming up. This movie travels the globe leaving carnage in its wake, as well as picking up and dropping off characters like they were as disposable as the car’s themselves.

    The Fast and Furious films have now made themselves a cross between Mission Impossible and any comic book film around. The questions remain – How long will people keep coming back? What is there to reinvent themselves as next? Can anything follow up the billion dollar previous film? The answer of course is we will see, but with the reintroduction of Kurt Russell and the introduction of his sidekick Scott Eastwood, there has been an attempt to make an IMF like agency out of Vin’s crew as well as maybe having a Paul Walker like replacement in Eastwood. Someone like Eastwood I found quite welcoming as he can be quite clueless which is a nice juxtaposition to the all knowing crew.

    This film directed by newcomer to the franchise F. Gary Gray is not only an experienced action film director but also has done a sterling job on dramas and comedies which can only help with this new challenge. Gray was chosen for his previous work as well as a relationship he has with Diesel who has control over the franchise. The director is coming off a career high with the film “Straight Outta Compton” (2015), which was not only a critical hit but also generated over US$200 million dollars worldwide, so he is here rewarded with a going concern that could help him in the future for any of his own projects he may want to get off the ground.

    Once again the cast of this film is huge adding Helen Mirren and Charlize Theron to the mix as protagonist and antagonists to the main cast. When you have nowhere else to go in a franchise sometimes the best thing to do is to trade up and include some prestige actors, giving them a chance to create over the top characters in an already over the top film. They have done that in spades, whilst the Theron character, the super hacker Cipher, is just that, she has very little to do physically, just stand, around look pouty, making quips to monitors as others do her bidding. Mirren shows up twice but acts crazy enough to feel like she has been there the entire time. My favorite character is the wise cracking Tyrese who steals every scene he is in, which is good because he also asks “WTF?” every time something insane happens or is mooted, which is great because as the audience you will be doing exactly the same thing.

    The rest of the cast including, Dwayne Johnson, Jason Statham, Michelle Rodriguez, Chris Bridges and Nathalie Emmanuel all do what has been expected of them in the previous movies but they all seem to have either been given convenient twists on their back stories or given super human abilities, Dwayne Johnson, now has a daughter and coaches soccer, Michelle Rodriguez, just looks intense and angry in every scene, Chris Bridges and Nathalie Emmanuel, are now hacker geniuses as well as an authority on almost everything. They all do their jobs very well especially Johnson and Statham who seem to be auditioning for their own buddy action comedy movie – bring it on I say.

    This story involves family, of course, as well as new revelations from new characters as well as old – and it would not be a ‘Furious’ film without the endless supply of action and fighting scenes between the goodies and the baddies – it’s a over two hour fun ride that never stops. At film number eight it was only a matter of time before a baby was dragged into the franchise, so it goes, are we going to see Dom quit his life of action? I don’t think so, and judging from how the baby is incorporated with his Uncle Dex (Statham) this is a kid in for the ride of his life.

    I have to admit to seeing some early reviews which have not been positive, and once the film had ended I really could not understand why. This movie fits in perfectly with the rest in the series, not only that it does actually progress some of the characters further along some kind of life, which is more than some film series do – I am looking at you DC/Warner Bros. – in fact we are seeing the re-drawing of old enemies into allies as well as a new comedic bent from the like of Statham, Johnson and now Helen Mirren. This film I believe does something unique for its type as well as having permission to do it from audiences, that is to set up a sequel like it is no big deal, or even a stretch to ask for this indulgence. There are very few franchises that could do this, one is the MCU, with that only happening after a few failures, however here we see a new story set up with a villain that will obviously return, as well as retconning her origins so it appears she has been around for some time – something this franchise does continuously.

    This movie will not win any awards but it is great PG fun that will have you on the edge of your seat, laughing and probably laughing some more. I originally watched this in a cinema, having a lot of fun, but as a in home experience it comes off as too much static, it seemed to be good as something in the background but with other distractions felt it too hard to engage meaningfully. This would be worth a watch on a streaming service but it adds no real value to anyones library.

    “The Fate of the Furious” (2017) is out on DVD & Blu-ray on 2nd August 2017.

  • DVD review: “Denial” (2017)

    DVD review: “Denial” (2017)

    “Denial” (2016)

    Drama

    images

    Running Time: 110 minutes

    Directed by: Mick Jackson

    Featuring: Rachel Weisz, Tom Wilkinson, Timothy Spall, Andrew Scott, Jack Lowden, Caren Pistorius and Alex Jennings

    Deborah Lipstadt: “Now, some people are saying that the result of this trial will threaten free speech. I don’t accept that. I’m not attacking free speech. On the contrary, I’ve been defending it against someone who wanted to abuse it. Freedom of speech means you can say whatever you want. What you can’t do is lie and expect not to be held accountable for it. Not all opinions are equal. And some things happened, just like we say they do. Slavery happened, the Black Death happened. The Earth is round, the ice caps are melting, and Elvis is not alive.”

    Films about the Jewish holocaust could be considered a staple of American cinema, you would think by now that any angle to approach them from would be exhausted. However one of the more fascinating aspects of the holocaust is the person that denies it ever happened. Then there are those people that are capable of making a living out of denying it ever happened. The first time heard about one of these people was in Errol Morris’ documentary “Mr. Death: The Rise and Fall of Fred A. Leuchter, Jr.” (1999), which is a great film that touches on some of the same subjects as “Denial” (2016).

    “Denial”, centers on Deborah Lipstadt (Rachel Weisz) an American professor of Holocaust studies whose speaking engagement is disrupted by David Irving (Timothy Spall), a scholar of Nazi Germany. He files a libel lawsuit in the UK against her and her publisher for declaring him a Holocaust denier in her books. In the United Kingdom the burden of proof in a libel case is on the accused. Therefore, it was up to Lipstadt and her legal team, led by Anthony Julius (Andrew Scott) as lead solicitor and Richard Rampton (Tom Wilkinson) as lead barrister, to prove that Irving specifically knew he was lying in claiming that the Holocaust did not occur.

    This is truly a fascinating film, I was not aware that this court case had taken place in our very recent history. Once the film starts you can see why the subject matter was so appealing to the director as well as the cast involved with this stellar piece of work.

    It is no coincidence that the film has a real and legitimate feeling to it as its veteran director Mick Jackson, cut his teeth on documentaries before becoming a very successful Hollywood director. His biggest commercial success was the Kevin Costner/Whitney Houston starrer “The Bodyguard” (1992) which meant he had the pick of projects for the next ten years – he has worked in a wide variety of mediums and genres. After a ten year break he has returned with “Denial” what may be his best and most personal piece of film making to date.

    As you would expect with a film that deals with some serious issues of truth and the type of prejudices that people have as well as the kinds of prejudices some people have to deal with it comes as no surprise that “Denial” boasts a truly stellar cast of veteran, established and new actors that help bring this story to life.

    Leading the film is the Oscar winning Rachel Weisz who embodies her part, fully committing to the role of being persecuted by someone who is not up to her level of education, with no room for pity for her antagonist in the form of Timothy Spall who plays the very evil and very real David Irving. To Spall’s credit he never plays the character in an arch or unreal way, in fact he gives Irving much humanity, perhaps more than he deserves. The other highlights in the cast are Tom Wilkinson and Andrew Scott who portray the legal counsel that have to prove that Irving is a liar and incorrect about all his assertions, at the same time legitimising Lipstadt.

    In many other years this film would have been a front runner at many of the awards ceremonies in 2016, it does fell like a throw back to film’s like “Inherit the Wind” (1960) or even “The Verdict” (1982) but for modern audiences it may seem tame compared to other dramas being shown and getting a lot of the acclaim in the past few years.

    Leading into watching this film I was not sure what to expect, on the surface it looks and feels like it could be a television movie of the week. Instead once you start watching, it becomes completely obvious that this is indeed a special film where there has been meticulous attention paid to the characters as well as the storyline. I recommend this highly to people with an interest in a good story, great acting and attention to detail.

  • DVD & Blu-ray review: “Ghost in the Shell” (2017)

    DVD & Blu-ray review: “Ghost in the Shell” (2017)

    “Ghost in the Shell” (2017)

    Science Fiction/Thriller/Action

    images

    Running Time: 107 minutes

    Directed by: Rupert Sanders

    Featuring: Scarlett Johansson, Takeshi Kitano, Michael Pitt, Pilou Asbæk, Chin Han and Juliette Binoche

    The Major: “Well, maybe next time you can design me better.”

    The Major: “Everyone around me, they feel connected to something. Connected to something, I’m not.”

    Scarlett Johansson has always been an outstanding actress, making her initial mark in Robert Redford’s underrated “The Horse Whisperer” (1998), then becoming a mainstay in smaller projects that enhanced her acting ability leading to her Oscar nominated performance in “Lost in Translation” (2003). The second identifiable stage of her career started in 2010 cast as ‘Black Widow’ in Jon Favreau’s “Iron Man 2” (2010), this period of her career continues with the release of this weeks “Ghost in the Shell” (2017) on DVD & Blu-ray, which on the surface does not seem like a stones throw from her MCU roles, but in fact runs a lot deeper than any of those roles, it also may be one of her best performances to date.

    In the near future, Hanka Robotics, the world’s leading developer of augmentative technology, establishes a secret project to develop a mechanical body, or “shell”, that can integrate a human brain rather than an AI. A young woman named Mira Killian (Scarlett Johansson), the sole survivor of a cyberterrorist attack, is chosen as the test subject after her body is apparently destroyed beyond repair. Over the objections of her designer, Dr. Ouélet (Juliette Binoche), Hanka CEO Cutter (Peter Ferdinando) decides to train Killian as a counter-terrorism operative.

    A year later, Killian has attained the rank of Major in the anti-terrorist bureau Section 9, working alongside operatives Batou (Pilou Asbæk) and Togusa (Chin Han) under Chief Daisuke Aramaki (Takeshi Kitano). Killian, who has been experiencing hallucinations that Ouélet dismisses as glitches, becomes increasingly bothered by how little she remembers about her past.

    To talk about the plot any more is to pull on a ball of string, so I will just say that whilst the story has been around in various forms for over a hundred years,  you may know the formulaic plot and may even guess where its going – which is not a real skill in these types of movies. The actual elements of the plot have existed since humans asked the question – “Who am I?” “Why do I exist?” – heavy themes indeed.

    This is Scarlett Johansson’s first starring role since her massive global hit “Lucy” (2014), which had some similarities to this film, the biggest difference being that this new film is set in a entirely new world, has much deeper themes as well as a more performance oriented role. Johansson has proved time and again that she is perfectly able to portray a kick ass savy women on screen, this is her chance to play the same character with some real issues as well as giving her depth beyond what we expect to encounter in studio films. This so much more than a person who had a bad childhood (a staple and arhetype), she was taken and forced to act for others, she has been manipulated by people more powerful than her, used and spat out – a metaphorical rape of her mind and body.

    The film owes a debt (as many science fiction tomes do) to Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus by Mary Shelley, as well as James Whales “The Bride of Frankenstein” (1935) – there are many elements they share, this becomes apparent in a few scenes between the Major and her sometime nemesis Kuze. This no more so than their first real meeting when they know there is a connection, Kuze feels it intensely but the Major is repulsed by him on every level. In fact in the denouement which plays out like a tragic love story, but not, we see decisions made that will have effects on both characters as well as possibly bringing the protagonist back for any sequels.

    Rupert Sanders the director of this film has had a knack of world building in particular with his last film the amazingly beautiful looking “Snow White and the Huntsman” (2012) – while this was a hit he had issues on the film and was lucky not to be asked back for the dreadful sequel. In this case he dodged a bullet, has really struck creative gold with this film and a cast that are obviously devoted to this new vision of the future, technology and human interaction. Sanders offers us good looks at what a city by the sea in the future looks like from a wide screen perspective as well as ground level interactions with a variety of incredibly designed characters, where they all look in some way hideous with their technological implants – it is a look at a future that for me is not welcome. I loved the way the director kept the story always moving forward with each of his cast getting their own characterisations, where you can tell each person apart – you also know their loyalties as well as their motivations. Unlike some other films where there is an artificial attempt at having some twist where a person who looked like a friend or ally suddenly betrays the main character, this has been played out in lesser science fictions films to death.

    As well as Scarlett Johansson in the main role there are some fresh faces that round out the cast, the stand out being the Majors main partner Batou (Pilou Asbæk), who never once wavers from her side, stays loyal and has some kind of understanding about who she might really be. Batou for all his bluster seems to really love the Major whether this leads to a more platonic love or romance remains to be seem – but he has her back the entire film, he asks for little in return. Even when he is hurt he does not hold back who he is and unlike a stereotype he does ask his friend for assistance – he knows she needs help, as does he, and they are simpatico in the best way possible.

    The other standout is the always, and I mean always stunning Juliette Binoche as the Majors creator Dr. Ouélet, they love each other in a way that imitates mother and daughter, Ouélet has created the shell in her idealized mirror image, not unsurprisingly for someone with no relationship or children in her life. Binoche fills Ouélet with some compassion for her patient but seems to know that deep down she has wronged the Major on some basic level – interesting the word Ouélet is a place that is barren and desert until rain comes – in respect of this character there is a flood that reveals her true nature.

    In case you have not guessed I loved this film, I recommend it to fans of action movies  that honor, in the best way possible, a previous iteration of a property, as well as gives us a place and characters that are intriguing enough to keep you enthralled for two hours. I do believe you will get more out of this film the more you think about it and I hope they make more. The Major is more than a rank and a soldier she is a person with much to offer.

  • Film review: “Baby Driver” (2017)

    Film review: “Baby Driver” (2017)

    “Baby Driver” (2017)

    Action

    images

    Running Time: 113 minutes

    Written & Directed by: Edgar Wright

    Featuring:  Ansel Elgort, Kevin Spacey, Lily James, Eiza González, Jon Hamm, Jamie Foxx, and Jon Bernthal

    Doc: “So here’s the thing, I’m looking at some of the country’s finest thugs and of course young Mozart in a go-cart over there. People love great bank robbery stories, so let’s give them something full and brazen as fuck to talk about over their lattes.”

    After much anticipation Edgar Wright’s career course correction has arrived, after leaving the super hero project “Ant-Man” (2015), (which in fact turned out very well thank you) he has brought to the screen an almost entirely original proposition. In seeing this weeks new release “Baby Driver” (2017), we can only wonder what his vision of the diminutive super hero may have been. To be frank I was shocked watching this new film as it hits the mark on almost every cylinder, it is full of action, drama, comedy, music and thrills, all packed in at under two hours, pedestrian by the lengths of some of the movies released this Summer – especially considering some of them go absolutely nowhere.

    After all the shenanigans with mates Simon Pegg and Nick Frost, as well as the overtly pop culture referenced work of “Scott Pilgrim vs. the World“ (2010) it is great to see him create something (albeit with a nod towards Walter Hills now classic “The Driver” (1979)) original as well as slick not forgetting smart. This feels like the movie that Wright has promised for so long after the double hits of “Shaun of the Dead” (2004) and “Hot Fuzz” (2007). With “Baby Driver”, Wright has built a film around solid if not extreme characters, that are all driving towards goals that while not unified are understandable in the world they are living in. When you watch this movie it works because of the nature of the narrative that builds the plot which is the use of scene appropriate music that frames almost every scene, whether believable or not. This is a fantasy, a dream that asks us to leave real life at the door, welcome the madness as well as holding on to our seats for a truly unique experience.

    The film is centred around Baby (Ansel Elgort), a young getaway driver in Atlanta, Georgia. When he was a child, a car accident killed his parents and left him with severe tinnitus, which he blocks out by listening to music. He also records his everyday conversations and remixes them into songs using vintage audio equipment. Baby works for Doc (Kevin Spacey), a mastermind heist planner, to pay off a debt he incurred after stealing one of Doc’s cars. Baby lives with his deaf foster father, Joseph. After pulling off a robbery, Baby is told that the next job will pay off his debt. Baby meets waitress Debora (Lily James) at a diner he frequents, and they fall in love.

    Wright has done something few writer/directors are capable of, that is he has reinvented his style to accomodate a new movie. Now while the pace of this film is quick, the actual editing and the way we shift from scene to scene is not. This is in contrast to Wright’s previous films, pretty much all of them, where the audience would be taken from scene to scene with a frenetic style that may have been hiding some of the flaws that were hidden within the plot. Whilst music has always played a large part in Wright’s movies this is the first time he has injected them into the narrative without them being a crux that the move relies on. What I mean by this is if you remove the music from this movie you still have a heist/chase film. With the music added you are witness to a deeper story that invigorates the characters motivations – something special indeed.

    The plot of this movie is something audiences have seen many times before, you know, the one about a person trapped in a situation that they cannot extricate themselves from, but can see a way out, particularly after meeting a third party, which normally turns into their love interest. However, this films plot is framed by the well thought out, as well as the soundtrack, full of deep cuts which opens with the toe tappingly great Jon Spencer Blues Explosion ‘Bellbottoms’, where Baby and his crew rob a bank, this plays while they make their outrageous getaway, something that hints at the pace for the rest of the film. The opening also makes a statement about the movie as well as Wright saying “I have arrived!”, in the loudest way possible. Most, if not all the music is diegetic which is unique in itself without the movie being a musical, although at times this movie has many of the same beats as a musical – witness the opening credits sequence with Baby moving in a single shot to the original ‘Harlem Shuffle’, as well as the ending all choreographed to the amazing ‘Brighton Rock’ by Queen. Baby moves as well as drives like a dancer, and the car fu (if you will) beats almost anything seen in the ‘Fast’ franchise, seemingly without the massive CGI that is needed for those behemoths.

    Talking about Baby, played by relative newcomer Ansel Elgort, is a character that almost reaches the heights Wright had for him, but maybe his face is a little too baby, without the lived in physique another actor may have had – they try and rough him up by scarring him, but he is almost too pretty – maybe even prettier than leading lady Lilly James – who in my mind seems a little too twee for the part as well as out of her depth in the role. However none of this really matters when the stars come out to play with some of the best dialogue around, they chew it up and roughhouse with each other like the pros they are. Witness Kevin Spacey as ‘Doc’ (an obvious homage to Steve McQueen) who runs the show, Jon Bernthal as Griff (seen all too briefly) and Eiza González as Darling a a lovingly twisted partner to the scene stealing (saying that in this film is a real compliment) Jon Hamm as Buddy.

    Speaking of the absolute best performances, they come from the aforementioned John Hamm as Buddy and Jamie Foxx as way too crazy Bats. It can be no mistake that these two actors have the best roles as well as give the best performances; they are polar opposites in this and are set up against each other for most of their time onscreen. However, it is Hamm in the bigger and more defining role that steals the entire movie – including the music. Hamm shines like no other time onscreen in his career, here he is not relying on his winking at the camera or chiseled looks, it is just his menace as well as his complete understanding of Baby that makes his part in this film timeless. Foxx is excellent as well in a dangerous role that sparks the entire third act into motion as well as offering some menacing looks and dialogue, he is always great, but here like Hamm he is off the hook, unlike anything I have seen him in since possibly “Django Unchained” (2012). These two performances are reason enough to see this movie at the cinemas.

    Judging from the box office success of this film, quickly approaching US$100 million at the US box office alone this will be one of the bigger success of this Summer season, given that this is an original movie, much like “Dunkirk” (2017) which at this stage looks like it too will be a big success. It can be no coincidence that these two original films (both written and directed by Englishmen) will be surpassing expectations, unlike the glut of sequels, reboots and comic book movies which have mostly lagged behind expectations both critically and financially. What does this say about the tastes of audiences, for one thing maybe its time that more original movies were being made and that filmmakers should be left alone to create original properties?

    If you want to see an excellent action/thriller movie this year then this will be the one for you. You will definitely get a kick out of the music as well as the interplay with Baby, as well as the rest of the cast. This is a modestly budgeted film with a cast that is worth their weight in gold. You would be crazy to not see this on the big screen with the volume turned up to 11.

    Oh yeah, and look out for the great Paul Williams dressed in a white suit – priceless.

    Track list:

    1. Jon Spencer Blues Explosion – ‘Bellbottoms’
    2. Bob & Earl – ‘Harlem Shuffle’
    3. Jonathan Richman & The Modern Lovers – ‘Egyptian Reggae’
    4. Googie Rene – ‘Smokey Joe’s La La’
    5. The Beach Boys – ‘Let’s Go Away For Awhile’
    6. Carla Thomas – ‘B-A-B-Y’
    7. Kashmere Stage Band – ‘Kashmere’
    8. Dave Brubeck – ‘Unsquare Dance’
    9. The Damned – ‘Neat Neat Neat’
    10. The Commodores – ‘Easy (Single Version)’
    11. Rex – ‘Debora’
    12. Beck – ‘Debra’
    13. Incredible Bongo Band – ‘Bongolia’
    14. The Detroit Emeralds – ‘Baby Let Me Take You (in My Arms)’
    15. Alexis Korner – ‘Early In The Morning’
    16. David McCallum – ‘The Edge’
    17. Martha and the Vandellas – ‘Nowhere To Run’
    18. The Button Down Brass – ‘Tequila’
    19. Sam & Dave – ‘When Something Is Wrong With My Baby’
    20. Brenda Holloway – ‘Every Little Bit Hurts’
    21. Blur – ‘Intermission’
    22. Focus – ‘Hocus Pocus (Original Single Version)’
    23. Golden Earring – ‘Radar Love (1973 Single Edit)’
    24. Barry White – ‘Never, Never Gone Give Ya Up’
    25. Young MC – ‘Know How’
    26. Queen – ‘Brighton Rock’
    27. Sky Ferreira – ‘Easy’
    28. Simon & Garfunkel – ‘Baby Driver’
    29. Kid Koala – ‘Was He Slow (Credit Roll Version)’

    “Baby Driver” is out now in cinemas everywhere.

     

     

  • DVD review: “The Red Turtle” (2016)

    DVD review: “The Red Turtle” (2016)

    “The Red Turtle” (2016)

    Drama/Animated

    Running Time: 80 minutes

    images

    Written & directed by: Michaël Dudok de Wit

    When watching this film I was struck by the majesty of its beauty as well as the eeriness of its silence. I also found it difficult to believe that this was Michaël Dudok de Wit, the Danish writer/director, first full-length film after four other animated shorts over the past fifteen years. This film’s plot is simple, it has been told many times before, a ‘Robinson Crusoe’ affair, which has been animated, the difference and strength being it  is able to transcend formal story telling by making a leap into the mind of a man who has no hope of rescue. His only possible salvation from going mad is to embrace his surroundings, by becoming a character in his own life. This is a film where survival is the most important objective, not only physical survival but also survival of the mind and the soul. There are also elements of wish fulfillment throughout the film which we see mostly in dream sequences, as well as from the survivors point of view – which like all narratives told from one point of view can be deceptive.

    “The Red Turtle” concerns a nameless man set adrift by a storm wakes up on a deserted island. Finding fresh fruit and water, as well as variety of animals and a sweeping forest of bamboo, the man decides to leave the island. The man builds a raft from bamboo, and attempts to sail away. However, an unseen sea creature destroys the raft, forcing the man back to the island. Attempting to escape with another raft, his plan is foiled again by the sea creature. Trying a third time his raft being destroyed again, but once he is in the water he finds a female red turtle facing him. The turtle doesn’t harm the man. The man retreats back to the island.

    That evening, the man sees the red turtle crawling on the shore, attempting to go inland. In revenge, he hits the red turtle on the head with a bamboo stick, and pushes it over on its back. After halfway through building another raft, the man starts to feel guilty about leaving the turtle upside down, so he catches a fish and tries to feed it to the turtle, but finds that it has died. The turtle’s shell splits down the middle during the night, and to the man’s surprise, the turtle turns into a woman.

    The plot to this film is simple in its concept, but the real revelation is in the magical narrative, which is at once relatively abstract as well as having hints of a sort of magical realism. This is of course accentuated by the fact that it is animated with such care that the story envelopes the viewer with ease – in effect we are watching the final part of a mans life unencumbered by technology, any modern comforts, with the only comfort being satisfaction from his own primal nature. It asks questions about what it means to be a man, a human being, what we will do to survive and what it is we really need to have in a full and effective life when the spark that holds us together is so finite. In the story of his own life this man who is isolated from the rest of humanity attains what many lack, a family, not only a human one as you can see occurring in front of your eyes, but an understanding with the natural world that says while you can try and control nature it will always have the final say, whether in terms of the natural environs or the lack of respect shown when ‘man’ may be under the misconception he is at the top of the food chain.

    The film’s story is complemented with breathtaking animation by a team that are aware of what they are required to show as well as how they are required to get this personal narrative across. The fluidity of movement of the human as well as the animal characters is so breathtaking that it defies description, whilst obviously not photo realistic I couldn’t help think about how real they all seemed without being distracting to the narrative. The movie uses static backgrounds with movement within the frame to highlight not only importance, but adding another aspect of realism that adds to the movie in terms of how we should view this new world, while it being an unknown element within the story.

    The way in which the story progresses from the introduction to the ending, visually through the animation is interesting in itself. The palate of the animation moves from a washed out looking landscape to one that is not only full of color but boats a point of view that enhances the natural world in which the man is now living – he is no longer apart from the natural world but is living within it, becoming part of it, learning from his many mistakes to co habit with the flora, fauna and other animals – including some very close to home.

    The other aspect that I found compelling was that no matter what the man ultimately needs to survive, it is supplied, for want of a better word, by nature. This is almost immediately illustrated when he first lands on the island – when he realises he is thirsty, he finds a puddle of water, no sooner does he start slurping it up than it begins to rain. Not to give away any spoilers but his entire life is built around the island, so when he requires something, even when he does not realise it, is somehow supplied – it is like he is becoming one with his environment. The other beautiful aspect of this film is that for a man to be stranded on an island he actually has a full life, having a family, once again without spoilers he goes through many life experiences any father or husband might have, this is a triumph of story telling that is not seen very often at all – it is a true experience.

    This movie is a masterpiece; my only refret was that I did not see this at the cinema at the time of its initial release in 2016. If you have not yet seen “The Red Turtle” you need to buy this DVD, it has immense watchability and will have you transfixed for its eighty minutes running time. If you have seen it you should have it as part of your home library.

    “The Red Turtle” is out now on DVD.

     

     

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

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

    “CHiPs” (2017)

    Comedy/Action

    2,0

    Running Time: 101 minutes

    Directed by: Dax Shepard

    Featuring: Dax Shepard, Michael Peña, Vincent D’Onofrio, Adam Brody, Rosa Salazar, Vida Guerra, and Kristen Bell

    Jon Baker: I hope that you’re not praying on girls with low self-esteem.

    Frank ‘Ponch’ Poncherello: “How are you judging them, like by their hair, like how straight their teeth are?”

    Jon Baker: “Yeah.”

    Frank ‘Ponch’ Poncherello: “That’s really shallow. Real talk, she ate my butt.”

    Jon Baker: “She ate your ass?”

    Frank ‘Ponch’ Poncherello: “Everyone’s eating everyone’s ass now?”

    Jon Baker: “What about hygiene?”

    Frank ‘Ponch’ Poncherello: “If you go to the bathroom and you see some baby wipes, green light.”

    This film has been in the offing for a number of years, with a variety of different directors and actors attached. It has been in development for so long that frankly I am surprised it was made at all; I thought the brand recognition for this property would be all but dead. Warner’s have had other ideas and some success with modestly budgeted R-rated comedies, particularly with unproven talent in front of as well as behind the scenes. In this case they have given the reigns of this project to Dax Shepard, who at this stage may be more famous for his marriage to Kristen Bell, than anything he has accomplished in the film business. Judging from the results here as well as the relative success (or not as the case may be) of this film that may remain the case for Shepard, who has an ally in the form of always-reliable Michael Pena as his sparring partner in this 1970s re-tread.

    The story (for what its worth) of “CHiPs” (2017) in this incarnation follows Jon Baker (Dax Shepard) and Frank “Ponch” Poncherello (Michael Peña) who have just joined the California Highway Patrol (CHP) in Los Angeles but for very different reasons. Baker is a beaten up pro motorbiker trying to put his life and marriage back together. Poncherello is a cocky undercover Federal agent investigating a multi-million dollar heist that may be an inside job, inside the CHP.

    When they are teamed together they clash more than click, so kick starting a partnership is easier said than done. But with Baker’s bike skills combined with Ponch’s street savvy it might just work. Soon they find themselves in a situation like none other when a sadistic ex-cop, Vic Brown (Vincent D’Onofrio), and his motor vehicle theft hit men are wreaking havoc throughout their city.

    The only other film that I think about comparing “CHiPs” to, is the excellent as well as hilarious re-make of the 1970s TV series “Starsky & Hutch” (2004). That film, not only had the benefit of something cool to draw on, that is the original television series, but the incredible talents of Ben Stiller, Owen Wilson, Will Ferrell, Vince Vaughn, and Jason Bateman, in front of the camera all doing the things they were so successful at then. But behind the camera you had Todd Phillips in the directors chair who was about to come into his own with the “Hangover” Trilogy, which would land him on the A list of comedic directors.

    Unfortunately the only actor close to a star in “CHiPs” is Michael Pena who all respect to him, has not carried a film by himself yet, but he has such excellent comic timing that I pretty much forgive him for everything he does in this movie. Dax Shepard as comic actor is very good, he had a great turn in “Idiocracy” (2006) which is a must see; but he is a little uneven in this movie – he seemingly cannot decide how to gauge his own performance – my only real problem is that he should either stick behind the camera or stay in front of it – it takes very special talents for someone to stay in charge of a production as well as directing themselves. My thought was that there was no other male actor of a similar look and age that was available so this was rushed into production – and that may explain some of the issues with the movie. That is the miscasting, the unevenness of the plot, some very unfunny gags as well as having little actual style to bring to an audience.

    “CHiPs”, ultimately, is just your standard action comedy romp with little attention paid to the script or really even the characters. Even though there are a lot of jokes they feel out of place in 2017; are gay jokes still funny or did “Benny Hill” and “The Two Ronnies” have a hand in this? Not everything is bad but when you have a modestly budgeted movie, the characters had better work, then the dialogue will flow – even comedies work that way – have a look at “Starsky & Hutch”, although the talent once again speaks for itself – in the end it is an unfair comparison. There appears on the surface anyway any proof that there was serious consideration to what is funny in an action film, as well as what is not.

    I really wanted to like this movie but the writing is on the wall fairly early on, maybe it would have been better and funnier to have the two cops in an ‘out of time’ plot or something that made sense to the original series. I for one was pretty disappointed, finding myself asking how Shepard could write, direct, star and produce this without hitting the goal once. As I said earlier I think Dax should just act and leave the more behind the camera stuff to others, maybe to talented people that can wrangle both a script as well as look of a movie.

    The one thing this film does do is to offer some counter programming to the glut of films being released over the next two weeks, for all its weaknesses it is a studio R-rated comedy for adults. The downside is that its not the greatest comedy, but you will have a laugh and if you do remember the original from the 1970s or have seen repeats you will recognize certain touchstones, such as the uniforms and the bikes – which is about it, as LA has changed so much that the geographic area fom the original is unrecognizable.

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

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

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

    “Aftermath” (2017)

    Drama

    2,0

    Running Time: 92 minutes

    Written: Javier Gullón

    Directed by: Elliott Lester

    Featuring:  Arnold Schwarzenegger, Scoot McNairy, Maggie Grace and Martin Donovan.

    Roman: “Look at this photo. I would like for someone to say that they’re sorry for killing my family.”

    Lets face it the only reason to watch this movie is to see the continuing comeback of its star Arnold Schwarzenegger after his hiatus whilst serving as the Governor of California. It is true he did make the odd appearance in film during his time as Governor, but it was not until the release of “The Last Stand” (2013) that he announced he was back to being a full-time actor as well as a movie star, his former occupations. Since then he has made “Escape Plan” (2013), “Sabotage” (2014), “The Expendables 3” (2014), “Maggie” (2015) and of course “Terminator: Genisys” (2015), all to varying degrees of success. It would be an understatement to say that any of these movies have been that fantastic, in fact a couple have been bordering on terrible. I for one enjoyed “The Last Stand”, which I think may have gotten a raw deal when it was initially released, a shame as it fits into the Schwarzenegger oeuvre very nicely as well as any of his other past films.

    The one thing that is great to see, however, is the ease in which Schwarzenegger is playing his age, in many of these movies he is grey and not hiding his bulk – it may be better for him to stop trying to play the lead in a movie, maybe he should to try to become a true character actor – he does have limited range so this may suit him, it could lead nicely to a third part of his career with which to have some real success. For now though we are stuck with movies like this months straight to DVD/Blu-ray drama “Aftermath” (2017) – a film Schwarzenegger  would not have been caught dead in before his run for Governor.

    The movie concerns everyman Roman Melnyk (Schwarzenegger ), who is a construction worker in New York – he is getting ready to welcome his family Nadiya and Olena from overseas. Roman receives the news that the plane, with his wife and daughter onboard, has crashed, they are both dead. From this point, Roman is devastated and blames the air traffic controller for the deaths of his family.

    Meanwhile, in another angle of the story, Jacob “Jake” Bonanos (Scoot McNairy), an air traffic controller, is now also devastated, after seeing two planes disappear from the radar, showing that the two planes collided and were destroyed. Although the investigators cannot hold Jake responsible for the deaths of the passengers, he blames himself.

    This film is many things but I wouldn’t say good or compelling are two of them, it seems like there  may be something to it than first meets the eye, particularly with the cinematography, which looks interesting, as well as the word thriller which is used to describe it, in the marketing. This movie is not a thriller, it is for want of a better description a male melodrama that never really reaches the emotional depths it would like to. This may be because of the plodding performance of Schwarzenegger himself or the fact that no real depth is given to him or his counterpart in the piece, Scoot McNairy. It seems that we are supposed to feel sorry for Schwarzenegger simply because he lost his family, but the device that is used to keep him moribund is the fact that he wants an apology from someone – really, an apology, are we supposed to buy that? People process grief in different ways but here the main character goes on a self destructive tour where he spurns help from just about everyone – he never helped himself by talking to people close to him – this is a very un-American thing to do when you work in construction – a terrible trope – which may explain why the US in such trouble now, socially as well as politically. I will not give away the ending but the way he deals with his grief is deplorable, as is the ham fisted ending that offers no real reason for this story to exist in the first place.

    I can see the appeal for Schwarzenegger in taking this role in a small drama where he might be able to play someone who loses his family (maybe he saw something in his life that was familiar) but this movie was a bad choice. It is a clumsy, non-sensical revenge film that makes light of his actual loss, as well as stereotyping men who are not highly educated,  seeing them as brutes who know only one thing, violence through revenge, there is no apology for it, nor is their any price paid by him in his final act – in fact he has a reduced punishment because it seems the social contract sxays he was in the right.

    The writer (Javier Gullón) and director (Elliott Lester) of this movie have been involved in mainly action films before so the nuance that is required to delicately balance the emotions that both main characters are meant to be feeling is lost here. The Schwarzenegger characters idea of loss is to aimlessly wander around his home as well as his old work site, sticking pictures of his family on a wall within his home, building fences (get it, he is building real ones as well as metaphorical ones) and drink. McNairy’s character on the other hand just wants medication, does the American thing of buying a gun, lets his own family walk out and oh yes, drinks heavily. The movie is filled with outdated as well as dangerously stereotypical male actions – something you would expect from people with a political leaning towards the right of center. I find this film an embarrassment, although while you are in it you might not notice how ludicrous some of the situations are, it os only afterward if you bother to reflect on it you will see this film is as big a fantasy as any Marvel or DC movie’s released this year.

    There are endless plot holes within this movie, from the farcical work environment McNairy works in, to the way in which the plane crash occurs, to the Schwarzenegger being able to stay with his families bodies where they are being stored, to the reporter giving away information, to the fact that McNairy is even to blame – the list goes on and on. I don’t require realism from all aspects within a movie, but some semblance of reality would be great.

    What this film says about masculinity as well as a father or husbands reaction to loss of life is frankly embarrassing not only to me but for the people behind this movie. During the movie my wife turned to me and said, “You wouldn’t do what the main character is doing if we were in the same situation?” I can honestly say I said no. Now there may be times when you feel like he does but you could not function if that was your life. It is sad to think this movie was even made, it almost seems likes it’s a reaction to forgiving people or to tune audiences up to this new America they have woken up to in the last year or so.

    I cannot recommend highly enough to only watching this movie if you are a fan of dramas that have little to do with reality or if you are a huge fan of Arnold Schwarzenegger and want to see everything he appears in. To be honest the closest thing to this Schwarzenegger has done is the under rated “Maggie” (2015) which I would recommend for something that is different and more believable than this exercise in futility.

    “Aftermath” Schwarzenegger is out now on DVD and Blu-ray.

     

     

  • DVD review: “Toni Erdmann” (2016)

    DVD review: “Toni Erdmann” (2016)

    “Toni Erdmann” (2016)

    Comedy/Drama/Foreign

    images

    Running Time: 162 minutes

    Written & Directed by: Maren Ade

    Featuring: Sandra Hüller, Peter Simonischek, Michael Wittenborn

    Germany and comedy may not be two words that are synonymous with each other but after “Toni Erdmann” (2016) this might change – for the better. The viewer should be prepared for the almost three hour running time – but fear not the film moves along at a good pace, there never feels like any short changing much like any good drama. The film is at once epic but at the same time deeply personal in a way rarely seen in today’s movie world.

    The film revolves around Winfried Conradi, a divorced music teacher, an old-age hippie of sorts, with a passion for bizarre pranks involving several fake personas. Over the bereavement of his dog, he decides to reconnect with his daughter Ines, who is pursuing a career in business consulting and is currently posted in Bucharest, Romania, where she works on an outsourcing project in the oil industry.

    The story is pretty crazy and I wont spoil it but it this film has to be seen to be believed – it is a great tale that will have you chuckling well after the movie is over. It is not to say there are no dramatic moments – any film dealing with estrangement is inherently going to be dramatic but the levity is a welcome diversion.

    There is tragic realism within the film as well from not only both characters but their surroundings as well especially in the final third of the film. The director, Maren Ade,  frames the actors in honest and satisfying ways – we are invited into this new world, both emotionally and physically.

    With most successful comedies there are elements of drama and at the core of all the fun is the relationship that exists or doesn’t exist between Winfried and his daughter, Ines. This is a great way to build a film using the tension of Toni’s odd mannerisms and sense of humor. This film did remind me in a way of the James L. Brooks film “As good as it gets” (1997), which put the main characters OCD as a way for him to explore a possibly difficult new relationship. No surprise then that Jack Nicholson has expressed interest in remaking this film featuring himself in the main role.

    This film operates on both a micro and a macro level – it has something to say about the awkward ways in which we lead our lives, the masks that we put on to deal with happiness, success, failure and defeats. This is what makes the film so great – yes its German but it uncovers universal truths that all the best films do so well. There is also a comment to be found about the state of Europe and in doing so comments on our Global situation where borders are both being erected in parts and removed in others. This is a challenging film but for all the good reasons.

    This was nominated at this years Oscars for the best Foreign Film Academy Award and to be honest it probably should have won, but lost to “The Salesman” (2016) as Asghar Farhadi was unable to attend the ceremony so many people voted his way. It is a unique film that focuses on humor and not conflict to solve problems – something we could all learn from in this very divisive time. Highly recommended.

    “Toni Erdmann” is available now in DVD, it is worth the viewing as well as the purchase.

  • DVD Review: “Gleason” (2016)

    DVD Review: “Gleason” (2016)

    “Gleason” (2016)

    3-stars

    Documentary

    Running Time: 101 minutes

    Director: Clay Tweel

    Paul Gleason: “I’m afraid to walk in public, because people look at me. But I’m not going to stop. I’m afraid because if I want to commune with my friend Shad (Meier), I have to ask him to cut my chicken for me. But I did it. And I’m afraid to go back and see my teammates and coaches because I know that I’ll feel envy. But I’m going to do it anyway. Because fear is just a feeling, and if you can acknowledge that fear, digest that fear and overcome it, the rewards are incredible.”

    Any type of illness, especially a major or traumatic illness are long standing tropes within non-fictional films or films made about real people – however in the past fifteen years there has been a trend of people creating documentaries about themselves or loved ones who are facing the struggle of a terminal illness – this is the main thrust of “Gleason” (2016), what makes this unique is the main character is tied, or associated to a city that has itself recovered from one of the worst man made disasters in history, New Orleans. The disease in this case is ALS.

    Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease and motor neuron disease (MND), is a specific disease that causes the death of neurons, which control voluntary muscles. Some also use the term “motor neuron disease” for a group of conditions of which ALS is the most common. ALS is characterized by stiff muscles, muscle twitching, and gradually worsening weakness due to muscles decreasing in size. This results in difficulty in speaking, swallowing, and eventually breathing. The average survival from onset to death is two to four years. About 10% survive longer than 10 years. In 2014 videos of the ice bucket challenge went viral on the Internet and increased public awareness.

    This film follows former professional football player Steve Gleason after he is diagnosed with ALS and decides to make a video diary for his unborn son, as he, his wife, and their friends and family work to raise money for ALS patients as his disease progresses. Gleason is especially well known for his blocked punt in a 2006 game that became a symbol of recovery in New Orleans in the team’s first home game after Hurricane Katrina, a event so important that it is immortalized outside the stadium where it took place in bronze.

    Through the running time of this film we see the highs and lows of both Steve and all of his family. Steve starts to accept what is happening to him and has to decide at some point about his future. Michel, his wife is frank in all of the footage and is very honest in all of the interviews. She finds it hard and once their son is born it is truly effecting to see how a one year old can operate better than his own father.

    What is quite different about this documentary is the courage that Steve shows in almost all the scenes and we also see him become a catalyst for change in terms of helping other ALS sufferers receive some relief as well as helping to make their short-term goals a reality. Steve ends up creating new laws that will assist ALS sufferers and families equip themselves with tools and equipment that the federal government will pay for.

    This is a heart wrenching documentary but it has a point to it and will be of benefit to people who are suffering from any disease as wll as their families and support people – I recommend this highly as it covers many bases in its running time.

    “Gleason” is out now on DVD.

    If you enjoyed this then watch:

    “The Theory of Everything” (2014)

    “The Times of Harvey Milk” (1984)

    “The Suicide Tourist” (2007)

  • Film review: “Dunkirk” (2017)

    Film review: “Dunkirk” (2017)

    “Dunkirk” (2017)

    Historical Drama

    images

    Running Time: 106 minutes

    Written & Directed by: Christopher Nolan

    Featuring: Fionn Whitehead, Tom Glynn-Carney, Jack Lowden, Harry Styles, Aneurin Barnard, James D’Arcy, Barry Keoghan, Kenneth Branagh, Cillian Murphy, Mark Rylance, and Tom Hardy

     Commander Bolton: “You can practically see it from here.”

    Captain Winnant: “What?”

    Commander Bolton: “Home.”

    Apparently this is a film that writer/director Christopher Nolan has wanted to make for quite some time but had to wait some time so that he was able to prove to Warner Brothers that he could make the film within a limited budget, as well as within a running time that would be less than many of his previous movies. Nolan has done this by paring down the true story of Dunkirk by sidestepping many of the tropes that have haunted movies set during World War II, that is, he only shows scenes that are directly relevant to the plot and nothing else. As well as this he uses a varied time scheme to tell aspects of Dunkirk from three different points of view.

    I have to admit that I have never been the biggest Nolan fan, I enjoyed “Batman Begins” (2005) but felt the two sequels were for the most part, bloated, as well as self-important. I did love his one two punch of “Insomnia” (1999) as well as “The Prestige” (2001) where he not only used narrative as well as plot ingeniously but also drew out some of the best performances from A-listers, Al Pacino, Robin Williams. Hugh Jackman and Christian Bale. In “Dunkirk”, the second movie this year about the biggest defeat of England by the Nazis, I am happy to say that this is a movie with extremely strong performances, great realistic action as well as a plot and narrative that are simple but at the same time extremely effective. This film was going to be a big ask of not only Nolan to deliver a compelling story but of audiences worldwide to take part in what is a truly emotional journey by all of the characters within this story.

    Primarily “Dunkirk” is based around the allied soldiers from Britain, Belgium, Canada, and France who have been surrounded by the German Army on the beaches of Dunkirk, being evacuated in ‘Operation Dynamo’ between 26 May and 4 June 1940, during the early stages of what would become the Second World War.

    One of the first things that hits you about this World War II action film is its cast all of UK origin, led by the increasingly compelling Kenneth Branagh as Commander Bolton who is trying to get his men back to blighty. Recent Oscar winner Mark Rylance plays a man trying to pitch in by sailing in his own boat to pick up the boys to bring home. He encounters Cillian Murphy one soldier who really does not want to see any action – his story is revealed later. The genius of casting such big names in a film that is more about the everyday soldiers is genius, it gives the audience who may not know much about the retreat at Dunkirk something to hang onto as the film unfolds. This aspect of the film also means that the audience is engaged from the beginning of the film to the very end, which is important as there is very little dialogue to explain what is happening in the various locations that Nolan is concentrating on in this version of the very real historical event.

    This is by no means the first film about the events that occurred at Dunkirk, in fact it is not even the first film this year, that honor goes to the touching “Their Finest” (2017) which was a unique way of folding in many ideas about the war in England, as well as the defeat that the English faced at Dunkirk and how they were attempting to come back and win the war. The one film I would recommend to watch is “Weekend at Dunkirk” (1964), a French movie featuring the great Jean-Paul Belmondo – this gives an alternate view to what was going on with the French soldiers that were soon to be overrun by the Nazis with the invasion of France. There is in fact a lovely homage to this film early on in the initial section of “Dunkirk”. The reason for bringing these two films to your attention is that they give an alternate view of the event, one that Nolan’s film does not, in fact it does not show any other aspects other than the view of the immediacy of the British experience.

    The beauty about this film is that Nolan has chosen to tell a single story that involves a limited time period of a few days, something he has not attempted since his excellent remake “Insomnia” (1999), everything he has completed since then has been sprawling; “The Dark Knight Trilogy” or extremely complex, “Inception” (2012). For an audiences to immediately identify with, I would argue that “Dunkirk” represents not only a return to simpler more formal film-making but also represents Nolan’s best work in over a decade, at least since the excellent “Batman Begins” (2005). The other more obvious part of this film is the running time; at a brisk 106 minutes it is Nolan’s shortest film since his debut “The Following” (1998). The reason this running time aspect of my review is important is because it physically highlights the greatest aspect of this film as well as the filmmaker himself – it also goes along way to establish the narrative peculiarities of this film, which while not unique in cinema could be seen as a break in the plodding narratives of Summer blockbusters.

    “Dunkirk” is set over three distinct parts of the evacuation that is true, but it is also further narratively complex by having each segment of the plot set over very different time periods. So while almost every film compresses time to tell a story, “Dunkirk” does this to, but through three different parts of the plot. So, we have the first part of the story, titled “The Mole” set on the beaches of Dunkirk taking place over one week, the second part of the story titled “The Sea” set over one day and finally the third part titled “The Air” set over just one hour. This may seem confusing at the outset but one of the reasons to play with the timelines on specific stories is to bring them all together at the end for the climax of the movie – although there is a coda at the conclusion after the three strands of plot come together. The other reason to offer the three strands as well as the three timelines is to illustrate how the events at Dunkirk unfolded as well as where the significant areas were being fought by the British as well as the French. In fact in looking at this film the playfulness with the timing of the narrative is one of the bravest conceits in a studio movie for some time, and it is kudos to Warners for allowing Nolan to take such a step bearing in mind that this could have been a confusing element for some people to grasp.

    This is indeed a Christopher Nolan film; right from the outset we are thrust into the film with only a small piece of preamble about what is occurring at Dunkirk, but no more. In fact there is so little dialogue you could be forgiven to thinking there is no dialogue at all, of course that is not true as there is some dialogue, the most compelling as well as contributing to some exposition is given by the excellent Kenneth Branagh as ‘Commander Bolton’ who has the showiest role. This is a film that shows how hard it was physically to leave the shores of Dunkirk through action and little else. We see through the eye of unnamed infantrymen how fast things could happen, in particular I was struck by how quickly ships would sink as well as how hard it was for men to leave these same ships – it is a tragedy to behold. The performances of the cast are excellent as you would once again expect, Tom Hardy as the fighter pilot, Farrier, as well as Mark Rylance the pleasure craft captain, Mr Dawson. But, as you might not expect it is the young Harry Styles who shines as bright as anyone as the infantryman, Alex, who enters the story late but is as effective as any other actor, we follow him and touch upon the emotion he offers, one of many boys among men who must come to terms with their mortality in what must seem a senseless waste.

    In my mind this is the first truly great film of 2017, Nolan has to be acknowledged as a master film maker, mainly because of the ability of him to be able to fashion a simple plot of a real event that shaped the future of World War II, as well as steeling the British public for the horror that was to unfold over the next five years. This kind of film is a rare thing indeed, a war film not involving the Americans, but dealing with loss, the ease in which people take others lives in battle – the strength that is shown by people who do not need to help but overcome fear to put strangers needs before their own.

    This is a film that you should see on the big screen now. “Dunkirik” is out now only at cinemas.

  • DVD & Blu-ray review: “The Lego Batman Movie” (2017)

    DVD & Blu-ray review: “The Lego Batman Movie” (2017)

    “The Lego Batman Movie” (2017)

    Animated/Action

    images

    Directed by: Chris McKay

    Featuring: Will Arnett, Zach Galifianakis, Michael Cera, Rosario Dawson and Ralph Fiennes

    Alfred Pennyworth: “Were you looking at the old family pictures again?”

    Batman: “No, I wasn’t!”

    Alfred Pennyworth: “Sir, I have seen you go through similar phases in 2016 and 2012 and 2008 and 2005 and 1997 and 1995 and 1992 and 1989 and that weird one in 1966.”

    Batman: “I have aged phenomenally”

    After more than a few comedies having been released this year, with more misses than hits, it is refreshing to watch “The Lego Batman Movie” (2017), have some honest to goodness laughs. I can happily report that this film picks up from where “The Lego Movie” (2014) left off, with appearances of characters from that excellent film. It was an extremely high bar that writer/directors Phil Lord and Christopher Miller set with their film, while this new film never reaches those consistent heights it does have more than enough to keep everyone very happy, with an expectation to look forward to the next instalment from the Lego franchise.

    “The Lego Batman Movie” is set appropriately three years after the saving of the Lego Universe with Emmet, Wyldstyle and the rest of the band of heroic misfits. Batman continues fighting crime in Gotham City, attempting to vanquish the baddies – sort of. During a mission to prevent the Joker from destroying the city, Batman hurts his arch-rival’s feelings by telling him he is not as important in his life as he thinks he is, leading Joker to seek the ultimate revenge on him.

    The following day, Batman attends the city’s winter gala as his alter ego Bruce Wayne to celebrate the retirement of Commissioner Gordon and the ascension of his daughter Barbara as the Gotham City Police Department’s new police commissioner, but is infuriated when she announces her plans to restructure the city’s police to function without the need of Batman. The Joker crashes the party with the rest of Gotham City’s villains, but has all of them surrender to the police. Despite realizing that this makes him no longer relevant to the city’s safety, Batman suspects his arch-rival is up to something and decides to stop him by banishing him into the Phantom Zone, a prison for some of the most dangerous villains in the Lego multiverse.

    From this point the action and humour are ratcheted up with many many villains from the Warner archive making an appearance, I don’t do spoilers but the story is fun and great, you have to see it to believe the insanity that unfolds. At times the myriad characters almost seems to be out of control but the expert director knows when to show them as well as hold them so it welcome when there is a lull in the action.

    Chris McKay, who is essentially making his debut as a film director has had more than enough comedy and animation experience from his extensive work on the television show “Robot Chicken” (2005 – present) where the fast paced humour, as well the homages to other properties serve him well here. McKay does an outstanding job of juggling the immense amount of characters, giving them all the time they need to make an impact, his own sense of humor is obvious as well as being broad enough for a wide audience. As a technical director  he moves everything so fast you would be forgiven if there were elements that did not hang together or were not framed quite right. However, in saying that, the pace of the movie can be frenetic, sometimes it would be nice for time to slow down a little, which trust me it does not.

    As you would expect if you have seen “The Lego Movie” (and if you haven’t go out and get a copy now) the voice cast is second to none, it all starts at the top with Will Arnett who audiences demand return after his debut as Batman in the original film. Arnett’s portrayal of the Batman has to be one of the best around, it towers above George Clooney, Val Kilmer and the Ben Affleck. Arnett is able to distill with just his voice what makes the character so special, both parts of it – he is able to portray a soul that, is at once real but also lives in some kind of adult fantasy land where he has permission to work outside the law with no repercussions. This is an aspect that only Chris Nolan has been able to get close to, but the Lego movies do it with ease. Also of course, he is hilarious.

    The remainder of the cast is of course top class, Rosario Dawson voices Barbara Gordon, the newly minted Police Commissioner who wants to work with Batman to clean up Gotham, Michael Cera as Dick Grayson/Robin who is conflicted to say the least, Ralph Fiennes as Bruce’s butler Alfred, more than a match for anyone in the film, while attempting to father Bruce, and who almost steals the movie. Finally there are the two main villains, The Joker voiced by Zach Galifianakis and Harley Quinn voiced by Jenny Slate who play off each other more effectively than two other actors who have played them recently. This film for all its laughs and craziness is about both positive and negative relationships as well the possible health of each.

    The film, much like the first one is about family as well as what that family unit means, particularly in regards to shouldering responsibility and all that entails for young and old alike. Like the best-animated films this has a beating heart that resonates with anyone that will takes it’s pulse. If you don’t laugh and cry throughout this film then it is possible you don’t have a pulse. The truth is Batman has never been a true loner and definitely not the misery guts he turned into from the 1980s onwards, it’s been four decades and he needs to lighten up. This film not only shows why he, and of course we, need friends and that we should never shoulder all the responsibility all of the time – something in New Zealand we need to learn especially with our young people – in true Lego style it takes a village.

    I recommend this movie whole heartedly, not only is it a great-animated movie it is a great film, with a message that never preaches but shows a valid point of view. The other important thing “The Lego Batman Movie” does is illustrate how to make a funny super hero film for all of those people that are too young for “Deadpool” (2016), this does that easily. In fact some of the other Warner/DC properties could take a page out of this movie’s playbook.

    “The Lego Batman Movie” is released on the 5th July 2017.

     

     

  • Film review: “Spider-man: Homecoming” (2017)

    Film review: “Spider-man: Homecoming” (2017)

    “Spider-man: Homecoming” (2017)

    Action

    images

    Running Time: 133 minutes

    Written by:   Jonathan Goldstein and John Francis Daley

    Directed by: Jon Watts

    Featuring:  Tom Holland, Michael Keaton, Jon Favreau, Donald Glover, Zendaya, Jacob Batalon, Laura Harrier, Tyne Daly, Marisa Tomei, and Robert Downey Jr.

    Peter Parker: “I’m sick of Mr. Stark treating me like a kid.”

    Ned Leeds: “But you are a kid.”

    Peter Parker: “Yeah. A kid who can stop a bus with his bare hands.”

    After five previous iterations comes the newly crowned Spider-man in the form of the young English actor Tom Holland who is probably the closest in age to Peter Parker than either Tobey Maguire or Andrew Garfield ever were, as well as being fresher of face and quite an original choice. After the two failed “Amazing Spider-movies” both critically and ultimately financially, it seemed rights owners Sony had dug themselves into a bit of a hole – with that desperation Kevin Feige pounced (him the overlord of the MCU at Disney) was able to strike a deal that allowed Disney to use the character in (introducing Tom Holland) “Captain America” Civil War” (2016), then steering the direction of this new Spider-Man movie into a much better proposition – one that people will actually like as well as making money at the box-office – it would seem they have succeeded in both. I have to say here that is not only a great Spider-Man movie but an exceptional comic book movie, something Warners could still take a lesson from after the last half hour of “Wonder Woman” (2017).

    This movie begins in 2012, Tony Stark and the federal government create the U.S. Department of Damage Control (D.O.D.C.), driving salvage company owner Adrian Toomes (Michael Keaton) out of business after the battle of New York in “Marvels Avengers” (2010).

    Years later, after preventing Toomes’ associates from robbing an ATM, Peter (Tom Holland) returns to his Queens apartment only for his best friend Ned to discover his secret identity. On another night, Peter comes across Herman Schultz and Jackson Brice selling Chitauri weaponry to local gangster Aaron Davis. When he tries to intervene, Peter nearly loses his life at Toomes’ hands but is rescued by Stark at the last minute.

    The movie then moves on into the story, with great relief that we do not have to sit through yet another origin story, in this new incarnation Peter already has his powers, of course we have already seen them in another MCU film, so introductions are not required – this is so refreshing which can be seen as the mark of Kevin Feige, he is a real master when it comes to the MCU, I only wish other companies – I am looking at you Fox – would do something similar with the properties they own and have treated dismally (Fantastic Four anyone?).

    I do have to admit that when the creative team was announced I was not looking forward to this movie, the director is Jon Watts, yet another independent film maker, as well as the writing team of Jonathan Goldstein and John Francis Daley. Those writers who had previously written the underwhelming remake “Vacation” (2016), as well as the creators of the “Horrible Bosses” (2011-2014) movies – not inspiring stuff at all. However, amongst there work there was one bright spot, which was “Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs 2” (2013) a very good animated movie as well as being an even better sequel. So it is great to see these two writers being a part of a global franchise where they can just concentrate on a great story – where set up is not a part of their brief – just a plot that makes sense, has humor but as like all of the MCU movies it has heart as its center – not gimmicks, violence or other distraction – just what it means to be a young guy trying to make a mark when all he has to do is follow his heart. John Watts on the other hand has had a lot of experience, as well as having a long career in a variety of genres and formats. Even though his largest success was the Kevin Bacon starrer “Cop Car” (2015), my favorite film of his was his theatrical debut, “Clown” (2014), a horror movie where a man puts on a cursed clown costume and is unable to remove it – just great original film-making (there are aspects of that story here with Peter and his new suit). Here Watts is taking a genre movie, that he had a hand in writing as well as putting a twist on it to keep the audiences engaged with a property they have seen five times previous – Watts does a great job of managing the action, the narrative as well as the plot which is enormously layered for a comic movie – it has to set up quite a bit for the coming sequels. The last fifteen minutes of the movie are priceless with a great cameo, as well as a nod to other versions of out friendly neighbourhood Spider-Man.

    As with all Marvel films (the Disney ones anyway) the casting is perfect, with Tom Holland in the title role who gives as much of his performance as Peter as he does as Spider-man. If you have seen Holland in his breakthrough performance in “The Impossible” (2012) you will know he is a young man with an incredible talent that will only grow in time – the only question is can he be the lead in a major motion picture, that question is answered about half way through the movie as you can see he is relishing this worldwide stage to give one of the more fun and personal performances yet in the MCU. It is so much fun to see Spider-man being played and enjoyed, much like Tobey Maguire did in “Spider-Man 2” (2004), just an actor having a great time with one of the more original characters created by Stan Lee.

    Its hard to just say the ‘rest of the cast’ as the caliber is so high, Michael Keaton as the antagonist, ‘The Vulture’, once again shows why he was a superstar throughout the 80s and 90s – with a well deserved and hard fought career resurgence he shines here, with a ferociousness that he takes from the script but translates so that it leaps off the screen. If you thought Robert Downey Jnr. was a captivating hero, wait until you see Keaton as a villain. Marisa Tomei as Aunt May, Jacob Batalon as Ned and Donald Glover as Aaron Davis all round out the cast and give support to movie where it is needed. One of the great aspects of the movie is that no one or nothing out shines Tom Holland as the centre piece of this movie – it may have been tempting to give others the emotion thereby protecting the young actor, but this is not the case and he shines under his own steam, this is to his merit for such a young man – Holland like this new Spider-Man is the real star and revelation in this true Summer blockbuster.

    Of course the real story here is how this new film fits into the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) as well as how fans have been wanting a combined story with all the Marvel characters – if this is a success (there is no doubt people will love this movie) maybe we will see the Fox Universe, with all its X-Men make an appearance, so far the word is no, but really this film was not on the cards just a few years ago. The great thing is that Tom Holland will be making appearances in upcoming Marvel movies which is an injection of youth these films required to stay current as well as attracting new audiences – it also gives Sony its third platform to lauch some more Spider-verse characters – lets hope they don’t stuff that up – their track record has not been great.

    This new movie offers much in the way of story, as well as some twists on some previous storylines, we also see the return of some MCU characters that maybe we though were done with – I found those to be a welcome return. What this film does is give a nice first outing while re-setting some of the older Spider-Man charcters, as well as introducing old favorites directly from the pages of the comics as well as hinting at some future characters that will make a splash in the inevitable sequel. What this movie does not so, and I am thankful for that, is to keep us guessing or clumsily setting up a sequel – the people behind this were not counting their chickens, which is something the MCU learnt from “Iron Man 2” (2010).

    All in all this is a fantastic film, one that will stay with you after it is over, you may even want to revisit it in the cinemas – I know I will be. All in all this is far superior to the two Andrew Garfield outings, is ahead of “Spider-Man 3” (2007), but just lacks something to put it ahead of “Spider-Man” (2002) – of course the benchmark is the great “Spider-Man 2” (2004) which remains one of the finest comic book films ever made.

    Go and see this now – take the entire family they will love it.

    “Spider-man: Homecoming” (2017) is out in theatres now.

     

  • Film review: “The Circle” (2017)

    Film review: “The Circle” (2017)

    “The Circle” (2017)

    Drama/Thriller

    2,0

    Running Time: 141 minutes

    Written by:  Dave Eggers and James Ponsoldt

    Directed by: James Ponsoldt

    Featuring: Emma Watson, Tom Hanks, John Boyega, Karen Gillan, Ellar Coltrane, Patton Oswalt, Glenne Headly, and Bill Paxton

    Eamon Bailey: “Knowing is good, but knowing everything is better.”

    This should have been an excellent movie, it had so much going for it, a very good source novel in Dave Eggert’s work, as well as a director who has made some pretty decent low budget movies that involved relationships over action and thrills. In front of the camera to, there has been an absolute belter of a cast brought together led by the always charismatic Emma Watson, supported by superstar Tom Hanks, as well the late Bill Paxton and Glenne Headley – both in their final theatrical performances. But alas, in this case what we end up with is a well trodden story that plays like an updated version of Sydney Pollack’s version of the John Grisham thriller “The Firm” (1993), that featured Tom Cruise, once again with a massive star studded cast. “The Circle” is no where near as good, original or captivating as “The Firm”, which was a highlight of Grisham’s catalogue at the time, and remains so.

    “The Circle” concerns Mae Holland (Emma Watson) who is an ordinary and unaccomplished young woman with an ill father. Through an influential college friend, she gets a customer relations job at powerful internet corporation The Circle, co-founded by Eamon Bailey and Tom Stenton. Mae quickly rises through company’s ranks, and is selected for an assignment with the Circle’s newest technology which she eagerly takes on. Soon she finds herself in a perilous situation concerning privacy, surveillance, and freedom. Mae comes to learn that her decisions and actions will determine the future of humanity.

    This story deals with technology as well as social media may have been a better fit if the Charlie Brooker created “Black Mirror” (2011 – present) had not beaten this film to the punch, not only that, the television series used more originality as well as wit to illustrate what this film does, but in an extremely hap hazard as well as uninspiring way. This movie really attempts saying something about society in terms of social media, interconnectivity as well as technology in general – while that is something to applaud it is the generic plot as well as the vapid characters that let this movie down, and really make it a little embarrassing as well as completely unbelievable. Modern audiences need more to hang a plot on, as well as that there is no feel of consequence for anyone in this movie, not Mae and not the corporation nor their founder or employees who skate by with no real answers or jeopardy to really care.

    There is no doubt that technology moves faster and faster with each new app, hardware device or social media plug in but to wrap all of these up into one maguffin, as well as portraying a company without an actual board of directors with a CEO and founder making all the plans by manipulating a customer services person into suggesting these plans for them to follow – is, well not only hard to follow, but also ignores the way companies actually work. This film defies the way actual technology works, as well as how these new products are actually introduced to consumers. This is a movie that sets itself as cutting edge but only really serves to see how much Hollywood is out of the loop as well as being entirely clueless to how this technology would work – it is no wonder they are facing losing consumers at the box office – this is certainly proof of a large segment of the creative population who are ‘out of the loop’.

    The cast that has been assembled is excellent, I can only think they must have all thought they were getting involved in a completely different movie – certainly the plot must have gone somewhere more believable as I cannot think why someone like Tom Hanks or even Emma Watson would want to be involved with this mish mash of a movie – maybe they wanted to work together – but really they hardly even spend much time in the same room together.

    On the other hand I can see the motivations behind some of the other actors being involved, especially if Hanks and Watson had already signed on to this project. The main supporting cast of Karen Gillan and John Boyega are canny choices not only from the production side but also from the actor’s point of view as well. Boyega and Gillan fresh of their sci-fi fantasy epics “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” (2015), “Guardians of the Galaxy “ (2014) respectively, probably felt the need to solidify their cinematic experience in roles that meant they could shine in support as well as gaining more Hollywood experience in a route drama/thriller with an A list cast. Unfortunately for everyone in the cast there is not enough actual believable human emotion or motivation to make any of these characters authentic or, for there to be anything for the audience to actually care about. There is some plot manipulation by having Mae’s father portrayed by Bill Paxton as having multiple sclerosis, this is meant to make us somehow identify with Mae but all I did was feel sorry for her parents by having such a shallow daughter. There are also points at which for no reasons characters appear, and then disappear for the rest of the film. The worst case of this is Karen Gillan’s character actually disappearing then towards the end of the movie we find out via a web chat she went back to Scotland – huh?

    This movie is all about surface, there is nothing deeper than what you see as well as what is explained and explained again and again with exposition dumps from almost every character – in fact it is the only reason those characters exist in the first place, once they have their say they disappear with no real reason for them existing in the first place. Not only that but the person we are supposed to follow as well as identify with is shallow as well as being fairly unlikeable – are we really supposed to feel for her when she is doing work most young people are doing in the first place – she doesn’t like her job – boo hoo – welcome to life Mae.

    This film really is all flash, there is not really much to recommend unless you enjoy sub par techno thrillers that would be an embarrassment if they had been made twenty years ago. If you want a techno thriller there are better ones to watch with more believable stakes, try “War Games” (1984), or even “Hackers” (1991) they are much better and while the technology and special effects are out of date, the stories are far supoerir and much more original.

    In any case give this a miss.

    “The Circle” may be released at theatres but maybe watch this on DVD or Blu-ray.

     

  • Film Review: “War for the Planet of the Apes” (2017)

    Film Review: “War for the Planet of the Apes” (2017)

    “War for the Planet of the Apes” (2017)

    Sci-Fi/Action/Drama

    5stars_small

    Running Time: 142 minutes

    Written by: Matt Reeves and Mark Bomback

    Directed by: Matt Reeves

    Featuring: Andy Serkis, Woody Harrelson, Steve Zahn, Amiah Miller, Karin Konoval, Judy Greer and Terry Notary

    Colonel: “All of human history has lead to this moment. The irony is we created you. And nature has been punishing us ever since. This is our last stand. And if we lose… it will be a Planet of Apes.”

    Possibly the film of the year, the third, and what we are told is the final movie in this cycle of ‘Apes’ movies is here with the aptly (if not long) titled moniker “War for the Planet of the Apes” (2017), co-written and directed by Matt Reeves who has seen his stock rise since his last outing with the incomparable sequel “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes” (2014). Reeves has managed to take an idea from the initial reboot “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” (2012), move seamlessly into another time period, at the same time build an authentic world where apes rule, humans are an after thought, in fact almost forgotten with his first foray. “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes”, which was a huge leap forward not only for this franchise but for him as a nascent filmmaker, having last directed “Let Me In” (2010), with his largest success being “Cloverfield” (2008). However, with this latest entry into the ‘Apes’ franchise, “War for the Planet of the Apes”, he has once again defied the genre limitations delivering a film that simply defies reduction, by combining elements that deliver a film greater than the sum of its parts.

    This time Caesar (Andy Serkis) and his apes are forced into a deadly conflict with an army of humans led by a ruthless colonel (Woody Harrelson). After the apes suffer unimaginable losses, Caesar wrestles with his darker instincts and begins his own mythic quest to avenge his kind. As the journey finally brings them face to face, Caesar and the colonel are pitted against each other in an epic battle that will determine the fate of both of their species and the future of the planet.

    I find it difficult not to talk about how far these three ‘Apes’ movies have come without addressing the way that technology has been used not to just provide some spectacular motion captured effects, but how well they are deployed within their environments. There is no doubt in my mind that without these cutting edge effects these films would not be able to exist as well as they do – by developing these effects the story can be so much more expansive as well as being able to build three dimensional characters that are able to emote without the use of dialogue – something hinted at in the first film, attempted in the second, but now fully embraced in this third, possible final entry with a movie that really has to be experience on the big screen. This film is a true achievement in harnessing motion capture technology– I was agog at some of the sequences where I have no real clue how some of the action was done – it is truly amazing, Matt Reeves and his team should be applauded for the best film of the year that encompasses such a large scale as well as layered storytelling.

    Once again the star of this film, as well as the two previous is the wonderful Andy Serkis – he who was catapulted to fame as the nasty Golem in the ‘Lord of the Rings Trilogy’, and cemented his credentials in “Rise of the Planet of the Apes” (2012), I naively thought that was a nadir for him, how wrong I was. If ever he was going to receive some awards consideration it is for this iteration of Caesar, who he brings to life in ways not seen before on the big screen. The Caesar of this movie is a very different beast indeed (no pun intended), he is grappling with the effects of his fight with rival Koba, as well as being a father to two boys, maintaining his leadership, fighting off the invasionary forces that were hinted at at the end of, “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes”, led by ‘The Colonel’ (Woody Harrelson) – it is a full basket that he has to deal with. When he is faced with some extremely horrific events you wonder if he will be lost to the path that seems to have been predestined by Koba, of course the complexities of his character mean that his journey into darkness will, in the end not define him – it is only Serkis who has lived with this character for the past six year could play, which he does to its ultimate conclusion – has there ever been a hero like Caesar?

    The film’s other highlights within the cast are of course Woody Harrelson as ‘The Colonel’ and the big surprise (well it was to me anyway) Steve Zahn as ‘Bad Ape’. Harrelson is the main protagonist who you hear on a radio before his actual introduction where he performs an unthinkable act that kicks off the main thrust of the plot. Harrelson shines as a man thrust into a position where he has made some Kurtz like decisions – much like that Colonel from the film “Apocalypse Now” (1979), his actions are made by an unhinged mind in a situation he could never have foreseen. Zhan like Toby Kebbell in the previous film brings something unique to a film full of one offs, a shy scared timid ape holds the key to the plot as well as Caesars salvation along with a remarkable little girl, played by Amiah Miller.

    Writer/Director Matt Reeves (as well as the original writers of “Rise of the Planet of the Apes”) has always had the original five films hanging over him with decisions that had to be made about how closely he would adhere to some of the history talked about in those films. The character of Caesar does make an appearance in those movies, but the timelines that have been embraced here are different to those in the original franchise. What Reeves has done, more so than what ‘Rise’ did where there were lines of dialogue lifted from the original “Planet of the Apes” (1968), is to bring in reasons for where the human/ape society ended up. In this latest film Reeves tackles the reason why humans are savage like in the future as well as possible reasons why there were so few humans in the future, when the Earth becomes a planet of apes. The last two movies that have been written by Reeves are so well plotted that you as the viewer don’t even notice the fact that for all intents and purposes there is a cliffhanger at the conclusion of “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes”.

    One of the great moments is the allegory that exists within these mvies that began in the second film and is accentuated as well as being advanced in this new movie. The ape as not only Native American but as any indigenous population attempted to be removed or wiped out by a technologically advanced civilization is familiar and something we are seeing today with the decimation of animal species worldwide. The apes even like the Native Americans have found a sanctuary in a desert which they must get to under their own steam, they are interrupted by the humans as well as meeting death at their hands. Reeves has done an outstanding job keeping the plot on point, relevant as well as keeping an eye on the future not only of the world he has built but on whatever is to come from future writers and directors.

    The film is a stand out this year with its subtle nods to not only other ‘Apes’ films but also to other similar genres – this is a movie for the times we live in as well as times past – Reeves is a master film-maker working within the confines of not only a genre but a established franchise that has more good movies than bad. This has to stand as one of the best out of an eight film series, something that has to be acknowledged when the origins of this entire series comes from one book written fifty years ago. I believe this would make author Pierre Boulle proud not only of where his original novel has gone but what it has inspired. Brave Matt Reeves and 20th Century Fox – this is indeed a brave decision for a company to make, it is alos a lesson to be learnt when their other franchise, Alien, seems to be faltering at the finish line.

    “War for the Planet of the Apes” (2017) is out now, its worth seeing twice.

     

     

  • Blu-ray review: “Shivers” (1975)

    Blu-ray review: “Shivers” (1975)

    Shivers (1975)

    images

    Running Time: 87 minutes

    Written & Directed by: David Cronenberg

    Featuring: Paul Hampton, Joe Silver, Lynn Lowry

    Betts: “I loathe to eat alone. It makes me feel so fat and lonely.”

    So much has been written about Cronenberg as well as his early movies that I don not have much to add other than this was his very first full length movie, he had been making shorts up to this point, which were all great – it was only a matter of time before he made the leap to a major motion picture. What a jump it was, “Shivers” was too far ahead of its time upon its initial release, looking back at it now it still feels transgressive with its overtly sexual horror – something many directors might be too timid to handle, but Cronenberg is one of those special people that can marshal a story and narrative bending it to his will, while making something still pretty shocking today. Make no mistake about this is a horror movie through and through – what I find telling about this debut is that it is a genre movie, looking at horror films made today especially debuts most seem relatively lame as well as actually extremely boring – wouldn’t it be a revelation to have a debut as refreshing and shocking as this?

    “Shivers” concerns Dr. Emil Hobbes who is conducting experiments with parasites for use in transplants. He believes that humanity has become over-rational and lost contact with its flesh and its instincts, so the effects of the alien organism he actually develops is a combination of aphrodisiac and venereal disease.

    Hobbes implants the parasites in his teen-aged mistress, who promiscuously spreads them throughout the ultra-modern apartment building where they live. Hobbes, unable to undo the damage he caused, kills his mistress and then commits suicide. One of Hobbes’ sexual partners begins to feel ill and returns from work. Here we see the parasite emerge from its host and escape into the building where it emerges and attacks a number of people.

    This film is an excellent example of what Cronenberg was best at – using a process of transformation to reflect societal issues. The film feels very claustrophobic and the four walls in almost every scene best illustrate this. Even when we are shown the outside world it is behind a wall of glass so the residents can see escape but it is never realized. The residents are trapped in a world within a world – best seen these days in the recently released “High-Rise” (2015).

    As an early work this is worth the watch and the iciness that is present throughout the film.

    “Shivers” is out now on both DVD & Blu-ray.

  • Film review: “The Lost City of Z” (2017)

    Film review: “The Lost City of Z” (2017)

    “The Lost City of Z” (2017)

    Drama

    images

    Running Time: 141 minutes

    Written and Directed by: James Gray

    Featuring: Charlie Hunnam, Robert Pattinson, Sienna Miller, Tom Holland, Angus Macfadyen, Ian McDiarmid, Franco Nero

    Nina Fawcett: “To dream to seek the unknown. To look for what is beautiful is its own reward. A man’s reach should exceed his grasp, or what’s a heaven for?”

    James Gray’s latest film could be considered a throw back of sorts to the David Lean style of film making, or even the Francis Ford Coppola style, circa 1978 for a little jungle film called “Apocalypse Now” (1979) – where there was no CGI just practical film making. “The Lost City of Z” (2017) is a real step forward for director Gray as his career in film up to a few years ago could be seen as a study of inner city life over the past thirty years, with such films as “Little Odessa” (1994), “The Yards” (2000) and “We Own the Night” (2007), however it was not until recently when he directed the greatly under rated as well as under seen “The Immigrant” (2013) that he stepped up his scope of story, narrative and plot that made it possible for him to even think about adapting a film like “The Lost City of Z”.

    This film is based on the book ‘The Lost City of Z: A Tale of Deadly Obsession in the Amazon’ (2009) written by David Grann. It recounts the explorations of British explorer Captain Percy Fawcett who, in 1925, disappeared with his son in the Amazon while looking for an ancient lost city.

    The film begins in Ireland, 1905, Percy Fawcett is a young British officer participating in an elk hunt on an Irish baronial estate for the benefit of the visiting Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria. A skilled horseman and marksman, he brings down the elk swiftly but is snubbed at the after-hunt party. A year later, Fawcett is sent to London to meet with officials of the Royal Geographical Society. The governments of Bolivia and Brazil are nearly at war over the location of their mutual boundary, and have asked the British government to survey it. Fawcett agrees to lead the survey party to restore his family’s good name. On the ship to Brazil, Fawcett meets Corporal Henry Costin, who has knowledge of the Amazon rainforest. At a large rubber plantation in the jungle owned by the Portuguese nobleman Baron de Gondoriz, the two meet Corporal Arthur Manley, who tells them that the British government advises against further exploration. Fawcett, with several guides and the Amazonian scout Tadjui, complete the mission. Tadjui tells Fawcett stories about a city in the jungle covered in gold and full of people. Fawcett dismisses such stories as insane ravings, but discovers highly advanced broken pottery and some small stone statues in the jungle that convince him Tadjui’s story was true.

    Fawcett is praised after his return to England, where his wife, Nina, has given birth to their second son. In the Trinity College Library, Nina discovers a conquistador text which tells of a city deep in the Amazon jungle. Fawcett meets the renowned biologist James Murray, who agrees to back Fawcett’s expedition to the Amazon to find what Fawcett calls “the Lost City of Z”.

    I think it is interesting to note that Gray was probably not the first or most obvious choice to make this movie, his first outside of his home town of New York. It appears to be his decision to actually go into the jungle to make this movie as well as shooting on a large format, with an intricate plot that involved many moving parts – but I have to say that the decision for him to be offered the project and for him to accept was inspired – this is one hell of a movie that you just do not see be able to be produced anymore. This is mainly because of the money, the time spent in production as well as the editing process that to becomes elongated.

    When making a film of this scale it is vital certain elements are carried out well, the first is assembling a cast that is at once believable, as well as being able to become their characters, especially when talking about a subject that is for all purposes a period piece that involves some exceptionally physical moments. I was not initially convinced by the casting of Charlie Hunnam as the lead, Percy Fawcett, but I am happy to report that he has left his “Sons of Anarchy” (2008 – 2014) persona in the rear view mirror, and has brought this current character to life fully formed in three dimensions. It is impossible not to talk about the remarkable Robert Pattinson as Henry Costin, an actor who really is shining in everything he is appearing in. Since the end of the “Twilight” franchise – he seems to be choosing his roles carefully as can be seen in a batch of films, such as “The Childhood of a Leader” (2015), “The Rover” (2014), “Maps to the Stars” (2014) and “Cosmopolis” (2012). Also look out for flavor of the month Tom Holland, the new Spider-Man, who appears as Percy Fawcett’s eldest son, he makes an impact from the moment he appears, his fate of course is sealed almost from the outset, essestially by being his father’s son.

    The narrative of “The Lost City of Z” is as you would expect being based on a book, linear in nature with a distinct three act structure, simply put it follows a progression that is logical. This is extremely important as the themes that are contained within the plot could be seen as complex as well as relevant in the world we are living in. The idealism of one man, who has taken on a mantle he did not seek out is one that is seen almost at every turn in today’s society. Of course what we see in the modern world are people whose identity needs to be linked to a cause or some movement. With Percy is never seems to be about ego, it is all about discovery as well as leaving some mark for his wife and children that will make his and their sacrifice’s worth it. Does he succeed? This is not an easy answer to get from this film as we will never know his true fate, but this film attempts to answer the impossible.

    James Gray has executed a special film that at once feels epic but on a very personal level. What happens when you have a story that is set at the turn of last century, while attempting to make this story with technology that was used during the middle of that same century? You get an exciting piece of cinema filmed in actual jungles without the reliance on CGI, just great scenery as well as stellar performances from not only the leads but also the people that have been cast as natives in the foreign land. This has been filmed on film, not digitally processed, whilst I am not an expert the colors pop on screen, in particular the closing thirty minutes are truly astounding, shifting from an idyllic seaside landscape to the depths of the darkest jungles, it is a wonder to behold that anyone could make a film this breathtaking as well as sorrowful and heartbreaking. Once again I am not sure what the thinking was behind Gray’s hiring to helm this film but whatever it was, it was astute and a wise choice. The fact that he was able to bring together a disparate cast of actors that all have extremely different journeys to this project as well as marshaling his crew in different countries shows he is becoming a special filmmaker indeed. I am looking forward to his next few projects, and hope they will be as compelling as this one is.

    If you are looking for all the elements of a true story mixed with a boys own adventure that has some exceptionally real aspects to it this is for you. It has some of the aspects of classic Hollywood film-making with a twenty first century twist you may not see coming if you are unaware of this story.

    “The Lost City of Z” is showing at the 2017 NZIFF.

     

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

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

    “Power Rangers” (2017)

    Sci-Fi/Action

    2,0

    Directed by: Dean Israelite

    Featuring: Dacre Montgomery, Naomi Scott, RJ Cyler, Becky G, Ludi Lin, Bill Hader, Bryan Cranston and Elizabeth Banks

    Zordon: “The answer to what is happening to you is here. You five are the Power Rangers.”

    Zack Taylor: “Did I just hear you say we’re Power Rangers?”

    Hart: “Is this some kind of joke? We’re talking to a wall.”

    Alpha 5: “I was kind of expecting a little more.”

    I am not going to go into the full history of the Power Rangers, however it was a TV show originally using footage from a Japanese show, then imported this to the US with a change up of actors  – it became a touchstone for a certain generation, and now it is a big budget movie which was hoping to go on to become a successful franchise, after this entry it is safe to say that this particular incarnation is not going to go any further even with a lucrative international market.

    This film revolves around five teens with the appropriate amount attitude, who are inexplicably brought together by coincidence or destiny to become the newest generation in a line of warriors known as the Power Rangers. The world rests in their hands as Rita Repulsa (Elizabeth Banks), a powerful witch and former Green Power Ranger, launches an assault seeking the Zeo Crystal with an army of stone golems called Putty Patrollers and a giant golden monster called Goldar.

    Make sense of that if you can – there is a bit more to the story but i don’t want to spoil anything in case you actually see the film. If you are someone that enjoys a streamlined plot, with enough tropes to fill a small canoe then this is what you are in for – with the now expected overblown as well as little to fight for ending – this movie really does not have an original part to it.

    With the US summer blockbuster season getting underway earlier and earlier every year, this is the prime time to release “Power Rangers”, as it gets a jump on what will probably be higher quality as well as possibly (hopefully) more high minded films. There is definitely going to be more sequels in the coming months, so launching a new franchise early could have be considered quite canny. It was also considered counter programming as it opened up at the same time as the monolith that is “Beauty and the Beast” (2017). Coincidentally the home released is also coming out at the same at the time as that much better received movie – I would watch that any day of the week compared to this.

    I do believe with all best intentions that the studio did set out to make a movie that introduced new fans to the Power Rangers, as well as servicing the existing fan base, however what you end up getting is a mish mash of other films, which in some hands could be homage, but in this directors case is so ham fisted that it comes off as a rip off. The story telling devices if there are any come off as being extremely lazy. Dean Israelite, the director, whose previous film was the tired sci-fi teen time traveling movie “Project Almanac” (2015), has seemed to take a step backwards in this new film. It is filled with tired giant mechas fighting each other,  attempting to save a small town in the US, while at the same time absolutely destroying it – making little sense at all.

    The young adults that play the five Power Rangers are all doing a perfectly fine job, obviously cast in the mold of the original five from the television show. However these characters, as written, are all now tired archetypal characters that we have surely moved on from. To set up these teens at the start of the film Israelite shamefully steals from the John Hughes classic, “The Breakfast Club” (1985) to make a point about the characters that the are misfits and rebels that fit into archetypes – something Hughes does but shows us that in fact there is more to people than meets the eye, we do not fit into one stereotype, we are more than the sum of our parts. Of course this is lost on Israelite who instead attempts to say teens are reductive and are exactly what they seem.

    Another trend that has become tiresome and talked about in many other places is that the trailer for this film gives away the entire story, so if you have seen that then there is no real surprise in this movie – not that there should be.

    There are some bright sparks, the early appearance of Bill Hader as Alpha 5 a robotic sidekick, he is also used as a tool for all of the stories exposition, he is great but even he gets tiresome and disappears for the entire third act which is disappointing. Elizabeth Banks seems to be the only major characters as the villain, Rita Replusa, who knows what film she is in and chews the scenery as much as possible. In fact by the time she appears I was hoping she would win and banish the Power Rangers.

    If you are a fan of the original then you are in your thirties,  there is more out there for you with far more interesting films in the offering. This is a pretty soulless film that encounters the same problems many giant blockbusters face, it is not really aimed at anyone in particular, money has been thrown at problems with little thought for story, it runs at two hours which is half an hour too long, the set pieces look cheap and the problems are all solved with violence. When the characters try and bond with each other it does come off as lip service and attempted character growth – which ends up failing.

    Now, with all that said if you want to own a big movie and watch at home with the entire family without worrying about reality or any real violence then this is the one for you. It may pay to explain to younger family members that young white boys are not always leaders, do not have the answers and may not save the world.

    “Power Rangers” (2017) is out tomorrow on DVD & Blu-ray – but I would give it a miss by a very wide margin!

     

    _KF23924.NEF
  • DVD & Blu-ray review” Beauty and the Beast” (2017)

    DVD & Blu-ray review” Beauty and the Beast” (2017)

    “Beauty and the Beast” (2017)

    Drama/Musical

    images

    Running Time: 129 minutes

    Written by: Stephen Chbosky and Evan Spiliotopoulos

    Directed by: Bill Condon

    Featuring:  Emma Watson, Dan Stevens, Luke Evans, Kevin Kline, Josh Gad, Ewan McGregor, Stanley Tucci, Audra McDonald, Gugu Mbatha-Raw, Nathan Mack, Ian McKellen, and Emma Thompson

    Gaston: “If I didn’t know better, I’d say she even cares for him!“

    Belle: “He’s not a monster, Gaston! You are!”

    “Beauty and the Beast” is the latest in the live action transformation of Disney’s animated back catalogue into live action versions, following the huge successes of “The Jungle Book” (2016), “Alice in Wonderland” (2010), “Maleficent” (2014) as well as the more  modest “Cinderella” (2015) with plenty more to come. Whilst these movies have been expensive to re-make they have all made their money back by all being visually distinct, staying true to their origins, not being sequels or reboots as well as incorporating the visions of their respective directors, who themselves have all been established in the film world for some time – this is more the case with Bill Condon than the others that have been recruited.

    “Beauty and the Beast” marks the first time a modern animated film has been remade, not only that, but it also boasts the largest cast assembled for one of these remakes, as well as the most well known. Disney have been wise to have the lead of Belle played by Emma Watson, surely one of the most high profile leading ladies of her age after her part in the Harry Potter franchise. Then building up from there surrounding her with some of the best UK actors around, such as Dan Stevens, Ian McKellen, Ewen McGregor Luke Evans, and many others – but make no mistake this is surely Watson’s film, she shines in it – acting, singing and dancing. For my mind the film has one other ace piece of casting, that of the great Kevin Kline, who has been a superstar not only in movies but is a legendary stage actor – here he brings all that experience as Belle’s father who shines in a role that could have been run of the mill, but with Kline’s casting it becomes something else – bravo on the Director for this choice.

    The story itself is fairly simple but offers quite a few complications, it is set in pre-Revolution France, an enchantress disguised as a beggar arrives at a castle and offers the owner, a cold-hearted prince, a rose in exchange for shelter. When he calluously refuses, she transforms him into a beast and his servants into household objects before erasing the castle’s existence from memory. She then hexes the rose and warns the Beast that, unless he learns to love another and earns her love in return before the last petal falls, he and his servants will lose their humanity forever.

    Many years later, in the village of Villeneuve, Belle dreams of adventure and brushes off advances from Gaston, an arrogant former soldier. Lost in the forest, Belle’s father Maurice seeks refuge in the Beast’s castle, but the Beast imprisons him for stealing a rose. Belle ventures out in search for him and finds him locked in the castle dungeon. The Beast agrees to let her take Maurice’s place, despite her father’s objections.

    I am of an age where I probably should have seen the original animated movie but I have to admit I have never seen it, so I was looking forward to this version (without the baggage) – I am a sucker for musicals so I assumed this was going to be right up my alley. I am so pleased to say that I loved this movie, Watson was good in the lead role, I suspect that this was a role that many would have loved to take, but my real surprise was Luke Evans who has proved over the past decade that he can literally play any role – and here as Gaston he shines in the role as chief protagonist that you can just tell he relishes. With so few musicals being made (although lately there does seem to be a resurgence) if you have a hankering to sing and dance you had better grab it. The other great piece of casting is that of Josh Gad who after almost stealing “Frozen” (2013) as the snowman Olaf, here he to does an amazing job as Gaston’s sidekick LeFou who makes his own part look so easy that you can forget the work it takes to make something look so effortless.

    Looking at this movie now, especially when it is possibly going to be the biggest grossing film of the year it seems Bill Condon would have been the obvious choice to direct this adaptation of an adaptation. Over the course of his career Condon seems to have done it all, he has directed a pure horror film, “Candyman: Farewell to the Flesh” (1995), a gothic American drama mini-biography with the excellent “Gods and Monsters” (1998) – oh yes he won an Oscar for best screenplay for that as well – a musical, “Dreamgirls” (2006), two teen blockbusters with the last instalments of the “Twilight” movies, a post modern Sherlock Holes drama with “Mr. Holmes” (2015), now a film that seems to take his past works and meld them into the remake of “Beauty and the Beast” (2017). Condon didn’t need this movie, he has accomplished more in his career than most directors ever will, so the potential downside was quite large, however the challenge must have been appealing, with the success of this film he has been catapulted into another realm of directors, he has made a movie that will end up close to US$1.5 billion, one of the biggest box office successes of the century so far. The pressure for this movie to be a success would have been monumental, it being one of the shining lights of Disney Animation, as well as being one of the key animated films responsible for the second wave of great Disney animated films. That would of course culminate with one of the greatest animated films of all time, “The Lion King” (1995).

    What Condon has done is to take the material, not try and fix that which was not broken, used the Disney movie as a template, built around it wisely using new songs, cutting edge animation and wisely using a great physical cast as well as a voice cast that are both uniquely talented, playing to those strengths (maybe except for Ewan McGregor’s accent) whilst pushing them to their limits – remember this movie has acting, singing as well as dancing – something not all actors are able to accomplish believably. What he has had to do is deal with the physical sets, as well as all the elements of a Hollywood musical, a horror film, an animated movie as well as a classic love story. It may seem that all he had to do was copy what came before but make no mistake this movie is a major achievement, one that needs to be seen, as it works on many levels, is satisfying and somehow strikes the right tone in almost every scene. Condon in my mind is at the top of his game, it is no surprise to me that he has been linked to a remake of “The Bride of Frankenstein”, if he is able to marshal the right mix of cast members I can see this being a success – at this stage I would not be against him at all.

    This film would be nothing without the music, with Alan Menken back on board, the Disney go to composer of choice and a man coupled with the late Howard Ashman prove that this is indeed of the greatest Disney Animated musicals of all time, it is full of lush orchestrations as well as lyrics that are sublime, are a joy to listen to as well as fitting these characters like gloves, the biggest numbers remain so, and I have to admit to listening to the soundtrack long after I watched this movie.

    As well as the music there are two other aspects of the movie that are extremely important, they are the cinematography by Tobias A. Schliessler, as well as Jacqueline Durran, the costumer who has cut her teeth on many period films, she does some amazing work here with colors as well as the cut of all the wardrobe – they are as much a character in the movie as the actors themselves are. The costuming combined with the art direction give cinematographer Shliessler a lot to work with, he takes his vast experience working in a variety of genres as well as his long relationship with the director to give us a gothic lite version of this movie. That is not a negative criticism as this what is required as we start in a lighter atmosphere, following the journey of the characters into darkness, working our way back to happier place back to some kind of equilibrium. The relationship between each separate department working together is not more evident than this movie which is taking almost all the genres as well as disciplines and making a product that is indeed greater than the sum of its parts.

    In case you have not guessed by now my opinion of this movie is that it is excellent as well as humorous, scary, funny as well as bring complex. If you had any part in this movie you need to be extremely proud of the work you have produced. This is truly a film for the entire family; it has so much watchability as well as re-watchability that it is ridiculous. I highly recommend this to all, it is a fine addition to any collection, go and get now!

    “Beauty and the Beast” is out now on DVD & Blu-ray.

     

    In Disney’s BEAUTY AND THE BEAST, a live-action adaptation of the studio’s animated classic, Emma Watson stars as Belle and Kevin Kline is Maurice, Belle’s father. The story and characters audiences know and love are brought to life in this stunning cinematic event…a celebration of one of the most beloved tales ever told.
  • Streaming review: “The Mist” (2017 – )

    Streaming review: “The Mist” (2017 – )

    “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 One: “Pilot”

    Cinematographer: André Pienaar

    Directed by: Adam Bernstein

    Episode Two: “Withdrawal”

    Cinematographer: André Pienaar

    Directed by: David Boyd

    Episode Three: “Show and Tell”

    Cinematographer: André Pienaar

    Directed by: Nick Murphy

    The first three episodes of this new adaptation of the Stephen King story are already available on Spike TV and Netflix, so I have reviewed all of them as one because they flow on from each other rather easily – what I mean by that is there is little tonal difference or much of a plot within these first parts.

    I love the Frank Darabont version of “The Mist” (2005), with its (mainly) one location, atmospheric special effects, memorable characters and of course that ending which echoed the way people felt post 9/11. For me it seemed to capture the way not only the US reacted to the terrorist attack but the fear that was around at the time, whether real, imagined or manipulated by the elected government as well as the President. Darabont has proven time and again that he is able to capture the feeling of Stephen King’s books, is able to harness the themes and characters putting them onscreen making films that are pure magic as well as relevant to the world in which they are created, giving the material he produces a timelessness but updating as well as keeping relevant the original King texts.

    The story that was created by Darabont was in the end self contained so lent itself to a film, the narrative and plot were fairly straight forward with only a reference to what created the mist as well as the hidden monsters that wreaked havoc in the town and country where they were unleashed. It also felt that we did not see the entire hideous creatures that were destroying the countryside, we didn’t really even witness the vanquishing by the military of the monsters – even though they may have been responsible for the carnage.

    Now comes a series based on the story, that has been picked up by streaming service Hulu (and Netflix internationally) hoping to create a hit to highlight the offering they hope will make them a player in the streaming service segment of the media landscape. Have they succeeded so far with the first three episodes available to watch or not?

    The series was developed by Danish Christian Torpe, who has extensive experience working on television in his homeland, is an extremely talented writer, so maybe there was some hope that the Nordic-noir would rub off on this series. Of course what that means is a show that is deep on character as well as playing a long game on plot, as well as the possible revelations that may, or may not exist. In saying that what works well in one country may not work in another. Of course there have been Nordic shows remade for UK as well as American audiences with varying degrees of success, so I am assuming there was a lot of hope riding on this.

    Of course when you have a set up and a hook that is extremely simple in its premise; that is, a mist slowly envelops a town, there are ‘things’ in the mist, if you go into the mist you may die – that’s it, the entire set up. To give the show any chance of lasting longer than the two hours it deserves, you need to somehow up the ante, here it has been decided to frame the characters in manufactured situations that cause tension, have a payoff, reveal something larger about the story and of course have a revelation that leads to an even bigger problem. Not only is that contrived but you will see a pattern form after the first two episodes it is exactly what television shows were doing ten years ago, anyone remember a little show called “Lost” (2004-2010), or coincidentally any Nordic-Noir? See I closed a circle there… something this show will never do.

    The first three episodes that have been released so far are not only extremely slow moving but more or less follow some of the basic parts of the movie – except the locations have been broken into three main parts – a police station, a church and a shopping mall. The show runners have decided to form the show around one main family, a father, mother and teen daughter who has been raped by the son of the town sheriff – or has she? Then this is complicated by the arrival of the mist so the family is split up with them stuck in their respective situations. In my mind this is the most formulaic thing to do in a show like this, it sets up a situation where a family has been thrown out of their equilibrium then thrown out even more by the supernatural event – there are so many television shows that have fantastical elements where this is the way in, for me it simply does not work, especially in todays landscape. So to start with this show is not holding my attention, the problem with that is that there are so many good shows out there that a new one better have something going for it – or its on to the next one.

    The show maintains its look by employing the same cinematographer for the entire season, André Pienaar who has limited experience behind the camera, which leads to some unoriginal looking scenes, for a show like this that is unforgivable. The one thing a sci-fi/fantasy show needs is a signature in its look however this looks bland, we could be looking at a studio comedy for all we know. The same can be said of the tired sets, the shopping mall looks like it is in a warehouse. There is absolutely no color or sense of different shops – I, for one am glad I do not shop there. All of these issues are magnified by the fact that each week there is a different director, which means any input cannot, come from them, as they are one and done and out.

    My other issue with the show is to question where it can possibly go if it lasts for more than one season (which at this stage I doubt), while I agree that the idea of the plot is fantastic as well as lending itself to horror, I am not sure where the story can go – as if the issue of the mist is solved then the show is over. So in saying that I don’t have an appetite to watch a show set in a mist no matter what horrors lie within for a long time.

    Finally, any good or great genre show is a template for a creator to lay in their own themes – every great genre piece does it, the original movie, “The Mist”, did it – this show just seems to be relying on some CGI scares as well as some mediocre acting – this will not work. If anything we have learnt from the original “American Gods” is that a theme is important, when you have this all else falls into place. It can even make up for some slow revelations and storytelling. Who knows though, maybe there is a grand plan here, of course maybe not.

    With all that said the goodwill from the film will keep me going for at least one more episode but if the snail like speed of the story does not improve and the plot starts to go somewhere I will be leaving this far far behind.

    “The Mist” is streaming now on Netflix.

     

     

  • DVD Review: “Rings” (2017)

    DVD Review: “Rings” (2017)

    “Rings” (2017)

    Horror

    2,0

    Running Time: 107 minutes

    Directed by: F. Javier Gutiérrez

    Featuring: Matilda Lutz, Alex Roe, Johnny Galecki, Vincent D’Onofrio, Aimee Teegarden and Bonnie Morgan

    Holt: “I keep… thinking about this story. There’s this video that… kills you. Seven days after you watch it. The second it’s over… the phone rings. And this voice says…”

    Samara: [voiceover] “Seven days.”

    If only the best laid plans worked out perfectly then maybe this latest film in this long dormant horror franchise would be good, not a knock-off of the original American remake “The Ring” (2002), that had so much going for it – an up and coming actress, Naomi Watts, as well as a director who was about to break out, Gore Verbinksi. This was of course a remake of the Japanese Horror film of the same name, which was, at the time, one of the scariest films around. Now in 2017 we are lumbered with this hollow remark and no amount of scene stealing by the great Vincent D’Onofrio can help this movie come off as nothing more than a curio.

    “Rings” is primarily about college professor Gabriel who buys an old VCR, discovering a videotape trapped inside – you can guess what’s on the video. Elsewhere, Julia sees her boyfriend Holt off to college, but becomes concerned when he falls out of contact. She inspired to find him when a panicked girl, Skye, contacts her asking for Holt’s whereabouts. Julia meets Gabriel, following him to a private area of the college where a number of students are involved in an experiment involving the cursed video, watching and filming themselves, before passing the task to another person, called a “tail”.

    Holt arrives shortly after. Unwilling to let Holt die, Julia watches the video, experiencing a vision of a door, and a mark is burnt on her hand. Turning to Gabriel for help, he notices Julia’s copy of the video is larger than usual. She watches it, discovering new footage hinting at the fate of Samara’s body. Gabriel sends them to the town where she was cremated.

    Where to start? Its been fifteen years since the first film and I have to ask do the kids these days, who this film is aimed at, even know what a videotape is, and do they care? I would say no on both counts – and good on them!

    This is more a re-boot than a sequel, you might think judging from the relative success the re-booted Blair Witch Project had and the welcoming back of M. Night Shyamalan, that this would be a good idea. However, what both these success stories had going for was a great cast, a very good idea and excellent directors. Unfortunately “Rings” misses out on originality and an original vision for the film from the director – relying on jump scares, the almost exact same premise from the first film and characters that might act in an original manner. There are logical leaps at time that make no sense as well long exposition that again make for a very trite storyline.

    The director and writers seem assigned to the reboot rather than something that they should be doing, I hope the payday was worth it, because this film is entirely unsurprising and plays out just like you mighty think it would. It is odd because Akiva Goldsman is listed as a writer and he has a career that is not only Oscar worthy but he has started to direct his own projects. Unfortunately his recent career decisions seem to be a move in the wrong direction and he may be mirroring that other great hack, Damon Lindelof.

    It is not very often I recommend giving films a miss but if you want to save time and money then given this a big miss, instead  re-watch “Split” (2017) or “Get Out” (2017) – or even better find the original (remake), “The Ring” (2002) instead and watch that – it has a better cast, story and director.

    “Rings” is out now on DVD.

    But give it a miss what has been seen cannot be unseen.