Triple 9

An American film highlighting their right to bear arms, blackmail, extort and murder without penalty. Starring Jesse from Breaking Bad, and Daryl from The Walking Dead.

I tend to write a lot of negative things about films. Call it human nature but I find it very easy to criticise rather than compliment. It may shock you then that I don’t have a great deal of negative things to say about this film. Sure it’s a little ‘Americany’ with its negligent gun laws and tinfoil hat corruptness, but overall it was entertaining, which is more than I can say about a lot of new films. I worry that the only reason I did find it entertaining, is that I hadn’t heard/seen this story before; it is a completely new intellectual property, and not a reboot, revamp, re-release, sequel or prequel. Regardless it is no fun to read something positive, so I’ll try my best to pick this one to pieces.

"I'll never let go..of my right to bear arms

This film starts out strong with a good mix of action, character development and plot introduction. It builds a clear understanding of the villain and protagonist group, defines their motives and includes explosions. I.E. everything you want in an action film. The protagonists in this case are corrupt police officers and drug fiends which makes for an interesting conflict of emotion, but not every story needs to be good overcoming evil and it sure is nice to feel something in a cinema other than disappointment. Then things go a little awry when a second antagonist is introduced, then an entire gang of them and another protagonist. Also it turns out some of the ‘good guys’ are doing bad things for good reasons (family), and some are doing bad things for bad reasons (money/power) and the only good guy doing it for good reasons is made out like he’s a bad guy. It’s all just very confusing, and I found it difficult to pick a character to stand beside. To further complicate matters not too much happens, there really isn’t a clear goal after the first heist, but there is boobs and surely that counts for something.

Triple 9 manages to pull it all together for a brief period at the climax where an unexpected plot twist occurs, only to have it all fall apart at the ending. Put simply the ending of this film is that everyone dies. Good, bad or neutral no one is spared, which hopefully makes it difficult for them to write a sequel consequently sparking some actual thought. Given it’s inability to captivate during the final third, an audience might be drawn from their stupor to ponder the films finer points. Like, for example, how much murder paperwork this office must do on a daily basis or how every character seems to be corrupted in some manner and most particularly how Aaron Paul managed to play Jesse Pinkman, and Norman Reedus as Daryl Dixon in an unrelated franchise. Also the weird Jewish villain subtext and undertone. Oh how the mind does wander.

Aside from the ending, Triple 9 is fairly solid. There are a few questionable plot points such as the enormous amount of corruptness in this particular district, and a lot of emotionally void, point blank murder that is just overlooked, but maybe that’s just America doing it’s thing. It’s strong opening makes up for its weak ending, and as such I give it 7 guns out of 10.

The Divergent Series: Allegiant

The Divergent Games - Scorch Hunger is the ninth instalment of the popular series whereupon, as in the other films, skilled teenagers attempt to break the shackles of an oppressive and separatist society by climbing a wall and joining the resistance. Relationships, integrity and pure physical strength are put to the test in this blockbuster. The characters undergo some testing also. Starring the villain from Far Cry 3, Katniss and Peter.

It’s mid April! The flowers are blooming, the trees are singing, parents are singing because their children are in school again, and cinemas are playing the same 10 awful films as last month because it is not economically viable to run new blockbusters. For someone looking for a movie to watch, it makes life difficult. When your choice is between garbage (Grimsby) and trash (My Big Fat Greek Wedding 2), you may as well gouge your eyes out quickly and save yourself two hours of your life. For anyone that may think this is an exaggeration I have a counter argument prepared.

I know what you are thinking. That girl from Sabrina got chubby. Also I would expect you experienced an internal (and quite possible external) groan for two and a half minutes like I did. I don’t think the dictionary has enough synonyms for ‘terrible’ to describe that steaming pile, but awful, dreadful, appalling, horrific, atrocious and ghastly will have to suffice. Regardless a choice must be made, and in this weeks game of Russian roulette for eyeballs, the wheel landed on rubbish.

Strip away the questionable acting, predictable plot events, poorly constructed characters and the fact that you are expected to watch another 2 of these (with another on it’s way), Allegiant remains a pretty bad film. And here you were expecting me to write nice things for a change.

While it is nice to have clarity in a film, perhaps instead of making character roles incredibly obvious to the point of lament it would be sensible to add some to the overall plot. What you will take away from this film is that all bad guys wear white suits (and their goons, rugged vests with popped collars and buzz cut mohawks), and all good guys look like they are fresh from Sunday school, complete with perfect teeth and hair. Simply put Allegiant tries way too hard to make you care about characters, and in doing so will make you not care about them at all. To emphasise this point, shortly into the film one of the main character dies (see picture below). In a good film an audience might feel a tear well up in the corner of their eyes, and perhaps go so far as to release a small exasperation. I saw this death coming though, and instead I pointed at the screen, exclaimed “DEAD” and counted down from 3 (she died on 2). Then, as is becoming quite common in films, all the characters forget about their fallen companion and continue on their merry way.

Even in still frame you can just tell she gon' die.

Before even reaching production this film was already losing points, based solely on its very existence. Firstly this film has been made before. Eight times if you were wondering. Whether it be the Hunger Games series, the Maze Runner series or the preceding two films, Allegiant is more of the same. Protagonist joins rebel group and against all odds overthrows the oppressive government system, and along the way manage to find love against all odds. It is like action film meets teen romance novel; like Twilight meets Die Hard, but with worse acting and more obvious antagonists (which is an impressive feat). The second issue is while the immediate plot of the film is glaringly obvious (climb a wall to see what’s on the other side), the overall plot of the series is lost on anyone smart enough to have avoided watching the first two.

Poor acting, predictable plot, crummy characters. I'm getting bored just writing about it.
3/10 chubby Sabrinas.

The Jungle Book

A kids film guaranteed to give children everywhere heart-warming nightmares. Starring still-quite-obviously-CGI animals and the kid version of Slumdog Millionaire.

You were the chosen one Mowgli.

Why do you make a film? To tell a story.
Why do you make a film that already exists? To capitalise on the human emotion of nostalgia without having to waste any effort on creating a story. To make money.

To quote an earlier post I have made “Nostalgia means sales, sales means money, and money means investment into the inevitable Lion King or Aladdin live action remakes”. Unsurprising then, that the folks over at Disney have chosen to reproduce The Jungle Book. This film adds nothing to the original, except some terrifying CGI animals and an ending quite different from the original.

Spoiler Alert: Actual ending screenshot.

The film is not badly made, however, and manages to stick fairly closely to the original plot. All the characters are there, the filmic techniques are sound, and I even got to relive my childhood singing ‘The Bear Necessities’. While the child actor should of been chosen on acting skill rather than resemblance to Mowgli, the voice actors were all well chosen and scripted. They were probably all pretty expensive too. I wonder how Disney continues to afford them.

There is no doubt that The Jungle Book is a children’s film. It is the story of a boy, learning to live in a world where he doesn’t belong. How strange it is then, that this remake contains realistic animal fights intermingled with high suspense scenes, put there as if to hold the intrigue of an adult. An adult that went to see the film because it reminds them of a simpler time. An adult that has money.

Would I recommend this film? If you have seen the original Jungle Book (i.e. had a childhood), then no. There’s no point. Unlike a book where a second reading might give you further insight into characters, this film will only give you further insight into how many times Disney can swindle you (in case you can’t read in between the lines, this film was a massive cash grab). If you haven’t seen the original, still no. Go watch the original.

I give this one 4/5 Disney remakes that are probably already in production.

P.S. Since Disney wants to save on energy by not writing originals, so will I. This review now applies to all Disney remakes including, but not limited to, Tarzan, Snow White, Cinderella, Peter Pan and Bambi.

10 Cloverfield Lane

War of the Worlds meets Saw in this thriller, horror, mystery, science fiction, war film that has nothing to do with the original Cloverfield. Starring that guy from Roseanne and that girl from ScottPilgrim Vs the World.

There is not much to say about this film. It follows a fairly simple plot, has decent characters arcs and ends in a predictable but satisfactory way. I was surprised to find, then, that once the credits rolled I felt disappointed and not entirely sure why. After putting some thought to it, I came to the conclusion that this film was mediocre for a handful of small reasons.

Firstly, the film title. Following in ‘Batman VS Superman’s footsteps, the title misleads you. A sane person would think it has anything to do with the original Cloverfield film (which is basically sci fi Blair Witch Project). A sane person would be wrong. It shares no characters (aside from the monster that appears 5 minutes from the end), no cinematic techniques, pacing or plot lines. It may as well have been called 10 Elm Street for all the connections that it made. Of course Hollywood knows sequels sell better than new intellectual property, so despite any correlation, we get this. While you shouldn’t judge a book by its cover, you probably should name it after its contents.

Let's play a game Michelle. It's called 'never give a
straight answer to simple questions'.

This movie is the jack of all trades, master of none in terms of genre. While based during/ after what is portrayed as a war it lacks any scene containing a battle, so the war genre definitely falls short. It could be considered science fiction, but only for the last 10 minutes when an alien actually gets some screen time. It is somewhat a mystery whether John Goodman’s character is good or crazy, though this is spoiled halfway through the film. The only horror is the fact that no character gives straight answers to simple questions, and thrillers are generally thrilling. By trying so hard to satisfy all genres, it fails to meet any single one. Simply put, it lacks direction.

While the plot is quite concise and simple, it also lacks any real villain. The audience is introduced to Howard (John Goodman) as something of a monster but grows to accept him in an odd Nightingale effect sort of way. The threat of the elements outside the bunker are also made apparent, but it is quite difficult to be afraid of a silent killer Earth. It turns out Howard was being a good (though a little maniacal) guy and nothings wrong with the climate outside. We are introduced to the real villain, the aliens in the last 5 minutes. It is worth mentioning too that the plot is oddly twisted at times in order to create suspense or intrigue. Michelle awakes to being locked to a pipe, only to be given the key in the same scene. She is shown all weaknesses of the bunkers security, only to be banned from exploiting any of them. She is introduced to an image of Howard’s missing daughter, only to be provided with convenient evidence that she was abducted by Howard. It’s like riding in a pot holed road in a car without suspension, and by the end you are sick of hitting your head on the roof.

10 Cloverfield Lane contains the components to be a good, even great film, but lacks the sense of purpose to connect the dots. While it may deliver some intriguing characters and plot points, any attempt at suspense/mystery feels forced and always falls short given the lack of any real antagonist. In all honesty I didn’t want another Cloverfield film, but this...sequel?.. leaves a bland taste. I give it 4/10 Saw dolls.

The Jungle Book (Trailer)

I am seeing this in cinemas tomorrow and in an effort to save time writing later, I will attempt to list some issues now and see how accurate past Justin is.

My first thought after watching this trailer was nostalgic. 'Ahh' I thought, 'Now this brings back some good memories'. Which is good because this is ultimately what the folks over at Disney were aiming for. Well good for Disney at least. Nostalgia means sales, sales means money, and money means investment into the inevitable Lion King or Aladdin  live action remakes. I am, however, a firm believer in not fixing what is not broken and feel I might just grow tired of this one pretty quickly.

The second thought to cross my mind was 'wow, that is a lot of CGI and green screen'. Now the animated original is easily forgiven for not being realistic in imagery. It's animated and made in 1967, so fair enough it might be a little dated. Still it holds up pretty well in terms on animation, and the remastered re-release holds up even better. What concerns me is what percentage of this film will be entirely CGI animals fighting. While I have faith in the abilities in those genius' over at Disney, I also think that maybe they are biting off a bit much to chew. I worry nostalgia won't be enough to pull this one up into beyond half scores, purely based on immersive qualities.

The overall impression I have is one of concern, though also boyish hope. As much as I worry that this film will butcher the original plot and screenplay, I also have a little boy inside longing to sing along to 'Bear Necessities'. What will ruin this film is if they deviate too far from the original story, invent new antagonists in an effort to make it more interesting or prolong animal fight scenes to the point of obscurity. I guess you will find out on Saturday 16th when the full review goes live.

Olympus: London Has Fallen

An action packed lesson in poor exposition delivery guaranteed to keep you on the edge of your seat wondering whether you want to leave the cinema or not. Starring Liam Neeson’s character from Taken as American 007 protecting his teenage daughter, white Obama.

As far as action movies go, it doesn’t get much more standard than this. First make some vaguely foreign people the bad guys, put an American authority in danger, add captain courageous secret agent man and blow up some iconic landmarks. Voilà! Olympus has Fallen. Recycle this plot and adjust the film title. Now you have Olympus: London has Fallen.

This poster for 'V for Vendetta' looks great!

Again we are presented with Mike Banning, played by Gerard Butler, as the infinitely tough, skilled, incredibly paranoid, secret agent man. Hired to protect the POTUS at all costs, Mike is distracted from placing a disturbing number of cameras in an infants room when an expansive and well executed terrorist attack lands during “the most protected event on Earth”. The remainder of the film is masturbatory material for any gun toting Americans in the audience who ‘wan-ta get revenge on those there god damned terrorists’. The blatant plot recycling is, unfortunately, only the tip of this shit covered iceberg.

As a story unravels it becomes apparent to any writer that some key information needs to be conveyed across to the audience in order for the story to make sense. This is called delivering exposition, and there are two distinct approaches to this delivery. There is the delicate, loving approach; add a scar to a character here, display an odd obsession through subtle monologue there. It is the careful seduction of background story telling. It is a slower, more roundabout approach, but it builds intrigue and suspense and, more importantly, promotes an audiences investment in the story. Then there is the relentless, five-finger gangbang approach that Olympus takes. It’s not even just for necessary information; every single plot point this film gives is rammed down your throat during any scene containing Morgan Freeman and his merry band of round table militants. The film attempts to distract you with an explosion and some A list celebrity, while meanwhile its loading its next syringe of plot to be administered directly to your brain. Sure some people might be into the hard and fast approach, but it would be nice just once to be wooed before having to bite the pillow.

The spin cycle of the washing machine must have some serious issues, because the plot of ‘Olympus has fallen’ has developed some serious holes when it was pulled out to make this sequel. While I would anticipate the death of a Prime Minister being a large scale occasion, I would think that inviting world leaders from over 40 countries to be a extravagant. Nevertheless a quorum of over fifteen people is brought together to discuss the logistical nightmares that such an event would inherently bring. Once planned, it is described as “the most protected event on Earth”. I should mention at this point that a terrorist dressed as a paramedic pulls a military grade grenade launcher from a bag and proceeds to fire said firearm directly at the President during this "most protected event". The first lady also manages a full, heart warming conversation with Mike about how he should raise his newborn child, despite the fact she clearly has a piece of helicopter directly through her lung. Quick add some terrorists on motorbikes with assault rifles. Phew, thought someone might notice that abhorrent impossibility. Also her husband, the President, gives up caring about her in less than 30 seconds, though this isn't too dissimilar from any marriage. Ahhhhh explosion! Gunfire! More grenades! “This guy has more ammunition that the US. Army”. Great!

2012, Day after Tomorrow, Harry Potter or Olympus: London
has Fallen?

Given how little emotional investment I had in the film, it’s of little surprise that I began to draw parallels between it and other better films that I would rather be watching. Apart from the imagery of London’s landmarks being destroyed (see: 2012, V for Vendetta, Day After Tomorrow, etc.) there are also a couple of odd dialogue choices. One in particular that stood out was the line ”hear that?...that’s the sound of inevitability”. Almost a direct copy from the line in The Matrix delivered by Agent Smith to Neo in the train tunnel just before Neo does that sweet jump into back flip... Why am I watching this shitty film and not the Matrix again?

While it is nice to watch a film every now and then that requires (and actively encourages) no thought whatsoever, this one will always leave you wanting less. The continuous action fails to distract that you’ve already experienced this plot before, and it should upset you to know there is another sequel on the way...probably. It is incredibly difficult to be invested in this film, therefore I give it 5/10 films that i would rather be watching.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

To overcome their differences, Batman and Superman team up in an effort to both defeat a rampant terror loose in the city, and to confuse the audience about the title of the film. Also Wonder Woman is there. Batman Vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice -Starring Ben Batfleck and his butler, old Robert Downey Jr.

There are four major issues with this film. The first of which, and possibly the most dissuading, is that the film title is misleading. While it may sell tickets, ‘Batman Vs Superman’ is a title that will leave you feeling robbed. There is a brief scuffle halfway through the film and shockingly it doesn’t end in one of them dying. In fact after this “fight” they become best buds and spend a few minutes discussing their awfully (or should i say orphanly) similar back stories. So in this battle royale, this fight to the death, this mano e mano, the true winner is friendship and the real loser is the audience who have to endure the remaining hour.

Alien jet fuel can't melt steel beams.

 Problem 2: The basics of story telling. Should you ever write something, you want to start strong and end strong. Starting with a solid introduction will intrigue an audience and keep them engaged. A 5 minute montage of origin story that the audience already knows with opening credits playing over the top is not a good start. It distracts the audience. It leads their minds to wander. How much did I just spend on overpriced candy? Will the cinema find the 4 bags of Maltesers I packed down my trousers and kick me out? What is the run time of this film anyway? Will 4 bags even be enough to eat? Ending strong is perhaps even more important. The first thing an audience will do when they finish a film is stretch, turn to each other and ask that age old question ‘What did you think of it?’. Given that they just watched the most generic Hollywood ending complete with opening for sequels and a plot (i hesitate to use the word) twist, they will most likely answer with ‘it was alright’. Never mind the well choreographed fight scenes, the decent casting and the well placed cuts between story lines, what you were just delivered was a shit sandwich. Brown on all sides, and crunchy in the middle. Kind of like those Maltesers Speaking of which, I probably could manage another packet... And so the audience leaves with no lasting impressions, which is great for next year when the inevitable Wonder Woman film gets released and the entire plot is recycled and no one can tell the difference. The circle of life.

New Avengers film: confirmed.

The third major issue is the plot. Apart from the slow beginning and mind-numbingly dull ending, the movie isn’t terrible. You get to experience pretty solid character arcs (except in the case of Wonder Woman) and to their credit the actors all do a good job. The issue is that the first third of the film is setting up this hatred between Batman and Superman; both feel justified in the way they feel against each other and then it completely back flips on itself at the mention of a single name. There they are, effectively two Gods among men with a burning desire to end each others life, and then one of them name drops mum and the climax goes out the window. The film almost goes so far as to show the two superheroes bro-hugging and sobbing gently in each others arms. You can actually see the point where the writers gave up and thought ‘Uh we don’t have a climax anymore so probably just add like a Lord of the rings Orc-monster and a bunch of explosions.’

Issue 4 is character choice. Wonder Woman has no place in this film. Edit out any scene with her in it and the film will, if anything, make more sense. Instead we are brought this strong female character in, that has no place in the film, just because otherwise we only have Louis Lane who spends every single day getting into mortal peril. The girl couldn’t have breakfast without somehow ending up with a gun to her head. She is held hostage by terrorists, drowns and is pushed off a building. We get it, she is the damsel in distress. That is her one defining feature. Don’t try cover it up by throwing in Mexican-Angelina Jolie-Wonder Woman.

So now the major issues are out of the way, let’s smash out some smaller issues.

• Awkward comic relief scenes that should have been left out (I thought she was with you?)
• At points the music subtracts from the scenes
• Batman crafts a spear and no one understands how they are meant to be thrown
• What sort of hired thug brings an RPG to a standard ‘move the truck’ job
• Part of Batman lore is that he doesn’t kill anyone (hence the iconic upside-down joker scene in Dark Knight)
• Out of place dream scene in which Mad Max Batman is then visited by future dude (IT’S YOUR KIDS MARTY) only to wake up at his computer screen wondering if it happened at all (follow the white rabbit Neo)
• HEADLINE: Real reporters don’t talk like this to each other. More on Laurence Fishburne’s character on page 3.
• Lex Luther isn’t the joker, stop trying to draw parallels. Also we don’t need the origin story of his haircut.

 Rest assured at the end of this film you too will stretch and tell your friend/lover/empty Maltesers packet that it was ‘alright’. What it lacks in plot development, title choice and any form of climax, it half makes up for with solid casting, decent editing and good character arcs (at least until halfway). The entire last third of the film leaves a lot to be desired, and just once it would be nice if not every film needed an opening for a sequel.

 I give it 6/10 Malteser packets