Movie Review – Sorry to Bother You

Get set for wokeness in its weirdest form possible… you have no idea what you’re about to get into…

⭐ ⭐ ⭐ ½
Corey Hogan

It’s near impossible to lump first time writer-director Boots Riley’s Sorry to Bother You into any one category. Absurdist and scathingly satirical dark comedy drama with shades of magical fantasy, sci-fi and horror might land somewhere close. What is absolutely certain is that you’re in for a weird, weird time. Probably the weirdest you’ll have with a movie in 2018. 

Cassius “Cash” Green (Lakeith Stanfield) has just landed a low-level telemarketing job, which he hopes can get he and his girlfriend Detroit (Tessa Thompson) out of his uncle’s garage and on the road to success. Cash quickly learns that using a “white voice” will make him more sales, and is quickly leagues ahead of his colleagues and on his way to becoming a “Power Caller” at the top end of the company. Turning his back on the union opposing this big business, he soon learns the dark and deranged plan his CEO Steve Lift (Armie Hammer) has for his company and employees.

Inspired by Riley’s own experience as a telemarketer, Sorry To Bother You is like an acid trip through the hierarchy of employment status from bottom to top and how the powers above and below impact each other. Essentially, it’s a truly bizarre skewering of the monster that is capitalism, alongside, of course, the political climate, race and social status.

Like Spike Lee’s BlacKkKlansman, this too largely follows a black man impersonating a white man to further his career, though tonally it’s much closer to the free-for-all communal craziness of Lee’s earlier work like Do the Right Thing. In fact, there’s a lot that Sorry to Bother You borrows from. There’s more than a hint of The Wolf of Wall Street, The Social Network, Office Space, The Lobster and, uhh… BoJack Horseman. And yet it remains radically original, thanks to its outrageous and chaotically creative take on some well-covered matters.

As the weird outsider in movies like Get Out and Death Note, it’s natural fit for Lakeith Stanfield to be the normal(ish), balanced centre in a bonkers alternate world, and here he proves himself capable of the upgrade from eccentric support to conflicted lead. His tale of rising up the ranks and moral reversal is familiar, but the relentlessly strange path it takes keeps Cash Green interesting. Particularly amusing is his white guy voice – who any fan of Arrested Development will immediately recognise as the hilarious David Cross dubbing over his speech.

It is, however, a little too weird for its own good at points. The humour is more offbeat eyebrow-raisers than actual laugh-worthy moments that again, won’t sit with everyone, and there are a few too many subplots that end up left in the dirt. But for a multi-faceted and brazenly bizarre alternative satire of the world we live in, Sorry to Bother You unquestionably stands out from the pack – for better or worse.

Sorry To Bother You is available in Australian cinemas from November 29

Image courtesy of Annapurna Pictures & Universal Pictures International

Advertisements

Movie Review – Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald

Are all the prequel series to enormously successful franchises doomed to succumb to George Lucas syndrome?

⭐ star:
Corey Hogan

Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald picks up close to where its predecessor left off, taking us into episode two of five(!!) in the prequel series. After a brief period in captivity, the powerful dark wizard Grindelwald (Johnny Depp) escapes imprisonment. He sets about gathering followers to aid in his sinister cause of rising pure-blooded witches and wizards up to reign supreme over the non-magical. Having shared a history with Grindelwald and seeing it his duty to stop him, Albus Dumbledore (Jude Law) recruits his former student Newt Scamander (Eddie Redmayne) for the task, who, along with his former allies Tina Goldstein (Katherine Waterston) and Jacob Kowalski (Don Fogler), heads to Paris to track down and stop the dangerous wizard.

The first entry, Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Themcertainly didn’t recapture the magic or provide a particularly good setup for another extended period in the wider ‘Wizarding World’. It was, at the very least, watchable enough to forgive Warner Bros. for cashing in and J.K. Rowling for attempting to stay relevant. The Crimes of Grindelwald avada-kedavras this newly established flow and the results are less than spellbinding.

Forgoing the steady world-building and gradual reveals and payoffs that kept Harry Potter accessible across eight movies, Fantastic Beasts descends directly into the dark tone of the later Potter chapters. In rushing, the darkness feels both unearned and devoid of impact, especially since most of the one-note characters simply have not been fleshed out. Rowling’s story itself comes across as convoluted fan fiction. It tends to favour side-characters delivering monologues and backstories that no one will be able to follow without a PhD in Pottermore.

Frequent tacked-on callbacks and foreshadowing of the events of Harry Potter, along with a superfluous return to Hogwarts, drive home how poorly this series stands on its own. Jude Law fares fine as a young Dumbledore, but like so many of the parts that make up this prequel, he’s just there as a name we recognise. Surprisingly not terrible is Johnny Depp, who could potentially have a new calling as a controversial figure with twisted villains – even if their motives are clumsy and make completely unsubtle parallels to contemporary politics.

Once a forerunner in amazing cinematography and visual effects, Grindelwald’s ugly aesthetic proves that David Yates and company are no longer interested in lovingly crafting adventures that will be cherished for years to come. There’s sadly little to recommend here to anyone except die hard Potternerds.

Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald is available in Australian cinemas from November 15. 

Image courtesy of Roadshow Films

Movie Review – Goosebumps 2 : Haunted Halloween

Not as smart or entertaining as the first, but Goosebumps 2 isn’t a total loss.

⭐ ⭐
Zachary Cruz-Tan

Against my better judgement, I actually enjoyed the first Goosebumps movie. It was well made, moderately clever with a lightness in its step. Now comes the inevitable sequel – helpfully titled Goosebumps 2: Haunted Halloween – and whatever innovation and ingenuity that once existed is gone, replaced instead with a blanket of computer graphics and a plot so transparent it can be used to trace over itself. This is not a movie but a product assembled to keep kids distracted.

The plot, such as it is, follows Sarah (Madison Iseman), Sonny (Jeremy Ray Taylor) and Sam (Caleel Harris) in the town of Wardenclyffe, NY, three kids who discover the magical ventriloquist dummy Slappy from the first movie and accidentally bring him back to life. Slappy, voiced effectively by Mick Wingert (even though he sounds an awful lot like Jack Black), desires a family, so he hatches a cockamamie scheme that involves Halloween lawn ornaments bursting to life and running amok down the streets.

Of course, this happens so the movie’s visual effects artists can earn their paycheques. Many of the visuals are indeed impressive, but they would’ve been more thrilling if they had serviced a smarter plot and done more terrifying things. I think kids want to be frightened, just enough to make them jump but not too much that they can’t sleep. Goosebumps 2 plays more like a parody of scary images. It lacks the conviction to be truly intense.

The screenplay, penned by Rob Lieber, is not particularly well structured but contains several genuinely amusing exchanges I wouldn’t have expected from a fluffy movie like this – “So put on your shoes and let’s go!” “But my shoes are already on!”. It’s the kind of broad humour that’s just narrow enough to be funny. Or maybe it’s not, and I was simply trying to empathise with the mind of a five-year-old.

Naturally, there were a lot of five-year-olds at the screening I attended, accompanied by parents who I’m sure would’ve rather observed a dying cockroach. I think maybe it might be fitting then to evaluate Goosebumps 2 based on how raucous the children were, since I’m clearly not its intended audience. I thought it was foolish but entertaining. The kids, on the other hand, were very quiet. Could it be they were too frightened, or too bored?

Goosebumps 2: Haunted Halloween  is available in Australian cinemas from October 25 

Image courtesy of Sony Pictures

Movie Review – Ocean’s 8

Ocean’s 8 pulls off the ultimate con – it keeps you entertained while taking your hard-earned money.

⭐ ⭐ ⭐
Corey Hogan

After smart-talking her way out of prison, kleptomaniac Debbie Ocean (Sandra Bullock) – estranged sister of notorious con artist Danny Ocean – takes inspiration from her brother to pull off an elaborate heist with a hefty reward. Reuniting with her old partner-in-crime Lou (Cate Blanchett), the pair recruit an all-female dream team and plot to steal an extremely valuable necklace right out from under everyone’s noses at the annual Met Ball.

Let’s all breathe a collective sigh of relief! We’ve made it to the release of the gender-swapped revamp of Ocean’s 11 without going down the road of a Ghostbusters nightmare. Directed by Gary Ross (The Hunger Games), Ocean’s 8 remains respectful to its roots, while mostly standing on its own two feet. It packs in a plethora of Oscar-winning talent and manages to be entertaining enough to justify its own existence. It may be flawed and unnecessary, but at least the focus is on being a decent flick, instead of holding a middle finger to fans of the original.

In terms of structure and style, 8 follows 11 beat for beat, with the same slick recruitment, heist setup and tricksy execution overlayed with smooth jazz and playful camera transitions. This could leave it derided as a lazy, but it would be utterly redundant to accuse Hollywood of being devoid of creativity and originality. As far as re-treads go, this certainly isn’t the worst offender, but it’s certainly not on par with Steven Soderbergh’s genre-defining original.

For one, we don’t really get a feel for all these characters and their motives. Besides Debbie, no one on the team has a goal outside of the big score at the end of an elaborate and risky crime, which leaves most of them fairly one-dimensional, even if they do share some chemistry. There’s no terrible villain this time either; the closest we come is Debbie’s ex-boyfriend and former partner in crime Claude Becker (Richard Armitage), but he too is not given enough depth. Perhaps most glaring of all is that things run a little too smoothly throughout for our crooks. There’s no real conflict or unforeseen events creating tension to up the ante and have us on the edge of our seats.

But despite low stakes and some unneeded padding (the less said about James Corden’s goofy insurance fraud investigator the better), if you can release yourself enough from the grasp of the 2001 classic, there’s fun to be had here. It’s great to see such a high-calibre cast of leading ladies tearing up the screen, but it’s probably not enough to warrant a continuing story with Ocean’s 9 or 10, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing – it’s best no one stoops to the self-indulgent depths of something like Ocean’s 12 ever again.

Ocean’s 8 is available in Australian cinemas from June 7 

Image courtesy of Roadshow Films

High Concept Films

Josip Knezevic 

Consider this: to help reduce overpopulation, you’re given the option to shrink yourself to five inches tall and join others like you. In return, you’ll live in a miniature society that can accommodate your every want and need… would you take the plunge?

This is the premise for upcoming Boxing Day film Downsizing starring Matt Damon, and it makes me wonder; what other obscure film concepts are out there for us to consume? Here’s a list of high concept films for your to contemplate and enjoy.

The Lobster (2015)

For anyone who’s single right now, this might not be the film for you… unless you’re really into animals. In the world of The Lobster, if you’re not married or in a committed relationship, then you’ve got 45 days to find a faithful partner who loves you completely, otherwise you’ll be turned into an animal. But hey, at least you get to choose what you turn into.

It’s a disturbing yet incredibly well-written film from the mind of Yorgos Lanthimos who also brought us this year’s The Killing of a Sacred Deer. Featuring a powerful lead performance from Colin Farrell, The Lobster is a film that takes a unique concept and extrapolates a range of horrifying outcomes, but by golly is it ever interesting to watch.

But ending up an animal wouldn’t be so bad… would it?

High Concept The Lobster December 2017


Circle (2015)

Let’s move to something simpler.

Here’s how things go down in Circle: you wake up in a room with a bunch of people you’ve never met before, and every few minutes someone dies. Now, what do you do…?

Circle comes from the minds of Aaron Hann and Mario Miscione, who terrorise 50 strangers for 90 minutes. Watching a whole film play out in a single room never becomes dull, thanks to the interactions between the 50 different characters. Think 12 Angry Men, but on a much larger scale.

While never boring, Circle is not without its flaws. Given its small budget, some of the performances are a little lacking, and the overall concept does have some plot holes, but if you’re open to an above average B-movie, look no further. It’s still better than a lot of the fodder Hollywood is churning out these days.

High Concept Circle December 2017


The Matrix (1999)

You can’t talk about high concept films without mentioning The Matrix. While it’s probably the most well-known film on the list, let’s dive in anyway.

What if I told you everything about your life is a lie? Your friends, family and all your memories are a complete lie. A computer coded lie – to be exact, because you’re in the matrix: a highly sophisticated, simulation model that uses individuals as fuel sources for a race of machines that have enslaved most of humanity. Shit just went to 100 real quick.

The Matrix is the Wachowski brother’s masterpiece and it changed the game of cinema. From extreme slow motion action scenes, to sci-fi dystopian concepts that have been replicated and referenced in countless films to date, The Matrix is an absolute watch for anyone.

high Concept The Matrix December 2017


The Truman Show (1998)

Speaking of game changing films, The Truman Show revolutionised TV through its scarily accurate prediction of the future. If you hate the reality show Big Brother, you have this film to thank for its conception.

Imagine waking up, having breakfast, going to work, enjoying your hobbies in the evening, then capping it off with a late-night movie before sleep. Basically, living a normal life, right? Except, throw in a thousand different cameras watching your every movement on a 24/7 live broadcast to the entire world.

Andrew Niccol’s genius (that is, before he made horrible pieces of crap like The Host and In Time), takes you into a world that’s filled with a cast of extras pretending to be everyday people you know and love, while everything built around you is a fabricated lie.

Although it contains similar themes to The Matrix, The Truman Show is far more light-hearted, offering Jim Carey a great opportunity to showcase his brand of humour. It’s far better than any Big Brother episode. Check it out if you haven’t already.

High Concept The Truman Show December 2017


Exam (2009)

Exam may be the silliest film on this list.

You’ve been selected to attend a job interview for a powerful company. You enter a room with five others and sit down at a table with only a blank piece of paper and pen. An instructor comes in and says there’s only one question to answer. You must only write on your piece of paper and you mustn’t ruin it in any way by tearing it to pieces or folding. Any questions?

And that’s it. That’s how simple Exam is, but it leaves the characters wondering… what are they supposed to write? Was there something they missed? There’s five other people in the same boat as them, but how far will they go to figure it out before the others do? This is where Exam shines; it relies heavily on the dialogue between this small group of characters. It’s a far from perfect, low-budget movie, and the ending may leave you with a bitter taste in your mouth, but it’s definitely worth seeing and talking about.

High Concept Exam December 2017


Enemy (2013)

Last, but not least, from the mind of the man who brought us Arrival and Blade Runner 2049, comes Enemy. Directed by Denis Villeneuve and starring Jake Gyllenhaal in yet another fantastic performance, Enemy follows a man who discovers his doppelganger while watching a movie. Overcome with curiosity, he begins to follow his lookalike, only to find out more about himself than he ever bargained for.

Without giving too much away, this thought-provoking, psychological thriller takes the basic concept of a doppelganger and turns it into something so much more. You’ll probably need to view it a couple of times to get your head around it, as it’s one of those films that will leave you questioning its meaning at every turn.

High Concept Enemy December 2017


Images courtesy of Sony Pictures, Netflix Inc., Roadshow Films, United International Pictures/Paramount Home Entertainment, 21st Century Pictures and Madman Entertainment. 

Movie Review – The Man Who Invented Christmas

A stocking stuffed with quite a lot of wrapping paper, The Man Who Invented Christmas struggles to get through its own excess.

⭐ ⭐ ½
Michael Philp

The thing about The Man Who Invented Christmas (TMWIC) is that you’ve seen most of it before. A respectable chunk of the film is a straight adaptation of A Christmas Carol – the same story you’ve been hearing since you were a child. It’s nice, it’s heart-warming, it’s a classic, and it’s been adapted dozens of times, sometimes with more panache than on this occasion (A Muppet Christmas Carol remains a personal favourite). So the first knock against TMWIC is simply that its version of A Christmas Carol isn’t all that special. The second knock is that the other story it’s telling – how Charles Dickens (Dan Stevens) came to write A Christmas Carol – is both overstuffed and dull. Not exactly a winning combination.

TMWIC opens to Dickens coming off the high of a tour of America. Cut to a year and two flops later: Dickens is broke and needs a hit to get through Christmas. His publishers laugh at him when he suggests a Christmas story. “It’s October, you haven’t written anything yet, and nobody cares about Christmas!” They say, being the savvy business people they are. Dickens stubbornly ignores them and decides to risk everything to self-publish the novel. In the process, characters such as Ebenezer Scrooge (Christopher Plummer) come alive through Dickens’ thoughts and begin tormenting him. To triumph, Dickens is forced to wrestle not only with his characters, but also the inner demons they represent.

Dan Stevens does solid work here. His Dickens is energetic and conflicted – pushed and pulled by both outer and inner forces, he is perpetually bouncing between problems – and Stevens does admirable work keeping everything centred. Likewise, Plummer is a reliable source of amusement and is devilishly delicious as Scrooge. Avoiding the temptation of passivity, Plummer keeps his Scrooge engaged in the act of torturing his creator. Plummer’s dynamic with Stevens is perhaps the film’s saving grace and is certainly its most well-developed aspect. If only the filmmakers had focused in on that, we might’ve had something recommendable.

Instead, we get an abundance of subplots that dull the film, like running a knife across a rock. Some of them – like William Makepeace Thackeray – just need snappier editing to liven things up. Others – like Dickens’ nephew, the inspiration for Tiny Tim – should be jokes instead of entire scenes. These would be minor quibbles if there weren’t so damn many of them. There are at least three different subplots that desperately need trimming, and one that needs to be deleted entirely. Those stories come at the expense of the main one, killing its momentum and making you wish the film would go back to the mediocre version of A Christmas Carol.

You can praise TMWIC’s production design (it’s quite lavish), and performances (universally solid), but you’ll find it hard to praise the film they’re in service of. Quite simply it doesn’t serve them back. Charles Dickens’ life should make for an entertaining film, but unfortunately, this Christmas story isn’t it.

The Man Who Invented Christmas is available in Australian Cinemas November 30

Image courtesy of Icon Film Distribution.

Dreaming in a Single Take

Michael Philp

*Warning: Mild Spoilers Ahead*

After recently seeing Watch The Sunset at the Revelation Film Festival, I found myself fascinated by the way it and other one take films (Victoria and Russian Ark) come across as dreamscapes. This is mostly because of their format, as their material couldn’t be more disparate – Ark is a 2002 Russian historical art-house film, Victoria is a 2015 German drama, and Sunset is a 2017 Australian drug-drama – and yet the single-take format gives them all a certain hazy, dream-like quality that unites them.

To be fair, there’s an entire school of film theory that sees movies as dream substitutes, but certain characteristics of single-take films exacerbate that comparison. Some of them are superficial – the constant movement of the camera can be used to hypnotic effect, and often mimics human vision – but others offer insight into cinema in general. If it’s true, for instance, that audiences tend to blink in time with scene breaks to minimise information loss, then it stands to reason that during a single-take film they will be blinking less. In other words, information overload is inherent in the format because there are no clear, predictable breaks.

Because of that reality, it’s easy to get lost in the films. Every moment flows into the next until it’s all just a blur and you’ve forgotten the steps it took to arrive at the destination. That’s particularly important for Victoria, where the main character falls in love, snorts cocaine, helps rob a bank, steals a baby, and watches all of her new friends either die or get arrested, all in the space of two real-time hours. When you write it out like that, the film undoubtedly reads closer to a dream than real life. I’ve omitted connective tissue, but only because it’s so unimportant that it was mostly left up to the actors to improvise. Sunset’s production echoes that sentiment, with the creators stating during a recent Q&A that it too was mostly improvised. This approach produces films that steadily move between set-pieces and rarely stop to look back.

Ark is a perfect example of that concept. Filmed in an enormous museum, it uses rooms as scenes to showcase particular time periods and ideas. Its narrator is implied to be a ghost and its characters whisper and float between conversations and visions, all of which results in a hypnotic drone of a movie. I don’t think any other film works this well at putting you to sleep, and I don’t mean that as an insult, it’s just the way the film is. The sum of Ark’s parts is so quietly rhythmic and relaxing that I admire anyone who doesn’t feel sleepy while watching it. For Victoria, only its vibrant dialogue – and the bank robbery – save it from that trap.

But that statement doesn’t really do Victoria justice. It implies that the film has no higher ambition than simply telling a good story, and that just isn’t true. Director Sebastian Schipper seeks more than just dialogue followed by a bank robbery; he wants to make a comment on youth and recklessness and to do that he needs to insert himself into a film whose ethos is passive observation. That might seem contradictory, but his decision to do it anyway, and the manner in which he does it, is what hammers home that these films are dreamscapes rather than dramas with a gimmick.

Which begs the question – couldn’t they have just filmed these movies  normally? That would’ve been easier, less dangerous, and given them more opportunity for creative license. Those arguments aren’t wrong, but they ignore the benefits of the format. When you film in a single-take, you produce a swirling vacuum of a movie, drawing your audience in. Victoria’s climax is devastating because the film locks the audience in its world for two straight hours and by the end of the movie, you feel just as disoriented as the title character. That’s the power of a single-take film – you forget that you’re watching a film in the same way you forget you’re dreaming, and that means the narrative can go to incredible places.

There is depth to the single-take format, but it takes a skilled director and crew to bring it out, more so than most film styles. The difficulties associated with its production are too great to make it more commonly used, but that just means the few films that have achieved the feat are gems. I highly recommend seeking out all three of the films I’ve mentioned, they are, for the most part, rewarding experiences, and together form a fascinating genre that I look forward to other filmmakers exploring in unique ways.

Image courtesy of Twentieth Century Fox

The Formidable Woman of the Screen

Zachary Cruz-Tan

I don’t remember a time when women didn’t play a big part in the movies for me. Even as I was growing up and cinemas everywhere were filled with The Matrix (1999), Trinity always seemed the most dangerous. She kicked the most butt, slipped into some of the most ridiculously fetishistic costumes since Michelle Pfeiffer’s Catwoman, and always appeared to be in control. She was never a puppet of the plot, always its impetus (until, of course, she fell in love with Neo and the writers decided to turn her into the Lois Lane of the franchise…).

Now we live in an age of constant social and political scrutiny, thanks to the handy availability and widespread reach of the Internet. African-Americans are having their say about race and brutality. The LGBT community continues to be vocal, maybe even more so. There has never been a greater push for gender equality, which I think is essential, but in the movie world, this can be a double-edged sword. On the one hand, more female actors are leading films in roles of great stature. On the other, studios are succumbing to pressure to turn every male-centric box office success into an oestrogen-fuelled copycat. We’ve already had Ghostbusters (2016). Still to come: Ocean’s Eight (because apparently Ocean’s Eleven would require more actresses than Hollywood can spare).

There is a difference between respecting the female character and tossing her around like a football. Remakes like Ghostbusters do nothing for the cause, because they are about nothing and could just as easily star men, while films like Hidden Figures (2016) desire to do more for women by understanding their strengths and playing to them. Consider the power of the scene in Hidden Figures where Janelle Monáe fights for the right to study in a segregated college in 1960s Virginia. And then turn to Melissa McCarthy bouncing around like a balloon trying to subdue a proton rifle. Yes, one is historical drama and the other is physical comedy, but respect is universal. And respect is, after all, what all this is about.

But is this current female enlightenment such a big deal? Have we forgotten Beatrix Kiddo, or Ellen Ripley, or Dorothy Gale? Or the movies of Alfred Hitchcock, like Notorious (1946) or Psycho (1960), that seem to be about men, but are told through a feminine lens? Perhaps not. We are all aware of the great women of the past, how they practiced their craft – sometimes in harsh company – and inevitably shaped the present by opening doors once thought to be sealed. But Hollywood believes in repeating a winning idea until it has been done to death, and then repeats it some more. So it has boarded the feminism wagon because it thinks it must, and fails to find the balance between respect and farce.

2017 has already seen its fair share of female-centric releases, with Their Finest and Ghost in the Shell. The Zookeeper’s Wife, starring Jessica Chastain (perhaps Hollywood’s most prominent crusader) is currently in cinemas, and Alien: Covenant opens this week. Yet to arrive is the much-anticipated Wonder Woman, which will see the iconic comic book character receive her first solo treatment on the big screen.

What excites me about these films is that they seem organic. They are not ideas that pander or condescend, or that are daft in their conception. Many people will enjoy the silliness of Ghostbusters and Ocean’s Eight, but to gaze up and come away from a movie feeling truly inspired and entertained by a formidable female performance is perhaps worth that much more.

Image courtesy of Roadshow Films

Movie Review – Life

Is this the unofficial prequel to Venom?

⭐ ⭐ ⭐
Josip Knezevic 

You only need to catch the trailer for new sci-fi Life to see how much it borrows from classic space horrors like Alien and Doom. It begs the question as to why this film was ever even made, but thankfully it does pack a couple of surprises that make it somewhat refreshing.

In Life, a crew on board the International Space Station find evidence of extra-terrestrial life. A soil sample taken from a Mars space probe begins growing into a multi-celled organism and soon our A-list crew members – Ryan Reynolds, Rebecca Ferguson and Jake Gyllenhaal – must work together to survive and protect human kind.

Where Life excels is in its first half. The dramatic opening scene connects you with the characters while perfectly setting up the introduction of the new alien species. From there the story keeps you invested as the scientific discoveries unfold and you learn about the organism along with the crew. You get the sense that this is exactly how this scenario would play out if it ever happened in real life.

But from there everything begins to fall apart. Life quickly becomes the film that’s been done many times before, with mindless action scene after action scene. It becomes painfully predictable and leaves you to question the logistics of its action sequences as well as the motivations of its characters.

Overall, the film is a decent enough entertainment piece. There are some genuine gross-out horror moments backed by fantastic sound design and the alien creatures are relatively unique. If you’re a die hard sci-fi fan, then Life is definitely for you, but if you haven’t seen the classics, you’re better off staying at home and looking them up on Netflix instead.

Life is available in Australian cinemas from March 22

Image courtesy of Sony Pictures 

 

Movie Review – The Boss Baby

An extremely energetic film with not much substance.  Bring the kids, but be ready to browse your phone.

⭐ ⭐ ⭐
Cody Fullbrook

Imaginative only child, Tim Templeton (Miles Christopher Bakshi), has his life thrown into chaos when his new baby brother (Alec Baldwin) is dispatched. Not born – dispatched. He investigates the decreasing love for babies in this modern age; a deceptively real issue nowadays, and one which could have been handled more genuinely if the baby wasn’t, you know, wearing a suit!

When talking about any movie, it’s important to know that the audience is easily grasping its message.  The Boss Baby’s message is simply “love is important”.  A passable moral, at least when paired with an engaging story, but the problem is that the concept of love is never explored here.

We’re constantly made to feel stressed about our two protagonists stopping the villain (Steve Buscemi) from making people love puppies more than babies, but it’s unclear as to what exactly is going to happen if they fail to stop him. And if they succeed, all they’ve done is prevent the villain’s plan to catalyse the problem. Not cause it. So, even when they win, the issue still exists.

The Boss Baby’s length and pacing is fine and, while never terribly confusing, Tim and the baby’s actions to achieve their goals are just as vague as the goals themselves. Astral projecting pacifiers, immortality milk and a team of Elvis impersonators all progress the story in appropriately comical ways, like all comedies should, but almost all the tension is constantly sapped from the story when you can assume they’ll have a magical gadget to fix any problem, and that includes literally using Tim’s imagination to beat someone in a sword fight.

Alongside the hysterical image of a baby having Alec Baldwin’s voice, the worlds Tim creates is the highlight of The Boss Baby, easily rivalling the colourful energy of Inside Out and The Lego Movie.  In fact, after seeing all the film’s bizarre events mesh seamlessly with the vibrant imagery in Tim’s head, I assumed The Boss Baby would have a reveal similar to The Lego Movie, where the plot was simply the active imagination of an innocent child who, in his own way, learns how to handle having a baby brother. But, no. There was a rocket ship filled with puppies, a skateboarding bodyguard in a dress and babies come from a factory in the sky.  These things all happened. That is reality. Accept it.

For better and worse, The Boss Baby is just plain silly.  Its lively animation and humour make it a fine movie for children and maybe even young teenagers, made even better with the terrific chemistry and voice acting between Bakshi and Baldwin. Older viewers, however, will find the message and overall plot less than substantive.

The Boss Baby is available in Australian cinemas from March 22

Image courtesy of 20th Century Fox