DON'T BREATHE

REVIEWS NO-ONE ASKED FOR
by Ashton Brown

DON'T BREATHE

dir Fede Alvarez

THRILLINGLY OK

It's been a pretty exciting few years for horror movies. The genre is becoming more and more popular with mainstream audiences and thus more and more sub-genres are being created. I think a downside to this is that although the quality of horror films are steadily improving, the hype around films is also increasing and the expectations a lot of us have for films before we see them is at times unrealistic and as a result it is having an impact on the amount we enjoy said films. I went into Don't Breathe hearing that it was going to be one of the scariest films of the decade and was extremely pumped to be crapping my pants for its 88 minute run time. Director Fede Alvarez did a solid job of the Evil Dead remake a few years back so it's fair to say my expectations were extremely high.

Now I wouldn't go as far to say that I was disappointed by Don't Breathe - it's a pretty solid thriller. It has elements of horror for sure but I think its marketing focusing solely on it being a horror film is a little bit misleading. The storyline is pretty typical - 3 young criminals (the hot one, the douche-bag and the nerdy awkward one - nothing new here) decide to rob a blind war veteran in an empty street to start a new and better life with the settlement money that he obtained when his daughter was killed by vehicular manslaughter. Needless to say it goes wrong. Very wrong. The films "twists" are ok - I don't think they are amazing, although once or twice I did find myself being pleasantly suprised with the direction the story took. However overall it was fairly standard to the genre.

The jump scares are plenty and very enjoyable and effective but I would say that other than jump scares I wasn't overly frightened. There's tension but not tension that I felt transferred from the onscreen characters to me as an audience member. I think this is mainly because I struggled to feel any real empathy for any of them characters. The film IS very unrelenting. It is scene after scene of chase, gunshots and darkness which was very fun. Not so much frightening but certainly thrilling and action packed.

The sound is absolutely exceptional. I have said it before - music can make or break a horror movie - and the music in Don't Breathe is fantastic at creating a never easing sense of dread. It accompanies the jump scares very well to create an environment of never really being able to catch your breath. Don't Breathe is also a very well shot film with some gorgeous cinematography. The opening scene in particular, is absolutely stunning and the use of aerial footage is very well utilised to create a sense of isolation and dread.

The acting is good for the most part - with 3 out of the 4 characters not annoying me with crappy performances and overall the dialogue isn't too cringe worthy (although the spoken exposition felt very forced at times. Sometimes showing is better than telling). Special mention to Stephen Lang (Avatar) for his pitch perfect performance of a broken, blind war veteran.

Overall Don't Breathe is a good movie. It's a solid thriller with some interesting twists, beautiful camera work and gorgeous sound design. I would highly recommend seeing this at a cinema with solid sound facilities for full effect - I saw it in a cinema with 360 degree sound and it truly added to the experience.

For me personally, it's not the 2016 horror movie I've been waiting for. Let's hope that's still on its way.

3 out of 5  

Don't forget to subscribe if you like what you read here. Or publicly argue with me if you don't. Seriously tell me what you think. I'm so lonely. 

BLAIR WITCH

REVIEWS NO-ONE ASKED FOR
by Ashton Brown

BLAIR WITCH

dir Adam Wingard

HAVEN'T I SEEN THIS BEFORE?

When I was 13 a mate and I watched The Blair Witch Project and we were terrified. I remember watching it in a rumpus room in Whitford and spending the rest of the night prank calling infomercial phone lines to take our minds off what we had just witnessed. It was harrowing. It was one of those films that at the time was new and original and as such I wasn't yet desensitised to the way it presented its scares and the found footage genre was brand spanking new. It was hard to shake the expectations that the original film had created as I headed to the cinema to see Blair Witch.

Director Adam Wingard had once again teamed up with screenwriter Simon Barrett. Their previous collaborations include The Guest and You're Next - neither are terrible horror films - in fact both were above average, which for a horror movie means better than most. The biggest problem with Blair Witch is that it not only fails to shake the success of it's older and more unique predecessor but it also fails to create something different. This almost felt like a remastering of the original - The Blair Witch Project 2016 - if you will. There is only a certain amount of time that you can watch people walking around the woods screaming before you kind of just want the witch to show up and put them out of their annoying misery. Whilst the acting is decent the film is absolutely smothered in horror movie stereotypes to the point where we pretty much correctly numbered the order the characters would disappear.

Having said all that there are some things that Blair Witch does very well. I found the use of the drone camera fascinating as it provided a visual depth that we aren't used to in the found footage genre. It gave us this true feeling of isolation that was almost claustrophobic. Speaking of claustrophobia - the third act is where the film finally becomes it's own entity and really becomes something more than average. The third act is tense, terrifying (and not just because of jump scares) and the film manages to actually make you physically uncomfortable with the atmosphere it creates. This third act literally saves and makes this film and prevents it from being forever remembered as a less attractive and less original younger brother of the source material. Blair Witch also uses diegetic sound very well. Since the found footage genre takes away a directors ability to use non-diagetic sound (music etc) and because so much of horror is sound - I was impressed with the films ability to use "real world" sounds to create the suspense and assist with the scares.

All in all it's still a pretty decent horror - despite a slow first half and a less than inspiring story - horror fans will get a pretty enjoyable buzz out of the third act which actually does manage to get your heart pounding. Although I was overall disappointed with it's lack of originality, fans of the genre will still leave feeling that they got at least a little bit of what they came for.

2.5 out of 5  

Don't forget to subscribe if you like what you read here. Or publicly argue with me if you don't. Seriously tell me what you think. I'm so lonely. 

IMPERIUM

REVIEWS NO-ONE ASKED FOR
by Ashton Brown

IMPERIUM
dir Daniel Ragussis

RADCLIFFE'S MAGIC NOT ENOUGH

Some people find it difficult not to see Daniel Radcliffe as Harry Potter, regardless of the role he is playing. But what I find even more difficult is that he always seems to be a child trying to act like a grown up wearing his dads clothes that are slightly too big for him. I started to realise he was more than Potter with his enjoyable performance in the fantastic horror-comedy Horns. Thankfully in Imperium, Radcliffe continues to find his voice as an actor. His performance is strong, honest, his accent seamless and his character mature. Although Imperium isn't a bad film, Radcliffe's performance is definitely one of the only major highlights. It was a real shame to see the usually exceptional Toni Collette going through the motions (and overdoing the chewing gum cop stereotype to the point where you kinda hope she chokes on it.).

If you have seen a film about white supremacists, you have seen Imperium. If you have seen an excellent film about white supremacists (American History X) then you have seen a better film than Imperium. It has it's moments, but it never truly thrills and it has a third act that fizzles into disappointment instead of blowing you out of the predictable ocean that we have come to expect from these types of films.

First time writer/director Daniel Ragussis is certainly capable of impressing in the future. Although it's not the strongest debut to date he still manages to produce a whole lot of very interesting ideas and components but the overall execution of the film leaves you feeling unsatisfied with the payoff (or lack there of).

As far as the story goes - when a film tries so hard to misdirect you with it's villain it goes full circle and forces us to suspect the one person the film is begging us not to suspect. Imperium also creates character development arks that disappear into thin air and leaves us wondering why we were encouraged to be interested in certain characters only to have them taken away to the detriment of the film. I also absolutely loath the type of exposition that shows us seeing visions of "stock footage" to develop ideals - we know the Nazi regime is awful, we understand that white supremacy is a disgusting movement - we don't need to be blasted with brainwashing YouTube footage to fill out the film. By focusing more on the rising tension between characters and a stronger third act - Ragussis could have created something much better than he did. Tackling both writing and directing can often limit the creative outcome of a film - I feel this is one of the contributing factors that leaves Imperium as something less that it should of and have been. Imperium has a lot of the right elements but with the wrong execution.


2.5 out of 5  

Don't forget to subscribe if you like what you read here. Or publicly argue with me if you don't. Seriously tell me what you think. I'm so lonely. 

SUICIDE SQUAD

REVIEWS NO-ONE ASKED FOR
by Ashton Brown

SUICIDE SQUAD
dir David Ayer

GORGEOUS MESS

I have been excited about Suicide Squad since the moment it was announced. The villains of the DC Universe have always been the most eclectic and interesting and I was very eager to see them come together. The trailers increased this eager excitement - a solid mix of humour, action, interesting character portrayals and badass music. Hopefully the film would live up to the hype created by these trailers.

I arrived at the cinema on a Friday night - the film was released in NZ cinemas two nights prior at midnight and already I had read and heard a large amount of reviews - all of which did not speak overly favourably about the film. Despite these reviews I remained cautiously optimistic. After all, the enjoyment of a film is so totally subjective that we needn't be swayed by what others think (aware of the irony as I type this into my film blog).

Yes. Suicide Squad is a mess. The story line is confusing. In fact - I still don't really get parts of it. Yes. The pacing is a little meh at times. Yes. It's not a perfect movie. But goddamn it is an extremely enjoyable and beautiful mess. The things that make Suicide Squad a success far outweigh the things that prevent it from being exceptional.

Firstly - the actors are fantastic. Extremely well cast - from Will Smith as Deadshot - easily the most developed of the characters, Smith brings an honesty and an integrity to the character which helps the audience to connect with this gang of so called "bad guys". The rest of the gang whilst not as well developed (thank God - I didn't want to sit through a 5 hour movie) all add their own unique skill, humour and personality into the film making it an interesting and thoroughly enjoyable character driven story. Even Boomerang, the type of Australian stereotype that would usually make me cringe is presented with such a grasp of comic relief by Jai Courtney that he never overstays his comedic welcome. All of these characters are just enough of everything to be both entertaining and human enough for us to connect with. Viola Davis - who could well be the true villain in the piece - performs the role of Amanda Waller with the pinpoint precision we have come to expect from the talented lady.

Jared Leto proves a very capable Joker. Although I want to see more of him developed in the future, his input in Suicide Squad was enough to let me know that his portrayal of the very difficult character was not attempting to follow in the footsteps of those Jokers who have gone before him but more approach it in a style that was unique to Leto's interpretation. I can't wait to see more.

I have intentionally left the excellent Margot Robbie to last. Much controversy has been swarming around in regards to the films apparent "overly sexualised portrayal" of Harley Quinn. I am confused at how people have reached this conclusion. Sure she's wearing short shorts. But the way people were talking about her in Suicide Squad I was expecting this slap in the face stripper type feel with camera shots focused entirely on her body rather than her character. Not once did I feel this was so. The few times the camera did focus on her in a sexualised way I felt it served the purpose of showing us how Quinn uses her physical form to her advantage - not for the sake of eye candy for prepubescent boys. In a world where we constantly over sexualise the female form in film I was suprised to hear such an uproar about Quinns representation. Robbie is perfect. She nails the role - fully forming the complexity of Quinn - not just the nutcase, but the academic, the lover and the fighter that she is. Pitch perfect performance.

Despite a messy storyline, an underwhelming villain and some pacing issues, I think you have to be trying pretty hard to not allow yourself to enjoy Suicide Squad for what it is. It's a gorgeous mess - a highly entertaining ride and whilst it's a film best enjoyed with popcorn and not with writing a thesis on film in mind - it is entertaining none the less. And this is, after all, the purpose of cinema. Is it not?

I was conflicted as to what to rate this film but what I have ended up with was due to my level of enjoyment not just throughout but also after.

4 out of 5  (just). 

Don't forget to subscribe if you like what you read here. Or publicly argue with me if you don't. Seriously tell me what you think. I'm so lonely. 

JIM JEFFERIES & THE NORMALISATION OF RAPE CULTURE (a review).

OPINIONS NO-ONE ASKED FOR

By Ashton Brown

The below is a Facebook post that triggered a pretty widespread online interest and a mixture of both positive and negative feedback. It was interesting how peoples biggest concern was the fear of being censored as performers - which is something I 100% DON'T condone. I just believe that as performers we can't detach ourselves from any consequences of our performances and remove ourselves from any social responsibility just because we label ourselves as "comedians". 

*Trigger warning - this post discusses rape and references to sexual violence*.

Alright. I would like this particular post to invite discussion. I know that the opinion presented here might not necessarily be popular but I would really like to encourage open discussion on this as I would genuinely like to hear people's thoughts on this as I really don't know where I stand on things regarding censorship and freedom of speech in terms of entertainment and public performance - especially after this evening.

Tonight I went and saw the first hour of JIM JEFFERIES stand up show. (I only left early due to the fact that it started late and I had a show of my own to perform at.)

To be completely and utterly blunt, I have never NOT enjoyed a comedic act as much I didn't enjoy Jefferies. I think the first thing I want to say regarding this is that I am not saying Jefferies isn't funny. I'll admit that I personally don't think he is funny but to say he wasn't funny would be a stupid thing for me to say given that he had 1500 people rolling in audible laughter for entire set he provided. I will accept that I misjudged attending his show. I misjudged thinking I thought he was clever and I misjudged thinking that he was going to appeal to me in anyway. This, going in, was my fault. I was not nor will ever be his target audience. In fact, I was even identified by Jefferies as NOT being his target audience when he made a comment that was along the lines of "anyone who came based on watching a clip of me talking about US gun control laws is going to regret coming" (i'm paraphrasing) but I was one of these people. The only thing I knew about Jefferies was the gun control segment on youtube that had gone viral - and I still think it's genius. Genius to the point that when I watched it I booked tickets immediately, poorly assuming that this was a great example of the genius I would experience at a Jim Jefferies show. I was wrong. I was disappointed. I was offended. Like, deeply offended. Like, I'm still offended. And not in the way I think a comedian should leave an audience member feeling.

Now maybe this is my fault.. Maybe it is my fault I feel offended and I should get over it. Or maybe, just maybe, what Jefferies is doing isn't as justified as he thinks it is.

Let me break this down. 10 minutes into his set, Jim Jefferies begins to talk about rape. Now I am a massive advocate of freedom of speech. I am an even bigger advocate of a comedians right to talk about whatever the fuck they want to talk about. At least, I thought I was. The topic of rape has always been a massively contentious topic.My understanding of comedy (and life) is that you CAN joke about anything. As long as the thing you are joking about is funny first and offensive second. Jim Jefferies talked about rape. A lot. In fact for at least 15 minutes. He spent a lot of time justifying his right to talk about rape. He discussed the fact that as a comic he is only ever JOKING about rape, not actually condoning it. He then went ahead and spent 15 minutes laughing at rape for being rape. Not in any clever or thought provoking way, but more because he has a right, as a comedian, to joke about whatever he sees fit.

At this point I want to remind everyone that I am certainly not a prude. In fact, many people would consider me to be in the more "not giving a fuck" side of the argument of "who give's a fuck". But tonight I witnessed a comic whose primary joke was "we should be able to laugh at rape because everything should be laughed at if I want to laugh at it." The jokes on rape were never clever. They were never creating social awareness or encouraging societal reflection on the issue. His jokes on rape were never saying "it's fucked up how we deal with or talk about rape" or "we need to get better at talking about rape." His joke was literally (for 15 -20 minutes) "I have a right to make jokes about rape that are simply jokes about rape. If you don't think they are funny then you are a prude. If you don't think they are funny then you are wrong. If you can't laugh at them then you are a pussy" And more literally he justified these jokes by saying thing like "I'm not performing a Ted Talk, I am making jokes."

In essence, Jefferies is correct in what he is saing. He IS joking. He is not actually a rapist. He is not actually intentionally condoning rape. When he says things like "Most of the time I don't condone rape" - he IS joking. But my whole approach to comedy - whether right or wrong - is that a joke should be funny FIRST and offensive second. The whole point of Jefferies was that he was being offensive SIMPLY because he could. If it happened to be funny then that appeared to be a bonus.

But looking at this issue even more intently my personal problem with his approach was the fact that although, as an intelligent individual, he COULD clarify the line between consent and rape, the line between a joke and a crime. His audience didn't necessarily have the same level of insight. So whilst he spent the evening normalising rape culture from the point of view of someone who clearly understood why rape is bad and that it can be joked about (not all men), a huge amount of his audience wouldn't necessarily understand the difference nor be able to distinguish between a man joking about normalising rape and actually normalising rape. A huge amount of his audience weren't as intelligent as him. A huge amount of his audience WOULD go home to their wives or partners and feel even more justified in regards to their degrading opinions towards them. I couldn't help but feel highly uncomfortable about the fact I was in a room where 1500 drunk men were cheering at the mention of rape without the joke having any real weight or message. What Jefferies was doing was normalising rape culture for a laugh. And the laugh, in my opinion, certainly isn't worth the societal repercussions. Nor was it overly funny. Or funny at all.

So what am I suggesting? Am I suggesting that Jim Jefferies is a rapist (since he suggests that anyone who takes issues to his material thinks he is) - no. I am not.

Am I suggesting that Jim Jefferies ISN'T funny? No. I am not. (A room of 1500 men pissing themselves with laughter would prove this thought wrong).

Am I suggesting that comedians should have to filter their material? No - I am not.

What I am suggesting is that if the point of your humour is negative to society for the sake of being negative (because you have a right to be as fucking negative to society as you wish) then what are you offering to the world as an entertainer? It concerned me that the majority of Jefferies fanbase weren't able to establish the difference between rape being a joke and rape being a massive, horrendous societal issue. I could feel this in the room. I believe I was right to feel uncomfortable when people cheered at comments that suggested a males physical empowerment over a female was funny. I believe I was right to feel uncomfortable as people cheered when it was suggested backward that woman had the right to vote and I believe I had a right to feel uncomfortable that I was in a room of 1500 people who thought it was funny to suggest that Bill Cosby fingering woman whilst they were unconscious was more light hearted than it was actually sexually offensive.

As someone who believes in freedom of speech and that art need no filter, I strongly believe that Jim Jefferies offers absolutely nothing to our industry other than being radical for the sake of being radical - and in his fight to justify this radical behaviour he normalises acts that need standing up against rather than patting on the back for the sake of a laugh.

I don't think we should celebrate people just because they are saying what awful people are thinking (Donald Trump anyone?). Based on tonights performance - I don't think Jim Jefferies is a rapist but I think he encourages a world where we laugh at issues for the sake of having a room of fuckwits validate your right to be outspoken.

No stars. No validation. No respect.

I couldn't leave quickly enough.

TICKLED

REVIEWS NO-ONE ASKED FOR
by Ashton Brown

TICKLED
dir David Farrier & Dylan Reeve

TICKLING: NOT A LAUGHING MATTER

I went along to the gorgeous Civic Theatre in Auckland to see the New Zealand premier of Tickled with mixed expectations. I hadn't seen much of David Farriers journalism in the past, although I do remember him being pretty unique and finishing reasonably out there news segments (out there for mainstream news anyway) with his trademark "David Farrier - Three News" which went up in a humerous vocal crescendo (for mainstream news anyway). I knew a little bit about the nature of Tickled. I had heard or possibly read brief bits of information over the last couple of years and I understood that when Farrier and co-director Reeve stumbled across an advertisement for a professional tickling event, they expressed interest, interest which was met with untoward homophobic hostility, aggressive hate mail and an unnecessarily intense dialogue between the then TV3 reporter and the head of the event.

Tickled is a classic in it's documentary format, in that a good documentary is one that starts out with pretty straight forward intentions (eg - what is professional tickling and why do people do it?) and stumbles across something much more sinister and interesting for it's audience. Tickled starts simply enough - a couple of Kiwi blokes want to know what the hell professional tickling is and why it's organisers are so aggressive and homophobic when sent a pretty standard email of interest by a couple of pretty casual journalists. It then explodes into a dark story about blackmail, fraud, abuse, violence and anger - all presented with Farriers extremely accessible and appealing charm and wit. In true Kiwi style - no matter how many threats our two young journalistic heroes are receiving, they always manage to weave in a sense of humour, a sense of awkwardness and a sense of "what the fuck are we doing" that makes the journey so interesting and unique. Even when the story feels like it's getting a bit heavy, that classic Kiwi charm is utilised and what we end up with is an extremely intriguing black comedy documentary.

I don't want to go into the details of the story too much because you should watch it and enjoy the journey yourself. However I will say that the level of commitment that these two documentarians give to this project is absolutely the reason why it succeeds. Even when they were receiving threats from apparent much higher powers (US Attorneys) and their producers are even telling them to let it go - they keep following that yellow brick road until they uncover unexpectedly dark and fucked up situations that absolutely need to be shared. The difference between great journalism and good journalism is that good journalism presents the facts that are easy to find and great journalism finds a good story that could be great and doesn't sleep until the public get to experience the knowledge of the whole truth and nothing but the truth (the truth being the one sided opinion presented by said documentary). If you don't leave a documentary being 100% on the side of the people who made the film then the doco hasn't done it's job. These lads do their job.

Filming wise - Dominic Fryer does an exceptional job of making sure that even when guerrilla filmmaking tactics are undertaken we don't ever lose the cinematic quality and beauty required to make this film stand out. The music by Rodi Kirkcaldy & Florian Zwietnig is superb - always lets us know what we should be feeling at any given time and always makes sure we know that things are going to get a little more ominous - however hilarious.

Finally what makes Tickled such a success is David Farrier himself. I'm sure he hears this constantly - but he IS New Zealand's very own Louis Theroux, and this is absolutely a compliment (as someone who has a cat named Louis Theroux I like to think I'm an advocate for all things Theroux). It doesn't help that they look similar, but the ability that these two extremely talented gentleman share in getting people to talk about something that they don't necessarily want to talk about let alone on camera, is what make both these men two of the best in their field.

Tickled is an extraordinary journey. Beautifully paced, wonderfully hilarious and extremely intriguing. I hope Farrier continues to pave the way for New Zealand journalists who have gotten so caught up in selling a click bait headline that they have forgotten just how interesting the truth actually is.

4 out of 5. 

Don't forget to subscribe if you like what you read here. Or publicly argue with me if you don't. Seriously tell me what you think. I'm so lonely. 

THE INVITATION

REVIEWS NO-ONE ASKED FOR
by Ashton Brown

THE INVITATION
dir Karyn Kusama

A DRAMATIC THRILLER THAT LEAVES YOU WITH AN ONGOING SENSE OF UNEASE

Quite often I end up with a whole heap of films in my 'to watch list' that I have stumbled across on IMDB at some point and convinced myself that it sounded watchable. Eventually I end up watching, or attempting to watch these films, often asking myself "why did I think this would be good?" and turning it off 35 minutes in. However, occasionally I end up with a rare gem of a film, something that I haven't even heard of prior to watching, that not only exceeds my expectations, but leaves me with a sense of thought provoking fear and intrigue well after the final credits have rolled. Such a film is The Invitation.

The film starts with a couple, Will & Kira, on their way to a dinner party that they seem very reluctant to attend. We very quickly learn that this is a dinner party hosted by Wills ex - Eden and her new beau. What occurs is the worlds most awkward reunion of old friends who are getting together for the first time since Will & Edens son tragically passed away two years earlier. The evening is awkward, the wine flows, doors are locked, accusations are thrown around and grief is clearly a driving force behind a lot, if not all of the anxieties present at the dinner party. Eden and her new man are part of a cult that helps you to deal with grief and set you free. We watch an awkward video of people dying, we partake in an weird spin of the game 'have you ever' and we continue to feel a sense of dread rise in our stomachs as we begin to questions every characters motives, especially those of protagonist.

Director Karyn Kusama (Jennifers Body, Girlfight) has crafted nothing short of a thrilling masterpiece here. Despite being a fairly unknown director who's only credits are nothing to shake a stick at unless what you are trying to shake a stick at is something you hope to kill, I didn't know what to expect from her. The Invitation is a masterfully directed piece of cinema. Part drama, part thriller, all great. An absolutely sensational cast of more or less unknown actors provide a convincing, emotional and at times harrowing journey through friendship, loss and acceptance of the things we cannot change.

Whenever the films feels like it is going to walk the path of the predictable, it turns in a way that leaves a fresh lump in our throats. The films eventual climax is one that is so beautifully paved that although the ending is a suprise, when we finally arrive at the ending, the jigsaw puzzle makes sense and the film achieves a sense of accomplishment that resonates with us as audience members even after the film has ended and the lights are back on.

The musical score provided by Theodore Shapiro who's previous credits are easily the most impressive of nearly everyone involved in the film, is affecting, poignant and foreboding. Whilst never overplayed it leads our emotions and perceptions of the film perfectly down the exact road that the director intends and never gives us a full moment of comfort within 1 hour 40 run time.

Usually when we watch an unheard of thriller we end up feeling disappointed, frustrated and annoyed. Sometimes we stumble across a good script ruined by crap actors or a bad director butchering potentially good performers. The Invitation manages to take the potential for disappointment and craft something much, much more worthy of our time and discussion.

4 out of 5. 

Don't forget to subscribe if you like what you read here. Or publicly argue with me if you don't.