Screen Tester.

We’re constantly bombarded with the top 5, or even the bottom 5. But what about the middle? The mediocre film, the “meh, it was okay” film, the film that was mildly entertaining but oh-so-forgettable? Or the film that just didn’t deliver what it promised, despite good reviews, a billion-dollar budget and blockbuster marketing? Here’s a list and discussion of 5 films or random genres that, although numbered, don’t really have any order, but that did grace our various and many screens in 2021. In line with tradition, we’ll count down.

5. The Hating Game, 2021 (Cinemas and Video on Demand) What better lo-fi entertainment than a cutesy warring couple-to-be? The love hate relationship that we see so often throughout film, literature and real life is resurrected here as Lucy (Lucy Hale) and Joshua (Austin Stowell) try to avoid making eye contact whilst battling to be the best. The Hating Game was adapted from its novel, original author Sally Thorne co-writing the screenplay, but a lot of the wit just gets lost in the film. There are some eye-rolling stereotypical traits, but if you can try not to take things too seriously, you might enjoy it.

4. The Whole Truth, 2021 (Netflix)

This film is odd and engaging and as an audience member you’ll be hanging on waiting for it to be brilliant. It never quite gets there but it’s interesting enough to keep you watching. The Thai horror film follows siblings as they begin to discover terrifying secrets about their family after the discovery of a hole in the wall at their grandparents’ house. The film carries an odd eeriness throughout and particularly interesting is the character of the sister, Pim, who is the archetypal strong teen female. It will have you questioning everything you thought safe about your home.

3. The Harder They Fall, 2021 (Netflix)

A new-style old-skool western outlaw revenge flick is the best description for The Harder They Fall. Starring everyone’s favourite dreamboat Idris Elba, it follows the Rufus Buck Gang, a real Native American gang who went on a crime spree in the mid 1890s. The film is a fiction in terms of what the characters do, but they were real people. The Harder They Fall has an interesting score; director (Jeymes Samuel aka The Bullitts) wrote it with Jay-Z and Kid Cudi who performed it (find out more about that here https://variety.com/2021/artisans/awards/jay-z-harder-they-fall-guns-go-bang-1235134090/ ). All in all, worth a look, although at 2 hours and 19 minutes you may wish to be a fan of westerns in the first place.

2. Stillwater, 2021, (Amazon Prime Video, Vudu, Apple TV, YouTube, Google Play movies etc.) A critic on Rotten Tomatoes states, “This is a thoughtful, knotty character study, albeit one nestled inside a polished, and less interesting, action thriller.” The film follows a father who travels to France to exonerate his daughter who is being held for a murder she supposedly did not commit. Marked as a Drama/Crime film, there’s a bit of both as Bill Baker (Matt Damon) struggles to exonerate his daughter. It’s also an exploration of the father-daughter relationship with its many perils and pitfalls. It's easy to agree with the reviewer – the character study is much more interesting that the action segments. https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/stillwater_2020

1. The Lost Daughter, 2021, (Netflix)

Ari Aster, the writer and director of Hereditary, admitted that he had written at least nine other scripts prior to the film but couldn’t gain finance and couldn’t afford to finance them himself. "So [he] figured it would be easier to get a horror film financed, a suspicion that was actually validated" when he put forward Hereditary to whoever it was that ponied up the cash.

Would you think of this as a good start for a film that wants to be taken seriously? Rather than showing a family growing stronger over loss or banding together to fight evil, Aster “wanted to make a film about grief and trauma that showed the corrosive effect they could have on a family.” It does sound promising, a well suited idea for a horror film where the audience want the protagonists to survive but don’t know for a long time who to trust or where the problem is coming from. Admittedly, there were many great moments in Hereditary where viewers can feel tension building, such as where foreshadowing in the form of animal decapitation is used, or where Charlie (Milly – Amelia Lee – Shapiro) is one of the weirdest, creepiest kids ever (these two things may or may not be connected.)

But. Hereditary really lets the audience down by becoming just another slow burning film about a religious cult which doesn’t quite make much sense, doesn’t really explain the cult’s development and certainly doesn’t explain why anyone would want to be in the cult. There’s some vague references to random witchcraft books and symbols, male offspring and lots of candles scattered about. Yet the film provides no real explanation of what’s going on, apart from the fact that before now Grandma – whose funeral opens the film – was possibly host to a spirit/demon and (eventually, 5 minutes before the end) that the demon is looking for a healthy male host and wanting to keep it in the family – well, there was a hint in the title...

This is really disappointing in that the first half of the movie seems to be building to something incredibly sinister along the lines of complete psychological breakdown/s. There’s also a fantastic scene with a high-speed car ride to get you excited but from there the engine cuts out a bit. Certainly, conveying a shocking realistic psychological trauma caused by extreme grief and stress would be more interesting than just copying and cutting together segments of and concepts from iconic films like The Exorcist, Rosemary’s Baby and Don’t Look Now. Annie’s despair and tragic past really do make the audience hope she’s not the cause of it all, that she’s not psychologically disturbed and that if she is, someone will help her. Collette’s portrayal of this character as with all her work is skilful – she revels in playing a character that allows her to show several layers and in which she engages the full range of her facial expression. She is the concerned and wounded mum, but also the dangerous mum, the depressed artist, the anxiety-ridden traumatised disconnected wife, the naïve woman who takes advice about séances from strangers. Umm yeah. My point is, if it had turned out that one or several members of the family had severe mental disorders, psychological illnesses that caused them to carry out horrific, unimaginable actions against their own family and others around them, the film would actually be much scarier. Instead, the far-fetched, formulaic satanic cult default is utilised and the film just becomes farcical.

Upon reading more about the film and the characters after watching, I discovered that apparently the father, Steven (played by Gabriel Byrne), is meant to be a psychotherapist (I don’t believe this is mentioned at all throughout the film.) My viewing buddy and I discussed numerous times throughout the film that if you were a loving, caring husband, surely you would have taken your wife and children to see a therapist by now! Turns out he thought he had it under control but in actuality must have gained his qualifications from ‘Hollywood Upstairs Medical College’ because he wasn’t able to diagnose a case of my-whole-family-has-been-possessed-by-one-of-the-guards-of-hell-itis or at least recognised that they were in great distress and that he needed to do something. Doesn’t seem too plausible for a psychotherapist.

By the time Toni Collette is decapitating herself with a piece of wire whilst levitating, it’s kind of hard to tell who is meant to be possessed and therefore who the bad guy is (all of the family except Charcoal Dad have had a go). This moment, whilst trying very hard to be shocking, manages instead to come across - at least to two viewers, 100% of the sample audience in this case - as funny. Most of the other characters in the film have been decapitated, so here is poor Annie Graham, just wanting to get in on the family fun.

The film originally came in at 3 hours long and Aster states that there were “about 30 scenes that are on the cutting room floor that are really all just in service of character development.” Perhaps if they had edited a little more carefully, the plot lines may have made more sense in the theatrical release. Aster continues on, acknowledging that “The actors were so fantastic that they were able to do a lot with a little.” He’s right. He should stick to directing rather than writing. Through directing he will continue to be able to create atmosphere and an aesthetically interesting mise en scene through colour palette, shot style and guiding actor movement. The cinematography as a whole was impressive and was supported by some intense emotion and tension developed also through musical score but the writing and final product in terms of plot left much to be desired.

The film has been labelled ‘scariest horror film of 2018’ and it has also been stated that “perhaps every era gets the horror movies it doesn’t yet know it deserves,” but no, it is not particularly scary and it would be very surprising if we are to look back 20 years from now and view Hereditary as iconic. I guess we’ll have to wait and see.  

2 kernels

Read about and listen to some of the score here Other references

The third installment of DC’s comics’ Extended Universe franchise sees the audience exposed to a group of misfit anti-heroes, suddenly recruited to help save Midway City from the likes of, well, themselves. Suicide Squad, written and directed by David Ayer and released in early August 2016 has so far garnered around $471 million in global ticket sales, making the $175 million it cost to make seem miniscule. The film has rocketed to the top of box office sales in Australia and yet managed to also attract negative criticism from reviewers, most citing a muddled and thin plot and story structure.

Some reviews go on to explain that despite lack of depth in plot, the actors should be praised for their performances. I’m not convinced, but I guess the actors really are just the celebrity pawns in this horrible game of chess. The film begins with about 45 minutes of lengthy explanation into the characters and their backgrounds – why they are the worst of the worst, the ‘baddest’ of the bad. With each new character comes a new song, admittedly catchy and with editing sequences that comic-book lovers will adore, but cinefiles and purists within the film industry will abhor due to the sharp, jarring cuts.

My reviews generally deal more with the cinematic quality of the film, however as I watched Suicide Squad it became strongly apparent to me that attention should be placed on how the film portrays and treats women. From the first, it is clear that women are classified differently to their male counterparts. They are sidekicks, or a nice arse on long legs (stellar ‘physicalisation’ of character there Margot Robbie) and they are definitely not revered as highly as the tough guys (note the representation of American soldiers – only typical GI Joes need apply). Will Smith’s apparently menacing, headstrong and central character Deadeye continually refers to females as ‘sweetheart,’ ‘cuteness’ and ‘doll’ as though this is an endearing personality type he possesses – we are supposed to like him more for it. He snaps at a female operative, “You one of them deaf hoes?” when she doesn’t immediately reply to him. His daughter is apparently the only thing he has in this world, and that’s how he talks to women?

The idea of Harley Quinn is one that could have been developed to show a deeply disturbed and violent character, one that could have been singled out due to the horrific abuse she endured at the hands of the joker to become a victim of Stockholm Syndrome. Instead she is reduced to a cutesy ‘naughty’ school-girl type clad in a wet t-shirt in a rainy scene where no one else seems to cop any of the inclement weather. Let’s be honest, the audience sees her walking out of rooms much more than into them. Yes, she does wield a baseball bat but her ‘naughtiest’ [insert cute GIRL’s giggle here] moment is when she just must get her hands on a designer handbag.

Her relationship with Jared Leto’s smirking and abusive Joker is apparently being touted all over the internet as one to aspire to! This is a perfect example of a misconception of what should be considered normal in our culture and that needs to change. Harley Quinn was abused, tortured both mentally and physically, tricked and manipulated into falling ‘in love’. Yes, this is all part of the character’s backstory, all valid to be included in the film. In the film she jumps into a vat of acid after begging and swearing her allegiance to the non-committal Joker (who eventually follows her in as though it’s a chore). So what is sickening is the idea that is promoted as the couple being truly in love, rather than in need of major psychological assistance. The soundtrack isn’t quite discordant enough to emphasise what it should – that this relationship is purely psychotic. Harley Quinn isn’t in love, she’s deranged. Yet in Suicide Squad it seems she isn’t portrayed as deranged enough for her reference to her past to convince viewers that it isn’t true love. The jealousy and possessiveness that Joker also has over Harley is paraded proudly, with him killing over this jealousy, reinforcing the notion these qualities are meant to be present in a relationship of ‘true love.’

I also can’t express profoundly enough the disappointment I felt in the cinema when the film delves into the characters’ most desired, deepest dreams and Harley Quinn’s most treasured dream and life goal was to be a stay-at-home-mom with two children to her loving Joker. She is psychotic but… what is this, the 1940s? Being a wife and mother is obviously a truly difficult, respectable and wonderful aspect of some women’s lives. But as something we should be holding up as an example of the height and breadth of what young women could hope and dream of? No. Women are more than that, and they deserve to be shown in our mainstream media as actual people with actual hope and desires beyond a nuclear family and pleasing their man.

Aside from these elements, the audience hear Commander Rick Flag being told to ‘control’ his woman, to ‘shut that shit down’ or some such. We see women being punched in the face twice out of context of fight scenes (to which people in the cinema I was in laughed) and being told roughly to shut up. We see a long shot of US soldiers ogling a semi-naked Harley, as though planning their next gang-bang, lions about to jump on their prey. Well, she was “asking for it” right? Did you see what she was wearing? When a woman does “kick-arse,” (Karen Fukuhara as a scantily clad Katana) she is not congratulated for saving the lives of those around her, instead immediately propositioned with what is meant to be humourous, “do you wanna get a drink?” The saddening part is not at all even that this exists in the format of a film, because films shouldn’t be reality, but that it exists in real life and is perpetuated and normalised by the film because WE AREN’T DISCUSSING HOW WARPED THESE ATTITUDES REALLY ARE. Most young women have at some stage been reduced to possibly being someone else’s date, have had to rebuff advances they are meant to be flattered by, have had to shrug it off and get on with it.

The real problem is that we as a society are not drawing enough attention to the sheer ridiculousness of the behaviour of the characters. Suicide Squad further magnifies this ridiculousness when the brooding gangster El Diablo (Jay Hernandez) who apparently just “wanted to stay out of the fight” ignites everything within a 12-mile radius to defeat the evil Enchantress. This ‘hero’ sacrifices his life after first admitting to abusing and then killing his wife and children in a fit of rage – and viewers are supposed to feel remorse for him upon his death rather than see it as a fitting consequence for his heinous crimes. The audience are positioned to see him as a strong, noble example of a man who finally redeems himself and uses his powers for ‘good.’ The problem is again not that the film exists, the problem is that these are the examples we should be using when showing young people the difference between right and wrong in society. We should be drawing attention to how unhealthy all of the relationships within this and similar texts are, but we’re not. We should be drawing the lines between make-believe and reality and we should be using content just like this to do it.

Someone, I’ll let you guess whether they were male or female, pointed out to me defensively that despite any sexism or mistreatment of women, throughout the whole film there is a blatant portrayal and exaggeration of stereotypes that effects all of the characters. An Aussie beer-swilling-rough-as-guts Captain Boomerang that even the actor (Jai Courtney) describes as “an absolute bogan” and a Mexican gang member, tattooed to the hilt. The stereotypes are strongly present, but they undoubtedly pale in comparison to the 123 minutes that are spent objectifying, controlling and stereotyping women and making it normal.

2 kernels

Some other people’s thoughts: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/the-sinister-effect-of-casually-sexist-comments-20160513-gouhc6.html

http://metro.co.uk/2016/08/08/suicide-squad-is-not-as-sexist-as-critics-want-you-to-think-6054087/

Named after my ultimate all-time favourite Led Zeppelin song, Dazed and Confused is the kind of film you can watch when you’re just that. However, don’t underestimate the film at all for this reason – there are many interesting and varied characters and whilst dishing out comedy, the movie also outlines some of the problematic issues within a mid-1970's American high school society. The storyline interweaves youngsters of different breeds, trends and groups, focusing only for short periods at a time on several of them. The stories could have been told as smaller vignettes, separate to each other, but the manner in which they have been woven together helps the audience understand the timeline of the plot (which takes place over only one afternoon and evening). This structure also showcases the contrast in the melting pot of personalities (or perhaps we should say smoking pot) that are present within any westernised school system. 

  The viewer is presented with a group of students– it’s the last day of school, but they’re about to become seniors. Summer is upon the characters and some decide that in the great and inexplicable tradition of the town, it is their job to torture the new upcoming freshmen – perhaps for one night, but more likely for the whole summer. The town really could be Anytown USA, but upon investigation I discovered it is supposedly set in Austin, Texas, which probably accounts for the predominantly white representation on screen – as well as the cruel redneck attitudes of several of the characters and a shotgun toting mother. The fact that the vast majority of an entire town is fairly nonplussed with the terrible behaviour of its youths is a little disturbing.

  In one scene, the audience actively see the process of brainwashing (and the development of an attitude in an innocent mind that will undoubtedly lead to the character perpetuating this terrible behaviour). In this particular scene, the freshman who has earlier been paddled almost senseless by the same senior boys he now rides in the car with gains acceptance by taking part in destructive, senseless behaviour. This really is a good commentary on human behaviour/nature as well as highlighting the desperation behind needing to “fit in.” It is impossible to go past the musical soundtrack of the film as it is one of those that the audience is truly aware of, but for all the right reasons. It suits not only the time period, but also each character and storyline. It supports the 70’s stereotypes that audiences are familiar with, but at the same time doesn’t seem at all clichéd or tired even with the use of some of the most popular songs of the 70's. On the contrary, tracks from the likes of Alice Cooper, KISS and Black Sabbath energise and captivate the audience. Interestingly enough, some big hits (such as Bob Dylan’s Hurricane and the opening song, Aerosmith’s Sweet Emotion) are not included on the official commercial soundtrack despite their appearances within the film. Without the music that 1/6th of the movie’s budget was spent on, this film would have disappeared into the background long ago. Instead, it has become a highly acclaimed cult classic.

The other aspect to this film that is pretty enjoyable is the fact that there are many big names in it – although not all of them had quite made it at the time that this was created. These include Ben Affleck (probably in the meanest role you’ll see him in), Matthew McConaughey, Rory Cochrane (of Empire Records fame), Parker Posey and Milla Jovovich. McConaughey’s role of Wooderson, the “older and wiser” influence was apparently in many parts improvised. Watch McConaughey discuss it here.The fact that some of the stars weren’t huge at the time of the film’s premiere makes it a fun retrospective watch – so many familiar faces, just starting out. Overall, what I really liked about Dazed and Confused was the perception of simplicity within its storylines and execution. It’s easy to watch and easy to get involved, but when one contemplates creating something similar, it’s clear that the project would have been anything but simple. Although the audience might suffer a bit because there are so many characters (which means not enough screen time to really get to know any of them), it’s little effort to become involved and to understand the many different plights of various kinds of people. Viewers are left wondering a little over some of the possible outcomes over the decisions we see characters make, but are never really given the answers, and in this sense Dazed is representational of life in general – it’s an open book with no certainties. It’s a film that doesn’t feel over-constructed, instead giving us a fly-on-the-wall insight into the events that most people - on some level - can identify with. four kernels. Check out some special and interesting facts about the film here.

Undoubtedly, Cate Blanchett delivered a stellar performance in Woody Allen’s Blue Jasmine. But, a good film is never just about one actor, one director or one aspect of the planning, production or post production process. The supporting role of Ginger, Jasmine’s ‘sister’ (both characters adopted into their family), was brilliantly played by the accomplished Sally Hawkins.

Hawkins was born in London and graduated from the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art in 1998. She worked extensively in theatre, including roles in Shakespeare’s Much Ado About Nothing (2000) and A Midsummer Night's Dream (2000) as Hero and Hermia respectfully. After strong connections to BBC TV and radio and roles in many other films, she played the lead in a new film of Jane Austen's Persuasion, and followed this with Happy-Go-Lucky (2008) in which she played a role that was critically acclaimed.

In Blue Jasmine, Hawkins’s character Ginger offers to take Jasmine in when she splits from her fraudulent husband (played by Alec Baldwin) once the feds have caught up with him. This is despite the fact that Ginger has, herself, suffered greatly from Jasmine’s husband Hal’s wheeling and dealings, and despite the fact that Jasmine previously distanced herself from Ginger because of her lack of affluence. Jasmine’s instability and selfish nature see her scoffing at Ginger’s lifestyle and colloquial mannerisms, and causing a rift in yet another one of Ginger’s relationships. Hawkins’s portrayal of Ginger really speaks to the audience. The role allows for an audience to pity her situation and her inability to stand up for herself. However, it’s not just the scripting and storyline that has this effect. Hawkins’ excellent use of timing, facial expression and the intonation in her voice makes this character believable, likeable, awkward, and just so endearing. Ginger is endearing because she is real – she doesn’t have the poise or wealth that rules Jasmine’s world, but until Jasmine inserts herself back into her life, she is perfectly happy, hardworking and unquestioning about her lot.

Perhaps the sympathetic everywoman of the financial lower class, Ginger gets swept away in trying to stand by her sister, and opens herself to Jasmine’s uninformed notions about what she should be doing with her life. Hawkins’ very body stances (and even her build) reflect beautifully the raw vulnerability of the character as well as emphasising her insecurities and the difficulty she has in contradicting Jasmine’s opinions. The actress’s use of subtle body language throughout the film accentuate her character’s hardworking attitude and feelings about all those around her, and this is also reinforced through voice and the timing in her delivery of dialogue. The costuming for Ginger is also spot-on, with the constant amalgamations of visibly ineffective bra straps, not-quite-right chunky clunky shoes and miniskirts adding to the audience’s support for her. When she finally has her big moment of courage (you can’t miss it), the audience is silently cheering and pumping their fists for this timely bravery, and the speech is perfect. An actor gets it right when an audience cannot imagine anyone else playing that role, and that is exactly what Hawkins is to Ginger.

I decided to do a combination review for these two films as I saw them in close proximity to each other, and they both surprised me with several similarities. I had not researched into either film much before I saw them, yet was pleasantly surprised and entertained with both films. Both films centre on a protagonist whom the audience is given little background information about. Both films require their main character to be strong, intelligent and to endure. Both films, of course, entice the audience to crave the survival and success of their star. Both films deal with situations where man is dealing with nature to the point that their surroundings are the reason for the story – in space or in the middle of a vast and empty ocean, their stories do not exist if the characters were placed closer to a populated/safer area.

CAPTAIN PHILLIPS Captain Phillips is a film about the true story of Captain Richard Phillips and the 2009 hijacking of the US-flagged MV Maersk Alabama. Somali pirates attempt to take over the ship as it sails well off the coast of Somalia somewhere in the Arabian Sea (just above the Indian Ocean) on its way from Oman to Mombasa, Kenya. They are held off for a little while but undeterred, eventually gain access. The film is based on books written by the real life Phillips, and certainly inspires gut-clenching, on the edge of your seat worry for the Captain and his crew throughout. Although we don’t know much about Phillips’ home life, the writers have included a very short introduction to Phillips’ wife and mention of family to raise the audience’s care for him. Interestingly they also included a short introduction to the Somali characters and their way of life. The audience can almost understand the desperation that causes the Somalis’ actions, yet not to any extent that makes them seem like the “good guys”.

Any heroics in this film are understated and for that reason, it does seem like a real story. The actors don’t hide behind special effects and because the script is one that does not reveal all thoughts or emotions, the audience relies on the actors’ abilities to use body language, facial expression, gesture and certainly tone of voice to convey their thoughts on the dangers they face. To the layperson, the security measures and the reaction to the hijacking are extremely interesting and whilst the movie is not cinematically breathtaking, it is very easy to be enveloped by the story. Check out my link below to read about how the movie compares to the real life event. GRAVITY Alfonso Cuarón, director and co-writer of Gravity, is previously known for his work across the cinematic board, but also for directing films such as Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban(2004)and Children of Men (2006). Cuarón, who wanted to be an astronaut as a child, has co-written the script with his son Jonas and George Clooney is also an uncredited collaborator to the script. Dr Ryan Stone (Sandra Bullock) and veteran astronaut Matt Kowalsky (Clooney) are on a repair mission when disaster strikes. This film is classed as a Sci-Fi/Drama/Thriller, but basically its main ideas include survival, human versus nature and human versus the self. From outside the story is fairly corny and has lots of holes, however when you are watching it, if you allow yourself to be open and just go with the flow of things, you get quite sucked in and enjoy the stomach churning it creates.

The audience knows very little about Sandra Bullock’s character, which I found to cause a bit of an emotional disconnect. However, I think Bullock did a very good job of acting with what she was given – remember she’s by herself for 70 minutes of the 90 minute film. As well as this, her character has little dimension and when she would have been filming, she didn’t have the benefit of knowing how the film would look once edited and in spectacular 3D. I have read several reviews on this film which cite Bullock as only being a comedic actor and that suggest that she stay with those types of roles, however, I feel that she has made a commendable effort here. If an actor lets themself be typecast then they are not a true actor – playing the same role over and over again is neither fulfilling nor challenging. If an audience cannot remove themselves enough from an actor’s stardom and previous work to be open to accepting them as different characters in different genres, then it is not going to matter whether the actor is brilliant or woeful in whatever role they pursue – it will be mainly the audience’s preconceived ideas that ruin a film for them.

Speaking of 3D, this is one of very few 3D films I have seen, but I would sing its praises in that manner. The story is not thick enough (and some argue is also not technically accurate) to keep you interested if you don’t have the impressive special effects. These effects help you overlook a fairly weak plot and just focus on the human side of it (the “what would I do/feel/think?” and the “Is she going to make it?”).  Lost, alone in the vast black emptiness of space, having to be rational and cling to the smallest piece of hope. Not only that, this film is also about having the strength to rescue one’s self in more ways than one (and I wonder whether it would have had any success at all if the protagonist was a “strong” male).

All in all, I was pleasantly surprised by both films, and I think both are worth your time (but you must see Gravity in 3D). Both were not life changing however both captured their audience and made them wonder what they would do if they were placed in such situations. The point is that for the vast majority of us, these stories would never be a possibility. They are interesting because they are both studies of what someone might do (and depending on how accurate you believe Captain Phillips to be, did do) if ever faced with a situation that for many of us will remain in our imaginations.