Reviews

A mercenary, Tyler Rake (Chris Hemsworth), with a troubled past accepts a contract to extract a mob bosses' son from the clutches of a rival mobster. With the odds stacked against him, Tyler finds his physical and mental resolve put to the test as the stakes become increasingly personal.

A throwback to 80's style one-man-killing-machine action flicks that gave Sylvester Stallone and Arnold Schwarzenegger their respective careers, Extraction's title also doubles as a pretty accurate synopsis of the film.

Fronted by Hemsworth in another solid action leading man role, Extraction is a straight-shooting, no-nonsense ride that goes for the jugular when it comes to action. As Tyler travels through Dhaka, Bangladesh with the kidnapped kid in tow, he finds himself chased by crime lords, corrupt police officers and even child soldiers. The action is relentless and the film transitions from car chases to rooftop scuffles and street standoffs all within minutes of each other, making Extraction feel like it could have worked well as a single-take film had the filmmakers decided to take it up a notch.

Naturally, comparisons to John Wick are inevitable, not least for being another feature debut for a stunt coordinator turned director. However, Extraction's endless onslaught of bloodshed ends up having the opposite effect of John Wick. Long before the film's protracted finale, the relentless shooting and killing becomes numbing rather than exhilarating, largely due to the exploitative nature of the story.

Unlike the hyper-realism of John Wick, Extraction grounds itself in the gritty geo-political climate of a third world country (Thailand doubling for Bangladesh) and the grimy subtext of police corruption and organised crime is exploited for mind-numbing action carnage. It works on a basic thrill-level but leaves the film mired in questionable politics and a general air of callousness.

That's why the Michael Bay school of switch off your brain to enjoy applies whole heartedly here. Extraction does not short-change viewers looking for a solid action flick to sink their teeth into, just don't expect to find much meat on its bones.

You know Oscar season is well and truly over when a film like Fantasy Island is dropped into cinemas, ready to remind audiences that too much of a good thing is a bad thing. No, I'm not talking about the fantasies turned nightmares at the centre of the film, but rather the need for films like Fantasy Island to remind audiences what constitutes a good film to begin with.

At the top of that list should be a coherent storyline, something which Fantasy Island didn't seem able to budget into its meagre $7 million price-tag. What begins as a fun B-grade horror/thriller quickly descends into abject nonsense, with a last act that will either have you howling in laughter or utter disbelief... or both. It's like the studio decided to take the supernatural elements from Lost, but forgot to bring the nuance, depth or philosophical pretence that made that show (mostly) work. Or they just hired the guys who wrote Truth or Dare.

Full disclosure, I have never seen an episode of the same-titled 70's show upon which the film is based on. Maybe those who find the show a guilty pleasure will be more forgiving of the film's utter nonsense. But, if there's one thing they are less likely to forgive is the film's treatment of an iconic character. Contrary to reports, "Tattoo" is in the film, but after watching it you'd probably prefer he wasn't.

Fans of schmaltzy rom-coms rejoice! Last Christmas is here and it's a sickly-sweet holiday treat that will either leave you wanting seconds or asking for the bill after the first bite. Call me The Grinch, but I wanted a refund.

The film stars Emilia Clarke as a hapless mid-20-year-old stuck in a dead-end job as a Christmas store elf. Things take a turn for the better when a mysterious stranger (played by Henry Golding) enters her life, helping her piece her life back together just in time for Christmas.

It's never a good sign when the film's trailer feels like the whole movie, but you would be right on the money with Last Christmas. As soon the first trailer hit the web, the film's twist had already been dissected in the YouTube comments and those holding their breath for something more will leave sorely underwhelmed.

Sure, you don't go into a film like this expecting to be surprised but neither do you want it feeling like it's three steps behind you just because you've seen the trailer. Yet, as soon the film delivers its climactic plot twist with the earnestness of a kid tying their shoelaces for the first time, the film quickly trips over its own feet.

It's hard to lay blame on the marketing department as there's not much to work with in terms of the film's story. Taking its title from the 1984 Wham! pop song Last Christmas, the film treats George Michael's music with the same depth as Yesterday treated the Beatles; as window dressing. When it comes to the actual film, it's nothing more than your typical Hallmark movie of the week. Watching Clarke bumble around is endearing enough for the first half or so but it wears thin quickly and the predictable story line does little to keep things interesting.

So, the question remains: how far can a film go based on charm alone? Well, your mileage will undoubtably vary based on your tolerance of saccharine love stories as Last Christmas is as sweet as they get. Its lack of cynicism and Clarke's infectiously bubbly lead performance will likely be its saving grace for many, but Last Christmas' story feels like a lump of coal wrapped up in pretty packaging.

While it might share the Fast & Furious title, Hobbs & Shaw is a two man show that bears little connection to its namesake franchise. For some, that might prove to be the best thing about this spin-off. After all, there have been eight core films in the franchise and a bit of a shake-up wouldn't go amiss. Unfortunately, while Hobbs & Shaw's story might come with a shiny new coat of paint it has the same rusty parts under the hood.

Those looking for a film where The Rock and Jason Statham trade insults at each other for two hours plus will find plenty to love in Hobbs & Shaw. The mismatched pair share majority of scenes together and the only thing that matches their fighting skill is their ability to verbally tear into each other. However, the cookie-cutter story about a race against time to stop a deadly virus being unleashed into the world ties together their sharp comedic chemistry in a rather unremarkable package.

Still, those who have already made up their mind about watching the film will unlikely be deterred by a lacklustre story. The action is the main attraction and the film mostly delivers in that regard, with only one major drawback.

Director David Leitch is a skilled action director but his focus on hand-to-hand combat means that the scale of the action often feels smaller than expected. There's a lack of inventive set pieces and it's only in the last act that the film manages to find its groove with a gloriously over-the-top sequence set in Samoa. Along with some surprisingly fun cameos, and a solid balance between comedy and action, Hobbs & Shaw is certainly a fun time but I wish it had found its anarchic spirit sooner.

As nature documentaries go, the modern remake of The Lion King (2019) gives some of the best a run for their money, quite literally. With a $250 million price tag, it achieves digitally what David Attenborough has spent his life capturing on camera. The result is jaw-droppingly photorealistic, but it also makes for a strange first impression. Imagine watching a Disneynature feature but with actors reading The Lion King screenplay over the top of it and the effect would be eerily similar. It takes time to accept lifelike looking animals talking like cartoon characters, but the ground-breaking technical skill in which they are brought to life makes the bumpy journey worthwhile.

Every tress of fur, crack in the arid soil and sun-swept vista is rendered in such immense detail that it's unsurprising that many people are calling this reboot live-action. It's a monumental technical achievement and the level of visual fidelity on display alone warrants seeing this film on the biggest screen possible.

However, in terms of the story, the film follows the original so closely that it can't help but feel second rate. Scene-by-scene, it dutifully ticks off the story beats of the 1994 original, with little by way of surprises in-between. It also doesn't help that film's photo-realism unavoidably limits the ability of the animals to convey emotion without looking unnatural or (naturally) cartoonish, and the result is a film that often creates indifference where there should be wonder. With jaw-dropping visuals, plenty of humour and solid renditions of timeless songs, it's hard to see this modern remake failing but, as it turns out, The Lion King's (2019) biggest achievement also ends up being its biggest flaw.

As a film about a family imposing on another, and keeping dark secrets hidden beneath the surface, Parasite achieves what Jordan Peele set out to do with Us: tell a multi-layered story in a widely entertaining manner, but without sacrificing the believability of its central narrative.

That's not to say that Us is an ineffective film by any means, but when it comes to crafting weighty social commentaries under the guise of lighter fare, writer-director Bong Joon-ho is in a class of his own.

The film follows a lower-class South Korean family as they slowly integrate themselves in the lives of an upper-class family and their lavish household. As their entanglement is spun out of a web of deceit, the lowly family find themselves skating on thin ice when it comes to keeping up appearances.

It's a twisty satire on social-economic disparities in South Korean society that swings broadly in tone, and sometimes threatens to tip over the edge, but never feels less than meticulously calculated in its tonal shifts.

However, to reveal anything more about the story would be to take away from the overall experience, as each act is marked by a major plot twist or revelation that keeps the film one step ahead of the viewer at all times. Go in blind if you can and expect an unforgettable ride.

What is it with horror movies and lax on-set security recently? In Annabelle Comes Home there are frequently figures moving around in the background during scary scenes and it's super distracting.

Jokes aside, the best way to describe the new Annabelle film would be The Conjuring by way of Goosebumps. If that sounds appealing to you, then you'll certainly get a kick out of the numerous monsters and demons that appear onscreen throughout the film. But if your looking for something bone-chillingly terrifying, well then.... you'll have to adjust your expectations a bit.

The set-up to the story is largely a gimmick, as two young girls agree to stay at the Warren's house overnight and babysit their ten-year-old daughter. With only their curiosity and numerous trapped malevolent spirits and demons to keep them company, what could possibly go wrong? However, series writer Gary Dauberman, who also makes his directorial debut here, understands what makes these films fun and appealing. So, when one of the girls wanders into the basement and unleashes Annabelle, so too does she unleash the many other demons trapped below.

What ensues feels like a live action broadcast of a puppet master pulling the strings on his favourite creations. Throughout the night, the girls are chased and tormented by the monsters and entities from the Warren's previous cases, and it's the sort of outlandish premise that benefits from the kitchen sink approach Dauberman provides.

Moreover, in a time where horror films seem content on recycling the same scare tactics in hopes that they will still work the hundredth time around, the third Annabelle film feels like a welcome respite. It seeks to entertain, more than it does to scare, and it lends the film a breezy, eminently watchable quality. There are still plenty of jump scares and hit or miss moments, but the air of fun that hangs over the film luckily patches over most of the rough bits. If the recent Child's Play didn't satisfy your hunger for killer dolls, then Annabelle Comes Home may just do the trick.

Missing Link, the latest animation film from Aardman's American cousin, Laika, finds the studio raising the painstaking art of stop motion animation to new heights. With a story that sprawls across the globe, from far flung corners of the world to the middle of the sea, the numerous, vastly distinct environments are each rendered in a unique but equally visually striking manner. Yet, while undeniably charming and easy-going, the story, unfortunately, never rises above feeling like a skeleton used to prop up the film's exotic locations and showcase the beauty of the animation.

Following the trappings of countless adventure films, Missing Link charts the story of a pompous famed adventurer, Sir Lionel Frost (voiced by Hugh Jackman), in his quest to find the fabled mythical creature, Sasquatch. His discovery leads him to the bumbling Mr. Link (voiced by Zach Galifianakis), who enlists the help of the adventurer to seek a lost tribe of Yetis in the Himalayas that may provide the lonely creature with a new sense of belonging.

The relationship between the two dissimilar characters is the film's brightest spark. Mr Link is a charming goofball brought to life with humorous effect by Galifianakis' self-deprecating style of comedy. In contrast, Sir Frost is a self-serving aristocrat served by Jackman with a posh British accent. Seeing the two bounce off each other, while gradually evolving to care about each other, imbues the familiar story with a generous helping of both humour and heart.

In the end, Missing Link is a funny and charming adventure underserved by a slight and overly familiar narrative. Still, it's the type of adventure that stokes the imagination rather than simply providing an easy distraction for young minds, making the tease of more adventures an enticing prospect indeed.

Oh boy.

In 2016, things seemed to be looking up for Hellboy. Ron Perlman confirmed that he was actively working on making the third instalment of Guillermo del Toro's demon superhero saga a reality. Then everything fell apart. Now to add insult to injury, we have a reboot simply named Hellboy. And it's a mess.

Despite the lack of a number or subtitle, those looking for a back-to-basics origin story for Hellboy are fishing for disappointment. The reboot quickly brushes over crucial plot details with expository heavy flashbacks and character backstories are filled in retrospectively, meaning there's little to no context when a new character pops up on screen. To put it bluntly, the story is confusing, muddled and largely hard to follow.

To match, the acting from most of the main cast is strained and unconvincing. Sure, they're not helped by a one-dimensional screenplay, but their wooden performances make the human characters feel more unnatural than many of the ungodly creatures that populate the screen. Only David Harbour manages to impress as the titular boy from Hell with his gruff persona and roguish charm. While no Ron Perlman, Harbour proves himself a suitable successor to don the red paint and horns.

On the more positive side, there is fun to be had with the film if you can dim the lights in your brain as soon as the theatre goes dark. This is mostly due to its success in capturing the breathless feeling of a comic book as it moves from one set piece to another, not stopping to let you think too hard about what you've witnessed. Along with a rock infused soundtrack, the action scenes prove largely effective in getting the adrenaline pumping as monster entrails are blasted across the screen.

All of this, however, is undercut by a non-stop barrage of infantile jokes and cringeworthy one liners that seem to have been focus grouped by a bunch of teenagers. Except they're not the ones who will be viewing the film as its been slapped with an R18+ rating in Australia. At least the classification board has got one thing right; you'll need to be able to purchase alcohol to enjoy the miasma of idiocy on display.

Do you hear that? That's the sound of another B-grade horror film being quietly offloaded to Netflix, seemingly as part of the company's ongoing aim to provide a cure for insomnia sufferers.

In fact, to call the story of The Silence half-baked would be an insult to half-decent bakers everywhere. Not only is the film an inert pastiche of countless post-apocalyptic dramas, most notably last year's A Quiet Place, but even Netflix's own Bird Box feels like a master class in tension building and nuanced storytelling in comparison. Perhaps the biggest similarity the film shares with Bird Box is the desire to close your eyes, but for two very different reasons.

As part of the film's commitment to unoriginality, The Silence follows a group of killer bat-like creatures that have escaped from the bowels of hell (or a vast underground cave system, take your pick) to reap havoc above Earth. Hunting only by sound (despite the fact that the bats don't shut the hell up), within hours America has been reduced into a post-apocalyptic landscape, with the army and military conspicuously absent from every scene.

Amongst the carnage, a family, led by Stanley Tucci who plays a father to a deaf daughter (played by Kiernan Shipka), must do want they can to survive, which mostly means moving around a lot and never thinking of bordering up the doors or windows of their house. In one scene, the daughter literally leaves the door wide open as she enters a store looking for supplies. Oh and there's a crazed cult randomly inserted into the film's climactic moments in case the story wasn't rushed enough already.

It's a bargain bin version of Hitchcock's The Birds, if the bargain bin were made from reused materials sourced from a smouldering car wreck. However, if you're still keen on watching The Silence, prepare yourself for a challenging mystery as trying to figure out what attracted Stanley Tucci to this mess in the first place is a real head scratcher.

Much like the hyper-realistic CGI rendering of an elephant at its centre, Tim Burton's modern update of Dumbo is a visually impressive feast diminished by an unmistakeably manufactured feeling.

While the decision to remove talking animals could have been taken as a sign for a more human take on the classic story, the script by Transformer's scribe Ehren Kruger quickly reveals itself to be uninterested in developing any of its human characters. Told largely from the perspective of the two young kids (played by Nico Parker and Finley Hobbins), there is little depth provided to any of the adult characters, especially Michael Keaton's Vandemere who is little more than a sleazy business man than a genuine loathsome villain. Moreover, the film's rushed conclusion offers little by way of payoff to any of the human characters and only Dumbo's narrative is concluded in a satisfying manner.

Still, Burton is nothing if not a distinct visual stylist and his penchant for lavish set designs and a striking colour palette meld well with the whimsical story. Overall, the film's striking visuals ensure that it goes down easy, but Burton's Dumbo is an affable remake whose sense of awe and wonder is in short supply of genuine emotion.

Stephen King is well known for mining the macabre for scenes of sheer terror while also finding moments of dark comedy to alleviate the tension. Walking into Pet Sematary, I wasn't expecting the opposite. Admittedly, having not read the source material or seen the original film, my impression was formed simply from the trailers which sold a dark, foreboding take on bringing the dead back to life.

I can report that Pet Sematary is best viewed as a dark comedy. With a threadbare story, most of which is already crammed into the film's second trailer (avoid it if you can), the film is not interested in offering any depth to its horror, instead relying on the audience to get on board with the idea of reanimated corpses at face value and it leads to some pretty silly, but still highly entertaining, moments.

That's not to say that the film doesn't play it completely straight. The acting across the board is strong, in particular Jason Clarke and Amy Seimetz who convincingly play the part of grieving parents, and the atmosphere is effectively cold and unsettling. The scares on the other hand are fairly basic. Remember the truck jump scare in the trailer? Well get ready to see it used numerous times throughout the film. Also, it would make for a pretty short drinking game ticking off all of the horror tropes covered over the film's runtime. Creepy looking kids? Check. Loud noises at night? Check. Events set during Halloween? Check. It's familiar stuff but delivered in a consummate manner so it would be a lie to say that they don't still provide a kick.

The film doesn't want you to think, it just wants you to react, and with the right audience it's definitely a riot. Along with an ending that basically winks at the audience, Pet Sematary is pulpy fun but don't go expecting any genuine terror.

Fronted by a fierce and commanding performance from Nicole Kidman, who immerses both physically and mentally into the role of rogue police detective Erin Bell, Destroyer is an aptly titled look at finding justice for past wrongs no matter the personal cost.

In embodying Bell, Kidman acts like an unpinned grenade tossing herself from confrontation to confrontation without a glimmer of fear. Her impulsive nature is the film's greatest strength as the bluntness of Kidman's performance is mesmerising. She expertly communicates the self-destructive tendencies of a woman pushed to her limits and like a train crash waiting to happen, it's hard to look away.

Matching Kidman's unpredictable manner is the film's twisty screenplay that unfolds between Bell's time as an undercover agent in a Californian gang sixteen years ago to her present, coarsened self. As the film moves between timelines frequently, and with only cosmetic differences in Kidman's face to tell the difference, it occasionally becomes easy to get lost between the time shifts. However, as a reflection of how easily the past can come back to haunt the present in slight but damaging ways, the film succeeds with devastating effect.

Taken as an ode to violent means having violent ends, Destroyer is a finely tuned piece of gritty cinema whose blunt force lingers long after the credits.

On the 26th November 2008, a group of young men armed with explosives and AK-47s stormed the Taj Mahal Palace Hotel, the result of a terror spree sweeping across key locations in Mumbai. With instructions being fed to them through an earpiece, the amateur terrorists succeeded in laying siege to the hotel, spreading a trail of chaos and destruction across each floor, in a tragedy that remains seared in the minds of all those who survived.

In capturing the intensity of the siege, director Anthony Maras effectively splits the film's focus between the staff and guests of the hotel in their fight to survive and the role of the perpetrators in co-ordinating the attacks. With the Mumbai police forces completely unprepared for an attack of this magnitude, the reign of terror lasted three days and the film is relentless in its display of gratuitous violence. Near the beginning, bullets scatter across a packed lobby as bodies drop like flies and the attackers continue their march to the upper floors where, room by room, they shoot unsuspecting guests. Thirty-one individuals lost their lives during the chaos and by not shying away from the ugliness of the act, Maras paints an unnerving picture of the callous disregard the terrorist showed their victims.

However, the film's perpetual forward momentum means that the violence slowly becomes desensitising and at times teeters on the edge of exploitative Hollywood action territory. The film uses a fair amount of dramatic license to keep events thrilling and sometimes it seems to paint a real-life event in very broad action strokes. Luckily, any detour into action hero territory is quickly dispelled by a screenplay that presents heroes in all shapes and forms.

Indeed, what stands apart, is the strength of the character portraits that emerge amongst the violence. Dev Patel and Anupam Ker play hotel employees who stand by their colleagues and guests at all costs, while Armie Hammer and Nazanin Boniadi play a married couple who risk it all to protect their child. While the characters may be fictional, it's not hard to imagine numerous stories just like theirs having occurred in real life. Moreover, by interspersing their stories with first hand news footage of the siege, Maras injects an extra element of realism that convincingly ties the film together.

At its core, Hotel Mumbai is a celebration of human resilience and courage in the face of overwhelming evil. By focusing on the humanity amongst the carnage, Hotel Mumbai honours all those who risked, and lost, their lives in the attack.

For a largely uncharted territory, space has proven to be well-trodden ground in film. From Alfonso Cuaron's Gravity, which offered a uniquely visceral perspective into the sheer force of will necessary to survive above Earth, to Hidden Figures, which provided valuable insight into the overlooked behind the scenes work of female minorities at NASA, there have been no shortages of quality space films over the past few years.

For his fourth feature film, acclaimed director Damien Chazelle, provides his own addition to the space race by charting the life of Neil Armstrong in the years leading up to him becoming the first man on the Moon. While ostensibly a film about Armstrong, it would be remiss to call First Man a biopic. The film splits its focus between Armstrong's family life and the intense weight his mission bore down on his loved ones, while simultaneously trying to glorify the magnitude of his achievement as a sort of hagiography. By trying to have it both ways, First Man feels conflicted and struggles to provide a fresh perspective on well-documented history.

Part of the problem lies in Armstrong's inherent nature. As an introverted individual, Ryan Gosling's performance comes off as accordingly cold and distant. He embodies Armstrong as a quiet, contemplative man who mostly keeps to himself and is singularly focused on the success of the mission. The blandness of Gosling's performance may be misconstrued as shallow characterisation but he successfully communicates Armstrong's stoic determination that was necessary for the lunar mission to succeed. The issue, however, is that the film never successfully matches his low-key nature with enough dramatic heft (particularly as the outcome of the lunar landing is well-known history), leaving long stretches of the story feeling dry and uninvolving.

In fact, most of Armstrong's personality traits can be gleamed from his relationship with his wife, Janet Shearon, played with powerful force by Claire Foy. Without a doubt, the most effective dramatic scenes are the ones shared between Gosling and Foy. A dutiful housewife and loving mother, Foy's Shearon is no pushover and she stands her ground against the boys club that is NASA. When Armstrong attempts to leave for the Apollo mission without saying goodbye to their sons, she confronts him emphatically and forces a family sit down. Her assertive nature clashes sharply with Armstrong's nonchalance, and she offers a stark psychoanalytical counterpoint to him.

However, the film defers digging too deep into Armstrong's psychological state by keeping the lunar mission in the forefront of the narrative and his family life as ancillary, in case it would lessen the reverence surrounding his achievement. You only get glimpses of his home life and the resulting fractured sense of characterisation is likely to leave you feeling more conflicted about who Neil Armstrong was by the film's end.

The other part of the problem is that, as a retelling of the trials and tribulations of the lunar lading, the film is hardly an exhaustive account. Covering the time period from 1961, when Armstrong was an X-15 pilot, to the eventual Apollo 11 mission in 1969, the constant jumps in time leave little room for detailed recreations of both the physical and mental preparations that went into putting the first man onto the moon.

Moreover, certain contextual details of the time period are touched upon but quickly go by the wayside, such as one scene depicting African American musicians singing the lyrics of Gil Scott-Heron's "Whitey on the Moon" which hints at a fascinating social-political subtext to the story that never arrives. Thus, those seeking a fact-based take are better off seeking one of the countless documentaries on the moon landing.

Instead, First Man exists in a middling space (pun unintended) where it's easy to see the passion behind the film but hard to see its exact raison d'etre. It's respectfully made, but perhaps too much so, seemingly content on re-treading past achievements by fairly conventional means.

Where First Man excels is in its more personal touches, in particular in its handling of grief and trauma, stemming from Armstrong's personal loss of one of his children, as both fuel and a drawback to his professional pursuit. It's a through line that is poignantly tied off in one of the film's closing scenes and it's this sort of nuance that feels like it offers something fresh to the story, despite its historical trappings.

Ultimately, while it's easy to admire the craft behind the film and the respectful means by which it treats its main subject, First Man's resistance to probe too deep into Armstrong's psychology or to provide a fresh, modern perspective on well-documented history leaves it, too often, feeling lost in space.

First things first, A Simple Favour is not really a mystery film, well not a good one at least. As much as the marketing would have you believe, those looking for the next Gone Girl or The Girl on The Train will need to continue their search. The story here is far-fetched, overcooked and unravels in such a haste that it's hard to treat much of it seriously. Director Paul Feig (best known for his comedy works such as Bridesmaids and Spy), seemingly aware of the story's inherent ridiculousness, keeps the film light and easily digestible, but the result is a weird tonal hybrid of a comedy-mystery that fails at being either. Think Game Night, but more obnoxious than funny.

Based on the novel by Darcey Bell, A Simple Favour follows Stephanie (Anna Kendrick), a widowed, single mum who runs a mommy blog. Her goody two-shoes personality makes her pariah amongst the other parents. One day, on a playdate for their children, she befriends Emily (Blake Lively), a chic, elegant woman whose everything she is not. Before long they become best friends, and when Emily disappears, Stephanie steps out of her shell to solve the mystery.

Anna Kendrick stars in a role perfectly attuned to her goofy charms and Blake Lively convincingly embodies the enigmatic nature of her character in a crucial supporting role. Henry Golding, hot off Crazy Rich Asians, gets the rough end of the deal playing Emily's husband, a character who, while not entirely likeable, is cruelly used and manipulated by the two female protagonists throughout the film. It's disheartening to see that the film's message of female empowerment often comes as a result of emasculating its primary male character. In fact, the film's regressive approach to bolstering its two strong female leads does the film a great disservice.

The only consistency between all the characters is that none of them are particularly likeable. They each make questionable decisions, are gratingly self-centered and become increasingly obnoxious as the film progresses with its dubious twists. By the end, you'll be hard pressed to care about any of them. This is no more evident than in the film's tacked on "where are they now?' postscript that feels completely unnecessary and ill informed in assuming audiences care enough about the characters to know where they end up.

On the upside, Feig, who is more proficient in making fun films rather than serious ones, keeps the film feeling light and easy-going. He knowingly teases the audience with a stylish soundtrack filled with classy French music, and there are some funny scenes that incite light chuckles rather than any laugh out loud bursts of humour. These meager positives don't improve the stillborn narrative but at least they make it a little less painful to digest.

Ultimately, A Simple Favour is a strange blend of mystery and comedy that doesn't gel into a cohesive whole. As a piece of entertainment, it's entirely disposable. As a thriller, well, imagine Gone Girl as directed by Paul Feig. Or better yet, don't.

//Revelation Film Festival Review//

Arthouse films are often labelled with different adjectives that can split audiences. What some might label as pretentious, others might consider as a masterpiece. Madeleine's Madeleine oscillates between both sentiments but through its sheer force of its own conviction proves to be a startling achievement.

The story follows Madeleine (an excellent debut from Helena Howard), a young performer recovering from a recent mental breakdown. As her personal life starts taking on a central role in a play she is rehearsing, Madeleine's grip on reality becomes increasingly tenuous. The lingering question is: is it art imitating reality or the other way around? Madeleine's Madeleine is an unconventional take on mental illness, but what part of mental illness is conventional?

//Revelation Film Festival Review//

The best way to describe Bugs would be Stand by Me by way of Harmony Korine. Shot like a 90's music video from an obscure heavy metal band, Bugs is a black and white ode to fleeting youth and the monotony of teenage years after the discovery of a dead schoolgirl barely rattles a suburban town.

While it doesn't posses Korine's madcap boundary-pushing energy, Bugs does manage to capture something universal and deeply troubling about the apathetic generation. Where it struggles is filling its almost 90 minute run time and as the story becomes less structured it gives the impression that the film might have worked better as a short. Still, shot for a reported $20 000, Bugs is an impressive micro-budget debut feature from writer/director Jack Moxey.

//Revelation Film Festival Review//

If the six people that walked out during the screening are any indication, Holiday is going to provoke some polarising opinions. It's a tough watch, a film designed to get under your skin and features one of the most graphic rape sequences ever committed to screen. However, what's most shocking about the film is the realism in which everything is portrayed.

The story, in short, is about the terrible things men do to women and that women allow men to do to them. While the plot meanders and never provides any definitive answers, the frustration it elicits is part of the film's effect. It's not for the faint hearted and in the "me too" era, Holiday is definitely going to provoke some fierce conversation. I didn't like the film but it got the exact reaction that it wanted out of me and it's been crawling under my skin for days.

Summary: A tough watch designed to provoke audiences; Holiday has been crawling under my skin for days.

//Revelation Film Festival Review//

If you've ever gone camping you'll know the feeling of tranquillity and stillness that comes with sitting nestled amongst the trees away from the noise. For war veteran Will (Ben Forster), who suffers from PTSD, leaving the noise behind is a necessity not a respite. Living with his daughter, Tom (Thomasin McKenzie), in an urban park in Portland, Oregon, their lives are uprooted when social services mandate their return to society.

The most surprising thing about Leave No Trace is how it reveals itself to be an unlikely coming of age story. While Will believes living off the grid is in the best interest of his daughter, the change in circumstances complicates Tom's feelings. Her transformation from being her father's daughter to someone able to make her own decisions leads to some heart-wrenching scenes where she stands up to Will as an equal. Like Jennifer Lawrence before her, Granik has made another find in Thomasin McKenzie, who is certainly one to watch.

//Revelation Film Festival Review//

Like recent anthology horror films VHS and ABC's of Death, Ghost Stories is hit and miss with its collection of horror shorts. Its tone veers widely between dark comedy and serious horror territory, and neither work too effectively. To boot, none of the shorts are particularly interesting and each of them end abruptly without offering much closure.

It's only by the end of the wrap-around narrative about a paranormal debunker investigating the happenings that the film offers some cohesion, but it comes as too little, too late. With only three average shorts to go around a solid wrap-around narrative, Ghost Stories' low batting average makes it more of a miss.

Summary: Not scary enough to work as a horror film, not funny enough to work as a dark comedy, Ghost Stories sits flatly in-between.

//Revelation Film Festival Review//

Watching Skate Kitchen is like reconnecting with a group of friends you haven't seen for ages but upon meeting up its like not even a day has passed. It's a breezy, relentlessly entertaining coming of age story that's a delight to watch.

Set amongst the New York subculture, the story focuses on Camille (newcomer Rachelle Vinberg), an 18 year-old Long Island teen who runs away from home to join a female skateboarding posse called Skate Kitchen. Connecting with the group as a kindred spirit, Camille struggles to reconcile her strained relationship with her mother with her newfound sense of belonging. Much like this year's best picture nominee Lady Bird, Skate Kitchen will prove instantly relatable to anyone who struggled to fit in during their formative years.