#saw ex machina in the cinema & could literally only think of this.

[logray]

SHREK (2001) | EX MACHINA (2015)

[uomo-accattivante]

I dug up this very interesting old Q&A session Rian Johnson did with Alex Garland about Ex Machina back on April 18, 2015, at The Arclight in Los Angeles. It was cool hearing Garland briefly talk about Oscar Isaac and Domhnall Gleeson right before Johnson started working with both of them on Star Wars: The Last Jedi. And after hearing this Q&A, I can totally see why Garland wanted to retain Scott Rudin as his producer when he decided to make Annihilation. 

The main points they covered in the Q&A are encapsulated below:

Writing For A Low Budget Sci-Fi Movie

Rian Johnson: What was the origin of this in terms of the writing?

Alex Garland: When I was trying to describe what this film would be I used to call it a sci-fi psychological thriller and “Sleuth” was a film I did think about because of the way the allegiances shift. In terms of the genesis, it was really just reading over years about AI and some of the problems of mind and consciousness… I’ve now been working in film for around about 15 years and inevitably some of the processes of film, you learn them in sort of a helpless way. And if there’s something that requires a lot of creative latitude as this did, probably unconsciously, I deliberately wrote something that I knew we could make cheaply. Limited locations, limited cost…

RJ: At the same time, it doesn’t have that thing [where] it feels like they compromised in order to make a cheap movie here, it looks gorgeous. I was actually gonna ask you some more mundane questions about where you shot it, in terms of the house, how much of that was built, whether there was found locations in terms of the exteriors…

AG: It was four weeks in Pinewood, and two weeks on location. [For] all the things you can do to save money, the best thing you can do is have a really short principal photography period. So, it was a six week shoot and then there was a backward element of it which is you need to find a location and be able to build to it. The location was in Norway, and you know it’s funny the way imagery in film works. Iceland was quickly out of the question because it’s been mined by cinema so much and you start to think, “I know that glacier.”

Shooting In Norway

AG: We ended up finding Norway and what was great about it, Norway’s quite an interesting country because they’re the only country in the world that did the right thing when they discovered oil which was to nationalize it and then keep all the money and spend it on the country itself. So it’s this amazingly affluent country, which makes it very expensive to shoot in. But you get weird modernist architecture in the middle of nowhere and the landscape is not too familiar to us. It’s semi-familiar because there’s skies and mountains and glaciers and rivers, but we’re not too steeped in it so Norway’s perfect. [We] found a beautiful house and a hotel.

RJ: What was the house itself? Was it an empty house? Was it somebody’s house?

AG: It was a house that this guy had been building and nearly finished so he didn’t mind a film crew turning up. So, for example, the living room where these two guys talk at times which has this strange rock wall kind of intruding into the room, that’s the living room of that guy’s house. These beautiful cinema-screen-shaped windows that have these panoramic views is an eco hotel which is about 15 minutes away. And what we would do is build sets like Nathan’s bedroom and study with the glass wall, where we brought that rock wall into Pinewood and tried to tie it together loosely.

RJ: Because it was such a quick shoot, obviously exactly the things that make it cheap also make it very intensive in terms of it’s the performances that carry this movie all the way through to a large extent. Did you have rehearsal time with the actors?

AG: Yeah that was crucial. We had, actually, a lot of discussions and then we had rehearsals because there wasn’t going to be time to talk about motivation, for example, on set. And the process of shooting it was very intense and complicated because the film has to have a kind of zen vibe about it and the second you’re moving the camera, it’s like, in come the guys chucking down boards to move the dolly and a real frenzy of activity and then back to this quiet mode. And you’re absolutely right, that leans hardest of all on the actors. Pretty hard for the camera crew, but particularly hard for the actors. And they had to keep a kind of good close track of what they were doing the whole time, but they totally nailed it.

Casting Alicia Vikander And Domhnall Gleeson

RJ: So, uh, Oscar [Isaac] and Domhnall I know… somebody should put them in a big movie. [laughs] But actually, the big revelation for me was Alicia [Vikander]. I’m sure she’s been in other stuff, but this is the first thing I’ve seen of her. Talk to me about where you saw and discovered her.

AG: She was in a Danish film called “A Royal Affair” and she was, I’m guessing, like 20 or 21 and acting opposite the incredibly charismatic, powerful actorMads Mikkelsen and that thing happens that we all recognize, it’s not a secret. It’s not like you work in the film industry to recognize good acting. I’ve literally never met anyone who thought Philip Seymour Hoffman wasn’t a great actor. So you know it when you see it and your eye would just track what she was doing and register how confident and complex her performance was. And that’s also true of Oscar, the slightly odd one out was Domnhall because this is the third film we worked on together and so that was different, I just sent him the script and said, “Will you do it?”

RJ: Was he the first one on board?

AG: Yeah.

RJ: Do you write actually seeing actors in your head?

AG: Yeah I do, and that could be complicated. It’s a bit like temp score when you’re cutting because you can get temp-itis, you know, fall in love with a bit of temp score and find that you keep trying to nudge the composer towards copying it. So, yes I do, but I also try to be self-aware and then to reject it later, but Domhnall was in my mind because it’s a funny part… It’s not something that all male actors want to do, in a way, to be the recipient, to be on the receiving end so much and I just knew that he could do it.

RJ: At the same time, it’s also a part that, to his credit, it’s deceptive… he’s doing so much in it with so little and he’s so good at communicating, largely reacting to the world around him, guiding the viewer through the story.

AG: And not telegraphing what’s actually going on. Because it can be hard for everybody to avoid the nudges and winks, like “I’m actually more powerful in this scene than you think I am.” But he was incredibly disciplined about that.

Designing Ava

AG: With Ava, it was a three step process, with a step back thing which is this is a post-iPhone world. We’re used to tech being beautifully designed essentially. Initially, it was to do with what she didn’t look like. C-3PO, for example, was a problem. Gold metal immediately put C-3PO in mind. White plastic put Chris Cunningham’s Bjork video [for “All Is Full Of Love” in mind] which was also riffed on by “I Robot.” [And] even if people haven’t seen “Metropolis,” [Maria] is an iconic image that it casts an incredibly long shadow. So, when she first appears you don’t want to initially be thinking of another film.

Second thing, she had to unambiguously be a machine so that it didn’t give wise in the narrative the possibility that it might be a young woman wearing a robot suit. So, missing areas of her body dealt with that. More important than that, the breakthrough aspect was this mesh that follows the contours of Alicia Vikander’s body, which meant that you immediately see her as a machine and then you immediately start to move away from that because as the light captures it a bit like a spiderweb, invisible in some circumstances, visible in others… you get this glancing, ephemeral sense of a young woman.

Misdirecting the Audience

RJ: As a filmmaker, I’m curious in terms of the editing, when you got into the cutting room was there anything that surprised you that you had to adjust in terms of where the audience was keeping up with it, or what they were thinking during different parts of it?

AG: I think, in the edit, of this and other projects, from my point of view, you have to run on instinct because you’re so steeped in it. At least in my experience, it’s very hard to be precise and rational about it. Wood for the trees, essentially. But there were some things I felt pretty sure of, and one thing was that we could nudge the audience or sections of the audience. Some people just want a story and will just accept whatever comes and others, their antennae are up and they are hunting and they want to get ahead of it in some way. And I felt pretty sure that there were two key misdirections we could do that would take attention away from the other stuff we wanted to keep more covert. But one of them was that audiences, you can assume literacy in film audiences. They will have seen “Blade Runner,” for example. And so they will be thinking “I know what’s going on”—

RJ: Domhnall is a robot.

AG: Right, exactly, so there are symmetrical scars on his back. And there’s a slightly implausible backstory.

RJ: Which you only reveal very slightly in the thing so even as an audience member you’re thinking, “How clever, I just caught that.”

AG: Exactly, yeah. So one is that train of thought that then leads to him investigating himself, in a way that an audience might have investigated him as well. And the other was the Japanese-appearing robot, Kyoko, that of course also people will know quite quickly that this is a machine. And in intention, I hoped, the antennae twitching audience will relax and think “oh I get this.” I think the ideal state is to just let the thing happen. You know, I sometimes think the best way to see a film — no, I know — no trailer, no information. Certainly, that for me, that’s my favorite way. So, in a way, the edit was partly about using those misdirections, I guess.

RJ: No, I think it all works to its benefit. And like I said, ultimately, it does that magic trick that my favorite movies all do, which is, it does exactly what it told you it was going to do and you’re surprised by it by the end.

Also, here is a video of the Q&A session above if you’re interested in watching it: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/moviesnow/83375013-132.html

[smokeybrandreviews]

Smokey brand Movie Reviews: Subtext

So i saw Cats. I had to know if it really was as bad as everyone says. It is. It’s terrible. It’s literally one of the worst films i have have ever seen but for different reasons than publicized. I plan to describe every short coming this film proudly presents, at length. Before we get into why it’s so goddamn awful, there are certain things that deserve recognition.

The Good

Cats is kind of ambitious. I like that they decided to build actual sets to scale. There is a sense of realness to this world and you have to this movie that i didn’t expect.

The actual effects on the cats, themselves, are pretty legit once you get outside of that uncanny valley. Like, the process to create those fur suits was ridiculous. It’s every bit as impressive as what Cameron did with Avatar. The theory of those cats i mean.

Francesca Hayward is pretty dope in this. She’s a great singer, brilliant dancer, and absolutely gorgeous. If this were a play, it would have been dope. If they would have used actual makeup and sh*t, it wold have been dope. choosing the way they decoded to present this sh*t? A waste. This was a waste of Francesca’s talent.

Jennifer Hudson singing Memory was f*cking incredible. I’m told the version she sang on one of those reality talent shows was much better, so i googled it, and it was. So much better. Still, the one they decided to film was decent. Hudson is one of the best singers of her generation and Memory has ample opportunity to belt out them emotional notes.

You can tell Tom Hooper had a passion for this material. Like, he wanted to make this grandiose film based on the garish play. That’s going to come back to bite him in the ass overall, but it’s nice to see a director making something that the actually loves.

The Bad

Literally everything else. his entire film is, quite literally, one of the worst films i have ever seen in my entire life. There is just SO much wrong with this thing. So goddamn much. Every decision made during this production was wrong and it’s kind of amazing.

First and foremost, why the f*ck did they choose to portray the Cats the way that did? These things are HIDEOUS! I mean, uncanny valley, for sure, but i’ve seen enough films and played enough games not to be unnerved by bad graphics. But this? this sh*t is so much more than that. These little cat people things are unforgivably odious in so many ways. I’m not going to get into the way they have people hands or can’t decide to be bipedal or how ridiculous they look on all fours. No, my thing is the way the faces are integrated into the fur suit. That’s not makeup. It’s legit CG. They tried to emulate the Cats Broadway makeup in a more realistic way and it misses the mark by a long shot. They’re gross. Gross and weird. Your main characters are gross and weird to look at.

Bro, these cats are constantly f*cking Like, all of the time. It’s not outright but you can tell they are constantly making with the coitus, figuratively. I’m pretty sure there’s a catnip fuels orgy there toward the end? Middle? i don’t know. I thought maybe it was just, you know, Hooper being cheeky in the beginning but then Jason Derulo, f*cking Rum Tum Tugger, shows up and just simulates the f*ck while Rebel Wilson cat, quite literally, makes overtly objectifying about Tugger’s tugger. It’s gross and weird.

Everything is washed in neon lights and i don’t understand why. The majority of this film supposed to take place at night so it make sense that there would be neon signs and everything but. even indoors, during that big Taylor Swift number, fluorescent neon lights. It’s unnerving and grates on the eyes, man. You put in all this work to create these detailed sets and thing but then immediately erased the detail by saturating it in artificial, scathingly colored, light? Really, dude?

There is no substance to this film. There is no character growth, no pathos, no stakes. Nothing. It’s a bunch of dance numbers introducing a bunch of asshole cats, looking to be ritually murdered. That’s it. That’s the entire plot. One cat wants to be murdered more than all the others so he’s kidnapping the competition to be the only option left for sacrifice. That’s stupid when you hear it like that, right? Because it is. Cats is stupid. Giving it that big budget, Hollywood Oscar bait treatment doesn’t change any of that stupid. The play Cats is fundamentally retarded so how could the movie version not be? I hate films that never grow, that never have resolution but this sh*t doesn’t even have anything to resolve. It’s a literal waste of time and my time is actually valuable.

Im not going to get into the many, many, MANY plot contrivances because then i’d have to actually think about this movie instead of just referencing the notes i already took down. I did the work beforehand and i do not want to revisit this feline hellscape any time ever. That said, nothing makes f*cking sense in this move. There are Jellical cats, magic cats, gangster cats, thief cats; it’s all over the place. Motherf*ckers are in cahoots with the main villain cat and when the does a villainous thing, they are all, “ We didn’t know he was a villain.” Really? Magic cat is magic but literally doesn’t us it until the plot absolutely demands it making that use that cat the definition of deus ex machina. Like, they’re not even clever about it. It’s actually insulting how blatant it is.

Interesting enough, outside of Memory, the music in this musical is forgettable. I can’t name one song from this thing that sticks with me. I still remember the first few lines to the opening song of Sweeney Todd. I can sing to you the colors of the wind. Hakuna Matata means no worries. I can show you the world. We’re of to see the wizard. I bet you know those songs. Bet you don’t even know the original track Swift and Webber wrote for this fart of a film.

The writing in this thing is f*cking putrid, man. The source material is sh*t and i didn’t expect anything great from an adaption but this? I expected more than this. Nothing makes sense. The dialogue is, one could say stylized but i’d say it’s dumb. This sh*t is dumb. Nothing feels organic, especially at the end. That whole situation with Judi Dench accepting Francesca James into her little weird stray cat cult was all cringe, no love. Everything said in this ridiculous movie is cringe. It’s just a goddamn cringefest! Seriously, the writing in this “movie’ is about as good as the writing in a Michael Bay flick. It’s that bad.

This movie has some of the most uninspired camera work i have ever seen in my entire life. It’s shot like a play; A single camera, centered on the shot, with no dynamism at all. There’s no pans or strafe or anything of that nature which works if you’re filming a play but this ain’t a play. It’s a film. Take Sweeney Todd for example. That’s how you make a film musical. West Side Story is another decent example. F*ck, that one movie with Gosling and Stone, La La Land? Yeah, even THAT one was shot dynamically. it was shot like a f*cking film. An even better example? the Les Miserables example. That Hooper, himself, shot! You did this once before and got Oscar for it. The f*ck happened? Yu forget hoe to make movies or something?

While i’m on Hooper, the f*ck kind of direction is any of this? It’s terrible! All of these performances, outside of Jason Derulo who was truly awful but brought a very refreshing energy to his nonsense, were uninspired. Like, they all just kind of went through the motions, you know? tom Hooper had been trying to get this film made for years and THIS was what he was able to muster? With THAT cast? are you f*cking serious??

Now, i lauded Francesca Hayward in her performance as Victoria, and that is legitimate praise, but everyone else in this thing is sh*t. Like, James as spectacular in her role, but her role is sh*t. That’s the ebb and flow of this movie. One thing is decent, but it’s mired in sh*t. James is gorgeous in real life and you see a bit of that in Victoria’s face but Victoria is a computer generated monstrosity and this movie insists upon reminding you of that every time she does anything with her face It’s weird and gross, man.

Speaking of probably brilliant performances mired by the outright sh*ttiness of the visual aesthetic in this clusterf*ck masquerading as cinema, i’m pretty sure Rebel Wilson has a beautiful voice. I wouldn’t know for sure because they limited her character to kind of a terrible lounge lizard set piece full of cockroaches and baby mice. I got a whole eyeful of her cat puss though. Thanks for that, assholes.

Another anecdotal performance that it thought might have been really good belonged to Idris Elba but i think his shortcoming had more to do with the character writing that screen time. Elba is almost always brilliant in any role he accepts and dude is musically incline, Elba was once a DJ and raps wonderfully if you didn’t know, so i can see them throwing a hip-hop curve to Macavity that could have worked if approached with respectful aplomb. Nope. This motherf*cker is a campy goober in a fur coat and a derby. Macavity is the main villain if this entire bullsh*t and i’m supposed to be afraid of him when he looks like a brown, nude, 70s style pimp with cat ears? For Real?

Jame Corden is the goddamn worst. That’s it. That’s the grievance. James Corden is the goddamn worst.

Why was Jason Derulo in this? He’s a singer, not a film actor, which is easier than being a theater actor. Dude just acts like he’s in a music video. Like, i’m watching his little set pieces or whatever and all i see is 90s Usher, dancing to My Way or some sh*t.

Why was Taylor Swift in this movie? I mean, i know why. They promised her a chance to win win an Oscar with an original song, that’s why. Hooper thought this thing was going to sweep the Oscars but this it sh*t the bed in theaters. it probably should have sh*t Swift out before production, though. She’s kind of awful.

And then there’s the two most egregious offenses in this entire film; The casting of Dame Judi Dench and Sir Ian McKellen. These are Actors. They are Oscar caliber talent, Dench winning several while McKellen being nominated twice. Both of these individuals have a background IN theater. Hell, Dame Dench was cast as Girsabella in the original 80s run but had to drop out due to injury! They live this life! How are they so goddamn awful in this movie??

The Verdict

I said this in the beginning but Cats is one of the worst films i have ever seen in my entire f*cking life. I feel like there were more decent performances in this thing, Idris Elba was probably fantastic, bit the material the had to perform and the god-awful cat effects just wash over anything these actors can possibly do. Who is this for? Why are all of these cats so f*cking horny? What was the point of this aimless journey Hooper took us on? There are no answer for anything, which is hilarious, because this movie asks no questions. It asks nothing of the audience. It just kind of happens to you. I reference the writing being as terrible as a Michael Bay film but Cats IS a Michael Bay film. If you replace the dance numbers with explosions or creepy shots of Francesca Hayward’s butt, and it’s Revenge of the Fallen. Straight up Bayhem in a fur suit.

Cats is vapid, superficial, and insists upon itself. This movie thinks it’s more than what it is and believes it should be recognized when, in reality, it’s lowest common denominator film making and should be forgotten. This thing was constructed to swoon over the Academy but it ends up grossing out the audience. Cats is hollow and a waste of time while being one of the most visually revolting experiences i have ever had the displeasure of enduring. Do not watch this film unless you want to be angry you wasted damn near two hours of your time. Also, it’s ugly.

[smokeybrand]

Smokey brand Movie Reviews: Subtext

So i saw Cats. I had to know if it really was as bad as everyone says. It is. It’s terrible. It’s literally one of the worst films i have have ever seen but for different reasons than publicized. I plan to describe every short coming this film proudly presents, at length. Before we get into why it’s so goddamn awful, there are certain things that deserve recognition.

The Good

Cats is kind of ambitious. I like that they decided to build actual sets to scale. There is a sense of realness to this world and you have to this movie that i didn’t expect.

The actual effects on the cats, themselves, are pretty legit once you get outside of that uncanny valley. Like, the process to create those fur suits was ridiculous. It’s every bit as impressive as what Cameron did with Avatar. The theory of those cats i mean.

Francesca Hayward is pretty dope in this. She’s a great singer, brilliant dancer, and absolutely gorgeous. If this were a play, it would have been dope. If they would have used actual makeup and sh*t, it wold have been dope. choosing the way they decoded to present this sh*t? A waste. This was a waste of Francesca’s talent.

Jennifer Hudson singing Memory was f*cking incredible. I’m told the version she sang on one of those reality talent shows was much better, so i googled it, and it was. So much better. Still, the one they decided to film was decent. Hudson is one of the best singers of her generation and Memory has ample opportunity to belt out them emotional notes.

You can tell Tom Hooper had a passion for this material. Like, he wanted to make this grandiose film based on the garish play. That’s going to come back to bite him in the ass overall, but it’s nice to see a director making something that the actually loves.

The Bad

Literally everything else. his entire film is, quite literally, one of the worst films i have ever seen in my entire life. There is just SO much wrong with this thing. So goddamn much. Every decision made during this production was wrong and it’s kind of amazing.

First and foremost, why the f*ck did they choose to portray the Cats the way that did? These things are HIDEOUS! I mean, uncanny valley, for sure, but i’ve seen enough films and played enough games not to be unnerved by bad graphics. But this? this sh*t is so much more than that. These little cat people things are unforgivably odious in so many ways. I’m not going to get into the way they have people hands or can’t decide to be bipedal or how ridiculous they look on all fours. No, my thing is the way the faces are integrated into the fur suit. That’s not makeup. It’s legit CG. They tried to emulate the Cats Broadway makeup in a more realistic way and it misses the mark by a long shot. They’re gross. Gross and weird. Your main characters are gross and weird to look at.

Bro, these cats are constantly f*cking Like, all of the time. It’s not outright but you can tell they are constantly making with the coitus, figuratively. I’m pretty sure there’s a catnip fuels orgy there toward the end? Middle? i don’t know. I thought maybe it was just, you know, Hooper being cheeky in the beginning but then Jason Derulo, f*cking Rum Tum Tugger, shows up and just simulates the f*ck while Rebel Wilson cat, quite literally, makes overtly objectifying about Tugger’s tugger. It’s gross and weird.

Everything is washed in neon lights and i don’t understand why. The majority of this film supposed to take place at night so it make sense that there would be neon signs and everything but. even indoors, during that big Taylor Swift number, fluorescent neon lights. It’s unnerving and grates on the eyes, man. You put in all this work to create these detailed sets and thing but then immediately erased the detail by saturating it in artificial, scathingly colored, light? Really, dude?

There is no substance to this film. There is no character growth, no pathos, no stakes. Nothing. It’s a bunch of dance numbers introducing a bunch of asshole cats, looking to be ritually murdered. That’s it. That’s the entire plot. One cat wants to be murdered more than all the others so he’s kidnapping the competition to be the only option left for sacrifice. That’s stupid when you hear it like that, right? Because it is. Cats is stupid. Giving it that big budget, Hollywood Oscar bait treatment doesn’t change any of that stupid. The play Cats is fundamentally retarded so how could the movie version not be? I hate films that never grow, that never have resolution but this sh*t doesn’t even have anything to resolve. It’s a literal waste of time and my time is actually valuable.

Im not going to get into the many, many, MANY plot contrivances because then i’d have to actually think about this movie instead of just referencing the notes i already took down. I did the work beforehand and i do not want to revisit this feline hellscape any time ever. That said, nothing makes f*cking sense in this move. There are Jellical cats, magic cats, gangster cats, thief cats; it’s all over the place. Motherf*ckers are in cahoots with the main villain cat and when the does a villainous thing, they are all, “ We didn’t know he was a villain.” Really? Magic cat is magic but literally doesn’t us it until the plot absolutely demands it making that use that cat the definition of deus ex machina. Like, they’re not even clever about it. It’s actually insulting how blatant it is.

Interesting enough, outside of Memory, the music in this musical is forgettable. I can’t name one song from this thing that sticks with me. I still remember the first few lines to the opening song of Sweeney Todd. I can sing to you the colors of the wind. Hakuna Matata means no worries. I can show you the world. We’re of to see the wizard. I bet you know those songs. Bet you don’t even know the original track Swift and Webber wrote for this fart of a film.

The writing in this thing is f*cking putrid, man. The source material is sh*t and i didn’t expect anything great from an adaption but this? I expected more than this. Nothing makes sense. The dialogue is, one could say stylized but i’d say it’s dumb. This sh*t is dumb. Nothing feels organic, especially at the end. That whole situation with Judi Dench accepting Francesca James into her little weird stray cat cult was all cringe, no love. Everything said in this ridiculous movie is cringe. It’s just a goddamn cringefest! Seriously, the writing in this “movie’ is about as good as the writing in a Michael Bay flick. It’s that bad.

This movie has some of the most uninspired camera work i have ever seen in my entire life. It’s shot like a play; A single camera, centered on the shot, with no dynamism at all. There’s no pans or strafe or anything of that nature which works if you’re filming a play but this ain’t a play. It’s a film. Take Sweeney Todd for example. That’s how you make a film musical. West Side Story is another decent example. F*ck, that one movie with Gosling and Stone, La La Land? Yeah, even THAT one was shot dynamically. it was shot like a f*cking film. An even better example? the Les Miserables example. That Hooper, himself, shot! You did this once before and got Oscar for it. The f*ck happened? Yu forget hoe to make movies or something?

While i’m on Hooper, the f*ck kind of direction is any of this? It’s terrible! All of these performances, outside of Jason Derulo who was truly awful but brought a very refreshing energy to his nonsense, were uninspired. Like, they all just kind of went through the motions, you know? tom Hooper had been trying to get this film made for years and THIS was what he was able to muster? With THAT cast? are you f*cking serious??

Now, i lauded Francesca Hayward in her performance as Victoria, and that is legitimate praise, but everyone else in this thing is sh*t. Like, James as spectacular in her role, but her role is sh*t. That’s the ebb and flow of this movie. One thing is decent, but it’s mired in sh*t. James is gorgeous in real life and you see a bit of that in Victoria’s face but Victoria is a computer generated monstrosity and this movie insists upon reminding you of that every time she does anything with her face It’s weird and gross, man.

Speaking of probably brilliant performances mired by the outright sh*ttiness of the visual aesthetic in this clusterf*ck masquerading as cinema, i’m pretty sure Rebel Wilson has a beautiful voice. I wouldn’t know for sure because they limited her character to kind of a terrible lounge lizard set piece full of cockroaches and baby mice. I got a whole eyeful of her cat puss though. Thanks for that, assholes.

Another anecdotal performance that it thought might have been really good belonged to Idris Elba but i think his shortcoming had more to do with the character writing that screen time. Elba is almost always brilliant in any role he accepts and dude is musically incline, Elba was once a DJ and raps wonderfully if you didn’t know, so i can see them throwing a hip-hop curve to Macavity that could have worked if approached with respectful aplomb. Nope. This motherf*cker is a campy goober in a fur coat and a derby. Macavity is the main villain if this entire bullsh*t and i’m supposed to be afraid of him when he looks like a brown, nude, 70s style pimp with cat ears? For Real?

Jame Corden is the goddamn worst. That’s it. That’s the grievance. James Corden is the goddamn worst.

Why was Jason Derulo in this? He’s a singer, not a film actor, which is easier than being a theater actor. Dude just acts like he’s in a music video. Like, i’m watching his little set pieces or whatever and all i see is 90s Usher, dancing to My Way or some sh*t.

Why was Taylor Swift in this movie? I mean, i know why. They promised her a chance to win win an Oscar with an original song, that’s why. Hooper thought this thing was going to sweep the Oscars but this it sh*t the bed in theaters. it probably should have sh*t Swift out before production, though. She’s kind of awful.

And then there’s the two most egregious offenses in this entire film; The casting of Dame Judi Dench and Sir Ian McKellen. These are Actors. They are Oscar caliber talent, Dench winning several while McKellen being nominated twice. Both of these individuals have a background IN theater. Hell, Dame Dench was cast as Girsabella in the original 80s run but had to drop out due to injury! They live this life! How are they so goddamn awful in this movie??

The Verdict

I said this in the beginning but Cats is one of the worst films i have ever seen in my entire f*cking life. I feel like there were more decent performances in this thing, Idris Elba was probably fantastic, bit the material the had to perform and the god-awful cat effects just wash over anything these actors can possibly do. Who is this for? Why are all of these cats so f*cking horny? What was the point of this aimless journey Hooper took us on? There are no answer for anything, which is hilarious, because this movie asks no questions. It asks nothing of the audience. It just kind of happens to you. I reference the writing being as terrible as a Michael Bay film but Cats IS a Michael Bay film. If you replace the dance numbers with explosions or creepy shots of Francesca Hayward’s butt, and it’s Revenge of the Fallen. Straight up Bayhem in a fur suit.

Cats is vapid, superficial, and insists upon itself. This movie thinks it’s more than what it is and believes it should be recognized when, in reality, it’s lowest common denominator film making and should be forgotten. This thing was constructed to swoon over the Academy but it ends up grossing out the audience. Cats is hollow and a waste of time while being one of the most visually revolting experiences i have ever had the displeasure of enduring. Do not watch this film unless you want to be angry you wasted damn near two hours of your time. Also, it’s ugly.

[smokeybrandreviews]

Rotten

If you can’t tell by this blog or the many reviews I write or the entire sub-blog full of my reviews, I genuinely enjoy cinema. I enjoy a good movie. I enjoy a trip to the theater. I have since i was little. All of the pomp and circumstance of it; Getting a terribly overpriced hot dog, standing in line for hours to see the new cape flick or summer blockbuster, laughing with an entire auditorium of cats over the most foolish of turns, and bonding over ridiculous scenes with the stranger next to me - ll of that is just too dope. I love going to the theater. That’s why, when I read that this summer was the worst summer for film since 1999, I was flabbergasted. But it’s true. I’ve been to the theater every weekend this year, with the exception of twice, and no one’s there. No one is coming out to see film anymore. The occasional tent poles like It and anything Marvel drops, packed to the gills, everything else? nah. No one wants that experience and it got me wondering why. This is my analysis of that quandary, as a creator of content but more as a fan, first.

Streaming services are supplying box office quality but you don’t have to put on pants

Like literally every other industry that Millennials are killing, we’re apparently choking the life out of the Hollywood but why Why should we go out and spend 15 dollars on a flick that may or may not be terrible, when we can watch new sh*t on Netflix? Better sh*t on Crackle. Original sh*t all over the place. Netflix has the draw to pull huge stars and their productions are often ridiculously high in quality. Okja was dope. Beasts Of No Nation was an Oscar contender. Will Smith, and his hefty ass paycheck, have a movie coming out for them in December, i believe. And it doesn’t stop there. Netflix dropped A Series Of Unfortunate Events as a series and it KILLED the film. Their Marvel properties are spectacular. Daredevil is sh*tting on the majority of what Hollywood crapped out this year by itself! I had more anticipation for Defenders than I did for probably 90 percent of the theatrical releases in 2017! And don’t get me started on Amazon Prime. Seriously, I saw two films this year that are in my top 20 and neither were released wide, stateside. Raw was f*cking incredible and Lure was just as fantastic. They’re foreign, true, but none of them played anywhere near my home in theaters. Not even in the niche, hipster ass theaters! I had to watch them on Prime! But I got a goddamn 8th Fast sequel, though! Ingrid Goes West is a film I’ve been DYING to see but I can’t because it was only out here for a week and now it’s gone. But Wry tho??

Studios are creatively bankrupt

I get sh*t for watching anime. I love that stuff. Love it. Most people think it’s because I like cartoon tiddies and I do, tiddies are awesome, but that’s not why I enjoy anime. My favorites tend to be creatively vibrant and defiantly unique. They tend to be steeped in originality and that makes for an interesting watch. Neon Genesis Evangelion, Akira, Ghost In The Shell (which I will get to in a minute) are all beautifully animated, poignant stories that really engage the viewer and challenges us to actively think about what we’re watching. The last two films to make me engage like that was Ex Machina and The VVitch. Split, too, to a lesser extent, did that as well. The only film that even remotely accomplished that this year was Get Out and people were up at arms about THAT film being racist! Really? You’re missing the f*cking point! It’s like, cats who have a voice, a story to tell, get the backseat, underfunded or outright ignored but the Hollywood machine but those are the people you need to take a chance on. Those are the directors and creators who you need to develop. Josh Trank made one of the dopest cape films not backed by a major studio in Chronicle and Fox wouldn’t let him do what he needed  to in order to properly craft his for Fan4stic narrative. I don’t think that team is very cinematic to begin with but Trank had a unique vision for that property and if Fox felt uncomfortable with it, they shouldn’t have let him cook to begin with. Marvel took Ant-Man away from Edgar Wright for this specific reason and he rebounded by giving us Baby Driver instead; a brilliant heist film that, at its heart, is just a wonderful love story. Great storytellers tell great stories, if you f*cking let them. The Japanese understand the f*ck out of this concept and let their directors and studio houses run wild. Hollywood does not.

Sequels, adaptions, and reboots! Oh My!

Look, I love a good sequel. They add to the lore and build the world created even further. Sometimes those additions are dope as sh*t. The Dark Knight, Aliens, John Wick: Chapter II, T2: Judgment Day, The Godfather Part 2, Winter Soldier, and Split all come to mind. And, yes, Split. It’s a sequel to Unbreakable. These films were all spectacular and embellished an already rich cinema universe. Hell, even the retread of cape films surprised me. Guardians was amazing, Homecoming is easily my favorite of the year but I am a legit Spider-Man fanboy so take that with a grain of salt, and Logan might be nominated for a f*cking Oscar, it was so good: all are basically sequels, adaptions, and reboots! It’s not hard to make a dope retread, particularly when there’s a story to be told. Sh*t like The Last Knight, though? THAT nonsense was unnecessary. An eighth Fast film? Really? Who wants a third XXX and why? Ghost In The Shell was doomed from the beginning. There’s no way an American audience can digest the content of that, even given to them in the brilliantly repackaging of Ex Machina last year. The Mummy was the worst thing I’d seen all year, bar none! Hollywood has become wildly risk averse and have been banking on stupid f*cking reboots no one asked for to hedge their bets and that sh*t is terrible for the industry. I still got a Flatliners reboot, a sequel to Blade, Runner, and another Star Wars film coming out this year. I’ll go see them but I’m not expecting much.  Hollywood’s current track record with this sh*t is atrocious.

Star System

I went and saw The Mummy because I am a fan or the original and the Brendan Frasier duology. The first two were dope but that third one though? Terrible. Just like this reboot! I don’t care that Tom Cruise is in this film. I don’t even LIKE Tom Cruise as an actor. He hasn’t made a film I’ve actually enjoyed since probably A Few Good Men. I saw the Mission Impossible flicks. They’re okay. I don’t remember anything from them except Cruise gets blown up a lot and Philip Seymour Hoffman was a pretty good villain in one of them. No one has got anything on Jaiver Bardem’s Raoul Silva but that cat was Ledger Joker caliber so, you know, high bar. My point is, this ain’t the 80s. Baby Boomers aren’t going to movie like they used to. No one cares WHO is in a film rather than WHAT the film is about. Ids there a plot? Is it shot creatively? How well is it directed? What’s the goddamn point? Why is this flick even a thing? Pirates had a sequel this year banking on star power and it flopped. GITS didn’t even take a chance and cast ScarJo In the lead role of a character named Motoko Kusanagi, only to cop out and make her a Japanese teenage brain, in her cybernetic Scarlett Johansson “shell”, the whole time. That flick also bombed. I didn’t give a sh*t that Jennifer Lawrence was in Mother!, I went to go see that because the plot seemed f*cked up. I adore the rock but I’m not going to go see Jumanji and I flat out REFUSED to take in Baywatch. Both of those premises are f*cking retard. I didn’t go see John Wick or Atomic Blonde because Keanu and Charlize were in them, I went because they looked dope as f*ck! And they were. And they were also beautiful. And they also told a coherent story. And I bought into those universes. And I want a f*cking crossover! No one goes to the theater anymore because of billing. I don’t give a sh*t about celebrities or that star mentality. F*ck off with that nonsense. Do your jobs and make great sh*t. Yall make enough money for it.

Television is making better sh*t

I touched on this earlier with the whole Series of Unfortunate events thing but it’s not just Netflix sh*tting on Tinseltown, regular ass s TV is doing a pretty good job of it as well. Atlanta is the best goddamn show on television and Man Seeking Woman is easily one of the best adaptions of a book I have ever seen put to film. The first two seasons of Fargo are as good as the film they’re based on, and, even though I haven’t seen the third, I hear it shine just as bright. Hannibal was just and OUTSTANDING interpretation of that Lecter series and I was devastated to see it go. Legion was a better X-Men Film than HALF of their franchise! FX is out here making quality sh*t! Starz ain’t no slouch either with its American Gods and AMC is releasing that firer with Better Call Saul and the excellent Breaking Bad. The Walking Dead petered out after the second season but, I guess it’s still good. I guess. I’m not even going to get into the quality of Westworld or its HBO brethren. Showtits is doing well with Ray Donovan or whatever, too. If I can literally get sh*t of this quality on my big ass, 4K, 7.1 surround sound, home media set up, why the f*ck do I want to go to the theater and drop 15 dollars for f*cking Bayformers 5? A sub-par Apocalypse sequel? A terribly adapted anime devoid of the existential questions driving it’s original?

Sh*t costs too much to make

When you’re dropping upwards of a country’s GDP on a goddamn Car chase movie sequel, you don’t want to take risks. I get that. But that’s the f*cking problem. Films use to have something to say, they use to be art. They use to convey emotion and present an actual plot. Now, most movies are bloated special effect spectacles that think more is better and storytelling is ridiculous. Why did King Arthur need a 175 million dollar budget? You could have make that move for a third of that, tightened up the narrative, and created a better, far more profitable film. NOPE! Why did Transformers 5 get a 125 million dollar budget when market research will tell you each of these sh*tty films has had diminishing returns? Cats have been telling you to drop Michael Bay since the second one and you refused, just to watch your budgets bloat and profits wane. Wonder Woman cost 150 mil, a great deal, yes, but modest for a Cape flick. It’s counterpart, BvS, cost 300 million, literally twice as much. Guess which one is a better film overall? Guess which one was better received? Guess which one SAVED the DCEU? Some of the best films of the year had shoestring budgets, Split was made on 9 million, took in 275. Logan was made on 97 and took in 620. Deadpool was made on 58, looks like it was produced for much more, and brought back 785. Baby Driver dropped for 24 mil and hauled in 220. Why are you throwing 230 million at Pirates  when the first only cost 140 mil and brought back 655. That’s 4 and a half times its budget! Number 5 raked in 795 mil, a little over 2 and a half times its budget. Hell, XXX-3 LOST 70 million! Valerian LOST 70 – 100 million! LOST. The Fifth Element, another Luc Besson film, one that did much better in the box office, one that was directly influenced by the Valerian comics, MADE 263 Million of a 90 mil budget. Why did Valerian NEED so much f*cking money? Why did Transformers or Fats 8 or BvS or Kingsman 2 when John Wick Chapter II, Atomic Blonde, Split, and Logan did MUCH better for a fraction of those investments? Hell, f*cking Get Out, one of the most popular films so far this year, cost 9 million to make. It made 250 million dollars, man! Films don’t need 100, 200, 300 goddamn million dollar budgets to be good! More often than not, that kind of money bodes terrible for the movie, unless you’re Marvel, Disney, or Star Wars. If you’re not part of the Disney Zeitgeist, your ass better keep them sh*t’s around 50- 80 million if you want to make any money from now on.

Rotten Tomatoes is doing its job too well

I love Rotten Tomatoes. The reviews are poignant and they tend to be relatively accurate. I tend to air more toward Critics than I do Audience but that’s because I expect more from film than the average American. Out of my consumable media, period. I hate sh*t that doesn’t have substances. My reviews usually reflect that. I can’t stand Zack Snyder or Michael Bay. All their films are is cool looking sh*t and explosions. Neither one of those assholes can tell a story. I use to really like Ridley Scott, but he’ so far up his own ass right now, I don’t even think he could recognize his own masterpiece, Alien, even if he were to sit and watch it. Rotten Tomatoes does a fantastic job of exposing what’s sh*t and Studios HATE it. Movie executives and stars, alike, have gone on tirades about  how that joint is tanking their films before they even release. No, your movie is sh*t and people don’t want to see sh*t, sir. When BvS got torpedoes, cats claimed Marvel paid reviewers. They didn’t. Then they claimed critics didn’t get it because it was too heady. It wasn’t. Then they said it was for the fans. Yo, if your fans look at BvS and see a masterpiece, they’re drunk. Same goes for Suicide Squad, every Transformers film except for the first, and the majority of Adam Sandler’s library. All Rotten Tomatoes does is let you see that “Thumbs Down” before you pay your cash as opposed to having to wait for a reviews in the paper or a magazine. No one is doing that. By the time Ebert got his two cents in, you had already seen that trash or not. Now, thanks to the intrerwebs and RT, you can get an idea about how sh*t a film might be BEFORE you spend your hard earned cash. Lesson to be learned? Hollywood should stop making sh*ta and RT won’t have to sh*t all over them.

Ultimately, Hollywood needs to evolve and fast. We live in an age where information is at our fingertips. Where we can speak to someone on the other side of the country through facetime or skype. Finding a review of a film is as easy as google. Hell, finding the film, itself, is as easy as a torrent site. Yo want to make money in this new age? Stop patronizing your audience. Make sh*t that is both engaging, accessible, and challenging. It’ not hard. Netflix does that sh*t regularly. FX, too. A24 also has a fantastic track record as a distributor. It’s not hard to make a great film, with a great director, on a modest budget. Stop meddling with your talent and them craft their narrative. If the investment is small, you can just shelve the thing and write it off. Split was one of the best films I’ve seen all year and it was a cheap, beautiful, great, f*cking story that added to an established universe, and gave me one of the most brilliant performances I have ever seen. Make more films like that. Stop making bloated, explosion packed excuses to load a bunch of computer effects on film. Scaling back does wonders for perspective.

In the 60s when the Baby Boomers started coming of age, we got Spielberg, Scorsese, and Coppola. Look what they created. It happened again in the 80s. We got Cameron, Hughes, and Cronenberg. The Nineties gave us Tarantino and the aughts gifted us Edgar Wright and Christopher Nolan. These cats started their careers making small films and grew into the powerhouses that they are today. No one is pocket checking James Cameron or Steven Spielberg. No one is telling Tarantino or Coppola or Scorsese to re-shoot a scene. Why is it okay for Trank or Wright to have their vision torpedoed by a bunch of glorified bean counters? Hollywood’s biggest problem I that it’s become too much of an industry, There’s too much money at stake so risk has gone out the window. But that’s not what movies were supposed to be. We movie goers are called Patrons because we’re supporting artists. Let these artists paint, man. Stop trying to stifle creativity for the almighty dollar. Doing so is just going to make you lose more than if you let an up and coming talent, make the movie they want.

[smokeybrand]

Rotten

If you can’t tell by this blog or the many reviews I write or the entire sub-blog full of my reviews, I genuinely enjoy cinema. I enjoy a good movie. I enjoy a trip to the theater. I have since i was little. All of the pomp and circumstance of it; Getting a terribly overpriced hot dog, standing in line for hours to see the new cape flick or summer blockbuster, laughing with an entire auditorium of cats over the most foolish of turns, and bonding over ridiculous scenes with the stranger next to me - ll of that is just too dope. I love going to the theater. That’s why, when I read that this summer was the worst summer for film since 1999, I was flabbergasted. But it’s true. I’ve been to the theater every weekend this year, with the exception of twice, and no one’s there. No one is coming out to see film anymore. The occasional tent poles like It and anything Marvel drops, packed to the gills, everything else? nah. No one wants that experience and it got me wondering why. This is my analysis of that quandary, as a creator of content but more as a fan, first.

Streaming services are giving supplying box office quality but you don’t have to put on pants

Like literally every other industry that Millennials are killing, we’re apparently choking the life out of the Hollywood but why Why should we go out and spend 15 dollars on a flick that may or may not be terrible, when we can watch new sh*t on Netflix? Better sh*t on Crackle. Original sh*t all over the place. Netflix has the draw to pull huge stars and their productions are often ridiculously high in quality. Okja was dope. Beasts Of No Nation was an Oscar contender. Will Smith, and his hefty ass paycheck, have a movie coming out for them in December, i believe. And it doesn’t stop there. Netflix dropped A Series Of Unfortunate Events as a series and it KILLED the film. Their Marvel properties are spectacular. Daredevil is sh*tting on the majority of what Hollywood crapped out this year by itself! I had more anticipation for Defenders than I did for probably 90 percent of the theatrical releases in 2017! And don’t get me started on Amazon Prime. Seriously, I saw two films this year that are in my top 20 and neither were released wide, stateside. Raw was f*cking incredible and Lure was just as fantastic. They’re foreign, true, but none of them played anywhere near my home in theaters. Not even in the niche, hipster ass theaters! I had to watch them on Prime! But I got a goddamn 8th Fast sequel, though! Ingrid Goes West is a film I’ve been DYING to see but I can’t because it was only out here for a week and now it’s gone. But Wry tho??

Studios are creatively bankrupt

I get sh*t for watching anime. I love that stuff. Love it. Most people think it’s because I like cartoon tiddies and I do, tiddies are awesome, but that’s not why I enjoy anime. My favorites tend to be creatively vibrant and defiantly unique. They tend to be steeped in originality and that makes for an interesting watch. Neon Genesis Evangelion, Akira, Ghost In The Shell (which I will get to in a minute) are all beautifully animated, poignant stories that really engage the viewer and challenges us to actively think about what we’re watching. The last two films to make me engage like that was Ex Machina and The VVitch. Split, too, to a lesser extent, did that as well. The only film that even remotely accomplished that this year was Get Out and people were up at arms about THAT film being racist! Really? You’re missing the f*cking point! It’s like, cats who have a voice, a story to tell, get the backseat, underfunded or outright ignored but the Hollywood machine but those are the people you need to take a chance on. Those are the directors and creators who you need to develop. Josh Trank made one of the dopest cape films not backed by a major studio in Chronicle and Fox wouldn’t let him do what he needed  to in order to properly craft his for Fan4stic narrative. I don’t think that team is very cinematic to begin with but Trank had a unique vision for that property and if Fox felt uncomfortable with it, they shouldn’t have let him cook to begin with. Marvel took Ant-Man away from Edgar Wright for this specific reason and he rebounded by giving us Baby Driver instead; a brilliant heist film that, at its heart, is just a wonderful love story. Great storytellers tell great stories, if you f*cking let them. The Japanese understand the f*ck out of this concept and let their directors and studio houses run wild. Hollywood does not.

Sequels, adaptions, and reboots! Oh My!

Look, I love a good sequel. They add to the lore and build the world created even further. Sometimes those additions are dope as sh*t. The Dark Knight, Aliens, John Wick: Chapter II, T2: Judgment Day, The Godfather Part 2, Winter Soldier, and Split all come to mind. And, yes, Split. It’s a sequel to Unbreakable. These films were all spectacular and embellished an already rich cinema universe. Hell, even the retread of cape films surprised me. Guardians was amazing, Homecoming is easily my favorite of the year but I am a legit Spider-Man fanboy so take that with a grain of salt, and Logan might be nominated for a f*cking Oscar, it was so good: all are basically sequels, adaptions, and reboots! It’s not hard to make a dope retread, particularly when there’s a story to be told. Sh*t like The Last Knight, though? THAT nonsense was unnecessary. An eighth Fast film? Really? Who wants a third XXX and why? Ghost In The Shell was doomed from the beginning. There’s no way an American audience can digest the content of that, even given to them in the brilliantly repackaging of Ex Machina last year. The Mummy was the worst thing I’d seen all year, bar none! Hollywood has become wildly risk averse and have been banking on stupid f*cking reboots no one asked for to hedge their bets and that sh*t is terrible for the industry. I still got a Flatliners reboot, a sequel to Blade, Runner, and another Star Wars film coming out this year. I’ll go see them but I’m not expecting much.  Hollywood’s current track record with this sh*t is atrocious.

Star System

I went and saw The Mummy because I am a fan or the original and the Brendan Frasier duology. The first two were dope but that third one though? Terrible. Just like this reboot! I don’t care that Tom Cruise is in this film. I don’t even LIKE Tom Cruise as an actor. He hasn’t made a film I’ve actually enjoyed since probably A Few Good Men. I saw the Mission Impossible flicks. They’re okay. I don’t remember anything from them except Cruise gets blown up a lot and Philip Seymour Hoffman was a pretty good villain in one of them. No one has got anything on Jaiver Bardem’s Raoul Silva but that cat was Ledger Joker caliber so, you know, high bar. My point is, this ain’t the 80s. Baby Boomers aren’t going to movie like they used to. No one cares WHO is in a film rather than WHAT the film is about. Ids there a plot? Is it shot creatively? How well is it directed? What’s the goddamn point? Why is this flick even a thing? Pirates had a sequel this year banking on star power and it flopped. GITS didn’t even take a chance and cast ScarJo In the lead role of a character named Motoko Kusanagi, only to cop out and make her a Japanese teenage brain, in her cybernetic Scarlett Johansson “shell”, the whole time. That flick also bombed. I didn’t give a sh*t that Jennifer Lawrence was in Mother!, I went to go see that because the plot seemed f*cked up. I adore the rock but I’m not going to go see Jumanji and I flat out REFUSED to take in Baywatch. Both of those premises are f*cking retard. I didn’t go see John Wick or Atomic Blonde because Keanu and Charlize were in them, I went because they looked dope as f*ck! And they were. And they were also beautiful. And they also told a coherent story. And I bought into those universes. And I want a f*cking crossover! No one goes to the theater anymore because of billing. I don’t give a sh*t about celebrities or that star mentality. F*ck off with that nonsense. Do your jobs and make great sh*t. Yall make enough money for it.

Television is making better sh*t

I touched on this earlier with the whole Series of Unfortunate events thing but it’s not just Netflix sh*tting on Tinseltown, regular ass s TV is doing a pretty good job of it as well. Atlanta is the best goddamn show on television and Man Seeking Woman is easily one of the best adaptions of a book I have ever seen put to film. The first two seasons of Fargo are as good as the film they’re based on, and, even though I haven’t seen the third, I hear it shine just as bright. Hannibal was just and OUTSTANDING interpretation of that Lecter series and I was devastated to see it go. Legion was a better X-Men Film than HALF of their franchise! FX is out here making quality sh*t! Starz ain’t no slouch either with its American Gods and AMC is releasing that firer with Better Call Saul and the excellent Breaking Bad. The Walking Dead petered out after the second season but, I guess it’s still good. I guess. I’m not even going to get into the quality of Westworld or its HBO brethren. Showtits is doing well with Ray Donovan or whatever, too. If I can literally get sh*t of this quality on my big ass, 4K, 7.1 surround sound, home media set up, why the f*ck do I want to go to the theater and drop 15 dollars for f*cking Bayformers 5? A sub-par Apocalypse sequel? A terribly adapted anime devoid of the existential questions driving it’s original?

Sh*t costs too much to make

When you’re dropping upwards of a country’s GDP on a goddamn Car chase movie sequel, you don’t want to take risks. I get that. But that’s the f*cking problem. Films use to have something to say, they use to be art. They use to convey emotion and present an actual plot. Now, most movies are bloated special effect spectacles that think more is better and storytelling is ridiculous. Why did King Arthur need a 175 million dollar budget? You could have make that move for a third of that, tightened up the narrative, and created a better, far more profitable film. NOPE! Why did Transformers 5 get a 125 million dollar budget when market research will tell you each of these sh*tty films has had diminishing returns? Cats have been telling you to drop Michael Bay since the second one and you refused, just to watch your budgets bloat and profits wane. Wonder Woman cost 150 mil, a great deal, yes, but modest for a Cape flick. It’s counterpart, BvS, cost 300 million, literally twice as much. Guess which one is a better film overall? Guess which one was better received? Guess which one SAVED the DCEU? Some of the best films of the year had shoestring budgets, Split was made on 9 million, took in 275. Logan was made on 97 and took in 620. Deadpool was made on 58, looks like it was produced for much more, and brought back 785. Baby Driver dropped for 24 mil and hauled in 220. Why are you throwing 230 million at Pirates  when the first only cost 140 mil and brought back 655. That’s 4 and a half times its budget! Number 5 raked in 795 mil, a little over 2 and a half times its budget. Hell, XXX-3 LOST 70 million! Valerian LOST 70 – 100 million! LOST. The Fifth Element, another Luc Besson film, one that did much better in the box office, one that was directly influenced by the Valerian comics, MADE 263 Million of a 90 mil budget. Why did Valerian NEED so much f*cking money? Why did Transformers or Fats 8 or BvS or Kingsman 2 when John Wick Chapter II, Atomic Blonde, Split, and Logan did MUCH better for a fraction of those investments? Hell, f*cking Get Out, one of the most popular films so far this year, cost 9 million to make. It made 250 million dollars, man! Films don’t need 100, 200, 300 goddamn million dollar budgets to be good! More often than not, that kind of money bodes terrible for the movie, unless you’re Marvel, Disney, or Star Wars. If you’re not part of the Disney Zeitgeist, your ass better keep them sh*t’s around 50- 80 million if you want to make any money from now on.

Rotten Tomatoes is doing its job too well

I love Rotten Tomatoes. The reviews are poignant and they tend to be relatively accurate. I tend to air more toward Critics than I do Audience but that’s because I expect more from film than the average American. Out of my consumable media, period. I hate sh*t that doesn’t have substances. My reviews usually reflect that. I can’t stand Zack Snyder or Michael Bay. All their films are is cool looking sh*t and explosions. Neither one of those assholes can tell a story. I use to really like Ridley Scott, but he’ so far up his own ass right now, I don’t even think he could recognize his own masterpiece, Alien, even if he were to sit and watch it. Rotten Tomatoes does a fantastic job of exposing what’s sh*t and Studios HATE it. Movie executives and stars, alike, have gone on tirades about  how that joint is tanking their films before they even release. No, your movie is sh*t and people don’t want to see sh*t, sir. When BvS got torpedoes, cats claimed Marvel paid reviewers. They didn’t. Then they claimed critics didn’t get it because it was too heady. It wasn’t. Then they said it was for the fans. Yo, if your fans look at BvS and see a masterpiece, they’re drunk. Same goes for Suicide Squad, every Transformers film except for the first, and the majority of Adam Sandler’s library. All Rotten Tomatoes does is let you see that “Thumbs Down” before you pay your cash as opposed to having to wait for a reviews in the paper or a magazine. No one is doing that. By the time Ebert got his two cents in, you had already seen that trash or not. Now, thanks to the intrerwebs and RT, you can get an idea about how sh*t a film might be BEFORE you spend your hard earned cash. Lesson to be learned? Hollywood should stop making sh*ta and RT won’t have to sh*t all over them.

Ultimately, Hollywood needs to evolve and fast. We live in an age where information is at our fingertips. Where we can speak to someone on the other side of the country through facetime or skype. Finding a review of a film is as easy as google. Hell, finding the film, itself, is as easy as a torrent site. Yo want to make money in this new age? Stop patronizing your audience. Make sh*t that is both engaging, accessible, and challenging. It’ not hard. Netflix does that sh*t regularly. FX, too. A24 also has a fantastic track record as a distributor. It’s not hard to make a great film, with a great director, on a modest budget. Stop meddling with your talent and them craft their narrative. If the investment is small, you can just shelve the thing and write it off. Split was one of the best films I’ve seen all year and it was a cheap, beautiful, great, f*cking story that added to an established universe, and gave me one of the most brilliant performances I have ever seen. Make more films like that. Stop making bloated, explosion packed excuses to load a bunch of computer effects on film. Scaling back does wonders for perspective.

In the 60s when the Baby Boomers started coming of age, we got Spielberg, Scorsese, and Coppola. Look what they created. It happened again in the 80s. We got Cameron, Hughes, and Cronenberg. The Nineties gave us Tarantino and the aughts gifted us Edgar Wright and Christopher Nolan. These cats started their careers making small films and grew into the powerhouses that they are today. No one is pocket checking James Cameron or Steven Spielberg. No one is telling Tarantino or Coppola or Scorsese to re-shoot a scene. Why is it okay for Trank or Wright to have their vision torpedoed by a bunch of glorified bean counters? Hollywood’s biggest problem I that it’s become too much of an industry, There’s too much money at stake so risk has gone out the window. But that’s not what movies were supposed to be. We movie goers are called Patrons because we’re supporting artists. Let these artists paint, man. Stop trying to stifle creativity for the almighty dollar. Doing so is just going to make you lose more than if you let an up and coming talent, make the movie they want.