#the cinematography in this movie stands out to me so much every time I watch it like man the colours .. beautiful

[pyersiki]

high plains drifter studies but with John Marston instead

[somedayillbepeterpan]

Finally, I am able to continue this series.

I started doing The Butterfly Ball analysis as a way to get it out of my head because it had burrowed deep inside my brain that it was rotting my thoughts (which still hasn't stopped).

To understand my ramblings fully, you can go to the other parts here:

Start here | Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4

Here we go for: PART 5: BLOCKING AND WHERE COLIN WAS WHILE PEN WAS REVEALING HERSELF AS LW

I've decided to chop this part into smaller pieces too because when I started part 5, the whole thing was way too long for my attention span. I really am so sorry about the deluge of thoughts that I have for this scene. I'm half tempted to copy Sammy Bates and create videos but I do not have the same talent that she has. So, you're stuck with me and my barrage of written thoughts.

Anyway, Part 5.1 - The stage layout

We've talked about the shape of the venue. We've talked about the aesthetics of the event. We've talked about clothes. And we've talked about music and dances.

Now, let's get to the nitty-gritty of things. Let's talk about the blocking of the whole scene. To start it off, we have to understand the layout of stage.

Just for context, at one point in my life, I studied cinematography and I love movies so I get keyed up with blocking and camera angle choices.

To give importance to how important this scene is, sweeping/panning shots that is 360 degrees in motion with about 150, maybe 200 people, in one room is a nightmare in logistics. Every shot has to matter and every shot has to be reviewed and set up precisely. Most of the ball scenes takes 1 week to shoot because of how technical it is. There is an interview of Tom Verica talking about plotting the whole scene (I think it was the Vanity Fair one).

The particular weight of this ball is shown in how it's set-up like a centre stage. Even the lighting and the floor design draws your attention inward. Out of the three seasons' Ep 8 balls, this is the only one elevated and without anything disrupting the centre.

I've drafted a diagram to fully understand how the whole stage looks like.

**you guys are allowed to call me crazy after this post.

There are 4 major sides that I will call anchor points as we go around this layout.

Entrance (in between the two bug cages)

Side entrance 1

Side entrance 2

Ostrich feathers

One particular stand out for me are the pillars around the stage. The pillars hides and distinctly divides each of the 4 anchor points. While this might go past a regular viewers' head, someone looking for it (or a crazy person like me) will understand the significance of each anchor point. It helps easily assign people on each side and and use blocking (+ camera shots) as a great storytelling device.

These 4 anchor points become very important when Pen goes on stage.

Because every single one of it stands an important woman in Pen's life.

(going clockwise from the entrance) Anchor point 1: Prudence by the entrance

Anchor point 2: Portia by side entrance 1

Anchor point 3: Philippa (+ Albion) by the Ostrich feathers

and Eloise (next to Fran, Alice Mondrich, and Lady Danbury) right by Anchor point 4: Side entrance 2

I just loved that every time Pen turned around, there was someone for her to look at and ground herself. Because what she did, being vulnerable and exposing that part of herself she has kept hidden for a very long time, couldn't have been easy.

(We will get to Colin after the next post if you're wondering where he is in all of this).

I understand that some people were disappointed in how the LW reveal/fallout was portrayed but just for a while, let me help you appreciate that in Pen's most vulnerable moment, these women had equal parts surprise and awe on their faces as they watch their sister/daughter/best friend own up to her mistakes and face the Queen herself. And while we didn't get much out of them in the aftermath in terms of communication, it was still wonderful to know that in the end, all these women become/is important for Pen to fully embrace who she is.

I'm hoping to put all of these out every 1-2 days so I can finally move on to writing other things.

Next up: Part 5.2 The Queen and the bugs

[greenesmyfavcolor]

I got to see Wicked Part 1 yesterday so here’s a little review of it! Spoilers for the movie and Wicked in general if you have not seen it yet! (which YOU SHOULD)

I don’t think I’ve ever mentioned this before on here but I’m actually a super big fan of Wicked (I mean, who isn’t though, right?) I first got into it when I was around 12 and since then, I’ve seen bootlegs of it tens of hundreds of times, collected all sorts of things such as shirts, cds, posters, pins, books (yes I even read that book lol), and I even had the privilege of seeing it on Broadway a couple years back. It also got me into Kristin Chenoweth who I actually got to see in concert too! (No disrespect to the other queen ofc)

So basically, I went into this movie ready to be real critical if need be since Wicked holds a special place in my heart and I didn’t want anything in this to be a downgrade from the stage musical.

That being said, Wicked Part 1 was one of the best movie musicals I’ve ever seen. I loved, loved, LOVED LITERALLY everything about it!!! Everything from the songs, to the acting, choreography, set design, cinematography, you name it, it was PERFECT.

The one thing I was really worried about going into it was the pacing since the movie is two and a half hours long compared to Act 1 of the stage show which is only about an hour. But honestly, nothing felt dragged out and there were no unnecessary scenes added to bloat things. Everything went at a completely natural pace, definitely slower compared to the stage show but it made sense and it’s definitely not the first movie musical adaptation to do this. Because it was at a slower pace, it made the characters and scenes feel more fleshed out compared to the stage musical which was great to see.

The music was also on POINT. I had no doubts that Cynthia and Ariana were going to be anything less than amazing, and of course they didn’t disappoint. But there’s been so many movie musicals lately that just straight up don’t have good music in them? Like, the one thing you’re supposed to get right, they can’t even get that right. It’s definitely gotten better over the past couple years but most of them still aren’t as good as they could be. And as someone who’s lived and breathed the original Broadway cast album for years, I can see myself choosing to listen to the movie’s soundtrack over the Broadway’s any day. Some parts just scratch my brain better so to speak than they do in the original like “dear Galinda you are just too good how do you stand it I don't think I could” in What Is this Feeling? or “who's the mage whose major itinerary is making all Oz merrier” in One Short Day. Now I’m probably still gonna end up listening to the Broadway version the majority of the time, mainly out of nostalgia, but the movie’s is 100% on par with the original’s, no questions asked. The ensemble especially just blew me away with how clear and distinct everyone sounded, particularly during No One Mourns the Wicked and One Short Day. As they should though! We’ve become too sensitized to movie musicals today having muted and flavorless or just straight up bad voices in them that it was so refreshing to hear actual good, strong singing voices in a musical.

One big criticism I’ve heard most people having with the movie though is that the lighting is too bright and that the colors are faded and bland. I’m not sure if it’s because I’ve gotten used to just about every live action movie nowadays looking like this but it really didn’t bother me when I watched it. Obviously, I would have preferred for the colors to pop more like they do in the 1939 Wizard of Oz. And the thing is, there is one moment where the colors do pop during the end of Popular and it looks SO good and like the whole movie should have been like that. But personally, it doesn’t hender my experience as much as it does with other people to the point where I can easily just ignore it.

Moving on, let me tell you, I cried so many times throughout the whole thing it’s not even funny. Now, I cry nearly every time I watch Wicked but it’s impressive that it was able to let me capture the EXACT same feelings I have when I watch a slime tutorial of it, or heck, even when I watched it on freaking Broadway itself. One notable scene was during No One Mourns the Wicked where before, I never truly took into account of how hurt Glinda must feel to try and hide all the pain and regret she’s feeling on the inside in front of everyone. But seeing the anguish on her face when she had to light the statue of Elphaba on fire SENT ME. It’s not something you can really pick up on a stage fifty feet away from you so seeing all the emotions on her face up close really choked me up. Another time was when Elphaba and Glinda dance together. Seeing Elphaba cry (which were real tears by Cynthia btw) for being truly accepted for the first time in her life really moved me like no other time I’ve watched that scene as, like I’ve said before, you can’t see the nuance of their faces on a far away stage. And of course, Defying Gravity had me bawling like a baby. It always does, but like I said before, it was able to capture the same feeling I had as when I saw it live on stage, it was incredible.

Also, I was totally NOT expecting Idina Menzel and Kristin Chenoweth to appear the way they did! I knew they were going to make some sort of cameo, it was inevitable, but I thought they were just going to have a couple of lines to say or something. But NOPE! They straight up have their own new part to sing during One Short Day that COMPLETELY caught me off guard. I legit almost screamed in the theater 🤣 But yeah, that moment was really special and made me smile cause I could see just how much not only they enjoyed being there with all the little homages they made, but how much you could tell the other actors just absolutely adored being around them. And even if you went into this not knowing who they were beforehand (which how could you), you could tell that they were supposed to be a big deal based on their presence alone and Cynthia and Ariana’s chemistry with them.

So to conclude this long, drawn out review that I’d be impressed if anyone actually read all the way through, I think it’s of perfect of an adaptation as it could have been and it will definitely go down as being one of the best movie musicals of all time. Obviously if you’ve seen just a glimpse of me, you’d know that I already have an all time favorite, and that’s not changing anytime soon, but I’d be lying if I said Wicked didn’t come scarily close to topping it (not too close tho lol). I’m literally so shocked at how good this adaptation ended up being. I fear this is going to be my new personality for the next few months as it’s definitely reignited my love for Wicked again 😭

I absolutely cannot wait for Part 2 to come out next year so in the meantime, I will happily be rewatching Part 1 over and over again until then as it is THE definitive version of Wicked to watch now 💚🩷

[pandoramsbox]

Sci-Fi Saturday: Dr. Cyclops

Week 20:

Film(s): Dr. Cyclops (Dir. Ernest B. Schoedsack, 1940, USA)

Viewing Format: Blu Ray

Date Watched: 2021-10-29

Rationale for Inclusion:

In looking over a list of science fiction films of the 1940s, most of the feature films were more horror than sci-fi: sequels to Universal Horror movies, dipped more into fantasy than science fiction, and/or re-hashes of the core story of Frankenstein. Narratives where science fiction didn't come conjoined with horror were mostly found in serials, like the Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon serials discussed last week. Across all formats, the mad scientist remained the mainstay of the genre.

Representative of this decade sci-fi cinema is this week's film, Dr. Cyclops (Dir. Ernest B. Schoedsack, 1940, USA). Mad scientist? Check. Horror paired with science fiction? Check.

On a technical level, however, Dr. Cyclops is a standout. It was the first science fiction film ever shot in 3-strip "glorious" Technicolor and one of the first sci-fi films to be nominated for a Best Special Effects Academy Award. These characteristics made it stand out and secure a spot on this survey. 

Reactions:

On a technical level, Dr. Cyclops did not disappoint. The Technicolor was vivid without being over the top, and my partner and I were both surprised by the quality of the visual effects. It was the first time on the survey where we found ourselves going "Oh, the effects are good" with no caveats, including but not limited to "for the era." Black and white cinematography can cover up a lot of sins when it comes to visual effects work, so the fact that we had this reaction to a color film was all the more notable to us.

An aspect of the film that took us by surprise, but in retrospect really should have been more obvious was how much of the film was based on the cyclops episode from Homer's Odyssey. The name "Dr. Cyclops" should have been a dead giveaway, but cyclopses are mythological creatures that existed prior to Homer's epic poem chronicling Odysseus's fraught trip home from the Trojan war, and their name has been applied to various works, characters, and vehicles without invoking the story of Polyphemus. Nevertheless, it wasn't until the bespectacled Dr. Thorkel (Albert Dekker) uses his experimental shrink ray on a group of unsuspecting scientists, and traps them in his lab, did the allusion sink in. Like Odysseus and his crew, despite their disadvantage in size, the scientists must use their cunning to blind their poorly visioned captor and escape. 

I was also amused to note that since Dr. Thorkel's shrink ray is powered by radium it means that, like The Invisible Ray (Dir. Lambert Hillyer, 1936, USA), Dr. Cyclops is a pre-Atomic Age atomic sci-fi film. Labeling a film as being "atomic sci-fi" will rapidly lose its novelty once we get to movies made during the Cold War, which is why I find examples of atomic energy figuring in science fiction narratives made prior to the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 fascinating.

It also had not occurred to me until later that Dr. Cyclops would be the first film of this survey to deal with characters being miniaturized or shrinking. Using the survey as an excuse to watch The Incredible Shrinking Man (Dir. Jack Arnold, 1957, USA) and Fantastic Voyage (Dir. Richard Fleischer, 1966, USA) had occurred to me, but had I been thinking about shrinking people as a recurring sci-fi narrative, as I did killer brains, robots, and devolution, I would have included The Devil-Doll (Dir. Tod Browning, 1936, USA) in the survey too.

Oh well. I keep being reminded that when this project started it was meant as a representative survey and not a mission to watch every available science fiction film ever made. Still, I wish that I had given titles from the silent era through the 1940s the same attention I would later give films of the 1950s and 1960s.

[adamwatchesmovies]

Hereditary (2018)

Keen viewers will foresee the ending of Hereditary fairly early on. Having seen the film three times now, I’ve realized that's not a bug; it's a feature. The point is that you see the train coming but you can't move out of its way. With a superb performance by Toni Collette at its center, terrific, inventive cinematography and impeccable direction by Ari Aster (his feature-film debut), it's a joy to examine the filmmaking at work. It also happens to be horrifying.

Following the death of her estranged mother, Annie Graham (Toni Collette) attends a loss support group to try and cope. She’s been sleepwalking again and can't shake the feeling that something's... not right at home.

In class, Annie’s son, Peter (Alex Wolff) isn’t paying attention to his teacher's lesson, but he should be. The students are asked whether it’s more tragic for a hero to know they're doomed but be unable to change their fate, or be unaware of the misfortune awaiting them. This idea is what makes the ending of "Hereditary" work. There’s something about watching people slowly inching their way towards annihilation unsettling. With every passing second, you can feel the walls of their cage tightening. You’re an outsider, powerless to react and when the danger is as intense as it is in Hereditary, you’re glad to be nothing but an onlooker. In the most intense scenes, nothing could be more frightening than the characters turning towards you for help. Of course you would if you could. Annie, Steve (Gabriel Byrne), Peter and Charlie (Milly Shapiro) go through so much you don’t want them to suffer but your curiosity has also gotten the better of you. What’s coming will surely make your skin crawl and your hairs stand on end but you want to see just to be sure. Maybe things will go a different way. Or maybe they’ll go exactly how you expect they will.

Key images in the film fill me with dread just thinking about them. It makes me want to claw my eyes out so I don’t have to see them anymore, which makes me admire the filmmaking even more. The longer you look at this movie, the more things you notice. In many scenes there are symbols hidden in the background, there are things standing in the darkness, recurring images and foreshadowing telling you what’s incoming. It all ties back to that question posed to Peter. The more you see, the more you wonder whether you want the characters to know what you do or if you’d rather they stay ignorant of the doom that awaits them. The recurring theme of decapitation is on its own more than enough to give you the willies.

The performance by Toni Colette turns something you would normally passively watch into a reality you’re forced to confront. Her wails as she cries pierce your chest and wrap their fingers around your heart. Her panic as she pieces together what’s actually going on is palpable even if you don’t quite understand all of the “rules”. This film is quite good at giving you the minimum amount of information required and leaving the rest for your mind to fill in the blanks. If you're the king of person that won’t be able to sleep until you know everything that happened, don't worry. There are a few scenes that spell it out for you. Our lead is so good you’re likely to overlook how well everyone else does with their roles. Milly Shapiro, for instance. You’d never guess A) she was 15 at the time and B) that she’s a perfectly normal teenaged girl. Obviously they used prosthetics to make her look the way she does but she so subtly off you just don’t know what to make of her.

There are certain aspects of the film you could criticize. Hereditary is essentially a modern update on a couple of well-known horror films and a scene during the beginning makes it very easy for you to know this story’s final destination. This may detract from some of the fun but it certainly won’t take away the scares. In fact, it gets more intense, more terrifying upon rewatches because your eyes can focus less on what’s happening in the foreground and more on the stuff hidden in the margins. There’s a brilliant scene with a rolling ball every aspiring horror filmmaker needs to take note of. It's just one example of the many scenes ready to conjure up some recurring nightmares. (March 20, 2020)

[unpassive-viewer]

The Bear: Season 2 Thoughts (Mild Spoilers)

Hey y’all,

I binged The Bear S2 this week and I have things to say.

This show is so visually beautiful, the shots of the food, the tight shots on the actors - everything was gorgeous. The cinematography impacted the story so perfectly in a way that I am not used to witnessing in television versus movies. 

I was rooting for every single character so much. Their stories were all expanded upon so well, and none of them were static. The acting was 10/10, I really bought the development of the relationships even though some of them seemed a little random coming off of S1. The writing for Carmy was perfect as a product of his dysfunctional environment (disclosure: my family is very similar to his, it was like watching myself in a character). Jamie Lee Curtis’ acting made me want to crawl out of my skin, which is a testament to how well she played the part. 

In particular, I fell in love with Richie and Tina this season. 

Richie got the perfect redemption arc - this season was truly his and I loved it. I could not stand him in S1, but S2 fleshed out his character so well. I want his character to get win after win, and I think he has has a long way to go in S3 (should we get it). Matty Matheson’s character was also a great counterweight to Ebon’s pessimism, I thought their dynamic was a lot of fun. 

I feel similarly about Tina’s character. This season you’re really able to understand their motivations and fears, which I always adore. Liza was incredible in the role. On one hand I think the show is best as a stand-alone, but I could also watch Tina’s story by itself. Both she and Richie get a huge dose of self-confidence this season and it makes for a very endearing, relatable story. I think very often stories that involve that kind of realization are very commodified and dramatized when it comes to middle-aged protagonists, but the growth of these characters felt very real and well-deserved. (Side note - I follow Liza on Instagram now and she’s such a sweet lady. She reminds me so much of my mom.)

Sydney - Ayo Edebiri - is an incredible character and Ayo’s writing was perfection. Syd’s and Carmy’s signing “I’m sorry” was a really interesting touch and encapsulates their dynamic so well. I also oddly love the way she’s styled. When she’s not wearing her work clothes, her style isn’t flashy, but she looks fantastic always. Her style is so reflective of her character - often slouched, baggy styles with pops of colour. In my opinion she looks like an artist - a creative - which I’d say is pretty accurate to her reality. 

Lionel Boyce’s portrayal of Marcus was once again very sweet, and I liked his somewhat less dramatic character arc. I didn’t love his little outburst at the end of the season, but as a character that’s been such a consistent teddy bear it’s nice to see some more conflict introduced to his story. 

After this season, I want more Will Poulter and Olivia Colman. I am very much in love with them, and their brief parts in the series were so lovely (despite feeling a little random). Olivia Colman brings the most incredible energy to every project I have seen her in, she is radiant and I love her. I also love the attention to detail with Poulter’s tattoos having a story behind them. 

Claire was a good character as well, but she didn’t have the same effect on me as Poulter and Colman. While they’re all static characters, Claire was just... too perfect. Not entirely manic pixie dream girl perfect, but I didn’t find her particularly compelling. For what the character was, she was played well by Molly Gordon, and it was nice to see Carmy get the chance to be something other than an anxious unhappy wreck for a few episodes. 

My singular big criticism as of now is that there was so much compressed into this season that it all felt a little random. There were a lot of characters introduced in a very short period of time. While it was nice to see the environment external to the restaurant and I think all of those characters fit very well, it was just a lot. I think the Christmas dinner episode was very important to the story, but the rest of the season could have used a little more breathing room that that episode took up. 

I binged it, but this show deserves to be mulled over. 

[knownbyanothername]

I saw the FNAF movie awhile back and thought I'd put down some of my thoughts on it. Spoilers down below.

On one hand, I can kind of understand why if I was a critic who had no attachment, let alone knowledge of FNAF, that I might rate this film really low. Not only would it be a thing of, I guess no 'bias', but the flaws in the film would stand out way more to me… however, the thing is, as a person who is, on some level, familiar with FNAF, and has some attachment to it through at least the people who are close to me… yeah, I enjoyed this film a great deal, actually. Maybe it could be said to be bias– but I can tell there's far more heart in the making of this film than the 18321612893961328968123698123132th disney remake with a minor gay character.

I feel like I need need NEEEEEED to make special mention OF the design of this film in general? Like oh my god. Maybe I would have liked it to be a bit too authentic– how it was shot gave me some very… 'modern' vibes that for a moment I mistakenly thought it was more like the modern 2020s instead of… I think the late 90s/early 2000s? Otherwise, though, the cinematography of this film is so GOOD. Every scene is a delight and I never found myself bored– especially with how they designed the Pizzaria oh my goddddddd……. Not to mention THE ANIMATRONICS THE FACT THEY MADE ACTUAL ANIMATRONICS AND SUITS AND DIDNT USE CGI LIKE. THAT IN OF ITSELF IS A HUGE DELIGHT.

Also… okay, on one hand, the acting can sometimes be… a little hoaky. Like there were some parts where I thought that there could have been a second take. However, otherwise, most of it was really solid! I especially loved the actor for Michael– he did extremely well during the movie and carried it, along with William Afton just… I make a chef kiss motion. The second half of the movie was just fantastic– and on a rewatch I actually really appreciated how nervous he was when he read Mike's last name like, 'oh, shit, it's this kid'. In any case the acting wasn't terrible and was really fun at times.

Now, much like with the acting, I did think the writing could have… used another go around. It's not like god awful to me or anything but there's a lot of repetition, a lot of 'this information could have been stated in a more efficient way or you should have trusted that your audience got the point the first time around', and also a lot of… I think wasted screen time that could have been spent on stuff like the animatronics and Michael and Abby (love her so much). That being said: Oh My God Michael Fans Are Eating Well and So Am I. For a character that never had that much official depth to him they did a fantastic job with him.

Overall: I have to conclude that the movie… distinctly is made for a certain type of audience, obviously– for fans of FNAF, which isn't exactly a small audience. Saying 'I can understand why outside critics wouldn't like it' is like saying 'well I can see why someone who doesn't usually drink wine wouldn't like this one'-- like, yes, objectively, they can have their opinion… but it isn't made for them. Now, granted, people who do like FNAF can still have their opinion on it… but idk, there's so much stuff out there that is a more 'ideal, scary, and mature' take on this property (not derogatory) that like I can appreciate the film series– and it makes me excited for the sequel. I was even able to appreciate it even more on a second watch. Overall, I can give this film a solid 3/5.

[theharpermovieblog]

#HARPERSMOVIECOLLECTION

2023

www.tumblr.com/theharpermovieblog

🎃HALLOWEEN LIST 2023🎃

I watched Street Trash (1987)

Never seen this, always wanted to. I'm in for what promises to be a gross-out good time.....or so I'm told.

A liquor store owner starts selling contaminated booze to the homeless community without knowing it has disastrous side effects.

Where would we be without splatter and body horror? Nowhere.

These are sub genres of horror that are often the most effective at turning our stomachs and sticking with us after we leave the theater.

Street Trash is a body horror which is alot like a Troma film, in the way it holds high the gore and wild insanity of pure.....well......pure trash.

Director J. Michael Muro works mainly as a cinematographer, and his talent for it is evident here. The movie features excellent camera work and quite a nice bit of cinematography. There's some really good shots here.

The plot concerns the homeless and the overwhelming amount of Vietnam Vets. Is the movie trying to make a statement? Maybe. But it never really casts any group of people in a good or sympathetic light. I can't say I really walked away liking any of the characters. They're mostly homeless and veteran characters who feel more despicable than they should, which works okay for the problematic comedy they're going for.

What makes Street Trash stand out from other horror flicks is it's balance of a unique horror style. The overuse of bright colorful slime only adds to the weird and disgusting feeling of the movie. People breakdown into fluorescent greens and purples and blues and yellows, melting into acidic paint splatter and sizzling bones. On top of that, street Trash uses a heightened version of the real world to create a film designed to make the audience offended. I mentioned Troma films earlier, and if you've seen a Troma film, you know the purposeful offensive type of stuff I'm talking about. While it's not my favorite style of in your face cinema, I'd argue it has it's place, and I'd argue Street Trash is the better version of a Troma film, simply because it's technically better.

Its fun in places, but it's dirty atmosphere and it's lack of direction began to bum me out a bit. There's not much in the way of a main character and every character in it kind of sucks, and it's view of the world is funny at first and then it gets depressing. Then you realize how much it wants you to laugh at slurs and sexual assault and homeless people. It's just not really enjoyable when watching through today's more progressive and empathetic lens.

The special effects are gross and cool.

[burritosandpeppermint]

So I decided to finally watch 'Willow' the series (I'm generally more into sci fi but everyone here who's been watching it seems to appreciate it and I generally trust y'all) but first I watched 'Willow' the movie which I have no recollection of having watched since I saw it in the theater with my dad when it first came out.

First, a dorky little review of the movie:

I don't' want to spend too much time on this partly because I know people have a nostalgia boner for it whereas I simply do not care about it. Like, I'm sorry, but I don't. Upon rewatching it I remembered some scenes being so disturbing or frightening they elicited a verbal response from me - when Raziel was being changed from a common bush possum into a raven, or the trolls looking like creeping shadows, or when the troll gets turned into that two headed thing - but besides the above and, honestly, the attractiveness of practically everyone involved it just didn't stick with me. High fantasy can require a high buy-in and if it's a one-off movie I just don't return to it often, or at all. That being said, it's not bad! I mean, the fighting sequences feel clunky, the acting is hit or miss (I want to say that Val Kilmer was given some direction that might've run against his instincts from time to time)(but he's still good and fun to watch), and it is literally a movie on the cusp between older special effects and the new CGI movement, so a mixed bag there, but it's also fun! The shield toboggan was thrilling! The cinematography is right where you want it to be! Dogs in costume! (I remember my dad laughing about that; I did the same when I watched it yesterday). So, it's fine. Not a childhood favorite but definitely a 1988 Ron Howard movie...probably a little too much George Lucas in it, but still. You do what you can with what you have.

Now, the series: I love it! There are so many layers.

The prince is a flirt who's kidnapped and the princess has to go rescue him.

Actual queer people portraying queer characters.

Every character is on their own journey, even as they're on the same collective journey, and moving from one to the other from scene to scene feels seamless.

People have conflict and regrets, and that's okay. It sucks to be tortured by your past but what matters is how you move forward.

It's fucking gorgeous.

There's probably more but the reason I'm writing this is because I can NOT stand...the music.

You thought I was going to say dialogue, weren't you? Well, guess what. After five minutes in I realized that the dialogue was modern in nature. I kept noticing it for about another five minutes and then I just stopped noticing it. It's fine. It's a series that's trying to tell a high fantasy story to a modern audience; what matters is what happens, not explicitly how they talk. And this may be a bit crude but if using modern ways of speaking takes you out of a fantasy show and you're missing something written by a literal philologist who created his own languages then go jack off into 'The Silmarillion' and leave us alone (and order a new copy, for god's sake; that thing's getting too crusty).

...but the end music. THAT takes me out of it. Every time. The end of the third episode? Fucking 'Enter Sandman?' No. I'm very emotionally open to what's been happening, receptive to all, and at the climax to the episode I'm immediately jolted into seeing that big rig hit that bed. What? Why? Maybe it's just me but it breaks the entire idea of escapism. So, maybe...you know what? I was going to try to find a similar way to end this paragraph as I did the previous one but I'm just gonna end with this period.

My only other minor gripes are similar to most other modern productions: the scene at the end of episode three was...fighting? Hard to say, it's fucking dark as hell. Yes, I get it, it's night, but also guess what? We can imply night without making it super dark; hell, 'Nope' did night wonderfully (albeit with newer "daytime as nighttime" technology than what's been used before). The other one is with dialogue volume...but more specifically with regards to the fact that most actors now wear lavalier microphones which allows fore more natural speech to come through, so actors can speak more quietly or mumble and it gets picked up. And boy, do they mumble! Maybe it's a generational thing; I feel like the younger actors are more comfortable speaking towards the back of their throats whereas the more experienced actors tend to speak towards their lips and teeth. Literally a difference in elocution. Maybe mumble/whisper core is better for some, but to return slightly to a "Why are they talking that way?" point of view it does take me out of what I'm watching if I have to constantly rewind it before giving up and putting on closed captions.

Otherwise, I love it, and I can't wait to continue it.

[zalrb]

can you talk about how pacing works in tv/movies.

"sorry this is an add on to the last ask. what was wrong with the pacing in siren"

pacing is a tricky thing in tv, movies and books, it's something i struggle with personally in writing. and sometimes pacing is intentionally slow and sometimes pacing is intentionally really fast. but for me, good pacing is a balance between plot and character development so you feel like things are moving along without losing emotional beats and character relationships. fnl is a character based show but one of the reasons why i love the pilot is because the pacing is excellent. i broke down the first 7 minutes of the first episode and everything you learn in those 7 minutes

a show like siren would take an entire episode to hit these points and the characters would be one-dimensional along the way.

barry is phenomenal at pacing, like i've watched the first season and read the script over and over to work it out because it's economical af, there's no fat, but it doesn't feel rushed, you still get to breathe and it's because they use everything at their disposal, they use dialogue, they use setting, they use cinematography and it keep the show on a rhythm.

a show like succession on the other hand is a slow burn and it's a slow pace but it's for a reason, everything is deliberate, every twitch of a character, where a person stands, if a person coughs that all matters and the slow pace immerses you with these people and makes you live in the tension of a scene, traps you with kendall not being able to finish a sentence and logan judging him and it builds and it builds and it builds until the episode where everything pops off.

siren, from what i can remember, was just slow and slow without a purpose where i would be like can we move it along, these stretched out pauses why are we doing this, while at the same time not giving me any reason to care about any of these characters.

[thesinisterseventh]

My Top First-Time Watch Movies of 2022

Warning: this post is super fucking long and contains brief reviews for several movies, so I put it under a read more for you. Also, the opinions reflected in here are purely my own—and I added little content warnings for films that I personally believe needed them, if you haven’t seen them yet.

1. Scrooge (2022)

I feel bad for putting THIS at the top of my list, but my autistic brain latched onto this one like a hungry leech. I am a sucker for animated musicals.

Every song in this movie is a banger. The movie is a very fresh take on A Christmas Carol, with some of the best expressive character animation I’ve seen this year! Probably my favorite take on Jacob Marley’s ghost, as well. This movie actually didn’t forget that it’s the charity and company that Scrooge can’t stand about the season, not Christmas itself, which is a trap a lot of modern adaptations fall into.

I ended up rewatching this one several times instead of going through my holiday movie list. Highly recommended if you enjoyed movies like The Greatest Showman!

2. The Haunting (1963)

Now, my favorite novel of all time is The Haunting of Hill House by Shirley Jackson, so the fact that this skyrocketed to the near top of the list was a shocker. But it really isn’t a shocker!

This film is an absolute gem! It has a mastery of foreboding atmosphere and “show, don’t tell.” Oftentimes you’ll come away from a supernatural experience with more questions than answers—but that’s what I love about it (and the book it was based on) so much! The cinematography feels so cold and isolating, a perfect choice. The cast is absolutely phenomenal and I adored that the film incorporated my favorite passage from the book in the script.

“No live organism can continue for long to exist sanely under conditions of absolute reality; even larks and katydids are supposed, by some, to dream. Hill House, not sane, stood by itself against the hills, holding darkness within; it had stood so for eighty years and might stand for eighty more. Within, walls continued upright, bricks met neatly, floors were firm, and doors were sensibly shut; silence lay steadily against the wood and stone of Hill House, and whatever walked there, walked alone.”

- first paragraph of Shirley Jackson’s The Haunting of Hill House

3. Knives Out (2019)

Now, before I watched this, I’ll admit I love a good mystery, but I wasn’t a “whodunnit” kind of person. This film utterly changed my mind on the genre, and I hope they release like 50 more of these before me or Daniel Craig kicks the bucket.

I think it’s actually his work that makes this film such a standout for me; he’s a lovely revival of the detective character, as competent as he is “out there.” As someone native to the Southern USA, I actually find his accent rather charming and comforting—but maybe that’s part of his shtick, playing it up to make others feel comfortable. It’s a great character choice.

The mystery in the film is fantastic and, just when you think you have it figured out, the film—and Blanc—are one step ahead of you.

To the emetophobic: BEWARE. There’s no amount of looking away that will save you. I promise.

4. Del Toro’s Pinocchio (2022)

First of all, damn, this movie. This was one of my most anticipated films of the year, and it did not disappoint in the slightest. Hell, the only reason this isn’t number one is that the previous three played to my personal tastes more.

As someone who grew up adoring Disney’s Pinocchio, I was apprehensive about this one, given that Disney’s, while endearing, has its own issues (Stromboli, the unresolved Pleasure Island donkey subplot, and I learned recently that sweet Gepetto was apparently voiced by a motherfucking Nazi sympathizer. Actually, come to think of that last point, it makes this film a LOVELY middle finger to that guy.)

This is a film that speaks to the sweetness of innocence but also its dangers. Whereas the original Pinocchio championed obedience to one’s elders, this film asks, “Why? But what if our elders are wrong?” I think this film will actually be such a great way to explain the concept of fascism to children and why it’s so prevalent and dangerous today. Also, this has one of my favorite interpretations of the fairy, but I won’t spoil her!

Also, let Ewan McGregor sing.

5. Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind (1984)

I have admittedly not watched all of the Ghibli movies, and I did not have the privilege to see them in my childhood. I actually like that I get to watch these with an expanded palette, so to speak.

We watched the English dub of this movie, and it was extremely well done. I also adored the post-apocalyptic fantasy aesthetic of this movie—Miyazaki went nuts with the alien flora. As someone who started out with Howl’s Moving Castle and Ponyo, I was surprised at the more mature turn the film took, but I think that’s why it’s become one of my favorites.

6. Nope (2022)

Holy shit. Holy FUCK.

This is actually the one film on this list that falls squarely into the category of “that was the best movie I’ve ever seen! Please never let me watch it again!”

This is pants-shitting.

I normally do decent with horror flicks, but this one had me squeezing my fiancée’s hand in abject terror in the theater. I won’t spoil the twist, but the marriage of the Old West and the alien gave this movie such a unique atmosphere. You’ve never seen anything like it, and probably never will again.

Keke Palmer’s performance is the greatest, without a doubt.

To the severely claustrophobic, heed my warning: this film WILL trigger you. Just take my word for it as someone who isn’t. Also, very much implied child death hell. One of the several reasons this was a fabulous one-and-done.

7. Glass Onion (2022)

It’s very difficult for a film written about recent events DURING those recent events to feel timely, but somehow, this film pulled it off.

Daniel Craig doubles down on Blanc’s character for this film, and he’s as hysterical as ever. Janelle Monae’s performance, though, blows his miles out of the water. If she doesn’t get some kind of award for this film, we riot. 

Also, if you hate the Elongated Muskrat, you will have a very good cackle at several parts of this movie.

The central mystery isn’t quite as good as Knives Out, but after watching it, that may sort of be the point. Make that judgment for yourself.

8. Psycho (1960)

I was hesitant about this one. However, this film is such a historic landmark that I couldn’t just leave it alone. This film is sort of a proto-slasher, the beginning of your Friday the 13th series, your Nightmare on Elm Street, and so on.

Also, at the time, the Hays Code was still in effect, which did not allow certain things to be depicted. This film stirred up a bit of controversy by showing a flushing toilet onscreen, unavoidable since the flushed material contains some important clues. (This actually isn’t the first American film to depict a flushing toilet, though—there’s a movie called Going Wild from 1930 that has a flushing toilet scene, but the Hays Code didn’t really hammer down on Hollywood until a few years later, so Psycho’s toilet scene is remembered for the taboo of showing it, not for being the first. ✨Trivia!✨)

The film itself is incredibly solid. Anthony Perkins is the standout by far as Norman Bates, though, upon looking into the actor’s biography… without spoiling anything, it makes this film extremely depressing, in hindsight. He does such a fantastic job at portraying a friendliness that is perfectly empty. Still very well done.

As a not-cis person, I feel the need to warn that if you don’t know about the ending, some language and ideas about gender really didn’t age well. It doesn’t end up being the explanation, but be aware of that. It can be pretty awkward, but it wasn’t personally as bad as I was expecting it to be. People with personality disorders may actually have a harder time watching this movie because of archaic stereotypes about them. (I mean, the title isn’t exactly promising about avoiding significant ableism.) Your mileage may vary, but be aware of this if you haven’t seen it and want to watch.

A piece of history!

9. Princess Mononoke (1997)

The animation and the character design for this one is solid, and the dub’s work was pretty good. Admittedly, I do not get the hype behind this one. It is very gorgeous art—but, to me, it didn’t feel like a film. The pacing in a lot of Miyazaki’s work is a slow burn, but this one left me to simmer just a little too long. I felt like I was watching a painting meander for a couple of hours. It was harder to grow attached to characters, and it was just a little too “out there” for me. I acknowledge its beauty and significance, though!

And The Mummy (1932), which was absolute balls and will receive no number. You deserve nothing. The makeup was pretty baller, though.

[naughtygirl286]

So yes we did go and see Oppenheimer and that concluded both halves of "Barbenheimer" as for the movie well I would have to say that I did like it for the most part I felt it was every interesting. I thought the story behind it all was the interesting part about how they come up with the idea to create this bomb and the secret construction of it.

The movie is 3 hours but I didn't feel like it was 3 hours until we left we went to the 5pm showing and left a lil after 8pm lol but there is alot of back story and the movie is incredibly talky and I thought very sciencey and I find you have to pay attention at times its not an action movie its a historical drama, but like I said I felt it was interesting how they came up with the idea and figured out how to make the bomb.

One thing that kinda bothered me about the movie was the time jumping at spots where the majority of the movie takes place before the the dropping of the bomb on Japan but also it jumps to after that and after World War 2 where Oppenheimer is kinda telling the story at this hearing they are having that did kinda confuse me a bit at first

Also while watching the movie I thought Oppenheimer's wife was a total bitch I even told the person I was with that and they were all "well she was standing up for him" which is good she should be standing up for her Husband but at the same time I felt that she was treating him like total shit. It was like she hated her life, him and their kid. I was thinking no wonder he was cheating on her with the other woman when his wife was like that lol

Always with movies like this that are historical biopic type things I do wonder how much of this is actually true? like I'm sure there was extensive research done on this but you still wonder how much of it is 100% true and what was made up or exaggerated for the movie.

anyway I thought it was well acted and very well written and of course it was beautifully filmed and directed I'm sure it will be nominated for stuff like best actor/actress and maybe be some technical stuff like cinematography and score and all that

The best I can say if you want to see it then see it if your interested

[getmemymicroscope]

Okay, so - I don't know who comes up with this stuff, but the Prime Video (and apparently the Google description, too) for this movie reads:

When a famous model is killed, a smart detective investigates after realizing the incident seems to be a mystery.

Now, I know many of the Amazon descriptions are utter shit (like, every word being capitalized, or it just being a list of the actors in it), especially when it comes to Bollywood and other Indian films. But, like... seriously. What in the hell?

He can't be much of a smart detective if he doesn't immediately realize that someone being killed is a mystery. If I wasn't starved for whodunnits, I'd have scoffed at this and moved on. But alas, here we are - so I scoffed at it and then turned it on and watched.

It's a slow-paced mystery that doesn't bring much in terms of story - but what it does excel at is the filming, cinematography, and actual story-telling. Even as the story slogs along, occasionally interrupted by (mostly irrelevant) narrations by our deceased victim, it is what we see and not what we hear that really makes things interesting. The scene, for example, where our detective is hanging onto his daughter on the cliff: I mean, we've heard the "I thought I was holding onto her, but in reality, she was holding onto me" thing multiple times - but the way that is played out/shown here is brilliantly done.

Earlier yet, the scene where our detective first is introduced to the crime scene and the objects in the room move backwards in time to their original location, is brilliantly done. And the scenes where they think out possible scenarios. There is some overkill - the bit where our killer appears to be ascending, for example - but in general, the visuals and the style are undoubtedly the highlights of the movie. The star cast is good too, of course, but they're sort of waylaid by the straight-forward story (though, I guess, the 'motive' for the murder maybe could be something slightly different - a different form of jealousy, I guess?).

The most unnecessary thing, though, was probably the head inspector or whatever he was. He shows up as someone who is telling our detective "just find the first criminal, blame it on them, and wrap up the case," and every scene with him in it is just him making it blatantly clear he doesn't give too shits about solving the case. Also, he makes it clear he's a creep and disgusting - and there was no real reason to have him, or any of that, in the movie.

It's a simple murder mystery with a victim, two detectives, and 5 suspects - and somehow, at the end, only the two detectives are left standing. It may have started at a closed-room type of murder, but by the end, it is very much far from that.

It's not the best Tamil whodunnit/mystery I've seen (Kuttrame Thandanai, Oththa Seruppu Size 7, Thupparivaalan, and Dhuruvangal Pathinaaru all come to mind), but even with the predictability and the huge emphasis on style over substance, and killing off everyone, it is far from the worst (Thegidi; Jiivi, though that's a bit less of a whodunnit).

The style and the visuals, more than anything (though, also, I guess a shout out to Meenakshi Chaudhary, Vijay Antony, and Ritika Singh), make this a passable watch.

[watching-pictures-move]

Movie Review | Cleopatra (DeMille, 1934)

If like me, you’re watching this in the Year of Our Lord 2023, there’s a good chance you’ve already seen the much better known Joseph L. Mankiewicz Cleopatra from 1963 and your attention will very likely gravitate towards the points of comparison. The thing that stands out to me and likely to most people about the latter film is its sheer scale, with its almost ruinously large budget and seemingly financially imprudent set pieces like Cleopatra’s arrival ceremony and a climactic naval battle. So for reasons like that, and for that the fact that I associate such scale with the wiiiiiiiiidescreen frame and glistening colours of the kind of cinematography and long runtimes common in epics from around that period, an Academy ratio black and white movie from the ‘30s isn’t going to feel as grandiose, especially when it runs under two hours.

But I do think the movie feels lavish in other ways, with the shimmering surfaces of jewels and armour lighting up the screen, or the dense compositions in which every corner of the frame is filled with something arresting to look at. So no, it doesn’t feel quite as “big” as the other movie, but in scenes like Cleopatra’s arrival procession, or when she’s entertained by dancers writhing in formation around a cow in the centre of the frame, the movie manages to feel decadent. The fact that the movie opens with a silhouette of a naked woman adds to that decadence. If like me, you’re watching this in the Year of Our Lord 2023 on the Criterion Channel as part of a series on pre-code cinema, you’ll appreciate the way the movie carries a certain charge in those respects. (And if you’re like me, you’re watching this in the Year of Our Lord 2023 on the Criterion Channel and sweating profusely as you scramble to watch this before it’s set to leave at the end at the end of the month.) Every bat of Claudette Colbert’s eyelashes feels at least a little bit sinful in this context. (Colbert and her Marc Antony, Henry Wilcoxon, can’t match the torrential, married-and-divorced-multiple-times passion of Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton, but her screwball repartee with her Julius Caesar, Warren William, goes down a lot better than the DOA romance between Taylor and Rex Harrison.)

And obviously the battle scenes here don’t match the scale of the later movie, but the ones here forgoes the conventional continuity of the other movie for an approach based on montage. Violence and high emotion and almost abstracted action are bracingly edited together, the cuts as percussive as the clanging of swords, and images like the soldier being crushed under a spiked wheel carry an extra jolt.

[cupidssrosses]

i care about this too much

hangman and roosters relationship follows, BEAT. FOR. BEAT. the ‘ex’s getting back together’ plotline i’ve seen in 100 other films about straight relationships. 

the first scene, where hangman swaggers up to rooster, stands like five inches from his face, smirking the whole time while they insult eachother. they’re glancing at eachothers mouths, everyone around them is watching them like this interaction is nothing new. 

rooster telling him he looks good as hangman plays pool veeery slowly and somehow antagonisingly. you can feel how much hes showing off. hangman leaves and pheonix goes up to rooster and says ‘he hasn’t changed’ and rooster is STILL just STARING in his direction and says ‘no he hasn’t (or something like that lol)

then their always making eye contact in the meetings, bantering while their flying then

omg THEN

roosters about to get into the plane and maybe never come home, and this SHOT i swear. it’s like, romantically coded cinematography but a canonically platonic relationship?? and it drives me CRAZY. the camera follows rooster as he walks, and hangman enters the shot and their still for a second. 

they don’t. know what. to say. this could be a goodbye for all they know. the warm lighting, the eye contact, the tension, all of it. 

then finally hangman SAVES HIS LIFE and they say the ‘you look good’ ‘i am good’ lines again. HE LITERALLY IS THE REASON that rooster is still ALIVE. rooster comes home safe, he gets off the plane, hugs EVERYONE ELSE except of the main character and RIGHT here

right here is where after 20 years of watching movies my brain has been trained to expect the love interest to appear and for the romantic subplot to resolve. (idk why how to train your dragon is all i can think of rn but do you remember at the end!?! its the SAME SCENE. hiccup is greeted by a crowd of secondary characters, he talks to them for a second, then the music changes, the crowd parts, and astrid comes up and they have their little ‘thats for everything else’ moment, anyway)

here is structurally where in every other movie the next person to talk to rooster would kiss him. and what do you know hangman arrives, everyone steps back, there’s this importance you can feel. the music changes, so does the tone. this isn't just another character, this interaction means something. god and the way they’re smiling at eachother it gets me everytime. but of course, like he considered going for the kiss but decided against it, hangman offers his hand for a handshake. 

ALL of these scenes. ALL these interactions would have read as romantic if one of them, was a women. its crazy to me. they use the same cinematography, the same type of dialogue, the same direction that you would expect to be used for a romantic subplot, but use it for a platonic subplot. 

a man and a women could interact once with the slightest amount of tension and people would without a second thought assume they’re love interests. these two were out here saving eachothers lives, having the most flirtatious interactions ive seen in ages, but no, they’re just really close friends. 

EDIT/ADDITION: I’ve seen so many people say that rooster and pheonix were ‘clearly fucking’ or ‘clearly had history’ and you know what?? i totally see it!! so valid. plenty of tension. but if you think they had chemistry but rooster and hangman didn’t, the only difference between the two is that they’re the same gender. they had the same amount if. not. more chemistry/tension than either of them did with pheonix

oh also, another example of romantically coded techniques/tropes being used in apparently non-romantic plotlines is the tv show suits. its not every episode but mike and harvey have a bunch of scenes that would read as HEAVILY romantic if either of them was a girl (eg. harvey running in slow motion to stop mike from putting himself in danger was very ‘running through the airport’, but oohhh no they were ‘brothers’ )

[schmergo]

The new West Side Story movie is now on Disney+ and I finally got to watch it tonight. I really enjoyed it and all the dancing and singing (so thrilling to actually hear a soprano role sung by a soprano), I definitely cried in a few spots, and I did like the updated screenplay by Tony Kushner.

 But I just gotta say something. This is not just because of my personal dislike for Ansel Elgort, though it certainly didn't help: I feel like the script could have done something, anything, ANYTHING at all to make Tony come across as even remotely appealing in his interactions with Maria. They fell so, so flat for me, which is a shame because I did feel like there was so much to like in the new script.

Now, this could be totally intentional. Almost every single thing Tony says or does is a massive red flag, and maybe that's this screenplay's way of warning us from the start, "You should be worried about Maria! She is ignoring red flags left and right! This will not end well!" But the movie also seemed to want us to see this version of Maria as smart and fun and assertive and capable, not a completely naive ingenue who could be easily deceived by a scuzzy guy. And if that's how they want to portray Tony and Maria's relationship, it makes us as an audience not care as much about the story at all. I feel like a script (and an actor and a director) has to do a LOT of heavy lifting to make a character at all sympathetic who just killed his love interest's brother. Heck, when Tony climbed up to Maria's window after killing Bernardo, my instinctive thought was, "Push him out of it!"

  I like the idea of what they did with Tony. His backstory of having hurt a guy in a fight, going to prison for a year, having some time to think about things, and resolving to start a new leaf was intriguing. His relationship with Riff was VERY compelling. But gosh, the 'love interest' side of things left me cold. Anita and Bernardo had fantastic chemistry even though their relationship clearly had major problems, but I just did not like how the love scenes between Tony and Maria were written. Let me break it down:

* Okay, that first interaction with Maria was fine, a little awkward but relatively cute. It was sweet how Maria kissed first. Off to a pretty good start.

* Then all of a sudden he shows up at her building by happenstance, which also starts off kinda cute, but quickly goes off the rails.

* He keeps yelling and moving closer and climbing up toward her while she keeps telling him to go home. She's not laughing and smiling, she's worried about Bernardo or whatever. Tony keeps ignoring her and moving closer.

* Dialogue from the scene:

Maria: ¡Tú no puedes estar aquí!

Tony: What's that mean?

Maria: It means go away!

Tony: Can I come up?

Maria: No!

Tony: But I found you!

Maria: Please. My brother's so angry now, he might--

Tony: I'll make him like me. Everybody does.

Maria: There's nobody who everybody likes.

Tony: Yeah, but so long as you like me, I'm okay with that.

Maria: ¡Shh! ¡No hables! Tienes que... Please, you have to go.

(Tony climbs up toward her instead)

Maria: ¡Ay Dios mío! ¡No, no, no, no...!

* So, here's the deal. I'm not exaggerating when I say that during that exchange, the hairs started standing up on the back of my neck and I could feel my heat pounding a little. I know Tony's the romantic lead, but watching him keep climbing up the fire escape toward her while she keeps telling him to leave started freaking me out on a visceral, physical level. It was the same bad vibe I got when Anita walked into Doc's and all of these Jet dudes were staring at her. This is yet another place where the allegations against Ansel Elgort didn't help things. 

  * Also, it's not Ansel Elgort's fault that he's super tall, but some of the cinematography didn't really help, either. I felt like the camera kept emphasizing their height difference and kinda showing him looming over her and casting shadows in the dim light in a way that almost felt... claustrophobia-inducing? Tall guy and short girl can make an ADORABLE screen pair, but not really in this case. Again, maybe it was deliberately trying to show us that he's physically formidable and would be dangerous in a fight, using Maria as a stand-in for her brother. But I don't think I need to tell you why that didn't rub me the right way on screen.

* Then he asks her to run away with him. She kinda coyly says 'maybe I'll run away with you tomorrow,' like, not making any definite promise. Then he starts pushing her to promise. Then when she says she will meet him tomorrow, he says, "You gotta see me tomorrow. Nobody else. Only me." Which is already yet another red flag.

  * THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN MARIA STARTS SINGING "TONIGHT," one of the most thrillingly romantic songs ever written and it took me by such surprise because it seemed like a very big jump from an interaction in which Tony said and did literally NOTHING charming or appealing. I really thought he'd have to say or do more to woo her! I felt like that interaction got off to a terrible start! The rest of the scene is cute, though.

  * Also, this isn't a scene with Maria, but in the scene where he's trying to learn Spanish from Valentina (which is probably the dreamiest thing he does in the whole movie, try to learn some of Maria's language), he does jump straight to "I want to be with you forever," which is very thematically appropriate for both his character, this story, and the Romeo & Juliet root story, but I just want to say that this is yet another red flag if he were a guy in real life. You've gotta have these built-in red flags for an infatuation that develops THAT fast, so I feel like if he's going to say and do stuff like that, you have to offset that by making him REALLY likeable in his other scenes with his love interest for him to still seem appealing, which.... we'll see in a minute doesn't really seem to happen for me.

* He has a plan to take Maria for a cute surprise date at the Cloisters, which, again, good start, but he blows it. She's anxious about her brother and the fight, and Tony keeps dismissing her concerns. He then keeps interrupting her and talking about how actually Riff is the real victim and implying that she and Bernardo are more privileged than Riff, so great, their second (or third, depending on how you count it) date starts off with an argument. Maria basically says something like, "Us liking each other can cause trouble" and, once again, Tony pushes the boundary by saying, "I don't just LIKE you" and concludes the conversation by saying he won't be able to stop the fight.

  * Then they get to their cute date and as soon as they get there, Tony immediately makes himself not-cute by being like, "THIS PLACE REMINDS ME OF WHEN I SAW IT FROM THE WINDOW OF A BUS ON THE WAY TO PRISON! I WAS IN PRISON FOR A YEAR!" And he explains what happened and does a big monologue, but jeez, he's really not making himself seem very attractive at ALL on this date.

* And of course we all know everything that happens after that.

My dream job would probably be one where dudes writing plays or screenplays sent me their scripts and said, "Tell me if this guy comes across as too douchey. Just, like, give me one easy tip to make him a little dreamier!"

Here's a few possible things I'd suggest:

* Make Tony ask more questions about Maria and show more interest in learning about her. Have him compliment her in some way, have him say SOMETHING that he likes about her.

* Have him and Maria express some kind of dreams or hopes for the future. Have them realize those dreams or hopes are compatible. Make us almost believe they could have whatever that life is before snatching it away. Maria mentioned earlier that she'd be interested in going to college. What if Tony encouraged her to do that? What would she study there? What does Tony want? Where could they build a comfortable life?

* Instead of have him step over her boundaries or dismiss her worries, show how decent he can be by having him actually start to go away if she tells him to go away, meaning SHE has to capitulate and be like, "Wait... wait, come back!" Have him maybe consider she could be right about her concerns with the rumble, that Bernardo's jealousy could make this more dangerous. Maybe have him express sorrow that love could make someone so angry instead of just talking about DANG RIFF!

* I think Tony can be more sympathetic if it's clear that he's really naive and young. A younger actor who gives off more of a 'himbo' energy, like he's just a big stupid puppy who got caught up in the wrong crowd, maybe? I felt like he had kind of a... mansplainy vibe here?

* Here's a real dreamy one: what if he, like, did the dishes or something after he sneaks into her apartment? Just spitballing.

* Give him, like, one actually funny joke

* Have him pull up his dang pants!!!!! What was up with him dressing like it's 2011 and everyone else looking like it's 1957?