#the whole film is a brilliant mix of comedy and action and the director actually cares about her audience | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

gojira007 · 4 years ago

Text

Movie Meme

Took me a bit of time, but I was tagged by @bunnikkila to list my nine favorite movies, and since I can’t help but be ridiculously verbose about that very topic, you can see them all under the cut 8D

As for who I tag? Well, as always with the caveat that you are free to ignore if you don’t wanna, I’ll go with: @elistodragonwings @kaikaku @donnys-boy @robotnik-mun @sally-mun @fini-mun @werewolf-t33th @cviperfan and @wildwoodmage

and don’t worry, if you DO go for it, you don’t have to get as Extra as I did about it XD

9.)

Look, the meme is about Favorite Movies, not necessarily the BEST Movies, OK? And for the most part this list consists of films where that division is less meaningful in terms of how I evaluate the other movies on here. But in this specific case, “Mystery Science Theater 3000: The Movie”, which is ultimately not all that different from the “Mystery Science Theater 3000″ TV show it spun off from and thus not particularly impressive as a work of Cinema Qua Cinema, makes the cut primarily because it’s a movie I know so well and have enjoyed so often that I can practically recite the whole thing to you by rote; I quote it all the time in my day-to-day life, I think about it often when I need a little smile, and it’s also become my favorite tool for introducing newcomers to MST3K as a whole since it was designed with a slightly broader audience in mind than the more willfully-eclectic series. And given how much I love MST3K As A Whole, that’s an especially strong factor in its favor.

8.)

Looky looky, @bunnikkila, we (unsurprisingly) have a pick in common! I’m sure this is the one and only time THAT’S going to happen on this list. 8D

Y’know, nearly thirty years (and one fairly useless remake >_>) later, I think the thing that impresses me about “The Lion King” is just how much it is still able to grab me emotionally. Some of that is unquestionably tied up with how strongly I associate this movie with my family, all of whom it became very special to as a Shared Experience. But I also don’t know of a lot of people who haven’t had that same emotional experience with it, and that to me suggests there’s more going on here than just Nostalgia. The mixture of Shakesperean plotting with Disney’s signature strength of Character, for one thing, granting the movie’s story an Epic Scope that never forgets the emotional inner lives of its cast. The music for another, not only its instantly-iconic song-book but also its memorable score, armed with both Big Bombast and Gentle Sentiment. And the unforgettably gorgeous animation, rendering every last element of its world with believable naturalism and strongly-defined personality. All of it, together, makes for what I still personally consider the Crowning Achievement of the Disney Renaissance.

7.)

I think, if I had to name the thing I find most lacking in far too many modern Action Movies, it’s Clarity. They all tend to lard their plots up with a bunch of unnecessary contrivances and complications in hopes of making themselves appear more clever than they actually are, and all it usually does is just dilute the impact of the whole thing. “Mad Max: Fury Road”, by contrast, is all about Clarity. I could sum up literally its entire plot in a paragraph if I wanted, because it is basically One Big Chase Scene from start to finish, never really deviating from that structure for more than a few minutes at a time. And that, combined with its exceptionally well-crafted Action Sequences, means that the full weight of its visceral power hits you full force every time. But don’t be fooled; that simplicity is not to be mistaken for shallowness. Indeed, precisely by getting out of its own way, knowing exactly what it wants to do and why, “Fury Road” also delivers a story that is, in spite of what you might guess, genuinely subtle and smart. Every character is immediately unforgettable and compelling because their role in the story is so well-considered and their personalities all so stark. The world it crafts feels at once fascinatingly surreal and yet All Too Real at the same time because even its most Fantastic elements are ultimately just grotesque reflections of things the audience knows only too well. And most of all, it tells a story with real, meaningful Themes that are deeply woven into each of its individual elements, such that the whole thing is deeply satisfying emotionally, but also piercingly Relevant in all the best, most affecting ways.

6.)

Oh look, another pick I have in common with @bunnikkila! This must be the last one, right?

But yeah, this is just a legitimately great movie, at every level, in every way. Stylistically, it is one of the most radically inventive things to have ever been made in the world of Western Animated Movies, gleefully mixing together a vast array of Aesthetics and Techniques that are at once viscerally distinct and yet coherently connected, all rendered with a fantastic eye toward the world of Comic Book Visual Language that keeps finding new and extremely fun ways to play with that instantly-recognizable iconography. For that alone, I would call it one of the greatest triumphs of 21st century animation. But then, on top of that, the story it tells is one that is simultaneously Arch and self-aware, delivering some of the most fantastically hilarious punch-lines imaginable more than a few of which are at the expense of the very franchise it is working within...but also entirely earnest, sincere, and emotionally affecting. It is, at once, a movie that manages to be about The Idea Of Spider-Man in its totality while also being about just one kid coming to grips with who he is, what he can do, and what his life can be. I don’t know that I can remember the last time a movie so immediately and unmistakably marked itself as an Enduring Masterpiece, but “Into the Spider-Verse” absolutely pulled it off.

5.)

Ordinarily, I would cheat and give this slot to the “Lord of the Rings” trilogy in its totality. But somehow, the fact that this is about “FAVORITE” movies instead of just what we think the BEST one is compels me to narrow it down to just one. And if I had to pick just one, it would be the first of the three, “Fellowship of the Ring”. It’s not necessarily anything that the other two movies get wrong, either. All three of the LotR movies possess many of its keenest strengths, after all. For a starter, there’s the keen understanding of how best to adapt the source material without being enslaved to it; capturing many of its most iconic moments while cleverly tweaking elements to make them more cinematic, knowing what scenes to focus on for the sake of more clearly focusing the emotional through-lines of the story, and knowing what scenes, no matter how good on the page, ultimately don’t fit to the shape the adaptation has taken. There’s also its pitch-perfect casting, each and every actor doing a fantastic job of embodying the characters so well that even as your personal vision of them from the books may differ radically from what is on-screen, they nonetheless end up feeling Right for the part and a strong, compelling presence. And there’s the deft visual hand of director Peter Jackson, who knows exactly how to craft a Middle Earth that feels at once lived-in and real but also Fantastic and magical. “Fellowship”, for me at least, thus wins out mostly because it has the good luck of being adapted from the strongest of the three books, the point at which the narrative is at its most unified and thus has the strongest overall momentum. But also because so few movies have so swept me away with the sense of stepping into a world I have always dreamed of in my mind’s eye, and that’s the sort of thing that can only happen at the beginning of a journey.

4.)

Now here’s a movie that is literally sown in to my very being. It’s the last movie my mother saw in theaters before becoming a Mom. I grew up watching the “Real Ghostbusters” cartoon all the time and playing with the attendant toys; I had a “Ghostbusters” Birthday Party when I was, like, four years old. It has been my annual Halloween Tradition to get myself a big Cheese Pizza and watch this movie for about as long as I’ve had disposable income to myself. There is, quite literally, no point in my life where I don’t remember “Ghostbusters” being a fixture in it. And as a nice bonus? It is, legitimately, a Genuinely Great Movie. I realize that isn’t quite as universally agreed upon these days as it was even a few years ago (thanks, Literally The Worst Kind Of Virulently Misogynist Assholes lD; ), but I still feel pretty confident in saying this one really is That Good. I still find basically every one of its jokes hilarious; even now I could quote just about any one of them and get a laugh. I still find its central premise, What If Exorcism Was A Blue-Collar Business, a brilliant, almost subversively clever one that takes The Supernatural out of the realm of The Unknowable and into a world where even you, an ordinary person off the street, can in fact fight back against it. I still think it’s one of the all-time great examples of how to balance Tone in this sort of High Concept Genre Bender, by allowing The Story to be played relatively straight while allowing the comedy to flow naturally from the characters’ reactions to that story, allowing its Ghostly aspects to land as Genuinely Scary (or at least Worth Taking Seriously) without getting too Stern and Serious about it. And I still listen to that unforgettable Title Song all the time! So yeah, even if I could be more objective about it, “Ghostbusters” would almost certainly make this cut.

3.)

And so we come to the third and last pick I have in common with @bunnikkila, not coincidentally a movie that played a key role in solidifying our friendship, as bonding over our shared love of it was a big part of how we got to know each other on deviantART waaaay back in the day <3

By 2008, I really didn’t think it was possible for a movie or comic or TV show to really become “part” of me anymore, the way things like Sonic the Hedgehog or Marvel Super Heroes or Some Other Movie Character Who Might Be At The Top Of This List had. And then “WALL-E” came along and proved that to be completely, utterly wrong. I didn’t just love this movie, I was inspired by it, to a degree of strength and consistency that I’m still not entirely sure has yet been matched. And to be sure, some of that is undoubtedly because the movie had already basically won the war before I’d even bought my ticket; Adorable Robots In Love is something like My Platonic Storytelling Ideal, after all. But even setting that aside, “WALL-E” is a movie where even now I can’t help but be keenly aware, and gently awed, at the beauty of its craft; indeed, watching this movie in a theater did a lot to make me better understand why movies work on us the way they do, because I left that theater chewing so much on every last one of its elements. Its gorgeous animation, the way it conveys Character through Actions more so than language, the dream-like quality of its musical score (even as i type this i get teary thinking about certain motifs), the clear and meaningful way it builds its theme and story together so harmoniously, and the particular perspective it takes on our relationships with each other, with our environments, and with our own technology...all of it speaks to me deeply and profoundly, and it’s no coincidence that I have seen this movie more times in theaters than any other on this list (twelve times, for the record, and I still remember each and every time XD).

2.)

This one needs no personal qualifications, to my mind. Yes, I have some degree of nostalgic attachment to it for having seen it relatively young with my brothers and being deeply moved by it then, but it’s not at all like the kind of Nostalgia I have for “The Lion King”. “Princess Mononoke” is just flat-out, full-stop a complete Masterpiece, not just my personal pick for one of the single-best animated films ever made, but one of the best films period. It’s almost difficult for me to put into words how great this movie is, certainly in a way that hasn’t been repeated to death by thousands of other smarter people, because no one of its elements quite answers the question of why it is so great, to my mind. Yes, the animation is absolutely gorgeous with a design sensibility that brings Ancient Mythology to life so vividly that its influence can still be felt today (The Forest Spirit alone has been homaged all over the place). And yes, the music is hauntingly beautiful, at once capturing the gentle rhythm of nature but also the elegiac tone of Life Moving On. And yes, the story is an incredible mixture of the Broad Mythic Strokes of an Ancient Legend grounded in all too human Emotions and Ideas about the balance of nature, the full meaning and cost of Warfare, and perhaps most important of all, about how we determine Right and Wrong when everyone involved in a conflict is fighting simply for the right to survive. But all of those things add up together to something even greater than a simple sum, because each one isn’t just good in its own right but because each element so perfectly reinforces the other. And even having said all that? I really could just carry on singing this movie’s praises. Just...an absolute masterpiece, top to bottom.

1.)

I don’t imagine any of you are terribly surprised at this, right? I almost feel like it’d be redundant to explain my love for this movie, given how self-obvious I imagine it is to basically everyone who knows me Literally At All. But heck, I’ve rambled on this long, why not go all the way? Because the thing of it is, “Gojira” (to be clear, the original Japanese movie from 1954 rather than its American edit, “Godzilla: King of the Monsters” from 1956) doesn’t just top the list by being a Great Movie. Though to be clear, it really is. Flawless? No; there’s a reliance on puppetry that even for the time can be a bit chintzier than the movie can really afford, in particular. But brilliant, even so, a heart-wrenching example of Science Fiction Storytelling As Allegory, one that, in a rarity not just for its own genre but indeed for many movies in general, very meaningfully lingers on its deepest, darkest implications. Many a film critic has pointed it out, and it remains true: the stark black-and-white photography heightens the sense of Implacable Horror at the core of the story, and the way the central Melodrama, a tragic love triangle that carries with it many aspects of Class Conflict and Personal Desire VS. The Collective Good, ties back into the main story is truly beautiful in its elegance and emotional impact. Still, for me personally, it tops the list, now and always, because it is a movie that affirmed something for me, that the character I had fallen in love with as a child convincing his family to watch a monster movie with him on television to prove his seven-year-old bravery, really was as genuinely as powerful and meaningful a figure as I had always imagined him to be.

#movies #meme #gojira007

3 notes · View notes

milady-milord-lj · 8 years ago

Text

Community Re-Watch Season 1: Introduction to Statistics and Home Economics

Community Re-Watch: Season 1 Rahr! I thought I posted this on Friday! But I did not. Explains the lack of comments in my inbox. Here it is, better late than never, I guess. You'll notice that these commentaries are shorter. That's because the in-jokes are starting and less information is actually being relayed. So, I'm doing my best.

Introduction to Statistics Commentary by Dan Harmon, Joel McHale, Chevy Chase, and Joe Russo Joe says this was a watershed episode because it was experimental and ambitious. He says “Modern Warfare” is a direct descendant of this episode. Joel jokes that both episodes had the same director (Justin Lin). Joe mentions that he and Justin Lin were college buddies and have remained friends throughout the years. He said Justin brought a unique visual look to the series. Joel mentioned the Justin cares about every single shot. Dan adds that he hopes that Justin doesn’t get pigeonholed as an action director because he’s gifted at comedy as well. Joe says it’s because Justin is a storyteller. Joel introduces Lauren Stamile as “the beautiful and awesome Lauren Stamile.” He also confirms that in “Pascal’s Triangle Revisited” Jeff did not want to go back to being Slater’s boyfriend after she had dumped him a few episodes before. (Side note: It’s an interesting comment, because it seems that, as far as Joel was concerned, the Slater-Jeff-Britta love triangle in “Pascal’s” was only in the minds of Slater and Britta.) Joel adds that Lauren is also the only woman in the cast who is taller that 5’6”. Chevy says that the women are the best actors in the cast. Joel agrees. Then Chevy adds that the men are the clowns. Dan remarks that Chevy is saying that women aren’t funny. Chevy protests that he wasn’t saying that at all. Dan says that he’d go out on a limb and say Gillian is funny. Everyone points out Leonard in the scene where Slater shoots Jeff down and remark that they just started using him in almost every episode going forward. Dan said that Leonard’s role in the scene was to be the stand-in for a sitcom audience. Chevy remarks that he thinks Alison Brie is hugely talented, and beautiful. He adds that he thinks she could be a huge movie star. He adds that she’s a lovely girl and huge talented, before quickly adding that all three women (he initially said “both of them” so I assume he forgot to include Yvette before he corrected himself) are. But he adds that Alison has a Liz Taylor vibe. Joel adds that Alison has a very good head on her shoulders and is a very down-to-earth person. Dan adds that Alison is very good at walking the tightrope of being over-the-top while still being very grounded. Dan adds that Alison is a “comedic weapon” because she’ll do a double-take then start crying as a joke. Chevy adds that she can do that because she’s very secure in herself. He adds, “And she’s very good-looking and she knows it.” Joel adds that Gillian in the chipmunk costume is maybe the cutest thing to happen on television. Dan says the chipmunk costume was Gillian’s idea. Chevy calls Danny Pudi’s performance “brilliant.” Dan says the Internet lit up like a Christmas tree after this episode aired about the give-and-take between Troy and Abed. Dan encourages everyone to watch the outtakes to see every iteration of their initial exchange in the episode. “This is what happens when you just let Donald (Glover) go.” Joel thinks that Chevy in the Beastmaster costume was really funny. Joel then points out that Chevy’s costume has no pectoral muscles. It’s all abs all the way down. Chevy ads that it has no connection to any actual humans. Dan can’t remember who came up with the Urkel/Harry Potter jokes for Yvette’s Harry Potter get-up. Dan remarks that while filming this episode, Dino (Starburns) texted him from the set to say, “I’m doing a scene with Chevy Chase. What the hell happened to us?” Dan confirms that the pill Starburns gives Pierce is ecstasy. He wasn’t sure if NBC would let them use the name, so they don’t state it outright in the episode. Chevy adds that it really doesn’t matter, because anything like that is just poison. Although Dan likes Chevy’s ecstasy acting, he adds that the best depiction of an ecstacy trip on-screen is in season one of Spaced. Even though you don’t see the characters taking ecstasy on-screen, he said the depiction was so dead-on that you knew what was going on. Joel agrees with Dan. Everyone takes a moment to praise Justin’s blocking of the Halloween party scene in the study room as the cameras move around the study group (sans Jeff since he’s crashing the teachers’ party) and the study group moves around the room. Joe says that Donald is one of the most gifted improvisers that he’s ever seen. It’s very difficult to improvise in-story, but Donald has a writers’ brain and he can just make it work so that he can insert himself into a scene, advance the story, while still getting a joke out of it. Dan repeats that Gillian wanted the squirrel costume and came to him about it. He said that normally “you don’t listen to actors because they’re crazy people,” so when someone comes up to him and says “this is what I think my character should wear for Halloween” you’re not sure. But when he saw Gillian on the set, he was, “Oh! I get it!” He adds that he learned a lot about Britta in this episode because he let Gillian choose the costume and watching her get activated in it. They once again encourage people to watch the extras so they can see all the different lines Donald used to tell Jeff that Pierce was pretty much tripping balls at the student party. Dan says it’s fun to shoot party episodes because you can bop around in different groups. Chevy points out that when Jeff tells the study group members to get out of the cafetorium where the teachers are having their Halloween party, Joel is in a gunslinger stance like he’s about to draw his gun. Dan commenting on the Britta-Shirley scene in Slater’s office: Yvette went up to his office because the scene, as originally written, had Shirley basically taking a dump in one of Slater’s desk drawers. They ended up having a very long conversation where Yvette basically talked Dan out of that version. It got switched to her trying to use a hose to fill up Slater’s desk with water. Everyone jokes about Britta ripping the head off Slater’s trophy. Because obviously she’d have to be bionically strong to do it. Joe says that a camera was strapped strapped to Chevy’s chest during his full-on ecstasy trip to get that distorted effect. Dan says they fed Alison her lines while she stood in front of a green screen. During that session, they were doing a ton of old person jokes. Unfortunately, Chevy overheard them, came into the room, and said, “I knew the Beatles, I was at Woodstock, and you can all go fuck yourselves.” What made it really funny is that he said it while still wearing the Beastmaster costume. Chevy confesses that he doesn’t even know who Beastmaster is. Joel explains it’s a Mark Singer movie from the 1980s. Dan says that they had problems with Ken Jeong in the scene where Chang gives Jeff advice on how to get Slater. He kept doing all these hand gestures that were rude and Dan had to tell him to not do that because his role was to set up the next joke. They all comment that after the episode aired “Mexican Halloween” was trending on Google. Dan confesses that it’s something he made up. Dan says that Donald is a very funny guy and a very smart guy, but he doesn’t interject his own comedy unasked. He said that’s why Troy gets funnier and funnier as the season progresses because he was getting more and more permission from the writers to do his own thing. Joel says that Chevy was awesome in the chairfort scene. Joe says that the chairfort was built and tested on the construction stage. Dan says the chairfort rig gave him the idea to do “Modern Warfare.” As he was inspecting the rig and talking to Justin about how it would work. He said he began to wonder if they could do an action episode, rather than a comedy episode with action elements. Chevy apparently told Justin Lin on the set that he didn’t know anything about comedy. Joe says that “Introduction to Statistics” was the first time they had “stepped out of the show.” Because it was a Halloween episode, they felt they had permission to push the boundaries, like, for example, having a chairfort collapse, having Abed swoop in like a superhero to save Jeff and Pierce, and “acting like it was a normal part of the world of the show.” Dan says that the Batman voiceover at the end of the episode was entirely improvised by Danny Pudi in a recording booth. They basically used the improve uncut. It was meant to be a placeholder until they wrote something. Dan says he kept telling Danny to keep babbling about darkness and get your dichotomies all mixed up. Dan answers the Twitter question, “When did you start considering Jeff and Annie as an option?” Dan answers it was the shot at the end of the episode where Jeff silently asks Annie to dance by holding out his hand and she becomes giddy because she’s dancing with him. He says there was a nice romantic undertone to the scene. Joel says the scene with Abed/Batman on the roof of the school was shot just as day was about to break. The tag scene between Abed and Troy was all improvised by Danny and Donald. Dan says that Abed and Troy are the Cheech and Chong of the show.

Home Economics Commentary by Dan Harmon, Joel McHale, Danny Pudi, and Lauren Pomerantz (writer) Joel says that he almost chocked to death in the opening scene. Chevy would throw the paper balls into his mouth and it would get into his throat. Danny says that the opening scene where Jeff is woken up wasn’t really acting. Joel actually was tired. He adds, “Joel can also nap anywhere.” Dan starts a runner joke (that lasts throughout the whole commentary) that Yvette Nicole Brown has a drinking problem, which causes everyone to start laughing. Joel explains that Yvette is waiting outside the recording booth and can hear everything they say, but she’s powerless to do anything about it. Dan admits that Yvette is actually a teetotaler. Joel jokes that she doesn’t drink, but smokes a ton of pot. Dan adds, “No, she doesn’t smoke pot, either.” Dan says that Lauren (the writer) is no longer on the show, but he’s glad she’s back for the commentary. He adds that she’s a very quiet person who doesn’t talk a lot. Dan praises her and says that she turned out a really good draft. He adds that he likes this episode a lot. Dan adds that one of the things that a lot of male writers would shy away from is a scene like Shirley ogling Jeff while he does his homeless man cleanup. Dan mentions that she’s working for Ellen Degeneres, but that if she’s ever back on the market, some should snatch her up because she’s an excellent draft writer. Everyone starts making fun of Gillian’s costuming in the study room scene. They’re not sure if it’s “Mad Max” or “Legend of Billie Jean.” Dan remarks that Chevy and Britta a costumed in a similar manner (side note: they’re both wearing vests). Dan says this episode got shuffled around in the order. Dan says that he and Gillian talked about what happened with her character from her perspective in this episode. He said that Gillian said Britta was basically still policing Jeff at this point. Dan says that they really don’t need a single policeman for Jeff. Jeff himself is a fairly self-destructive character, so everyone in the study group winds up policing him at some point. Because of that, it opened things up to allow them to dump on Britta. But at this point in the series they’re still using her as the voice of practicality and reason, and she’s pompus. Joel says when he jumped over the bushes to stop Jeff’s car from being towed he almost broke his ankle. There was apparently a deep hole on the other side that he landed in. During the scene where Abed is eating cereal and Jeff is losing his mind, Joel and Danny apparently ate “thousands” of bowls. Joel says it was like that SNL commercial about Colon Blow. Danny says that the state of Joel’s clothes and hair is the result of the amount of cereal they ate that day. Lauren wrote the lyrics for Vaughn’s song about Britta. Joel says that “she’s a GDB” became something the cast latched onto and they kept saying it to each other all season. Joel says at one point they switched he and Danny to an organic version of Lucky Charms. Danny comments that it was a horrible. Joel says that Lucky Charms is wonderful to eat, but after a box-and-a-half you begin to feel terrible. They both began to feel hot and flushed. “It’s like you’ve eaten an entire cake.” Danny points out Pavel. He says that actor really is Polish. Danny says that he really likes what the art department did with Abed’s room and the movie posters. Everyone then switches to talking about the posters in the rehearsal space for Vaughn’s band. Dan says he makes fun of Chevy a lot, but he really brings it to all of his scenes. Dan claims someone called him at home (“you know who you are”) and said that the Troy-Annie storyline in the episode should be pulled. He says that they should know they were wrong. Joel points out that Patton Oswald makes his first appearance on the show. Joel remarks that Patton’s bones must be hollow, because “they are filled with funny.” Dan says that Patton’s “I’m the Hawkeye around here” was improvised by him on the set. Danny says watching Joel make his sundae was hilarious. Joel says spaying the whipped cream into his mouth was a joy. Dan says the conversation between Britta and Abed is the reveal that Abed has “his eye on the ball.” There were several holes in the boxer shorts Joel was wearing, including one at his butt. Danny says he laughed out loud when he saw Joel sprawled on the couch during the Jeff-Britta scene. He points out that Joel doesn’t really change position though most of the scene until Britta tosses the sack on him. Dan said it took a three-hour brainstorming session to come up with Jeff marking his expensive Italian faucets for the optimal temperature for his skin. They were trying to come up with a way for Jeff to figure out that it was his faucet. Another one they considered was a dent from the belt buckle of the mayor’s daughter. Danny says that Abed’s dorm room is three times the size of his actual college dorm room. Dan is apparently stuck on the fact that Britta is wearing heels. “What would be the worst that would happen if Britta didn’t wear stilts?” Joel’s answer is, “You wouldn’t be able to frame the shots.” Dan says that the camera catches a little bit of “Annie butt” in the scene where she takes back her courting quilt. “We walk a very, very dangerous tightrope with that character.” Danny says that the final scene between Shirley and Annie is very sweet. Joel says that they rehearsed a brief Polish conversation for the closing scene between Jeff, Abed, and Britta. He adds that he really enjoyed it. Dan says that he gets emotional over Abed calling Jeff “a huge nerd.” Dan says that Pierce enjoying the attention of Vaughn’s diss song is great. That a lack of redemption and an unwillingness to change can be kind of heroic in the face of bad luck or even justice.

#jeff x annie

17 notes · View notes

highframereview · 8 years ago

Text

High Frame Review: Best of 2016 (10-1)

10. The Neon Demon Nicholas Winding Refn may have something wrong with him. To create such a depraved single focused work of real life horror is brilliant and concerning. The Neon Demon is a ride into the beauty industry dripping with colour and noise. Elle Fanning burns the screen from start to finish. And if you can predict the end of this film at the start, maybe you are as disturbed as Winding Refn. Best viewed late at night with the lights off.

9. The Nice Guys

The Nice Guys is fun. Shane Black has created a film that doesn’t bother with subtext or social issues. All we get is two incompetent private detectives in over their heads bumbling around 1970’s Los Angeles. As much as Ryan Gosling and Russell Crowe are great in the film, Angourie Rice steals every scene she is in. The setting is real, the jokes land and the plot keeps you invested without ever trying to overreach.

8. Hail, Caesar!

A common theme amongst some of the better films of the year was nostalgia and especially for classic hollywood. As we continue to lose those involved with classic movies, some like the Coen Brothers, look to remember and celebrate that time. Hail, Caesar! won't be everyone’s cup of tea, but criticism of the lacking plot couldn’t dampen my enjoyment of the film. So many individual scenes stand out and will be quoted forever. We have also discovered a new star in Alden Ehrenreich, he lassoed us in with charm and innocence and i can’t wait to see him as Han Solo.

7. Arrival

Denis Villeneuve can do no wrong. He is the only reason i have supreme confidence in a new Blade Runner film. Arrival is not as advertised, it may revolve around alien craft landing, but this is purely window dressing as we are taken on a journey to discuss love, communication, secrecy and destiny. A visual masterpiece, Arrival represents a blockbuster that refuses to play by the rules. With a female lead, no major action scenes and a willingness to take his time, Villeneuve continues to make films the way he wants. Each one is distinctly different but have a similar feel and style, making Villeneuve one of the most exciting directors working today.

6. Tickled

How could a film by a New Zealand pop journalist be this high on my list? Because it shook me to my very core and took me on a story that made me want to personally fight against injustice. An injustice that i had never heard of before and still am unsure is actually real. David Farrier goes on a mission to discover the sinister roots of an underground tickling video ring that lashes out at anyone in their path. Never could you anticipate the sheer evil in this film upon its description, but with each new revelation i became more and more engrossed in discovering the world with Farrier. Could Farrier be the next Louis Theroux? I think this film is already better.

5. Hell Or Highwater

Sometimes one film is all you need to put yourself on the map. Damien Chazelle did it with Whiplash, Alex Garland had Ex Machina and next off the rank will be Taylor Sheridan, writer of Hell Or High Water. After writing Sicario in 2015 (as well as follow up Soldado for 2017) his directorial debut Wind River is highly anticipated. Hell Or Highwater is more than the sum of its parts, beautifully shot, well acted and a subtle and moving script but the whole is so much more and a real surprise. No doubt the modern crime western will be a new craze as Sheridan continues to write such golden material.

4. Hunt For The Wilderpeople

Sometimes you just want a film to delight you. Hunt For The Wilderpeople is just delightful. A beautiful blend of heart and humour, Taika Waititi knows how to balance his films to never be too bogged down in melodrama or too humourous to be one dimensional. Sam Neill is a perfect foil for newcomer Julian Dennison as an odd couple forced together. Alongside them are Waititi’s colourful cast including Rachel House, Rhys Darby and the director himself. Waititi is a special director and will hopefully not lost to the hollywood system, his signature blend of dry humour and heart makes people’s lives better.

3. Green Room

Hardcover punk, neo-nazis and a bit of a misunderstanding. For most of its runtime, Green Room takes place in a single location, a dank club that starts to feel like a claustrophobic tomb for the protagonists as the film tells their horrible story of a night trapped in a neo-nazi hell. Jeremy Saulnier has put together a masterpiece in suspense and terror while Anton Yelchin, Imogen Poots, Alia Shawkat and Patrick Stewart own the screen. A surprisingly great film.

2. La La Land

It’s hard not to have La La Land as my top film of 2016. It filled me with joy and a repeat viewing did nothing to dampen it, in fact it may have been better the second time around. It's a clique and a generalisation but I hate musicals, which makes my top two even more surprising to me. Damien Chazelle has a perfect record with Whiplash being my favourite film of the last ten years and La La Land being all but perfect. The music is perfect, the visuals are beautiful and the acting is exactly what it needs to be. Some criticism can be made for the ending of the film, but i prefer to look at the film as a celebration of filmmaking and classic hollywood and each scene stands by itself, the ending subverting tradition with a nod towards convention. As far as soundtracks and joy goes, there is only one film that did it better in 2016.

1. Sing Street

When you look ahead at the year in film you see the big tent pole superhero films and the releases by critically acclaimed directors and actors you like. Sing Street by John Carney wasn’t on my radar until I sat down in the State Theatre for the Australian Premiere. Having seen Begin Again, I knew Carney could direct a feel good musical film, but Sing Street is something else entirely. An unknown cast, a classic soundtrack mixed with new music, Sing Street is a delight that rewards repeat viewings and had me playing the soundtrack for weeks afterwards. If you don’t have Drive it Like You Stole It stuck in your head after you see Sing Street you may need to check for a pulse. Heart and comedy are delivered in equal measures by a cast that doesn’t miss a beat despite many of them stepping in front of the camera for the first time. Seek out this film, then once you have watched it, give it two days then watch it again.

#highframereview #high frame review #sing street #lala land #green room #arrival #hunt for the wilderpeople #tickled #the neon demon #hail caesar #hell or high water #the nice guys #2016

5 notes · View notes

ethanalter · 8 years ago

Text

Roger Corman Revs Up 'Death Race 2050': 'We Have the First Picture to Portray Donald Trump as the President of the United States'

Roger Corman checks out a death trap vehicle for ‘Death Race 2050’ (Photo: Universal)

Roger Corman had already enjoyed a prolific (and lucrative) two-decade career as a B-movie auteur by the time a little movie called Death Race 2000 raced into theaters in 1975. But that instant cult hit, which was produced for less than $1 million and wound up grossing at least five times that, holds an exalted position in Corman’s filmography thanks to its fusion of grindhouse thrills and comedy club laughs. “I was trying to combine a car-racing picture with a little bit of social commentary, and a lot of humor,” Corman tells Yahoo Movies, calling us from, appropriately enough, a moving car.

Set in the then-far off future of 2000, the original Death Race imagined an America beset by civil strife and ruled by a totalitarian leader. The only thing that unites this United States of tomorrow is the Transcontinental Road Race, a turbo-charged dash from New York to Los Angeles. Its drivers are explicitly encouraged to let nothing — including citizens — come between them and victory. Seen today, the film still delights, and not just because it offers the opportunity to see David Carradine and a young Sylvester Stallone duel as competing drivers, Frankenstein and Machine Gun Joe. The movie is also an obvious influence on subsequent futuristic stories that seek to mingle bloody action and snarky satire, be it RoboCop or Demolition Man.

Simone Griffeth and David Carradine in ‘Death Race 2000’ (Photo: Everett)

Now, with the year 2000 long since in the rearview mirror, Corman, who turned 90 last spring, decided it was time to make a Death Race that wouldn’t be dated for another few decades. Enter Death Race 2050, the latest film produced by the “King of the B’s,” directed by G.J. Echternkamp. Available on Blu-ray and DVD on Jan. 17, the loose remake sets Frankenstein (now played by New Zealand action star Manu Bennett) down in the year 2050, when the USA has become a giant corporate conglomerate overseen by a despotic chairman (Malcolm McDowell) with an all-too-familiar hairdo. We spoke with Corman about taking Death Race back to the starting line, his time working with a young Jack Nicholson, and what happened with his infamous Fantastic Four movie.

Related: John Waters’ Five Favorite Roger Corman Movies

Prior to Death Race 2050, the Death Race franchise was revived as a 2008 feature by Paul W.S. Anderson followed by a series of direct-to-DVD spin-offs. What were your contributions to those versions? My work as a producer on those was almost zero. They gave me the script to the first one, and the others, and asked for my notes on the first one, but other than that I had no actual function. But I know Paul Anderson and I know what he was doing [with Death Race]. He was going for a straight action picture, which was what the first draft of Death Race 2000 was as well. When I read it, I thought there was something missing, and that’s when I came up with the idea of the drivers’ killing of the pedestrians, as a way to integrate the public with the violent sport that they love. But you couldn’t take that too seriously, so that’s when I introduced the element of comedy. When I called Universal about [their plans for] Death Race, I told them that [satire] was really essential to the original idea. So they asked me if I would like to make one. I went back to the original idea and here we are.

‘Death Race 2050’ (Photo: Universal)

The film satirizes a number of contemporary social issues including climate change, terrorism, and corporate greed. What we tried to do is take the same themes that were in the original and project them to 2050. So the United States of America has become the United Corporations of America, and the president is also the chairman. And here we got a little bit lucky. While we were shooting, we thought, “Why don’t we give the president a Donald Trump hairdo?” It wasn’t in the script, and we never dreamed he would actually become the president! So, we can say we have the first picture to portray Donald Trump as the president of the United States.

‘Death Race 2050’: Welcome to Death Race:

yahoo

We also tried to pick drivers who would reflect certain aspects of today. My favorite driver, other than Frankenstein, is Tammy the Terrorist. That name just came to me, and then we tried to figure out who she might be. I didn’t want to get involved with ISIS or anything like that, so I made her into the high priestess of a new religion whose saints are Elvis Presley and Justin Bieber and so forth.

Death Race 2050 mixes the low-fi elements of the original — the practical cars, for example — with modern day technology like CGI. Having observed the rise of digital effects firsthand, how do you feel about its impact on the industry? It’s helpful when it’s used well. Jim Cameron, who started doing some of this stuff when he worked with me making the special effects on our low-budget sci-fi films, uses them correctly. He did it beautifully on Avatar, for example. The only objection I have is when computer graphics take over and the story suffers.

Have you noticed a difference between the generation of young directors raised in the digital effects age versus the young directors you worked with in the ‘60s and ‘70s? I think the basic art of motion pictures has been known for a long time. The difference I see in young directors now is that they are integrating more effects, which can be done well or not as well. They’re also cutting faster. If you look at a picture made just 20 or 30 years ago, you will see shots held on the screen a little bit longer, and sometimes a whole lot longer, than they are today. There’s also more camera movement, which is due to the introduction of the Steadicam, and the fact that cameras have become lighter and more portable. I was looking at La La Land the other day, and that first shot on the freeway is an amazing technical achievement. It’s all over the freeway and there’s not a cut in it. It must have taken them a week! It’s a virtuoso use of the camera.

‘Death Race 2050’ (Photo: Universal)

Turning to your own work as a director, the Edgar Allan Poe films you made are so much fun to watch. Are those the movies you’re proudest of? I’m proud of most of them! Some didn’t turn out quite as well as I’d hoped. [Laughs] Some of those stories were no longer than two pages, so we expanded them. For example, “The Pit and the Pendulum” was only about the pit and the pendulum. So we used the story as the third act, and then tried to write the first and second acts in ways we thought would be faithful to Poe’s vision.

Do you have any good Jack Nicholson stories from your early collaborations with him? Jack was a very good writer, and he wrote a number of scripts for me. When I made The Trip, about an LSD experience, I chose him to co-write the script. As a conscious director, I took a trip myself and had a spectacularly wonderful experience. Afterwards, we talked about the script and I said, “If this is based on my trip, it’s going to be an advertisement for LSD.” And Jack said, “Don’t worry — I had a couple of bad ones. We can put it all together.”

Director Roger Corman (left) with actor Bruce Dern during the making of ‘The Trip’ (Photo: Getty Images)

When I saw the recent animated documentary Tower — about the 1966 University of Texas shootings — I instantly thought of Targets, the film Peter Bogdanavich made for you, which was a fictionalized version of that tragedy. I’m very proud of Targets. It was Peter’s first film, and I think it’s a semi-forgotten film. After we made it, I sold it to Paramount and they got worried about the connection to the Tower shootings and postponed the release, before only giving it a limited release. I’ve always thought that was a mistake on their part. They had a brilliant little picture and it should have gotten more of a release.

In general, distribution appears to be one of the bigger challenges facing films today. In the ’60s and ’70s, your movies always seemed to find a theatrical release. When I started, every film that was decently made got full theatrical distribution. Today, they’ve frozen the lower budgeted films out. Death Race 2050 is a big budget film for me, but for Universal it’s low budget. With a few exceptions, all of these lower-budgeted films are released on DVD or Netflix now. It’s unfortunate, because I like to primarily see films in theaters, but that’s the way the industry is — it’s an art and a business.

Roger Corman’s ‘Fantastic Four’ (Photo: Uncork’d Entertainment)

It’s worth noting that you are associated with the one of the most famous unreleased films of all time: the 1994 version of The Fantastic Four. That was the weirdest production I was ever involved in! A German producer [Bernd Eichinger] came to me saying he had an option on a Fantastic Four movie and a $30 million budget, but his option expired on December 31. This was in October! He said, “Can you take this script and make it for less money?” I said, “How much money do you have?” and he replied, “A million dollars.” Cutting $29 million out of a $30 million budget is a pretty big cut! We actually did start the film on schedule, and I always thought it was a good little picture. But my deal with Bernd stipulated that he had a certain amount of time before its release to sell it to a major studio. He did sell it, but part of the condition [of the sale] was that they didn’t want a $1 million picture to go out there and contaminate the marketplace. So, years later, it ended up being a $100 million film!

Watch a trailer for ‘Doomed! The Untold Story of Roger Corman’s The Fantastic Four’:

youtube

#movie:death-race-2000 #movie:death-race-2050 #_revsp:wp.yahoo.movies.us #_uuid:714cdb9c-da62-3f92-b509-90a5b1ff07c1 #_author:Ethan Alter #movie:the-trip #roger corman #_lmsid:a0Vd000000AE7lXEAT

2 notes · View notes

trendingnewsb · 7 years ago

Text

5 Ways Disney Can’t Stop Screwing Up Star Wars

Star Wars. You love it! You think it’s great. But what if Star Wars stopped being great? That would be bad, right? And bad things aren’t great! Everybody knows that! Seeing as how we’re all in agreement here, let’s talk about the possibility that Disney’s entire strategy for Star Wars might be, as a whole, actually madly deeply verifiably bad. I know it’s painful to fathom such a terrible possibility — I mean, The Last Jedi looks just bonkers — but I can’t help to notice a few glaring red flags. Bad flags. So without further ado …

So Far, The New Movies Seem Afraid To Take Chances

For staunch Star Wars nerds burnt out by years of jackass Expanded Universe stories, adding to the Star Wars canon sometimes feels like writing new chapters to the Bible wherein Jesus comes back to fight ISIS with the aid of a talking car. And seeing as how the folks in charge of Star Wars are the ones who grew up on it, the new films feel a smidge unadventurous at times.

Read more: http://ift.tt/2B6fb2w

from Viral News HQ http://ift.tt/2EfB3ch via Viral News HQ

#IFTTT #Viral News HQ

0 notes

rob-blog1234 · 7 years ago

Text

WEEKEND TV HOT FILM PICKS!

Check out my guide to the top films on TV this weekend and the best of the rest. Enjoy!

LATE FRIDAY 14th JULY

HOT PICKS!

5* @ 1900 Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves (1991) *****

This is one of my guilty pleasures. I adore this film and it is one of my most watched films to date. It is my favourite Robin Hood film packed full of action and comedy. The very American Kevin Costner robs the rich to feed the poor along with his Moorish companion Azeem played by Morgan Freeman. After an escape from their imprisonment by the Turks during the Crusades, Robin and Azeem arrive in England to find Robin’s home and world have been turned upside down. His father has been murdered for crimes he did not commit. Robin swears to avenge his fathers’ death and is pitted against the Sheriff of Nottingham who is brought life by the great Alan Rickman in one of his most memorable performances. He has some of the best lines in the film and adds an edge of brilliance to an already great film. It’s full of adventure and action with stunning rural backdrops of a medieval England. I just dare you not to enjoy yourself - it’s a great film for kids and adults alike.

E4 @ 2100 Star Trek (2009) *****

Before you dismiss this under the clause “I’m not a Trekkie” Don’t! J.J. Abrams, the man behind the popular TV series Lost, the 80’s saturated adventure film: Super 8 & of course Star Wars: the Force Awakens - delivers an exciting and visually stunning space romp with a host of amazing characters that you won’t forget in a hurry. From the charismatic James T. Kirk, the straight laced and emotionally challenged Mr. Spock to the comedy relief of Scotty played by Simon Pegg, the cast is rich with variety and each one holds their own impressively considering the sheer number of characters in the film. It is set before the original TV series and introduces the character James T. Kirk from birth through to success as a Starfleet Captain.

The opening sequence of this film is brilliant and one of my personal favourite first 10 minutes of any film. It introduces the birth of James Kirk on a star ship under attack, although the audience has been thrown into a busy scene with limited introductions Abrams masterfully draws the audience in and somehow instils emotional attachment to characters that have only been on the screen for a matter of minutes.

Abrams takes advantage of the futuristic shiny surfaces in this film to great effect with his personal addiction of the use and inclusion of lens flare and there are blinding reflections in almost every shot, a surprisingly effective choice here. Admittedly they do get a little tiresome with every re-watch but they do work in this futuristic setting. Whether you are a Trekkie or not - who cares! This is a strong and impressive standalone film, ultimately accessible and a great Sci-Fi action extravaganza.

Best of the rest:

TCM @ 1920 The Hunt for Red October (1990) ****

W @ 2100 Jackie Brown (1997) ***

Syfy @ 2200 Scream (1996) ****

5* @ 2200 Django Unchained (2012) *****

TCM @ 2200 Wolf Creek (2005) ***

Film4 @ 2245 X-Men: First Class (2011) ****

Dave @ 0000 Training Day (2001) ****

TCM @ 0000 The Deer Hunter (1978) *****

Horror @ 0020 Society (1989) ****

SATURDAY 15th JULY

HOT PICKS!

ITV1 @ 1050 Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (2004) ****

This is one of my favourites of the Harry Potter films. Chris Columbus did a great job starting the franchise but after seeing Alfonso Cuaron’s more grown up approach to the world of Potter I was very impressed. Not only do we see an accessible film to all ages but also we see maturity in all the characters that was previously missing. A darker, wittier more intelligent film with an emotional depth that really made it difficult to match.

Film4 @ 2100 X-Men: Days of Future Past (2014) ****

Although I am getting a little tired of the franchise this certainly pulled out all the stops. I was really pleased to see a great job from McAvoy this time round, whose credibility has gone up 10 fold in my book since his impressive turn in Filth. Here he gives us a whole new side to Charles Xavier. Fassbender is as charismatic as ever and his tooth filled face remains sombre here for the most part, focusing more on the floating and effects than the character, but he easily goes through the motions here as he’s quite perfect as Magneto. Our main character in this X-Fest is Wolverine and Jackman gives a storming performance that we have now come to expect… However all of these were overshadowed by a fantastic yet frustratingly short introduction to Quicksilver played by Evan Peters who did some great work in the American Horror Story series. Quicksilver is an awesome character but, just like his powers, as quickly as we are introduced he is snatched away from us, turning the story back to our main cast. The Quicksilver Pentagon slow motion scene is by far the best of the entire film, giving as many gasps of awe as there was laughter. Funny, impressive and pure X-Men magic.

The story is a more complicated one, playing out in two time lines inexplicably linked by some blue brain light that Ellen Page can muster from her hands. She sends Wolverine back to 1973 to round up the troops and stop the scaly, sexy, blue skinned Mystique from fucking everything up by killing Tryion Lannister. Why? Well.. Somehow this is the one single event that causes the future demise of everyone through the creation of massive ultra-powerful and unstoppable sentinel machines… Of course. I will try and forgive a little here as there is always a degree of ‘turn-your-brain-off" and “Stop-saying-what-if-this-and-what-if-that” with all time travel films, but the film scoots over the detail quickly enough to recapture audience attention before disbelief descends.

There is a post credit bit that no doubt fan boys and girls will lap up. I find myself out of touch these days with so many character reveals that I’m left two steps behind, but after a bit of post film googling it looks like we could be in for an interesting next instalment of the X-Men franchise. I’m yet to see Apocalypse. Reviews are frankly quite mixed.

Sony @ 2100 The Game (1997) *****

David Fincher has done what he does best and created a rather dark, action packed thriller that absolutely must be seen. We follow Michael Douglas as the wealthy business man - Nicholas Van Orton, the man who has everything and is on the top of his game. His brother (Sean Penn) gets him a rather strange birthday present: a ticket to a company called CRS (Consumer Recreation Services) who specialise in custom fit games for wealthy executives, but this game turns out to be a lot more than anyone had bargained for as it begins to consume Van Orton’s entire life. This is an excellent thriller from the director of the amazing film Seven. There are some impressive and believable performances particularly from Michael Douglas and Sean Penn. This is a great story which you won’t forget in a hurry. A dark, intense and immersive thriller. Watch this.

BBC1 @ 2210 Die Hard with a Vengeance (1995) ****

It’s only on this most recent watch that I’ve realised Die Hard with a Vengeance’s true greatness. First of all here is a third parter that doesn’t suffer the third parter curse of being an utter disaster. It also manages to surpass the second film in merit (although I do have a big soft spot for the relentless action trash that is Die Hard 2)

Everyone’s favourite cop, John McLane is back in this big and bold third parter. This film follows the recipe that made the first a success. Some fantastic character interaction between our leads, enough action and explosions to keep the audience more than occupied and a quality bad guy. This time round a rather menacing Jeremy Irons gives a splendidly sinister performance.

Yes there’s a few over the top moments and a couple of unnecessary and almost redundant characters but this is a very solid sequel to one of the best Action films ever made.

ITV1 @ 2145 Inception (2010) *****

I still hold this film in very high regard. In a world of remakes, sequels, prequels and reimaginings it was a delight to see something fresh, new and challenging. This film does have some serious merits. It immediately reminded me of Satoshi Kon's brain twisting dream travelling Paprika from 2006 and I'm pretty sure Nolan must have taken some inspiration from it. Regardless, Inception is an amazing accomplishment, intoxicating and completely immersive. It's a complex action packed Sci-Fi Thriller which could capture the complete attention of even the most fidgety of cinema goers. I'm always left in silence and awe.

Director - Nolan, Lead - DiCaprio, Music - Zimmer... now there's a recipe for success. Watching Inception showcases all 3 and they can now stand a lot taller as their already king-like CV's are boosted with an eternal stamp of skill and success. Huge kudos to the editor of this film. It really is micro-second perfect and cuts between the scenes seem more like master strokes of storytelling and really help drive home what is actually going on in this multi layered mind fuck.

For me this was one of the strongest films to come out of 2010 in a year with some serious competition.

Best of the rest:

BBC2 @ 1315 Forbidden Planet (1956) ****

ITV2 @ 1910 Gravity (2013) *****

W @ 2100 Election (1999) ***

Dave @ 2100 Heat (1995) *****

5* @ 2100 There's Something About Mary (1998) ****

TCM @ 2100 The Deer Hunter (1978) *****

Horror @ 2300 Phantasm (1979) ****

Film4 @ 2335 Evil Dead (2013) ***

Sony @ 2345 Donnie Brasco (1997) ***

TCM @ 0030 Goodfellas (1990) *****

Syfy @ 0030 Strange Days (1995) *****

Film4 @ 0130 The Duke of Burgundy (2014) ****

SUNDAY 16th JULY

HOT PICKS!

C4 @ 2335 The Lincoln Lawyer (2011) ****

Before McConaughey did anything good at a time when mediocrity saturated his filmography with sub-standard Rom-Coms and Sahara… I hate Sahara…. Anyway - Here we see him in a fantastic role as (you guessed it) a lawyer who works out of the back of his car - a Lincoln… See what they did there! I’m a sucker for a good court room drama and this is certain one of those. Plenty of twists. Stand out McConaughey. Great supporting cast. Don’t miss it.

Syfy @ 0030 Akira (1988) *****

This is without a doubt one of the most revered animations in my film watching life. Akira blew me away on my first watch and made me want to get back deep into its luxurious and detailed world immediately as the credits rolled. It’s a completely extravagant eye-gasm of luscious animation and a brain bending futuristic story that will burrow deep into your soul. Super powers, Telekinesis, war, violence, disaster, horror… this is a one of a kind and at almost 30 years old it still has an interesting, complicated yet current story to tell. So complex it is sometimes confusing – so I look forward to challenging myself once again with this awesome animation experience. I just hope it’s not dubbed – it’s always bloody dubbed.

Best of the rest:

Film4 @ 1630 The Jewel of the Nile (1985) ***

Universal @ 1800 Despicable Me (2010) ***

BBC2 @ 2000 The Lone Ranger (2013) ***

E4 @ 2100 Speed (1994) ****

Spike @ 2100 Enter the Dragon (1973) ****

TCM @ 2100 Goodfellas (1990) *****

Film4 @ 2100 Men in Black 3 (2012) ***

C5 @ 2200 21 Jump Street (2012) ****

5* @ 2200 Django Unchained (2012) *****

ITV4 @ 2340 Crank (2006) ***

Horror @ 0045 Night of the Living Dead (1990) ****

0 notes

thegirlinthecloudedstars · 8 years ago

Text

How often do you watch a movie?

As many times as I can a week.

What movie genre are you particularly fond of?

Sci-Fi; Superheroes/Villains; chick-flick; comedy; psychological thriller… anything really.

What was the last movie that you’ve watched and liked?

The last one was In Your Eyes. It was so fascinating and clever how it was done. I really liked it! Find it on Netflix!

What was the last movie that you’ve watched and hated?

I don’t think I’ve watched a bad film for while…

What is your most favourite movie of all time?

The Breakfast Club!

Your most favourite guilty pleasure movie?

Harry Potter and Mean Girls. If there was ever a parody show where they combined the two, I would be all over that!

What movie/movies have you watched a million times already?

Harry Potter! There was a time when I could quote Order of the Phoenix from start to finish. If I was bored, I would just recite the whole film… yeah, I had no life.

Are you the type who watches a movie on its first day of showing?

If I get the tickets and have the money. Of course! The audience will actually respect the movie then, usually.

Do you use Fandango or do you pre-booked movie tickets?

When it comes down to it, I pre-book. I’ve never heard of Fandango…

Cinema, Blu-ray/DVD, or download?

DVD! I can keep it forever then. I have a whole collection of DVDs in my office. It’s huge!

How often do you go to a Cinema to watch a movie?

I used to a lot, but now I don’t really, as I feel as if it’s a lot of money to just hear people giggling and chatting on their phones, taking photos and not actually respecting the films or the people trying to watch the film.

I’d rather buy the film and watch it in my own time on my own where no one can talk over it.

When you’re deaf, going to the cinema where people chat behind you, actually hearing the film is painfully difficult. I’ve walked out and asked for my money back more times than I should because of people’s rudeness…

Sorry… it irritates me.

What are the movies that made you cry?

The Fault in Our Stars!

Do you watch foreign films?

I’ve only watched one called Mon Oncle and I love it.

What are your favourite foreign films?

Mon Oncle!

Who are your favourite directors?

Christopher Nolan; Steven Spielberg; Tim Burton.

Are you particular with movie scores, soundtracks, and musics?

Ish. The music for a film, I feel, shouldn’t just be thrown together. It should reflect on the film, the genre, the characters, the emotions and the scene. It should all be thought out. The dialogue should be able to be muted, and the music should still tell the story without words.

What movie soundtrack can be found in your iPod?

LOTS!!

Guardians of the Galaxy; Les Miserables Film Edition; Pitch Perfect 1 & 2; Into the Woods; Divergent; The Fault in Our Stars; Frozen; Lion King; Moulin Rouge; The Perks of Being a Wallflower; The Rocky Horror Picture Show; Suicide Squad Score and Soundtrack; Zootopia; Big Hero Six… To name a few.

Have you ever watched a movie alone in a movie house?

No, I haven’t.

What is the best chick flick for you?

Mean Girls!!

Is there any movie that has changed your perspective in life?

The film The Breakfast Club made me remember that we’re not all that different; we’re all just living by a label that society has given us, slipping us into categories. We’re made to think that these categories can not mix and converse, when really, everyone is able to be friends and get along, we just need to walk out of our stereotypical bubbles. We’ve all got baggage. We’ve all got problems. We’re all capable of loving one another, but we’re just too scared of what every one else will think to step outside of our categories and talk to one another.

Your favourite comic book movie?

The Dark Knight!

DC or Marvel movies?

Admittedly, I’m more of a DC girl, but recently DC just CAN’T MAKE FILMS!! They’re either boring, plot-straying, or don’t stick to the facts of the comics in any shape or form, or all of the above!! I mean, sure Suicide Squad was good in my opinion, and it was pretty, but it was NOTHING like the comic!! The joker doesn’t even exist properly in the Suicide Squad Issue #1 comic. Harley’s trying to get away from him and start new!! I mean look how different comic Harley and film Harley are!

She’s meant to be insane. Where was her insanity?

So I think Marvel movies are better. They’re exciting, and stick to the comics. DC needs to learn how to create a good movie by looking at how Marvel makes there’s.

What are the movies in the top 10 in IMDb that you have watched?

Okay!! The list is…

The Godfather (have not watched, but need to)

Schindler’s List (have not watched)

12 Angry Men (have not watched)

Life is Beautiful (have not watched)

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (have not watched, but been meaning to)

The Shawshank Redemption (have not seen)

The Pursuit of Happyness (have not seen)

Seven Samurai (have not seen)

Untouchable (I think I have seen some of this… need to watch it full)

Central Station (have not watched)

For last year’s 2016 top ten list however!!!

Moonlight (Have not watched YET)

Zootopia (WATCHED AND LOVED!)

Hell or High Water (Not yet watched)

La La Land (Will see asap!)

Manchester by the Sea (Have not watched)

Arrival (Apparently this is good… will need to check it out)

The Jungle Book (Been meaning to watch this!)

Love & Friendship (have not seen)

Finding Dory (SEEN AND LOVED!)

Kubo and the Two Strings (I have seen!)

So, I’ve seen more of the top ten of last year!

What is the best movie adapted from a book?

The Prisoner of Azkaban! And Me, Earl and the Dying Girl.

Do you read movie critic reviews before watching a film?

No. I like to go in with an open mind, without someone’s views already whizzing around my head. I don’t want to get too hyped, and I don’t want to go in with no hope at all, because chances are I’ll either be let down, or the same as when I came in, just because someone told me how I’ll probably be after the film. It’s all psychological.

I like to have my own opinions, I discuss others’ views after I’ve made up my own mind on what I got from the film.

Do you watch the movie before reading the book or vice versa?

Hell no!!

I read the book – If I knew it was a book – before watching the film. Then I get to judge whether it is in fact a good film. A bad film is if they go off track from the original story. Trust me! Fans HATE a film that go away from the plot and change things around. Just look at The Mortal Instruments. It was a train wreck.

What is your most favourite comedy movie?

Either Bad Neighbours or Bad Teacher. They’re both brilliant!

Favourite Drama movie?

Heathers!

Western movie?

A Million Ways to Die in the West.

Romantic Comedy film?

The Switch.

Horror film?

Carrie (1976)

Sports movies?

Haven’t really watched any…

Sci-fi?

Guardians of the Galaxy!

Action movies?

This Means War.

War movies?

Don’t really watch them…

Who is your most favourite movie couple?

Hazel Grace and Augustus Waters.

Any movie character you can relate to?

Veronica from Heathers… in a way that’s complicated to explain.

And Harley Quinn… a LOT like Harley Quinn. I’m just not homicidal.

If you are to only watch five movies for the rest of your life, what would the movies be?

Prisoner of Azkaban

Heathers

Assault on Arkham

Mean Girls

The Breakfast Club

From left to right, Shannen Doherty, Lisanne Falk, Kim Walker and Winona Ryder on set of the film ‘Heathers’, 1988. (Photo by New World Pictures/Getty Images)

Your least favourite movie of all time?

Annabel… I won’t even put a picture up of it. It creeps me out too much.

Have you ever watched a movie based on the lead actor/actress only?

Yes! I watched White Bird in a Blizzard specifically because Shailene Woodley was in it, which turned out to be a really good film, but super weird. I recommend it, but just be warned of its weirdness.

And I also watched Women in Black, just because Daniel Radcliffe (My love) was in it. Terrifying. Seriously wish I never had now.

There are some films you just have to say no to, even if you’re trying to watch everything that one actor is in.

What movie you expected and wanted to be good but failed you?

I was seriously excited for Suicide Squad! And in the end, it was good, but was just too bigged up for what it truly was. It was off plot from the original comic. I don’t even think they knew what they were doing during the filming.

They didn’t explain the concept of Suicide Squad or Task Force X, even. They didn’t involve IMPORTANT PLOTS!! It was a good film, but everything was off about it and it disappointed me.

Favourite movie character of all time?

Oh my G! Seriously??

Harley Quinn! Animated in Assault on Arkham.

Favourite movie villain?

Heath Ledger’s Joker! So sad that it drove him insane. He was incredible…

Any movie sequel that you’re still waiting to see?

Incredibles 2!! Obviously.

Ever made a movie review?

I have! Check one out HERE!

Star Wars or Star Trek?

Star Wars!

Right now, think of any movie, what comes first?

Heathers, honestly. I really want to watch it now!

Favourite movie lines?

The gif in the above question.

TV series, books, computer games, or movies in order of interest?

Okay, that’s just mean… Right, let me think!

Books

Movies

Video Games

TV Series

But they’re all REALLY close together.

Lastly, if your life story is to be made into a movie, who would you like to portray you? Who should be directing it and what would be the title?

The actress portraying me would be Emma Stone.

The Director would be Christopher Nolan and Steven Spielberg . They’ll work as a team.

The title will be The Trauma of Thinking Positively.

I think my life would be quite an interesting film…

Let's Dive into my thoughts on... MOVIES. How often do you watch a movie? As many times as I can a week. What movie genre are you particularly fond of?

0 notes

m-green-writing · 8 years ago

Text

My 2016 in Films

I should really get a film blog for this, but seeing as I don’t have one, and I already have way too many blogs going, this list is going here. Enjoy. Or not. Either or.

Creed ****

I’ve never seen a Rocky movie. In fact, “fighting” or sports movies in general I just have no interest in. I’ve seen a few and I’ve liked them but the genre itself hasn’t really grabbed me. With that said, I really enjoyed Creed. Knowing nothing about Rocky I was worried that I would be left behind with a lot of what was going on, but luckily the movie does its best to welcome newcomers as well as long time fans. In essence this is a passing of the torch movie, and it works incredibly well. Michael B. Jordan is incredibly likeable and Stallone, whilst still not amazing at drama, can certainly bring the emotion when it’s needed. If I had one drawback is that the film felt a little unfocused at times, with a collection of scenes all fighting to be shown. Ultimately it doesn’t affect the end result. The end fight is also a great finale, and in general, the strongest parts of the movie are the boxing scenes themselves. Definitely give it a whirl if you’re even slightly interested.

In the Heart of the Sea ****

Earning a lot of controversy with its subject matter (i.e. whaling), In the Heart of the Sea wasn’t resonating with audiences enough to convince them to go and see it. But they should. The whaling aspect is present throughout, yes, but it never tries to justify it and really the main focus is on the people; namely the captain, played by Benjamin Walker, and the frustrated first mate, played by Chris Hemsworth. This is also a very human story, detailing just what people will do not only to survive but also to thrive. It isn’t without problems sadly. The CGI is incredibly noticeable and distracting, and its story telling is a little jagged at times. For example, I felt it wasn’t clear that it was being told from the cabin boy’s perspective until about half way through; then again, that could just be me. All in all the movie is engaging and darkly entertaining. The scenes involving the illusive “White Whale” are some of the best sea-fairing moments I’ve seen on film, obvious CGI and all, and if you were to take anything home with from the film, you should take the raw humanity shown.

The Revenant ***

Why is it that Oscar-bait movies these days are so overrated. I mean, the Revenant isn’t a bad movie per se - it’s got a strong cast, a straightforward story, and a very ambitious director - it’s just generally a slog. The CGI is criminally visible half the time, making it difficult to get immersed in the wild-life scenes, and most of the dialogue is mumbled. Honestly this could have been a silent movie. The only-natural-light approach also doesn’t serve the story well, which can lead to overly dark moments. Leonardo DiCaprio took the oscar for best actor for this role, and, not to say it’s undeserved, but he has done better roles than this. In fact, he should have earned his Oscar for one of them, not here. It’s a good performance; it’s visceral and there’s a hell of a lot of effort going in, but it also feels pretty empty, like there’s not much depth outside of whispering and grunting. Generally, it’s about an hour too long, and has way too many slow moments, but it’s OK enough. I just didn’t realise OK was Oscar worthy.

Spotlight ****

Why is it that every other story that comes out of Hollywood is “based on true events”? Half the time the events are heavily dramatised to appeal on the big screen. Even so, thankfully, amidst the fluff of over-embellished narratives, there a few diamonds shining through. Spotlight is one such diamond. Detailing out the investigative journalism of the catholic paedophilia scandal at the turn of the century, the film (if you’ll excuse the term) spotlights the people who uncovered it all. Everyone pretty much knows about the controversy, so it’s good to see what happened behind the scenes. In terms of narrative it’s actually quite slow, but the performances keep you well and truly invested in what’s going on. Every high, every low, and every set back holds your interest firmly. There’s no getting around it; the subject matter is quite disturbing and many people may not be too comfortable discussing it, but that doesn’t stop Spotlight being an uplifting story about facing corruption and winning.

Dad's Army **

Despite not really being this film’s target audience (that would be people that grew up with the show) I was quite looking forward to this flick. The trailer looked to be pretty funny, and the casting seemed like a sure fit. Sadly, the film just didn’t deliver. The word that comes to mind is predictable. After the basic premise has been given to you, you know how this film is going to go. Misunderstandings are telegraphed, jokes outstay their welcome more often than not, and generally the whole movie just doesn’t feel like it belongs. Like I say though, the cast is great and everyone brings their best. None more-so than the scene stealing Michael Gambon as Private Godfrey, who is both riotously funny and incredibly sincere - to both the characters and the source material. The humour isn’t that bad either really. There are more misses than hits, mind you, but the ones that land really get some genuine belly-laughs out of the crowd. There’s also a good mix. There’s slapstick, wordplay, some great writing, some equally great delivery; all of it does come together, but not often enough. It’s a shame this film is more a collection of highlights than it is an actual movie.

Concussion ***

Yet another “based on true events” tale, Concussion goes into the groundbreaking work of Dr Bennet Omalu, as he uncovers the adverse effects of professional football. On paper it’s a fairly engaging idea, but in execution I feel it misses its mark somewhat. Will Smith in the lead is a great move and most of the supporting cast do their best, but generally you feel as if the whole movie is lacking in substance. You start to wonder if this movie would have been suited to a documentary rather than a movie. A few too many dull moments drag the pacing down, and with ultimately no real build up, the film feels rather empty. It just keeps rolling along, going from scene to scene until it ends. Apologies for the spoiler but there’s also no real resolution at the end either, no grand victory, just a slight change to an already corrupted rule book. Hardly the best note to close on. Even if it is being faithful to the truth, perhaps it would have been better left un-filmed. For what it’s worth, it’s not a terrible movie. It’s entertaining enough and Will Smith is charming pretty much 100% of the time so it’s not a complete waste. It’s just trying to tell a story that is either unfinished or not there at all.

Hail, Caeser **

Hail, Caeser is a film that’s got all the critics in a tizzy. “It’s the Coen Brothers, they can’t make a bad movie” and “It’s a love letter to the art of cinema, you must be heartless not to fall for its charm” rung out in almost every review I read. The above statements are correct: this movie is made by the Coen brothers - filmmakers with both a strong writing history and a strong directorial history - and this film is a love letter to the industry’s past. Do not think, though, that it is a good film. Hail, Caeser has the star-studded cast, and the writing to make it a great movie, but this film has such a monumental structure deficiency that what we end up with is a movie with no sense of pace or plot. The story, which you’d think should take centre stage at all times, is actually constantly on the back seat to arguably pointless scenes. These scenes are there to “show” what the business was like “back in the day”, but they add nothing and go nowhere. Some even go on for an absurd amount of time, feeling more like filler in an already full movie. They are more distractions than anything else. It’s like trying to read a book at a pub quiz; you’re just not allowed to follow the story. Furthermore, you realise by the end of the movie that this star-studded cast, this billing of absolute talent, is barely used. Scarlett Johansson is in a grand total of 2 scenes. Channing Tatum, 2 scenes. Jonah Hill, who is on the bloody poster, features in 1 scene. 1 scene! And it’s the scene in the trailer. Why bring him on board at all? Was he just out and about and you snatched him on his day off? Did you have just a huge casting budget and you just had to spend it all? None of it contributes anything. As a love letter to the golden years of the silver screen, the film succeeds, but as a movie, as a story, as a narrative, it fails on all fronts.

Deadpool ****

In an era where adult satire means juvenile humour, I was nervous about seeing Deadpool. The concept was there, and Ryan Reynolds was born to play the role, but I was worried the comedy would be a little below my tastes. Thankfully, this dressing down of super hero movies, and action movies in general, is a hilarious and fun experience. Yes, there are a few too many crude jokes, and the humour is a little childish sometimes, but Ryan Reynolds sells this character and then some. His charisma alone is enough to make this movie good. Add to that some brilliant meta humour and blink-and-you’ll-miss-them references to other properties and you’ve got something truly unique in its field. Deadpool is perfectly satisfying; it doesn’t outstay its welcome and it knows where to take the audience. It feels quite short, which is refreshing when most action movies feel incredibly drawn out, and it also has a small but meaningful story. You can tell the team behind this put in maximum effort.

Zootropolis *****

I really like the direction Disney have been going recently. They could just churn out any old colour splashed montage to keep kids entertained, but seeing them use their position and talent to tell not only thought-provoking, but also progressive stories gives me hope for the future generations. Zootropolis (Zootopia to everywhere else outside the UK) is just the latest example. Where to even start? You wouldn’t think a movie about anthropomorphic animals would have a lot of depth but it surprisingly does. It tackles huge adult issues like race and prejudice, as well as going into sexism and misogyny, all while maintaining a family atmosphere. Some of its writing does get a little heavy handed sometimes - what with the main character Judy having her parents tell her to give up on her dreams - and some of the jokes don’t have the energy to take off like the rest of them, but for the most part the movie is tightly written, tightly acted, and generally well thought out. Everyone can relate to the dilemmas in this movie, and the best part is the film seems focused on building bridges between factions than it does painting divisions. It wants to make something out of the grey areas, and frankly I think it achieves this with flying colours. Zootropolis is quite possibly the best movie I’ve seen this year.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice ***

DC need an intervention. I felt this even before I saw the movie, but now I’m only more convinced. To be fair this movie starts off and it’s not too bad. I think that’s what made the following hour and a half so hard; this film had potential - in spite of my assumptions. Everything starts falling apart the moment they try and allude to future films, stories, and spin-offs. Once that starts happening, the cracks in this film’s facade only become more and more apparent. Needless and overdone dream sequences used as narrative devices, absolutely no coherent sense of structure or causality, and zero effort to capture the essences of the film’s main stars. Both characters preach a moral high ground, yet neither of them have one. And these aren’t character flaws being shown to the audience, these are genuine arguments presented as if we the viewers should agree with a certain side. Batman for a start kills. Whether with a gun or a knife, or just with his own hands, he murders people. This is so out of character that it doesn’t make any sense, no matter how the film tries to - poorly - explain it. Then there’s Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luther, who is painful to watch. Even if you take it as writ and aren’t a fan of the source material, his performance is so bad that it alone had the power to sink this film. There are some good qualities. The music is possibly the best thing about it, and the casting - Eisenberg aside - is actually pretty perfect. Ben Affleck is probably the best on-screen Batman, it’s just a shame that he’s written so far off base. Overall, it’s just entertaining enough to scrape an average score. There are some good scenes sprinkled about, and the actors do put in a lot of effort. If only DC and Warner Brothers knew what they were doing; this could have been great.

Eddie the Eagle ****

Oh look, another movie “based on true events”. Luckily this is one of the better ones - even if it does embellish a lot. For example, Hugh Jackman’s fallen-from-grace coach is entirely fictitious, and is rather a culmination of all the real Eddie the Eagle’s mentors. Furthermore, for the sake of storytelling, the alignments are very black and white; there’s not a lot of grey going on here. In the wrong hands this would have worked against the movie. Thankfully, it works out great. Taron Egerton as the titular lead is extraordinarily likeable and relateable and both the writing and performances are on point. when this movie wants to be dramatic it pulls it off, when it wants to be funny and whimsical it pulls that off too. At the end of the day it’s not going to be breaking any ground, and it’s hardily original or unique, but it’s a brilliant feel-good film for anyone of any age. Give it watch if you ever get chance.

Midnight Special **

Midnight special is an odd one. It raised a lot of eye-brows for many critics, and earned a lot of praise for its high ambition with a low budget; but honestly I can’t see it as anything but a sub-par sci-fi flick. The mystery and the intrigue is undermined by the movie’s inability to pace or explain, and a lot of the performances here feel a little stagnant. Also, as much as the film tries to paint itself as a sci-fi, with call backs to genre greats like Close Encounters, it has an insane amount of Religious overtones. This movie paints the main child as a somewhat messiah figure, which would be fine, but it doesn’t fit well with the science fiction element they’re also running with. Is he an alien? Is he a messiah? What are the extent of his powers and why does he have them? The movie makes its audience ask these questions and more, and it seems to enjoy watching their viewers writhe in confusion and frustration when nothing is explained. It’s a story with build up but no pay off. A joke with no punchline. What’s more, while I’m not saying a movie has to have money behind it to be good, the low budget aspect really doesn’t help in some scenes. There’s a moment where Michael Shannon and his son are in the woods at night, and you can’t see anything. It was just black with hints of grey. Altogether, the movie is harmless enough, but it’s too boring and too obtuse to warrant any real praise.

The Jungle book ***

The latest in Disney’s line of “Real Reboots”, the jungle book takes the classic story and brings it to life with “live action”. I put quotation marks there because it’s not really live action, is it? Half the sets aren’t real, and naturally every animal is CG. It’s only slightly less cartoony than the original. Right away, you’re first criticism is a valid one: “Why even bother?” It’s true. It seems ultimately pointless to reboot this movie. The Jungle book isn’t Disney’s strongest properties, and although it’s a classic, not a lot of people would say it’s their favourite. So why remake it at all. Sadly I don’t have an answer, but taking the movie for what it is, it’s actually pretty all right. I can’t hate this movie too much as I can tell a lot of effort went into it. The casting is decent enough, though for every Idris Elba as Shere Khan there’s a Christopher Walken as King Louie. Speaking of, a lot of things have been changed from the original - King Louie now being almost sociopathic in his pursuit of fire for instance. “Well maybe this is this film’s attempt to be different from the original?” You may say; but then why do they keep some of the songs - arguably the most iconic thing from the 1960s version. In a way they keep all the songs, but some are saved for the credits, which makes you wonder if this movie was undergoing an identity crisis during production. Ultimately, it’s not a terrible film. It’s got some highlights worth watching, it’s just not going to take many awards home. Then again, does a movie have to do that to be good?

Captain America Civil War ****

I like all comic books. DC, Marvel, so long as it’s done right, I don’t mind. So when you ask me, am I team DC or team Marvel, I’m team Comic Books. Y’see Marvel are doing a better job because they’ve got the right people behind the scenes pulling the strings. DC are struggling, not because no one likes Super-man, or that people are all Marvel fanboys, but because DC have decided to surrender all control of their properties to Warner Brothers. All these IPs are money spinners to these companies, but the heads at Marvel and Disney know that a money spinner is only useful so long as it’s faithful to the fans, and good for everyone else. Take Captain America Civil War, which is probably the most ambitious comic book movie ever put to film. Over ten on screen heroes, each with their own presence and each bringing layers of potential to the show, as well as trying to weave in a coherent plot that ties it all together. The action here truly has never been done before, or at the very least not to this scale. The performances again are great; these characters are always fun to watch, and it poses some pretty interesting arguments, leading to genuine dialogue. It’s not perfect however. The villain is quite weak, despite having a strong presence in Marvel’s history, and sometimes the conflict between Iron man and Captain America feels forced. A better set up or more consistent character arcs over the last few movies would have improved things. They do try to explain the influxes in character motivations, but they do feel a little thin all the same. As an adaptation, it fails also, but to be fair, if you’ve read Civil War, you’d know a film to match its magnitude is simply not possible. Despite the downsides though, this film is highly enjoyable from start to finish. Pacing is spot on, and the writing is well done; not to mention how seamless the action scenes can be, especially when they could easily be chaotic. Another great string in Marvel’s bow. Not really sure about Martin Freeman’s american accent though.

X-Men: Apocalypse ****

Oh god, the X-Men movie franchise has had a rough ride, hasn’t it? It started strong, then quickly lost its way, then fell even further, before rising up and being moderately good again. The continuity in these movies has always been awful, and whilst Days of Future Past pretty much retconned everything after X-Men 2, Apocalypse brings the series plot holes back in force. The continuity deficiency is terminal with this franchise it seems. But, thankfully, if you just take Apocalypse as a stand alone movie and ignore everything set before and after it, it’s actually rather good. The effects are great, the story is interesting, and the villain is genuinely intimidating - even if he does look horrible when compared to the source material. The writing isn’t so tight sadly, and most of the movie is more just a collection of scenes than anything else, but even so, if you somewhat switch your brain off, its incredibly enjoyable to watch. I think the X-Men series has run its course though now. Reboot it or leave it be, take your pick; but please just put the continuity out of its god damn misery!

Warcraft ***

I’m putting this here first: I have not played the game. Nor will I, nor has this film made me want to. Warcraft as a video game just doesn’t resonate with me. That said, I’m always up for a fantasy lore-fest whenever one rolls into town, so I went into this oddly enthusiastic. And it’s OK. It’s not really a bad movie, though there are plenty of areas that could be stronger, and it’s just not got the strength to match the gravitas of, let’s say, Lord of the Rings, but its decent enough. Easily one of the movie’s biggest problems is the CGI. If they were trying to make this film look like a video game, they succeeded. It’s like I’m watching a 2 hour long cutscene. Nothing is real, and even the actors themselves don’t look like they’re there half the time. In contrast, the CGI backgrounds are jaw-dropping. The environments excel in both imagination and scope. They’re genuinely impressive. The cast here seems, for lack of a better word, cheap. Not saying the actors are terrible, far from it, they do a really good job, but Ben Foster just doesn’t look like a wise and experienced wizard to me. And Dominic Cooper just looks too young to be the king of the land. It’s not so much miscasting as it is mismatching. Furthermore the lead in this movie has a strong accent that sometimes doesn’t fit with the film’s surroundings. The plot is intriguing at first but it gets convoluted towards the end, with motives and other key plot points being lost along the way. Furthermore there are a few too many scenes that don’t pan out well. Even with this in mind, I don’t think it’s all bad. I wouldn’t say it’s the next fantasy franchise to look out for though.

Independence Day Resurgence **

The trailers to Independence Day Resurgence were silly. And that was fine. Because as well as being silly there was a vibe that it was also incredibly self-aware. This movie knew how dumb it was and it was going to go with it. Turns out I was wrong to assume that. This film is just a giant 2 hour shrug. The story, while intriguing at first, soon gets uninteresting as you realise the film-makers aren’t interested in pushing the boundaries of imagination. Within 15 minutes everything becomes irritatingly bland. The characters - both old and new - are bland, the plot is bland, and the effects are bland. 90% of this movie is computer generated, and it’s so jarring to watch with real actors around it. Roland Emmerich the director said back in 1996 that he preferred practical effects to CGI; that’s one of the reasons why, in spite of its problems, the original film is still beloved. He said CGI was too much like a computer game. It seems so bizarre that he would pull a 180 on it as an artist. In the end this movie just lacks so much of what made the original good. The humour - with the exception of one or two moments - is forced, performances are phoned in, and the writing is lazy at best. Even if you didn’t like the original, you had to admit there was a degree of charm to it. None of that is here. It’s not unwatchable, but it’s hardly worth going out of your way to see. Feel free to skip it.

Secret life of pets **

Illumination Entertainment are, in my opinion, more doers than thinkers. They have ideas and run with them immediately, but not every idea they have is a surefire hit. Enter: The Secret Life of Pets. A lot of people have criticised this movie because its plot and dilemmas are similar to Toy Story, and that’s true, but to me this film’s biggest problem is it’s just generic. The characters are generic, the situations are generic, the plot, the structure, the humour, none of it is unique. The animation is nice, and there’s some great imagery sometimes, but on the whole that’s your lot. The celebrity voices add nothing. Kevin Hart’s “villain” is more obnoxious than anything else, and Louie CK’s lead is barely recognisable or charismatic so why bother. Then of course there’s the humour which is so, so done now. “Oh they’re dogs, quick get out the dog jokes EVERY OTHER FILM HAS EVER DONE, EVER. Sniff butts, ha ha it’s hilarious right. Hey look, the small, ‘girly’ dog is actually the most badass pet in the movie, totally out of left-field and never been done before, right?” Even the none pet-related jokes fall face first into concrete. Ultimately, everything is just lazy and uninspired, which is why I raise my earlier point. If the team had sat down, truly thought out an idea, and put together something original, we could have had something with a lot of potential. As it stands, it’s as if the filmmakers sat down, said “toy story with dogs”, and then went to work on animation without a second thought. They phoned in the story, the script, and the performances, and in the end the film is just that: phoned in.

Ghostbusters ****

If it’s not ‘based on true events’, its a remake; Hollywood’s other favourite money-spinner, but of all the remakes to split the world in two, why Ghostbusters? Honestly, the lead up to this film was insane. There were staunch defenders of the original about ready to boycott it, and you had misogynists disguising themselves as “fans” because of the all female cast. But why Ghostbusters? The original is all right, it’s good. Of course it’s a cult classic but it’s not Citizen Kane; pull yourselves together! A lot of this crowd didn’t like being called misogynists for their outbursts, but can you blame us. The only big change to this franchise on the surface is that the cast is all female instead of all male, and you’re getting way, WAY too upset about it. A lot of people trying to explain away their misogyny were also particularly staggering. Actual comments like “There were women in the first movies, why do they have to be the main characters?” and “The men in this are either idiots or arrogant, hardily representative wouldn’t you say?” seem to procreate male privilege; but I digress. Point is the movie is actually good. And no I’m not saying that because I’m scared people will think I’m misogynist. The movie had some genuine laughs from start to finish, and the effects, in my opinion, were a brilliant homage to the original. The characters as well were all immediately likeable. Leslie Jones was particularly great, and half the time Chris Hemsworth’s Kevin steals the show. All in all I really enjoyed it. If you didn’t, that’s fine, just make sure you don’t get all furious about it. It’s just a movie with women in it; steady on.

Star Trek Beyond ****

The Star Trek reboot series has been sort of good and sort of bad at the same time. On the one hand you’ve gotten a great ensemble, and they’re highly entertaining films, whilst on the other, J.J. Abrams. OK, I don’t hate the guy and he’s more than capable of directing, but if his “style” doesn’t annoy you, then his ill-conceived winks and nudges will. When he wasn’t attached to the third movie in the series, and proud Trekkie Simon Pegg was helping to write it, I was sort of glad. Then when I saw it was the director of the Fast and Furious movies taking charge I got worried again. Thankfully though, Star Trek Beyond is a great movie. The story was well put together, the characters are wonderfully played, and, for once, it wasn’t afraid to try and be its own thing and try something new. The “sabotage” scene is particularly note-worthy. There’s your now obligatory Idris Elba role, which turns out to be quite an intimidating villain, and the action is fantastic. There are one or two set-piece scenes that don’t quite work; i.e. fight sequences that are overly long, or just feel empty, but for the most part there’s a lot to keep you hooked. The rules are that every even Star Trek movie is good, whilst every odd is bad; I’m happy to say Beyond breaks the rules.

BFG ***

I feel the work of Roald Dahl should stay in the past. Oh, no, that’s not me saying the stories are done or tired; Dahl’s classic tales will always and forever be timeless. What I mean is, in today’s CGI obsessed world, it can lead a lot of the magic and imagination to, ironically, dissipate. No matter how much motion capture you use, no matter how up to date your software is, once you make a CGI extravaganza, there’s always a disconnect between the audience and the visuals nowadays. It’s a shame really because Spielberg's attempt to cover the unforgettable BFG, is actually rather good otherwise. Mark Roylance as the BFG is wonderfully dopey and charming, and the young starlet they got to play Sophie is brilliant for a British child-actor; they’re usually not great. What lets this movie down is how its again trying to blend the real with the fake by using CGI. That and the fact that it’s a little bumpy, with pacing issues in the middle and a general anti-climax at the end. It all does feel rather bland when you really get down to it though, as if the movie has a heart, and a brain, but is missing a soul. There’s no grand lesson per se, and whilst the book is a fun exploration into the strange, silly, and bizarre, it doesn’t truly translate well into a full-fledged movie. The story on the page turns into more of a collection of scenes on the screen. There are your funny scenes, your tense scenes, and your “Gulliver” type scenes, but all of them feel like snapshots, as opposed to part of a grand tale. So yeah, it’s strengths are incredibly strong, but it does have a few drawbacks. Not a bad movie by any stretch, but one that will nevertheless have you questioning whether a movie was the best thing for it.

Jason Bourne **

The Bourne franchise is exciting and action-packed, but if this latest entry tells us anything, it’s that Jason Bourne - as a character - should stay in his original trilogy. For starters, this movie holds none of the energy or tense pacing of the originals, which leads to a rather drab and dreary end-result. Greengrass does his best but the simple fact is the material he’s been given just isn’t that weighty. The action scenes, whilst fast and constantly moving, just feel soulless and at no point was I ever gripped or held in suspense. The mystery is also rather average. As far as government conspiracies go, this is oddly tame. Add a confusing set-up and a lack of urgency to this, and you’ve got a story beyond difficult to get invested in. There are plenty of locations used but none of them seem to have any bearing or relevance to the story so one wonders why they were even there, and generally a lot this movie’s pacing leads it to be more boring than tense. A lot of it also feels like a “greatest hits” of sorts, with many scenes being almost retreads of the previous films. I can see the effort, and the desire to make something great, but sadly, maybe this is should be the end for Jason Bourne.

Finding Dory ***

Pixar deserve their status as probably the most exalted animation studio out there, but that doesn’t mean they cannot slip up. The Cars movies in particular fail to resonate with most audiences, and The Good Dinosaur last year felt rather bland by the studio’s standards. Most consistently however, whenever Pixar do a sequel, (with the exception of Toy Story) it almost always turns out mediocre. Case in point: Finding Dory. On paper it makes total sense to have the most popular character from the original and develop more of her story, but what we get is a film that lacks the charm and creativity of its predecessor. The characters lack any real vibrancy, and a lot of the humour is just lifted from Finding Nemo. Of course, there are some exceptions, but not enough to balance it out. The story itself tries to have a lot of heart, but it just doesn’t quite have the power to break ground sadly, and sometimes the movie retroactively damages the first film. Most painfully when we learn that Dory’s trademark “just keep swimming” wasn’t a result of her spontaneity, but rather taught to her when she was younger. This ruins an important piece of her character in the first film. She’s supposed to be chaotic, sporadic, and impulsive. She’s the perfect foil to Marlin’s order, fear, and caution; and together they show that one side (be it order or chaos) doesn’t always have the answers. Here, by bringing this in they try to add order where there shouldn’t be any. Generally though, it’s mostly forgivable. There are some stand-out moments - Young Dory is cute beyond measure, and the animation is gorgeous as always. It’s good, but when Pixar is used to exceptional, good just isn’t good enough.

Suicide Squad **

When I first heard Suicide Squad was being made, I was excited. Seeing a collection of DC’s villains on the big screen was bound to be great, right? Then I saw the first promo shot, and it was all downhill from there. First, DC decided to go with some of the most abstract villains under them (Captain boomerang? Really?) but secondly, everything was so drab. What’s with all the grit and grime, why does everything have to be so dark? The movie itself isn’t much better. Rumour has it Warner Brothers panicked after critic reviews of Batman v Superman came out and they re-shot and re-editted Suicide Squad to make up for it. And it shows. This movie just doesn’t know what it wants to be. Add to that a pathetic structure and weak characters, and you’ve got one hell of a poor film. The first half hour of this movie is a mishmash of desperation, trying to appeal to every demographic at once in a bid to win audiences over. The result is an absolute disaster of pacing, music, and edits. Pop songs are used seemingly at random (many have attributed this to DC trying to do what Marvel did with Guardians of the Galaxy) and every character in the “squad” is read out and explained to the audience. Come on, movie - show, don’t tell. This is made worse when further down the line the movie does it again. These are the problems you get when you don’t use your IPs properly, DC. If you had made prior movies showing us these characters and giving them room to breathe, this movie wouldn’t be such a mess. The writing for this movie is one up from awful. Character motivations don’t line up with actions, and later certain details are thrown out or conveniently forgotten for the sake of the plot. And don’t get me started on this film’s “attempt” at humour. Want to know how bad it is? There’s a “delete my internet history” joke in there, because originality is dead. Even when this film supposedly gets into gear during the second act, it’s just bland. Characters don’t interact or show any real rapport with one another, so they’re hardily a squad, and the action is about as basic as you can find. Then of course there’s the elephant in the room; Jared Leto’s woeful performance of the Joker. To be fair it’s a split responsibility. Leto pulls off a mumbly, hipster-like Joker in his performance, capturing nothing of what makes the Joker what he is, but let’s not forget that he was being directed by people who felt the Joker needed the word “damaged” tattooed on his forehead. Jesus wept, this is an abomination of a representation. But, was there anything good? Will Smith and Margot Robbie are easily the most likeable and charming parts of the movie, even if their characters are written like ass; and there are a few stand out scenes that got my attention. But outside of that it’s kind of lame and boring. As a movie, it’s disjointed, lazy, and generally nonsensical; as a comic book film, it’s a terrible representation of its source material. See it if you want, but don’t go out of your way.

Kubo and the Two Strings *****

Good art will never die so long as people are doing it. To some, stop-motion animation has had its day and it’s time to move on to more digital means of film-making, but to Laika it’s one of the most creative and visually interesting means of storytelling. I love Laika’s work in the past, and Kubo continues that trend. Its story is like a classic fairy tale and its imagery is unique and original. I will say that it does take a while to get moving but once the ball gets rolling its a joy to behold. Honestly I struggle to find anything wrong with it. It’s got wide appeal, it’s visually impressive, and it’s well written as well as well structured. What’s not to love. Quite easily one of the best 2016 had to offer.

Hell or High Water ***

Hell or High Water is a last minute movie in that it came out with almost no marketing at all. There was no build up. No posters or trailers in the theatres, only the internet had any idea of what it was. I guess you could make an argument that the movie is a little niche, taking a lot of praise away from the film festivals it showcased at, as well as prompting some early award nominations, but one that ultimately doesn’t resonate with audiences. And I can buy into that. As far as I’m concerned Hell or High Water isn’t the most original film of the year and really its not exactly exceptional, but its still mostly good. It’s main strengths lie in the morals and the characters. Jeff Bridges steals the show easily with his portrayal of an unabashedly politically-incorrect sheriff, and the motives of the main leads are very “robin-hood”. Really it’s a solid and nerve-shredding set up where you want both sides to win with a wild card thrown in for good measure. What drags this movie down though is its pacing. This movie is so slow and overly long. Scenes are drawn out for emphasis and I’m not against that, but sometimes there’s just not enough substance to warrant it. I’m not saying it has to be fast, and hell I know a rushed movie is almost always bad, but far too many times the audience is left watching nothing. From a story-telling perspective it’s distracting and serves only to take you out of what is otherwise a well written and well performed piece.

The Magnificent 7 ****

Another remake of a beloved classic, but one that didn’t carry as much controversy as Ghostbusters. Generally it was met with a lot of shrugs, but I quite enjoyed it. I haven’t seen the original so I don’t know if it’s being faithful or anything, but from what I’ve read up on it, it kind of does its own thing. I mean, sure it’s not got a revolutionary story and it’s a little more than corny, but it’s cool, fun, and damn entertaining. The centrepiece of this film being the 7 themselves, how they interact, and what they bring to the team. These characters aren’t exactly the most in depth of people, even when the movie tries to show them as more than just charismatic gunslingers, it doesn’t seem to invoke much of a reaction, but I’m willing to let that slide just for how riveting everything else is. I left the cinema feeling like a kid after watching this flick; buzzing off the energy and asking my family “who was your favourite?”. It has its highs and lows, bizarrely peaking in the middle with an outstanding shoot out scene that not even the movie’s 20 minute long climax can top, but for the most part it’s one of my personal favourites of this year.

Miss Peregrine's Home for Peculiar Children ***

I’ve been a Tim Burton fan since my teens. I’ve been there for the highs, and I’ve cringed with the lows. Burton’s been on a low streak for a while now, so imagine my excitement when reviews came out calling this film a return to form for him. Sadly, I cannot agree. It’s all right. It’s watchable; but it’s nothing close to Burton at his best. The one defining trope we get is his signature “look”. Angles, colour pallet, and overall design scream Burton, but there’s such a lack of oomph in everything else that I can’t help but feel disappointed. The story is entertaining, though a little (for lack of a better word) uncommitted at times. The film sometimes veers off from the plot to show off peculiarities, instead of weaving them into the plot naturally, and the general performances involved are the acting equivalent of a head shake. Eva Green and Samuel L Jackson aside, no one “acts” in this film. Asa Butterfield, who has done some great work in films like Hugo, brings us easily the most phoned in performance of his life, whilst his supporting cast are equally as uninterested. Even acting giants like Terence Stamp don’t seem to care, and there’s so much miscasting going on around that. Butterfield, who is British born, is playing a Florida-born character despite the film being set in Britain; which is just a stupid, roundabout way of doing things. What’s more, Chris O’Dowd, an Irish actor, is brought in to play his father. To be clear, they add nothing to the roles and they both have to put on accents which are, not bad, but ultimately a lot of needless effort. I fear they were cast because of their price tag as opposed to their acting prowess. One way or another the film is otherwise all right. Imagery is delightfully Burton, with some not-safe-for-kids horror thrown in, and the general imagination is there, but if like me you just can’t see through the lack of effort in some parts, you may not enjoy the 2 hour run time.

Inferno ***

I am a huge fan of interpretation. By this I mean I love seeing how people take an original idea from the pages of history and then do something new with it. It’s just really great seeing something familiar but also fresh at the same time. That being said, not all interpretations are great. Inferno, based on the Dan Brown book, which took inspiration from the irrefutably imaginative Divine Comedy, is a bit of both. There is some really great imagery in this film. I loved seeing hell brought forth, with all its dark, macabre forms in tow, but there’s so little of it that I couldn’t help feeling disappointed. Everything else is rather standard without it. The story is pretty straight forward, the plot twists are kind of forgettable, and the mystery generally uninteresting. Which is odd because we’re talking about the divine comedy here. There are libraries dedicated to dissecting this marvel, and this is all you could scrape out of it? Plus the movie tries to sell an idea and it does its best to be thought-provoking, but it generally misses the mark; possibly because its ideas are oversimplified. Ron Howard gets a bad rap with these movies, but I honestly don’t mind them. Yeah, Angels and Demons was a little dumb, but the Da Vinci Code was engaging. Inferno sits in the middle. It’s not awful, and it is a little entertaining, but its rather lethargic narrative and uncommitted performances don’t help its case.

Doctor Strange ****

The Marvel train keeps on rolling and once again we find ourselves at another obscure IP. Doctor Strange is certainly popular enough to be known to comic book fans, but he’s hardly a household name like Iron-Man or Captain America; so putting him on the big screen is a little bit of a risk. Luckily this isn’t Marvel’s first rodeo and it pays off in droves. Doctor Strange is one of the best movies the studio has put out. Its visuals are epic in every sense of the word, and their constant unpredictability in both scale and scope keeps everything fresh. The story is simple and well focused and the action is unlike most other films of its ilk. The pacing gets a little wobbly from time to time, with Strange’s training in the mystic arts passing by a little bit too fast for my liking, but it doesn’t get in the way and by the end it’s forgivable enough. Benedict Cumberbatch is great in the role, even with his american accent, and pretty much all the supporting cast around him are played brilliantly. Generally, I can’t find too much at fault with it; it’s a great, fun movie experience. All I can say is, I can’t wait to see him again in Thor: Ragnarok.

Storks ***

Storks is a tricky one to talk about but it’s certainly a movie I enjoyed. The main dividing factor here is generational, specifically in a comedy sense. Storks is a movie that I think perfectly understands its audience; that audience being: modern. As a result it doesn’t quite fit the mould of other family movies. Its jokes are a little more abstract, its humour is more in its surrealism, and there is plenty a lot of older generations won’t “get”. Some may call it weird, while others may say it’s all over the place, but that pacing matched with its obscurity is what exemplifies it in my opinion. It could have done the same old jokes of the past over and over again, and viewers worldwide would gobble its inane unoriginality up gladly, but thankfully Storks seems to respect its audience a little more and tries something much more new. That makes it a lot more fresh. At the end of the day it’s not exactly a work of art. It’s hardily the best animated movie of 2016, but it has some of the best comedy in a family film I’ve seen in ages. Performances are great and characters are genuine. Some old-hat jokes sneak in under the radar, while other jokes either fall flat or run on too long, but for the most part I was laughing from start to finish. It’s a breath of fresh air in an otherwise stagnant medium, and whilst it won’t be taking home any awards, it’s certainly a much more entertaining flick than others of its kind.

The Accountant ***

You know, I don’t consider myself a cinema snob, but is it wrong to hope that every film you see does something to stimulate you as an audience member? I say this, because I’ve seen a fair few films in recent years that really don’t have much to bring to the table. Yes, they’re stories, but outside of that there’s nothing. The movie isn’t really saying anything, commenting on anything, or even having a message; it’s just there. Hell, sometimes they make you question what passes for entertainment these days. The Accountant is one of these movies. It’s not bad, but its lack of impact doesn’t do it any favours. You’d think the premise would give you something unique but it doesn’t seem to have the confidence to do anything with it. The main character is an autistic mathematical genius who does finances for mob bosses and other less favourable sorts. That’s the movie’s only “wild card” as it were, and they don’t really do anything with it. A few scenes play out, things happen, drama occurs, and that’s your lot. Like I say, it’s not bad, it’s just not exactly good either. There are some decent things: Affleck gets one or two great scenes, and the resolution at the end is actually rather heartfelt. But there are equally poor things that drag it down. Anna Kendrick, who is a great actor, is miscast in this role as far as I’m concerned, and the film doesn’t half drag from time to time. Altogether it wasn’t a giant waste of my time, but it’s not something I would recommend either. It’s about as middle of the road as you can get.

Arrival ****

Arrival is probably one of the best sci-fi films I’ve seen in years; probably because it actually decides to do something different with an arguably stagnant set up. Aliens, friendly or not, coming to earth is hardly new for the genre, but making an entire plot about sheer communication is. Yep, this is a movie about talking to aliens. It doesn’t sound exciting, but as you watch you start to become more intrigued. For lack of a better word, the concepts they throw at you here are very “alien”. They’re clever ideas we’ve never really explored before but ones that are quite interesting. Having the aliens communicate an entire sentence and all its intent in one image is inspired. To say any more we’d be going into spoilers, but take my word for it, it’s really very good. A little convoluted and hard to wrap your head around at first, I admit, but good all the same. The main drama comes from the human elements; the lack of trust between nations and the panic civilisation faces is what keeps you on the edge of your seat. It’s a little slow at first, and sometimes you feel as if the movie is dragging on, but by the end you’ll come out quite satisfied. It also has a magnificent plot twist. One that, not only comes out of nowhere, but also is wonderfully woven into the story prior. Admittedly some may find its delivery confusing, and many others may find the mumbled dialogue a little bothersome, but on the whole, Arrival is probably one of the best movies of 2016.

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them ***

Don’t get me wrong: I like the wizarding world. I’m not enraptured by it all, but I can see the quality when it’s there. With regards to Fantastic Beasts, that quality is mostly missing. For a start this movie is rather bland and slow considering it’s something that should be at the very peak of fantasy story-telling. The CGI is very noticeable, which doesn’t help immersion, and most if not all characters are rather simple and one note. Easily the best character of the film is Dan Fogler’s wonderfully endearing Kowalski, who is both brilliantly played and also hilariously written. Honestly, it would have done the story better to have been told from his point of view. Other problems lie in an overabundance of Deus Ex Machina (something the wizarding world is no stranger to), its indifferent attitude towards explaining new elements of its universe, and also an incredible lack of any real shocks or surprises. It’s a shame how predictable most of this movie is, and worst of all it’s as if that predictability was intended. They don’t even try to keep things a secret. Any “plot twists” that do happen are more inevitable statements than they are shocking revelations, and for the most part the film never really picks up - it seems content in maintaining the same energy throughout rather than building to a big finale. With all that in mind however, the film does have its charms. Simple as the characters may be, they are likeable, and there’s a lot of lore for the fans to sink their teeth into, along with some fun animal interactions. Overall it comes across as a more half baked idea brought to life, but it’s entertaining nonetheless.

Allied ***

Allied is one of those movies that has a story, but isn’t sure how to tell it. At first you could be forgiven for thinking the film was a romantic, war-time drama, much like Casablanca, but at the movies half way point that genre shifts to a somewhat spy-thriller mystery. Tonally, this makes it feel like two different movies have been slammed into one. On the whole, there isn’t much damage, but it can lead to a lot of elements not really gelling. Character interactions start feeling stale; and general momentum can come to a halt sometimes, leading many heart-pounding scenes to lose some of their edge. Personally, if I could reach in and adjust accordingly, I would have the scenes in Morocco told entirely through flashback, with the main story staying in post-mission London. This would keep the film focused a lot more, and make the whole thing fit together more smoothly. Granted, it would change a few of the intended affects of the story. For example, by showing the two spies on their mission in Morocco first we see their romance bloom which makes the future dilemmas more pertinent. With the flashbacks, we wouldn’t get this result. Truth be told, not that much would be lost as I felt there wasn’t much chemistry between Brad Pitt and Marion Cotillard’s characters in the film. A few too many of their intimate scenes felt dry with nothing really connecting them. When all is said and done though we have a fairly decent movie, with a handful of good moments sprinkled here and there. The is-she-isn’t-she dynamic from the second act onward is legitimately well put together, and when it needed to be it was suspenseful enough. It’s not exactly classic material, but it’s entertaining enough.

Sully ***

How odd that a week after seeing Allied, I saw Sully; an arguably better film, but one that suffers from opposite grievances. Tom Hanks is charismatic and plays the role well, and his relationship with his co-pilot is also rather endearing. Being more or less a one man show, most of the surrounding story is in the background to what the character is experiencing in the aftermath of his heroic water landing in the Hudson. But that in itself is one of the film’s main problems. Because the story is more or less playing second fiddle, it leads the narrative to become unstructured. I said Allied would have benefited with a non-linear, flashback based structure, but here we have a film that would have been better without that. Flashbacks come and go whenever Sully is remembering something. This is fine, except these flashbacks can last upwards of 20 minutes sometimes, and some even repeat themselves, leading to many shrugs from the audience. Generally, more often than not, the flashback sequences are jarring to the narrative, and sometimes it really feels like it’s a small story trying to be a big one. This goes doubly so for the writing, which over dramatises certain situations. Most notoriously, any scene involving the air-flight investigators. These people are painted so 2 dimensional, that the film feels unrealistic. And it is, because in reality, these people were just doing their jobs; they were not out to get this man. For the most part it’s forgivable. When it wants to be exciting it can be, and if you’re not familiar with the outcome before going in, you’re genuinely interested in how Sully is going to get out of it. It does get a bit too flag waving at the end though; “God Bless America" and all that, and many of the plot threads literally lead to nothing, making some scenes feel retroactively pointless, but it’s passable.

Moana ****

Moana is a movie that seemed to get more and more interesting to me the closer it got to release. Granted that could have been the Rock hyping it up but where’s your proof? Either way I was pretty psyched to see this. And, it didn’t disappoint. Mostly. The animation is great, bright, and colourful; the characters are incredibly well done - Dwayne Johnson is perfect as Maui, and best of all I almost don’t recognise his voice - and of course the music is phenomenal. Lin-Manuel Miranda is the unseen character in this movie as his songs are some of the best in Disney history, and that is saying something. Seriously, the Hamilton powerhouse has got some crazy talent. Aside from this though the film does have some issues. The pacing is a bit up and down and feels almost rushed at times; especially at the beginning. I get it, it’s a Disney movie, an hour and a half story, and a lot of set up to get through; I’m not surprised things in the beginning get a little clumsy. Still I do feel it could have been tighter. Furthermore, the movie’s environments are a little bland and the story itself is a little choppy even for a Disney movie. The plot twist, whilst a good one, is also quite predictable if you pay attention. The good news is a lot of these shortcomings don’t hold the movie back too much. It’s still enjoyable from start to finish; Maui is irresistible, as is Hei-Hei the chicken; and the music will be burned into your soul forever.

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story ****

I have to admit when Disney acquired LucasFilm and announced they were going to be releasing a Star Wars movie EVERY year, I was nervous. “Oh but I think they should just keep it as 6 movies” I said, “any more would just get ridiculous”. But Episode 7 was good - if a little unoriginal - and when I saw the trailers for Rogue One I was immediately hyped. The truly surprising thing is that, for the most part, the film lives up to the expectations. It genuinely feels like a brand new Star Wars movie, not a retread like episode 7. The characters are interesting, enjoyable, and diverse; locales are constantly changing, offering an insane amount of variety; and for Star Wars fans there’s a lot to eat up, from the lore right down to the nods and winks. On the negative side of things, I do feel that the movie takes too long to get going. The opening act is bothersome and slow, with far too much back and forth and way too much mumbling. The plot is arguably simple, but for some reason it’s set up in such a roundabout way it’s easy to miss what’s going on. Plus, I did feel that the writing was trying to achieve something beyond its pay-grade at times. I don’t want to go into spoilers, but it tries to delve into the mucky business of extremism and how it negatively impacts a rebellion. An ambitious attempt, but one that ultimately misses the mark, and one that also paints the rebellion itself as villainous sometimes. I don’t begrudge them trying, but introducing grey to a black and white story takes precision and skill. Thankfully however, once the second act gets under way this movie forgets about this and charges on like nobody’s business. It refocuses the story and keeps riding it right to the very end. Honestly, I think this movie’s third act is the best of any Star Wars movie - it’s genuinely breathtaking. All in all, one or two issues don’t hold this back from being easily one of the greatest Star Wars movies ever made. It is a shame that a lot of the trailer footage isn’t in the finished product, but thankfully, the end result isn’t damaged by the absence. The force is strong with this one.

Passengers ****

Passengers is the sort of film that can slip under the radar, but it really shouldn’t. It’s actually quite good, in many ways you could even call it great. Its story isn’t very new or original, but it does bring new elements along as well as having some genuinely thought provoking dilemmas. For instance, Chris Pratt’s character Jim makes some very questionable decisions. His desperation pushes him down a path without ethics or morals at times, but his conscience never leaves him, and his character-arc turns into a quest for redemption. Where ever your head’s at with him during the film, you can’t deny so much of him is human. The real glue of this movie however is the chemistry between Chris Pratt and Jennifer Lawrence, which not only feels natural but is also incredibly endearing. You want these characters to be happy. Visually, the movie is impressive, with very little CGI for a Sci-Fi, and the imagination in some scenes is a breath of fresh air. There are some minor problems of course. Sometimes story structure gets shaky and plot devices are thrown all over the place, very much like the film’s space-craft, but thankfully, these moments pass and things remain mostly focused. A part of me wondered if certain plot details would have done better if re-arranged, but ultimately the movie doesn’t suffer with the choices it makes.

Collateral Beauty **

With an inspired concept and a strong cast, Collateral Beauty looked like it was going to be the modern day ‘It’s a Wonderful Life’. Sadly, it doesn’t deliver. What promised to be a feel-good abstract film turned out to be a clumsy story about grief that, whilst earnest in its performances, is somewhat lacking in structure and tone. The main premise, which is simple - death, time, and love personified visit the main character and discuss his grief - is butchered into a needlessly convoluted narrative. It’s annoying that I can’t detail anything specific without drifting into spoilers, but I can say that the impression you’re given from the trailers is a false one; do not trust it. The writing here is extremely roundabout too, with many scenes seemingly being needless in the long run, and it seems that the director had no idea what storytelling is. Plot threads either go nowhere or they lead to disappointment, and worst still the plot twists are so tacky they’re annoying. Seriously, they feel unconvincing and incredibly forced with very poor set-up. The worst crime of this movie however is the squandered potential. Underneath all of this there is a formidable, feel-good, holiday film fighting to get out. It could have been thought provoking as well as touching. There’s such a strong idea here that it’s a terrible shame to see it wasted in such a way. In the hands of more competent storytellers we could have hit gold. There are one or two decent scenes, and as I say the actors are truly committed to their parts, but Collateral Beauty, as far as I’m concerned, is proof that a good idea doesn’t automatically make it a good movie.

0 notes

trendingnewsb · 7 years ago

Text

Salma Hayek: Trump couldn’t build a wall without illegal Mexicans’

Her new film, Beatriz at Dinner, already has Oscar buzz. But on top of the acting, Salma Hayek is also saving animals, running charities and beating the hell out of a Trump piata. Johnny Davis meets Hollywoods busiest firebrand

It was after a neighbour shot her dog that Salma Hayek realised Donald Trump would become president.

I thought it was a crazy thing, that it would never happen but then something really tragic happened to me, she explains. I have a ranch in America and a neighbour of mine killed my dog. Hayek, who owns around 50 animals, including 20 chickens, five parrots, four alpacas, two fish, some cats and a hamster, says that Mozart, the tragic German Shepherd in question, had never attacked anyone. And the authorities in dealing with the neighbour, and what he did How is that legal? [Police have said the neighbour shot her dog after he found it fighting with his dogs in his garage.] Just to understand what was the normality of things. I realised in this moment, Oh my God: hes going to win.

Hayek, a Mexican immigrant to America who identifies as half-Spanish and half- Lebanese, lives in London and is married to a Frenchman who happens to be Franois-Henri Pinault, billionaire CEO of the company that owns Saint Laurent, Stella McCartney, Gucci is perhaps uniquely placed to have firm views on Trump, Brexit and immigration, and well get to them.

Hayek is primarily here this morning to talk about her new movie, The Hitmans Bodyguard. We are at a press junket for the film. Elsewhere on the first floor of this smart London hotel are Samuel L Jackson, Ryan Reynolds and Gary Oldman, answering questions. Junkets can be dispiriting, and rapport can be in short supply. That is, unless youre Salma Hayek, whose personality could light up a funeral. She arrives in a riot of black and red polka dots, tottering shoes and glossy hair, 5ft 2in and somehow 50 years old, although agelessly beautiful. She plonks herself into an armchair, hoists her legs up, and proceeds to tug the small table between us towards her. Do you mind? Theyre bringing me food. I like my food.

Hasnt she had breakfast?

I did but Im still hungry, she grins.

A round of avocado on toast is spirited into the room, accompanied by a mystery shake in a plastic container. (A second round soon follows.) Famous since she was a soap star in Mexico in her 20s and with 40-plus Hollywood films to her name, Hayek has done literally thousands of interviews. What does she make of the publicity circuit?

Im good! she says. I just pretend Im having a conversation with a new friend.

Other half: Hayek and her billionaire husband Franois-Henri Pinault. Photograph: Tony Barson Archive/WireImage

Indeed, Hayek proves impossible not to like. She may be the perfect chat-show guest: various presenters have hooted along as shes shown off pictures of her Donald Trump piata, discussed her experience as a late-developing teen immersing herself in holy water and praying to Jesus for breasts, or confessing she accused Monsieur Pinault of having an affair after discovering text messages from Elena, only to discover Elena was a language-teaching app.

In fact, we have Pinault to thank for Hayeks turn in The Hitmans Bodyguard. The comedy-action caper is basically a mismatched buddy movie for Jackson and Reynolds, hitman and bodyguard respectively. Hayek is only in a few scenes, but as Jacksons imprisoned criminal wife she matches him profanity for profanity.

I think Salma steals the whole movie, says director Patrick Hughes. I challenge anyone not to fall in love with her because (a) shes a polymath and (b) she kicks ass.

I have to tell you: action is not my favouritest [sic] genre of films, Hayek says. But I married a man who really likes them. So I became an expert. So I see them all!

The image of fashions most powerful CEO spending his downtime like this is intriguing. What is his favourite action movie?

Oh, its like Sophies choice for him, I think.

What about Die Hard, I suggest.

Oh, he loves Die Hard. But we love Bourne. She claps her hands. Sometimes he doesnt even like [a film], he says: Oh my God, that was so bad! But he still has to watch the whole thing.

Its a man thing, I say.

Yes! My brother likes that one, my father likes that one and because of that, when we were doing [The Hitmans Bodyguard] I was able to say it was going to work, because it had a lot of the stuff that the good ones have.

Mexican heroine: Hayek playing Frida Kahlo in Frida with Alfred Molina as Diego Rivera.

Similarly, do actors always know when theyre making a turkey?

Oh yeah! Hayek says, crunching through her toast. Yeah, yeah, yeah, you know. And unfortunately Ive never been wrong!

Her CV is mixed. The first Mexican actress to break into Hollywood since Dolores del Ro in the pre-sound 20s, shes played a lesbian taco in the kids film Sausage Party and so-so roles in films such as Spy Kids 3D and Wild, Wild West. But she also earned an Oscar nomination for Frida, her 2002 portrait of Frida Kahlo, and The Hollywood Reporter has just tipped her for 2018s awards season for Beatriz At Dinner, in which she plays an immigrant who clashes with a self-made billionaire.

At first, she says, she hated being famous. This was terrifying because in Mexico when you do a soap, at this point she leaps out of her chair and heads for the door Dont worry, Im not escaping Hello? Her security guard appears with a pack of American Spirit cigarettes. My soap was seen by 60% of the country, so its every day, in their house. Do you mind? Do you want one? she says, offering the smokes. So you become very familiar, like youre their cousin or something. Ive never been so famous since. I kind of hated it.

Taking aim: Hayek in The Hitmans Bodyguard. Photograph: Rex/Shutterstock

If she hated the attention so much, I wonder why she headed for Hollywood. But Hayek is battling with the curtains while she attempts to heave open a sash window so that she can smoke, unlit fag in her mouth. Not relishing the idea of Hayek tumbling on to the streets below, it seems only polite to help. For a few seconds she holds back the curtains, while I struggle to wrench the window.

Oh my God, that was so easy, she says. I really did want to be an actress, not just be famous. Its a different thing. Because I was famous on a soap! That doesnt make you a great actress. So I went to America to start all over again.

This was the 90s. She played extras and enrolled in the Stella Adler Academy Of Acting in LA, alma mater to Marlon Brando and Robert De Niro. And this is how old I am, she [Adler] was still alive! She was 90 and she was still teaching and flirting with the young boys. She was a tough cookie but she was brilliant.

Hayek could barely speak the language – My English sucked worse, there werent any parts. Mexican women played maids or gangsters wives. And thats if you got lucky.

Hayek threatened legal action against one director.

I was screen-testing for the lead in a film and they said that it was not written Latin, but they wouldnt mind changing it. I learned the script but when they sent me the pages [for the audition] there was none of the things I had learned, it was another role. So my agent called them and they said, Are you crazy? Shes Mexican. We can change [the race of] the bimbo, but not the lead.

Fashionista: at Stella McCartney, spring/summer 2016, Paris fashion week. Photograph: Bertrand Rindoff Petroff/Getty Images

She got her agent to call back. Would they please just give her five minutes to audition for the part shed learned?

And they said, Absolutely under no circumstances. So I said, OK, you tell them that they either see me, or Im going to sue them. And they said, Theres no point in her coming, even if she had been the best audition she would have never gotten the part but now we hate her. Does she want to come knowing that we detest her? They kept her waiting for five hours. They wondered why would she do this to herself.

Ive never said this to anyone, the name of the director, but it was Ivan Reitman. And I said, Well, I thought that the director that could see Arnold Schwarzenegger and Danny DeVito as twins [1988s Twins], and Arnold Schwarzenegger giving birth to a child [1994s Junior] maybe could see a Mexican as a fashion editor. I thought I owed it to the new generation of Mexicans. That if I got this right, maybe something will shift.

Years later, she bumped into Reitman and he apologised. We had such a lovely conversation, he was so elegant, Hayek says. He said, I was wrong.

All of this pales next to the hill she climbed for Frida.

I was obsessed, Hayek says. I was endeavouring to do a film about an artist in a time when all the films about artists had failed. Already [the studios] were going, Oh no. Then Id say, Its a period piece about Mexicans! And theyre communists! Its a love story between an overweight man and a woman that limps and has a moustache!

Committed: Hayek campaigning for womens empowerment with Guccis Frida Giannini and Beyonc. Photograph: Ian Gavan/Getty

One studio did eventually take it on, Edward Norton (her partner at the time) rewrote the script for free and Hayek called in favours from co-stars including Ashley Judd, then one of Hollywoods most bankable faces. It opened in two cinemas. Its success, I suggest, must have been all the sweeter.

Yes, she says. Because [the studio] dismissed it. I didnt even have a poster!

It may not surprise you to learn that Hayek is a committed activist: her list of charitable endeavours is too long to go into here, but it includes her own foundation helping women and children in Mexico, and the feminist charity Chime For Change, founded with Beyonc. Its so massive I dont even know what to tell you. I dont just do awareness, I actually do strategy. Im on the board. It takes a lot, a lot, a lot of time.

Other projects receiving the full force of the Hayek commitment include her range of nutritional juices, and a beauty line which she created herself. She also has her own production company, which helped turn the TV show Ugly Betty based on a Colombian telenovela into a worldwide hit. I ask where this drive comes from.

Its been there since Ive been a child. A sense of justice and responsibility for the human race. How can we be better? Because a lot of people dont think that way. They think: How can I pay less tax? And so when I see things that make me think we are degrading and degenerating mentally it makes me want to do something.

She has been hugely successful. Shes married to one of the worlds richest men. (Their daughter, Valentina, attends school in London.) She could just put her feet up. Of course, its a cheap question we already know the answer.

Why would anybody want to sit around and do nothing?

Hayek says that she made it clear she would always remain financially independent from her husband, whose net worth is around $17.3bn. Which may explain money-job films like Sausage Party.

Mirror mirror: Hayek guest stars in Ugly Betty with America Ferrera. Photograph: Danny Feld/ABC

At the time I met him, I had already decided I didnt want one of those [ie a husband], she says. I had set myself up for a completely different life. I was ready to live on my ranch that is a sanctuary for abused animals. I would come to LA and work a little bit. I was not planning on spending. I had no interest in jewellery or clothes or cars. I had everything I wanted. Maybe I had a guy here or there. I also thought I couldnt have children. Then he [Pinault] came along, swept me off my feet, changed my entire universe and knocked me up.

Can she remember what they first liked about one another?

Yes. I asked him, if he had not been doing what he was doing, what would have been his dream? And he said an astronaut and that was my dream! Then we started talking about different theories of physics, which is my secret passion. And soccer! Im a huge soccer fan [she supports Arsenal]. Just random things that nobody knows I like. It was just magical.

As a global citizen at a time when the world seems to be closing in on itself, is Hayek optimistic for the future?

Very optimistic. I have to look for the positive about everything.

Hayek campaigned for Clinton. Hows it going to end for Trump?

I can promise you hes not going to build the wall. You cannot build it without the Mexicans that are illegally in the country. That is what makes the economy so strong because they are paid less than half, with no benefit. Its just not going to happen!

Hayek is banging her fist on the table.

His days are numbered! Even if he becomes a dictator and rewrites the constitution and now the presidents can stay 12 years! Still his days are numbered!

Salma Hayek: activist, actor, producer, juicer, businesswoman, friend to the animals and all-round proper laugh. You wouldnt mess.

The Hitmans Bodyguard is in cinemas on 17 August