La La Lied

Introduction

This is my thesis on why La La Land is a bad movie on both a screenwriting and technical level, this will be broken down into different sections. I would also like to mention that this is being posted before the Oscars so I have no idea whether the film done well or had a Boyhood moment.

The Current State of the Industry

Its no secret that the film industry is currently in a bad state, the quality of films have diminished substantially over the past couple of years. The rise of the "Cinematic Universe" and reboots have been a source of this decline in quality. So within the darkness of Hollywood we do get some glimpses of hope, Star Wars Episode VII was an example of doing a reboot and a major blockbuster well and of course there have been some really good smaller films.

The majority of independent films are not good they are plagued with filmmaking problems, usually understandable problems but none the less they are still average films. The biggest problem plaguing a lot of films not just independent films is that of appealing to pretentious audiences and critics, this is a big problem. Referencing other films and the industry making the audience and critics feel important, the problem with this is the fact that it does not actually add to the substance of the film or filmmaking but makes the film and director/writer come across as shallow.

The solution to the problems are simply not to treat your movie as a way to show off your film knowledge and just make the best film you can. Keeping a film within the context of its universe is the key to having your film stand the test of time. So if filmmakers could stop referencing other movies in their own and just keep your films as its own entity.

The Art of the Comeback

As previously stated references need to stop in films, The Godfather never had a scene where Marlon Brando looks at the camera and goes "I could have been a contender" and then the audience claps because they get the reference. Its seriously a cancer than needs to stop in films, the sooner we get away from this trend the sooner we can start to enjoy films again.

Doing a throwback is different from referencing, a throwback takes a lot of skill to pull off, just look at the original Star Wars or Raiders of the Lost Ark they are perfect throwbacks, using iconography and themes to then tell an original story and make a really good film. In recent years we have not really got a good throwback film, or at least a major blockbuster. The horror genre has been very good at the throwback film but we need a major Hollywood blockbuster throwback. La La Land could have been that throwback, and this could have been one of the best films of the decade. The problem is we got a film with references and not a throwback.

Musicals are a dying breed, the last big musical was Les Mis and to be perfectly honest it was a good film. Im not saying that musicals need to return in a big way but it could be a genre that could be great again. Making a throwback musical would require a lot of research and effort to craft a good original musical that has the feel of a 50's musical.

So why is it that the film feels nothing like a 50's musical? .It claims to be this throwback and a homage to the classic musicals, but the film it resembles the most is Xanadu. I find it weird that the people bringing up the classic musical argument has clearly never seen a musical made before 2000. It is clear that this film was made to appeal to a mass audience who would overhype it to hell, the film is nothing like a 50's musical.

Remembering Whiplash

Since i first saw Whiplash my opinion has vastly changed on it, i started out loving Whiplash and now find it a good film with problems. Whiplash is a very good first film, a breakout film and so i can understand there being problems, mostly filmmaking and screenwriting problems that come with a relatively new filmmaker. My biggest problem with Whiplash is the script, having Miles Teller be a vessel for Damien Chazelle to force his opinions onto the audience but we will discuss that further on. Overall Whiplash is a fine film to get your feet wet within the industry, but the minor problems with Whiplash were surely going to diminish over Chazelle's career.

New Year, New Disappointment

After 2016 the film industry needs to start improving and with the release of La La Land i thought that this could be a good omen for 2017 but instead it damn near killed 2017 for me. Luckily T2 Trainspotting, Lego Batman and The Great Wall are good films and already show that 2017 is better than 2016 but La La Land was a massive disappointment to me.

Chazelle - The Character

Now La La Land and Whiplash both have something in common, both the main characters are agents for director Damien Chazelle to express his opinions to the audience. Both Ryan Gosling and Miles Teller really like jazz and Damien Chazelle's screenwriting won't let the audience forget both of the characters constantly have to tell the other characters how good jazz is. It starts to become annoying because they come across as one dimensional.

In Whiplash, Miles Teller has a scene where he talks to the "normal" members of his family and has to explain why jazz is so important. This scene is only here for Chazelle to show off his interest in jazz. When Ryan Gosling started talking in La La Land i knew exactly what Damien Chazelle is about. Ryan Gosling has many scenes where the film stops for him to explain to the audience why jazz is so much better than all this modern music, especially the scene where he flat out says that the majority of 80's pop is not real music and how he is a real musician. These scenes are only here for Chazelle to come across as a deep filmmaker who has a passion for jazz and that makes him superior to us and i'm not standing for it. Chazelle also references himself at points with Whiplash being thrown out there a lot going as far as to include JK Simmons in the film playing essentially the same character, its not clever Chazelle it comes off as masturbatory and pretentious.

Chazelle also enjoys showing of his film "knowledge" in Whiplash its when Miles Teller went to see Rififi at a cinema, this is Chazelle screaming at the audience saying how he "knows" movies and then La La Land takes this to the Nth degree. The first instance is when we see a "The Killers" poster in Emma Stones apartment, Jesus Christ this just irks me so much, its clear that Chazelle wants the audience (and the academy) to know how good his film taste is. Ryan Gosling has an entire subplot where he feels compelled to explain to Emma Stone how she MUST see Rebel Without a Cause, this scene sent me into a rage in the cinema, its so clear that Chazelle is a very shallow filmmaker who relies on his "knowledge" to get by and lets be real his filmmaking technique is not that great which leads us to...

Chazelle - The Filmmaker

Chazelle is not the worst when it comes to cinematography or style he is just a film student with a budget. Nothing about his style is revolutionary and his quick cut edits of food need to stop. When watching La La Land you get the impression that Chazelle wanted to be recognised for the film making when a film makers goal should be to have really good cinematography and camera movement without drawing attention to it, this is the same problem i have with Birdman. Opening the film with 'presented in cinemascope" was also a pretentious way to open your film and a clear sign that he was pandering to the academy, it also did not help that his film in terms of visual flair looked rather bland. La La Land looks like those Nike or Adidas adverts that play before the film rather than a 50's musical.

So we have established that Damien Chazelle is a shallow filmmaker who resembles a film student more than an auteur, he is not the worst director working today, but certainly not Oscar calibre. Whip-pans by the way are nothing special.

Modern Times

This may sound petty but i feel that if the film was supposed to be a "throwback" why was it set during modern day. Having the film set in a contemporary time, especially now, only hinders the film and including many modern aspects like iPhone ringtones snap the audience away from what they are watching, the film making and screenwriting are very hypocritical with what Chazelle wants to preach to us. He has Gosling talk about how great jazz is and then have Gosling horrified at the fact that there is a modern edge to jazz but then makes a movie that feels like modernising something that should preserved as it was. This is one aspect of Chazelle that really gets under my skin, he is a hypocrite and the worst type of pretentious hipster film maker. The entire film felt like Will Smiths white dad in Focus, just awful dialogue that is supposed to come across as edgy but just seems silly.

The Film Itself

The film feels like a modern day interpretation of a musical by that i mean its very muddled and has direction issues and the end result is a bland mess. The music in La La Land is nothing special with only two songs in my memory those being City of Stars and Another Day of Sun, I don't enjoy either of them. La La Land also has a strange pacing issue towards the middle of the film where it slows down to explore the characters more and there is a lack of any musical number until the last 20 minutes. To me it felt like an idea more than a screenplay, Damien Chazelle wanted to win an Oscar and the best way to win an Oscar is to include content about Hollywood and also be a musical. As I said before the story feels like the story of Xanadu smashed together with Whiplash, the most interesting part of the film being the plot about Gosling wanting to open a nightclub, that would have made a far better film.

Lighting is the Key to All of This

This film looks awful, its an ugly film to look at, the majority of it is washed out and dull, the foreground and background constantly feel separated. Why is it a trend now for films to look less cinematic than they did ten years ago, it really makes me angry that La La Land gets all this attention and praise whilst looking like trash and a film like Silence gets little attention and looks stunning. People are stupid and it annoys me that its only a select few people that can see through this facade that Chazelle has. This film needed to be colourful and yes you can say that the costumes were colourful, but it is vibrancy of the frame that i am talking about. A dull image is a sin, how can we be in 2017 and have films that look like they are 1950's industrial movies.

In Conclusion

Overall i would say La La Land is not the worst film ever but it does not deserve the majority of the praise it has garnered since its release. This was just my thoughts on why i believe that Damien Chazelle is a shallow filmmaker and why i personally did not enjoy La La Land. We shall see how it does at the Oscars but i have a sneaking suspicion that it will be another Boyhood, expected to sweep but fails. I can only hope. Here is to a better 2017 and I wish you all a good Oscar night and do remember that they don't really mean anything in the grand scheme of things.

Written By
Ashley Harvey

Oscar Predictions: 2017

The Oscars are tomorrow and here are my predictions, i will be listing my Think and Wants with a brief explanation on why i chose them. Now this year's Oscars are not the greatest and some of the nominations are pretty awful but here are the predictions.

BEST PICTURE

Think - Manchester by the Sea
This is the type of film that the Oscars love, its more about the performances than the film itself and it comes across as a "walking movie" it would not surprise me if this one best picture.

Want - Fences
Fences is the other realistic choice for best picture. Its a period piece and Denzel is no stranger to the Oscars.

Now i believe that if Manchester wins Denzel will win best actor. If Fences wins Casey will win best actor. If i were to go with what really should win then the answer will be Arrival.

BEST ACTOR

Think - Casey Affleck
This is the type of performance that all actors wins awards for. Casey is a good actor and does deserve praise but this comes across as typical Oscar bait

Want- Denzel Washington
Denzel is a great actor and consistently puts in decent performances and out of all the actors nominated he should win.

BEST ACTRESS

Think - Emma Stone
Now this is where my cynicism starts, she was not great in this film and should not win, but she will.
P.S I may be posting a blog about how i hate La La Land tomorrow.

Want - Natalie Portman
I can't explain why i want her to win but it just feels right.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR

Think - Mahershala Ali
Moonlight needs at least one win and this will be the one.

Want - Michael Shannon
Why not, i think is a fine actor, it will be novel.

BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS

Think - Viola Davis
People are raving about her performance and I believe she will win.

Want - Nicole Kidman
Again this is just one i feel will win.

BEST DIRECTION

Think - La La Land
Of course this will win, I personally don't see why it deserves any nominations but here we are.

Want - Arrival
I want this to win because I have faith in Blade Runner 2049.

BEST ANIMATED FEATURE

Think and Want - Kubo and the Two Strings
This is one that deserves to win just because of the art style.

BEST CINEMATOGRAPHY

Think - La La Land
Again it will win for some reason.

Want - Silence
This film looks beautiful. Thats It.

BEST COSTUME DESIGN

Think - Jackie
Its a period piece in the 60's.

Want - Fantastic Beasts
The costumes looked very good shame about the overall quality of the film.

BEST EDITING

Think - La La Land
All the technicals will go to La La Land, if it gets one it gets them all.

Want - Hacksaw Ridge
War films usually win for editing.

BEST MAKEUP AND HAIR

Think and Want - Star Trek

BEST ORIGINAL SCORE

Think and Want - La La Land

BEST ORIGINAL SONG

Think - Can't Stop the Feeling

Want - City of Stars

BEST PRODUCTION DESIGN

Think - Hail Caesar!

Want - Arrival

BEST SOUND EDITING

Think - Arrival

Want - Hacksaw Ridge

BEST SOUND MIXING

Think and Want - 13 Hours

BEST VISUAL EFFECTS

Think and Want - Jungle Book

BEST ADAPTED SCREENPLAY

Think and Want - Fences

BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY

Think and Want - Manchester by the Sea

Overall the Oscars are not important in the grand scheme of things and we will forget what wins in a couple of months. Look forward to my La La Land rant tomorrow.

Written By
Ashley Harvey

The Great Wall - Quick Review

This film was a watershed moment for me, being the first major Chinese blockbuster and to be honest they made a better blockbuster than the majority of what Hollywood has produced.

The film itself is rather decent nothing mind-blowing or great but a solid action fantasy but where this film succeeds and most others have failed is both in the script and the look of the film. Lets start with the script, again nothing great but what it set out to do it did well without having to make silly jokes or reference other films it was a film contained within its own universe. It has pacing problems in the beginning but when we are at the wall that's when the film finds its groove and keeps on going.

The story is about Matt Damon and Pedro Pascal who play "traders" in the east looking for black powder (gunpowder) they end up at the great wall of china and have to help the Chinese fight off a horde of monsters. That's it, it has a straightforward plot and sticks with it, no curve-balls just simplicity. Matt Damon is fine in the film not his best work but certainly not his worst and Pedro Pascal is good and convincing. The other actors are all fine in the film, no standout performances and overall it feels like a mid 2000's blockbuster in the same vein as Van Helsing or The Mummy.

Cinematography is what sets this film apart, there are problems but there is so much colour in this film and it is a welcome return to movies. Scale is also a part of this film, its not always present and sometimes the film feels claustrophobic but some of the wall scenes are huge. The CGI scenes in this were nothing special but they were not eye-gouging.The music was also very standard eastern fantasy affair but serviceable to the film.

Overall i think this a good steeping stone for the Chinese film industry to go mainstream and i encourage anyone to go see this film in the cinema, its not great but it is better than a lot i have seen in the past year or so. Definitely worth a watch.

7/10

Written By
Ashley Harvey

Black Rain - Hidden Gem

There are good films, there are good 80's films and there are good Ridley Scott films. Black Rain is all three.

I revisited Black Rain for the third time recently and it went from being a very good movie to being inside my top ten. Some could see it as cheesy or corny but this film does everything right for me. It might be the best non sci fi Scott film for me.

Black Rain tells the story of two New York cops, Douglas and Garcia, investigating Sato a member of the Yakuza in Japan after their escort of him went south. The Less said about the story the better, because it does unravel in a pleasing fashion and leads to a satisfying conclusion. One of those movies that could only have been made in the 1980's and it adds to the overall atmosphere of the film.

Ridley Scott knows how to make a movie feel atmospheric and Black Rain is no exception, New York feels dirty to be in and when we get to Japan you feel like you are with Douglas and Garcia experiencing a foreign land and how they operate differently. The film feels like Blade Runner without the Sci-fi, Blade Runner being my favourite film its easy to understand why i like Black Rain so much.

Now the performances are okay nothing that is going to win awards but very serviceable for the story and are in no way bad. Douglas does portray this American cowboy asshole really well and Garcia is good as the lovable sidekick to Douglas. Its a very good mix and Ken Takakura has the best performance in the film as Masahiro a Tokyo police officer who is at first reluctant to help Douglas and Garcia but ends up forming a bond with them. When the film slows down its a real joy to see these characters interact. Friendship is key in this film, its really nice to see how all three characters grow over the film.

Cinematography is perfect everything is cinematic about this film, dramatic lighting, sweeping shots and glorious landscapes. It truly does feel like Blade Runner which is arguably the most beautifully shot movie ever made. The action in this film is also top notch its a good case for why Ridley Scott is a good filmmaker. 

Hans Zimmer helms the score for Black Rain and it is one of the best scores for the time period, perfectly encapsulating a Japanese sound blended with other contemporary action scores, very bombastic and really creates depth to the film.

Overall Black Rain is one of the most underrated films of the 1980's and needs to be seen again by many people, it does stand the test of time and it is one of the best police action films ever made. I implore you to revisit this film, crank the sound up and enjoy Black Rain.

10/10

Written By

Ashley Harvey

My LaserDisc Journey: Pioneer DVL 909 Has Died.

Today is a mildly sad day because my Laserdisc player has finally decided to stop working. It is a Pioneer DVL 909 and when powered on all I get on the front display is "FLASH RD" i have no idea what it means and if anyone out there knows please do contact me, I would love to know the exact problem with my machine.

So how did I get into Laserdisc? Well it all started around 2010 I was fully into collecting Blu Ray's, DVDs and HD DVD's when one day I saw AVGN post a video about Laserdisc, I was amused by how strange it was to watch films on essentially a DVD that was three times the size. I liked the presentation of the films, in the vinyl style sleeves and the players really appealed to me because I am a massive fan of bulky electronics.

I got a player in early 2011 that came with 40 movies a lot of them were run of the mill titles such as The Nutty Professor or Weekend At Bernies and some were decent titles such as Star Wars and Willow. Problem was the player itself was broken, the disc tray refused to open, a common fault with Laserdisc players. Soon after that I invested in a cheap single sided player but later that day i also won an auction on Ebay for the Pioneer costing around £130. So now I had two players.

I collected a few more titles but never went crazy with it like I have done with HD DVD and never really used to watch anything. The only real example of using it to watch something would be True Lies and that was only because i heard the Laserdisc was the best I personally could get.

Laserdisc was nothing more than a novelty to me and still is, I wont be discarding my player it will sit proudly in my room and i will keep some of the movies purely because they make good display pieces.

The thought of replacing the player has not really come to mind either, it was a niche format I adopted six years ago but never really invested in it. I find it funny that this happens after I post about reviewing dead formats. I will still be making an in-depth review and retrospective for Laserdisc I thought it would be good to mention that my player has unfortunately died.

So for now I say goodbye to Laserdisc, it was fun while it lasted.

Written By
Ashley Harvey

Dead Formats Society

This is going to be less of a real post and more of a blueprint of how I want to expand this blog. Other than having a deep passion for television and film, I am also very entrenched in the home theatre aspect of the industry.

Dead formats intrigue me so much and over the years I have dabbled in some dead formats HD-DVD and Laserdisc being the two major ones. VHS is also a dead format but most of us have experienced VHS which makes it less interesting to me. Superbit is also on my list, because i own two superbit DVDs but yet to try them.

So this was just a quick update explaining how I intend to expand this blog and with formats and home theatre being a major part of my home life I feel its a step in the right direction for this blog. So alongside my reviews and think-pieces I will be discussing, reviewing and detailing home theatre releases and formats.

Written By
Ashley Harvey

The Art of... China

With the recent release of The Great Wall I would like to discuss further my thoughts on how the Chinese film industry could be the best thing to happen to movies in the past ten years. It might sound strange but there is a lot that can be benefited from having another global powerhouse in the industry.

The reason why China could be the competitor over other countries such as Britain and India is purely the financial backing that comes with making major blockbusters. China is currently undergoing an economic boom which has seen them break majorly into Soccer and with the release of The Great Wall the film industry. 

Like soccer in China, The Great Wall has been able to lure a two major American actors to star. Casting Matt Damon is a statement because it is not a small film by any stretch of the imagination and pairing that with an established Chinese director in Yimou Zhang we can see that this is the first step in China establishing itself as a major player. With a budget of $150 million China could rival the production of American movies. Money is not everything though and quality is what could set China apart.

China could prove to be a haven for directors who want to make blockbuster movies without the studio involvement. Imagine directors who make quality small budget films given the opportunity to take their talents east and be given a budget and freedom. Its no secret that the biggest problem Hollywood has is Hollywood itself. The Hollywood studios need competition otherwise the quality will continue to deteriorate, China is a perfect rival to the studios of America. It could also be a great showcase for Asian talent to break into the mainstream. 

Competition is good for the industry because there will be a motive to start making quality again, and if China is smart about how they make movies it could be the jump-start the industry has needed for the past 10 years. Obviously there could be problems, the biggest being imitation, if the Chinese film industry starts making comic book movies of the same quality of Hollywood then we now have two major players who are saturating the market with mediocrity. 

The option is there for talent now, Matt Damon did it, and i can guarantee that many more people will jump ship in order to be more creative and to financially benefit from this ever growing economy and hopefully the quality of Chinese film could be better than that of Hollywood which in turn makes Hollywood try harder.

The industry is in a bubble at this point in time and soon its going to burst, by 2020 I predict. I have faith in China to provide a healthy competition to Hollywood, because without competition there is no reason to improve and then we will be getting the same old stuff year after year.

Overall I believe that China becoming a powerhouse in the film and television industry could be very beneficial in the long run. Hollywood needs to be rivaled and China could be the key. I hope The Great Wall does well financially and i hope that it is a good movie. A review could be on the horizon.

Written By

Ashley Harvey  

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them - Review

This review may contain spoilers.

Fantastic Beasts is a textbook definition of what is wrong with the modern blockbuster, both on a storytelling and cinematic level.

First off I would like to say that I enjoy a few of the Harry Potter films with POA being my personal favourite and feeling as if the last three were not great films. The biggest problem with Fantastic Beasts is the common problem of scale, for a film based in the Harry Potter universe the overall scope of the film is tiny and there is no sense of wonder.

It was only a month before the film came out that i started to gain interest in Fantastic Beasts, hoping it could be the perfect catalyst alongside Rogue One to revive the blockbuster. Now I am very cautious about hyping myself up for movies, I have been burnt too many times within the last couple of years but i thought that if we had a film that could at least match the sense of wonder and scale of the first few Harry Potter films then it would be a very fine film indeed.

Eddie Redmayne was the best part of Fantastic Beasts, hands down, it was so shocking to see an actor that was genuinely enthusiastic about being in a massive film, in both his performance and behind the scenes he comes across as giddy. I really enjoyed watching Redmayne play this type of role and its a shame that the film around him was not better because his performance was amazing. Everyone else on the other hand were forgettable, none of the characters really worked and Dan Fogler was the live action Jar Jar Binks. Collin Farrell didn't really come across as a real threat and the reveal that he was Johnny Depp was silly and felt rushed.

The story felt limited both in scope and as a narrative within a grand universe. Some beasts going missing in New York could have been a good side plot to something far greater. The film does try and flesh out the wizarding world of America but nothing really sticks, rather than being a film within the universe of Harry Potter it feels like someone desperately trying to make a Harry Potter film without caring about the film-making that helped make Harry Potter so believable.

It must come as no surprise that i had issues with the cinematography in this film, for a film set in a wizarding world it was awfully dull and washed out. What is the big thing about having a washed out image, its really distracting when the foreground does not blend with the background and everything is very disjointed, it could be down to the cameras being used but it is obvious to me that it should stop. The visual effects are horrible, why did they not learn from The Force Awakens that using practical effects is a far superior option and it is not like the film had a limited budget. It is becoming a problem a massive problem that these studios and film makers don't understand the importance of making the frame feel believable. Why spend upwards of $100 million when it looks worse than some $20 million films.

Overall Fantastic Beasts is a film with massive potential, but was squandered by a lacking story and poor film making and the one saving grace being the performance of Redmayne. A cynical attempt to cash in on the "cinematic universe" craze and the Harry Potter franchise. Not the worst film of 2016 but certainly one of the most disappointing.

6/10

Written By
 Ashley Harvey

My Client: Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens

I am starting this off by saying The Force Awakens is a better film than Rogue One, there is no question about it, one is superior as both a film and a Star Wars film. It was around May 2016 when people started to turn on The Force Awakens, so many click bait articles and YouTube videos telling us how the Force Awakens was not a good movie. I am here to prove that not only is The Force Awakens a good movie but also to extinguish the idea that Rogue One is.

The Force Awakens needed to be a good film - not just financially but commercially Disney knew that in order to make Star Wars great again they needed to come out of the gates with a solid film. What we got was exactly that, not perfect by any stretch of the imagination but a solid reintroduction to the franchise and just a fun film with good film making behind it. So why did everyone turn on this film?

I think it was the promise of Rogue One that made people turn on The Force Awakens, people wanted a dark film with the visuals of the original trilogy and that was what Rogue One promised. The Force Awakens was trying to push the franchise forward in the best way it could whilst appealing to the fans. The irony is that the people who love Rogue One for having the iconography of the original trilogy would be the same people that bash TFA for following the same basic structure of A New Hope. So not only do you have people starting to pick apart a Star Wars film in order to get clicks, we also have a new Star Wars film that is promising the feel of the original trilogy. This was when the hate for The Force Awakens started.

So what are the problems with The Force Awakens? There are problems with TFA and some of them are purely a result of the modern concept of franchise movie making, this being references and winks to the audience and the other being some of the dialogue and character choices. Films have to stop obviously referencing other films, it is starting to get stale and takes the audience right out of the film and The Force Awakens commits this crime so many times but the overall quality of the film outweighs it. The Force Awakens is no Jurassic World, (which clearly turns to the audience and says that you cannot beat the original) whereas, TFA never lets on that it's a film, it keeps it purely in the context of the universe with subtle winks at the audience. The other problem I have with TFA is some of the dialogue does not fit with the universe and Han Solo has some questionable lines. These problems are nowhere near as offensive and blatant as Rogue One which has to stop the film to tell you how much we all love Star Wars.

Comparing TFA to A New Hope is fair and was always going to happen, but I feel people took it too far by saying that it's a rip-off or a clone. It is not, to quote Ben Affleck in Pearl Harbor "the French have a word for it, its called an Homage." The film does follow the basic beats of A New Hope and I feel that it needed to, there had to be that connection to the original trilogy on a thematic level as apposed to all of the fan pleasing. Now if The Last Jedi follows the beats of Empire then we can start to question what Disney are doing but for now I felt it necessary to have TFA resemble A New Hope.

JJ Abrams has a proven track record for reigniting franchises, he did it with both Mission Impossible and Star Trek, both turned out great with Star Trek being his best film in my opinion. Even the two films of his that people dislike, Star Trek Into Darkness and Super 8, are amazing on a technical level and his films do have this sense of cinematic scope that most directors don't. So if we were to compare the openings to both Rogue One and TFA we can see a stark difference in the quality of film making, TFA has a dynamic contrast in the image, it's vibrant and we are thrust into this film with pace with the camera being cinematic, tracking and gliding either via stedicam or crane. Rogue One, on the flip side, has a ship landing on a planet with a washed out image devoid of colour and film student shots of death troopers with the camera bouncing as if it were at sea. I't not bashing Gareth Edwards but I feel as if he dropped the ball when making Rogue One, so many niggling and major film making problems, whereas JJ has it down, he understands how to shoot a movie, like I said - vibrancy and energy.

Is story the problem? Well, no, the story is fine, weaker than the original trilogy, and it does a good job at setting up the other two films in this trilogy. Rian Johnson has been given a blank slate to build upon and hopefully deliver us a modern Star Wars movie that can be taken as its own film. This story was clearly a focal point for the movie from the get go, fully committing to the ideal of story over special effects. Rogue One however feels very rushed and poorly thought out, especially in the way the story jumps very quickly at the start, resembling the big problem of Suicide Squad (blog to follow). The death of Han Solo worked for the film and perfectly established Kylo Ren as a villain, the cliffhanger of Rey and Luke perfectly leads into a sequel and overall the film had a decent story, nothing mind blowing but a good jumping off point for The Last Jedi. No the story can't be the problem.

The characters certainly are out of the question, they can be seen as the same types of characters as before but I beg to differ and I feel as though these new characters could evolve massively as the saga goes on. Apposed to the one dimensional characters shown in Rogue One and even that is stretching it because I could argue that they had barely any character and were defined by traits, almost like the Prequels. Finn is especially an interesting character because he can be used as a way of interpreting the threat of the First Order from his first hand experience and watching him grow could be an interesting arc. The mystery surrounding Rey is also an interesting dynamic which could have a massive payoff if treated right. Kylo being the best character from the film, the amount of depth that is displayed and the misdirection is perfect, he starts out as a credible threat, then shown as an emotional teenager which then develops into something far bigger and could result in a good arc.

The performances were okay, nothing so shocking that could condemn this film. As previously stated it is the dialogue more than the acting that provides the less than great character moments such as Finn saying "boyfriend, cute boyfriend" and Han Solo saying "Women always find out the truth". These are problems with the script and not with the actors. Overall the acting is fine, in fact perfect for a Star Wars film and Adam Driver portraying how Anakin should have been shown in the Prequels.

It certainly was not the soundtrack which was a notch above the prequels overall although not having a track of Duel of the Fates caliber. The music was bombastic and immediately reintroduced us to this universe, and Rey's Theme is particularly good bringing a Harry Potter sounding track that perfectly emoted wonder and discovery.

I personally think that this film needs to be reevaluated by many people and compared to Rogue One in order for people to start to enjoy this film again. It is apparent to me that the hate for this film was the result of a perfect storm of internet critics and video makers realizing the potential in click-bait titles and arguments coupled with the promise of a return to the original trilogy with Rogue One. With Rogue One being a massive disappointment, I am amazed at how much i still enjoy Force Awakens, it should be the benchmark for reviving a franchise.

So where do we go from here? The Last Jedi has to be the blockbuster that changes the way films are made, no question about it, we need to break away from the references and winks and start to create films that stand on their own. Rian Johnson could be the man to do this, Kathleen Kennedy and Disney need to realize that in order for this investment to truly pay off they need to break the mold and go for it. Let Johnson make a revolutionary film or just a very good Star Wars film but in order for that to happen, the studio needs to have faith in the directors they hire.

With the next standalone being the Han Solo movie, The Last Jedi has to be a good film and needs to be superior to The Force Awakens in every way, there are no excuses this time. As a side note, give it until the first trailer to drop and then we shall see if Rogue One garners the same negativity as The Force Awakens did.

In conclusion, The Force Awakens is a very good reboot to a franchise that needed a safe but decent film to kick-start its revival. With Rogue One being a failure in my eyes, The Force Awakens is a very good movie and does not deserve the hate it has been getting. I am hoping that Last Jedi can fully renew my faith in Hollywood.

Good luck Rian, you're gonna need it.

8.5/10

My Client will return.

Written By
Ashley Harvey

The Art of... The Event Movie

The event film is a dying breed within our modern blockbuster regime and it could be resurrected by the growing Chinese film industry with The Great Wall, but i am here to talk about the concept of an event film and what should qualify.

To me personally i believe an event film is a must see blockbuster that is not part of an established franchise or universe. Christopher Nolan has an event film releasing this year in Dunkirk, a massive scale war movie that looks incredible and breathtaking, even his previous film Interstellar could be classed as an event film if it was not for the overall negative response to the film. The Revenant could be classed but i feel it was a little under the radar for the average movie goer. Those are some examples of what could be an event film.

Gravity was an event film it was massive and people went to see it and were talking about it, this high concept space thriller with a decent budget and two a list actors, and there you have the major qualities to an event film. Cast + High Concept + Box office reception = Event. The only gripe i have with classing it as an event film would be the run time which is under 2 hours long running at approx 91 mins.

Over the years the number of event films has been declining and i feel that it could be a massive blow to the industry from an audience perspective and even from a business one. The audience will start to get tired of the same movies that have been keeping the studio's alive over these past few years. Sequels, remakes and cinematic universes will eventually become stale among the average viewer leading to this bubble to burst and then the studios will be left with only a few money making franchises. Star Wars is above this, because Star Wars is rooted in the public culture it will survive no matter what and as long as Disney is pumping money into it, i can't see it dying anytime soon although i can already see the quality drop.

China could be our new source of big budget event films due to its massive push in The Great Wall and with their economy booming there is no reason why they can't start challenging Hollywood, i would personally like Chinese studios to give talented film makers and actors a freedom to make movies and stick it to the Hollywood studios and a grand scale.

As much as i would love for the landscape to look like the 90's event film scene i can't see Hollywood giving us that anytime soon. Long gone are the days where in the span of a few years we got Speed, Titanic, Independence Day, True Lies, Saving Private Ryan, Mission Impossible and The Matrix. Now we have to look forward to the next Marvel movie, the next Star Wars and the next remake of a film that no one should remake (Scarface, because it itself is a remake).

Overall i wish we could go back to a time when going to the cinema meant you had a choice between the blockbusters and the quality would be high and people had to go and see these films. China could be our hope for the future but for Hollywood i do see dark times ahead.

Written By
Ashley Harvey

The Lego Batman Movie - Review

I want to start this off by saying that there may be minor spoilers.

I enjoyed this film its a shock to me but i did enjoy it. It keeps a good pace and is thoroughly entertaining for both children and adults. Is this film without flaws? no it does have some minor problems but that doesn't take away from the overall sense of fun that this film has.

The story is good, very good i should say showing a side to Batman that a children's film probably would not have under different circumstances but after watching the Lego Movie i can understand how they can mask that element of the film behind a bigger plot involving Batman having to learn to work with others to defeat a multitude of villains, not restricted to Batman's Rogues Gallery. The themes of acceptance and parenthood are strong in the film and perfectly blended with the established Batman universe. The film has a feel good factor so taking a child to see this film would be a success and they should enjoy themselves.

The animation is amazing, on par with that of the Lego Movie. Vibrant is a good way to describe this film, very bright and colorful which lends itself perfectly to the Lego license. I find it strange that it was easier to connect with the characters in this than the "characters" shown in Suicide Squad and BVS. The humor is another part of this film which is done very well at times and can fall flat. The call backs to the Batman movies and Batman as a whole i found rather clever and the self acknowledgement to how poor the recent DC films are i found very fresh. Although there are some moments that just don't hit with me personally but i found my self not taken out of the film.

The dynamic between Batman and Robin is very good and the father-son themes the film touched on were rather heavy for a kids film but i felt it worked to the films advantage.

The soundtrack was also a surprise, the score itself was very good and could have been mistaken for a typical DC score. The soundtrack did have some pop songs which i personally find a little distracting and could date the film in a couple of years but they were few and far between.

Performances as a whole were very good, the characters felt at home within this universe and Will Arnett is brilliant at playing a self referential Batman, also Michael Cera as Robin was amazing bringing innocence to the orphan,

Overall i would have to say that The Lego Batman Movie was a decent film and is worth watching as both a Lego movie and a Batman movie, although it does not quite hit the heights of The Lego Movie it does come rather close and is different enough to feel fresh.

7.5/10

Written By
Ashley Harvey

Assassins Creed - Quick Review

This film suffers from the same problems as the video game that being that the people in charge think that the audience care about the modern day plot. As you can guess i did not like the Assassins Creed film.

Where do i start with this one, so many problems and little to nothing positive to say. I had bad vibes before the first frame was shown, sitting in a movie theater to watch this film was a big mistake. Full of fanboys who were going to be passionate for the film, in a negative or positive fashion but i did get a very bad vibe.

Lets start off by talking about the directors previous film Macbeth. I did not like Macbeth it was clearly made by a film student and not a film maker, studios need to stop giving major films to people who don't have a good number of quality films under their belt, and the problems that plague Macbeth are prevalent in Assassins Creed. Cinematography is so poor in Assassins Creed, just muddy visuals and very dull action scenes, and overall the film just has a dull look to it, other than some of the lighting which, i must admit is a good change from flat lighting. Good use of under-lighting and shadows and light sources were distinct and contrasted which is surprising for a recent release.

The story is rather forgettable purely a stepping stone just to establish the sequel, again this is a problem that studios are having, they are trying to plan a franchise before the film is even complete. Essentially its a basic mcguffin hunt for something known as the "Apple" and Fassbender must use this machine called the Animus to relive his ancestors memories in order to help Jeremy Irons and Marion Cotillard find the Apple, but the film spends a lot of time in the present day inside of a prison-like building. The film feels small even when inside the Animus and we are taken back to the past, it does feel cheap and very close quarters almost like a small budget film with a high concept but no budget to back it up.

Performances are very bland other than Jeremy Irons who has a clear character that the audience can clearly understand but both Cotillard and Fassbender just cruise through their performances and i find it strange that Fassbender produced this contrasted with how phoned in his performance was.

Overall Assassins Creed is the final nail in the coffin for the video game movie. Just a dull movie where the concept was bigger than the script itself and poor visuals. Not worth seeing even if you are a fan of the games.

5/10

Written By
Ashley Harvey

My Client: Warcraft

I would like to start this off by saying that i have no major interest of the Warcraft universe or mythos, thus i have no personal stake in whether or not this film turned out good or bad. From the trailers i had no hope for this film, it looked very generic and small in scale. It turns out, i rather enjoyed it.

This film caught me off guard when i watched it, the first 10 minutes established the film had scale, and for a film of this caliber scale is needed. I believe that if a film has a big budget, especially a fantasy film, needs a sense of scale and this film did build a universe that felt believable. In building the universe however the my biggest criticism, from a storytelling aspect, would be be the characters, the fact i can't remember any of the names and even during the film it was towards the end that i started to learn the characters names. The characters were also rather bland, with the only believable characters being the main Orc and the King played by Dominic Cooper.

Special effects are a major problem with modern day blockbusters, but Warcraft is an exception. The motion capture for the orc is very impressive and actually took me by surprise, and the effects in general were very well blended with the live action parts, of course a few parts looked off but that is going to be an issue with a film that is lacking in practical effects. I do feel a film like this would have benefited with some old school practical effects and miniatures, especially for the backgrounds. Matte paintings would have been perfect for this movie and could have been less distracting than the green screen backdrops. Lighting is also a problem in this film, only in certain parts but it did become distracting and i have noticed it a lot with modern blockbusters that lighting is become more and more of an issue. With Warcraft it seems that a lot of effort and talent went into the orc sections, especially the camp scene at night where the lighting is perfect and there is a lot of attention to detail but contrasted with the scenes in Stormwind where the image felt flat and there was not much contrast to the image, but these are minor nitpicks.

The year of 2016 was disastrous for film, and this was a total surprise and it should be given a second chance by people and critics. Yes the film has problems, but so does Rogue One and yet everyone loves that purely based on the Star Wars name. I can imagine this being good for people who are into the Warcraft universe and would recommend it over other films such as Rogue One and Fantastic Beasts, it was the purest fantasy film of 2016 that i saw.

Overall a harshly criticized film that deserves another shot due to it not being plagued by the problems that most modern blockbusters suffer from.

7/10

Written By
Ashley Harvey

HBOring

I would like to discuss my problem with modern television shows, mainly my problems with Game of Thrones and Breaking Bad. Game of Thrones being a massive offender in what i will be discussing.

Is Game of Thrones bad? Slightly, its not great barely scratching good and there is a lot of problems that plague the show and plague television in general and the big this is...

Content more specifically nudity, now don't get me wrong, nudity can be done well but its few and far between and i feel does not really belong on television shows or at least in the way Game of Thrones depicts it. The way that GOT uses nudity comes across as childish, a cheap way to get people to watch every week. The nudity that is portrayed really doesn't add anything to the story and some could argue that it just helps flesh out the setting but i feel it detracts from what is otherwise a decent fantasy political story.

So how does it distract? you may ask, well for one having a scene open with two people having sex then the scene begins does not convey good television to me, now if the story naturally progresses to it then its fine but when its blatantly used to be "edgy" it comes across as poor and in bad taste. Lets take Twin Peaks, now imagine when we cut from a scene to another that it starts with two people having sex, and tell me that it doesn't take away from the scene overall. It would be far more effective if they used the nudity sparingly and then only use it when it really does add to a scene rather than it be there so that the 14 year old kid feels like he is older than he really is.

Game of Thrones is not the only offender to this crime, nearly all HBO shows have it. Banshee opens with sex, and i could not get past the first ten minutes of that show because it came across as juvenile, it did not add anything to the story or setting. The Sopranos has it as well, but used it sparingly and it actually worked, The Sopranos is a very good show, that had character to support it rather than just boobs.

Then there is Breaking Bad that belongs on the other end of the spectrum. Lets start by saying that Breaking Bad is not as good as everyone thinks it is, yes Bryan Cranston is very good in the show and yes it is an interesting premise, but yet again the problem is pacing, there are so many long stretches of nothingness that is supposed to be character building but just waste our time. So instead of getting invested in a pretty decent story we have to watch Walter eat breakfast. I understand that television as a format allows for a slower pace, but there is a difference between having a slow build or even having quieter character moments and just long stretches of nothing.

Overall modern "drama" needs to stop with the unnecessary baggage and just make a good show, with characters people like and a plot that can last a few seasons. Even good shows have bad episodes, but those shows don't have long stretches. Cut the crap.

Written By
Ashley Harvey

T2: Trainspotting Review

Lets start this off by saying that Trainspotting is a brilliant film, lightning in a bottle and perfect for the time it came out and to be perfectly honest it had a satisfying conclusion.

That brings us on to T2: Trainspotting which for all accounts is actually a good film, for me the best film of 2017 so far. So with that said i think that T2: Trainspotting is a forgettable film and a bad sequel, i know that contradicts what i previously said, but i think it is possible to have a good film that is forgettable.

T2 does not really add to the original, and to be perfectly honest the film feels like a sequel made 20 years later meaning that rather than just continuing it likes to remind the audience of the first film and feels more of a reunion than a sequel. I did go into T2 expecting the worse, my track record of watching films in the cinema recently has been poor and i was not expecting a Danny Boyle film to turn that around but it did, the film just works, i have no idea how to explain it but it just works.

Ok lets talk about some negatives. As previously stated the parts where it literally replays parts of the first film feel out of place and stop the film from transcending into a good sequel. The use of modern day social media and technology could have been a really interesting idea for a Trainspotting sequel and when they started to introduce it i thought that i would go somewhere but instead it just happens and there is no resolution also when i hear and iPhone ringtone in a film it takes me out of the experience and i roll my eyes, a simple vibrate will work fine or a licensed song. The biggest sin of this film is that it does not add to the original or elevate the original, it simply feels like a reunion and there is just a lack of focus with the film, which can be said about the original but the original had more of a flow to it.

With the negatives out of the way lets talk about what i did like. Performances, all of the original cast that return do put in good performances and i have to say that the strongest may be Ewan Bremner as Spud, who actually added depth to his character. I just really like how the film had a pace about it, it felt fast and some of the subplots were really interesting and the film had some good humour, but did not stray into silly territory. The film does not pull punches either, there is a lot of strong content in this film, i wont go into any particulars in fear of spoiling but the film earns is 18/R rating and i would prefer it if more films strayed towards the R rating again, because it just makes movies feel more visceral.

Overall i would have to say T2 is not a film i can see myself watching again anytime soon, or even buying when it comes out, but maybe a few years down the line i will revisit it. A very good film with a nice pace, good performances and some interesting sub plots. As a sequel the film falls short and nothing truly memorable happens.

7.5/10

Written By
Ashley Harvey

The Art of... The Runtime

Some films are too long, some too short others hit that sweet spot but what makes a good runtime and does it really matter?

I say that runtime does matter and as the years go on the so called "blockbusters" appear to be getting shorter or at least staying comfortably around 120-130 mins. This all started with Independence Day Resurgence seeing as the original was roughly 140 mins i assumed that the sequel would be close to that or at least 130, but to my surprise the film was dead on 120. That made me look further into the idea of the runtime and most blockbusters or at least the bigger films are not really pushing 140, sure there are a few here and there but unless its Nolan, Bay or Scorsese its roughly 120 to 130.

I feel that blockbusters do need a sense of scale and sometimes a film being too short can actually make the film itself feel lesser than it actually was. Imagine if David Lean made Lawrence of Arabia around 130 mins long, sure the amazing cinematography and the cast of thousands would still be there to some extent but would we still see it as being an Epic or even a major film.

Another example is The Last of the Mohicans, the title and subject matter alone scream to me of a runtime at least 140, yet its just shy of 2 hours long which in some way devalued the film to an extent. Don't get me wrong, i really enjoyed The Last of the Mohicans, but its runtime does affect the way i see it, compare that to another Michael Mann film Heat. Heat is on the other end, maybe a bit long but its runtime does conjure up this notion that the film is big, or at least worth devoting time to.

Of course some films would not benefit from a longer runtime, there are many good films that are barely over 90 mins, but i believe that if you have a massive budget and we don't feel the money somewhere then the film devalues itself. An example would be if a film cost $200 million and it was 94 mins long, you would feel cheated, thats why i feel we are seeing a decline in quality of modern cinema. Most modern blockbusters feel less important than films from 20 years ago.

So overall i would like to see more mainstream films breach that 150 mark and really make the audience feel like they are experiencing something special and not watching an expensive trailer to a sequel.

Written By
Ashley Harvey

Logan's Trailer "Hurt"s Me

The Logan trailer has become somewhat of a joke to me, not because it is the most played trailer in Odeon cinemas but the trailer as a whole does give me a bad feeling for 20th Century Fox and the Comic Book genre as a whole.

Lets start off with talking about the last couple of X-Men films, from First Class up to Apocalypse.
X-Men First Class is a fine film with a few problems but overall it does not offend me as some other blockbusters would, it had a decent cast and it's plot was decent, with the only real problems being the special effects and the 60's aesthetic felt like a parody more than a period piece but overall a good place to rebuild a crippled franchise.
The Wolverine again is an average film with a very strong first half but the last act does let this film down in a major way. Special effects again are a big problem in this film and other than the Japanese backdrop the film just lacks character.
X-Men Days of Future Past is where we start to see the hopeful return slightly take a turn for the worse. Bryan Singer was back to attempt to cement this return of the X-Men franchise that he pretty much built. Days of Future Past has major problems, again its not a terrible film, i would actually say its better than First Class but only because the special effects were far more refined in this one. But something was off, and its hard to describe what it is, this film should have been the best X-Men film but the fact that it just didn't quite hit the mark was a telling sign. Also i would like to add that i personally hated the Quicksilver scene, i can't understand why people were impressed with something that was done 15 years prior. Again overall a pretty ok film.
Apocalypse, ironic due to it feeling like the end of a franchise, its clear that 20th Century Fox wanted a Marvel movie and attempted to build a cinematic universe with this one and attempt to up the scale, to the films detriment. Apocalypse was the worst film of 2016, and thats saying something because 2016 was the worst year for film in the 2010's. Singer and Fox dropped the ball on this one, from frame one it was bad, the special effects were on par with mid 2000's Fantastic Four films and the film suffered from a lack of tone and vision. The 80's backdrop was also distracting, it took away from the film itself and tried to use the era as a form of comedic relief. So all of the problems that had plagued these last few X-Men films were amplified in the complete mess of a film. Overall it is one of the worst big budget films i have ever seen.

This now brings us onto Logan, in a way the film looks rather lacklustre, the film looks to be an independent film with a recognisable cast of characters and really off putting modern action. My problem with it, is that rather than attempting to make a good superhero film and give Hugh Jackman one last performance as Wolverine they seem to have tried to scale the entire project back to something that resembles Hell or High Water, which is a terrible film, and then interspersed with awful looking action scenes. Leave the small scale character stuff to the people that can do it, if they are doing a variation on the Old Man Logan storyline, why couldn't they make it look grande and exciting. All we have got is a film that looks like 120 mins of pointless and dull action scenes coupled with poor character moments in a film that just looks cheap.

With that all said, we can have it all, their empire of DIRT.

Someone at Fox needs to take control of this and start making blockbusters of a high calibre again, they only have a couple of years left of this, they need to strike fast before its too late and they have a Cutthroat Island situation.

Written By
Ashley Harvey

  

The Replacement Killers - Hidden Gem (Quick Review)

The Replacement Killers is a good little movie that has been somewhat lost in the 90's action film shuffle. It has many characteristics of a John Woo feature and that has part to him Producing the film and Chow Yun-Fat as the lead. Director Antoine Fuqua shows that he can imitate the feel of an early Woo film while adding some interesting visual flair of his own. With a runtime just under 90 mins, a harmless plot about Hitmen and intrigue and some really good Hong Kong inspired action scenes, The Replacement Killers is a good little film that achieved what it set out to do and should be seen by anyone that has an interest in John Woo or mid to late Nineties action films such as Blade and The Matrix. 

7/10

Written By

Ashley Harvey