Before we start talking about Justice League in-depth lets talk about the superhero genre. Its been a few years since superhero/comic book films have genuinely excited me and the only example to come close was Batman Vs Superman purely because of what the title and the project as a whole meant. So here we are in 2017 and there is a Justice League movie but I must ask, where was the hype? I know that I bring this up a lot with recent cinema but where was the sense of scale and not just within the film but as an event itself. Batman and Wonder Woman were going to share a $200mil plus movie with other superheroes that people care about, yet where was the hype?
As a person that takes an interest in the behind the scenes and someone who just knows about film production via osmosis I knew why this film was not being hailed as a masterpiece or an event but why wasn't the popular culture hyping this film to nth degree. The most I saw was bus stop posters and that was it. Keep in mind that I saw Justice League on the Friday following its release and you would not have known a Justice League film was showing other than a usual quad poster.
Justice League, in my opinion, marks the end of Warner Bros attempting to build a universe and honestly I think in order for the DC brand these films need to fade away for a few years. We have had 5 films within this universe and only one of them has truly found an audience, there were 5 Marvel films before the Avengers and at least all of those were enjoyable whereas DC currently have Wonder Woman and that is it.
Justice League should be the cautionary tale for any studio looking to build a shared universe without earning it or at least having somewhat of a cohesive plan in place. Why WB did not just identify the characters they wanted for their Justice League movie and make solo films of said characters, in the same fashion to how Marvel did it, then when the time was right build an epic 150 minute spectacular is way beyond me. So is Justice League any good?
Heck no, Justice League might be one of the worst budget to quality ratio's in the history of cinema. I understand the reason it went so over budget but I cannot ignore the poor writing, visuals, acting and just tone of the project. This film is a mess and to be honest I can't see anything within this chopped up Frankenstein's monster of a film that could have been better or even great if Zak Snyder got to finish his idea.
The story of Justice League does not work at all, the film starts halfway through a story that we have no concept of other than the dream sequence in BVS and what is told to us after the first scene. The first act of the film is trying to be mysterious by building up strange symbols but then just drops it so that two of the characters can just say "this is what is happening" and everyone else just goes with it and it all just leads to a worse version of the New York battle in the Avengers. This film infuriated me with how lacklustre the story was, I know I was not expecting much but dear lord this film does not even try for bare minimum. It turns out that there are three cubes and they are being hunted by a tall guy who looks like the villain from the Medievil PS1 game. Seriously this is as bare-bones as the plot gets.
You could argue "the story may not be great but what about the characters?" Trust me $300 million is not worth a what if episode of The Big Bang Theory if they became the Justice League. This film stinks of desperation especially the character of The Flash who is clearly there to appeal to the general audience to make quips that feel really out of place he is easily the worst character in the film. Every character is made to be sarcastic, which is certainly an addition from Joss Whedon but it does not fit with the rest of the film. The next part will include spoilers.
Superman gets his own section because this could have made the movie so much better but WB and the screenwriters dropped the ball hard on this one. The resurrection of Superman, arguably the most important character in these movies, comes in the middle and is resolved in 10 mins. He is brought back to life, goes evil for a second then is turned good by Louis Lane. Why bringing back Superman was not the entire focus of this story I don't know but it would have made for a far more interesting film. Just imagine a film where the members of the Justice League have to team up to bring back Superman, that is gold but instead we get 10 maybe 15 mins and then its back to the plot about the boxes.
On the technical side of this film is where I seriously got frustrated with the film. It appears that everything about this film is wrong from a cinematography stand point. So the first Justice League film ever made, a budget of $300 million and we open on... cameraphone footage of Superman. I can't think of a worse way of opening your tent-pole blockbuster of the year, it set the tone for the rest of the film. The aspect ratio was something I noticed from the trailers and the cynic in me immediately knew why the film was in 1.85:1 and that is because the Avengers was shot like this but the aspect ratio really does affect the look of the film. Most scenes feel empty with the characters having huge amounts of space between them, this choice is odd. The decision to adjust the colour in post is jarring and makes everyone stick out, again this was a way of making the film be more "fun" but it does not work in the slightest.
Overall Justice League is awful and I don't recommend seeing it, the film is an unfinished mess which was rushed to meet its release date even though it needed a lot more time. Boring story, bland action, annoying characters and whole chunks missing make Justice League unworthy of its title and budget.
4/10
Written by
Ashley Harvey
Showing posts with label film. Show all posts
Showing posts with label film. Show all posts
Sunday, 3 December 2017
Friday, 19 May 2017
Alien: Covenant - Review
Before March 2017 I had a feeling that Alien: Covenant was going to be a solid film, people had been high on The Martian which I still have yet to see. The trailer made it look like a back to basics horror film in space, sure some of the cinematography was a little wonky but I could forgive that if we were to get a decent Alien film. Then March came and I noticed something, the advertising for Alien: Covenant started popping up everywhere, I would see busses with Alien on the side, before and during every Youtube video would be the trailer or a teaser for Alien. This was when I started to worry for the film, I knew that a film like this being advertised everywhere was a big warning sign and it turns out that I was correct. Alien: Covenant is not a good film in fact I would say its actually a poor one, don't get me wrong there are decent parts within the film but as a whole and as a prequel/sequel it just does not work within the franchise.
Before I go any further there will be spoilers throughout this review. Lets start with some positives although there are only a few. Michael Fassbender's performance as the android Walter was very good and much better than his performance as David in both this and Prometheus also the character of Walter was better, I like how emotionless Fassbender played it and it worked, its just a shame they hardly do anything with his character. Speaking of hardly doing anything with an interesting character, Billy Crudup plays the acting captain Christopher Oram which is a very interesting character for me but is unfulfilled and just seems wasted. Other than those two actors and their characters there is little else in this film that I thought was good.
I would say one of the biggest problems with Alien: Covenant is the characters, not the characters themselves but the amount of characters. Its a problem we see a lot now where a film has too many characters which in turn means that the more interesting and important characters can get lost in the shuffle. Covenant has too many "main" characters and only a few get decent development when I say a few I really mean David because the other characters don't really do anything you could argue that Danny McBride's Tennessee does develop during the film but its ever so slight. This is the part of the review where I start comparing it to the original Alien. The original Alien was far more effective with characters because the film developed them, even the smaller roles all had something that developed and over the first act of the film we knew a little about all the characters because was slower and had fewer characters. When Kane dies it has an impact because we know the character we have spent time with the character and we know everyone else's relationship with him. In Alien: Covenant the first person to birth an "alien" is a no name grunt, how are we supposed to feel any connection to the events when such a pointless character dies, and then five minutes later another "alien" is born from another no name grunt, all tension is lost and the scenes have no punch on an emotional level, sure they are filled with gore and blood but that is not a good substitute for build-up. If Covenant had half the characters it would be far more effective when someone dies and the film does have a good example of being effective when a main character dies. When Billy Crudup is tricked by David to be a host for a facehugger it means something because this character has had some establishment, there is more weight behind his death but then it is ruined by a CGI chest-burster opening its arms out for David. Of course I have to talk about the Ripley clone for this film, she is not as bad as I was expecting but the character of Daniels, played by Katherine Waterson, was just so bland and to be honest she had barely anything to do in the film until we needed to parallel the end of Alien. Alien: Covenant needed far less characters and needed to beef up the character of those that were important to the story.
The story of Alien: Covenant is unnecessary, most of the scenes and motivation in this film is unnecessary. Within the first ten minutes we are introduced to David speaking to Weyland with some philosophical dialogue that felt really out of place then cut to the ship Covenant where Walter is doing routine checks while the crew are in hyper-sleep and then an action scene happens out of nowhere which kills James Franco. I don't understand why there needed to be this scene, the scene is only there to kill Franco and to wake everyone up, it felt like padding and I feel the film would have benefited from a slower start. The rest of the basic plot is essentially the same as Alien, a strange signal from an unknown planet, the crew go to investigate. Where the film loses me is with the backstory of the Aliens themselves, Alien: Covenant just does not make sense. It feels like Ridley Scott was torn between two films he wanted to make, a return to the first Alien with an atmospheric horror film and the sequel to Prometheus and what we got was the result of trying to merge those two ideas. If we had to chose one I would have gone with the Prometheus sequel, because Ridley Scott does not need to make the Alien film, but if he had continued with the Prometheus story I feel as if we would have got a far more polished film. There is nothing else to really say without breaking each scene down and explaining why it does not work so I will spare you the in-depth analysis and just say that the plot and script is a mess.
Now the cinematography and film making itself I have massive issues with in this film. People often say how much of a "visual" director Ridley Scott is and I would agree but it depends on which Ridley Scott you are talking about, because anything pre Gladiator is visually stunning and engaging but after that he became more "gritty" especially with the use of higher shutter speeds. Alien Covenant is an ugly movie, its shot poorly and just has the wrong look and feel, with some scenes looking like they belong in 28 Days Later. The first Alien is a beautiful film, and from frame one you feel as if you are in this situation, the lighting was perfect everything felt dirty and real. Covenant everything is too bland and at points it feels as if it is trying to be Alien, hell even Alien Isolation looks better than this. No scene has tension and the action/horror scenes loose any impact due to the high shutter speeds and handheld nature of the camera. This film feels like an imitation of an Alien film rather than the big budget prequel. The CGI in this film is damn right insulting, even Prometheus has practical effects but this made all the versions of the Alien look fake and silly, It baffles me that the same man who allowed this made Alien and Blade Runner.
Lastly the soundtrack has to be addressed, why do we have to rely on the previous film to get brownie points. To say the score is a straight up copy of the original is an understatement, the exact same cues and stings are ripped straight from the original and to be honest it does not work. Other than that the rest of the score is just generic and dull. Nothing else to really say about it.
Overall I would not recommend watching Alien: Covenant, you are better of doing a double bill of Alien and Aliens. This film is a mess and not even an interesting mess, I would stay away from this film and wait for it to be on TV to check it out. Like Alien Resurrection this film should only be watched to see how wrong the film makers got it. Its a shame because this film had potential and could have been at least decent but instead what we have is a mess of a film.
5/10
Written By
Ashley Harvey
Before I go any further there will be spoilers throughout this review. Lets start with some positives although there are only a few. Michael Fassbender's performance as the android Walter was very good and much better than his performance as David in both this and Prometheus also the character of Walter was better, I like how emotionless Fassbender played it and it worked, its just a shame they hardly do anything with his character. Speaking of hardly doing anything with an interesting character, Billy Crudup plays the acting captain Christopher Oram which is a very interesting character for me but is unfulfilled and just seems wasted. Other than those two actors and their characters there is little else in this film that I thought was good.
I would say one of the biggest problems with Alien: Covenant is the characters, not the characters themselves but the amount of characters. Its a problem we see a lot now where a film has too many characters which in turn means that the more interesting and important characters can get lost in the shuffle. Covenant has too many "main" characters and only a few get decent development when I say a few I really mean David because the other characters don't really do anything you could argue that Danny McBride's Tennessee does develop during the film but its ever so slight. This is the part of the review where I start comparing it to the original Alien. The original Alien was far more effective with characters because the film developed them, even the smaller roles all had something that developed and over the first act of the film we knew a little about all the characters because was slower and had fewer characters. When Kane dies it has an impact because we know the character we have spent time with the character and we know everyone else's relationship with him. In Alien: Covenant the first person to birth an "alien" is a no name grunt, how are we supposed to feel any connection to the events when such a pointless character dies, and then five minutes later another "alien" is born from another no name grunt, all tension is lost and the scenes have no punch on an emotional level, sure they are filled with gore and blood but that is not a good substitute for build-up. If Covenant had half the characters it would be far more effective when someone dies and the film does have a good example of being effective when a main character dies. When Billy Crudup is tricked by David to be a host for a facehugger it means something because this character has had some establishment, there is more weight behind his death but then it is ruined by a CGI chest-burster opening its arms out for David. Of course I have to talk about the Ripley clone for this film, she is not as bad as I was expecting but the character of Daniels, played by Katherine Waterson, was just so bland and to be honest she had barely anything to do in the film until we needed to parallel the end of Alien. Alien: Covenant needed far less characters and needed to beef up the character of those that were important to the story.
The story of Alien: Covenant is unnecessary, most of the scenes and motivation in this film is unnecessary. Within the first ten minutes we are introduced to David speaking to Weyland with some philosophical dialogue that felt really out of place then cut to the ship Covenant where Walter is doing routine checks while the crew are in hyper-sleep and then an action scene happens out of nowhere which kills James Franco. I don't understand why there needed to be this scene, the scene is only there to kill Franco and to wake everyone up, it felt like padding and I feel the film would have benefited from a slower start. The rest of the basic plot is essentially the same as Alien, a strange signal from an unknown planet, the crew go to investigate. Where the film loses me is with the backstory of the Aliens themselves, Alien: Covenant just does not make sense. It feels like Ridley Scott was torn between two films he wanted to make, a return to the first Alien with an atmospheric horror film and the sequel to Prometheus and what we got was the result of trying to merge those two ideas. If we had to chose one I would have gone with the Prometheus sequel, because Ridley Scott does not need to make the Alien film, but if he had continued with the Prometheus story I feel as if we would have got a far more polished film. There is nothing else to really say without breaking each scene down and explaining why it does not work so I will spare you the in-depth analysis and just say that the plot and script is a mess.
Now the cinematography and film making itself I have massive issues with in this film. People often say how much of a "visual" director Ridley Scott is and I would agree but it depends on which Ridley Scott you are talking about, because anything pre Gladiator is visually stunning and engaging but after that he became more "gritty" especially with the use of higher shutter speeds. Alien Covenant is an ugly movie, its shot poorly and just has the wrong look and feel, with some scenes looking like they belong in 28 Days Later. The first Alien is a beautiful film, and from frame one you feel as if you are in this situation, the lighting was perfect everything felt dirty and real. Covenant everything is too bland and at points it feels as if it is trying to be Alien, hell even Alien Isolation looks better than this. No scene has tension and the action/horror scenes loose any impact due to the high shutter speeds and handheld nature of the camera. This film feels like an imitation of an Alien film rather than the big budget prequel. The CGI in this film is damn right insulting, even Prometheus has practical effects but this made all the versions of the Alien look fake and silly, It baffles me that the same man who allowed this made Alien and Blade Runner.
Lastly the soundtrack has to be addressed, why do we have to rely on the previous film to get brownie points. To say the score is a straight up copy of the original is an understatement, the exact same cues and stings are ripped straight from the original and to be honest it does not work. Other than that the rest of the score is just generic and dull. Nothing else to really say about it.
Overall I would not recommend watching Alien: Covenant, you are better of doing a double bill of Alien and Aliens. This film is a mess and not even an interesting mess, I would stay away from this film and wait for it to be on TV to check it out. Like Alien Resurrection this film should only be watched to see how wrong the film makers got it. Its a shame because this film had potential and could have been at least decent but instead what we have is a mess of a film.
5/10
Written By
Ashley Harvey
Wednesday, 22 March 2017
Kubo and the Two Strings - Review
In recent times my opinions towards "kids" films has changed, it was only last year that I started to warm to the idea that they are slowly becoming better than most major motion pictures. Zootopia being a catalyst for this change in opinion and with that film winning Best Animated Feature at this year's oscars I will be reviewing that later on but this review is about Kubo. Kubo and the Two Strings should have won Best Animated Feature.
Its so refreshing to see a film where the content in the film is contained to the world and universe the film is based. We get no references to Twitter (Moana) or Iphones (Zootopia) the dialogue and content are all grounded in the context of the film. This is a major benefit for the film and allows it break away from other animated films.
This is one of the prettiest films of 2016 with its visual style and colour palette really complimenting the fantastical element of the film. This film also does boast creepy visuals and themes which again allows the film to be its own entity that lets the film stand the test of time. The setting of Japan provides an interesting backdrop to the film and really helps the proverb nature of the story and the film feels like a tale rather than a Hollywood screenplay, of course not all of the dialogue and story is perfect. There is a lot of redundant attempts at funny dialogue from Matthew McConaughey and the pacing of the film lets the quest feel less important than maybe it should be. Kubo seems to defy the odds very easily and I would have rather have seen more problem solving but its not a problem that breaks the film.
The sound and score in this film is very whimsical and like the art style really provides a Japanese feel which aids in creating a fantasy world. Kubo's music is especially pleasant and the visuals that accompany it are rather beautiful. This feels like an Enya music video in the best way possible, I really find the aesthetic of Kubo amazing in this current climate of poorly coloured and shot movies and having something that is vibrant and whimsical is a step in positive direction.
Overall Kubo is a good film, notice that I did not say kids film because I feel that this film is more than a kids film. With a "film" like Boss Baby coming out it really shows that there is a massive chasm between studio made kids films and artistic films that are for everyone. I recommend this film to everyone, it may not be the best film of 2016, hell its not even the best film of this art style but it was a lovely film that is not too taxing to watch and does have some dark elements which compliment the more pleasant aspects of the film.
8/10
Written By
Ashley Harvey
Its so refreshing to see a film where the content in the film is contained to the world and universe the film is based. We get no references to Twitter (Moana) or Iphones (Zootopia) the dialogue and content are all grounded in the context of the film. This is a major benefit for the film and allows it break away from other animated films.
This is one of the prettiest films of 2016 with its visual style and colour palette really complimenting the fantastical element of the film. This film also does boast creepy visuals and themes which again allows the film to be its own entity that lets the film stand the test of time. The setting of Japan provides an interesting backdrop to the film and really helps the proverb nature of the story and the film feels like a tale rather than a Hollywood screenplay, of course not all of the dialogue and story is perfect. There is a lot of redundant attempts at funny dialogue from Matthew McConaughey and the pacing of the film lets the quest feel less important than maybe it should be. Kubo seems to defy the odds very easily and I would have rather have seen more problem solving but its not a problem that breaks the film.
The sound and score in this film is very whimsical and like the art style really provides a Japanese feel which aids in creating a fantasy world. Kubo's music is especially pleasant and the visuals that accompany it are rather beautiful. This feels like an Enya music video in the best way possible, I really find the aesthetic of Kubo amazing in this current climate of poorly coloured and shot movies and having something that is vibrant and whimsical is a step in positive direction.
Overall Kubo is a good film, notice that I did not say kids film because I feel that this film is more than a kids film. With a "film" like Boss Baby coming out it really shows that there is a massive chasm between studio made kids films and artistic films that are for everyone. I recommend this film to everyone, it may not be the best film of 2016, hell its not even the best film of this art style but it was a lovely film that is not too taxing to watch and does have some dark elements which compliment the more pleasant aspects of the film.
8/10
Written By
Ashley Harvey
Friday, 17 March 2017
Cafe Society - Review
Im not sure if I could class this as a hidden gem but the fact that this film is not talked about that much could make it one. The reason why I am not classing it as a hidden gem is due to how recently the film was released so I just class it as a review. That being said Cafe Society is one of the best films of last year.
This is the third Woody Allen film I have seen and it could be the gateway for me and many people into the world of Woody Allen. This film is a perfect example of having references in a film without making it seem as a way of showing off and the setting of the film allows for the content to come across as genuine. This film can be compared to La La Land and I think that Cafe Society is the superior film in both film-making and story aspects, taking the idea of golden age Hollywood and making a warm, light hearted film centred around that is a great idea and Cafe Society does it well.
Jesse Eisenberg is excellent in this film and really channels classic Woody Allen archetypes which is amazing to watch. Kristen Stewart and Steve Carrell are also great in this film and everyone plays off each other very well, with the supporting cast also bringing a high level of quality to it. One of my favourite aspects of this film are the characters themselves and the stories that all characters have to share with us.
The story itself is decent enough but is certainly a framework to hang these characters on which works really well. All the sub plots work well and never feel like we are meandering which is great writing and really serves the film well, its hard to talk about the film in detail because it just needs to be watched for the best experience. The cinematography in Cafe Society is beautiful and one of the best looking films from the past year, rich colour and perfectly composed shots really compliment the great screenplay and characters.
Overall Cafe Society is one of the best films of 2016 and should be watched especially if you did not like La La Land. This film is delightful and is great watch, its 96 minutes so its also a very easy watch. Please do check this one out.
9/10
Written By
Ashley Harvey
Wednesday, 15 March 2017
Kong: Skull Island - Review
I would like to start this review off by saying that the only reason I sat through the entire film was to ensure that this blog remains as professional as possible. Now with that said Kong: Skull Island is the worst film of 2017 by far. With most films I can find a few positives among the large amount of negatives but Kong had nothing I enjoyed.
Lets start off by saying that this film is annoying from a film making point of view, this film brings nothing new to the table, not every film needs to be original but a film should have a sense of identity and this film feels like someone tried to make Apocalypse Now and failed so badly. Setting this film in the 70's was a big mistake because it distracts from the film and really hammers home the fact that they wanted to make Apocalypse Now without understanding what Apocalypse Now is.
More and more contemporary films have the same problems with characters, Kong has too many characters without setting them up properly and most are redundant to the story. Some characters are fully set up then killed off without any impact and it makes you wonder why we spent so much time setting these characters up. The only character that was bearable was Tom Hiddleston but even he had barely anything to do until the last 40 mins of the film. I felt as if he should have been the main character and had him as the Martin Sheen character if we need to parallel Apocalypse Now . John Goodman and Samuel L Jackson felt misused and underdeveloped until the story requires them to do something and one other actor who I shall not name for spoilers is a carbon copy of Dennis Hopper from Apocalypse Now.
Lets talk about King Kong himself and how he is misused in this film, the first problem is his reveal there is no true reveal shot he is just kind of there and it ruins the point of having this monster creature in your film, the film lacks creativity and just throws monsters out there without setup or pay off. Rather than the monsters and Kong being a threat they came across as an inconvenience to the characters. Every monster encounter plays out the same way and it becomes frustrating to the point where the action no longer has impact.
The soundtrack is annoying its almost as if Warner spent too much money on the rights to the Suicide Squad soundtrack that they had to lump anything from the 70's into this film for "world building" when it just comes across as a way to seem hip and cool. If King Kong (2005) was the romantics King Kong then this is the hipster King Kong. The actual score to the film is also forgettable not one track stands out apposed to the Peter Jackson film where the main theme is rather memorable.
Overall I would not recommend seeing this film at all, if you want a good monster film re-watch Pacific Rim if you want a good King Kong film watch the Peter Jackson version and if you want a good Vietnam film watch any other Vietnam film. This film is devoid of any personality other than what is artificially created to come across as "deep" or "cool". Too many characters clutter this forgettable slog of a feature. Avoid this film as if it were Skull Island itself.
4/10
Written By
Ashley Harvey
Lets start off by saying that this film is annoying from a film making point of view, this film brings nothing new to the table, not every film needs to be original but a film should have a sense of identity and this film feels like someone tried to make Apocalypse Now and failed so badly. Setting this film in the 70's was a big mistake because it distracts from the film and really hammers home the fact that they wanted to make Apocalypse Now without understanding what Apocalypse Now is.
More and more contemporary films have the same problems with characters, Kong has too many characters without setting them up properly and most are redundant to the story. Some characters are fully set up then killed off without any impact and it makes you wonder why we spent so much time setting these characters up. The only character that was bearable was Tom Hiddleston but even he had barely anything to do until the last 40 mins of the film. I felt as if he should have been the main character and had him as the Martin Sheen character if we need to parallel Apocalypse Now . John Goodman and Samuel L Jackson felt misused and underdeveloped until the story requires them to do something and one other actor who I shall not name for spoilers is a carbon copy of Dennis Hopper from Apocalypse Now.
Lets talk about King Kong himself and how he is misused in this film, the first problem is his reveal there is no true reveal shot he is just kind of there and it ruins the point of having this monster creature in your film, the film lacks creativity and just throws monsters out there without setup or pay off. Rather than the monsters and Kong being a threat they came across as an inconvenience to the characters. Every monster encounter plays out the same way and it becomes frustrating to the point where the action no longer has impact.
The soundtrack is annoying its almost as if Warner spent too much money on the rights to the Suicide Squad soundtrack that they had to lump anything from the 70's into this film for "world building" when it just comes across as a way to seem hip and cool. If King Kong (2005) was the romantics King Kong then this is the hipster King Kong. The actual score to the film is also forgettable not one track stands out apposed to the Peter Jackson film where the main theme is rather memorable.
Overall I would not recommend seeing this film at all, if you want a good monster film re-watch Pacific Rim if you want a good King Kong film watch the Peter Jackson version and if you want a good Vietnam film watch any other Vietnam film. This film is devoid of any personality other than what is artificially created to come across as "deep" or "cool". Too many characters clutter this forgettable slog of a feature. Avoid this film as if it were Skull Island itself.
4/10
Written By
Ashley Harvey
Friday, 10 March 2017
I Am Sam - Hidden Gem
I Am Sam is a rare case where its a film purely driven by a performance and a decent story and everything else fails on a film making level yet I still enjoyed it. This film seems to have got lost in the shuffle, no one really talks about it and when I Am Sam is mentioned it is usually because of the stellar performance by Sean Penn. It also does not help that around the same time A Beautiful Mind was released and dominated the box office and won Best Picture. So is I Am Sam a good film on its own?
I Am Sam is a very good film and one that is very easy to get lost in, Sean Penn puts in an astounding performance as Sam Dawson and at times you forget that Penn is acting which could be seen as a negative but I found it fascinating. Its a shame that the film making on display is awful, I understand that it can be seen as a reflection of Sam's state of mind but at points it does become distracting with the camera constantly zooming in and out.
This is truly a film that is about performances and other than Penn, Dakota Fanning and Michelle Pfeiffer also put in top quality performances although none of them can touch that of Penn's. Every character feels real and all the characters are well written which is fundamental to a film with this subject matter. Its hard to really talk about the story without ruining it and with the hidden gem reviews I want new viewers to go in fully blind to enjoy this film.
I Am Sam is a film that over time will start to grow on people but as of now it seems to have got lost amidst other performance driven films of that era and especially A Beautiful Mind. I am usually against films that have poor cinematography but this is a rare example of where the story, characters and performances all work together to make a really special film that needs to be recognised more. Do check this one out, its a really decent film that is not remembered as well as it probably should be.
8/10
Written By
Ashley Harvey
I Am Sam is a very good film and one that is very easy to get lost in, Sean Penn puts in an astounding performance as Sam Dawson and at times you forget that Penn is acting which could be seen as a negative but I found it fascinating. Its a shame that the film making on display is awful, I understand that it can be seen as a reflection of Sam's state of mind but at points it does become distracting with the camera constantly zooming in and out.
This is truly a film that is about performances and other than Penn, Dakota Fanning and Michelle Pfeiffer also put in top quality performances although none of them can touch that of Penn's. Every character feels real and all the characters are well written which is fundamental to a film with this subject matter. Its hard to really talk about the story without ruining it and with the hidden gem reviews I want new viewers to go in fully blind to enjoy this film.
I Am Sam is a film that over time will start to grow on people but as of now it seems to have got lost amidst other performance driven films of that era and especially A Beautiful Mind. I am usually against films that have poor cinematography but this is a rare example of where the story, characters and performances all work together to make a really special film that needs to be recognised more. Do check this one out, its a really decent film that is not remembered as well as it probably should be.
8/10
Written By
Ashley Harvey
Friday, 3 March 2017
Logan - Review
The first five minutes of Logan gave me hope for the film, its a shame that the rest of the film is a boring mess that has no clear focus or story. I made a post about my thoughts on the trailer of Logan and how it felt small and a little off, it turns out that i was right.
I would like to start off with what I actually liked. The first couple of minutes of the film were very good, it set a good tone for the film but its a shame that it doesn't continue that way. That is where the majority of my praise stops. The rest of the film is just dull and uninteresting with a weak plot and character motivation.
I don't like to swear on these posts and i will try my best not to but as soon as the F word was uttered I knew what this film was. This film was designed to appeal to teenagers and the comic book fans which is not a bad thing but the way in which Logan attempts to be violent and edgy comes across as what a teenager would write and make. It has been a long time since i have watched a movie in cinema with as much swearing as this, I am not against swearing, violence and nudity when it is done well but when it is shoved in the film without context or class it comes across as juvenile.
The violence in this film is nice to see in a major blockbuster but the way in which it is done leaves much to be desired, if only director James Mangold framed the action well maybe this film would not be as dull as it is but instead we get these shaky-cam action scenes where its hard to know the geography of the action.
Having the film set in 2028 was strange to me, I know that we needed it to be sometime in the future but 2028 seems a little far fetched. I did like the idea of Patrick Stewart as Professor X slowly loosing his mind and that being a danger but a lot of what his character does within the film does not coincide with this idea. The script is very lazy it relies heavily on "humour" and swearing which takes away from when the film is trying to be serious. Logan could have been a very solid movie if it had grounded itself completely. Strip the humour and just make a down to earth Wolverine film and like I said the elements were there I just feel that the material was handled poorly.
I did like the majority of the X-23 parts, up until she started talking. She is introduced very well and the majority of the performance is good. Her action scenes are solid and she emotes well with just her face. When she starts talking is when she and the film goes way downhill. The main "plot" is to get X-23 to Eden where other mutants are living. Turns out these other mutants are children like X-23 and thats when we get the problem with making X-Men films, the on screen powers of the mutants look awful and lame.
There is also a fight between two Hugh Jackmen in which one of them has been de-aged.
Overall Logan could have been a really good down to earth action film with Wolverine just kicking a lot of butt but instead we get a slog of a film where the action is poorly shot and meaningless, a bad guy we have no connection to and dialogue that a 12 year old wrote. I can't recommend this film to people that can easily spot bad writing and plot problems but honestly it is not as bad as most films from last year and is certainly not as bad as X-men Apocalypse. If you want a good Wolverine film watch The Wolverine.
6/10
Written By
Ashley Harvey
I would like to start off with what I actually liked. The first couple of minutes of the film were very good, it set a good tone for the film but its a shame that it doesn't continue that way. That is where the majority of my praise stops. The rest of the film is just dull and uninteresting with a weak plot and character motivation.
I don't like to swear on these posts and i will try my best not to but as soon as the F word was uttered I knew what this film was. This film was designed to appeal to teenagers and the comic book fans which is not a bad thing but the way in which Logan attempts to be violent and edgy comes across as what a teenager would write and make. It has been a long time since i have watched a movie in cinema with as much swearing as this, I am not against swearing, violence and nudity when it is done well but when it is shoved in the film without context or class it comes across as juvenile.
The violence in this film is nice to see in a major blockbuster but the way in which it is done leaves much to be desired, if only director James Mangold framed the action well maybe this film would not be as dull as it is but instead we get these shaky-cam action scenes where its hard to know the geography of the action.
Having the film set in 2028 was strange to me, I know that we needed it to be sometime in the future but 2028 seems a little far fetched. I did like the idea of Patrick Stewart as Professor X slowly loosing his mind and that being a danger but a lot of what his character does within the film does not coincide with this idea. The script is very lazy it relies heavily on "humour" and swearing which takes away from when the film is trying to be serious. Logan could have been a very solid movie if it had grounded itself completely. Strip the humour and just make a down to earth Wolverine film and like I said the elements were there I just feel that the material was handled poorly.
I did like the majority of the X-23 parts, up until she started talking. She is introduced very well and the majority of the performance is good. Her action scenes are solid and she emotes well with just her face. When she starts talking is when she and the film goes way downhill. The main "plot" is to get X-23 to Eden where other mutants are living. Turns out these other mutants are children like X-23 and thats when we get the problem with making X-Men films, the on screen powers of the mutants look awful and lame.
There is also a fight between two Hugh Jackmen in which one of them has been de-aged.
Overall Logan could have been a really good down to earth action film with Wolverine just kicking a lot of butt but instead we get a slog of a film where the action is poorly shot and meaningless, a bad guy we have no connection to and dialogue that a 12 year old wrote. I can't recommend this film to people that can easily spot bad writing and plot problems but honestly it is not as bad as most films from last year and is certainly not as bad as X-men Apocalypse. If you want a good Wolverine film watch The Wolverine.
6/10
Written By
Ashley Harvey
Sunday, 26 February 2017
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
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
Saturday, 25 February 2017
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
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
Friday, 24 February 2017
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
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
Wednesday, 22 February 2017
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
Saturday, 18 February 2017
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
Friday, 17 February 2017
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
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
Thursday, 16 February 2017
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 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
Tuesday, 14 February 2017
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)