I would like to start by saying that I have not seen many Hitchcock films which is bad I know but what better time to start. I had previously seen Psycho, Rear Window, North By Northwest, The Birds and Vertigo with Psycho being my favourite but after watching Rope I think Psycho might have some competition.
I would say Rope is most famous for its "one shot" nature and this being from 1948 it is very impressive and does contribute to the suspense of the film. There are cuts and if you are paying close attention you will notice them but I film is far more than a gimmick and does hold up today. Suffice to say the cinematography of Rope is top notch with the camera moving effortlessly between rooms and focusing on different characters within the story.
The performances are all good with James Stewart being the standout but everyone was convincing in their roles and you were engaged with everyone and their own story. It is refreshing to see a film where its simplicity is its charm. I would go further into story but I feel as if you go into Rope without knowing anything the film will be a very enjoyable experience.
From what I know on the internet and people I speak to Rope seems to be lower on the list of Hitchcock films and I find it difficult as to why that is, this is one hell of a good film and I recommend everyone watch it, film enthusiasts and even casual movie watchers will have a good time with this one.
9/10
Written By
Ashley Harvey
Friday, 14 July 2017
Sunday, 2 July 2017
Transformers: The Last Knight - Quick Review
This film is awful and I loved every second of it. This film is a great example of why good direction can save a dreadful screenplay because if I am honest the film feels as if it were written by a 5 year old but my god does the direction save this film and make it so enjoyable.
I have to address the four aspect ratios and how ridiculous it is, there is Imax full frame then their is a 1.85:1 aspect ratio and two different letterbox I noticed this in the trailer but assumed that it was just a mistake but nope. Its not like its specific scenes in different aspect ratios but varying shots, for example two characters could be talking in a simple shot reverse shot format and one character is letterboxed and the other is in the full Imax frame its simply silly yet I still had so much fun with this film because the action inside the frame is simply stunning.
It is hard for me to really talk about this film because most of you know what to expect from a Transformers film but in all honesty this is far from being the worst one in fact I would rate it just under Dark of the Moon. The plot is a mess though and it does not even get introduced until the 30 minute mark. Performances are the usual from a Transformers film with Anthony Hopkins being the standout because you know he is just having fun with it.
The sound design in these films continue to amaze and do set it apart from your standard blockbuster fair but other than that the score was forgettable and adds nothing to the film. This is a very short review because there is simultaneously nothing and everything to say about Transformers.
Overall I do recommend seeing it just because it is insane but the action is well done and you can clearly see money on screen but don't expect Citizen Kane.
6.5/10
Written By
Ashley Harvey
I have to address the four aspect ratios and how ridiculous it is, there is Imax full frame then their is a 1.85:1 aspect ratio and two different letterbox I noticed this in the trailer but assumed that it was just a mistake but nope. Its not like its specific scenes in different aspect ratios but varying shots, for example two characters could be talking in a simple shot reverse shot format and one character is letterboxed and the other is in the full Imax frame its simply silly yet I still had so much fun with this film because the action inside the frame is simply stunning.
It is hard for me to really talk about this film because most of you know what to expect from a Transformers film but in all honesty this is far from being the worst one in fact I would rate it just under Dark of the Moon. The plot is a mess though and it does not even get introduced until the 30 minute mark. Performances are the usual from a Transformers film with Anthony Hopkins being the standout because you know he is just having fun with it.
The sound design in these films continue to amaze and do set it apart from your standard blockbuster fair but other than that the score was forgettable and adds nothing to the film. This is a very short review because there is simultaneously nothing and everything to say about Transformers.
Overall I do recommend seeing it just because it is insane but the action is well done and you can clearly see money on screen but don't expect Citizen Kane.
6.5/10
Written By
Ashley Harvey
Tuesday, 20 June 2017
The Mummy (1999) - Review
The newest Mummy movie has been released recently to less that favourable reviews which turned me off seeing the film and made me curious to revisit a childhood classic of mine The Mummy from 1999. So why did I go back and watch The Mummy 1999 over seeing the new one and reviewing that, the simple answer is that The Mummy 1999 still holds up and is a solid action adventure film.
The Mummy is not a flawless movie but it achieves what it set out to do which is to have an Indiana Jones style adventure based around the Universal Monster classic The Mummy. The striking thing about re-watching this is how much time is given to the characters and not in a Suicide Squad way where there is too much time wasted on characters but enough time is spent on each character so the audience can get a feel for what they are about. The other surprising aspect of this film is how the film lets itself breathe because after the prologue setting up the backstory of Imhotep the film goes full on adventure with sprinkles of supernatural here and there. It is only until the second half of the film are we reintroduced to Imhotep and the film switches its focus to stopping him. Watching this in 2017 is so refreshing because we have a clear set-up, characters who we can get invested in and a plot that does not flip flop every 20 minutes.
Alongside the structure is the action which is great the set pieces are shot and choreographed perfectly and you feel as if you are in the action, nothing in the action scenes takes you out of the film which again is this massive problem we are facing in today's film industry but this film handles with finesse. Of course this film is not of the calibre of Indiana Jones but it does provide the audience with a fun action romp with The Mummy as a foundation. The opening shot is still impressive today and its amazing that some films today cannot match the scale of it. The battle at Hamunaptra again has scale and feels epic in its scope and then you compare that to the footage that I have seen of this new film where everything feels close quarters and small.
Performance and characters are important in the 99 film, as previously stated the characters are all believable and they are set up very well. The actors do a wonderful job with their roles especially Brenden Fraser and Rachel Weisz who both are charismatic and fun. Fun is the key word when discussing this film and the popcorn elements clashing with the more horror type elements just create this fun romp that is not too scary but is not too light either. The film struck a perfect balance.
The score for The Mummy is incredible and helps extend the scale of the film beyond just the visuals and gives the film an identity that has been lost in recent years where the score has just been another part of a machine. The score is sweeping and has a classical feel to it but then flips to convey the more sinister elements of the film. It is a wonderful score.
Overall I would recommend people to watch The Mummy 1999 because you will get far more enjoyment out of it than you would if you saw the Tom Cruise film and if you have already seen The Mummy go back and re-watch it because it is just that much fun and certainly worthy of multiple viewings. Fun premise and story with likeable characters.
8/10
Written By
Ashley Harvey
The Mummy is not a flawless movie but it achieves what it set out to do which is to have an Indiana Jones style adventure based around the Universal Monster classic The Mummy. The striking thing about re-watching this is how much time is given to the characters and not in a Suicide Squad way where there is too much time wasted on characters but enough time is spent on each character so the audience can get a feel for what they are about. The other surprising aspect of this film is how the film lets itself breathe because after the prologue setting up the backstory of Imhotep the film goes full on adventure with sprinkles of supernatural here and there. It is only until the second half of the film are we reintroduced to Imhotep and the film switches its focus to stopping him. Watching this in 2017 is so refreshing because we have a clear set-up, characters who we can get invested in and a plot that does not flip flop every 20 minutes.
Alongside the structure is the action which is great the set pieces are shot and choreographed perfectly and you feel as if you are in the action, nothing in the action scenes takes you out of the film which again is this massive problem we are facing in today's film industry but this film handles with finesse. Of course this film is not of the calibre of Indiana Jones but it does provide the audience with a fun action romp with The Mummy as a foundation. The opening shot is still impressive today and its amazing that some films today cannot match the scale of it. The battle at Hamunaptra again has scale and feels epic in its scope and then you compare that to the footage that I have seen of this new film where everything feels close quarters and small.
Performance and characters are important in the 99 film, as previously stated the characters are all believable and they are set up very well. The actors do a wonderful job with their roles especially Brenden Fraser and Rachel Weisz who both are charismatic and fun. Fun is the key word when discussing this film and the popcorn elements clashing with the more horror type elements just create this fun romp that is not too scary but is not too light either. The film struck a perfect balance.
The score for The Mummy is incredible and helps extend the scale of the film beyond just the visuals and gives the film an identity that has been lost in recent years where the score has just been another part of a machine. The score is sweeping and has a classical feel to it but then flips to convey the more sinister elements of the film. It is a wonderful score.
Overall I would recommend people to watch The Mummy 1999 because you will get far more enjoyment out of it than you would if you saw the Tom Cruise film and if you have already seen The Mummy go back and re-watch it because it is just that much fun and certainly worthy of multiple viewings. Fun premise and story with likeable characters.
8/10
Written By
Ashley Harvey
Wednesday, 7 June 2017
Wonder Woman - Review
This is the best DC Universe film I will admit that its unfortunate that its not as great as everybody is saying it is. This is not the worst film I have seen this year but Wonder Woman leaves a lot to be desired and is bogged down with niggling problems.
Before I get into the negatives I would like to talk about the aspects of the film I did like. Chris Pine was the best part of this film, other than some awkward comedy moments but his character was believable and him being a spy felt refreshing. His character had a clear motive and goals, the same could be said for the character of Wonder Woman but again its the "comedy" written for the characters that just bog the film down. I enjoyed the film when it was moving along and the scenes make sense within story. Other than that the rest of the film just did not work for me.
Lets start with the structure of the story because the first ten minutes of this film are poor and the film repeats the problem of having scenes that don't add anything to the story, sure you can call it "character development" but its not, it just slows the movie down where you could have the same development done with actions rather than stopping the film to directly tell the audience how the characters feel or their motivations. When Chris Pine is introduced that is when the film starts to get going because we have plot but as soon as we are introduced to this character the film feels it necessary to have an overblown action scene which is filled with the most annoying slow motion since 300. This scene does not really add anything to the story other than Wonder Woman's mentor is killed by a German which could have been done in a far more effective and less headache inducing manor. For example lets say that Chris Pine crashes off the coast of Themyscira, Wonder Woman goes to save him, as she is dragging him back to shore have a German plane come through and land on the beach. The Amazonian General played by Robin Wright comes down to the beach to investigate what is going on she attempts to get close to the plane but is shot by the German pilot, Diana sees this and kills the pilot checks on Robin Wright as Chris Pine is laying on the beach. There I just saved an overly complicated action scene for something that is more powerful, and does not overstimulate the audience within the first 20 minutes of the film, save the bad-ass Amazonian fighting for when Wonder Woman is on the front-line in WWI.
I think another problem with Wonder Woman is a problem all major motion pictures are facing today is too many characters. If the entire film revolved around Chris Pine and Gal Gadot this film would have felt less cumbersome which would have given more time to have Diana and Steve to grow in turn making his death even more tragic. Lets talk about the supporting characters because they don't really add anything to the story, maybe they are other DC characters but this is a prequel Wonder Woman film I don't think this is the appropriate place to sprinkle other DC characters. Steve's secretary is the worst part of this film, the Jar Jar Binks character that is only there to say "funny" lines and it is the most poorly written dialogue in the entire film and the actress is awful at delivering it. Then we have Steve's friends that include, budget Oscar Issac, Ewen Bremner and Chief. These characters add nothing to the overall story and don't do anything of importance except when Chief lights a smoke signal for Diana, that is it. Finally we have the villains and this is where the film falls apart because throughout the film Diana thinks that Aries the God of War is behind WWI and she wants to fight him and kill him, so we are introduced to two bad guys General Ludendorff and Dr. Maru the audience is lead to believe that Ludendorff is Aries. It turns out he is not and I thought that Dr. Maru, the female scientist, was going to be revealed as Aries which would make sense instead it just turns out that David Thewlis is Aries. This just comes out of nowhere and makes zero sense, why not have Dr. Maru be Aries.
The overall direction and look of the film is flat and rather uninteresting, with action scenes over-stylised and dialogue being flat and wide. This film has some of the worst effects I have seen this year, something about it was really off especially the end when it became a PS2 cut-scene. The action is where I have the biggest problem, there was no impact to anything because it was just overdone, again a case where if they had dialled back the style and just shot a solid action scene the film would have benefited but from a visual standpoint and a thematic one. WWI is not the setting for a quirky action comedy, because there are scenes where they try to display the "horrors" of WWI but then your mind is cast back to when she couldn't use a revolving door. The tone is all over the place. This is the DC film which would have benefited from having no humour.
Overall Wonder Woman is not the worst film you will see this year but certainly not the best, its flawed but I can see how you can enjoy some of it and to the average audience member it could come across as a decent action film but for me there are too many problems on a technical and thematic level for me to be invested. This film will make its money and be paraded as this massive progression in equality when in fact its just a superhero film that is a little bit better than Man of Steel.
6.5/10
Written By
Ashley Harvey
Before I get into the negatives I would like to talk about the aspects of the film I did like. Chris Pine was the best part of this film, other than some awkward comedy moments but his character was believable and him being a spy felt refreshing. His character had a clear motive and goals, the same could be said for the character of Wonder Woman but again its the "comedy" written for the characters that just bog the film down. I enjoyed the film when it was moving along and the scenes make sense within story. Other than that the rest of the film just did not work for me.
Lets start with the structure of the story because the first ten minutes of this film are poor and the film repeats the problem of having scenes that don't add anything to the story, sure you can call it "character development" but its not, it just slows the movie down where you could have the same development done with actions rather than stopping the film to directly tell the audience how the characters feel or their motivations. When Chris Pine is introduced that is when the film starts to get going because we have plot but as soon as we are introduced to this character the film feels it necessary to have an overblown action scene which is filled with the most annoying slow motion since 300. This scene does not really add anything to the story other than Wonder Woman's mentor is killed by a German which could have been done in a far more effective and less headache inducing manor. For example lets say that Chris Pine crashes off the coast of Themyscira, Wonder Woman goes to save him, as she is dragging him back to shore have a German plane come through and land on the beach. The Amazonian General played by Robin Wright comes down to the beach to investigate what is going on she attempts to get close to the plane but is shot by the German pilot, Diana sees this and kills the pilot checks on Robin Wright as Chris Pine is laying on the beach. There I just saved an overly complicated action scene for something that is more powerful, and does not overstimulate the audience within the first 20 minutes of the film, save the bad-ass Amazonian fighting for when Wonder Woman is on the front-line in WWI.
I think another problem with Wonder Woman is a problem all major motion pictures are facing today is too many characters. If the entire film revolved around Chris Pine and Gal Gadot this film would have felt less cumbersome which would have given more time to have Diana and Steve to grow in turn making his death even more tragic. Lets talk about the supporting characters because they don't really add anything to the story, maybe they are other DC characters but this is a prequel Wonder Woman film I don't think this is the appropriate place to sprinkle other DC characters. Steve's secretary is the worst part of this film, the Jar Jar Binks character that is only there to say "funny" lines and it is the most poorly written dialogue in the entire film and the actress is awful at delivering it. Then we have Steve's friends that include, budget Oscar Issac, Ewen Bremner and Chief. These characters add nothing to the overall story and don't do anything of importance except when Chief lights a smoke signal for Diana, that is it. Finally we have the villains and this is where the film falls apart because throughout the film Diana thinks that Aries the God of War is behind WWI and she wants to fight him and kill him, so we are introduced to two bad guys General Ludendorff and Dr. Maru the audience is lead to believe that Ludendorff is Aries. It turns out he is not and I thought that Dr. Maru, the female scientist, was going to be revealed as Aries which would make sense instead it just turns out that David Thewlis is Aries. This just comes out of nowhere and makes zero sense, why not have Dr. Maru be Aries.
The overall direction and look of the film is flat and rather uninteresting, with action scenes over-stylised and dialogue being flat and wide. This film has some of the worst effects I have seen this year, something about it was really off especially the end when it became a PS2 cut-scene. The action is where I have the biggest problem, there was no impact to anything because it was just overdone, again a case where if they had dialled back the style and just shot a solid action scene the film would have benefited but from a visual standpoint and a thematic one. WWI is not the setting for a quirky action comedy, because there are scenes where they try to display the "horrors" of WWI but then your mind is cast back to when she couldn't use a revolving door. The tone is all over the place. This is the DC film which would have benefited from having no humour.
Overall Wonder Woman is not the worst film you will see this year but certainly not the best, its flawed but I can see how you can enjoy some of it and to the average audience member it could come across as a decent action film but for me there are too many problems on a technical and thematic level for me to be invested. This film will make its money and be paraded as this massive progression in equality when in fact its just a superhero film that is a little bit better than Man of Steel.
6.5/10
Written By
Ashley Harvey
Sunday, 4 June 2017
Why Unfunny Comedies are the Worst
Comedy is one of the hardest genres to get right in entertainment. If a comedy works it can be one of the best experiences an audience can have but if the jokes fall flat and it fails to gain a laugh it becomes painful and worse than watching a bad film of any other genre. So why are unfunny comedies worse that other films that fail?
For me its all about story an unfunny comedy can still work if the story and the film making make up for the lack of humour. A common factor in most successful comedies is a good story and characters for example Ghostbusters is one of the best comedies ever made, it has the right balance of humour and story this is beneficial for the film overall because if it were to have bad jokes or was unfunny to someone it is still possible to enjoy the film for the story. This is why Deadpool was one of the worst cinema experiences of my life, I understand that the reason I did not enjoy the film was the fact that I did not find it funny and I accept that but there still should have been something to hold my interest something for me to latch onto but there was nothing other than a wafer thin "plot".
Of course there are examples of great comedies without a strong plot such as CaddyShack which I personally love and could watch it at any moment. It has no real plot its just scenes of comedians stitched together but it just works and I feel as if its down to the comedians themselves. Unfunny comedy is nothing new for instance I hate the Carry On films because I just don't find them funny, I can see that they are decently made and have talented people involved but I would find it easier to watch something a lot worse.
I think the reason why watching a terrible film is easier than watching a bad comedy is because a bad film can become humorous from how poorly made it is, or how bad a performance is. Watching The Happening is far more enjoyable than watching A Million Ways to Die in the West because its easier for us as an audience, we become overwhelmed by how much nonsense is in The Happening that it becomes intriguing and we wonder how someone could have made this. Whereas AMWTDITW just makes the audience cringe at the poor jokes and it makes for a much more miserable time because we know that someone found this funny.
I just wanted to share my brief thoughts on why I find it easier to watch bad films over bad comedies but I must admit that there are a few cases where a bad comedy can come full circle and transcend into one of the best experiences for example Encino Man.
Written By
Ashley Harvey
For me its all about story an unfunny comedy can still work if the story and the film making make up for the lack of humour. A common factor in most successful comedies is a good story and characters for example Ghostbusters is one of the best comedies ever made, it has the right balance of humour and story this is beneficial for the film overall because if it were to have bad jokes or was unfunny to someone it is still possible to enjoy the film for the story. This is why Deadpool was one of the worst cinema experiences of my life, I understand that the reason I did not enjoy the film was the fact that I did not find it funny and I accept that but there still should have been something to hold my interest something for me to latch onto but there was nothing other than a wafer thin "plot".
Of course there are examples of great comedies without a strong plot such as CaddyShack which I personally love and could watch it at any moment. It has no real plot its just scenes of comedians stitched together but it just works and I feel as if its down to the comedians themselves. Unfunny comedy is nothing new for instance I hate the Carry On films because I just don't find them funny, I can see that they are decently made and have talented people involved but I would find it easier to watch something a lot worse.
I think the reason why watching a terrible film is easier than watching a bad comedy is because a bad film can become humorous from how poorly made it is, or how bad a performance is. Watching The Happening is far more enjoyable than watching A Million Ways to Die in the West because its easier for us as an audience, we become overwhelmed by how much nonsense is in The Happening that it becomes intriguing and we wonder how someone could have made this. Whereas AMWTDITW just makes the audience cringe at the poor jokes and it makes for a much more miserable time because we know that someone found this funny.
I just wanted to share my brief thoughts on why I find it easier to watch bad films over bad comedies but I must admit that there are a few cases where a bad comedy can come full circle and transcend into one of the best experiences for example Encino Man.
Written By
Ashley Harvey
Wednesday, 24 May 2017
Michael Bay: Good Direction - Bad Screenplays
Michael Bay is a good director. I have always had this opinion and its a controversial one but when has anything I said been a popular opinion but Bay is a good director who chooses bad scripts. In this piece I will be discuss what it is about Michael Bay that sets him apart from the rest and why I can look past the awful scripts.
Has Bay made good movies? Yeah I would have to say that Michael Bay has made good films, for example I would put 13 Hours as one of the best films of 2016 but the same film maker made Transformers Age of Extinction which is a steaming mess. So lets go through the filmography and see what film work and the ones that don't.
Bad Boys is a good film and a strong debut from Bay, this is a great action comedy where the action really stands head and shoulders above the rest, I am going to be saying this a lot during this piece but Michael Bay knows how to craft an action scene. The humour is fine with some parts being actually funny but for me this is more about the action and being thrown into this police thriller. It also helps that Bad Boys has a very strong opening scene. Not Bay's best but nowhere near his worst, this is a solid film that should be watched or re-watched.
The Rock is the best film Michael Bay has made, not the most visceral nor the biggest but the best and is a must in any action film fan's collection. The film just works and its just so fun to watch, of course it has its dumb moments but nearly every film has a silly moment, but in action films a little bit of dumb can mean a hell of a lot of fun. This is where Bay started to really develop his visual style and making every shot look a million dollars. Bay has a great way of making his films feel expensive, from the visual effects down to the score everything is grande which is funny seeing how "small" the plot is. Nicolas Cage and Sean Connery make an excellent team and they play off each other very well. Objectively this is the best Michael Bay film and I don't think I am alone in that school of thought, is it my favourite? probably but it has been some time since I have seen it so a second viewing is imminent.
Armageddon is where Bay starts to deteriorate and sowed the seeds for the hatred towards Michael Bay, for me this film is fun but I do understand that it is a bad film, but not the worst film ever made but compared to his first two films this one feels different. I think Bay wanted to make Titanic in space and to his credit it sort of worked but not in a good way, Titanic is a brilliant film whereas Armageddon is an average film that clearly has taken elements from Titanic and forced them into a strange thriller/action/romance comedy its a strange blend with an even stranger cast. I have no idea where to start with the cast. I'm not talking about Bruce Willis or Ben Affleck but Steve Buscemi and Owen Wilson and this all ties in with the problem of too many characters, its so hard to talk about this film because honestly it just has to be seen to be believed. Overall a fun film but has many problems and it drags.
Is Pearl Harbor a bad film? Yes. Does Pearl Harbor have a solid film buried within? Yes. If Armageddon was an attempt to copy Titanic then this is is Bay taking the blueprint shredding it up and attempting to piece it back together. This is a hard one to talk about because I do think that buried deep within this film is a solid action film that runs around 120 mins. Its a shame because this film does have some really engaging action scenes and a decent cast but its shrouded in this poor attempt at a love story that just slows the film down and running at 183 mins its just too long. I think my thoughts on Pearl Harbor could make its own post which would come later down the line. In short this was the first big problem people had with Michael Bay on a quality level.
Next up is Bad Boys II which to be perfectly honest is one of the dumbest big budget action film to grace our screens and I love every minute of it. This is an example of why Bay is one of the best at directing action scenes, this film is just excessive in the best way possible. Running at just under two and a half hours this film has fun with itself and my god does it just work. Of course if you were to look at the film objectively it is a bad movie, not as bad as Pearl Harbor or Armageddon but its ridiculous but for some reason it just works. Its seriously fun and dumb which makes it amazing for me because if a film is fun enough to distract me from poor writing then its doing its job well. The film starts with a KKK meeting in which Will Smith and Martin Lawrence are undercover as klan members, and a musical score supervised by Dr Dre I don't understand how people cant enjoy this film for what it is, if this screenplay was directing by anyone else it would be one of the worst, unbearable films ever made but Bay is so adept at directing action scenes and keeping the energy levels up that you are along for the ride. Is it better than the first one? No but on the other hand they are two separate films, the only thing that relates the movies are the characters, name and director. Bad Boys II is certainly worth watching for any action fan and is the perfect example for this argument that Bay is a good director but just has dreadful scripts. Defiantly worth watching at least once to experience it.
Now The Island is a strange one to talk about because it has been a long time since I seen this one and from what I remember I liked it but in recent years I have started to notice a lot of hatred towards this film which I can neither confirm or deny. This is a slight departure from Bad Boys II in the fact that it was attempting more of a Minority Report feel than a typical Bay film. So I can't really talk about this film in detail but this is not the worst Bay film but certainly not the best its fine. I would recommend watch it but don't expect anything too special.
2007 is where the modern reception towards Michael Bay began and Transformers is the film that brought about this opinion. I will be talking about the four Transformers in one segment because to be honest they are all the same but with varying degrees of quality. The first Transformers is a decent film and in terms of big budget blockbusters it was fantastic and to be fair in terms of direction and visuals, the Transformers films are the better blockbusters in recent times. The Transformers series has gone too far into silly territory but in terms of action spectacle they have not been topped. With The Last Knight coming out rather soon and looking like a hot mess I am excited to see how Michael Bay can use this franchise to top himself.
Lastly we have to talk about Pain and Gain and 13 Hours, these two films are really good and they should be seen, especially Pain and Gain which is one of the most energetic films from Bay and completely caught me off guard by how engaging it is. 13 Hours is a solid action film, enough said, but seriously both of these films should be watched and are closer to The Rock and as far away from the Transformer movies as possible, which goes to show that Bay will do a fantastic directing job whether the script is good or bad. The man loves spectacle and in recent times we have lost that.
Michael Bay is never going down in history as one of the greats, but I feel as if more people should acknowledge that as a director he is very good at what he does, its only the guys writing the scripts that are letting him down. Please watch his good films to see that the same director is there using all the same methods but using a far better script. I will always love Michael Bay, he knows what he likes and he knows how to get me excited to watch a film. Most filmmakers these days all blur into one but Bay stands out.
Written By
Ashley Harvey
Has Bay made good movies? Yeah I would have to say that Michael Bay has made good films, for example I would put 13 Hours as one of the best films of 2016 but the same film maker made Transformers Age of Extinction which is a steaming mess. So lets go through the filmography and see what film work and the ones that don't.
Bad Boys is a good film and a strong debut from Bay, this is a great action comedy where the action really stands head and shoulders above the rest, I am going to be saying this a lot during this piece but Michael Bay knows how to craft an action scene. The humour is fine with some parts being actually funny but for me this is more about the action and being thrown into this police thriller. It also helps that Bad Boys has a very strong opening scene. Not Bay's best but nowhere near his worst, this is a solid film that should be watched or re-watched.
The Rock is the best film Michael Bay has made, not the most visceral nor the biggest but the best and is a must in any action film fan's collection. The film just works and its just so fun to watch, of course it has its dumb moments but nearly every film has a silly moment, but in action films a little bit of dumb can mean a hell of a lot of fun. This is where Bay started to really develop his visual style and making every shot look a million dollars. Bay has a great way of making his films feel expensive, from the visual effects down to the score everything is grande which is funny seeing how "small" the plot is. Nicolas Cage and Sean Connery make an excellent team and they play off each other very well. Objectively this is the best Michael Bay film and I don't think I am alone in that school of thought, is it my favourite? probably but it has been some time since I have seen it so a second viewing is imminent.
Armageddon is where Bay starts to deteriorate and sowed the seeds for the hatred towards Michael Bay, for me this film is fun but I do understand that it is a bad film, but not the worst film ever made but compared to his first two films this one feels different. I think Bay wanted to make Titanic in space and to his credit it sort of worked but not in a good way, Titanic is a brilliant film whereas Armageddon is an average film that clearly has taken elements from Titanic and forced them into a strange thriller/action/romance comedy its a strange blend with an even stranger cast. I have no idea where to start with the cast. I'm not talking about Bruce Willis or Ben Affleck but Steve Buscemi and Owen Wilson and this all ties in with the problem of too many characters, its so hard to talk about this film because honestly it just has to be seen to be believed. Overall a fun film but has many problems and it drags.
Is Pearl Harbor a bad film? Yes. Does Pearl Harbor have a solid film buried within? Yes. If Armageddon was an attempt to copy Titanic then this is is Bay taking the blueprint shredding it up and attempting to piece it back together. This is a hard one to talk about because I do think that buried deep within this film is a solid action film that runs around 120 mins. Its a shame because this film does have some really engaging action scenes and a decent cast but its shrouded in this poor attempt at a love story that just slows the film down and running at 183 mins its just too long. I think my thoughts on Pearl Harbor could make its own post which would come later down the line. In short this was the first big problem people had with Michael Bay on a quality level.
Next up is Bad Boys II which to be perfectly honest is one of the dumbest big budget action film to grace our screens and I love every minute of it. This is an example of why Bay is one of the best at directing action scenes, this film is just excessive in the best way possible. Running at just under two and a half hours this film has fun with itself and my god does it just work. Of course if you were to look at the film objectively it is a bad movie, not as bad as Pearl Harbor or Armageddon but its ridiculous but for some reason it just works. Its seriously fun and dumb which makes it amazing for me because if a film is fun enough to distract me from poor writing then its doing its job well. The film starts with a KKK meeting in which Will Smith and Martin Lawrence are undercover as klan members, and a musical score supervised by Dr Dre I don't understand how people cant enjoy this film for what it is, if this screenplay was directing by anyone else it would be one of the worst, unbearable films ever made but Bay is so adept at directing action scenes and keeping the energy levels up that you are along for the ride. Is it better than the first one? No but on the other hand they are two separate films, the only thing that relates the movies are the characters, name and director. Bad Boys II is certainly worth watching for any action fan and is the perfect example for this argument that Bay is a good director but just has dreadful scripts. Defiantly worth watching at least once to experience it.
Now The Island is a strange one to talk about because it has been a long time since I seen this one and from what I remember I liked it but in recent years I have started to notice a lot of hatred towards this film which I can neither confirm or deny. This is a slight departure from Bad Boys II in the fact that it was attempting more of a Minority Report feel than a typical Bay film. So I can't really talk about this film in detail but this is not the worst Bay film but certainly not the best its fine. I would recommend watch it but don't expect anything too special.
2007 is where the modern reception towards Michael Bay began and Transformers is the film that brought about this opinion. I will be talking about the four Transformers in one segment because to be honest they are all the same but with varying degrees of quality. The first Transformers is a decent film and in terms of big budget blockbusters it was fantastic and to be fair in terms of direction and visuals, the Transformers films are the better blockbusters in recent times. The Transformers series has gone too far into silly territory but in terms of action spectacle they have not been topped. With The Last Knight coming out rather soon and looking like a hot mess I am excited to see how Michael Bay can use this franchise to top himself.
Lastly we have to talk about Pain and Gain and 13 Hours, these two films are really good and they should be seen, especially Pain and Gain which is one of the most energetic films from Bay and completely caught me off guard by how engaging it is. 13 Hours is a solid action film, enough said, but seriously both of these films should be watched and are closer to The Rock and as far away from the Transformer movies as possible, which goes to show that Bay will do a fantastic directing job whether the script is good or bad. The man loves spectacle and in recent times we have lost that.
Michael Bay is never going down in history as one of the greats, but I feel as if more people should acknowledge that as a director he is very good at what he does, its only the guys writing the scripts that are letting him down. Please watch his good films to see that the same director is there using all the same methods but using a far better script. I will always love Michael Bay, he knows what he likes and he knows how to get me excited to watch a film. Most filmmakers these days all blur into one but Bay stands out.
Written By
Ashley Harvey
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)